£EPA
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/6oo/R-i6/o84
July, 2016
Assessing the Benefits of Wetland Restoration:
A Rapid Benefit Indicators Approach for Decision Makers
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
-------
Cover photos: Top (left to right) Missouri Botanical Garden; Rick McKinney; USFWS National Data Library
Bottom (left to right) USFWS National Data Library; Rick McKinney; Rick McKinney
-------
EPA/6oo/R-i6/o84
July, 2016
Assessing the Benefits of Wetland Restoration:
A Rapid Benefit Indicators Approach for Decision Makers
Marisa Mazzotta, Justin Bousquin*, Claudette Ojo*,
Kristen Hychka*, Caroline Gottschalk Druschke*, Walter Berry, Rick McKinney
US EPA
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rl 02882
*Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Participants
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
This project was supported in part by appointments to the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
participant research program supported by an interagency agreement between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. This document has been reviewed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, and approved for publication.
Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Government
or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This is contribution number ORD-oi6656 of the Atlantic
Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
About this publication
This guide presents the Rapid Benefits Indicators (RBI) Approach, a rapid process for assessing the social
benefits of ecosystem restoration. Created for those who conduct, advocate for, or support restoration,
the RBI approach consists of five easy-to-follow steps:
i. Describe the decision context
2. Select ecosystem services and describe benefits
3. Compile benefit indicators
4. Summarize the indicators
5. Use the results in decision making
The RBI Approach can be used for many types of assessments and ecosystems. In this guide, we
focus on freshwater wetlands in urbanizing areas, and high light their particular features and benefits
through an example application in the Woonasquatucket River Watershed in Rhode Island, USA.
Photo by: Rick McKinney
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the many people who have provided information, feedback, and reviews that
have improved the quality of this approach and Guidebook. They include Alicia Lehrer of the
Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council; Caitlin Chafee of Rl Coastal Resources Management
Council; Maria Stelk of the Association of State Wetland Managers; Katelyn Szura, Nicole Gutierrez,
Patricia DeCastro, David Martin, Kate Mulvaney, Chuck Lane, Jim Latimer, Tim Gleason, and Wayne
Munns of US EPA; Meghan Nightingale; and the 27 restoration managers interviewed for this project.
II
-------
Introductory Materials
How This Guide Can Help You i
Quick Start Information 2
The RBI Approach 2
The Checklist 3
Features in this Guide 3
How are Benefits from Wetlands Produced?
Services and Benefits Addressed in this Guide 5
IF' , •
This Approach vs. Existing Approaches 6
Overview of the RBI: Steps and Guiding Questions 8
The Checklist: How to use it g
An Example Application:
Restoring Freshwater Wetlands in the Woonasquatucket River Watershed 10
Applying the RBI in Your Location 11
Public Engagement is Essential 12
The Step-By-Step Process
Step i: Describe the Decision Context 15
Step i in Action 17
Step 2: Select Ecosystem Services and Describe Benefits ig
Addressing Concerns and Disservices 21
Spatial Relationships Between Services and the People They Benefit 21
Step 2 in Action 22
Flood Risk Reduction 23
Scenic Views 24
Environmental Education 25
Recreation 26
Birds 27
-------
Table of Contents
Step 3: Compile Benefit Indicators 29
Social Equity 33
Reliability of the Service 34
Step 3 in Action 35
Flood Risk Reduction 35
Scenic Views 40
Environmental Education 44
Recreation 48
Birds 53
Step 4: Summarize the Benefit Indicators 57
Step Zj in Action 58
Step 5: Use the Results in Decision Making 61
Step 5 in Action 62
Tips from the Field:
Successful Implementation Tips from Experienced Managers 63
Glossary 65
Key Resources for More Information 67
References 69
Appendix i: The Checklist Template 75
Appendix 2: Example Woonasquatucket Application 85
Appendix 3: Wetland Bird Habitat Functional Assessment 95
Appendix 4: Bird Habitat Assessment Checklist 103
Appendix 5: List of Spatial Datasets 104
IV
-------
This guide presents the Rapid Benefits Indicators (RBI) Approach, an easy-to-use process for
assessing wetland restoration using non-monetary benefits indicators. The results of the RBI
Approach complement the information gleaned using assessments of ecological functions by
adding information about benefits to people.
The information presented in this guide will help you use the RBI Approach to:
V Prioritize restoration sites or projects V Justify funding requests
V Decide which projects to fund V Assess who may benefit most from a project
V Screen projects that may require further V Inform people about the benefits of
evaluation
restoration
The RBI Approach does not estimate dollar values of benefits, and does not result in a single numeric score
for each site. Methods that apply dollar values are complex and data are often lacking for many important
ecosystem services. We have attempted to fill a gap by providing a way to rapidly estimate and quantify
benefits using readily available data.
The RBI Approach is a multidimensional and disaggregated method, which compiles information in a
systematic way to inform decisions. It may be used as a first step towards monetary valuation or towards a
single score, but can be used on its own in many contexts, such as those listed above.
Whether you are a federal, state, or local manager, or a member of a watershed group, community group or
funding organization, the RBI Approach can help you assess the social benefits from ecological restoration
and make a scientifically, economically, and socially sound restoration decision.
-------
Quick Start Information
The RBI Approach
In this guide, we walk you through the RBI Approach, which is a rapid assessment processfor evaluating the
benefits of ecosystem services. The RBI Approach consists of five steps, each briefly described below:
Step i Describe the decision context
This step helps you to clarify the decision context by prompting you to gather important
background information applicable to the restoration site(s) under consideration.
Step 2 Select and describe ecosystem services and benefits
This step helps you identify the most relevant ecosystem services and their associated benefits for
the potential restoration site(s). In this step, you will compile basic information about each of the
benefits, in preparation for Step 3. This includes information about any possible concerns or
"disservices" that may result from restoration, and information about people's proximity to the
ecosystem services, which helps to determine who will benefit.
Step 3 Compile benefit indicators
The focal point of the RBI Approach, this step evaluates who benefits and how much they are likely
to benefit from the services identified in Step 2. You will assess benefits of the services you selected
in Step 2 by answering a series of questions. This will provide you with a set of benefit indicators—
quantifiable, non-monetary measures of how people benefit from the selected ecosystem services.
The main questionsthat are used to compile benefit indicators are:
i. Can people benefit from an ecosystem service?
2. How many people benefit?
3. How much are people likely to benefit?
4. What are the social equity implications?
5. How reliable are benefits expected to be over time?
The first two questions are required for the most basic assessment of benefits, and the third adds
more information regarding the magnitude of benefits. Questions 4 and 5 address other important
aspects of benefits.
Step 4 Summarize the indicators
This step assembles the results of your work in Step 3, and helps you make sense of what you have
done.
Step 5 Use the results in decision making
Having applied the RBI Approach, this step helps you use your results to inform your decision, and
gives you tips on presenting your results to team members, stakeholders, and the general public.
Each step is introduced by an overview section that summarizes the step and how to apply it. Following the
full walkthrough of each step, you will find pages showing the "Step in Action" to demonstrate how the step
is applied in a real-world scenario. Appendix 2 includes a complete comparison of two sites using the RBI
approach from the Woonasquatucket River Watershed, Rhode Island, USA, to demonstrate how the RBI
approach could be used to compare two restoration sites for funding prioritization.
-------
The Checklist V
This guide corresponds with a simple checklist assessment form (located in Appendix i and the Excel®
file that accompanies this guide) that prompts you to fill in your responses to each of the RBI Approach's
questions. Feel free to fill in the checklist as you read through each step if you have existing, readily
available data (for a simpler assessment). Or, read through the guidebook and fill in the checklist after
gathering more technical data (for a more detailed analysis).
Features in this Guide
A set of preselected ecosystem services and benefits that wetlands provide
The set of ecosystem services we feature include some of the fundamental ecosystem services that
wetlands provide. You can use these as starting points for your assessment, or as examples to see
how the RBI Approach works so that you may then apply it to other services and benefits.
Examples of assessing social benefits using indicators for each ecosystem service
These benefits and their indicators are used to assess the ecosystem services we include in the
guidebook.
Comparison example using two sites
We provide an example comparing two sites in the Woonasquatucket River Watershed in Rhode
Island, illustrating how the RBI Approach can be applied.
Discussion of ways to engage stakeholders and the public
Engaging the public and stakeholders is a critical piece of any restoration project. We summarize
some of the lessons we learned from interviews with 27 restoration managers in Rhode Island.
Discussion of ways to address concerns and possible disservices resulting from restoration
Often, people assume that every outcome of a restoration will be perceived as positive by the public.
In talking with managers, we found that managers were often surprised by the perceptions of, and
concerns about, disservices that might result from restoration.
Tips from the field
We provide a summary of some of the critical lessons learned by managers when they conducted
restorations.
A glossary of commonly-used terms related to evaluating benefits of ecosystem services
The glossary defines some of the commonly-used terms related to ecosystem services and their
benefits, particularly with regard to wetlands.
A functional assessment tool for bird habitat (Appendix 3)
We have developed a functional assessment tool specifically for bird habitat, to demonstrate how one
might develop a functional assessment tool for a specific ecosystem service.
Please note, the RBI Approach does require some effort on your end. The level of analysis necessary to
apply the RBI will depend on your decision context. If you walkthrough each step, gatherthe suggested
resources, enter your results in the checklist, and refer to the Steps in Action pages and additional
resources provided in this guide, you will be able to produce a simple yet impactful site analysisthat will
make your restoration decision clearer for you and those who care.
-------
How are Benefits from Wetlands Produced?
The Ecosystem Service Cascade
Ecosystem
Services
Benefits
Function
Retaining or slowing water
Characteristics of the system
(multiple functions)
Characteristics of the system
(multiple functions)
Bird habitat
Characteristics of the system
(multiple functions)
Support for rare species or habitats
Storm water regulation
(affects surface runoff and flood
waters, and downstream water
quality)
Scenic landscapes
Learning opportunities
Birds that people enjoy
Recreational opportunities
Benefits
Reduced flood risks to people
Valued uses of improved
downstream water quality
Aesthetic enjoyment
Nature study, connection to nature
Bird watching, hearing birds
Recreational activities
Rare or unique species or habitats Value of knowing these exist
The table above shows how functions, services, and benefits are related.
The Ecosystem Service Cascade (Potschin and Haines-Young 2011) illustrates the linked flow from
functions to services to benefits. Wetland functions or processes are the physical, chemical, and
biological interactions within the ecosystem that produce ecosystem services: the ecological outcomes
that people value. These are the aspects of nature that contribute to people's health, well-being, and
enjoyment. Through people's interactions with them, wetlands provide a host of services and benefits to
people.
Some ecosystem services and their benefits are valued because people directly enjoy or consume them
(like fish or clean drinking water); some are valued because they reduce risksto people and property (like
capture of water that can reduce flood ing) or because they enhance health and well-being in other less
tangible ways; and some are valued simply for the knowledge that they exist and may continue to exist
for the benefit of future generations (I ike rare species of animals or plants).
-------
Services and Benefits Addressed in this Guide
This guide addresses the following important services and benefits provided by wetlands in urbanized
areas. We selected these because:
• They may be provided by relatively small, urban sites
• They are relevant to our example watershed
• They were mentioned in our interviews with managers
Wetlands can provide other services, and multiple types of benefits may result from each service. We are
not providing indicators for a comprehensive set of freshwater wetlands' benefits, but are focusing on
this subset of possible benefits. Local managers mentioned other services/benefits that could be
important in urbanizing areas, including micro-climate regulation, reduced need for gray infrastructure,
improved water quality, community vitality, wildlife habitat, and non-use values. Still others may be
important in your watershed. The approach we illustrate can be applied in a similar way to other services
and benefits. For more detailed information on defining and classifying ecosystem services and benefits,
see US EPA (2015) and Landers and Nahlik (2013).
Ecosystem Service
Flood water regulation
How people benefit
Reduced Flood Risk: The risks from
floods to people and structures are
reduced.
Scenic landscapes
Scenic Views: People can enjoy
scenic views.
Learning opportunities
Environmental Education: People
can benefit from studying nature or
from enhanced connection to nature.
Recreational opportunities
Recreation: People can enjoy
recreation
Birds
Bird Watching: People can watch
or hear birds.
Icons by Piotrek Chuchla, Luis Prado and Matt Steele, the nounproject.com
-------
This Approach vs. Existing Approaches
Many existing functional assessment approaches and tools evaluate wetlands based on how well they
perform functions that provide ecosystem goods and services (King et. al. 2000 and King and Price 2004
list many of these). However, few functional approaches address how people benefit from those
ecosystem services. The RBI Approach assesses how the people around a restoration site may benefit
from ecosystem services that the site provides. It was developed to complement an existing functional
assessment developed for freshwater wetlands (Miller and Golet 2001), and can be used in conjunction
with results of this and other functional assessments.
Existing economic valuation approaches monetize the value of wetlandsto people, but such estimates
are context- and location-specific and typically require substantial resources to conduct. Recognizing the
limitations of economic valuation, indicator-based studies
have been used to assess the benefits and values of mitigation
trades or compensatory restoration, in situations where
wetlands are restored to compensate for losses due to
development or environmental damage (King et. al. 2000;
King and Price 2004; Wainger et al. 2001; Wainger et al. 2010).
The RBI Approach uses non-monetary benefit indicators to
make assessments more rapid and less resource intensive.
The RBI Approach is designed to use widely available data to
ensure it is transferable outside of this case study. The
principles and questions used in the RBI Approach are also
transferable to other types of ecosystems.
The RBI Approach is grounded in economic theory and
compatible with methods used by environmental economists
to value ecosystem services. Research in environmental
economics has shown that certain factors, which represent
people's preferences and scarcity, are important determinants
of the value of a good or service in relation to other things that
people also value (including other goods or services, time, and
money). We have incorporated these important factors into a
set of questions that, together, give an overview of the big
picture of ecosystem service benefits.
What do we mean when we
say " value"?
There are many aspects of value and
waysto define value, these include:
Values in wetlands literature -
Often defined broadly in terms of
benefits to either the environment or
to people, these values don't
necessarily depend on human
appreciation.
Values in economics-
Economic value depends on relative
importance to people, compared to
other things they might spend time
or money to enjoy
Values in broader social science -
These values may include other socio
-cultural aspects of value, such as
equity or other ethical concerns.
-------
Photo by: Rick McKinney
-------
Overview of the RBI: Steps and Guiding Questions
o
in
LO
O
U
o
Describe the decision context
a. What are the objectives and geographic scope of the decision?
b. Who is affected by the decision?
c. What are the important needs of affected people?
d. Is a rapid assessment appropriate?
e. What degree of change is expected from the restoration?
Select and describe ecosystem services and benefits
a. Which ecosystem services are most relevant to the decision?
b. Which benefits of these services are important?
c. What are the general characteristics of each service and its benefits?
Compile benefit indicators
a. Are people able to receive benefits?
b. Who receives benefits?
c. How does the value of each benefit compare
across sites?
d. How reliable are benefits overtime?
Summarize the indicators
a. What are the results of the assessment?
Use the results in decision making
a. Which site(s) should be restored, or which
restoration action(s) should be implemented?
b. How can the information that was compiled be
best communicated?
Page Legend
Step Pages
These pages describe each step.
Step -in -Action Pages
These pages present examples for
applying each step, using the
Woonasquatucket Watershed and
our 5 selected services and
benefits.
Additional Information Pages
These pages expand on topic
areas related to the RBI.
Symbols
Points out places in
^ "' the RBI to engage
stakeholders and the
public.
/
"'
Pointsto helpful tidbits
that complement the
guide text.
-------
The Checklist: How to use it
The accompanying Excel® Checklist Tool (see Appendix ifor a printout) followsthe RBI approach and
provides a place to record collected information. The Checklist can either be used in Excel®, where prompts
help guide the process and the information is automatically summarized; or printed from the hard copy in
Appendix i and filled out on paperto compile your information.
On the "Steps in Action" pages the words "In the checklist, ..." highlight information relevant to the
checklist and describe what to enterto answer each question. These are based on our example comparison
of two sites in the Woonasquatucket River Watershed, Rl., for a selected set of services. The full Checklist for
our example is presented in Appendix 2.
^. Step i, Describe the decision context: Enter, mostly in narrative form,
important background information applicable to the restoration site(s)
under consideration.
Step 2, Select and describe ecosystem services and benefits: Enter your
selected services and benefits to assess. Each of the benefits you select will
create a separate column, where you'll enter background information for
that benefit.
O
n
Step 3, Compile the benefit indicators: The spreadsheet will automatically ™ ™
O
create a separate Step 3 sheet for each benefit. If using the paper version,
you will need to print out a separate Step 3 sheet for each benefit.
For services or benefits not included in our example application, you will
need to select indicators applicable to that benefit, using our examples as a
guide, and answering each of the RBI questions for that service/benefit.
Step 4, Summarize the indicators: Compile Steps 1-3 into a summary table.
This is automatically created in the spreadsheet. When using the paper
version, you will transfer the relevant information to the summary table.
The table cells are color-coded in the spreadsheet to indicate the factors
that differ across sites, and to distinguish the site with the higher value for
each indicator. This step allows you to compare sites at a glance.
Step 5, Use the results in decision making: Review the checklist. Explore
ways to use your results to make your restoration decision.
O
-------
What is the Woonasquatucket?
The Woonasquatucket (woon-AHS-kwa-tuk-it) River flows southeast through northern Rhode Island, from
the town of North Smithfield into the city of Providence, the state's capital. Its name, Woonasquatucket,
was given to it by local Native Americans and translates as "the place where the salt water ends" or the
meeting of the river and the sea. The river is 19 miles long and its watershed covers approximately 50
square miles. The Woonasquatucket flows from mixed suburban and agricultural settings in its northern
headwaters into highly urbanized neighborhoods downstream. Its watershed encompasses portions of
eight municipalities, with a wide range of demographics.
A designated American Heritage River, the Woonasquatucket has a long history of cultural and industrial
development. Its waters once powered many manufacturing facilities, mills, and farmhouses, and
transported a variety of goods. Development for use of the river occurred immediately adjacent to and
even over the river, often destroying wetlands and filling floodplains. Today, the river is still a hot spot for
human activity, in some areas serving as a prime choice for homes and communities. With urbanization
trends projected to increase in the years to come, it is expected that the river's resources will be in more
demand than ever before. Resource managers are looking for opportunities to restore previously neglected
areas of the watershed in order to prepare for a healthier, more sustainable river tomorrow.
We present the RBI using the Woonasquatucket Watershed as an example.
Throughout this Guide, we will point out aspects that are specific to the
Woonasquatucket vs. those that might be generally applicable to your restoration site.
10
-------
Why we chose the Woonasquatucket to demonstrate this approach
The Woonasquatucket is a living resource that many Rhode Islanders interact with on a daily basis. Its
location, spanning agricultural and suburban areas to the most urbanized communities in Rhode Island,
provides an opportunity to understand many facets of restoration, including issues specific to urbanizing
and urban areas. The Woonasquatucket Watershed has an active community of supporters, focused
around the Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council.
Several studies of the Woonasquatucket have been conducted in the past, including studies of filled
wetlands and a functional assessment approach for evaluating restoration of those sites (Miller and Golet
2001, Golet et al. 2003). We chose to build upon those studiesto create the RBI as a processthat would
more accurately capture the services and benefits people receive from the Woonasquatucket today.
As an urbanizing watershed, the Woonasquatucket illustrates important issues related to the valuation of
ecological quality and societal benefits, including:
• Deciding whether to restore a site based on its ecological benefts or the benefts people receive from
it. Small urban sites with relatively low ecological benefits can provide large social benefits, though
they don't typically rank well under most existing ranking criteria.
• Deciding which services are most relevant. Some services, such as flood water regulation, can be
especially important in urban areas.
How understanding the Woonasquatucket can help you
Even though the Woonasquatucket may not be your watershed or potential restoration site, its diverse
land uses—ranging from suburban to highly urban—makes it a case that can be applicable to many
watersheds, particularly in the northeastern U.S. Its range makes it an ideal example of the variety of
stressors that urban watersheds are facing today. We also present insights regarding public and
stakeholder views of barriers to and opportunities for restoration in Rhode Island, based on interviews
with 27 resource managers who conduct restoration projects, giving invaluable insight into the public
engagement process. Understanding the Woonasquatucket as we present it in this guide—primarily as an
example application for the RBI—will leave you with a greater understanding of and appreciation for your
watershed, and with tools that can assist you in your restoration decisions.
Applying the RBI in Your Location
Now that you've read about the Woonasquatucket, think about all the ways your watershed is special to
you. What has it meant to your community? What does it mean now? What are some of the points of
contention regarding management and restoration? Our examples apply to the Woonasquatucket, but
they may also apply to your location. As you walkthrough the steps and review the "Steps in Action"
pages that feature the Woonasquatucket, you can adjust your responses to the guided questionnaire and
checklist tool to fit the circumstances of your restoration decision. Though the examples in this guide are
from the Woonasquatucket, each step of the RBI can be applied to any site you choose.
-------
Public Engagement is Essential!
Engage the public & stakeholders for project success
Community members can help prioritize, implement, and monitor
projects, and their involvement can promote broad-based support for
restoration efforts. For better ecological and social outcomes, find creative
ways to involve stakeholders early and often in restoration projects
(Drusckhe and Hychka, 2015).
Engage the public & stakeholders by:
V Finding ways for community members to contribute through workdays or community
celebrations.
V Contacting local interest groups and asking them to nominate specific restoration sites.
V Enlisting neighbors in monitoring efforts at restoration sites.
V Asking to attend existing community meetings and listening to what stakeholders say
about the issues that matter to them.
V Hitting the pavement. Spending time in yourtarget community, talking with residents and
neighbors and listening to their interests and concerns.
V Hosting public meetings that feature knowledgeable and approachable speakers who can
explain restoration in plain language. Making sure there are chances for people to give
meaningful feedback.
V Conducting formal interviews and focus groups to learn about resident interests and
concerns.
V Consulting with resource managers who have on-the-ground experience working in
particular communities.
V Working with local media outlets to get the word out about projects.
V Engaging schools and local community groups in adopting particular sites.
Stakeholders can assist restoration projects by helping you:
V Choose the right project, by working with the people who know the area, its history, its
major players, and the political climate.
V Avoid delays in your project, because community members can help to minimize surprising
concerns. Early efforts to reach out to local communities can mean that neighbors will help
rather than obstruct a project.
V Get funding, because funders like to know that you have talked—and listened!—to
stakeholders.
V Have a lasting positive impact, because the people living near the project can take
ownership of a project and protect the investment.
V Create more public awareness of and interest in specific restoration efforts and in
restoration more widely.
-------
Photos by: Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council (WRWC)
-------
-------
Step i: Describe the Decision Context
Questions addressed in this step:
• What are the objectives and geographic scope of the decision?
• Who are the affected people, and what are their important needs?
• Is a rapid assessment sufficient?
What does this step do?
This step provides the overall decision context and gathers some important initial information.
How to apply this step:
To apply this step, you may want to consider the following questions, and perhaps others, depending on
your specific context.
A. What are the main objectives of the assessment/decision?
Are there specific policy objectives to consider?
Examples:
• Do you have a certain amount of money to spend, and want to select one or more
restoration sites to get the greatest benefits for the money spent?
• Do you want to enhance a particular service (or services) within your watershed such as
bird viewing or flood protection?
• Do funding sources specify particular goals?
Are some objectives more important than others?
Examples:
• Watershed ecological objectives come first, followed by social objectives
• Water quality objectives such as meeting a regulatory requirement come first, followed
by providing co-benefits
In the checklist, enter this information in narrative form.
B. What is the geographic scope for the decision?
Is it a watershed, a municipality, a neighborhood, or a
specific site?
In the checklist, enter this information in narrative form.
C. Who are the affected members of the public or
stakeholder groups?
In the checklist, enter this information in narrative form.
(A You may want to use ArcGIS
Online, Google Earth, or other
tools as appropriate to compile:
• geographic placement of each site
that will be assessed (latitude-
longitude, maps)
• aerial or satellite photos
• census blocks including and near
the site.
D. Are there important stakeholder or public needs or wants? Are there any important conflicts?
In the checklist, enter this information in narrative form.
-------
E. Is a rapid assessment sufficient or will more detail be needed for some or all of the
assessment?
In some cases, particularly where the stakes are high and it is particularly important to reduce
uncertainty, it may not be appropriate to use a rapid assessment.
In the checklist, check yes or no.
F. How many sites are being evaluated?
G. How are the sites identified?
In the checklist, enter the number of sites and a name or other identifier for each site.
H. Is there any additional information important to framing the decision?
For example, there might be an important brownfield or Superfund site in the watershed; or
perhapsthe community just finished a major public engagement effort to redo its Master Plan.
Some general categories to think about include: major political changes, recent natural disasters,
and the like.
In the checklist, enter this information in narrative form.
Feasibility and potential roadblocks to
implementation determine the success of any
restoration project.
Factors that affect feasibility might include:
• the technical and logistical ability to accomplish
restoration
• the general level of public buy-in
• site contamination
• current or potential competing uses
• issues related to private property such as
permissions required to access the property
You, the practitioner, will have the most awareness of and
information about issues related to feasibility.
-------
Step i in Action—Describe the Decision Context
ffA The "in action" pages provide examples of how the RBI
{ Approach can be applied to a real restoration decision,
using indicators developed for our example location, the
Woonasquatucket watershed. We have created an imaginary
scenario that compares two actual Woonasquatucket sites,
in order to walk you through the process.
Suppose that Maria is the manager of a watershed group that has
been given a restoration grant, and needs to select one or more
restoration sites to get the best return for the money spent.
Previous work in the watershed provided a list of former ^
wetlands sites that have been filled and could be ^$>
^4/
restored to functioning wetlands. Local community *
groups have nominated two sites, which Maria's group
will evaluate.
Photo by: Kristen Hychka
Guiding questions
Maria's response
*
1
1.A
1.B
1.C
1.D
1.E
IF
1.G
1.H
Describe the decision context for Woonasquatucket Example
What are the main objectives of the
assessment?
Are some objectives more important
than others, or are there additional
important objectives? If so, specify.
What is the geographic scope for the
decision?
Who are the affected members of the
public or stakeholder groups?
Are there important stakeholder or
public needs or wants? Are there any
conflicting needs/wants?
Is a rapid assessment sufficient?
Number of sites
Site names or identifiers
Is there any additional information
important to framing the decision?
We have a budget of $50,000 to spend on restoration in our watershed.
We want to know which site or sites we can restore to provide the
greatest benefits within this budget.
We want to balance community benefits with ecological benefits.
The overall scope is the Woonasquatucket River Watershed. We have
selected 2 sites to evaluate; the sites were proposed by local
community groups.
In general, the people who live and work in the watershed. The
communities near each of the sites are likely to be especially interested
in their nearby site.
None have been identified upfront, but we will include the affected and
interested people throughout the assessment and decision process.
£Yes CNo
2
Site 1 : Greystone
Site 2: #448
We will evaluate feasibility of restoring each site and consider that in
making the decision.
-------
Here, we've compiled basic information about our two sites:
maps, aerial photos, site photos, and general descriptions.
Woonasquatucket River Watershed Restoration Sites
Site #448:
3.84 acres in N. Smithfield
privately-owned
• overall functional score: 10/10
Greystone:
0.54 acre in Johnston
privately-owned
overall functional score: 4.5/10
18
-------
Step 2: Select Ecosystem Services & Describe Benefits
Questions addressed in this step:
• Which ecosystem services are most relevant to the decision?
• Which benefits of these services are important?
• What are the general characteristics of each service and its benefits?
What does this step do?
This step narrows the focus to the most relevant services, and compiles basic information about each.
How to apply this step:
A. Select ecosystem services and their benefits to assess
Some restoration sites may not provide every service, and not all services are relevant to all restoration
decisions. Criteria you might use to select services include whether:
• The service is provided by a site under consideration, or you expect it to be provided when
the site is restored.
• The service is one that is likely to vary in quality and benefits provided across sites, and thus
can distinguish among sites.
Multiple benefits may result from each ecosystem service, and not all of these benefits are relevant to all
restoration decisions. Criteria you might use to select benefits include whether:
• The benefit is relevant in your watershed.
• The benefit is relevant to specific policy or management goals.
• The benefit is important to stakeholders or the public.
Selecting services and benefits may include several components:
• Preliminary rapid assessment of functions and benefits.
• Consultation with technical experts.
• Public meetings or focus groups with interested citizens.
Page 5 lists the services included in this Guide. You may choose to address other services, and
can do so by following the process described in this Guide.
B. Provide a basic description and background for each benefit
This step is a simple compilation of general information about each benefit. It is conducted for each
benefit individually. We have compiled information for 5 services and benefits in the following pages.
These examples illustrate how to apply this step.
'c
Uj
v C. Compile information on concerns or disservices
m See page 20 for a discussion of disservices.
D. Note how each service interacts spatially with the people who benefit
See page 21 for characterizations of the typical spatial interactions.
-------
Addressing Concerns and Disservices
Stakeholders may be concerned about possible adverse outcomes—called disservices—that can
result from ecosystem restoration. Site evaluation efforts should consider these potential
disservices, whether decision makers agree with community members' perceptions of disservices
or not.
Recognizing potential or perceived disservices is a
necessary early step for more effectively communicating
with community members, finding creative ways to
mitigate potential unwanted outcomes, assessing the
likelihood of success, and moving forward on projects.
Restoration managers can rely on community leaders,
public meetings, interviews, surveys, news media, and
informal conversations to identify potential disservices or
concerns that exist or might be perceived to exist.
Photo by: Kristen Hychka
Some potential disservices to consider related to urban wetland restoration are:
• Habitat for unwanted species, including mosquitoes, ticks, and rodents
• Changes to aesthetics, potential loss of a treasured view
• Loss of historic heritage
• Loss of recreational opportunities
• Safety concerns about crime in unmonitored vegetated areas
• Debris, trash, odors, or vandalism
• Possible increase in flooding
• Nuisance from construction work, including noise
• Movement of contaminated sediment
• Lowered nearby property values
• Limits on use of private or public property
Real World Example: In a city park urban buffer restoration project, adjacent residents were
concerned that the new vegetation would harbor rats. From manager accounts, these fears played
out—rats were using the buffer as habitat. In hindsight, the manager suggested that the neighbors'
concerns about rats should have resulted in the incorporation of rodent management strategies as
part of the project implementation.
20
-------
Spatial Relationships Between Services
and the People they Benefit
It is important to understand the relationships among the place where a service is generated, the
place where people can benefit from the service, and the place where people who benefit are
located. This information will help determine the area to consider when making a decision, how
many people benefit, and who those people are.
There are three general categories:
i. Services and benefits occur at the same location
People travel from where they live, work, or attend school to
the area where benefits occur to gain the benefit.
Example: Clean water is a service that allowsfor
swimming, a recreational opportunity, but people must
travel to the site to swim, a benefit.
2. Services flow in all directions from a site and
benefits occur in the surrounding area
People who are in the area where benefits occur will gain a
benefit.
Example: Birds, a service, are attracted to particular
habitats. People around those habitats will benefit by seeing
and hearing the birds.
3. Services flow in a restricted direction from
a site and benefits occur in a specific area
People who are in the specific area where benefits
occur will gain a benefit.
Example: A wetland retains water, decreasing
the quantity of water downstream, a water
regulating service. People or structures must be in
the area downstream where flood waters are
decreased, in order to benefit from the reduced
flood risk.
21
-------
Step 2 in Action—Select Ecosystem Services and Describe Benefits
A. Select ecosystem services and their benefits to assess
For our example comparison sites, we focus on: flood water regulation for reduced flood risk, scenic
landscapes for scenic views, learning opportunities for environmental education, recreational opportunities
for recreation, and birds for bird watching.
In the checklist, check the ecosystem services and their benefits that you are assessing.
Urban wetlands provide many ecosystem services not included in this example. For example, storm water
regulation, carbon sequestration, and temperature regulation are not included in our site comparison. You
can use the same assessment approach with these or other services, and add them to the checklist tool.
In the checklist, add additional services as "Other."
Ecosystem services selected may include benefits in addition to the ones we focus on here. For example,
flood water regulation may result in benefits from reduced need for gray (built) infrastructure.
In the checklist, select from the suggested benefits or add additional benefits as "Other."
B. Provide a basic description and background for each benefit
C. Compile information on concerns or disservices
D. Note how each service interacts spatially with the people who benefit
Steps 2. B, 2.C, and 2.D are conducted for each benefit individually. We have compiled information for 5
services and benefits in the following pages. These examples illustrate how to apply parts B-D of step 2.
Sample Page from the Checklist
Step Question/Category
2 Select Ecosystem Services and Describe Benefits for Woonasquatucket Example
Which Ecosystem Services are most
relevant to the decision?
2 A
What Benefits of the selected services
are relevant to the decision?
Benefit Name
_ _ Provide background information on
£m H
each service and the benefits being
assessed.
Provide background information on
the concerns and disservices that
may relate to the services and
benefits being assessed.
How do services and people interact
geographically?
- Flood Water Regulation > Recreational Opportunities
- Scenic Landscapes ^ Birds
*• Learning Opportunities Other ()
' Reduced Flood Risk - Recreation
- Scenic Views - Bird Watching
r<* Environmental Education r Other ()
Reduced Flood Risk
Wetlands retain water that would
otherwise increase flooding, pro-
viding flood risk reduction benefits.
We only consider reductions in
flood risk to structures in the flood-
plain within 4 miles downstream.
Water retained in wetlands may
inundate areas directly surrounding
the wetland or upstream, potentially
causing flood damages in those
areas.
*©
Scenic Views
Aesthetically pleasing
landscapes provide observers
with scenic views. We only
consider views from homes or
other structures.
Poor maintenance of a site may
lead to accumulation of trash or
overgrown vegetation, giving a
"messy" appearance that people
dislike.
©
There will be one column specific to each selected Ecosystem Service
-------
Step 2 in Action—Describe Benefits: Flood Risk Reduction
Photo by: Tim O'Connor WRWC
"*•."','. . . :'••
B. Provide a basic description and background
Wetlands can slow or retain water that would otherwise increase
flood damages, providing flood risk reduction benefits.
Flood magnitudes in the Northeast have increased over time (Collins
2009; Hirsch and Ryberg 2012; Hodgkins 2010; Peterson et al. 2014;
Smith et al. 2010; Villarini and Smith 2010) and are projected to
continue to increase with climate change (Morton et al. 2014). Floods
that occur where people live, work and play can result in illness,
injury, loss of life, damaged property, destruction of culturally
significant structures, and disruption of commerce and critical services.
In an urban context, where there are more people and structures at risk, flood damages are often greater
than in less populated areas (Hardmeyer and Spencer 2007; Mitsch and Gosseline 2000). Urban areas also
tend to have more impervious surfaces, which convey stormwater faster and do not allow it to infiltrate
into the ground, resulting in higher peak flows. Stormwater may carry debris that can block stormwater
infrastructure causing localized flooding or pollutantsthat can impair water quality in downstream water
bodies (Mallin at al. 2008).
A site that retains water, especially during the peak of storm flow, removes that water
from the peakflow and releases it slowly. This generally lowers water elevation in the
floodplain and decreases flooding. It can also reduce reliance on stormwater infrastructure
and impacts on water quality. We do not provide indicators for these additional potential
benefits.
In the checklist, clarify the range of flood reduction benefits you are assessing.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we consider reductions in flood damage to
structures located in the watershed's floodplain, and do not include structures that are farther downstream
or outside of existing mapped floodplains.
C. Compile information on concerns and disservices
There is a chance that water retained in wetlands might inundate areas directly surrounding the wetland or
upstream, potentially causing flood damages. It is important to engage stakeholders near the restoration
site to discuss this possibility. If there are concerns, experts might weigh in on the likelihood of localized
flooding. If addressed early in the planning process, there may be ways to ameliorate this problem.
In the checklist, note any specifics of sites that might raise concerns about restoration increasing nearby
flooding.
D. Note how the service interacts spatially with people who benefit
Water is retained at the restoration site, but people benefit from reduced
flood risks in downstream areas where people and structures at risk from
flooding are located (Category 3, page 21).
-------
Step 2 in Action—Describe Benefits: Scenic Views
Photo by: WRWC
B. Provide a basic description and background
Scenic landscapes provide observers with aesthetically pleasing
scenic view benefits. For observers to enjoy seeing a wetland, they
must have an unobstructed view. Seeing a wetland does not
guarantee positive scenic view benefits. It is often only one
component among other features and habitats in the view, but
wetlands often improve the aesthetics of a landscape.
Aesthetics are subjective, and values for views vary across people.
Researchers have synthesized values for views by having people rank or rate landscapes depicted in
photographs, and identifying features that correspond with high ratings (Anderson and Schroeder 1983;
Dhami and Deng 2010; Dramstad et al. 2006; Gobster and Westphal 2004; Hands and Brown 2002;
Kenwick et al. 2009). Consistently, views with open water rank higher than those without, and there is
evidence that the presence of water increases the value of a view even when the water itself is not visible
(Dramstad et al. 2006).
The value of wetlands as components of scenic landscapes has also been demonstrated in models
comparing sales of properties with or without views of wetlands (Sander and Polasky 2009; Walls 2013).
Nearby wetlands correlate with higher sales prices in most of these models, but it is difficultto separate
how much of that price increase is the result of views rather than other wetland benefits.
People who are not property owners also benefit from scenic views by viewing landscapes during daily
activities, such as driving. Scenic views may also add to the quality or value of other benefits, such as
^^_ A recreational benefits enhanced by scenic views along a hiking trail.
n
In an urban context, buildings and other development will often obstruct or detract from the
total scenic quality of the landscape. Because wetlands in this context contrast with the built
environment, they may have more value here than in more natural landscapes.
In the checklist, note limitations and clarifications on the scope of scenic view benefits you are assessing.
For our example in the Woonasquatucket, we only include scenic views from homes or other structures.
C. Compile information on concerns and disservices
Views of wetlands are typically less offensive than the urban features and characteristics of landscapes
associated with visual blight, such as highways and transmission lines (Bagstad et al. 2011). However, poor
maintenance of wetlands can lead to accumulation of trash or weedy vegetation that result in a messy
appearance that people dislike (Anderson and Schroeder 1983; Hands and
Brown 2002; Kenwick et al. 2009; Nassauer 2004; Ode et al. 2008), or may
raise concerns about safety (Gobster and Westphal 2004).
In the checklist, note any specifics of the site that might make it difficultto
maintain, orthat might raise concerns among the public.
D. Note how the service interacts spatially with people who benefit
Aesthetically pleasing landscapes produce scenic view benefits that flow via
line of sight from that landscape to people who view them (Category 2, page
21). Terrain, buildings, and trees between the landscape and the viewer can obstruct scenic view benefits.
-------
Step 2 in Action—Describe Benefits: Environmental Education
B. Provide a basic description and background
Natural areas provide learning opportunitiesthat lead to educational
benefits, and environmental education is one of the important ways that
ecosystems support human well-being. In one study, 54 % of respondents
considered environmental education to be important to human well-being.
It ranked third in importance, behind water quality and conserving
biodiversity (Martin-Lopez et al. 2014).
Photo by: WRWC
Fourth graders release trout that
they raised as a class into the
Woonasquatucket River Rl.
In an urban context, where there may be fewer opportunities to
experience nature, children often lack the relationship with nature that
children in rural areas have (UK NEA 2011). While urban students may
take day trips to more pristine habitats with educational facilities to
accommodate structured learning, this can be costly and reduce time
spent at school. Holzinger et al. (2014) examined two years of school and nursery trips to a park with
outdoor education programs in Birmingham, UK. The average travel time, not accounting for traffic, for
these trips was 51 minutes, with an extra cost of about $28 per student over the same time spent at
school. While urban natural areas are typically not as pristine or may not have equivalent facilities, they
are more accessible to urban students. Even where resources for field trips are available, students can
visit sites closer to schools more frequently, allowing for better integration into the curriculum (Lougher
2004).
Wetlands are important ecosystems for environmental education because they support unique aquatic
and semi-aquatic wildlife notfound in dry habitats. Wetland restoration sites near educational facilities
can also provide unique educational opportunities during the restoration process.
In the checklist, note limitations and clarifications on the scope of educational benefits you are
assessing. This includes clarifying how you are defining environmental education.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we chose only to include educational visits of less
than a half day, targeting shorter, less resource-intensive trips rather than daylong field trips.
C. Compile information on concerns and disservices
Although few people would perceive sites devoted to or offering environmental education as negative,
there could be concerns about safety at the site or exposure to insects or allergens during learning
activities.
In the checklist, note any specifics of sites that might raise concerns about
safety or exposure.
D. Note how the service interacts spatially with people who benefit
Environmental Education benefits are provided at a particular site, and
people must travel to the site to receive benefits (Category i, page 21). This
requires the site to be on public land or, if on private land, for access to be
permitted.
-------
Step 2 in Action—Describe Benefits: Recreation
B. Provide a basic description and background
People use wetlands and other green spaces for many activities that
lead to recreational benefits, and recreation is one of the main ways
people interact with green spaces (Riechers et al. 2016). People
recognize green spaces as important to human well-being, and have
even cited lack of public green space as a reason they moved out of
cities (Tratsaert 1998).
to
Photo by: WRWC
When assessing recreational benefits, it is essential that you define the
scope of activities you are including. Recreational benefits encompass
a variety of activities, each having specific requirements and user preferences. Recreational benefits often
overlap with other benefits (Church et al. 2011). For example, increased aesthetic views along a hiking trail
would increase the value of that trail's recreational benefits (Loomis and Paterson 2014). The exercise
received while hiking provides human health benefits (Bassuk and Manson 2005; Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005).
The hike might even result in educational benefits.
Several types of recreational activities are more limited in an urban context; some because the often
smaller size of urban wetlands and green spaces is prohibitive and some because lower water quality or
other environmental issues may lead to restrictions on uses. Urban wetlands are also unlikely to be unique
or high quality enough to attract people from beyond the immediate area.
In the checklist, specify which specific recreational activities you want to assess and any
restrictions that could limit recreational benefits.
^•|%^ For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we only consider everyday outdoor
****ta^*0a* recreation. We do not include activities that require additional facilities or infrastructure. We
do not include activities that would attract participants from long distances but instead focus
on the shorter duration (half day or less) recreational activities that occur more frequently. For an example of
how assessing specific types of recreation may differ from this assessment, we have also developed separate
benefit indicators for bird watching.
C. Compile information on concerns and disservices
Many of the disservices people associate with recreational sites have to do with user conflicts, which may
arise when recreationists have different preferences (Gobster 2001; Jacob and Schreyer 1980). For example,
a cyclist may prefer a straight paved trail whereas a recreational walker may prefer a winding mowed or
gravel path. User conflicts may also arise due to congestion at a recreation site (Gobster 1995; Kuss et al.
1990). Noise and traffic congestion around the recreation site or trash left behind by users may be
disruptive to local residents.
Because different users can have different visions for what a recreational space should
*j. include, it is important to engage stakeholders early on as part of the planning process.
If addressed early in the planning process, there may be ways to ameliorate disservices
such as noise ortraffic congestion.
In the checklist, note specific concerns about recreation or disservices that may result.
D. Note how the service interacts spatially with people who benefit
Recreational opportunities become recreational benefits when people recreate there. For people to benefit
they must go to the site where the recreational opportunities are produced (Category i, page 21).
•^
26
-------
Step 2 in Action—Describe Benefits: Bird Watching
B. Provide a basic description and background
An element of recreation is connecting with nature by experiencing or viewing
wildlife. Birds are frequent subjects of wildlife viewing because of their high
visibility. Urban areas often lackthe large and pristine habitatsthat certain species
of birds require (Marzluff et al. 2011), but bird species that can tolerate or adapt to
urban environments can be drawn to neighborhoods near parks and green spaces
that provide appropriate habitat for nesting or foraging (Barbosa de Toledo et al.
2012; Fontana et al. 2011; McKinney and Nightingale 2014). Although these species
are not likely to attract more serious birders from other locations, they can
positively affect the attitudes and well-being of local urban residents (Belaire et al.
2015; Bjerke and Ostdahl 2004).
Photo by: USFWS
National Data Library
In the checklist, note limitations and clarifications on the scope of bird watching you are assessing. This
includes which wetland-associated bird species in your study area may be the subjects of bird watching.
This also includes how you are defining bird watching since it may overlap with other services such as
recreation.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we included urban birds in the Northeastern United
States (Table i in the Appendix). We defined bird watching benefits as those of local residents, excluding
serious birders who might travel from other areasto see birds.
C. Compile information on concerns and disservices
People in urban areas have expressed concerns about, and even negative attitudes towards,
ff certain species of birds. Messy droppings and nesting in houses are some of the disservices
^^H people associate with what they consider to be pest bird species (these include the common
-^^^' - grackle, house sparrow, blue jay, and European starling; Belaire et al. 2015). However, when
^^^ compared to other wildlife pests, at worst people had neutral rather than negative
perceptions of birds (Bjerke and Ostdahl 2004).
Because people may have mixed perceptions of birds, if concerns emerge during the public engagement
process, it will be important to examine the impact of the proposed restoration on particular species of
concern.
In the checklist, note any specific concerns about birds or bird species that are associated with
disservices in your watershed.
D. Note how the service interacts spatially with people who benefit
Bird watching benefits will be greatest at the roosting or nesting location and flow outward from there in
all directions (Category 2, page 21) based on the distance each bird species travels. The area where people
may benefit may be somewhat larger than the birds' travel distances, because people can view birds from
a distance. The benefits area will be available to people within this visual range of
birds, but people farther away will be able to benefit if they are willing to travel. It is
common for avid birders to travel long distances to sites specifically to see birds. For
example, 25 % of birders in Rhode Island come from out of state (USFWS 2001).
However, unless there are iconic species or uncommon migrating species, it is not
likely that birders will travel to view the birds found in small urban wetland areas.
"•^^^^"
27
-------
A Note on Data Quality
The quality of the output from this tool is only as good as the
information you put into it. While there is a great deal of freely available
information, there's no guarantee of good quality, so be sure to check the
reliability of sources for any information you use.
In Appendix 4., we've listed the data sets that we used for our
examples, to give you an idea of appropriate sources of data. Where
possible and relevant, we suggest nationally available datasets.
-------
Step 3: Compile Benefit Indicators
Questions addressed in this step:
• Are people able to receive benefits?
• Who receives benefits?
• How does the value of each benefit compare across sites?
• What are the social equity implications?
• How reliable are benefits overtime?
What does this step do?
This step is the core of the approach. In this step, you will compile information to assess the level of
benefits each site may provide to people.
How to apply this step:
As you apply this step, you will answer a series of questions to develop a set of indicators for the benefits
you chose to assess in Step 2. Some questions are optional, as noted. These optional questions can fine-
tune the assessment, but may be difficult to answer with available data.
There are five categories of questions:
i) Can people benefit from the ecosystem service?
2) How many people benefit?
3) How much are people likely to benefit?
4.) What are the social equity implications?
5) How reliable are the benefits expected to be over time?
To answer the first three questions, each benefit is evaluated separately. Questions 4 and 5 may be
addressed at the site level, but in some cases the comparison might be improved by also considering
factors specific to individual benefits.
We first describe each of these questions and the general types of indicators that answer them. We then
present specific rapid assessment indicatorsfor each benefit included in our example application.
-------
Question i: Can people benefit from the ecosystem service?
Answering this question involves three sub-questions that look at the interactions between people
who benefit and the site that provides those benefits (or in economics terms, the intersection of
supply and demand). Without these factors, it will not be possible for people to benefit from the
ecosystem services provided by a site or ecosystem.
Question i is for initial screening and each of its three sub-questions can be answered as "Yes" or
"No." Answering these sub-questions does not require detailed assessment or data - it can be
completed using best professional judgment of the group conducting the assessment, possibly with
input from stakeholders. If the answer to any of the sub-questions is "No," people are not able to
benefit from the service and Step 3 of the assessment is complete for that benefit.
The 3 sub-questions are:
A. Is there evidence of demand forthe service?
First, it is important to understand whether people want or need the ^
service. This involves identifying the relevant benefits area and
determining whether people within that area want or need the service.
Examples: For people to benefit from nature education, there may
need to be a school within walking distance of the site; or for people to benefit from
reduced flood risk, there must be valued structures or infrastructure in the
downstream flood zone.
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
Second, it is important to know if the site functions well enough to provide adequate services.
This involves identifying the minimum level of ecosystem functioning required
(a threshold) to provide the required quantity of the service at the required quality.
Example: For valued birds to use a site, the site may need to be a minimum size
and have specific types of vegetation.
C. Is specific infrastructure or other "complementary input" needed and, if yes, is it
available?
Third, some services require additional inputs before people can benefit. These inputs, such as
infrastructure or policies that enable use of a site, are considered "required complements."
If such complementary inputs are required, are they available or will they be created as part
of the restoration?
Example: For recreational hiking, users require a hiking trail.
If all of these 3 questions are answered "Yes," then people are able to benefit.
Continue to the next question.
If the answer to one or more of these 3 questions is "No" then people
are not able to benefit in this way from this site.
Continue to the next benefit.
-------
Question 2: How many people benefit?
Answering this question involves defining the area where people may benefit, and counting the
people within that area who may benefit. It may be done with varying levels of rigor, from a rough
estimate to mapping the specific people who may benefit.
The simplest approach is to select an area around each site, based on the typical distance from the
site where people are likely to benefit. Quantify the number of people who benefit using population
estimates or by counting homes within this area.
It is also possible to group people who may benefit by their distance from the site, based on the
assumption that those farther away will generally have lower values for the service. Using this
approach, count people or homes within each grouping by distance, giving those farther away lower
weight. The most complex approach is to use spatial models and possibly additional information
about users or potential users (which might be gathered through talking with the public or
stakeholder groups).
Example: Studies show that urban recreation areas are mostly used by people within
walking distance, and that a reasonable distance to walk for children and older adults is
400 meters (around 1/4 mile). This information can be used to estimate how many people
are within walking distance of a location.
Question 3: How much are people likely to benefit?
Answering this question adds details that help indicate how much people value the benefits they
receive, based on several factors.
A. Quality of the service
This evaluates the quality of a service, assuming that higher quality services have greater value.
Because service quality depends on how well the system functions, this step often will involve
some type of functional assessment. In the simplest case, you might use the scores from a rapid
functional assessment such as Miller and Golet (2001) to provide an indicator of quality.
Alternatively, you might use quality indicators specific to the service and benefit and related to
people's preferences.
Example: When comparing the scenic quality of two locations, you might consider
factors like the presence of open water, which people often say addsto scenic
beauty; or presence of industrial buildings, which detract from scenic beauty.
B. Substitutes for the service and scarcity of the service
This evaluates the availability and quality of substitutes for the service (either other sites nearby
that provide the same service or technological substitutes for a service), assuming that fewer
substitutes and/or lower quality substitutes lead to greater value. Generally, the number and
quality of substitutes provides a good measure of the service's scarcity. However, for some
services, additional factors related to its supplyfactor into the evaluation of scarcity. In general,
the more scarce something is, the higher its value.
Example: Other nearby wetlands might provide natural substitutes for the flood
risk reduction services of a site being evaluated; levees, dams, or storm sewers
might provide technological substitutes.
-------
C. Quality of complements
This evaluates levels of quality of things that complement the service, assuming that higher
quality complements lead to greater value. This step is only important for services that depend
on complementary factors in order for people to benefit. While complements are very important
for some services, notably recreation, for others they are not needed, although their presence
can lead to higher value. This is an optional indicator.
Example: A handicap-accessible entrance can increase benefits from a recreational or
educational site. A higher quality boat launch area can increase boating benefits; orthe
availability of a viewing platform can increase bird watching benefits.
D. Strength of people's preferences
This evaluates how much people care about or value the service, assuming that stronger
preferences lead to greater value. In some cases, it might be useful to group people by strength
of preferences or types of preferences, in order to better evaluate tradeoffs. It might be possible
to learn about how strongly people prefer a service in a particular location, eitherthrough their
\he Ply/)/ demonstrated interest (for example, by participating in public programs or
c^ meetings or writing lettersto the editor), or by talking with the public. This
> step may also look at people's willingness or ability to substitute forthe
service (their adaptability), by evaluating aspects such as how necessary a
service and its benefits are to the people who benefit. This is an optional
indicator.
Example: People with limited access to transportation will rely more heavily on sites
within walking distance, and be less able to substitute sites that are beyond walking
distance. Thus, they will prefer sites within their neighborhood.
Question 4: What are the social equity implications?
This question assesses issues such as equity and fairness or whether particularly vulnerable groups
might benefit from the service. It is generally evaluated at the site level, rather than for each service
individually, although there could be service- or benefit-specific aspects to consider. See the
additional information page on this topic (page 33) for more information.
Question 5: How reliable is the service expected to be over time?
This question assesses how likely it is that the service will continue to be provided over the longer
term. It is generally evaluated at the site level, rather than for each service individually, although
there could be service- or benefit-specific aspects to consider. A restored site may be at risk of being
degraded over time if it is subject to different types of pressures or stressors. This step includes
indicators of factors that affect the probability that a site will continue to function at a level that can
provide the service overtime. Seethe additional information page on this topic (page 34) for more
information.
Example: One site might be located in an area with strong development
pressure, while another might be surrounded by protected land. The second site
is likely to function more reliably overtime.
-------
Social Equity
The social equity assessment looks more closely at the groups who benefit, to assess concerns
related to environmental justice and potential effects on particularly vulnerable populations.
Because people prefer to live in neighborhoods with more environmental amenities, housing prices
tend to be higher in those neighborhoods, which can limit some people's access to environmental
amenities. Also, neighborhoods with fewer natural areas and more impervious surfaces tend to be
more at risk for flooding and other negative environmental impacts. People living in these
neighborhoods may have fewer resources for dealing with such events.
An assessment of social equity would consider the groups of people who benefit from restoration.
Fora general assessment of social equity, conduct a
single assessment for each site, evaluating people
within the greatest distance for estimating who may
benefit (which, for our example, is 2.5 miles for flood
risk reduction). A more detailed assessment can look
at individual benefit distances. However, since the
objective is to compare across sites, using
populations within a 2.5 mile radius will most likely
be sufficient.
One method for assessing social equity isthe Social
Vulnerability Index (SoVI; Cutter 2003), which
combines a set of statistically-relevant demographic
variables summarizing information on race, class,
wealth, age, ethnicity, and other factors into an
index (see http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/
sovi.aspxfor more information). It is intended to
indicate the capacity for preparedness and response to environmental hazards, though the same
demographics are likely to indicate Environmental Justice concerns. The SoVI is available at the
county level for the entire United States, and there is a SoVI mapper by census tract at http://
svi.cdc.gov/map.aspx.
For a more detailed
assessment...
Fora more detailed
comparison of specific
benefits, you may want
to include specific
stakeholder concerns and
local knowledge for the
areas of interest.
Social Vulnerability Index in the Woonasquatucket Watershed
Map of Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI)
across the Woonasquatucket River Watershed.
Social Vulnerability Index
^B High
Medium High
Medium
Medium Low
Maps of the SoVI in the area surrounding each of our example sites.
33
-------
Reliability of the Service
How likely is it that a site will continue to provide services into the future?
It is possible that stressors such as development near or at a site will lead to detrimental changes
in the future, which could cause functioning at the site to fall below thresholds where valued
services are produced.
In general, a site in an area with high development
pressure is likely to have lower reliability. If this
assumption holds, the level of projected
development in the vicinity of the site can serve as
an indicator of lower reliability; and protected land
surrounding a site can serve as an indicator of higher
reliability.
For our examples, we used Rhode Island Statewide
Planning's projected development for 2025 to
compile reliability indicators. We selected the area
of the site plus a 5oo-foot buffer, and calculated the
percent of this total area classified as either
protected or limited development. This included the
Rl projected land use in 2025
land use categories "conservation/limited," "major
parks and open space," "reserve," and "water bodies."
A higher percent of nearby limited development indicates greater reliability.
Woonasquatucket
2025 Projected Landuse
I Sewered Urban Developed
Urban Development
Non-urban Developed
Reserve
Narraganselt Indian Lands
Conservation/Limited
Prime Farmland
I Major Parks & Open Space
Water Bodies
#448 Restoration Site
Greystone Restoration Site 2025 Projected Landuse
• Sewered Urban Developed
Urban Development
Non-urban Developed
Reserve
Narragansett Indian Lands
Conservation/Limited
Prime Farmland
• Major Parks & Open Space
Water Bodies
Maps showing projected land use in 2025 around our example sites.
For a more detailed assessment...
Development pressure isjust one possible indicator of reliability, and appliesto the entire site.
Other service-specific indicators may be also be chosen. Examples of reliability indicators specific
to flood or storm water regulation are percent imperviousnessand runoff curve number (a
parameter used to predict runoff or infiltration) (Bousquin et al. 2015). Higher values of these
measures would indicate lower reliability. A more detailed stressor assessment based on local
conditions in the surrounding area may be warranted, and may be evaluated using modeling and
expert judgment of potential threats to a site.
-------
Step 3 in Action—Compile Benefit Indicators: Flood Risk Reduction
Question i: Can people benefit from the ecosystem
service?
For people to benefit from floodwater regulation due to restoration,
people must be in the floodplain downstream of the site and
currently at risk of flooding. For a restored site to provide floodwater
regulation, it must be able to retain or slow runoff. Complementary
inputs are not required for people to benefit from floodwater
regulation.
Photo by: Tim O'Connor WRWC
A. Is there evidence of demand for the service?
There is demand for flood risk reduction benefits if there is existing flood risk to assets in the
downstream floodplain (Bagstad 2013; Boyd and Wainger 2003). For initial screening, confirmation
that flooding occurs downstream of the site is adequate.
In the checklist, mark yes if flooding has occurred or if there is a flood zone downstream of the
restoration site.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we found, based on newspaper reports, that there
was a history of flooding in the watershed. This information was readily available because of large floods
that occurred in 2010.
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
A wetland must meet certain criteria to perform its function of retaining or slowing a given
^t= volume of water. First, the runoff water that would otherwise go downstream must be able
-^1 ft- to flow into the wetland (Boyd and Wainger 2002). Second, the wetland must be able to
^^^^^^J retain enough of a volume for long enough to affect the maximum flood depth
downstream. The soil infiltration, storage capacity and vegetation in the wetland will all
influence this function ( Chan 2006; Layke 2009; Nedkov 2012).
In the checklist, mark yes if you expect the site to be able to retain water that would otherwise flow
into the floodplain downstream. You may use an existing functional assessment tool to evaluate this.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we used results from a functional assessment
(Miller and Golet 2001) to evaluate this.
C. Is specific infrastructure or other "complementary input" needed and, if yes, is it available?
No other inputs are necessary for people to receive flood risk reduction benefits, so this question is
not relevant.
If questions A and B are answered "yes,"then people are able to benefit.
Continue to the next question.
If not, continue to the next benefit.
35
-------
Question 2: How many people benefit?
For the purpose of developing indicators, we assume that people who benefit must be in the
downstream floodplain and must experience some level of flood risk. Defining the floodplain can
be difficult without previousflood modeling or assessments. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) maps flood risksfor most of the United States — usually the 100 and 500 year
flood zones— under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Many previous studies have
used these flood risk maps to identify at-risk assets in the floodplain (Bagstad et al. 2011; Boyd and
Wainger 2002; Chan 2006; Daniel et al. 2009).
For people to receive flood risk reduction benefits, the wetland providing the service must be
upstream of structures in a floodplain, yet close enough to effectively reduce flooding. Previous
assessments have used a distance of 5 miles downstream of a wetland to delineate areas where
people may benefit (Boyd and Wainger 2003; Miller and Golet 2001). Our in-depth flood modeling
analysis in the Woonasquatucket watershed found that a conservative distance for defining flood
risk reduction benefits is 2.5 miles, based on the average distance for a set of restorations and
storm events evaluated. For larger restorations and smaller storm events, the average distance
increases to 4.6 miles (Bousquin et al. 2015). Therefore, we suggest using a distance of 2.5 miles to
estimate the most likely benefits area in the Woonasquatucket Watershed and similar settings.
There are several ways to quantify the number of people or economically valuable assets located
within the downstream benefits area. Land use and land cover maps can identify developed land at
risk (Bagstad et al. 2014; He et al. 2015). Spatial datasets or aerial imagery can identify individual
structures or public infrastructure (such as highways and
railways) at risk (Bagstad et al. 2011). Census data and
maps of population density can identify the population at
risk (Brander et al. 2010; Ghermandi et al. 2010).
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Coastal Flood Exposure mapper
(NOAA 2015) allows users to view FEMA flood zones over
base map imagery for some parts of the country.
Although this mapper allows users to do a cursory
exploration of assets in the flood zones, where updated
FEMA flood risk maps and imagery are available they may
provide better estimates of how many people benefit.
In the checklist, record the number of people or structures in FEMA flood zones within 2.5 miles
downstream of the restoration site, using either address, parcel or population data.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, the maps below show the process followed
for the Greystone restoration site. First, we used the FEMA flood zones to identify areas with flood
risk in the watershed (blue-shaded areas on the maps). Next, we limited the areas with flood risk to
those that are also within 2.5 miles (green circle on Map A) and downstream of the restoration site
(Map B). Restoration of the site may reduce flood risks within this downstream area. Structures
within this area that may be protected are shown in orange, and can be used to estimate the
number of people who benefit.
Example of a map produced using
NOAA's Coastal Flood Exposure Mapper
-------
Downstream Flood Risk Areas
2.5-mile Buffer
O Addresses 2.5 miles downstream
Downstream FEMA Flood Zones
~I 100 Year
500 Year
Flood Risk Areas
2.5-mile Buffer
FEMA Flood Zones
j 100 Year
I 500 Year
Example application to the Greystone restoration site. Map A shows the FEMA flood zones (blue) and areas
within 2.5 miles of the restoration site (green). Map B shows the same datasets, but limits the flood zones
(blue) to those within 2.5 miles downstream of the site. Addresses (orange) within these downstream flood
zones may receive reduced flood risk benefits.
For a more detailed assessment...
There are two risk zones identified in FEMA flood maps, 5oo-year (.2 % chance of occurring in any
one year) and loo-year (1% chance of occurring in anyone year). You might separately assess
these two zones, which helps to quantify the circumstances (i.e. storm size) where people may
receive benefits. People or structures in the 500 year flood zone are at lower risk and likely
benefit less.
Most of the people and structures who will benefit are within 2.5 miles downstream of the
restoration site, but under certain circumstances there may be people and structures farther
downstream who benefit to a smaller degree. You may separately count the affected number
of people within 2.510 5 miles downstream of the restoration site. Those identified in this second
distance band benefit lessthan those identified within 2.5 miles downstream of the site.
You may also evaluate whether there are particularly important assets protected by the site.
This could include important infrastructure such as utility stations or emergency response
infrastructure, or irreplaceable structures of cultural significance (Boyd and Wainger 2002; Boyd
and Wainger 2003). The assessment may already identify these types of structures as potentially
benefiting, but further note of their importance could assist in decision-making.
Infrastructure other than buildings, such as roads, bridges and especially evacuation routes, are
prone to flooding as well. These types of infrastructure can be identified using the same flood
maps and downstream distances (Boyd and Wainger 2002; Boyd and Wainger 2003). However, you
should considertheir elevationsto determine whetherthey are above the average flood depth.
37
-------
Question 3: How much are people likely to benefit?
A. Quality of the service
As the quality of flood water regulation services from a restoration site increase, flood risk
reduction benefits increase as well. The more water a site detains or slows and desynchronizes
from the peak flow, the greater the reduction in flood volume or depth during a storm (Bousquin
et al. 2015; Kousky et al. 2013).
As wetland size increases, its retention capacity and therefore flood water regulation service
quality typically increases (He et al. 2015). This is not likely to be a linear relationship; capacity
per acre is likely to decrease with size. Restrictions at the wetland outflow can also increase
retention or slow water leaving the wetland, increasing the volume of water removed from the
peakflow.
In the checklist, note the size of the restoration site and indicate (yes/no) if there are features
such as outflow restrictions that may increase the site's retention volume.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we measured the size of each restoration
site and determined presence of enhancing features using results of the previously performed
functional assessment (Miller and Golet, 2001).
B. Substitutes for the service and scarcity of the service
Other wetlands in the vicinity of a wetland restoration site may provide substitute sources of
flood risk reduction benefits. Dams, levees, and other types of gray infrastructure can also reduce
flood risks and may act as technological substitutes for wetlands. Restoring an additional site will
increase benefits more when there are fewer natural or technological substitutes. Thus, the
existence of either other wetlands or gray infrastructure can reduce the value of flood reduction
benefits from a wetland restoration, depending on their locations and the size of the storm
(Brander et al. 2012; Brander et al. 2013; deGroot et al. 2012).
To evaluate natural substitutes, estimate the area of existing wetlands within a 2.5 mile radius of
the site. To evaluate technological substitutes, look for dams, levees, or other gray infrastructure
between the restoration site and the flood zone 2.5 miles downstream.
If using the FEMA flood maps to identify assets at risk, note that often infrastructure such as
dams and levees have already been considered in the modeling used to create these maps. Since
these flood maps are often based on observed gage flow, in some ways they also consider pre-
existing wetlands. This implies that substitutes have already been considered and do not need
further assessment. Also, in the northeastern U.S., many dams are "run of the river," meaning
they have non-functioning structures and therefore provide very little flood water retention. If
this is the case, they will not serve as substitutes for wetlands.
In the checklist, note any dams, levees or other gray infrastructure that is able to reduce flood
waters between the restoration site and the area where people may benefit (Question 2). Note
the number or percent cover of existing wetlands within a 2.5-mile radius of the wetland
restoration site. A higher numberfor either of these measures indicates lower value forthe
restoration of an additional site.
-------
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we noted gray infrastructure within 2.5
miles downstream of the restoration sites. We also calculated the percent of the area within a 2.5
mile radius around the sites that was already wetlands, using the National Wetland Inventory
dataset(USFWS20i4).
For a more detailed assessment...
Substitutes and scarcity are specific to the people who benefit. Rather than identifying the
number or percent cover of existing wetlands within a 2.5-mile radius of the restoration site, a
more accurate estimate is the number or percent cover of existing wetlands within a 2.5-mile
radius and upstream of assets protected by the restoration site.
C. Quality of complements
This is not applicable for flood risk reduction.
D. Strength of people's preferences
People who benefit from flood risk reduction will value those benefits differently based on their
risk perception. Values typically increase following a flood or in other cases where people's
awareness of the risks is heightened (Daniel et al. 2009). The availability of or participation in
flood insurance programs can also influence people's perception of risk. Age, education and
environmental behavior can all influence risk perception as well (Martin-Lopez 2012).
In the checklist, indicate (yes/no) if people who benefit are aware of and concerned about flood
risk in their location. Information such as news coverage of recent flooding, flood insurance
program participation or local knowledge can all be used to determine this.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed
people who benefit are aware of and concerned about flooding
throughout the watershed, because of recent large floods.
For a more detailed assessment...
By engaging the public or stakeholders, you may learn more about
their risk perceptions and concerns regarding flooding.
Question 4: Social equity and other concerns
Many characteristics of the affected population can make them more socially vulnerable in the face
of floods, and increase the time and resources it takes for them to recover after a flood. Lower
income communities are likely to be more socially vulnerable to flood risks. Daniel et al. (2009)
found a lower willingnessto pay for reduced risk exposure in areas with higher income. Higher
income allows people to pay for insurance to reduce the costs of floods, mitigation actions on their
property (such as elevating their home) to decrease damage, or replacement and repairs after a
flood. The Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI; Cutter 2003) combines several statistically-relevant socio
-economic indicators, including income, into an indexthat can be used to compare vulnerability of
different populations.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we estimated the SoVI for each site.
,**
-------
Step 3 in Action—Compile Benefit Indicators: Scenic Views
Question i: Can people benefit from the ecosystem service?
For people to benefit from an improved scenic landscape due to restoration,
people must be able to see the landscape, and it must be aesthetically
pleasing compared to pre-restoration.
A. Is there evidence of demand forthe service?
If people are able to view the site, either from nearby homes or from
transportation networks that pass within view of the restoration site,
then there is assumed to be demand.
Photo by: Rick McKinney
In the checklist, mark yes if the site is believed to be visible from homes, roads, or trails.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we knew from Google Street View that the
Greystone site would be visible from homes and roads; and, using satellite imagery, that site #448 would
not be visible. Normally, if there is evidence that there is no demand no further assessment would be
necessary. To be sure, we still assessed how many people benefit for both sites, and confirmed for site
#448 that there were no people within the benefits area.
For a more detailed assessment...
You may engage stakeholders orthe public to determine whether people care *
about scenic views in the area, and whether the site will provide views that
people appreciate.
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
To provide scenic view benefits, restored areas should contain features and characteristics that people
enjoy. Even if a restored site is not aesthetically notable, it may increase scenic view benefits if it replaces
or obscures areas of previous visual blight common to urban settings. One way to screen for this is by
identifying the previous land cover at the site as a baseline for comparison (Bagstad et al. 2011).
Features and characteristics that people like to look at do not always correspond with higher wetland
functioning. For example, undisturbed wetlands function better, but people may negatively perceive
them as "weedy" and un-maintained.
Although restoration sites must be large enough to influence the viewscape, previous work has shown
that sites less than 0.75 acre may still provide benefits (Tapsuwan et al. 2009).
In the checklist, mark yes if you expect the site to have features or characteristics, such as presence
of open water, that improve the scenic view.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed all sites will have appeal.
C. Is specific infrastructure or other "complementary input" needed and, if yes, is it available?
No other inputs are necessary for people to enjoy scenic views.
If questions A and B are answered "yes," then people are able to benefit.
Continue to the next question.
If not, continue to the next benefit.
-------
Question 2: How many people benefit?
For people to benefit from a scenic landscape, they must be within visible range and have an
unobstructed line of sight to the landscape. In open areas, the visible range can extend very far.
Although features in the background affect scenic view quality, most urban sites are too small to
influence a large viewscape and only affect the foreground. In an urban context, there may also be
obstructions between the viewer and the site.
Visibility and viewshed models can be used to estimate the areas visible from individual residences
(Bagstad et al. 2014; Sander and Polasky 2009; Sharp et al. 2015), but applying these models can
be time- and computationally-intensive. Without using these models, you may assume that
people with homes neighboring the site and any natural area around it are most likely to be able
to enjoy seeing the restored site (deGroot et al. 2010). EPA's EnviroAtlas (Pickard et al. 2015)
generalizes this proximity and identifies the population within 50 meters (about 160 feet) as
having potential window views of water. Holzinger (2014) also used 50 metersto identify houses
likely to have views, but suggested that houses further away, at 100 meters (about 325 feet), are
also likely to see the site, though at a lower probability since the houses directly bordering the site
sometimes obstruct the view. Other work has used less conservative proximity generalizations (i
km, Sander and Polasky 2009; 0.5 miles, Wainger et al. 2001), and although some people at those
distances may be able to see the site, it is much less likely.
In the checklist, record the number of people, using addresses, parcels or population data,
within i6ofeet/5o meters and from 160 to 325feet/ioo meters from the site. Note whether trails
or well-traveled roads pass within 325 feet of the site.
For our example application in the
Woonasquatucket, the map shows the process
followed to evaluate the Greystone restoration
site. First, we created two buffer areas around the
site, one covering o to 160 feet (dark green) and
one covering >i6o-325 feet (light green). Next, we
identified addresses within these distances (E-gn
addresses in orange, RIGIS 2014). Imagery such as
that shown in the map also allows for easy
identification of homes in visible range of a site.
Roads were identified using a dataset (E-gn roads
in black, RIGIS 2013); but again could easily be
identified from imagery. There were no existing
trails near the site, but a proposed bike path was
identified (bike paths, Rl DOT 2010).
For a more detailed assessment...
If metrics gauging how many people use trails or
roads within viewing distance (for example, traffic
counts) are available, you can use them to estimate the number of people who benefit from
scenic views along these routes. Alternatively, you can rank roads or trails based on type (for
example: a local road or a county highway, a local trail or a state park trail).
Addresses in view
Roads in Vi
Potential Path in Vew
Greyttone Site
160-ft(50-in) Buffer
325-0 nOO-mlBufler
Example of map used to assess addresses
(orange), roads (black) and trails (blue) within
potential viewing distance of Greystone
Restoration Site.
-------
Question 3: How much are people likely to benefit?
A. Quality of the service
Because enjoyment of aesthetics is subjective, the features and characteristics of ^^
a landscape that one person enjoys may not be enjoyed universally. Features that i
many people prefer include open water and views with diverse land cover types I
and vegetation (Bagstad et al. 2011; Dramstad et al. 2006; Gobster and Westphal I
2004; Mougiakakou et al. 2005; Nassauer 2004; Ode et al. 2008; Radford and •
James 2013; Sander and Polasky 2009).
People prefer a larger total visible area (Dhami and Deng 2010), a characteristic that relates to
site openness (Radford and James 2013) and relief (Mougiakakou et al. 2005). It is difficult to
estimate the total visible area from a residence without visibility and viewshed modeling.
However, because the restored site is only one component of the entire viewscape, the smaller
or farther away the site is and the larger the total viewscape, the less impact the site restoration
is likely to have on the scenic quality of the view.
In the checklist, note any features or characteristics of the restoration site that give it
particular aesthetic interest, such as open water, varied vegetation, size, and relationship to the
larger landscape.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed both sites would have
features or characteristics of interest based on images of the sites from Google Street View and
satellite imagery.
B. Substitutes for the service and scarcity of the service
Technological substitutes do not exist for scenic views of nature, although the built landscape
may provide different types of aesthetic benefits, such as city skylines. People who already
benefit from being able to see one wetland can still benefit from seeing additional wetlands
within the viewscape. However, these additional benefits will be smaller than if there were no
pre-existing wetlands. People who receive scenic view benefits are able to receive benefits from
substitute wetlands or other open water in all directions.
EPA's EnviroAtlas (Pickard et al. 2015) calculated the percent of residential populations, based on
population density, with potential views of water for select communities. Where available, this
dataset estimates how many residents in an area may already have views of open water, giving
an estimate of the availability of substitute views.
To determine the number of substitutes, we suggest doubling the outer buffer used to determine
how many people benefit (Question 2), to 200 meters (approx. 650 feet), and estimating the area
of wetlands and open water within this distance. A higher area indicates more substitutes, and
thus lower value for an additional site.
In the checklist, note the total amount of wetlands and open water within 650 feet of the
restoration site.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we calculated the percent of the area
around the site that is wetlands or water using the National Wetland Inventory dataset (US FWS
2014).
For a more detailed assessment...
Substitutes and scarcity are specific to each person who benefits, so ideally the number or area
of visible wetlands or open water should be attributed to each residence within viewing distance
of the proposed restoration site. To evaluate this, instead of creating a buffer around the
wetland restoration site, create a 100 meter ( approx. 325 foot) buffer around each residence
that may benefit and estimate the density of wetlands or open water in the buffer area..
-------
Quality of complements
As discussed in the service quality section, people generally prefer diversity of land cover and
vegetation in the landscape. While some land covertypes, such as urban or industrial, may have
negative aesthetic values; others, such as forests, grassland, and even light agricultural, when
paired with wetlands, may increase the total aesthetic value.
In the checklist, add up the areas of other natural land cover within 650 feet of the restoration
site, and note their types.
For our example application in the
Woonasquatucket, we determined land
cover types using the Rhode Island landuse
dataset (Rl DEM and Rl DOA 2014). For other
locations, the nationally available National
Land Cover Database (USGS 2014) or
imagery may be used. In the example map
for the Greystone restoration site, natural
land cover types (shades of green) include
recreation, vacant land, and deciduous
forest.
Map of land covertypes around the Greystone Site.
u/
*
For a more detailed assessment...
Complements are specific to each person
who benefits, so ideally the diversity of land
cover types can be more accurately estimated for each residence rather than the restoration
site. For each residence,
add up the number of other natural land covertypes within 325 feet.
D. Strength of people's preferences
Different users have different perceptions of what they find scenic and
t attractive about a landscape (Nassauer 2004). These differences do not
Q
* seem to correspond to socioeconomic indicators, but may be influenced
by culture and location (Gobster and Westphal 2004). As listed above in
the section on quality of views, some aspects of landscapes are more
universally preferred. In order to better understand preferences in your
location, this would be a place to involve the public to learn about their visual preferences and
to potentially incorporate aspects that satisfy local preferences in your restoration.
In the checklist, note any relevant details regarding people's visual preferences and how well
the restored site is likely to meet them.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed all people who may benefit
from either site have the same strength of preference for scenic view benefits.
Question 4: Social equity and other concerns
In areas with high population density and little greenspace, a vegetated view or view of open
water can provide benefits to populations with little access to nature.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we estimated the SoVI for each site.
For a more detailed assessment... You may also note whether populations that are
underserved by natural amenities are likely to view the site.
-------
Step 3 in Action—Benefit Indicators: Environmental Education
Question i: Can people benefit from the ecosystem
service?
For people to benefit from increased environmental education
opportunities because of a restoration, the site must be accessible to
learners and offer habitats of high enough quality to attract wildlife.
A. Is there evidence of demand for the service?
Many metrics are available as indicators of demand for environmental
education. Programs (K-12 programs, family programs, field trips,
informal education, self-guided tours, citizen involvement, offender education, and so on) that take
place at a site will indicate demand (Burkhard et al. 2014; Loomis and Paterson 2014). Where there are
no current opportunities for environmental education, requests for programs may indicate demand for
future opportunities (Burkhard et al. 2014; Moore and Hunt 2012).
In the checklist, mark yes if there are indications that people care about and might participate in
environmental education at or near the restoration site.
Photo by: WRWC
In our example application, the Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council has
sponsored several educational programs, including Fish in the Classroom and
River Adventures After School, indicating demand for environmental education
in the watershed.
BifH
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
To provide educational benefits, restored areas should contain features or
wildlife with special educational or scientific interest (deGroot et al. 2010). The probability of features or
wildlife being present increases as habitat quality increases, but a site does not need to have high
habitat quality to provide educational benefits.
In the checklist, mark yes if you expect the site to support wildlife or have features of educational
interest.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assume all sites will be able to support wildlife
of educational interest after restoration.
C. Is specific infrastructure or other "complementary input" needed and, if yes, is it available?
While there are many complementsthat can increase educational benefits, no other inputs are
necessary for people to learn from environmental educational opportunities.
If questions A and B are answered "yes," then people are able to benefit.
Continue to the next question.
If not, continue to the next service.
-------
Question 2: How many people benefit?
Because learners must travel some distance to the wetland site to benefit from environmental
education, determining who may benefit will depend on how far people are willing to travel. The
choice of distance can lead to large variations in the estimated number of people who benefit. In
the literature, distances children traveled from school to wetlands for educational field trips ranged
from 1/2 mile to 2 km (i 1/4 mile) to over 51 min by vehicle (Holzinger 2014; Moore and Hunt 2012).
Urban wetlands, which may lack high quality habitat or educational facilities, are more likely to
attract users who are within walking distance than those who will drive long distances. Studies
have used a 5-6 minute walking distance as appropriate for children (Handley et al., 2003), which
equates to 100-400 meters (approx. 1/10 to 1/4 mile). Based on this, we suggest a i/4-mile distance
to identify schools and other educational institutions that could receive environmental education
benefits.
In the checklist, record the number of schools within 1/4-171 ile of the restoration site.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, the
Graniteville public school and Johnston childcare center are both
within 1/4 mile of the Greystone restoration site (shown in map;
RIDOA2008).
For a more detailed assessment...
Much nature-based education takes place outside of learning
institutions during unstructured play. To account for this type of
educational benefit, a i/4-mile buffer can be applied to count how
many households are within walking distance of the site. Since
children aren't the only potential users, this also accounts for
adults receiving environmental education benefits. This metric is
particularly relevant if the site has educational signage or other
features that make it more suited for education (See Question 3,
, i , Map showing schools within
1/4 mile of the Greystone site.
Question 3: How much are people likely to benefit?
A. Quality of the service
Even wetlands with poor habitat quality may have unique features or wildlife that are valuable
for education. However, integration with open spaces, presence of charismatic species,
perceptions of ecosystem health, and opportunities to see wildlife and megafauna all add to
the level of environmental education benefits received (Loomisand Paterson 2014; Martin-
Lopez et al. 2011; Moore and Hunt 2012). Additional wetland and other natural habitat areas
around the site often increase habitat quality and educational opportunities on the site.
Functional assessments of habitat quality could be used as an indicator of learning opportunity
service quality.
In the checklist, note any habitats, features or wildlife that give the site particular educational
interest.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we used scores from the previously
conducted functional assessment (Miller and Golet 2001) to account for service quality.
-------
B. Substitutes for the service and scarcity of the service
While museums and zoos offer similar educational benefits, they are not direct substitutes for
environmental education gained through interactions with plants and animals at natural sites. If
there are closer wetlands that are equally accessible and of equal quality, or equidistant wetlands
that are of higher educational quality, it is likely that educational programing will take place there
instead. A simple way to estimate the number of substitute wetlands around a restoration site is to
double the area used to identify people who may benefit (1/4 mile), resulting in a i/2-mile buffer,
and count other wetlands that may provide educational benefits within this area.
In the checklist, note how many wetlands suitable for educational use are within a i/2-mile
distance of the restoration site.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we mapped a i/2-mile buffer around each
restoration site and measured the density of wetlands as percent area using the National Wetland
Inventory dataset (blue; US FWS 2014).
For a more detailed assessment...
Substitutes and scarcity are specific to the
people who benefit rather than the site where
they originate. A better way to assess scarcity
of wetland learning opportunities is to measure
the density of wetlands within i/4-mile distance
from all educational institutions.
In our example application in the
Woonasquatucket, the Graniteville public
school and Johnston child care center are both
within 1/4 mile of the Greystone restoration site
so we chose to identify the density of wetlands
within i/4-mile distance of those institutions
(shown in map as pink area around black
points), using the National Wetland Inventory
(blue areas in the map; US FWS 2014).
Map showing i/2-mile buffer (purple) around the
Greystone restoration site (black), and i/^-mile
buffers (pink) around the two educational
institutions in the neighborhood. Existing
wetlands within these areas are shown in blue.
C. Quality of complements
Factors that allow for and enhance educational
opportunities are very influential in determining
how much people may benefit from environmental
education opportunities. Educational signage, interpretive centers, and rangers and other
educational staff are all examples of complementsthat increase educational benefits (Holzinger
2014; Loomis and Paterson 2014; Moore and Hunt 2012). Paths, boardwalks, boat launches, bike
racks and other ways to improve access may also increase educational benefits. The types, and in
some cases density (e.g. number of signs per acre), of complements can be used as measures of
their overall quality (Burkhard et al. 2014).
In the checklist, record the types and quality of complementary infrastructure available at or
proposed for the restoration site. Note the quality, number or density of each if applicable.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed all restoration sites would
receive the same level of educational signage describing the restoration.
-------
D. Strength of people's preferences
Although all the people identified in Question 2 are able to receive educational benefits, some
educational institutions are more likely to take advantage of these learning opportunities than
others, and some wetlands will be preferred over others.
It can be very difficult to characterize what makes a wetland a good
candidate site for educational use and which educational institutions are
5 more likely to take advantage of such learning opportunities. Schools with
j£.
after-school programs may be able to offer more short field trips. Having
teachers who are interested in using wetlands in their curricula can also
make a big difference, as they are often able to bring in other interested
teachers. Engaging these interested teachers can help you learn what
wetland characteristics are preferred for integration with their existing or proposed curricula.
In the checklist, note yes/no if the wetland has characteristics that allow for integration with
the curricula of educational institutions expected to benefit.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed both sites would have
characteristics that would appeal to nearby educational institutions.
For a more detailed assessment...
Benefit metrics are likely to be specific to each educational institution. One characteristic of
educational institutions that makes them better able to take advantage of educational
opportunities in wetlands is after school programs. For each educational institution, note the
types of programs provided.
Question 4: Social equity and other concerns
Children in more densely populated areas, and especially those of minority ethnic groups, are less
likely to have access to environmental education opportunities (UK NEA 2011).
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we estimated the SoVI for each site to
evaluate social equity.
For a more detailed assessment...
You may want to note whether the educational institutions that will potentially benefit from the
restoration serve children from highly urbanized areas and/or minority children.
-------
Step 3 in Action—Compile Benefit Indicators: Recreation
Photo by: WRWC
Question i: Can people benefit from the ecosystem
service?
For people to benefit from increased recreational opportunities due
to restoration, they must be willing and able to travel to the site to
recreate. Depending on the type of recreation, the site may need
to have certain complementary inputs to support recreation of
that type.
A. Is there evidence of demand forthe service?
If people are interested in a recreational activity that the restoration site supports, then there is demand
for increased recreational opportunities of that type (Bagstad 2013). There are several waysto measure
current use of resources for recreation, such as the number of visitors and annual recreation visitor days
(Burkhard et al. 2014; Layke 2009; Loomis and Paterson 2014; Martin-Lopez 2014),
or photos taken during recreation (Sharp et al. 2015). Where there are no current «f
opportunities for a given type of recreation, results of questionnaires or t^"
participation in activities associated with that type of recreation (i.e.
memberships, licenses, etc.) may indicate demand for future recreation
opportunities (Bagstad et al. 2011; Burkhard et al. 2014).
For a general assessment, indicators of demand for all types of recreation are adequate; but if assessing a
specific type of recreation (for example, canoeing), use demand indicators specific to that activity, such as
the number of people who canoe in local waterways.
In the checklist, mark yes if people care about recreation at this location.
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed demand at all sites.
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
Smaller sites are unable to support certain types of recreational activities. Handley et al. (2003) found
that people did not regularly visit woods of less than 2 hectares (5 acres). Koppen et al. (2014) used the
Norwegian Ministry of Environment's 0.5 hectare (1.2 acre) minimum size for play and recreation areas,
but recognized that this might eliminate some smaller green spaces that are important for children. A
wetland restoration may be a smaller component of a larger green space, so caution should be exercised
in using too small a size threshold.
Sites may have natural features or qualities that make them unsuitable for specific types of recreation.
For example, poor water quality may make swimming unsafe, or contaminated fish will limit fish
consumption. Depending on the types of recreation being included, you may need to further characterize
the site's ability to provide recreational opportunities.
In the checklist, list the types of recreation anticipated at the site, and indicate whether the site is
sufficient to provide those types of recreation (yes or no).
In our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed all sites would be able to support some
form of recreational activity.
-------
C. Is specific infrastructure or other "complementary input" needed and, if yes, is it
available?
Certain recreational activities require additional complements (features or infrastructure) that
allow people to engage in that activity. Access points are required for most recreational
activities, since users must be able to access the site to be able to recreate there. Complements
specific to recreational activities are common. For example, hiking and biking require trails, and
boating requires boat launch ramps.
If conducting a general assessment of recreational benefits, it may be
practical to list recreational activities supported by available features or
infrastructure. This list is useful as it allows you to prioritize sites by the
recreational activities supported without doing an entire assessment
specific to each activity. For example, if two sites are otherwise equivalent
but one has a biking trail, the presence of the trail prioritizes it without
needing an entire assessment specific to biking recreation.
In the checklist, indicate (yes/no or NA) if any necessary complementary inputs exist for the
relevant activities.
Our example application in the Woonasquatucket used a generic assessment not specific to
any recreation types, so we assumed required complements to be available but noted any
complementary inputs that would enable specific types of recreation in Question 3 part C.
If questions A, B and C are answered "yes," then people are able to benefit.
Continue to the next question.
If not, continue to the next benefit.
Question 2: How many people benefit?
The number of people able to benefit depends on how far they are willing to travel to reach a site
to recreate. As the required travel distance increases, the burden to the user increases, in both
travel time and associated travel costs (Holzinger 2014; Whitehead 2009). For users to travel
farther, their perception of how much they will benefit (Question 3) must increase.
Infrastructure that reduces the burden of traveling to a site will increase how many people can
benefit. This includes things like sidewalks or bike paths that provide access via alternative
transportation methods, and more direct routes via roads that reduce travel times (Brander et al.
2006; Chan 2006; Riechers 2016). In an urban context, users are more apt to use public
transportation, making nearby bus stops relevant (Riechers 2016).
For daily recreational trips, 80 % of users walk to the site (Handley 2003). Most studies have
suggested 5-10 minutes as the threshold for walking to a site, which translates to a distance of
100-500 meters (around 1/10 to 1/3 mile ) (Handley 2003; McPhearson et al. 2013; Trust for public
Lands 2015).
-------
Higher quality sites may attract people from greater distances who are driving from their residence to
recreate at the site. Studies have suggested a wide range of travel times (30-90 minutes) and
distances (from 1/2 mile to 6 miles) (Handley 2003; Lautenbach et al. 2011; Riechers 2016; Holzinger
2014; Sherrouse et al. 2011; Trust for Public Land 2015).
In the checklist, indicate the number of people who are within walking distance, using a 1/3-mile
bufferfrom the site. Indicate (yes/no) if there are bike trails and bus stops within the same i/3-mile
buffer.
In the checklist, indicate the number of people who are within easy driving distance of the site
based on i /2-mile and 1/2 to 6-mile buffers.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, the maps below show the analysis for the
Greystone restoration site. We included addresses based on the E-gn address dataset (orange, RIGIS
2014), bike trails based on existing or proposed trails (blue, Rl DOT 2010), and bus stops based on Rl
Public Transit Authority dataset (gray squares, RIPTA 2016). Map A shows the i/3-mile buffer around
the site, and Map B shows the i/2-mile and 1/2 to 6-mile buffers.
Accessible Distance for Recreation
• Addresses « < 1:2 mte
]l.'2Mle Around S«e
o Addresses la 6 Mfes
I I I 12 ekdfesArtxjrelSne
Map A shows addresses (orange circles); and features, both bus stops (gray squares) and a proposed
bike path (blue line), that are within a walking distance of 1/3 mile of the Greystone site (area high-
lighted in green). Map B shows all addresses within a short (0.5 mile, addresses in purple) or longer
(0.5-6 miles, addresses in orange) driving distance.
-------
Question 3: How much are people likely to benefit?
A. Quality of the service
Several characteristics of a site may enhance the recreational opportunities available there. Site
naturalness is one such characteristic (Handley 2003). Particularly in an urban context, a site
that feels unaltered and natural can offer an opportunity separate from the urban setting. The
scenic beauty of the site (see Scenic Views section) can enhance recreational experiences as
well (Gobster 1995; Loomis and Paterson 2014). Larger sites may also enhance the recreational
opportunities available (Handley 2003; Loomis and Paterson 2014; Moore and Hunt 2012).
In the checklist, record the total green space area including and adjacent to the restoration
site; that is, the total of the restoration site area and adjacent publicly accessible green space.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we measured the area of the restoration
site and the area of its parcel based on landuse (Rl DEM and Rl DOA 2014). For example, the
Greystone restoration site is on landuse designated as vacant and adjacent to landuse
designated as recreation so we included the area of these in the total green space area.
B. Substitutes for the service and scarcity of the service
Substitutes are especially important for assessing recreational benefits because users often
prefer specific sites. However, several guidelines have suggested using scarcity metrics as a
goal for providing recreational opportunities. For example, in the UK Handley (2003),
recommends i hectare (2.5 acres) of green space be available for every 1000 people.
Therefore, below this amount, one can assume that the benefits of additional recreational
areas do not decrease with quantity.
One way to estimate potential substitutes for those who benefit from the restoration site is to
double the extent of the restoration benefit areas (1/3, V2 and 6 miles become 2/3, i and 12
miles) and calculate total pre-existing green space areas in that radius.
In the checklist, quantify available substitute sites within each travel distance buffer (2/3, i,
and 12 miles) based on number of sites and total area.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we estimated areas of wetlands and
green spaces using existing spatial datasets (wetlands, US FWS 2014; and landuse, Rl DEM and
Rl DOA 2014).
For a more detailed assessment...
A more accurate estimate would quantify substitutes for each person who benefits. This can be
done by estimating a travel area for each person (1/3, Vz and 6 miles) and assessing existing
recreation.
-------
C. Quality of complements
Higher quality complements, such as infrastructure or other features, may enhance certain types
of recreational benefits (see Question i). This should be evaluated for each recreational activity
separately.
In the checklist, note the recreational activities of significance that the site can support and
describe the features and infrastructure that further enhance recreational benefits. Mark yes if the
site has complementary inputs that are either beyond the necessary minimum, or of particularly
high quality forthe recreational activities at the site.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we identified state outdoor recreation
facilities (Rl DEM 2014), fishing and boating access (Rl DEM 2012), bike paths (Rl DOT 2010),
and DEM hiking trails (Rl DEM 2015) that intersect or are adjacent to restoration sites.
D. Strength of people's preferences
User preferences are typically specific to each recreational activity (Bagstad 2013). For example,
additional miles of interconnected trail might be preferred by people using the trail for cycling
but not as important to those using it for walking. Generally speaking, people prefer recreating
in areas that are near the water, have a low slope, are integrated with other areas and feel safe
(Handley 2003; Moore and Hunt 2012; Sherrouse et al. 2011). Sitesthat users have more place
attachment to, such as those with cultural significance, or that users have been visiting fora long
time are often preferred (Bagstad et al. 2011; Handley 2003; Riechers 2016)
In the checklist, mark yes if the site has additional features or characteristics that people prefer.
Describe those features or characteristics.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we used a scenic areas dataset (Rl DEM
1989) to identify if the site might overlap or be adjacent to areas with extra scenic appeal, and
historic sites (RIHPC 1995)10 identify if the site might be overlapping or adjacent to areas with
extra cultural appeal.
Question 4: Social equity and other concerns
People in more densely populated areas, and especially those with fewer resources and less access to
transportation, are less likely to have access to outdoor recreational opportunities and are more likely
to benefit from the health benefits of outdoor recreation.
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we estimated the SoVI for each site to capture
these concerns.
For a more detailed assessment...
You may indicate whether the populations that can benefit from the site for recreation (Question 2)
are from densely populated areas, or are dependent on public transportation.
-------
Step 3 in Action—Compile Benefit Indicators: Birds
Photo by: USFWS
National Data Library
Question i: Can people benefit from the ecosystem service?
For people to benefit from increased bird watching opportunities because of
a restoration, both birds that people appreciate and people who enjoy watching
or hearing the birds must be present. Complementary inputs are not required.
A. Is there evidence of demand for the service?
An estimated 22 % of the US population and 27 % of New Englanders participate
in birding (USFWS 2001). If birders recognize the restoration area as a birding
area, there will be demand for increased bird watching opportunities (Bagstad
et al. 2011). Although it is unlikely that most restored urban wetlands would gain recognition as birding
areas, even more of the population enjoys seeing birds around their home (88 %; USFWS 2001) and many
people take actions to attract birds to their property (53.4 %; Clucas et al. 2015). These figures from the
literature indicate that if people are present, it is likely that some will appreciate birds.
In the checklist, mark yes if there is evidence that people around the site care about seeing and
hearing birds.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed all sites being assessed had demand
for birds.
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
To provide bird watching benefits, restored areas should be able to attract species of
^f birds that people like. Areas attract birds when the habitat they provide is of the right
^j^E type and sufficient quality for a species. Many birds require or prefer access to wet areas
^^4^^^ such as wetlands. Provision thresholds are met if the proposed restoration site is
^^^^^ expected to be of high enough quality to support some of these bird species.
In the checklist, indicate if provision thresholds are met or not (yes or no). If a
qualitative or species-based assessment has been done indicate the results for this site.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed all sites supported some bird species
of interest and applied a more detailed bird habitat functional assessment (see Appendix 3).
for a more detailed assessment...
Quality thresholds of proposed sites can be determined using a habitat function assessment tool such as
the one provided in Appendix 3.
C. Is specific infrastructure or other "complementary input" needed and, if yes, is it available?
No other inputs are necessary for people to enjoy watching or hearing birds.
If questions A and B C are answered "yes,"then people are able to benefit.
Continue to the next question.
If not, continue to the next service.
-------
Question 2: How many people benefit?
Because birds travel different distances from their habitat, the area where people may benefit will
vary, depending on the species of bird (see Table i in Appendix 3 for ranges of common Northeastern
U.S. species). If birders are willing to travel to the area for unique, iconic or migratory bird species,
the benefits area will be even larger. For the species considered in our Woonasquatucket example,
we have assumed a conservative benefits area of 1/5 mile, based on a typical average range of 1/10
mile, plus 1/10 mile of viewing distance from people. We assume that the entire population within the
1/5 mile radius may benefit from bird watching.
People may also travel to or through the benefits area. People may go there for work or recreation,
even specifically for recreational birding. People may also enterthe area while en route to other
locations, for example while hiking a trail or while commuting to work. Although it is difficult to
predict and quantify how many transient people will be in the area around a site, infrastructure
such astrails or roads are potential indicators.
In the checklist, estimate the number of people within 1/5 mile of the site. This may be done either
by counting the number of residences (and possibly businesses), or by estimating the population
density within the benefits area. Note whether trails or well-traveled roads pass within the same
1/5 mile radius.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we included addresses based on the E-gn
dataset (RIGIS 2013). Alternatively, this information can be gathered from imagery, property parcels
or census population densities.
For a more detailed assessment...
If metrics gauging how many people use trails or roads (for example, traffic counts) are available,
you can use them to estimate the number of people who benefit from bird watching along these
routes. Alternatively, you can rank roads or trails based on type (for example, a seasonal road or
a county highway; a local trail or a state park trail).
Question 3: How much are people likely to benefit?
A. Quality of the service
The best bird watching sites are those that provide the best chances of seeing rare and unique
species or have the widest variety of bird species (Bagstad et al. 2011; Naidoo 2005; Sharp et al.
2015).
Though urban sites are less likely to attract rare or unique species, sites with higher quality bird
habitat will be more likely to attract a variety of species.
In the checklist, indicate (yes/no) whether the site is expected to support rare or unique species.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we applied a functional assessment
(Appendix 3) to determine how the sites compared in terms of bird habitat quality.
For a more detailed assessment...
The quality of proposed sites can be determined using habitat function assessments and tools
such as that provided in Appendix 3. Results from these functional assessments can be compared
across sites to rank site quality. A functional assessment may also be used to predict the bird
species expected at the site, an indicator of the potential quality of bird watching benefits.
-------
B. Substitutes for the service and scarcity of the service
The issue of substitutes with regard to bird habitat in an urban or urbanizing setting can be
complicated. While, in general, adding a site to an area that has many existing sites will be less
valuable than adding a site to an area with fewer existing sites, there may be habitat synergies
that can lead to increasing benefits with additional sites. This is because adding a site may
increase total area enough to either attract more of the same species, increasing the probability
of viewing those birds, or attract new bird speciesto the area (Brown and Dinsmore 1986).
Effectively, pre-existing wetlands can often be seen as complements, increasing values by
providing critical thresholds of habitat for more birds and species, rather than as substitutes,
which diminish the value of additional sites. As the availability of wetland bird habitat increases,
the additional quantity and quality of benefits gained from restoration (marginal benefits) are
expected to become less valued after some threshold is reached. Wetlands in urban areas are
unlikely to surpass this threshold. Because of the complexity of evaluating substitutes, it is
beyond the scope of this rapid assessment and will require additional professional judgment
or modeling to evaluate.
C. Quality of complements
Complements add value to the benefits received in one area when compared to the same benefits
in an area without those complements. In the case of bird watching, complements might include
built infrastructure, such as facilities that attract birds or enhance bird observation (for example,
viewing platforms); or natural infrastructure, such as bird migration corridors or additional nearby
bird habitat.
In the checklist, note any complementary infrastructure or habitat that may add to the
value of benefits.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we identified whether the site was
within 1/5 mile of natural resources corridor areas designated in the statewide Greenways plan
(Rl DOA1995). The score determined using the functional assessment already accounted for
nearby complementary habitats.
D. Strength of people's preferences
The majority of at-home bird watchers, 74 % of whom are beginners (USFWS 2001), prefer birds
that are aesthetically pleasing or have pleasant songs (Belaire et al. 2015). Rare and unique species
become more important to more advanced birders.
The value people place on birds and birdwatching is not typically dependent on their income,
but may be higher with increased age (Belaire et al. 2015; Clucas et al. 2015).
In the checklist, note whether the people who may benefit are expected to have above average
interest in bird watching or include at-home bird watchers.
For our example assessment in the Woonasquatucket, we assumed populations around both sites
would include some at-home bird watchers.
-------
Question 4: Social equity and other concerns
People in more densely populated areas, and especially those with fewer resources and less access
to transportation, are less likely to have access to bird watching opportunities, so providing these
opportunities to urban residents can improve access. Also, bird watching tends to be less common
among minorities (USFWS 2001 found 24 % of white respondents were birdwatchers compared to
9 % of Hispanic, 6 % African American or Asian respondents).
For our example application in the Woonasquatucket, we estimated the SoVI once for each site
to capture social equity concerns.
For a more detailed assessment...
Indicate whether the populations who can benefit (Question 2) are from densely populated areas,
are dependent on public transportation, or have high minority populations.
-------
Step 4: Summarize the Benefit Indicators
Question addressed in this step:
• What are the results of the assessment?
What does this step do?
This step summarizes the results of the indicators assessment.
Applying this step:
Once you have conducted the assessment, you will want to summarize the data gathered to facilitate
comparisons. The checklist tool will do this for you automatically, summarizing all entries from Step 3
in a single table. If you are not using the tool, you may create a similar summary table for your project.
When compiling the indicators, you may not answer all of the questions. In some cases, a particular
indicator may not be applicable, either because that aspect is not relevant (for example, complements
are not relevant for flood protection) or because a particular benefit is not provided at a site. In other
cases, data may not be available to answer a particular question or you may decide that the question is
not important for a particular decision.
In the summary table provided by the checklist tool, information that was not filled in in Step 3 is shaded
in black, and questionsthat are not applicable appear in gray, marked "NA." When a question is not
applicable, it will not be applicable at any site, so will not be useful for distinguishing between sites.
Similarly, when a question is not answered because data are not available, the indicator will not be useful
for comparing sites. When a question is not answered because a particular benefit isn't provided at a site,
the information still can be useful for decision making.
The indicators include quantitative information, qualitative information, and narrative information.
In the table, quantitative information is summarized based on the mean value of all data collected. Values
indicating higher benefits relative to the mean are color-coded in blue and values indicating lower
benefits relative to the mean are coded in red. For most measures, higher benefits are indicated by higher
values, so that values greater than the mean are in blue and those less than the mean are in red. However,
for the scarcity/substitute measures, higher benefits are indicated by lower values, so that values below
the mean are in blue and values above the mean are in red. Quantitative information that does not vary
across sites is informative, but is not useful for comparing sites, so it is presented in gray.
Qualitative information, such as yes/no indicators, is also summarized using color-coding. In most cases,
a yes value indicates higher benefits and appears in blue, while a no value indicates lower benefits and
appears in red. Again, the substitutes indicators are an exception, where no indicates higher benefits and
appears in blue, and yes indicates lower benefits and appears in red. If all sites receive a negative response
to a particular question, this is informative but not useful for comparing sites, so is presented in gray. If all
sites receive a positive response to a question, this is informative, and additional narrative information
may distinguish among sites, so it appears in blue. Many of the indicators with yes/no criteria allowed for
additional narrative information, which is not summarized in the summary sheet. This information should
be consulted when comparing sites.
The summary presented in Step 4 can be used to compare sites, but not to rank them quantitatively,
because the information is not aggregated to a single metric. Step 5 discussesthisfurther.
-------
Step 4 in Action—Summarize the Benefit Indicators
Here, we present an example of the summary table produced by the checklist tool (shown on page 59).
• Blue-colored responses indicate higher benefits, and red-colored responses indicate lower benefits.
If both sites have the same color, more information may be needed.
• If a response is in black, no information was entered in Step 3.
• If a question is not applicable it appears in gray with "NA."
• If an earlier response meant that an indicator could be skipped, the indicatorthat could be skipped
appears in gray.
Examples to illustrate the results summary and color-coding:
• Complements are not applicable for flood risk, so are marked "NA" and shaded in gray.
• Site #448 was not visible to people, so scenic views indicators are shaded in gray, because people
are unable to benefit.
• The number of people who benefit from bird watching is 298 for Greystone, which is above the mean
and shaded in blue; while the numberfor site 448 is 8, which is belowthe mean and shaded in red.
• The substitutes/scarcity measure for environmental education is 4.9 %for Greystone (indicating
higher benefits, shaded in blue); and 12.4 %for site 448 (indicating lower benefits, shaded in red).
• For Scenic Views, the qualitative question about roads with views of the site is answered "yes"
for Greystone (coded in blue) and "no" for site 448 (coded in red).
• The qualitative question regarding existence of dams (to indicate scarcity) for flood risk is answered
"yes" for Greystone (indicating lower benefits, coded in red) and "no" for site 448 (indicating higher
benefits, coded in blue).
• Questions where both sites have "yes" answers, coded in blue, often have additional narrative
information that should be consulted when comparing sites.
-------
Step 4 in Action—Summarize the Benefit Indicators
*s
r\
nm
^
^
Step 4 Summarize the Indicators Site
Benefit
^
(A
'OL
TJ
O
0
LL
Scenic Views
Environmental
Education
Recreation
Bird Watching
Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.4 Social Equity
3.5 Reliability
2.5 mi downstream of site and in flood zone
Area of restoration site (acres)
Features that increase retention volume?
Dams and levees 2.5 rri downstream?
V\tetlands within 5 mi (number or % area)
NA
Are people worried about flood risk?
Number within 160ft of site
Number w ithin160- 325 ft of site
V\teighted number who benefit
Are there roads or trails w ithin 325 ft of site?
Aesthetic features or characteristics?
V\tetlands or water within 650 ft (number or %)
Natural land use types within 650 ft (types)
Will people find it aesthetically pleasing?
Education institutions within 0.25 mi of site
Features/habitat/w ildlife of education interest?
Wetlands within 0.5 rri of the site
Educational facilities or infrastructure on site?
Will people prefer characteristics of the site?
Number within 1/3 mi of the site
Are there bike paths within 1/3 mi of site?
Are there bus stops within 1/3 mi of site?
Number w ithin 0 to 0.5 mi of site
Number w ithin 0.5 to 6 mi of site
Total area of green space around site
green space w ithin 2/3 mi of site
green space w ithin 1 mi of site
green space within 12 rri of site
Infrastructure supporting recreational activities?
Are there additional features on the site?
Number w ithin 0.2 mi of site
Are there roads or trails within 0.2 mi of site?
Will the site support rare or unique species?
NA
Supporting infrastructure or habitat on site?
Will people be interested in birds at the site?
Score
Score
Sitel:
Greystone
20
0.54
Yes
Yes
9.84
NA
Yes
9
1
6.6
No
Yes
7.7
4
Yes
2
Yes
4.9
Yes
Yes
766
Yes
Yes
786
102481
45.1
27.2
38
39.5
Yes
No
298
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
11.03
15.2
Site 2:
#448
6
3.84
Yes
Yes
11.2
NA
Yes
0
0
0
No
0
Yes
12.4
Yes
Yes
34
No
Yes
90
35734
48433
62.2
68.9
38.8
No
No
8
Yes
No
NA
No
Yes
18.65
58.4
BLACK = No entry; GRAY = NA; BLUE = Above Average/YES*; RED = Below Average/No* ('reverse for scarcity)
-------
Photo by: Rick McKinney
-------
Step 5: Use the Results in Decision Making
Question addressed in this step:
• Which site(s) to restore?
What does this step do?
This step evaluates the information you have gathered to make a decision. There are many ways to make
decisions using this type of information, and we discuss some of them here. A full presentation of decision-
making methods is beyond the scope of this Guide.
Applying this step:
You now have a picture of the important ecosystem services related to your decision, and the benefitsthe
different restoration sites may provide. Sites are likely to provide different mixes of benefits, and a quick
look at the indicators for each site will show where tradeoffs are likely to be important. Tradeoffs will be
important when prioritizing sites for attention, choosing to restore to emphasize a particular benefit, or
making other choices that require allocating resources.
Various types of tradeoffs may emerge across sites, including tradeoffs:
• Across sites for a single indicator
• Between indicators within an indicator category
• Between indicator categories for a single benefit
• Between benefit categories
• Among the groups of people who benefit
While this approach makesthe tradeoffs apparent (information in red or blue on the summary sheet, as
shown in Step 4), it does not explicitly include a method for evaluating tradeoffs based on people's values,
which requires information on how different benefits are valued by the relevant groups of affected people.
There are various ways to evaluate such tradeoffs, including:
• Using the indicators as a basisfor discussion among stakeholders.
• Using the indicators in a more structured decision-making processthat aims to prioritize sites
using, for example, methods for multi-criteria decision analysis (Belton and Stewart 2002).
• Using the indicators as part of a monetary evaluation that applies dollar values from other
contexts (i.e., benefit transfer). The indicators can be used to adjust existing monetary values
to be more relevant to the local area, and to determine how many people benefit when
applying per-person values to a change in an ecosystem service.
In some cases, the results may not be used for an actual decision, but instead to provide information
to the public, funders, or others regarding what is being or has been accomplished by a particular project.
In these cases information that does not vary across sites (appears in gray on the summary sheet)
is still relevant.
-------
Step 5 in Action—Use the Results in Decision Making
Here, we present examples of the different types of tradeoffs and how you might approach them.
Making tradeoffs across sites for a single indicator:
Comparing sites based on a single indicator can rely on the color-coding from Step 4. For example,
service quality for flood risk reduction is much better at Site 448 than Greystone.
Making tradeoffs between indicators within an indicator category:
For recreation, the Greystone site has more people who benefit for all distances evaluated.
When comparing potential restoration sites based on how many people benefit, the number of people
or homes in all distances will often be greater for one of the sites, as it is in this example. However, if this
is not the case, people can be added up based on the reduced likelihood and/or reduced value of benefits
for people farther away, using a lower weight for the people at greater distances. For example, for scenic
views, Holzinger (2014) accounted for visibility at different distances using weights of 70% and 30% for his
50 meter and 100 meter distances, respectively. These weights account for the reduced probability that
people will be able to seethe site. In some cases, a greater distance also reduces the value of benefits
received. For recreation, the percent of people within 1/2 mile from the site who will recreate at the site
will be higher than the percent of the people from 1/2 mile to 6 miles from the site. In addition to this
decrease in use, when people have to travel farther their cost to recreate increases, meaning their
total benefit decreases.
Making tradeoffs among indicator categories for a single benefit:
For flood risk reduction, the Greystone site has more people who benefit and wetlands are more scarce,
but site #448 has higher service quality.
These types of tradeoffs require that you weigh the importance of different €
indicator categories, based on importance of the different factors to the <3f
relevant populations (the people who benefit, funders, or others with a stake ^
in the decision).
Making tradeoffs among benefit categories:
Hypothetically, if bird watching benefits from site #448 were better, but Scenic
View Benefits from the Greystone site were better, a tradeoff would have to be made between benefit
categories. As with tradeoffs among indicator categories, this requires weighing the importance of
different benefits to the relevant stakeholders.
Making tradeoffs among the groups of people who benefit:
For flood risk reduction, the Greystone site potentially benefits people with social equity characteristics
that make them more vulnerable to flood risks. This is based on the higher social vulnerability index score
for people surrounding this site compared to the score for site #448.
In summary, there are many ways to use the indicators for decision making. Because the results are
left disaggregated, to create a single score for each site, you will need to weigh each of the factors and
aggregate them. Alternatively, keep the numbers in disaggregated form and use them as the basis for
discussion among stakeholders, to determine which site is preferred overall.
In our example, summarized in Step 4, based on the blue-shaded results, the Greystone site, although it is
much smaller, has many factors that indicate a high level of benefits for most of the services evaluated.
-------
Tips from the Field:
Successful implementation tips from experienced managers
Even restoration projects with many benefits and people who would benefit sometimes do not
make it down the long road to completion. To better understand the social factors that influence
restoration implementation, we interviewed restoration managers involved in a suite of aquatic
restoration projects in Rhode Island. Here are some of the barriersthey encountered when doing
restoration projects and some of the strategies they employed to overcome those barriers.
Unseen orTrashed Ecosystems
People often think urban systems are too far
gone, there is no nature in the city, or that
contamination makes restoration
impossible.
• Make systems visible. Remove visual
barriers to water or wetlands or organize
outings to take people to see systems.
• Shift perception of urban ecosystems.
There's a growing understanding of the
value of urban ecosystems, particularly of
their benefitsto people. Make sure to
communicate these benefits.
Resistance to Change
Even if there is general support for
restoration, there may be resistance to
change locally.
• Don't assume people are on board.
• Realize that public resistance does not
necessarily mean ignorance of the benefits
of the projects. Instead, there may be
concerns about the project, prioritization
of different ecosystem benefits, or lack of
trust in some of the players.
• Make sure lines of communication are open
to get to the bottom of the resistance.
Lack of Political Will
There is often a lack of political will for urban
restoration both within the political system
and within communities themselves.
• Capitalize on events, such as natural
disasters, when the community may be
primed to address watershed issues.
• Mobilize visionary leaders.
• Build capacity for change within
communities.
• Invest in long term engagement with
people and sites (see Public Engagement
page for more ideas).
Funding Constraints
Urban projects can be expensive so there
may be a lack of available funds. Also there
may be a lack of capacity for spending,
restrictions on funding, and inequity of
distribution.
Identify and communicate to the public and
potential funders the many benefits and
people to benefit from your project.
Identify possibilities to address
environmental justice issues. Programs
and funding sources are primed to address
these issues, and the results will have
cascading benefits in the community.
-------
The RBI step-by-step process ends here
T,
his wraps up the explanation of the RBI Approach. Look back at past steps to
review, or continue forward to the Glossary, Key Resources, and Appendices.
Photo by: Rick McKinney
-------
•J
Glossary
Benefits: The things that people value, qualities
that influence value, the ways people appreciate the
things an ecosystem produces.
Beneficiaries: The people who benefit from
ecosystem services.
Ecological Benefit or Economic Benefit or Social
Benefit: In the context of environmental policy
and management, the term applies specifically to
net improvements in social welfare that result from
changes in the quantity or quality of ecosystem
goods and services attributable to policy or
environmental decisions. Synonymous with
"ecosystem-derived benefits" as used in Wainger
and Boyd (2009) (modified from USEPA 2006).
Benefit Indicator: A non-monetary measure based
on economic theory and empirical evidence of value
that indicates a relative magnitude of value for
ecosystem services.
Co-benefit: An ancillary (or off-target) benefit that
is produced as a result of an action taken to produce
a different benefit.
Complementary Goods and Services: Inputs
(usually built infrastructure or location
characteristics) that allow an ecosystem good or
service to be used by complementing the ecological
condition. For example, complementary goods and
services that allow a population of fish to become
the ecosystem service of "fishable fish," and thus to
provide an opportunity for recreational fishing will
include aspects of site accessibility, such as road
access, available parking and the presence of a
fishing pier, all of which make fish ing at the site
possible and may enhance enjoyment of the
activity.
Demand: Generally, the amount of a particular
good or service that a consumer or group of
consumers will want to purchase at a given price.
The level of demand for a good or service is
determined by many different factors other than
price, such asthe availability and price of substitute
and complementary goods and services. Along with
supply, demand is one of the two key determinants
of market prices. Since most ecosystem services are
not bought and sold in markets, they are often not
priced, and quantity demanded may not be readily
observable. People may reveal their demand and
value for non-market goods and services through
their actions, or may express demand and value in
responses to surveys.
Disservices: Adverse or unwanted outcomes
of ecosystem functions and processes.
Ecological Output: A biophysical feature,
quantity or quality that requires little further
translation to make clear its relevance to human
well being (i.e., a "public-friendly" measurement
or valued attribute of the ecosystem). As such,
ecological outputs are the key metrics for
evaluating ES. For example, the abundance of
watchable birds at a site is an ecological output
that, when combined with complementary
inputs such as transportation infrastructure,
binoculars, and demand by birders, becomes
an ecosystem service that produces the valued
experience of recreational bird watching
(adapted from: Boyd 2007; Boyd and Banzhaf
2007; Boyd and Krupnick 2009; Wainger and
Boyd 2009; Wainger and Mazzotta 2011; see
Ringold et al. 2009 for examples associated
with streams).
Ecological Production Function: A description
of the type, quantity and interactions of natural
features required to generate measurable
ecological outputs. For a simple example, the
biophysical characteristics of a coastal wetland
(flooding regimes, salinity, nutrient
concentrations, plant species abundance,
prey and predator abundances, etc.) can
influence the welfare-enhancing output of
increased abundance of a population of
watchable wading shorebirds (the ecological
output) (adapted from Wainger and Boyd 2009;
Wainger and Mazzotta 2011).
Ecosystem Goods and Services: Outputs of
ecological processes that directly ("final
ecosystem service" sensu Boyd and Banzhaf
2007) or indirectly ("intermediate ecosystem
service") contribute to social welfare. Some
outputs may be bought and sold, but most are
not marketed. Often abbreviated as ecosystem
services (modified from USEPA 2006). The
natural world supports and enriches people's
lives in many ways; final ecosystem goods and
services are end-products of nature, not the
*For additional terminology definitions, see
Munns, et. al. (2015).
-------
functions and processes of the ecosystem; to
exist, they require appreciation by people. Many
ecosystem services rely on more than one
function, and many functions contribute to more
than one service.
Ecosystem Structure: The abiotic and biotic
components of an ecosystem.
Ecosystem Function: The physical, chemical,
and biological interactions or processes within
the ecosystem. Ecosystem functions are the
processes of ecosystems that can provide valued
goods and services; but functions exist
regardless of whether people interact with, know
about, or care about them.
Natural Restoration: The reconstitution of a
pre-existing ecological condition, or range of
conditions typically through physical site
manipulations, vegetative plantings, and system
management.
Non-market Value: The economic value of
goods or services that are not bought or sold in
markets.
Non-monetary Value: A measure of economic
value that does not use dollars as the metric, but
instead captures important aspects of economic
value using other qualitative or quantitative
metrics.
Nonuse Value: The value people hold for a
service that they do not use in any tangible way.
Sometimes referred to as "passive use value."
Early literature in environmental economics split
nonuse value into three components: existence
value, option value and bequest value. Nonuse
values are theoretically distinct from use values,
although the boundary between use and nonuse
values is often fuzzy.
Reliability: A measure of the likelihood that a
site will continue to provide services and benefits
over time, in the face of stressors.
Risk-aversion: A measure of a person's
willingness to accept risk. A more risk-averse
person will accept a lower level of riskthan a less
risk-averse person.
Stakeholder: Generally, an individual, group or
organization with an interest in, or potentially
impacted by, the outcome of a policy or
management choice.
Substitute Goods and Services: Goods or
services that can be substituted for a particular
good or service, to fulfill the same or similar
function. For example, similar sites may serve as
substitutes for a particular recreational use; or
technological solutions, such as water
purification systems, may serve as substitutes for
purification of water by forests.
Supply: Generally, the total amount of a good
or service available for purchase (or use for
nonmarket goods and services). Along with
demand, supply is one of the two key
determinants of market prices.
Total Economic Value (TEV): The sum of all
relevant use values and nonuse values for
ecosystem goods and services resulting from a
change in a given ecosystem (i.e., the full social
benefits). This is distinct from the asset value
(sometimes referred to as "total value") of an
entire ecosystem (e.g., the value of an entire
wetland). Instead, it is the total value of a
marginal change to that ecosystem.
Tradeoff: Generally, an exchange of one thing
in return for another, especially relinquishment
of one benefit or advantage for another. In a
decision-making context, goods and services
(including but not limited to ecosystem goods
and services) gained or lost as the result of a
management choice.
Uncertainty: A limit to knowledge where it is
impossible to describe an existing state or future
outcome exactly. Uncertainty has three primary
components: i) variability (also called
"heterogeneity" or "stochasticity"), a component
of all biological systems, which represents actual
differences in the value of a parameter or
attribute among units in a (statistical)
population; 2) ignorance, which represents a lack
of knowledge about the true value of a
parameter that can result from inadequate or
imperfect measurement; and 3) error, which
results from the use of the wrong methods,
models or data in analysis activities (derived
from Munns 2002).
Use Value: The value of a good or service
derived from its direct or indirect use (as
opposed to nonuse value).
Valuation: Estimation of the worth, merit, or
desirability of something assessed in terms of
how much of one good or service a person is
willing to give up to gain more of another good
or service. It can be expressed quantitatively (for
example, in monetary terms) or qualitatively.
-------
Key Resources for More Information
The following references are recommended for additional information.
Our companion publications:
Bousquin JJ, Hychka KCand Mazzotta M. 2015. Development offload benefit indicators for wetlands
restoration based on extensive modeling. Narragansett Rl: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development. EPA/6oo/R-i/igi.
Druschke CG and Hychka KC. 2015. Manager perspectives on communication and public engagement
in ecological restoration project success." Eco/ogy and Society 20(1): 58.
Druschke CG, Meyerson LA and Hychka KC. 2016. From restoration to adaptation: The changing
discourse of invasive species management in coastal New England under global environmental
change. Biological Invasions, doi: 10.1007/510530-016-1112-7.
Hychka KC and Druschke CG. 2016. Barriers, opportunities, and strategies for urban ecosystem
restoration: Lessons learned from restoration managers in Rhode Island, U.S.A. Under review.
Tools:
Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ and Winthrop R. 2013. Comparing approachesto spatially explicit
ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosystem Services,
5:640-650.
Bagstad K, Villa F, Johnson G and Voigt B. 2011. ARIES-ARtifcial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: a
guide to models and data, version i.o. ARIES report series (Vol. i).
Carletti A, De Leo GA and Ferrari I. 2004. A critical review of representative wetland rapid assessment
methods in North America. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, i4(Si): $103-
5113. doi: io.ioo2/aqc.654.
Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, . . . Bierbower W. 2015.
InVESTUser's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, the
Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
Vigerstol KLand Aukema JE. 2011. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem
services. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10): 2403-2409. doi: io.ioi6/
j.jenvman.2011.06.040.
Valuation:
Dalton TJ and Cobourn K. 2003. Ecosystem service valuation and watershed resources: An annotated
literature review. Prepared for The Water Challenge Program Theme 2: Multiple Use of Upper
Catchments. Retrieved from ftp://i3i.252.97.7g/Transfer/ES_Pubs/ESVal/es_val_general/
bib_review_of_ecosystem_valuation.pdf.
de Groot RS, Stuip MAM, Finlayson CM and Davidson N. 2006. Valuing wetlands: Guidance for
valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar.
King D and Mazzotta M. 2000. Ecosystem valuation: Descriptions and illustrations of tools and
methods for non-economists, www.ecosystemvaluation.org.
Stelk MJ and Christie J. 2014. Ecosystem service valuation for wetland restoration: What it is, how to
do it, and best practice recommendations. Windham, Maine: Association of State Wetland Managers.
Turner RK, Morse-Jones S and Fisher B. 2010. Ecosystem valuation: A sequential decision support
system and quality assessment issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1): 7
9-101.
-------
Ecosystem Service Concepts and Approaches:
Boyd JW and Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63: 616-626.
Landers DH and Nahlik AM 2013. Final ecosystem goods and services classification system
(FEGS-CS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/6oo/R-i3/ORD-oo4gi4.
Olander L, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire L, Polasky S, Urban D, Boyd J, Wainger L and
Palmer M. 2015. Best practices for integrating ecosystem services into federal decision making.
National Ecosystem Service Partnership, Duke University.
Potschin MB and Haines-Young RH. 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective.
Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5): 575-594. doi: 10.1177/0309133311423172.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. National Ecosystem Services Classification
System (NESCS): Framework Design and Policy Application. EPA-8oo-R-i5-oo2. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Wainger LA, King D, Salzman J and Boyd J. 2001. Wetland value indicators for scoring mitigation
trades. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 20(2): 413-478.
Mapping Ecosystem Services and Flows:
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S and Muller F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and
budgets. Ecological Indicators 21:17-29. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecolind.2on.o6.oig.
Fisher B, Turner RK and Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision
making. Ecological Economics 68(3): 643-653.
Serna-Chavez HM, Schulp CJE, van Bodegom PM, Bouten W, Verburg PH and Davidson MD. 2014. A
quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 39:
24-33. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecolind.2oi3.n.o24.
Public Engagement:
Brown G, Montag JM and Lyon K. 2012. Public participation GIS: A method for identifying ecosystem
services. Society and Natural Resources 25(7): 633-651.
Decision Making:
Banzhaf HS and Boyd J. 2012. The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index.
Sustainability 4(4): 430-461. doi: 10.3390^4040430.
Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDanielsTand Ohlson D. 2012. Structured decision
making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Keeney RL and Raiffa H. 1993. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council. 2004. Valuing ecosystem services: Toward better environmental decision-
making. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N,
Wood SA and Bernhardt J. 2013. Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem
service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics 115:11-21. http://
dx.doi.org/io.ioi6/j.ecolecon.2oi3.o7.oog.
Wetlands:
Blackwell MSA and Pilgrim ES. 2011. Ecosystem services delivered by small-scale wetlands.
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(8), 1467-1484. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2011.630317.
Boyer T and Polasky S. 2004. Valuing urban wetlands: A review of non-market valuation studies.
Wetlands, 24(4), 744-755. doi: 10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024.
Mitsch WJ and Gosselink JG. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting.
Ecological Economics, 35(1), 25-33. doi: Doi 10.1016/50921-8009(00)00165-8.
-------
References
Anderson LM and Schroeder HW. 1983. Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban
landscape. Landscape Planning, 10(3), 219-237. doi: http://dx.doi.org/io.1016/0304-3924(83)90049-7.
UK NEA. 2014. The UK national ecosystem assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. UK: UNEP-WCMC.
Bagstad K, Villa F, Johnson G and Voigt B. 2011. ARIES-ARtifcial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: A guide
to models and data, version i.o. ARIES report series (Vol. i).
Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B and Villa F. 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A
comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4(0), 117-125. doi: io.ioi6/
j.ecoser.2012.07.012.
Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, Harrison-Cox J, Voigt B and Johnson GW. 2014. From theoretical to actual
ecosystem services: Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecology
and Society, 19(2), 64. doi: Artn 64.
Barbosa de Toledo M, Donatelli RJ and Batista GT. 2012. Relation between green spaces and bird
community structure in an urban area in Southeast Brazil. Urban Ecosystems, 15,111-131.
Bassuk SS and Manson JE. 2005. Epidemiological evidence forthe role of physical activity in reducing risk
of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Journal of Applied Physiology, 99(3), 1193-1204.
Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ and Cohen DA. 2005. The significance of parks to physical activity and public
health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159-168.
Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Whelan CJ and Minor ES. 2015. Urban residents' perceptions of birds in the
neighborhood: Biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. The Condor, 117(2), 192-202.
doi:doi:io.i650/CONDOR-i4-i28.i.
Belton V and Stewart T. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach, Springer Science
and Business Media.
Bjerke T and 0stdahl T. 2004. Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoos,
17(2), 109-129.
Bousquin JJ, Hychka KCand Mazzotta M. 2015. Development offload benefit indicators for wetlands
restoration based on extensive modeling. Narragansett Rl: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.
EPA/600/R-1/191.
Boyd JW. 2007. The endpoint problem. Resources, Spring: 26-28.
Boyd J and Banzhaf S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2-3): 616-626.
Boyd J and Krupnick A. 2009. The definition andchoice of environmental commodities for nonmarket
valuation. RFF Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future.
Boyd J and Wainger L. 2002. The economics of wetland ecosystem restoration and mitigation: Landscape
indicators of ecosystem service benefits. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(5), 1371-1378.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8276.00404.
Boyd J and Wainger L. 2003. Measuring ecosystem service benefits: The use of landscape analysis to
evaluate environmental trades and compensation. Resources for the future discussion paper, 2, 63.
Brander L, Brouwer R and Wagtendonk A. 2013. Economic valuation of regulating services provided by
wetlands in agricultural landscapes: A meta-analysis. Ecological Engineering, 56, 89-96. doi: io.ioi6/
j.ecoleng.2012.12.104.
-------
Brander LM, Braeuer I, Gerdes H, Ghermandi A, Kuik O, Markandya A, ... and Wagtendonk A. 2012. Using
meta-analysis and GIS for value transfer and scaling up: Valuing climate change induced losses of
European wetlands. Environmental & Resource Economics, 52(3), 395-413.
Brander LM, Florax RJGM and Vermaat JE. 2006. The empirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive
summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental & Resource Economics, 33(2), 223-250.
doi: 10.1007/510640-005-3104-4.
Brander LM, Ghermandi A, Kuik O, Markandya A, Nunes PA, Schaafsma M and Wagtendonk A. 2010.
Scaling up ecosystem services values: Methodology, applicability and a case study. FEEM Working Paper
No. 41.2010. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1600011 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1600011.
Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y and Muller F. 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands -
concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 1-32. doi: lo.sogy/
10.201434.
Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC and Daily GC. 2006. Conservation planning for
ecosystem services. PLoS Biol, 4(11), 6379. doi: io.i37i/journal.pbio.0040379.
Church A, Burgess J, Ravenscroft N, Bird W, Blackstock K, Brady E, Crang M, Fish R, Gruffudd P, Mourato
S, Pretty J, Tolia-Kelly D, Turner K and Winter M. 2011. Cultural services: UK National Ecosystem
Assessment. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
Clucas B, Rabotyagov S and Marzluff J. 2015. How much isthat birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental
economic valuation of native urban songbirds. Urban Ecosystems, iS(i), 251-266. doi: 10.1007/511252-
O14-O392-X.
Collins MJ. 2009. Evidence for changing flood risk in New England since the late 2oth century. Journalof
the American Water Resources Association 45(2): 279-290.
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ and Shirley WL. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science
Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261.
Daniel VE, Florax RJGM and Rietveld P. 2009. Flooding risk and housing values: An economic assessment
of environmental hazard. Ecological Economics, 69(2), 355-365. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecolecon.2oog.o8.oi8.
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L and Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of
ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological
Complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
Dhami I and Deng J. 2010. Modeling the scenic beauty of the Highland Scenic Highway, West Virginia. In
Watts Clifton E Jr; Fisher Cherie LeBlanc, eds. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation
Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS.
Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ and Fry GLA. 2006. Relationships between visual landscape
preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4),
465-474. doi: io.ioi6/j.landurbplan.2oo5.i2.oo6.
FEMA. 2013. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) database;.DFIRM_Provi3. Retrieved from:
http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
Fontana S, Bontadina F and Moretti M. 2011. How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity
and community structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 278-285.
Ghermandi A, van den Bergh JCJM, Brander LM, de Groot HLF and Nunes PALD. 2010. Values of natural
and human-made wetlands: A meta-analysis. Water Resources Research, 46. doi: Artn Wi25i6.
Gobster PH. 1995. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 33(1-3), 401-413. doi: http://dx.doi.org/io.1016/0169-2046(94)02031^.
Gobster PH. 2001. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 56(1), 35-51.
-------
Gobster PH and Westphal LM. 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation
and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3), 147~165- doi: 10.1016/50169-2046(03)
00162-2.
Handley J, Pauleit S, Slinn P, Barber A, Baker M, Jones C and Lindley S. 2003. Accessible natural green space
standards in towns and cities: A review and toolkit for their implementation. English Nature Peterborough.
Hands DE and Brown RD. 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 58(1), 57-70. doi: Pii 80169-2046(02)00240-7.
Hardmeyer K and Spencer M. 2007. Using risk-based analysis and Geographic Information Systemsto
assess flooding problems in an urban watershed in Rhode Island. Environmental Management, 39(4),
563-574. doi: 10.1007/500267-005-0149-7.
He J, Moffette F, Fournier R, Reveret JP, Theau J, Dupras J, . . . and Varin M. 2015. Meta-analysisforthe
transfer of economic benefits of ecosystem services provided by wetlands within two watersheds in
Quebec, Canada. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23(4), 707-725. doi: 10.1007/511273-015-9414-6.
Hirsch R and Ryberg K. 2012. Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels?
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57(1), 1-9.
Hodgkins GA. 2010. Historical changes in annual peakflows in Maine and implications for flood-frequency
analyses. U. S. Geological Survey.
Holzinger O, Horst DVD and Sadler J. 2014. City-wide ecosystem assessments — Lessons from Birmingham.
Ecosystem Services, 9, 98-105. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecoser.2oi4.o5.oo3.
Horton R, Yohe G, Easterling W, Kates R, Ruth M, Sussman E, . . . and Lipschultz F. 2014. Ch. 16: Northeast.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program.
Jacob GR and Schreyer R. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of leisure
research, 12(4), 368.
Kenwick RA, Shammin R and Sullivan WC. 2009. Preferences for riparian buffers. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 91(2), 88-96. doi: io.ioi6/j.landurbplan.2oo8.i2.oo5.
King DM, Wainger LA, Bartoldus CC and Wakeley JS. 2000. Expanding wetland assessment procedures:
Linking indices of wetland function with services and values. Wetlands Research Program, US Army Corps
of Engineers.
King DM and Price EW. 2004. Developing defensible wetland mitigation ratios: A companion to "The five-
step wetland mitigation ratio calculator". Prepared for NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation, Habitat
Protection Division.
Koppen G, Sang AO and Tveit MS. 2014. Managing the potential for outdoor recreation: Adequate mapping
and measuring of accessibility to urban recreational landscapes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13
(i), 71-83. doi: io.ioi6/j.ufug.2Oi3.n.oo5.
Kousky C, Olmstead SM, Walls MA, Macauley M. 2013. Strategically placing green infrastructure: cost-
effective land conservation in the floodplain. Environ Sci Technol, 47(8), 3563-3570. doi: io.io2i/
Kuss FR, Graefe AR and Vaske JJ. 1990. Visitor impact management: A review of research . Washington,
D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association.
Landers DH and Nahlik AM. 2013. Final ecosystem goods and services classification system
(FEGS-CS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/6oo/R-i3/ORD-oo4gi4.
Lautenbach S, Kugel C, Lausch A and Seppelt R. 2011. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem
service provisioning using land use data. Ecological Indicators, 11(2), 676-687. doi: io.ioi6/
j.ecolind. 2010.09. 007.
-------
Layke C. 2009. Measuring nature's benefits: A preliminary roadmap for improving ecosystem service
indicators. WRI Working Paper . Washington, DC 20002: World Resources Institute (WRI).
Loomis DK and Paterson SK. 2014. Human dimensions indicators of coastal ecosystem services: A
hierarchical perspective. Ecological Indicators, 44(0), 63-68. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecolind.2oi3.i2.o22.
LougherL. 2004. Stormwater success along the Neuse. Stormwater Magazine.
Martin-Lopez B, Garcia-Llorente M, Palomo I and Montes C. 2011. The conservation against development
paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Donana social-ecological system
(southwestern Spain). Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1481-1491. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecolecon.2on.o3.oog.
Martin-Lopez B, Gomez-Baggethun E, Garcia-Llorente M and Montes C. 2014. Trade-offs across value-
domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37, 220-228. doi: io.ioi6/
J.ecolind.2oi3.o3.oo3.
Martin-Lopez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, . . . and
Montes C. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PloS one, 7(6),
638970. doi: ARTN 638970.
Marzluff RBJM and Donnelly R. 2001. A historical perspective on urban bird research: Trends, terms, and
approaches. In RBJM Marzluff and R Donnelly (Ed.), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing
world. Kluwer Academic (pp. 1-17). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
McKinney R and Nightingale ME. 2014. A framework for enhancing bird habitat value of urban greenspaces
in the Woonasquatucket watershed, Rhode Island USA. Narragansett, Rhode Island USA: Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic
Ecology Division.
McPhearson T, Kremer P, and Hamstead ZA. 2013. Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: Applying
a social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosystem Services, 5, 11-26. doi: io.ioi6/
J.ecoser.2oi3.o6.oo5.
Miller NA and Golet FC. 2001. Development of a statewide freshwater wetland restoration strategy. Final
Research Report prepared for Rl DEM Office of Water Resources and U.S. EPA Region i. Kingston, Rl:
University of Rhode Island.
Mitsch WJ and Gosselink JG. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting.
Ecological Economics, 35(1), 25-33. doi: Doi 10.1016/50921-8009(00)00165-8.
Moore TL and Hunt WF. 2012. Ecosystem service provision by Stormwater wetlands and ponds - a means for
evaluation? Water Res, 46(20), 6811-6823. doi: io.ioi6/j.watres. 2011. 11.026.
Mougiakakou SG, Tsouchlaraki AL, Cassios C, Nikita KS, Matsopoulos GK and Uzunoglu NK. 2005.
SCAPEVIEWER: Preliminary results of a landscape perception classification system based on neural
network technology. Ecological Engineering, 24(1-2), 5-15. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecoleng.2oo4.i2.oo3.
Munns WR, Rea AW, Mazzotta MJ, Wainger LA and Saterson K. 2015. Toward a standard lexicon for
ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(4): 666-673.
Naidoo R and Adamowicz W. 2005. Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda.
Environment and Development Economics^), 159-178. doi: http://dx.doi.org/io.ioi7/
Nedkov S and Burkhard B. 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem services-Mapping supply and demand, in the
Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indicators, 21, 67-79. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecolind.2on.o6.o22.
NOAA. 2015. Coastal flood exposure mapper. https://coast. noaa.gov/floodexposure/.
Ode A, Tveit MS and Fry G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with
landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89-117. doi: 10.1080/01426390701773854.
-------
Peterson TC, Karl TR, Kossin JP, Kunkel KE, Lawrimore JH, McMahon JR, . . . and Yin X. 2014. Changes in
weather and climate extremes: State of knowledge relevant to air and water quality in the United
States. Journal of the Air& Waste Management Association, 64(2), 184-197.
Pickard BR, Daniel J, Mehaffey M, Jackson LE and Neale A. 2015. EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster
ecosystem services science and resource management. Ecosystem Services, 14,10.
Potschin MB and Haines-Young RH. 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective.
Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 575-594. doi: 10.1177/0309133311423172.
Radford KG and James P. 2013. Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural-urban gradient: A
case study of greater Manchester, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 117-127. doi: io.ioi6/
j.landurbplan.2012.10.007.
Rl DEM. 2014. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Inventory of Facilities; SCORPi^. Retrieved
from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
Rl DEM. 2015. Rl DEM Hiking Trails; hikeTrailsi^. Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/.
Rl DEM, Rl DOA. 2012. Fishing and Boating Access; fshBoatAcci2. Retrieved from:
http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
Rl DEM, Rl DOA. 2014. Rhode Island Land Use and Land Cover 2011; rilunb. Retrieved from:
http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
Rl DEM, RIGIS. 1989. Scenic Areas of Rhode Island; s^^nsvSg. Retrieved from:
http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/data/planningCadastre.html.
Rl DOA. 2oo8.Sc/7oo/s/ schoolsoS. Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigiswww.ridoe.net.
Rl DOT. 2010. Bike Paths; bikepathsio. Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
Riechers M, Barkmann J and Tscharntke T. 2016. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban
green. Ecosystem Services, 17, 33-39. doi: io.ioi6/j.ecoser.2015.11.007.
RIGIS. 2013. Rl E-gn Road Centerlines; egnRoadsi3q2. Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
RIGIS. 2014. Rl E-gn Sites; egnSitesi^n Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
RIHPC. 1995. Historic Sites of Rhode Island; s^^chsgg. Retrieved from: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
Ringold PL, Boyd J, Landers D and Weber M. 2009. Report from the workshop on indicators affinal
ecosystem services for streams. Corvallis (OR), USA: USEPA Office of Research and Development.
EPA/6oo/R-og/i37.
RIPTA. 2016. RIPTA Bus Stops (January 2016); RIPTAstopsonS. Retrieved from: http://www.rigis.org.
Sander HA and Polasky S. 2009. The value of views and open space: Estimates from a hedonic pricing model
for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA. Land Use Policy, 26(3), 837-845. doi: io.ioi6/
j.landusepol.2008.10.009.
Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, . . . and Bierbower W. 2015. InVEST
User's Guide: The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, the Nature
Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
Sherrouse BC, Clement JM and Semmens DJ. 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and
quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 31(2), 748-760. doi: io.ioi6/
j.apgeog.2010.08.002.
Smith JA, Baeck ML, Villarini G and Krajewski WF. 2010. The hydrology and hydrometeorology of flooding in
the Delaware River Basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 11(4), 841-859.
Tapsuwan S, Ingram G, Burton M and Brennan D. 2009. Capitalized amenity value of urban wetlands: a
hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia. Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(4), 527-545. doi: lo.im/j.1467-8489.2009.00464.x.
-------
Tratsaert K. 1998. Stads(v)lucht maakt vrij: analyse van de verhuisstromen en een bevraging van de
verhuismotieven en woonwensen van jonge gezinnen in het Leuvense: Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Trust for Public Land. 2015. 2015 City Park Facts. Washington, D.C.: Center for City Park Excellence.
US EPA. 2006. Ecological benefits assessment strategic plan. Washington (DC), USA: USEPA Office of the
Administrator, EPA-24o-R-o6-ooi.
US EPA. 2015. National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS): Framework Design and Policy
Application. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-8oo-R-i5-oo2.
US FWS. 2001. Birding in the United States: A demographic and economic analysis Addendum to the 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
US FWS. 2014. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for Rhode Island; NWIi^. Retrieved from: http://
www.edc.uri.edu/rigis.
USGS. 2014. A/LCD 2011 Land Cover (2011 Edition, amended 2014) - National Ceospatial Data Asset (NCDA) Land Use
Land Cover. Retrieved from: http://www.mrlc.gov.
Villarini G and Smith JA. 2010. Flood peak distributions forthe eastern United States. Water Resources
Research, 46(6).
Wainger LA and Boyd JW. 2009. Valuing ecosystem services, in McLeod, K., and Leslie, H., eds. Ecosystem-
Based Management for the Oceans. Washington, DC, Island Press: 92-111.
Wainger LA, King D, Salzman J and BoydJ. 2001. Wetland value indicators for scoring mitigation trades. Stan.
Envtl. LJ, 20, 413.
Wainger LA, King DM, Mack RN, Price EW and Maslin T. 2010. Can the concept of ecosystem services be
practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions? Ecological Economics, 69(5),
978-987.
Wainger Land Mazzotta M. 2011. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: A framework for relating
ecological changesto economic benefits. Environmental Management 48: 710-733.
Walls M, Kousky C and Chu Z. 2013. Is what you see what you get? The value of natural landscape views. The
Value of Natural Landscape Views (August 2013). Resources for the Future Discussion Paper(i3-25).
Whitehead JC, Groothuis PA, Southwick R and Foster-Turley P. 2009. Measuring the economic benefits of
Saginaw Bay coastal marsh with revealed and stated preference methods. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 35(3), 430-437. doi: io.ioi6/j.jglr.2oog.o3.oo5.
-------
Step
.uestion/Catego.
1 Describe the decision context for
Jser Entri
~D
n>
D
Q_
X
n>
n
n>
n
1.A
What are the main objectives of the
assessment?
Are some objectives more important than
others, or are there additional important
objectives? If so, specify.
1.B
What is the geographic scope for the
decision?
/
ID
, _ Who are the affected members of the public
or stakeholder groups?
Are there important stakeholder or public
1 .D needs or wants? Are there any conflicting
needs/wants?
1. E Is a rapid assessment sufficient?
Yes
No
1.F Number of sites
1 .G Site names or identifiers
1.H
Is there any additional information
important to framing the decision?
-------
Step
Question/Category
Select Ecosystem Services and Describe Benefits for
n>
=3
Q_
X
n>
n
n>
n
ID
~D
K)
2.A
Which Ecosystem Services are most relevant
to the decision?
What Benefits of the selected services are
relevant to the decision?
r Flood Water Regulation
r Scenic Landscapes
r Learning Opportunities
r Reduced Flood Risk
r Scenic Views
r Environmental Education
r Recreational Opportunities
r Birds
r Other ()
r Recreation
r Bird Watching
r Other ()
2.B
Benefit Name
Provide background information on each
service and the benefits being assessed.
2.C
Provide background information on the
concerns and disservices that may relate to
the services and benefits being assessed.
2.D
How do services and people interact
geographically?
-------
Step
Question/Catego.
User Entries
Compile Benefit Indicators for
~D
n>
D
Q_
X
n>
n
n>
n
(7i'
r+
ID
r+
UU
n)
n'
tn
n)
Site name or identifier
3.1
A. Is there evidence of demand for the service?
Yes
No
Yes
Ho
B. Are any necessary thresholds of quality or quantity met?
Yes
No
Yes
No
C. Are required complementary inputs available?
C Yes r No
NA
C Yes r No r NA
3.2
How many people benefit?
3.3
A. Quality of Service
B. Substitutes and Scarcity
C. Complements
D. Preferences
-------
Step
Question/Catego
ser Entries
Compile Benefit Indicators for
~D
n>
g_
x"
Site name or identifier
3.1
A. Has/will flooding occured/occur downstream of the site?
Yes r No
B. Can the site retain water that otherwise flows into the floodplain?
Yes
No
C. Flood reduction benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
<~ Yes r No r NA
C Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes r No
NA
3.2
1. How many people or homes are in flood zones and 0-2.5 miles
downstream of the site?
n
n>
n
ID
uu
O
O
Q_
1/1
3.3
A.1 How large is the restoration site?
A.2 Does the site contain additional features that may increase the
site's retention volume?
Note the additional features
Yes
No
B.1 Are there any substitutes (dams, levees, etc.) between the site and
people who benefit?
Note the substitutes
B.2 How many (number or percent cover) existing wetlands are within
a 5-mile radius of the site?
f Yes r NO
C. Flood reduction benefits do not have Complementary Inputs (NA)
D. Are people who may benefit aware of and concerned about flood
risk in their location?
C Yes r No
Yes
No
<~ Yes r No
f Yes
No
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Is the site visible from homes, roads or trails?
B. Will the site improve the scenic quality of the landscape?
C. Scenic View benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
1. How many people or homes within 160 feet of the site?
2. How many people or homes within 160-325 feet of the site?
3. Do trails or roads pass within 325 feet of the site?
A.1 Does the site have features or characteristics of aesthetic interest?
Note the features or characteristics
B. How much wetlands and open water are within 650 feet of the site
(number or percent cover)?
C. How many different natural land cover types are within 650 feet of
the site? (number of types)
D. Does the site meet these people's visual preferences?
r Yes C No
C Yes <~ No
r Yes r NO r NA
f Yes f No
<~ Yes r NO
r Yes <~ No
<~ Yes <~ NO
C Yes C No
Yes - No "' NA
f Yes f No
f Yes c NO
r Yes <~ No
>>
Appendix i: The Checklist— Step 3 Scenic Views
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Do people want to participate in environmental education nearby?
B. Will the site support wildlife or features of educational interest?
C. Educational benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
Number of educational institutions within 0.25 miles of the site?
A.1 Does the site have features/habitat/wildlife of educational interest?
Note the features, habitat or wildlife
B. How many other wetlands suitable for educational use are within
1/2 mile of the site?
C.1 Will the site have complementary infrastructure?
Note what these infrastructure are and their number or density
D. Does the site have characteristics that make it preferable?
C Yes r NO
(~ Yes r NO
r Yes r NO r NA
C Yes r NO
C Yes <~ No
<~ Yes r NO
C Yes r NO
r Yes <~ No
r Yes r NO r NA
'- Yes f No
C Yes r No
f Yes r No
>
n)
=3
Q_
X
H
n
n
uV
LD
n)
~D
uu
m
— \
o
m
Q_
C
n
QJ
o'
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Do people want to do recreational activities that require wetlands?
B. Will the site support recreational activities?
C. Will required Complementary Inputs be available at the site?
1. How many people or homes within 1/3 mile of the site?
2. Are there bike trails within 1/3 mile of the site?
3. Are there bus stops within 1/3 mile of the site?
4. How many people/homes within 1/3 to 1/2 mile of the site?
5. How many people/homes within 1/2 to 6 miles of the site?
A.1 What is the total area of green space around the restoration site?
B.1 Substitute greenspace within 2/3 mile of the site? (number/area)
B.2 Substitute greenspace within 1 mile of the site? (number/area)
B.3 Substitute of greenspace within 12 miles of the site? (number/area)
C.1 Does the site have infrastructure that supports more activities?
Note what these infrastructure are and list the additional
recreational activities supported
D. Does the site have additional features that people prefer?
Note what these features are
f Yes r No
<~ Yes r No
*~ Yes r NO
f Yes <~ No
f Yes r NO
r Yes r NO
r Yes r NO
~ Yes r No
~ Yes r No
" Yes r No
<- Yes r NO
"' Yes f" No
C Yes r No
C Yes <~ No
n>
=3
Q_
X
n>
n
n>
n
ID
r+
n>
~D
uu
CD
n
— \
CD
QJ
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Do people nearby want to see or hear birds?
B. Will the site support bird species of interest?
C. Bird watching benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
1. How many people or homes within 1/5 mile of the site?
2. Do trails or roads pass within 1/5 mile of the site?
A.1 Will the site support rare or unique species?
Note why, or the results of bird habitat/functional assessments
B. Bird watching benefits do not have substitutes and measuring
scarcity is beyond the scope of a rapid assessment (NA)
C.1 Will the site have complementary infrastructure or habitat?
Note what this infrastructure is and its density
D. Are people who may benefit expected to have above average
interest in bird watching?
*~ Yes *~ No
<- Yes r No
r Yes r NO r NA
f Yes *~ No
C Yes r No
•"• Yes r NO
*~ Yes *~ No
<~ Yes <~ No
<~ Yes r No
c Yes r NO r NA
<~ Yes r NO
C Yes r No
C Yes r No
C Yes ^ NO
-o
=3
/••%
LJ_
X
H
n>
n
?D~
n
^
1/1
I
IM
-D
uu
DO
— ^
Q_
QJ
n
3"
UD
-------
n>
=3
Q_
X
Step
Question/Catego.
Jser Entries
Compile Benefit Indicators for
n>
n
n>
n
Site name or identifier
Social Equity (score)
3.4
notes
in
~D
UU
m
_Q
c
20
Reliability (score)
3.5
notes
-------
Appendix i: The Checklist -Step 4 Summarize
«_
11
8lfl8
*
^
btepa summarize tne indicators bite
Benefit
^
(/>
£
•a
o
o
LJ_
Scenic Views
Environmental
Education
Recreation
Bird Watching
Indicators for
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3. B Scarcity
3.3. C Complements
3.3. D Preferences
3.4 Social Equity
3.5 Reliability
2.5 mi dow nstream of site and in flood zone
Area of restoration site (acres)
Features that increase retention volume?
Dams and levees 2.5 mi dow nstream?
Wetlands w ithin 5 rri (number or % area)
NA
Are people worried about flood risk?
Number w ithin 1 60 ft of site
Number w ithin! 60- 325 ft of site
Weighted number who benefit
Are there roads or trails w ithin 325 ft of site?
Aesthetic features or characteristics?
Wetlands or w ater w ithin 650 ft (number or %)
Natural land use types w ithin 650 ft (types)
Will people find it aesthetically pleasing?
Education institutions w ithin 0.25 mi of site
Features/habitat/w ildlife of education interest?
Wetlands w ithin 0.5 mi of the site
Educational facilities or infrastructure on site?
Will people prefer characteristics of the site?
Number within 1/3 rri of the site
Are there bike paths w ithin 1/3 mi of site?
Are there bus stops w ithin 1/3 mi of site?
Number w ithin 0 to 0.5 mi of site
Number w ithin 0.5 to 6 mi of site
Total area of green space around site
green space w ithin 2/3 mi of site
green space w ithin 1 mi of site
green space w ithin 1 2 mi of site
Infrastructure supporting recreational activities?
Are there additional features on the site?
Number w ithin 0.2 rri of site
Are there roads or trails w ithin 0.2 mi of site?
Will the site support rare or unique species?
NA
Supporting infrastructure or habitat on site?
Will people be interested in birds at the site?
Score
Score
Sitel:
NA
NA
Site 2:
NA
NA
BLACK = No entry; GRAY = NA; BLUE = Above Average/YES*; RED = Below Average/No* ('reverse for scarcity)
-------
Step
Question/Category
User Entries
1 Describe the decision context for Woonasquatucket Example
~D
n>
D
Q_
X
K)
m
x
QJ
3
-g_
n>
o
o
D
QJ
1/1
_Q
C
QJ
r+
C
n
7\~
n>
1.A
What are the main objectives of the
assessment?
Are some objectives more important than
others, or are there additional important
objectives? If so, specify.
We have a budget of $50,000 to spend on restoration in our watershed.
We want to know which site or sites we can restore to provide the greatest
benefits within this budget.
We want to balance community benefits with ecological benefits.
1.B
What is the geographic scope for the
decision?
The overall scope is the Woonasquatucket River Watershed. We have
selected 2 sites to evaluate; the sites were proposed by local community
groups.
1.C
Who are the affected members of the public
or stakeholder groups?
In general, the people who live and work in the watershed. The communities
near each of the sites are likely to be especially interested in their nearby
site.
Are there important stakeholder or public
1.D needs or wants? Are there any conflicting
needs/wants?
None have been identified upfront, but we will include the affected and
interested people throughout the assessment and decision process.
1 .E Is a rapid assessment sufficient?
KYes
CNo
1.F Number of sites
n
QJ
r+
o'
=3
1 .G Site names or identifiers
Site 1: Greystone
Site 2: #448
1.H
Is there any additional information important
to framing the decision?
We will evaluate feasibility of restoring each site and consider that in making
the decision.
-------
Step
2.A
Question/Category
Select Ecosystem Services and Describe Benefits for Woonasquatucket Example
Which Ecosystem Services are most relevant
to the decision?
What Benefits of the selected services are
relevant to the decision?
[* Flood Water Regulation
v Scenic Landscapes
i" Learning Opportunities
• Recreational Opportunities
i* Birds
Other ()
I* Reduced Flood Risk R Recreation
I* Scenic Views W Bird Watching
i* Environmental Education l~ Other ()
CD
=3
Q_
X
K)
m
x
QJ
3
-g_
n>
n
QJ
r+
o'
=3
ID
r+
n>
-0
K)
2.B
Benefit Name
Provide background information on each
service and the benefits being assessed.
Reduced Flood Risk
Wetlands retain water that would
otherwise increase flooding, provid-
ing flood risk reduction benefits. We
only consider reductions in flood risk
to structures in the floodplain within
4 miles downstream.
Scenic Views
Aesthetically pleasing landscapes
provide observers with scenic views.
We only consider views from homes
or other structures.
Provide background information on the
2.C concerns and disservices that may relate to
the services and benefits being assessed.
Water retained in wetlands may
inundate areas directly surrounding
the wetland or upstream, potentially
causing flood damages in those
areas.
Poor maintenance of a site may lead
to accumulation of trash or
overgrown vegetation, giving a
"messy" appearance that people
dislike.
2.D
How do services and people interact
geographically?
-------
F
n>
=3
Q_
x'
K)
Environmental Education
Recreation
Bird Watching
X
QJ
3
~D_
n>
n
QJ
Natural areas provide learning opportuni-
ties that lead to educational benefits. We
only consider shorter less resource
dependent educational visits of less than
1/2 day.
Wetlands provide opportunities for
recreational activities, one of the main
ways people interact with green spaces.
We considered recreation generally and
were more interested in everyday
recreation, typically lasting a half day or
less.
Wetlands provide the opportunity to view
or interact with wildlife such as birds. We
defined bird watching benefits as those
provided to local residents, excluding
serious birders who might travel from
other areas to see birds.
ID
r+
n)
~D
K)
n
o
C
n)
o_
There could be concerns about exposure
during learning activities, such as sun,
allergens and safety at the site.
Many of the disservices people associate
with recreational sites have to do with
user conflicts, which may arise when
recreationists have different preferences.
People in urban areas may have negative
attitudes toward specific bird species. It
may be important to determine what
these species are and explore their
relationship with wetlands.
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Has/will flooding occured/occur downstream of the site?
B. Can the site retain water that otherwise flows into the floodplain?
C. Flood reduction benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
1. How many people or homes are in flood zones and 0-2.5 miles
downstream of the site?
A.1 How large is the restoration site?
A.2 Does the site contain additional features that may increase the
site's retention volume?
Note the additional features
B.1 Are there any substitutes (dams, levees, etc.) between the site and
people who benefit?
Note the substitutes
B.2 How many (number or percent cover) existing wetlands are within
a 5-mile radius of the site?
C. Flood reduction benefits do not have Complementary Inputs (NA)
D. Are people who may benefit aware of and concerned about flood
risk in their location?
Site 1 : Greystone
<* Yes r No
ff Yes *~ No
r- Yes r NO
-H
•o
n>
=3
Q_
X
NJ
m
X
QJ
3
•o
n>
>
~D
~D_
n
QJ
r+
o'
=3
in
r+
n)
•D
uu
~n
O
O
Q_
5
1/1'
7\~
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Is the site visible from homes, roads or trails?
B. Will the site improve the scenic quality of the landscape?
C. Scenic View benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
1. How many people or homes within 160 feet of the site?
2. How many people or homes within 160-325 feet of the site?
3. Do trails or roads pass within 325 feet of the site?
A.1 Does the site have features or characteristics of aesthetic interest?
Note the features or characteristics
B. How much wetlands and open water are within 650 feet of the site
(number or percent cover)?
C. How many different natural land cover types are within 650 feet of
the site? (number of types)
D. Does the site meet these people's visual preferences?
Site 1 : Greystone
• Yes r No
f* Yes r No
Site 2: #448
C Yes f No
ff Yes r No
" Yes " No l!i NA " Yes " No i!i NA
9
1
** Yes r NO
ff Yes C No
Based on Google Street
View
7.7
4
P Yes <~ No
0
0
r Yes ^ No
C Yes r NO
C Yes C No
~D
n>
D
Q_
X
K)
m
x
QJ
3
n
QJ
r+
o'
=3
in
r+
n)
-0
uu
ID
n
n
l/l
-------
Step Question/Category User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Do people want to participate in environmental education nearby?
B. Will the site support wildlife or features of educational interest?
C. Educational benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
Number of educational institutions within 0.25 miles of the site?
A.1 Does the site have features/habitat/wildlife of educational interest?
Note the features, habitat or wildlife
B. How many other wetlands suitable for educational use are within 1/2
mile of the site?
C.1 Will the site have complementary infrastructure?
Note what these infrastructure are and their number or density
D. Does the site have characteristics that make it preferable?
Site 1 : Greystone
'•• Yes r No
''• Yes r No
r Yes r No ff NA
2
'•• Yes r No
"Wildlife Habitat"
probability of 0.43, and
0.53 OES for a score of 0
4.9
'*• Yes r No
Assumed to receive
signage after restoration
ff Yes r No
Site 2: #448
- Yes C No
* Yes r No
f- Yes r No f* NA
0
- Yes r No
"Wildlife Habitat"
probability of 0.71 , and
0.81 OES for a score of
1.62
12.4
* Yes r No
Assumed to receive
signage after restoration
* Yes r No
}
T
T
n
c
>
IV
r
>
Q
T
n
}
T
T
r
Q
t-
C
I
t-
n
T
U
r
<
r
c
c
r
Q
r-
C
-------
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Do people want to do recreational activities that require wetlands?
B. Will the site support recreational activities?
C. Will required Complementary Inputs be available at the site?
1. How many people or homes within 1/3 mile of the site?
2. Are there bike trails within 1/3 mile of the site?
3. Are there bus stops within 1/3 mile of the site?
4. How many people/homes within 1/3 to 1/2 mile of the site?
5. How many people/homes within 1/2 to 6 miles of the site?
A.1 What is the total area of green space around the restoration site?
B.1 Substitute greenspace within 2/3 mile of the site? (number/area)
B.2 Substitute greenspace within 1 mile of the site? (number/area)
B.3 Substitute of greenspace within 12 miles of the site? (number/area)
C.1 Does the site have infrastructure that supports more activities?
Note what these infrastructure are and list the additional
recreational activities supported
D. Does the site have additional features that people prefer?
Note what these features are
Site 1 : Greystone
'-* Yes <~ No
••• Yes r No
r yes C No (f NA
766
* Yes r NO
- Yes r NO
786
102481
45.1
27.2
38
39.5
ff Yes r NO
Outdoor Facilities -Yes (Cricket);
Fishing /Boating Access-No; Bike
paths-Yes (Biking); Trails-No
r yes f* No
No adjacent historic sites
or scenic areas
Site 2: #448
• Yes r No
• Yes r No
r Yes r NO
"D
•o
n>
=3
Q_
X
NJ
m
X
QJ
3
~D
n>
>
-D
~D_
n
QJ
r+
o'
=3
in
r+
n>
~D
uu
73
n>
n
n>
QJ
r+
o'
=3
-------
Step Question/Cateaorv User Entries
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
Site name or identifier
3.1
3.2
3.3
A. Do people nearby want to see or hear birds?
B. Will the site support bird species of interest?
C. Bird watching benefits do not require Complementary Inputs (NA)
1. How many people or homes within 1/5 mile of the site?
2. Do trails or roads pass within 1/5 mile of the site?
A.1 Will the site support rare or unique species?
Note why, or the results of bird habitat/functional assessments
B. Bird watching benefits do not have substitutes and measuring
scarcity is beyond the scope of a rapid assessment (NA)
C.1 Will the site have complementary infrastructure or habitat?
Note what this infrastructure is and its density
D. Are people who may benefit expected to have above average
interest in bird watching?
Site 1 : Greystone
- Yes r No
ff Yes <~ No
Yes - No ^ NA
298
<=• Yes r No
ft- yes C No
f* Yes r No
From Statewide
greenways plan
<=• Yes r No
Site 2: #448
• Yes r No
<* Yes <~ No
'•" Yes '•" No <• NA
8
ff Yes r No
ff Yes r No
r Yes ff No
* Yes r No
>
D
•o
n>
=3
Q_
X
NJ
m
X
QJ
3
-D
n)
>
~D
~D
n'
QJ
r+
o'
=3
LD
r+
n>
-D
uu
ro
— s
Q_
QJ
r+
n
^~
=3'
UD
-------
VHRM9RPPPI HHHPflil
3 Compile Benefit Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
Site name or identifier
3.4
3.5
Social Equity (score)
notes
Reliability (score)
notes
Site 1 : Greystone
11.03
11.03% High, 73.3%
Medium, 16.6 % Low, in
2.5 miles
15.2
3.27 % Conservation &
Limited, 5.56 % Parks &
Open space, 6.34 % Water.
From 2025 Landuse.
Site 2: #448
18.65
18.65% High, 81.3%
Low, in 2.5 miles
58.4
24.21 % Conservation &
Limited, 8.45 % Parks &
Open space, 18.16 %
Reserve, 7.54 % water.
From 2025 Landuse
~D
n>
D
Q_
X
K)
m
x
QJ
3
n
QJ
r+
o'
=3
ID
uu
_Q
c
20
-------
Appendix 2: Example Application—Step 4 Summarize
*£
n
8*?*8
*
^
Step 4 Summarize the Indicators Site
Benefit
^
(A
o:
TJ
0
O
LL
Scenic Views
Environmental
Education
Recreation
Bird Watching
Indicators for Woonasquatucket Example
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3. 3.A Service Quality
3.3.B Scarcity
3.3.C Complements
3.3.D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3. 3.A Service Quality
3.3.B Scarcity
3.3.C Complements
3.3.D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3. 3.A Service Quality
3.3.B Scarcity
3.3.C Complements
3.3.D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3.B Scarcity
3.3.C Complements
3.3.D Preferences
3.2 How Many Benefit?
3.3.A Service Quality
3.3.B Scarcity
3.3.C Complements
3.3.D Preferences
3.4 Social Equity
3.5 Reliability
2.5 rri dow nstream of site and in flood zone
Area of restoration site (acres)
Features that increase retention volume?
Dams and levees 2.5 rri dow nstrearrf?
Wetlands w ithin 5 rri (number or % area)
NA
Are people worried about flood risk?
Number w ithin 1 60 ft of site
Number with in 160- 325 ft of site
Weighted number who benefit
Are there roads or trails w ithin 325 ft of site?
Aesthetic features or characteristics?
Wetlands or water w ithin 650 ft (number or %)
Natural land use types w ithin 650 ft (types)
Will people find it aesthetically pleasing?
Education institutions w ithin 0.25 rri of site
Features/habitat/wildlife of education interest?
Wetlands w ithin 0.5 rri of the site
Educational facilities or infrastructure on site?
Will people prefer characteristics of the site?
Number w ithin 1/3 mi of the site
Are there bike paths w ithin 1/3 rri of site?
Are there bus stops w ithin 1/3 rri of site?
Number w ithin 0 to 0.5 rri of site
Number w ithin 0.5 to 6 rri of site
Total area of green space around site
green space w ithin 2/3 rri of site
green space w ithin 1 rri of site
green space within 12 rri of site
Infrastructure supporting recreational activities?
Are there additional features on the site?
Number w ithin 0.2 mi of site
Are there roads or trails w ithin 0.2 rri of site?
Will the site support rare or unique species?
NA
Supporting infrastructure or habitat on site?
Will people be interested in birds at the site?
Score
Score
Site 1:
Greystone
20
0.54
Yes
Yes
9.84
NA
Yes
9
1
6.6
No
Yes
7.7
4
Yes
2
Yes
4.9
Yes
Yes
766
Yes
Yes
786
102481
45.1
27.2
38
39.5
Yes
No
298
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
11.03
15.2
Site 2:
#448
6
3.84
Yes
Yes
11.2
NA
Yes
0
0
0
No
0
Yes
12.4
Yes
Yes
34
No
Yes
90
35734
48433
62.2
68.9
38.8
No
No
8
Yes
No
NA
No
Yes
18.65
58.4
BLACK = No entry; GRAY = NA; BLUE = Above Average/YES*; RED = Below Average/No* ('reverse for scarcity)
-------
Appendix 3: Wetland Bird Habitat Functional Assessment
Developed by Rick McKinney
n this Appendix we present an example of a custom-created functional
assessment designed to be used with this benefits assessment approach.
This functional assessment tool is specifically tailored to evaluate bird
habitat in the Woonasquatucket and similar watersheds.
Photo by: USFWS National Digital Library
Overview
To aid in prioritizing urban land parcels for restoration, we developed a wetland habitat value assessment
tool that can be applied using readily available internet resources. Information from two existing wetland
wildlife evaluation models (Golet and Larson 1974, Golet 1976) were used to derive criteria to evaluate the
potential of a parcel to provide habitat if restored to a wetland. The tool provides a strictly functional
assessment, based on the ability of a parcel to provide wildlife habitat value after restoration. We used data
and information about candidate parcels for restoration from the Woonasquatucket watershed, a mixed
urban-natural watershed located near Providence, Rl to develop the tool. While based on similar principles,
our tool could be considered complementary to the wildlife habitat assessment component of a strategy for
restoration of freshwater wetlands also modeled on data from the Woonasquatucket watershed (Miller and
Golet 2001). We built our tool to assess the potential of a parcel to provide habitat for breeding birds: we
focus on birds as an indicator species for wildlife habitat value because of their high visibility and positive
impacts on the attitudes of urban residents (Bjerke and Ostdahl 2004, Lucket a I. 2011), as well as the ready
availability of field techniques and modeling approaches to describe their use of urban habitats. In addition,
we selected ranking categories within the criteria to create an assessment geared to smaller, isolated
wetlands more likely to be encountered in urban settings. These small wetlands, while not able to provide
the extent of habitat represented by a larger wetland in a natural setting, may nonetheless have significant
wildlife habitat value in the context of the urbanized landscape in which they are found. Hence our
assessment attempts to capture habitat value that may be underestimated by assessments that are
necessarily geared towardsthe full spectrum of freshwater wetland types and landscape settings.
Our assessment has two levels: the Office Assessment has 4 criteria designed to be evaluated remotely
using readily available online information; the Office and Field Assessment addstwo additional criteria that
can be assessed using information collected during a visit to the site. The 4 criteria common to each
assessment include parcel size, hydrologic connectivity of the parcel, landscape setting of the parcel, and
the presence of adjacent natural habitats. The Office and Field Assessment adds criteria that incorporate
the extent and distribution of vegetation within the parcel, and the presence of 4 habitat types that can
support bird species of greatest conservation need.
To complete an assessment the user gathers the necessary information needed to assign the parcel of land
being assessed to one of several categories within each criterion. The tool will use the assessment
categoriesto calculate a numerical value for each criterion expressed as a percentage of the value of a
parcel showing the maximum value for that criterion. The values can also be summed to produce an
aggregate value for a parcel that could be used in a ranking for comparison of several parcels.
95
-------
Basis for Assessment Criteria
Office assessment
The office-based assessment is comprised of four criteria designed to be completed using readily-available
online data, such as Google Maps and associated tools. The four criteria are also included in the Office and
Field Assessment. Below is a brief description of the scientific basis for development of each of the criteria.
i) Size class: This category reflects habitat value based on the size of the parcel, assuming upon
completion of the restoration the parcel will be in some way functioning as wetland habitat. Freshwater
wetlands in the northeast US vary in size from small, isolated seepage wetlands and vernal pools that can be
well under one hectare in area, to expansive meadow marshes, forested wetlands, and bogs and fens that
can extend for many hundreds or even thousands of hectares. In general, large wetlands are considered to
be of greater value to wildlife as habitat, although smaller marshes also provide important habitat for
endemic species or those with specific habitat requirements (Golet and Larson 1974). Several studies have
reported a positive relationship between the number of bird species and wetland area (Brown and Dinsmore
1986, Craig and Beal 1992). These findings imply that larger wetlands may provide greater relative habitat
value for some species of breeding birds. Larger and less fragmented wetlands may also provide greater
habitat value to wildlife that are sensitive to human activities, since peripheral disturbances will have less of
an effect on the inner part of the marsh (Golet and Larson 1974). Larger wetlands will also have less relative
edge habitat per marsh area, which may mitigate processes such as nest predation that are often correlated
with wetland edge (Johnson and Temple 1990). However, wetlands in general contain a greater diversity of
habitat types, and are therefore more likely to meet all a species' habitat requirements than uplands or
urban lands (Burke and Nol 1998). Therefore even very small or isolated wetlands in urban settings have
value to birds, particularly as foraging habitat. Birds can take advantage of the greater diversity of plant and
insect speciesfound in urban wetland patches, versus upland or maintained areas. Our assessment
acknowledges this by assigning value to even very small (e.g., less than 0.5 hectare) wetlands, while still
reflecting the increasing habitat value associated with larger wetlands. We based our size categories on an
analysis of the size range of existing parcels in the Woonasquatucket that have been proposed as candidates
for restoration. Our assumption is that within the size range of candidate parcels found in the
Woonasquatucket, habitat value will increase with increasing size. This is reflected in ascending point values
(ranging from i to 5) for each size category from lowest to highest. When ranking a parcel we assigned size
class a weight of 10 (i.e., the point value associated with the selected size category is multiplied by 10 before
being included in the overall assessment ranking), based on our assumption that size of the wetland is of
highest importance when determining its overall wildlife habitat value.
2) Wetland site type: The topography and hydrology of a wetland can influence its habitat value, and
our assessment follows that of Golet and Larson (1974) by combining them into a single criterion, wetland
site type. Wetlands in the northeast US can be found in the floodplain of a lake, pond, or stream, or in an
upland setting. We also consider whether a wetland is hydrologically connected to a waterbody via surface
water flow. In many cases floodplain wetlands are hydrologically connected, in general upland wetlands
have a greater chance of being hydrologically isolated. Wetlands in floodplains are generally considered to
have higher habitat value because of their enhanced productivity and plant species diversity resulting from
the ready availability and frequently replenished supply of nutrients provided through exchange with the
adjoining water body (Golet and Larson 1974). These wetlands may also benefit from periodic deposition of
nutrient-rich soils during flooding events. On the other hand, isolated wetlands accumulate water primarily
through surface water flow during precipitation events and groundwater seepage. This may result in lower
-------
nutrient levels and also contribute to the ephemeral nature of these wetlands; their soils may dry during
periods of low rainfall. These two factors in turn will act to decrease productivity and plant species
diversity, resulting in decreased habitat value. The point values of our assessment categories attempt to
capture the relative importance of wetland topography and hydrology to habitat value: point values range
from ito 5 corresponding to categories floodplain / lakeside or deltaic (deltaic wetlands are found where a
stream enters a lake), floodplain streamside, floodplain isolated, upland lakeside, and upland isolated.
When ranking a parcel we assigned wetland site type a weight of 10 based on our assumption that the
topography and hydrology of the wetland is of equal importance to size determining its overall wildlife
habitat value.
3) Surrounding habitat type: This criterion reflects the landscape setting of the
parcel, with a focus on land use within i km of the site. There are two potential
mechanisms by which landscape setting can influence bird use of wetlands: by
providing specific habitat for species who forage in wetlands but nest in the
surrounding upland, and by influencing bird use of a site through human
disturbance in areas adjacent to the site. The former is a generally positive effect
that is most prevalent in the case of waterbirds; for example, many waterfowl
species depend on the presence of specific habitat characteristics in the area
immediately surrounding a wetland in orderto successfully utilize the site. An
example is the Wood Duck Aixsponsa that depends on the presence of nearby
nest cavities in older trees, and hence would require mature forest around a site.
' ^ Photo by: USFWS
The potential for human disturbance can be approximated by the extent of urban, N . , D- . ,...
agricultural, and maintained (e.g., recreational) land around a site. Many studies
have noted the generally negative impact of adjacent urbanized land on bird
abundance and community composition (e.g., Otis et al. 2013, McKinney and Paton 2009, McKinney et al.
2011). Adjacent agricultural land can have a negative effect on bird use of a wetland by replacing diverse
natural areas with a monotypic habitat, but by providing a supplemental food source can also enhance use
of a site some bird species (Dallimer et al. 2010, Marsden and Symes 2008). In our assessment tool
surrounding natural land hasthe highest point value, reflecting the generally positive impact it has on bird
use of a site. Urban land hasthe lowest point value based on its generally negative impact, and surrounding
agricultural and maintained open (e.g., recreational areas) land are intermediate in value. We tried to
capture the many possible variations in land use cover by making this criterion a continuous variable: the
user enters the percentage of each land use category in a i km radius buffer surrounding a site, which is
then used to derive an overall point value for the criterion. We assigned surrounding habitat type a weight
of 8 given this criterion includes areas somewhat removed from the immediate vicinity of a site, and hence
may have slightly diminished impact on a site's overall wildlife habitat value relative to size and site type.
4) Scarcity (juxtaposition): In general, the presence of other parcels of natural land, or close proximity
to a site of natural habitat types such as wetlands, will have a positive impact on a site's wildlife habitat
value. The ecological justification for this lies in the assumption that a diversity of natural habitat types in a
given area will result in both increased resource availability (e.g., more food, nest sites, shelter, water), and
a greater variety of specific micro-habitats that could potentially support more species. Close proximity of
other natural habitats will also allow for easier movement between habitat types (Golet and Larson 1974),
and we acknowledge this by basing this assessment criterion on the number of habitats within a i km
buffer of a site. There may be multiple discrete habitat types surrounding a site and those will enhance its
habitat value regardless of their size; this is captured in the "number of associated habitats present"
component of the criterion. Particularly in urban settings, we feel that even relatively small natural habitats
-------
can have significant habitat value (McKinney et al. 2011). Regardless of the extent of nearby urbanization,
even a relatively small number of adjacent discrete habitats can contribute to overall habitat value of a site if
those areas comprise a significant portion of the area surrounding a site; this is captured in the "proportion
of buffer (connectivity)" component of the criterion. Overall, extent of the surrounding landscape is given
slightly more weight (6) versus the number of habitats (weight 5) when used in ranking habitat value of sites.
Office and field assessment
In addition to the above office-based criteria, the Office and Field Assessment addstwo criteria requiring a
field visit to the site to assess vegetation present and the extent of coverage and spatial orientation of
vegetation of different vegetation classes. Below is a brief description of the scientific basis for development
of each of the additional criteria.
5) Vegetation cover type: Cover type was developed for the assessment of waterfowl breeding
wetlands in the north-central US prairie pothole region, in order to capture the relative amounts of
vegetative cover and open water at a site (Golet 1976). The original intent was to identify ratios of
vegetation to open water optimal for breeding waterfowl, based on the principle that areas with more
water/vegetation interface, essentially greater shoreline extent, will have enhanced habitat value. We use
cover type to assess the extent of water / vegetation interface, and also the extent of interface of edge
between different vegetation types. The extent of interface will increase with greater interspersion between
vegetation types, and also with greater irregularity of the interface between any two given vegetation types.
A number of studies have demonstrated increased wetland bird abundance with increasing interspersion of
vegetation types or, in the case of aquatic-dependent birds, with the extent of vegetation-water
interspersion (e.g., Alexander and Hepp 2014, Bolenbaugh et al. 2011). In addition to open water, patches of
vegetation should be considered when evaluating a potential restoration parcel using this criterion;
vegetation types are those dominated by trees (woody plants greater than 3 m tall), shrubs (woody plants
greater than 3 m tall), forbs (herbaceous flowering plants), and grasses. Interspersion among any of these
vegetation types, or among any of these types and open water, should be considered when determining
patterns of interspersion (i.e., peripheral bands of vegetation versus patches of vegetation). In the Office
and Field Assessment vegetation cover type is given substantial weight (8), reflecting its importance in
determining habitat use by bird species and hence its importance when ranking habitat value of sites.
5) Conservation of SGCN birds: This criterion assesses the ability of a restored
parcel to provide habitat for a bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN),
and hence contribute to regional conservation of biodiversity. SGCN bird species are
identified as part of the Rhode Island State Wildlife Action Plan (RIDEM 2015) as those
species residing within the state that require actions to conserve to enhance their
population status before they become threatened or endangered. We matched a
previously-generated target list of bird species known to inhabit, or having a
reasonable probability of inhabiting, the Woonasquatucket watershed (McKinney
and Nightingale 2013) with the state SGCN list to identify the eight SGCN that are photo bY: USFWS
the focus of this criterion (Table i). We then used key habitat requirements of these National Digital Library
species to develop the components of the criteria. Most of the components of this
criterion were weighted equally; however, a majority of the target SGCN species utilize early-successional or
shrub habitat so parcels with greater than 50 % shrub habitat were weighted at twice the other components.
Parcels with areas greater than 3 ha will allow for potential utilization by all target SGCN species; presence
of dead trees will potentially allow for utilization by cavity nesting species, and multiple interspersed
-------
vegetation life forms (e.g., trees, shrubs, forbs) will also enhance the habitat suitability of the parcel for
many species (Golet 1976). Overall, conservation of SGCN birds is the same weight as connectivity (6) when
calculating its contribution to ranking habitat value of sites.
Specific instructions for using the wetland habitat value assessment tool
This section contains step-by-step instructions for completion of the data entry portion of the wetland
habitat value assessment tool, which is located in the spreadsheet "Wetland Habitat Value Assessment
Module.xlsx". Also included are suggestions for readily-available no-cost online toolsto generate some of
the data needed to complete the assessment.
Office assessment
i) Size class: to complete this assessment criterion the area of the parcel under consideration is
measured, and entered in the data entry spreadsheet by placing an "x" in the appropriate cell corresponding
to the range under which the measured area falls. A number of online tools or stand-alone programs can be
used to estimate parcel area, one example is a readily-available third-party assessment tool developed for
Google Maps (http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm). This tool allows
the userto draw a polygon around a site and will provide the resultant area measurement.
2) Wetland site type: the geomorphic setting of the parcel can be determined by examining aerial
imagery available online through programs such as Google Maps. Floodplain parcels are those that are
located in close proximity to either a lake, pond, or stream and may be occasionally subject to inundation.
Parcels located in floodplains of lakes or ponds and contiguousto the water surface, including those
associated with streams asthey enter a water body (i.e., deltaic), should be designated as "Floodplain
lakeside; floodplain deltaic" and an "x" should be placed in the corresponding cell. Those located in
floodplains of streams should be designated as "Floodplain streamside" and an "x" should be placed in the
corresponding cell. "Floodplain isolated" are parcelsthat are located within the floodplain of a lake, pond, or
stream but are not contiguousto the water surface. Upland parcels are those that are not located within the
floodplain of a lake, pond, or stream; "Upland lakeside" parcels are located within 50 m of a lake or pond but,
as a result of the topography of the landscape, would not be expected to be regularly flooded, while "Upland
isolated" include all other parcels not falling within one of the four categories.
3) Surrounding habitat type: the landscape setting of a parcel is captured by quantifying the percentage
of four general land use categories in a i km buffer around the parcel. Using any of a number of online tools
or stand-alone programs (e.g., the assessment tool developed for Google Maps at http://
www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm), the user draws a circle with a radius of
i km centered on the parcel. The percentage of the various land use types are then estimated to the nearest
whole number, and that number is entered in the corresponding cell forthat land use type. For example, if
one half of the area of the buffer around a parcel consists of urban land, with the remaining half equally
divided between natural and maintained open land, one would enter 50 in the cell corresponding to Urban
land, and 25 each in the cells corresponding to Natural land and Maintained open land. Maintained open
land is vegetated land that is maintained as short grass habitat for recreational purposes, e.g., parks and
sports fields, but can also include regularly mowed fields. Natural land includes all other vegetated areas
(excluding maintained open land) and wetlands, lakes, ponds, and streams. Urban land includes residential
and commercial areas, as well as those devoted to transportation and expansive areas of impervious surface.
Agricultural land is cropland and areas used for livestock grazing. For more detailed descriptions of land use
categories refer to the NLCD 92 Land Cover Class Definitions listed at the USGS Land Cover Institute
(http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.php).
-------
4) Scarcity (juxtaposition): the presence of other parcels of natural land, or
close proximity to a site of natural habitat types is assessed by examining aerial
imagery of the area within the i km buffer drawn for the previous criterion.
Count the number of discrete vegetated areas, i.e., forest patches, wetlands,
lakes, or ponds, and place an "x" in the corresponding cell. For example, if two
discrete forest patches and two wetlands are present within the buffer, place
an "x" in the cell corresponding to "Moderate". Then estimate the percent of the
total buffer area represented by the other parcels of natural land and place an Photo by USFWS
"x" in the cell corresponding to the appropriate percent coverage. National Digital Library
Office and field assessment
The next two criteria will require a site visit to determine the presence and orientation of vegetation life
forms at the site.
5) Vegetation cover type: a site visit, in addition to assessment of aerial imagery, is required to
complete this criterion. Imagery isfirst used to determine whether any vegetation patterns present exist
as discrete patches within the parcel, or in a peripheral band surrounding the site; e.g., a peripheral band of
vegetation surrounding a stream of lake. A combination of a site visit and evaluation of imagery is then used
to estimate the percent coverage of vegetation. With this information, select the category that best
represents the spatial arrangement and percent coverage of vegetation within the parcel by placing an
"x' in the corresponding cell.
5) Conservation of SGCN birds: this criterion requires a combination of office assessment of imagery
and a site visit. Data from the size class assessment above can be used to determine parcel size; if greater
than 3 ha enter an "x" in the appropriate box. Aerial imagery is used to determine the overall extent of
vegetative cover of the site, estimated as an approximate percentage of the total parcel area. If greater than
30%, a site visit is used to identify the vegetation life forms present at the site along with the approximate
percentage of the total parcel area they each represent. If shrubs are present and comprise greater than
30 % of the total parcel area, enter an "x" in the appropriate box. Based on the field assessment of
vegetation life forms present, determine whether there are at least interspersed life forms present and if so
enter an "x" in the appropriate box. Finally, examine the site for the presence of dead trees or potential
perch sites (usually limbs on dead trees), and if present enter an "x" in the appropriate box.
Accessing habitat prioritization scores
Once all the criteria have been ranked or scored, the module calculates a score for the parcel that is reported
in either the 'Office Assessment Totals'or'Office and Field Totals'worksheets of the module worksheet.
The office assessment score is based on a total of 195 possible points and the totals are found in cells A2O
through 026 of the 'Office Assessment Totals' worksheet; the office and field score is based on a total of 265
possible points and the totals are found in cells A26 through 034 of the 'Office and Field Totals' worksheet.
Each totals section also calculates the percentage 'grade'for each criterion: a percentage 'grade'of 100%
would suggest that all of the potential habitat value for that criterion has been realized in the parcel.
Interpretation and use of the scores is dependent on the goals of the assessment; for example, a series of
parcels could be assessed and ranked in descending order based on total score, in which case a higher score
would suggest enhanced habitat value. Parcels could also be ranked based on the score for a particular
criterion if that criterion were of interest. Finally, any of the components of the assessment model
(e.g., criteria weights, category scores) can be modified to fit a specific assessment goal.
100
-------
Table i. Selected habitat requirements of SGCN birds known to inhabit, or having a reasonable
probability of inhabiting, the Woonasquatucket watershed.
Pileated Woodpecker
insects
downed wood and logs
Hairy Woodpecker
i.o
insects, fruit, seeds
live trees
Great Crested
Flycatcher
2-5
insects
lepidoptera
Willow Flycatcher
i.o
insects
open perch sites
Least Flycatcher
0.2
insects
vertically heterogeneous
vegetation layers
Gray Catbird
o.i
insects, fruit
shrub habitat
Eastern Bluebird
i.o
insects
open perch sites
Eastern Towhee
2.0
insects, fruit, seeds
well-developed leaf litter
Scientific names: Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus; Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus; Great
Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus; Willow Flycatcher Empidonaxtraillii; Least Flycatcher Empidonax
minimus; Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis; Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis; Eastern Towhee Pipilo
erythrophthalmus
Literature Cited
Alexander BW and Hepp GR. 2014. Estimating effects of habitat characteristics on abundances of three
species of secretive marsh birds in Central Florida. Waterbirds 37:274-285.
Bjerke T and Ostdahl T. 2004. Animal-related attitudes and activities in an urban population. Anthrozoos
17:109-129.
Bolenbaugh JR, Krementz DG and Lehnen SE. 2011. Secretive marsh bird species co-occurrences and
habitat associations across the Midwest, USA. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2:49-60.
Brown M and Dinsmore JJ. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management.
Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392-397.
Craig RJ and Beal KG. 1992. The influence of habitat variables on marsh bird communities of the Connecticut
River estuary. Wilson Bulletin 104, 295-311.
Dallimer M, Marini L, Skinner AMJ, Hanley N, Armsworth PR and Gaston KJ. 2010. Agricultural land-use in
the surrounding landscape affects moorland bird diversity. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment
139:578-583-
Golet FC. 1976. Wildlife wetland evaluation model. Pp. 13-34 'n Models for the Assessment of Freshwater
Wetlands, JS Larson [ed.], University of Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center, Publication No.
32, Amherst, MA.
101
-------
Golet FC and Larson JS. 1974. Classification of freshwater wetlands in the glaciated northeast. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Resource Publication 116, 56 pp.
Luck GW, Davidson P, Boxall D and Smallbone L. 2011. Relations between urban bird and plant communities
and human well-being and connection to nature. Conservation Biology 25:816-826.
Marsden S J and Symes CT. 2008. Bird richness and composition along an agricultural gradient in New
Guinea: The influence of land use, habitat heterogeneity and proximity to intact forest. Austral Ecology
McKinney RA and Nightingale ME. 2013. A framework for enhancing bird habitat value of urban greenspaces
in the Woonasquatucket watershed, Rhode Island USA. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Narragansett, Rl. EPA/6oo/R-i3/i63.
McKinney RA and Paton PWC. 2009. Breeding birds associated with seasonal pools in the northeastern
United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 80:380-386.
McKinney RA, Raposa KB and Cournoyer RM. 2011. Wetlands as habitat in urbanizing landscapes: patterns
of bird abundance and occupancy. Landscape and Urban Planning 100:144-152.
Miller NAand Golet FC. 2001. Development of a statewide freshwater wetland restoration strategy. Final
Research Report prepared for the Rl Department of Environmental Management Office of Water
Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region i, August 2001.
Otis DL, Crumpton WR, Green D, Loan-Wilsey A, Cooper T and Johnson RR. 2013. Predicted effect of
landscape position on wildlife habitat value of conservation reserve enhancement program wetlands in a
tile-drained agricultural region. Restoration Ecology 21:276-284.
RIDEM. 2015. Draft Rhode Island 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision. Available online at: http://
www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/swapi5.htm. Accessed April, 2015.
1O2
-------
Appendix 4: Bird Habitat Assessment Checklist
01
0
0
•o
u.
1*1
g
O
N
55
£
•n t
C >
(0 h-
i
0)
c
c -2
_ —
|1
(A
•
0)
£
0)
m
13
•s
1
0
0.
~
0
•p 1
re a.
u re
tfl -5
3
M
!*
0) >
o o
•.s z
re o
£ O
o V)
8-6
o
o
Site Name
> 5.0 ha
2.6-5.0 ha
0.6-2.5 ha
0.1-0.5 ha
<0.1 ha
Floodplain lakeside:
floodplain deltaic
Floodplain stream side
Floodplain isolated
Upland lakeside
Upland isolated
Natural Land
Agricultural Land
Maintained Open Land
Urban Land
Publically-owned
Currently vacant
Accessible
Evidence of
contamination
1 km buffer around parcel
> 80% residential
1 km buffer around parcel
50 -80% residential
1 km buffer around parcel
20 -49% residential
1 km buffer around parcel
< 20% residential
Number of associated
habitats present:
Proportion of 1-km buffer
around parcel
(connectivity):
76-1 00% Cover Plants
76-1 00% Cover Plants
26 -75% Cover Plants
26 -75% Cover Plants
< 25 Cover Plants
Dead trees or perch sites
> 30% shrub cover
3 or more interspersed
vegetation life forms
Parcel area > 3 ha
Yes
town- or state-owned land
no occupied dwellings or
commercial establishments
opportunity for recreational
use
site verified contaminanted or
prior use suggests potential
contamination
High Moderate
>5 3-5
> 50% Of 25 - 50% Of
1-km buffer 1-km buffer
patches of vegetation
peripheral band of vegetation
patches of vegetation
peripheral band ofvegetation
little to no vegetation
No
private land
occupied dwellings or
commercial establishments
no opportunity for
recreational use
site verified clean or prior use
suggests no contamination
Low None
1-2 0
<25%of 0% of 1-km
1-km buffer buffer
103
-------
Appendix 5: List of Spatial Datasets
Short Name
NLCD
Rl Land Use
NWI
E-gn Roads
E-gn Addresses
Bike Paths
SoVI
2015 Projected Land Use
Bus Stops
State Recreation Facilities
Fishing and Boating Access
DEM Hiking Trails
Scenic Areas
Historic Sites
Schools
Full Title
National Land Use Cover Dataset
Rhode Island Land Use and Land Cover 2011; rilonb
National Wetlands Inventory; NWIi^
Rl E-gn Road Centerlines; egnRoadsi3q2
Rl E-gn Sites; egnSitesi^n
Bike Paths; bikepathsio
Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) Census Tracts (2010)
Land use 2025; landuse2O25
RIPTA Bus Stops (January 2016); RIPTAstopsonG
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
Inventory of Facilities; SCORPi^
Fishing and Boating Access; fishBoatAcci2
Rl DEM Hiking Trails; hikeTrailsis
Rl Scenic Landscape Inventory; s^nsvSg
Historic Sites of Rhode Island; s^^chsgg
Schools; schoolsoS.
Scale
National
Statewide
National
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
National (Coastal)
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
The following tools were also suggested as data sources for indicators in the example applications:
• EPA's EnviroAtlas: https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas
• NOAA's coastal Flood Exposure Mapper: https://coast.noaa.gov/floodexposure/
-------
------- |