Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes

Abstract

Ecological restoration programs often attempt to maintain or enhance ecosystem services (ES), but fine‐scale maps of multiple ES are rarely available to support prioritization among potential projects. Here we use agency reports, citizen science, and social media as data sources to quantify the spatial distribution of five recreational elements of cultural ES (CES) – sport fishing, recreational boating, birding, beach use, and park visitation – across North America's Laurentian Great Lakes, where current restoration investments exceed US$1.5 billion. These recreational CES are widely yet unevenly distributed, and spatial correlations among all except park visitation indicate that many locations support multiple CES benefits. Collectively, these five service metrics correlate with tourism gross domestic product, indicating that local economies benefit from ecosystem conditions that support CES. However, locations of high recreational CES delivery are often severely affected by environmental stressors, suggesting that either ecosystem condition or human enjoyment of these recreational CES is resilient even to substantial levels of stress. Our analyses show that spatial assessments of recreational CES are an informative complement to ecosystem stress assessments for guiding large‐scale restoration efforts.

Spatially cascading effect of perturbations in experimental meta-ecosystems

“…Increasing dispersal rate by maintaining habitat connections can mitigate the deleterious effects of perturbation on local communities [50], however, our results suggest that high perturbation pressure can hinder rescue effects when the dispersing populations are too slow to recover. Our study calls for more integrative management that takes into account regional dynamics related to species and resource flows [51], and spatial variations in ecosystem functions [52,53]. For instance, watershed conservation approaches could help to better integrate spatial flows within river networks [23], and a better understanding of spatial flows between forest and agricultural habitats would greatly improve agroforestry landscape management, maximizing the delivery of ecosystem services.…”

Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes

“…The analysis of photoseries from platforms such as Flickr and Panoramio has already been shown to be a suitable proxy for the empirical estimation of visiting frequency (Da Rugna et al, 2012, Kisilevich et al, 2010, Produit et al, 2014, Sun et al, 2013, Wood et al, 2013. More recently online photo libraries have been used to assess CES (Allan et al, 2015, Arkema at al., 2015, Casalegno et al, 2013, Martínez Pastur et al, 2015, Keeler et al, 2015, Nahuelhual et al, 2013, Richards and Friess, 2015, Willemen et al, 2015.…”

Planning for the conservation and management of ecosystem services in Central Chile

“…Social accessibility has rarely been addressed in spatial conservation priority settings, and we show that it is possible to improve accessibility in a cost-efficient manner. Bringing protected areas closer to people better enables the flow of visitors to protected areas that represent natural ecosystems, allowing the visitors to experience and appreciate nature (Daniel et al 2012, Allan et al 2015. This has the potential to motivate and sustain public support for conservation, which can ultimately increase the likelihood of success of protected areas as a conservation tool.…”

“…In protected areas, cultural ecosystem services include opportunities to enjoy natural settings, watch wildlife and participate in nature-based recreation, as well as supporting cultural identity and spiritual inspiration (Milcu et al 2013, Satz et al 2013, Avitabile et al 2016). The benefits of nature visitation are directly experienced and intuitively appreciated, and they have the potential to motivate and sustain public support for nature conservation (Daniel et al 2012, Allan et al 2015.…”

“…In many cases, protected areas can be seen as an elitist protection policy, reserving desirable conditions for those sectors of society with sufficient resources to enjoy them (O'Keeffe 2013). Conservation efforts targeting social accessibility will bring protected areas closer to all segments of the population, which has the potential to motivate and sustain public support for nature conservation by better providing improved access to natural ecosystems and experiences, and fostering an intuitive appreciation of nature (Daniel et al 2012, Allan et al 2015. The consideration of social accessibility in conservation planning can ultimately increase the likelihood of the success of protected areas as a conservation tool.…”