Impacts to ecosystem services from aquatic acidification: using FEGS‐CS to understand the impacts of air pollution

O'Dea, Claire B.; Anderson, Sarah M.; Sullivan, Timothy J.; Landers, Dixon H.; Casey, Clyde F.

doi:10.1002/ecs2.1807

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it is possible to identify many beneficiary–commodity combinations that are potentially affected by, for example, changes in atmospheric deposition (O'Dea et al. , Rhodes et al. ), it is often challenging to separate out the specific beneficiary–commodity connections that are captured in or excluded from certain economic valuation estimates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using a final ecosystem goods and services approach to support policy analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating environmental policies requires estimating the impacts of policy-induced changes on ecological and human systems. Drawing connections between biophysical and economic models is complex due to the multidisciplinary nature of the task and the lack of data. Further, time and resource constraints typically limit our ability to conduct original valuation studies to fit the specific policy context. Policy analysts thus rely on methods to transfer and adapt value estimates from existing studies. To conduct end-to-end policy analysis, assumptions are needed to make the linkages between ecological and valuation models as well as to conduct benefit transfers. This paper discusses an approach that can potentially help a policy analyst to minimize assumptions and identify appropriate caveats. This approach focuses on what human beings truly value from ecosystems, or, in other words, metrics of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). our hypothesis is that the FEGS approach will help support policy analysis by drawing important linkages between ecological and economic models as well as by designing valuation studies that will be more conducive to benefit transfers. To examine this hypothesis, we use a selected set of existing valuation studies as case study examples, and we examine how the methods used in these studies compare with the FEGS approach. We find that the studies are not always consistent with the FEGS approach, in many cases due to data limitations. We illustrate ways in which using FEGS metrics can provide economists with a useful starting point for considering how the commodity can be defined and specified in the valuation study. Even if data limitations exist, a FEGS approach can help in determining whether the context in which the original study was conducted matches with the policy context. This can also help in determining the extent of uncertainty associated with the analysis and in providing transparent documentation that can be informative for policy makers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Related explorations of the links between atmospheric deposition and ecosystem services using a FEGS framework can be found in O'Dea et al. () and Rhodes et al. ().…”

Section: Review Of Valuation Methods and Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a final ecosystem goods and services approach to support policy analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Workshop attendees were split into groups to classify the ecological responses to exceedance of critical loads deposition based on the mode of response to deposition: AA (O'Dea et al. ), AE (Rhodes et al. ), TA (Irvine et al.…”

Section: Case Study Application Of Framework: Air Quality and Ecosystmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extended analysis of the four modes of response to deposition: aquatic acidification (AA; O'Dea et al. ), aquatic eutrophication (AE; Rhodes et al. ), terrestrial acidification (TA; Irvine et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an environmental stressor and final ecosystem services

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Anthropogenic stressors such as climate change, increased fire frequency, and pollution drive shifts in ecosystem function and resilience. Scientists generally rely on biological indicators of these stressors to signal that ecosystem conditions have been altered. However, these biological indicators are not always capable of being directly related to ecosystem components that provide benefits to humans and/or can be used to evaluate the cost-benefit of a change in health of the component (ecosystem services). Therefore, we developed the STEPS (Stressor-Ecological Production function-final ecosystem Services) Framework to link changes in a biological indicator of a stressor to final ecosystem services. The STEPS Framework produces "chains" of ecological components that explore the breadth of impacts resulting from the change in a stressor. Chains are comprised of the biological indicator, the ecological production function (EPF, which uses ecological components to link the biological indicator to a final ecosystem service), and the user group who directly uses, appreciates, or values the component. The framework uses a qualitative score (high, medium, low) to describe the strength of science (SOS) for the relationship between each component in the EPF. We tested the STEPS Framework within a workshop setting using the exceedance of critical loads of air pollution as a model stressor and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) to describe final ecosystem services. We identified chains for four modes of ecological response to deposition: aquatic acidification, aquatic eutrophication, terrestrial acidification, and terrestrial eutrophication. The workshop participants identified 183 unique EPFs linking a change in a biological indicator to a FEGS; when accounting for the multiple beneficiaries, we ended with 1104 chains. The SOS scores were effective in identifying chains with the highest confidence ranking as well as those where more research is needed. The STEPS Framework could be adapted to any system in which a stressor is modifying a biological component. The results of the analysis can be used by the social science community to apply valuation measures to multiple or selected chains, providing a comprehensive analysis of the effects of anthropogenic stressors on measures of human well-being.

show abstract

“…, O'Dea et al. ) and National Ecosystem Services Classification System (U.S. EPA ), and the European Environment Agency Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Haines‐Young and Potschin ). These works lay the conceptual foundation for integrating ecosystem services into decision‐making; however, they lack a methodological framework for applying the classifications to measure ecosystem services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying multiple ecosystem services for adaptive management of green infrastructure

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demands for ecosystem service assessments are growing around the world. However, management applications remain limited in part because we lack measurements linking ecosystem characteristics (ecosystem structure and processes) to final ecosystem services. Policymakers need marginal values, changes in final ecosystem services (direct link to human welfare) relative to additional units of ecosystem characteristics (∆final ecosystem services/∆ecosystem characteristics) to assess tradeoffs. Progress, however, has been slow due to confusion on ecological production functions (EPFs) in ecology. Here, we apply a new interdisciplinary approach to craft EPFs to evaluate four ecosystem services using the Yongding River Green Ecological Corridor as our case study. The Yongding Corridor is Beijing's largest, most expensive green infrastructure project (~ $2.5 billion USD), constructed as a network of seven artificial lakes and wetlands. The Beijing Government wants the Yongding Corridor to improve four ecosystem services: (1) water storage, (2) local climate regulation, (3) water purification, and (4) aesthetics. We first worked with stakeholders to determine final ecosystem service levels and then used the Variable Infiltration Capacity model to estimate key ecosystem processes from the designed lakes and wetlands. We coupled the modeling with ecological field data and social surveys to create EPFs. We evaluated the ecosystem services by calculating shortfalls and then determined synergies and tradeoffs to identify actions for reducing shortfalls. We found the Yongding Corridor is meeting desired levels for aesthetics, but incurred shortfalls on the remaining services. To obtain the desired services, we recommend managers: (1) maintain inflow rates and/or make the lakes deeper to reduce water loss rates; (2) improve water quality—wetlands have high nutrient retention, but nutrient loads must be reduced; and (3) plant shade trees since evaporative cooling from the lakes and wetlands is having no measurable impact on human comfort. Results indicate the absence of ecosystem functions in landscape design led to shortfalls, but solutions require coupling green and built infrastructure to obtain multi‐functionality. Managers found marginal values useful for clarifying connections, which led to adaptive policy changes for improving green infrastructure.

show abstract

Impacts to ecosystem services from aquatic acidification: using FEGS‐CS to understand the impacts of air pollution

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

Using a final ecosystem goods and services approach to support policy analysis

Using a final ecosystem goods and services approach to support policy analysis

A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an environmental stressor and final ecosystem services

Quantifying multiple ecosystem services for adaptive management of green infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About