River metrics by the public, for the public

Abstract

Managing rivers in society’s best interest requires data on river condition. However, the complexity of river ecosystems, combined with finite budgets for river monitoring and modeling, mean difficult choices are necessary regarding what information will be available. Typically, decisions of "what to measure" are left to natural scientists. However, knowledge of public appetite for different types of information helps ensure river data is useful to society. We investigated public interest in rivers directly, engaging nearly one hundred urban and rural participants in a combination of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on concepts of "final" ecosystem services developed in environmental economics, we moved discussions past commonly mentioned stressors, such as pollution, to actual river features important in and of themselves. Participant feedback reflected extensive thought on river issues, in contrast to a stereotype that the public is ambivalent about environmental conditions. Interests were also broad, encompassing water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and human features. Results show consolidation around relatively few themes despite diverse sociodemographics. Themes were interpreted into distilled, specific metrics to make public feedback as useful as possible for water resources monitoring, modeling, and management. Our research provides detailed, methodically generated hypotheses regarding river themes and metrics of public interest that should be considered as part of the tradeoffs inherent in river monitoring design. Results compared reasonably well to river attributes emphasized in river restoration environmental valuation reviews, with some differences. Future research could test our hypotheses with large-sample surveys.

Small forest losses degrade stream macroinvertebrate assemblages in the eastern Brazilian Amazon

“…Therefore, our results further reinforce the importance of conserving stream-forest integrity to maintain not only macroinvertebrate species but entire ecosystems and the ecosystem services that streams provide for humans. Those services include organic material and nutrient processing, flood control and water supply, sediment trapping, biodiversity maintenance, and fisheries support (Cummins, 1974;Meyer et al, 2003;Colvin et al, 2019;Weber and Ringold, 2019).…”

A Humboldtian Approach to Mountain Conservation and Freshwater Ecosystem Services

“…This condition is evidently induced, and generally favored, by political-economic sectors less concerned with the maintenance of ecosystem quality than instant monetary gains, and continuous unsustainable economic growth; such as widespread unsustainable agribusiness and industry practices (Limburg et al, 2011;Czech and Daly, 2013). However, not only has society ignored scientific evidence, but ecologists and economists have also failed to understand the needs of society (Pilling, 2019;Weber and Ringold, 2019), creating many mismatches between science and policy (Karam-Gemael et al, 2018). This stems from poor communication and little mutual understanding between scientists and other sectors of society (Azevedo-Santos et al, 2017;Fabian et al, 2019).…”

What is it about coral reefs? Translation of ecosystem goods and services relevant to people and their well‐being

“…The proposed FEGS metrics were evaluated by assessing face validity, common sense, and qualitative research (Weber and Stewart 2008, Weber and Ringold 2012, 2019, Weber et al. 2017).…”

“…The proposed FEGS metrics were evaluated by assessing face validity, common sense, and qualitative research ( Weber and Stewart 2008 , Weber and Ringold 2012 , 2019 , Weber et al 2017 ). Drafts of beneficiaries, attributes, and FEGS metrics prepared by the metrics team were reviewed by the broader transdisciplinary FEGS team comprised of the other 18 ecologists, social scientists, and economists.…”