Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes

Olander, Lydia; Johnston, Robert J.; Tallis, Heather; Kagan, James S.; Maguire, Lynn A.; Polasky, Stephen; Urban, Dean L.; Boyd, James; Wainger, Lisa A.; Palmer, Margaret A.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.001

Cited by 195 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To fully understand the observable social benefits of restoration, concepts and modern accounting methods from the ecosystem services literature are important (Wainger & Mazzotta ; Olander et al ). These methods help us associate restoration outcomes to interactions with people.…”

Section: What Metrics and Methods Are Useful To Monitor The Social Bementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focusing on values requires us to draw conceptual linkages between biophysical and social conditions, which are useful to set metrics that indicate improvement, sometimes called indicators. Indicators, which have been called “benefit indicators” (Mazzotta et al ) and “benefit relevant indicators” (Olander et al ) in the ecosystem services literature, are relatable to people (Wainger & Mazzotta ). In this conception, recreation may be a more direct measure of fundamental concerns of end users than “plant community composition” or “habitat” because there are no guarantees that people are benefiting from those ecological conditions.…”

Section: What Metrics and Methods Are Useful To Monitor The Social Bementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration

Martin

Lyons

2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration has traditionally been evaluated by monitoring the recovery of ecological conditions, such as species abundance and diversity, physical form, and water quality; monitoring the social benefits of restoration is uncommon. Current monitoring frameworks do not track who benefits from restoration or by how much. We investigate how ecological restoration could be monitored to provide indications of improvement in terms of social conditions. We provide suggestions for measuring several categories of social indicators, including access, beneficiaries, and quality of benefit, using information compiled from natural and social science literature. We demonstrate how to evaluate ecological and social indicators over time at a site or landscape scale using multicriteria analysis. We use flood protection and recreation as example benefits to monitor.

show abstract

Section: What Metrics and Methods Are Useful To Monitor The Social Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Metrics and Methods Are Useful To Monitor The Social Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration

Martin

Lyons

2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To link climate change‐mediated species range shifts with impacts on use of these species by Indigenous Peoples, we used benefit‐relevant indicators (also known as ecosystem service indicators), which address how accessible or valuable a natural resource is for a specific human use (Boyd et al., ; Olander et al., ; Ringold, Boyd, Landers, & Weber, ). To evaluate access to Kuta and Kūmarahou, we identified cultural boundaries used for historic and current harvest.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of climatically shifting species distributions on biocultural relationships

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local and Indigenous Peoples play critical roles in safeguarding global biological and cultural diversity. However, species distribution modelling has yet to incorporate perspectives that assess threats to the linked biological and cultural systems of local and Indigenous Peoples. Here, we provide the first example of integrating species distribution modelling with benefit‐relevant indicators. This novel approach assesses how human access to culturally important species may change over time. Focusing on two culturally significant species used by the Indigenous Māori people of New Zealand, we first identified predictor variables relevant to the habitat of each species. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to estimate the recent (1961–1990) potential distribution for each species based on occurrence records and predictor variables, then generated future climate suitability maps. Our models show that future suitability for one species shifts to the south, in line with changes in temperature and precipitation, while the second species range expands into higher latitudes, driven primarily by increased temperature. When we combined these models with knowledge of tribal boundaries and cultural practices, results indicated that these distributions might decrease access to culturally important plants. Future suitability for one species shifted substantially from where it is most valued for weaving, while the second species range expanded to include more of its primary medicinal users. Climate change‐mediated shifts in the ranges of these species are likely to affect intergenerational human–environment relationships, sense of place, cultural identity and knowledge on a regional scale, as well as cultural identity and social cohesion on a national scale. By interpreting SDMs within a socioecological framework, this research illustrates a new approach to assessment of vulnerabilities to climate change and identifies strategies for adaptation. A plain language summary is available for this article.

show abstract

“…; Olander et al . ). Many valuation studies of ecosystem services translate biophysical units directly into monetary values based on willingness‐to‐pay surveys or benefit transfer approaches (Polasky et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Olander et al . ). Major advances have also been made in characterizing the human dimensions of social–ecological systems, and the importance of understanding the behaviors, preferences, and motivations of service providers and beneficiaries (Pascual et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Putting people on the map improves the prioritization of ecosystem services

Keeler

Dalzell

Gourevitch

et al. 2019

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With limited resources to improve the provision of multiple ecosystem services, conservation programs often rely on spatial tools to identify the best locations for restoration or protection. However, most programs still base prioritization on biophysical metrics that do not fully predict where interventions will deliver the greatest benefits to people. We argue that prioritization metrics need to consider not only biophysical data on the supply of ecosystem services but also socioeconomic data that highlight the value of those services. We use the example of prioritizing best management practices (BMPs) in an agricultural watershed in the US state of Iowa to evaluate how considering the location and preferences of beneficiaries affects the spatial prioritization of investments. We show that adopting metrics that incorporate endpoints of interest and value to people changes the spatial prioritization of BMPs, especially for air quality, lake recreation, and drinking water. Our work demonstrates how publicly available biophysical and social data can be integrated into spatial ecosystem services metrics to enhance the delivered benefits of conservation activities.

show abstract

Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes

Cited by 195 publications

References 48 publications

Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration

Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration

Effects of climatically shifting species distributions on biocultural relationships

Putting people on the map improves the prioritization of ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About