A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing

Villamagna, Amy M.; Mogollón, Beatriz; Angermeier, Paul L.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.001

Cited by 68 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although arbitrary for hydrological services, we offer this radius as an analytical starting point for comparison to an analogous approach for nonhydrological aquatic services such as freshwater recreational fishing. As noted by Villamagna et al (2014), research has suggested that freshwater anglers are 1.8-times more likely to fish within 16 km of their homes than areas between 18 and 160 km away (Hunt and Hutt 2010). This suggests that most beneficiaries of recreational fishing, a cultural ES, likely live within 16 km of a CA that hosts a fishing spot.…”

Section: Hydrological Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network

Villamagna¹,

Mogollón²,

Angermeier³

2017

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hydrological Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network

Villamagna¹,

Mogollón²,

Angermeier³

2017

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For many freshwater-related services the fl ow path is naturally hydrologic, where the capacity to produce a service upstream affects the fl ow of benefi ts downstream ( left ). Alternatively, the benefi t zone can be extended by anthropogenic corridors like roads, canals, or exportation ( right ) (Figure from Villamagna et al 2014a ) …”

Section: Distinctions Among Provisioning Regulating Cultural Esmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…To date, most ES assessments have focused on services for which ecological or economic knowledge is strong and data are readily available. However, data gaps are pervasive and many important research questions can be approached only by using data collected for other purposes (Eigenbrod et al 2010 ;Villamagna et al 2014a ) or by ignoring certain ES components. Inconsistencies in which components of ES delivery are measured and how they are represented have precluded meaningful comparisons of ES provision across landscapes and have hindered creation of accurate inventories and functional markets for ES.…”

Section: Constraints On Data Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…volume of water supply). Cultural service capacity is more diffi cult to quantify because it depends on a mix of biophysical and societal conditions (i.e., social capital; Chan et al 2006Chan et al , 2012Villamagna et al 2014a ). Regulating service capacity is also challenging to quantify because it tends to comprise several interconnected processes that each rely on a distinctive suite of ecosystem properties (Fig.…”

Section: Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The demand for some services, like cultural services, may come from a subset of the population (e.g. hunting and fi shing are important services to a minority of the U.S. population; Villamagna et al 2014a ).…”

Section: Demandmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Methodology for Quantifying and Mapping Ecosystem Services Provided by Watersheds

Villamagna

Angermeier

2015

Ecosystem Services and River Basin Ecohydrology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Watershed processes -physical, chemical, and biological -are the foundation for many benefi ts that ecosystems provide for human societies. A crucial step toward accurately representing those benefi ts, so they can ultimately inform decisions about land and water management, is the development of a coherent methodology that can translate available data into the ecosystem services (ES) produced by watersheds. Ecosystem services (ES) provide an instinctive way to understand the tradeoffs associated with natural resource management. We provide a synthesis of common terminology and explain a rationale and framework for distinguishing among the components of ecosystem service delivery, including: an ecosystem's capacity to produce a service; societal demand for the service; ecological pressures on this service; and fl ow of the service to people. We discuss how interpretation and measurement of these components can differ among provisioning, regulating, and cultural services and describe selected methods for quantifying ES components as well as constraints on data availability. We also present several case studies to illustrate our methods, including mapping capacity of several water purifi cation services and demand for two forms of wildlife-based recreation, and discuss future directions for ecosystem service assessments. Our fl exible framework treats service capacity, demand, ecological pressure, and fl ow as separate but interactive entities to better evaluate the sustainability of service provision across space and time and to help guide management decisions.

show abstract

Centering 30 × 30 conservation initiatives on freshwater ecosystems

Moravek

Andrews

Serota

et al. 2023

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regional, national, and international 30 × 30 conservation initiatives would be strengthened by including a specific focus on freshwater ecosystem conservation that supplements terrestrial conservation strategies. Globally, freshwater habitats support essential biodiversity and ecosystem services, yet are being lost at disproportionately high rates relative to terrestrial systems. Making freshwater ecosystems an explicit focus of 30 × 30 initiatives would assist in curtailing these losses while advancing 30 × 30's mission to address climate change, economic sustainability, food security, and equitable outdoor access across a variety of landscapes. Here, we explain how fresh water can serve as a key piece of 30 × 30 conservation efforts. We emphasize that to address the challenges of traditional area‐based conservation programs, 30 × 30 should (1) focus on watershed‐scale conservation planning and (2) evaluate conserved areas based on five freshwater priorities: connectivity, watershed disturbance, flow alteration, water quality, and biodiversity. We use examples from the US state of California to illustrate how addressing freshwater systems can help guide 30 × 30 conservation.

show abstract

A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing

Cited by 68 publications

References 33 publications

Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network

Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network

A Methodology for Quantifying and Mapping Ecosystem Services Provided by Watersheds

Centering 30 × 30 conservation initiatives on freshwater ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About