FY 18 Output SHC 2.61.3-
Incorporation of Ecosystem
Goods and Services into
Community-Level Decision
Support Using EnviroAtlas and
Other Tools
EPA/600/R-19/087
July 2019
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
GULF ECOLOGY DIVISION
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Introduction 1
Conceptual Framework 2
Output Description 2
Agency Relevance 3
Theme: Decision Alternatives 5
Background 5
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan 5
Stakeholders in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 5
Cooperative Federalism in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 6
Systems Approaches to Planning in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 7
Theme: Intermediate Ecosystem Goods and Services 8
Background 8
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan 8
EnviroAtlas in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 8
Protection and Restoration of Wetlands in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 9
Theme: Ecological Production Functions (EPFs) 10
Background 10
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan 10
National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 10
Protection and Restoration of Wetlands and Coastal and Ocean Water Resources in the 2018 EPA
Strategic Plan: 10
Theme: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) 11
Background 12
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan 12
Status and Assessment of the Nation's Waters in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 12
Theme: Connecting Benefits to Human Health and Human Weil-Being 14
Background 14
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan 14
Assessment of the Impacts of Pollution in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan: 14
Theme: Information for Decision Support 16
Background 16
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan 16
i
-------
Systems Approach to Develop Scientific and Technological Solutions in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
16
Theme: Ecosystem Goods and Services at Contaminated Sites 17
Background 17
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan and the 2017 Superfund Task Force Recommendations. 17
Ecosystem Goods and Services in Contaminated Sites: 17
Ecosystem Goods and Services Case Studies and Models Support Community Decision Making using the
EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser 19
Product Description 19
Background 19
Summary of Results 19
EcoService Models Library 21
Product Description 21
Background 21
EPA's EcoService Models Library 22
Benefits of the EcoService Models Library 22
A Growing Database 22
References 23
Notice and Disclaimer 26
Appendix A: EPA Report Executive Summaries 27
Appendix B: Journal Article Abstracts 45
Acknowle
This Output report could not have been prepared without the support of the SHC 2.61 Integration,
Synthesis and Strategic Communication Task leadership team for their valuable contributions to the
Project (Matt Harwell, NHEERL/GED; Ted DeWitt, NHEERL/WED; Marc Russell, NHEERL/GED; Paul
Ringold, NHEERL/WED; Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, NERL/SED; John Johnston, NERL/CED; Rich Fulford,
NHEERL/GED; Susan Yee, NHEERL/GED; Bob McKane, NHEERL/WED; Joel Hoffman, NHEERL/MED; Tim
Canfield, NRMRL/GWERD). Additional report content contributions came from Project team members
identified as co-authors on the numerous Project deliverables summarized for this Output report. High-
level summary content reported in the deliverables mentioned in this report were incorporated in this
Output report with the authors' consent. Jennifer Cashdollar, Bruce Duncan, Sarah Mazur, Elizabeth
George, and Katie Williams served as additional reviewers for this report. Photos on cover page courtesy
of U.S. EPA.
-------
oduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts
problem-driven, interdisciplinary research to address specific environmental risks, and is committed to
using science and innovation to reduce risks to human health and the environment, based on needs
identified by EPA's program offices and state and tribal partners. Cooperative federalismthe
relationship between states and EPAis not just about who makes decisions, but about how decisions
are made and a sense of shared accountability to provide positive environmental results (ECOS 2017). As
there is a need for scientifically sound and user-friendly approaches, tools, and methods to support
community decision making, ORD emphasizes the translation of its work products for use by partners to
help inform the how part of decision making to protect human health and the environment.
Working with EPA's program offices, ORD conducts research on the benefits of nature, also referred to
as ecosystem goods and services (EGS) to address: (1) how to estimate current production of EGS, given
the type and condition of ecosystems; (2) how EGS contribute to human health and well-being; and (3)
how the production and benefits of these EGS may be reduced or augmented under various decision
scenarios. Examples of community issues for which EGS assessments have been performed include
watershed management, climate resiliency, development of resource sustainability plans, water quality
regulation, informing contaminated site assessments, and land-use development. The Community-Based
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project uses scientific knowledge of EGS, economics, and human
health to promote community well-being and maintain or restore high environmental quality. As part of
this research, principles of structured decision making are applied to develop approaches and tools to
integrate EGS concepts into community-level decision making at a series of five coordinated case
studies, located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and Southern
Plains. Further information about the structure of the SHC 2.61 Project can be found in Harwell and
Molleda (2018). An overview of each coordinated case study is presented in Harwell and Jackson (2018),
including a description of the EGS-related issues at each case study site, the research approaches
involved, objectives and measures of success of EGS-focused research, and impact of the coordinated
case study work.
While the ORD research portfolio on advancing ecosystem services science in support of community-
and environmental-decision making efforts was initiated many years ago, there is value in examining this
work within the larger context of the new EPA Strategic Plan (USEPA 2018). As such, each component of
this synthesis report explores potential connections to the EPA Strategic Plan, highlighting those
elements - in whole, or in part - that are related to ORD's work on advancing ecosystem services
science to help address the question, "How can EGS help accomplish the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
priorities?"
EPA will focus on, "the use of the best available science and research
to address current and future environmental hazards, develop
new approaches, and improve the foundation for decision
making(EPA Strategic Plan, Goal 1)
1
-------
Conceptual Framework
Conceptual diagrams show how EGS in general, and more specifically, final EGS (FEGS) that directly
connects EGS to human beneficiaries, can be involved in a particular environmental decision-making
context. Overall, they can be summarized by the generic conceptual framework shown in Figure 1, The
generic diagram uses three arrows to distinguish three types of estimation processes typically required:
the influence of management actions (termed impact functions) on the state of the natural
environment;
changes in the production of FEGS by the natural environment (ecological production functions
or EPFs); and
the relationship between changes in FEGS and changes in well-being {benefit functions).
An additional fourth arrow shows the potential intervention of important external drivers (e.g.,
environmental stressors) as a source of variability that may also require estimation. This conceptual
model identifies critical linkages among the respective elements that brings about a novel integration of
science and policy to yield highly effective measures of decision outcomes. Place-based studies provide
an opportunity to explore the application of this conceptual model.
Social & Economic
Services
& Ecosystem State
(& Intermediate EGS)
Benefit
Functions
Impact
Functions
A Final EGS
Information for Decision Support
Figure 1. A conceptual framework for informing decision making through the use of ecological
production functions, ecosystem goods and services, and indicators of human well-being (modified
from Fulford et al. 2016a). This FY18 Output report maps recent SHC 2.61 research activities onto
elements of the conceptual model (red stars) and the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan (throughout the report).
Output Description
This SHC 2.61.3 Output report (Incorporation of Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community-Level
Decision Support Using EnviroAtlas and Other Tools) describes ORD research to incorporate the
sustainability of FEGS production and benefits into community-scale decisions across the U.S. This
Output report (vehicle) provides a summary that compiles the key lessons learned from a series of SHC
2.61 deliverables that are packaged to help address the question, "How can EGS help accomplish the
2018 EPA Strategic Plan priorities?" The purpose of this Output will be to help communicate the
2
-------
Project's FY 18 science results (the message) to users, with the SHC NPD office, ORD ecosystem services
practitioners, and EPA Program and Regional Offices as the primary audience.
Different elements of the conceptual model shown in Figure 1 are echoed throughout each of the
studies described. These studies represent critical contributions of science for establishing effective
measures of decision outcomes of EGS. The research summarized in this Output report includes work
across several broad themes:
(1) Decision Alternatives: Fulford et al. (2016a, 2016b); Hoghooghi et al. (2018); Johnston et al.
(2017); Williams et al. (2017); Yee et al. (2017)
(2) Intermediate EGS: Bolgrien et al. (2018); Littles et al. (2018); Mazzotta et al. (2016, 2018)
(3) Ecological Production Functions: Cooter et al. (2018); ESML (2018); Herbert et al. (2018); Li et
al. (2018); Moon et al. (2017); Newcomer-Johnson (2018)
(4) Targeted PEGS: Bell et al. (2017); FEGS-CS (2018); O'Dea et al. (2017); Tashie and Ringold
(2019); Sharpe and Jenkins (2018)
(5) Benefits and Human Health & Weil-Being: de Jesus Crespo and Fulford (2017); Fulford et al.
(2015); Johnston et al. (2017); Myer et al. (2017)
(6) Information for Decision Support: Yee et al. (2017)
The studies summarized in this report represent efforts to support community-level decision making by
incorporating quantitative information on the production and benefits of EGS. This report discusses
research to evaluate the utility of decision support tools developed in this Project (such as the FEGS
classification system (FEGS-CS) and the EcoService Models Library (ESML)) and other SHC tools (such as
EnviroAtlas and the FEGS Scoping Tool) to inform the incorporation of FEGS into community-scale
decision making. The report also summarizes progress toward incorporating FEGS-based tools and data
sets developed by our Project (such as FEGS-CS, FEGS metrics, ESML, and data layers from our case
studies) into decision support tools being developed in other SHC Projects, particularly the EnviroAtlas.
Additionally, this report presents an overview of the 2018 public release of the EcoService Models
Library and the impactful 2018 report entitled, Ecosystem Goods and Services Case Studies and Models
Support Community Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser
(Bolgrien et al. 2018). An overview of ongoing work examining connections between EGS and Superfund
is included at the end of this report. This report includes summaries and excerpts from a number of SHC
2.61 FY 18 Products and other deliverables in SHC 2.61 covering work through FY 18. Additionally, two
appendices capture the compilation of Executive Summaries or Abstracts from reports cited herein
(Appendix A), and the compilation of abstracts from peer-reviewed journal publications (Appendix B).
Agency Relevance
This Output report, and the SHC 2.61 research upon which it is based, was developed for EPA Regional
Offices, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Water, and Office of Community
Resilience, to support their efforts to help communities across the U.S. develop sustainable practices for
their environments, economies, and the well-being of their citizens. Other notable EPA Program Offices
that have significant interest/roles in EGS research include the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Policy, Center for Environmental Economics, Office of International and Tribal Affairs, and Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Additionally, this report is intended to inform colleagues
involved with EGS science within EPA's Office of Research and Development.
3
-------
Important Key Findings
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholders, experts, and decision makers should engage in a deliberative environment to
deal rigorously with both facts and values in a structured decision-making process.
Stakeholder engagement is important for identifying fundamental objectives.
Local decision makers should engage stakeholders early in the process.
Decision makers and stakeholders together formally define a decision context.
Systems Thinking
Systems thinking and the use of decision frameworks are two important concepts that merge
the fields of EGS and decision science.
Decision frameworks can help engage stakeholders in a step-by-step process by organizing
information and models linking decisions to EGS to benefits. This can facilitate estimation of
consequences across the entire system, not just parts targeted for management.
Conceptual models and systems thinking can uncover unintended consequences.
FEGS for Community-Based Decision Support
Researchers need to address the whole pathway connecting FEGS to human health and well-
being outcomes and include approaches from the social and public health sciences such as the
use of Health Impact Assessments and ethnographic methods. These approaches improve the
application of eco-health relationships in decision making.
The EPA's EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser can serve to openly inform the
decision process because the information they contain is publicly accessible and
understandable to diverse audiences.
Decision makers should work with diverse groups of experts to integrate multidisciplinary
sources of information.
Trajectories of human health and well-being over time change as a function of community
dynamics and should be examined in the community decision-making process.
A "one-biosphere" approach can be used to integrate several multi-media modeling tools to
address management solutions for complex environmental challenges.
Ecological models transferred from one application to another require a transparent and
consistent approach to better inform management decisions.
A classification system for FEGS provides a standardized foundation for measuring,
quantifying, mapping, modeling, and valuing EGS.
Causal criteria analysis approaches can be used to determine whether existing EGS literature
supports cause and effect relationships between ecosystem attributes, the associated
intermediate EGS and FEGS, and resultant human health and well-being endpoints.
Ecosystem Goods and Services at Contaminated Sites
Ongoing EPA Office of Research and Development collaborations with partners focus on
whether EGS that may be impacted by contaminated site cleanup operations can be examined
qualitatively or quantitatively with a variety of free, publicly available tools.
A framework and suite of tools can be used to assess potential changes in EGS provided on
and around a contaminated site and can be factored into the decision-making process as
project managers consider various site cleanup management options.
4
-------
Theme: Decision Alternatives
Background
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services represent the direct linkage of EGS to human beneficiaries. The
FEGS approach for community-based decision support represents an important step in decision support
focused on drawing clear linkages between environmental change to benefits enjoyed by people. The
initial step in the FEGS approach, defined as decision alternatives in Figure 1, focuses on articulation of
the decision under consideration. This step includes the important components of stakeholders,
identification and engagement, defining the decision context (e.g., "What are we trying to do?"),
articulating the decision alternatives, and identifying measures of consequences that will be used to
evaluate these alternatives.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
Examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on decision alternatives to EPA's 2018
Strategic Plan include linkages to stakeholders, cooperative federalism, and systems approaches to
planning.
Stakeholders in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"Over the next five years, EPA will emphasize the importance of engaging
stakeholders at all levels and from all perspectives in making cleanup and land
revitalization decisions." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 1.3)
There are a number of examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on stakeholder identification and
engagement
Yee et al. (2017): The report, Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services into Community Decision-Making, provides guidance and approaches on how to
incorporate stakeholders in the decision-making process. This guidance report is organized
around the pillars of structured decision making and recognizes information about
stakeholder values to help prioritize collections of scientific information based on what is
most relevant to decisions.
Johnston et al. (2017): Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services:
Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation, and
Williams et al. (2017): How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services
Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and
Revitalization Projects. In this pair of reports, researchers seek to understand how citizens,
community groups, and a municipality value FEGS. Ethnographic methods are used to create
a conceptual map of a neighborhood to identify and characterize the different values placed
on an ecosystem and its services.
Fulford et al. (2016a): The report, Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services
to Community Decision Making, Community-Based Decision Support, describes examples of
stakeholder engagement in previous place-based research conducted in the Sustainable and
Healthy Communities program. Examining results from 25 case studies, the report finds that
engaging stakeholders brings further understanding of actions and desired outcomes while
science brings an understanding of how actions can translate to desired outcomes.
5
-------
Fulford et al. (2016b): The report, Sustainability at the Community Level: Searching for
Common Ground as a Part of a National Strategy for Decision Support, describes examples
of stakeholder engagement in nine select communities that examine how communities
define their fundamental objectives to help identify and rank community priorities in a
useful and consistent manner, an important step for framing a local decision context.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on stakeholder identification and
engagement include
Engage stakeholders and local decision makers early in the process.
Stakeholder engagement is important for identifying fundamental objectives.
In partnership with stakeholders, formally and methodically define the decision context.
Use conceptual models and systems thinking to uncover unintended consequences.
Work with diverse groups of experts to integrate multidisciplinary sources of information.
Cooperative Federalism in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"EPA also will work closely with ECOS; the National Tribal Caucus; state and tribal
program associations; and individual states, tribes, and territories to implement
the Administrator's vision for cooperative federalism." (EPA Strategic Plan,
Objective 2.1)
Cooperative federalism, the relationship between states and EPA, is about who and how decisions are
made and a sense of shared accountability to provide positive environmental results. An example of SHC
2.61 research focusing on elements of cooperative federalism:
Yee et al. (2017): The report, Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services into Community Decision-Making, outlines how structured decision analysis
provides an approach for evaluating trade-offs in a way that encourages both public
participation and collaborative decision making.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on elements of cooperative
federalism include:
Broader stakeholder inclusion and enhanced collaboration among all stakeholders help
create better solutions to complex problems.
In the Great Lakes' Area of Concern program, collaboration among a range of stakeholders,
including non-government organizations, state agencies, tribal agencies, and federal
partners is valuable for creating a conceptual model that demonstrates how removing
beneficial use impairments can lead to EGS that improve human well-being and are
responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.
In the Pacific Northwest, close collaboration among community and tribal stakeholders, and
state and federal agencies in Washington and Oregon provides approaches, including
systems-based tools, for identifying ecosystem management solutions including helping to
evaluate how alternative decision options affect EGS and human well-being.
6
-------
Systems Approaches to Planning in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"To further integrate and implement community environmental considerations
within EPA programs, the Agency will create tools to facilitate incorporation of
community understanding, needs, and concerns across program activities and
advance more systematic incorporation of existing tools and needs, such as use
of the Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN) and
EnviroAtlas." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 2.2)
There are a number of examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on elements of system approaches to
planning:
Hoghooghi et al. (2018): The manuscript, Cumulative effects of low impact development on
watershed hydrology in a mixed land-cover system, describes the application of a process-
based watershed model to identify best management practices for reducing stormwater
flow in flood-prone urban and rural environments in an Ohio watershed. The model
epitomizes systems thinking approaches through its integration of hydrological and
ecological processes within ecosystems, and consequent capabilities for quantifying effects
of natural and human drivers of change on ecosystem goods and services.
Yee et al. (2017): The report, Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services into Community Decision-Making, explores the importance of using decision
support tools and systems to help integrate information and compare alternative scenarios
for a given decision context.
Fulford et al. (2016a): The report, Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services
to Community Decision Making, Community-Based Decision Support, presents a systems
approach for integrating EGS science and policy at the community level that results in more
effective decision outcomes.
Bradley et al. (2015): The report, Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing
Watershed Management Options in Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico, outlines the principles of
structured decision making from the context of the value of introducing EGS into the
decision-making process.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on elements of system approaches to
planning include:
Two important concepts, systems thinking and the use of decision frameworks, merge the
fields of EGS and decision science.
The key to the structured decision-making process is engagement of stakeholders, experts,
and decision makers in a deliberative environment that deals rigorously with facts and
values in decision making.
Decision Support Systems can help engage stakeholders in a step-by-step process by
organizing information and models linking decisions to EGS to benefits, to facilitate
estimation of consequences.
-------
Theme: Intermediate Ecosystem Goods and Services
Background
Intermediate EGS (IEGS) are attributes of ecological structure or processes (including functions,
characteristics, and interactions) that influence the quantity and/or quality of EGS but do not
themselves quantify as FEGS (because they are not directly enjoyed, consumed, or used by beneficiaries)
(Yee et al. 2017). In the context of the FEGS approach for community-based decision support (Figure 1),
research on intermediate EGS focuses on mapping and assessing goods and services across a range of
ecosystems and geographical landscapes. While some of these IEGS, when connected directly to human
beneficiaries, are recognized as FEGS, both IEGS and FEGS can be used to provide decision support.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
Examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on elements of IEGS to EPA's 2018 Strategic
Plan include linkages to the EnviroAtlas, and protection and restoration of wetlands and coastal and
ocean water resources.
EnviroAtlas in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"EPA will work in a focused manner to make infrastructure and public health
protection investments in communities with and through partners such as states
and tribes. To further integrate and implement community environmental
considerations within EPA programs, the Agency will create tools to facilitate
incorporation of community understanding, needs, and concerns across program
activities, and advance more systematic incorporation of existing tools and needs,
such as use of the Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN)
and EnviroAtlas. EPA will develop a cross-Agency communities team to lead
regional involvement in and resourcing of community-based environmental work
through a fully-integrated resource platform." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 2.2)
"Work with the ECOS/ERIS to evaluate the causal relationships between
ecosystem goods and services and human health, and to document these
relationships using EnviroAtlas." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 3.3)
One primary example of SHC 2.61 research focusing on elements of EnviroAtlas:
Bolgrien et al. (2018): The report, Ecosystem Goods and Services Case Studies and Models
Support Community Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship
Browser, describes case study application of EPA's EnviroAtlas and other decision support
tools to demonstrate how they can serve as information gateways between scientific data
and decision makers (Figure 2). See below for a full summary of this report.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on the EnviroAtlas include:
EPA's EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser serve to openly inform the
decision process because the information they contain are publicly accessible and
understandable to diverse audiences.
-------
EnviroAtlas Metrics
HWBI Domain
4 Health
2.S7
¦ 0.7a
-0.47
- 0.31
¦ 0.20
Greenspace per capita (m2/person)
6.1 - 6.0
: : ; :
Figure 2. HWBI Health scores for Tampa Bay area counties (left) mapped alongside two community-
scale EnviroAtlas metrics (right) to illustrate how visualizing ecosystem services could inform health
and overall well-being (from Bolgrien et a!. 2018).
Protection and Restoration of Wetlands in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"Work with partners to protect and restore wetlands and coastal and ocean water
resources." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 1.2)
There are a number of other examples of SHC 2.61 and related research focusing on protection and
restoration of wetlands and coastal and ocean water resources:
Mazzotta et al. (2018): The manuscript, Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of
wetland restoration using the Rapid Benefit Indicators approach, presents a systematic
approach to compiling non-monetary indicators of wetlands restoration benefits.
Littles et al. (2018): The manuscript, Linking people to coastal habitats: A meta-analysis of
final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) on the coast, evaluates the existing peer-reviewed
literature on the relationships between coastal habitats and the beneficiaries of coastal
FEGS.
Mazzotta et al. (2016): The report, Assessing the Benefits of Wetland Restoration: A Rapid
Benefit Indicators Approach for Decision Makers, presents a tool that allows users to quickly
estimate and quantify benefits to people around an ecological restoration site. This EGS
research was conducted as part of ORD's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources National
Research Program.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on protection and restoration of
wetlands include:
A quick and rapid screening tool can provide a systematic EGS lens for evaluating and
prioritizing wetland restoration projects.
A wetland restoration prioritization tool can allow decision makers to carefully evaluate and
consider the various tradeoffs involved in selecting sites for restoration, in light of both
ecological and social goals.
The relevance of coastal habitats to IEGS, including those provided by wetlands, was cited
often in the published literature.
9
Percent removal
PM10 (%)
^ 0.73
^ 0.47
^ 0.31
£) 0.20
, |^j 0.00
-------
Theme: Ecological Production Functions (EPFs)
Background
The production of EGS is an important step in connecting the ecosystem to human beneficiaries.
Ecological Production Functions (EPFs) is the term used to describe the empirical functions, or models,
connecting ecosystems to beneficiaries in the larger FEGS community-based decision support model
(Figure 1). These EPFs provide an important step in decision support by articulating the how of the
production of important services such as clean air and clean water.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
Examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on elements of EPFs to EPA's 2018 Strategic
Plan include linkages to the national ambient air quality standards, and protection and restoration of
wetlands and coastal and ocean water resources.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"EPA will prioritize key activities to support attainment of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) and implementation of stationary source
regulations." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 1.1)
Examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on elements of national ambient air quality standards include:
Cooter et al. (2017): The journal article, Exploring a United States maize cellulose biofuel
scenario using an integrated energy and agricultural markets solution approach,
demonstrates an approach to evaluate alternative scenarios for managing nitrogen and
phosphorus loading in the Mississippi River Basin as it relates to hypoxia impairment of the
U.S. northern Gulf of Mexico.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 related research on the national ambient air
quality standards include:
A "one-biosphere" approach integrated several multi-media modeling tools, including
atmospheric nutrient deposition (CMAQ; accessed 14 August 2018), agro-economic (Market
Allocation Model; Lenox et al. 2013), and agro-ecosystem (EPIC; accessed 14 August 2018)
models to address management solutions for complex environmental challenges.
Protection and Restoration of Wetlands and Coastal and Ocean Water Resources in the 2018
EPA Strategic Plan:
"Work with partners to protect and restore wetlands and coastal and ocean water
resources." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 1.2)
Examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on protection and restoration of wetlands and coastal and
ocean water resources include:
The public release of the EcoService Models Library (2018; see below for a full summary of
ESML) includes capturing information on ecological models focusing on production of EGS,
such as air quality (Figure 3).
-------
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on protection and restoration of
wetlands and coastal and ocean water resources include:
Moon et al. (2017): The journal article, Model application niche analysis: Assessing the
transferability and generalizability of ecological models, presents a methodology and three
wetland examples for describing a particular niche application for a model to help identify
how and where that model can be applied elsewhere.
Herbert et al. (2018): The journal article, Differential effects of chronic and acute simulated
seawater intrusion on tidal freshwater marsh carbon cycling, investigates the impacts of
salinity as a key driver of community structure and function in aquatic systems through
experimental chronic and acute saltwater intrusion in a tidal freshwater marsh.
Li et al. (2018): The journal article, Climate drivers of Zizaniopsis miliacea biomass in a
Georgia, U.S.A. tidal fresh marsh, also investigates the impacts of salinity as a key driver of
marsh biomass through experimental chronic and acute saltwater intrusion in a tidal
freshwater marsh.
CONTACT US
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
/\
Home LJ Search EMs
siu 0
Learn about ESML View ESML Data Map
Modds Database Last Updated: Tuesday, July 31,20181:32:03 PM EDT
Find Source Document Info
Search Using: (#) Pre-defined Filters (3 Text Search Which search is best for me?
Search Criteria +j Show Search Criteria
Clear all Selections Ecological Models (EMs) (156 matching results)
Save Search Criteria
q Compare Selected EMs I q Save Selected EMs to My EMs
Export Data to Spreadsheet rFREE viewers)
Filter based on: Q HidcFiLtere Show 110 entries
his 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last
Figure 3. EcoService Models Library search engine (from https://esml.epa.gov/search/ems).
11
-------
Theme: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)
Background
Final EGS are the biophysical features directly relevant to each of the diverse ways in which people use,
enjoy, or appreciate ecosystems (Boyd et al. 2015). As such, they are the units that best facilitate
subsequent social interpretation and communication. The FEGS for community-based decision support
(Figure 1) represents an important approach to the identification of both affected FEGS and
beneficiaries for a given decision context and the suite of decision options considered for that decision.
Interestingly, multiple analyses have found that the absence of information about FEGS has made this
translation more difficult. If FEGS, or principles for identifying FEGS, can be utilized, then ecosystem
assessments, conditions, status, and trends will provide more relevant information.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
Examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on elements of FEGS to EPA's 2018 Strategic
Plan include linkages to facilitate tools to help with ecosystem status and assessment.
Status and Assessment of the Nation's Waters in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"Conduct monitoring and assessment so we know the status of the nation's
waters." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 1.2)
"... create tools to facilitate incorporation of community understanding, needs,
and concerns ... to further integrate and implement community environmental
considerations within EPA programs..." (EPA Strategic Plan; Objective 1.2)
Examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on elements of facilitating tools to help with ecosystem status
and assessment include:
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services - Classification System website
(https://gispub4.epa.gov/FEGS/) is an interactive tool that allows users to query and
customize information from an on-line interactive tool for incorporating the benefits
provided by natural ecosystems into their own research and decision making.
Sharpe and Jenkins (2018): The report, The FEGS Scoping Tool User Manual, is a decision-
support tool designed to be used at an early stage of decision making, when decision
makers are aware that a decision needs to be made, but before any actions are taken.
Bell et al. (2017): A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an
environmental stressor and final ecosystem services, and O'Dea et al. (2017): Impacts to
ecosystem services from aquatic acidification: Using FEGS-CS to understand the impacts of
air pollution. In this pair of journal articles, researchers present a STressor-Ecological
Production function-final ecosystem Services (STEPS) Framework that produces "chains" of
ecological components (biological indicator, ecological production function, user group that
benefits) that explore the breadth of impacts resulting from a change in a given stressor
(Figure 4).
Tashie and Ringold (2019): The journal article, Critical assessment of available ecosystem
services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework, examines an
extensive collection of ecosystem service-related data captured in the EnviroAtlas to the
12
-------
FEGS Classification System, identifying over 14,000 linkages between 255 data layers from
EnviroAtlas and FEGS beneficiaries.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on the status and assessment of the
nation's waters include:
A classification system for FEGS provides a standardized foundation for identifying, housing,
measuring, quantifying, mapping, modeling, and valuing FEGS
The identification of key environmental attributes for a given decision context focuses on
using stakeholder prioritization to help identify the ecosystem attributes of concern for each
beneficiary type.
The STEPS Framework can be used in any scenario in which a stressor is modifying an
ecological component. The analysis results can be used by social scientists to apply valuation
measures to individual or multiple chains, thus informing the analysis of the effects of
anthropogenic stressors on measures of human well-being.
For many types of human beneficiaries, there is an absence of data on FEGS at extensive
scales in the United States.
Stressor
Chemic a I/Physic al/
Biological criterion
Chemical/Physical/
Biological criterion
threshold
User group 1
Measures of human
well-being
Final ecosystem
services module
Environmental
component
User group n
Change In biological
indicator
sos»
4
Components
SOS*.
-~ Component #S
SOiJ
. Component n
Ecological endpoint /
Final ecosystem
service
Ecological production function (EPF) module
Figure 4. A conceptual model of the STressor-Ecological Production function-final ecosystem
Services (STEPS) Framework. SOS = strength of science; subscripts C = overall chain component
(red line); S = stressor module component; El, E2, En = ecological production function
components (from Bell et al. 2017).
13
-------
yvt
Theme: Connecting Benefits to Human Health and Human Well-Being
Background
The far right of the FEGS for community-based decision support framework (Figure 1) focuses on the
connections between EGS and human health and well-being endpoints. These connections can
represent the positive benefits that humans derive from nature, or conversely, characterization of the
potential impacts from impaired ecosystems.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
Examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on elements of connecting benefits to human
health and human well-being to EPA's 2018 Strategic Plan include linkages to the assessment of the
impacts of pollution.
Assessment of the Impacts of Pollution in the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan:
"Assess the impact of pollution (e.g., health impact assessments) on such
vulnerable groups as children, tribes, environmental justice communities, and
other susceptible populations." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 3.3)
Examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on elements of assessment of the impacts of pollution include:
Johnston et al. (2017): The report, Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods
and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic
Valuation, presents: research evaluating the quality of scientific evidence associating green
spaces with health benefits; a Health Impact Assessment (Figure 5) of a Long Island sewering
pilot program in Suffolk County examining revealed health benefits associated with EGS; and
a community case study that used ethnographic methods to characterize how a Great Lakes
community values FEGS affected by aquatic ecosystem remediation and restoration.
Myeretal. (2017): The journal article, Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and
sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes, examines
connections between West Nile virus (WNV) and EGS associated with wetlands in part to
help estimate WNV incidence in mosquitoes using a small set of easily obtained predictors
to aid in disease vector control/management.
de Jesus Crespo and Fulford (2017): The journal article, Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the
role of ecosystem goods and services on human health using causal criteria analyses, uses
causal criteria analysis to determine whether the existing literature supports cause and
effect relationships between green spaces, its effects on buffering EGS, and the impact on
human diseases.
Fulford et al. (2015): The journal article, Human well-being differs by community type:
Towards reference points in a human well-being indicator useful for decision support,
presents an EGS-based community classification system to aid identifying baseline well-
being from which to assess effects of potential management decisions across communities.
14
-------
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on the assessment of the impacts of
pollution include:
In a case study of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, the authors propose that non-
seasonal wetlands can function much like permanent open water areas in reducing the
number of endemic transmission events between birds and mosquitoes.
To improve the application of eco-health relationships in decision making, researchers need
to address the whole pathway connecting FEGS to human health and well-being outcomes
and include approaches from the social and public health sciences such as the use of Health
Impact Assessments and ethnographic methods.
Green spaces are causally linked to clean water and hazard mitigation for gastrointestinal
disease and heat.
Trajectories of human health and well-being over time may change as a function of
community dynamics so both need to be examined over time to inform community decision
making.
Ecosystem
Ecosystem Service
Community Health
Human Health
Status Quo
Alternative#!
Alternative #2
Changes in
ecosystem
characteristics
Changes in
availability or
quality of
ecosystem
Changes in
community
health and
well-being
Changes in
individual
health and
well-being
Figure 5. Health Impact Assessment Pathway approach for providing decision support.
15
-------
Theme: Information for Decision Support
Background
The arrows in the FEGS for community-based decision support conceptual model (Figure 1) feed into
Information for Decision Support, representing areas where monitoring information can be applied to
evaluate alternatives and/or monitor the results of a decision. Here, principles of both systems thinking
and adaptive management, focusing on iterative learning and hypothesis testing, can inform scientific
and technological solutions for protecting human health and aquatic ecosystems and the evaluation of
whether the objectives for a given resource management or community decision are being met.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan
Examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on elements of information for decision
support to EPA's 2018 Strategic Plan include linkages to the systems approach to develop scientific and
technological solutions.
Systems Approach to Develop Scientific and Technological Solutions in the 2018 EPA Strategic
Plan:
"EPA will develop innovative, cost-effective solutions to current, emerging, and
long-term water resource challenges for complex chemical and biological
contaminants. Using a systems approach to develop scientific and technological
solutions for protecting human health and aquatic ecosystems, EPA researchers
partner with program experts, federal and state agencies, tribes, local
communities, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and private
stakeholders." (EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 3.3)
Examples of SHC 2.61 research focusing on elements of systems approach to develop scientific and
technological solutions include:
Yee et al. (2017): The report, Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services into Community Decision-Making, presents a systems approach for incorporating
EGS into elements of Structured Decision Making (SDM).
Williams et al. (2018): The report, How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and
Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and
Revitalization projects, presents two frameworks that demonstrate how to improve
transparency and facilitate community-scale conversations involving decisions and EGS.
Barnhart et al. (2018): The journal article, Embedding co-production and addressing
uncertainty in watershed modeling decision-support tools: Successes and challenges,
presents best practices derived from co-production approaches to decision-support tools.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on the systems approach to develop
scientific and technological solutions include:
Systems thinking can increase awareness and transparency across stakeholders, as different
competing priorities may ultimately connect to similar underlying ecological processes,
increasing the opportunity to implement decisions with multiple benefits.
Practitioners of SDM are encouraged to learn about elements of both SDM and adaptive
management for developing strategies and frameworks to approach a decision process.
16
-------
Theme: Ecosystem Goods and Services at Contaminated Sites
Background
The EPA plays a significant role in helping communities transform impacted sites into assets that
improve their community. Revitalizing impacted sites allows communities to reuse and redevelop land
by turning it into public spaces, restored habitat and new businesses, capturing value from remediation
and restoration for community residents and local economies. For example, in the Great Lakes, the
Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R) approach is used to describe the flow of decisions
that starts with the remediation of contaminated sediments and/or restoration of habitat, eventually
resulting in community revitalization (Johnston et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2017). Including EGS in a
range of assessments of contaminated sites (e.g., human health and ecological risk assessments, impact
assessments, and damage assessment), particularly in the scoping and problem formulation phases,
provides an opportunity to consider how changes in environmental and ecological condition as a result
of site cleanup can lead to changes in human health and well-being.
Connections to the 2018 EPA Strategic Plan and the 2017 Superfund Task Force
Recommendations
There are several examples of direct connections between SHC 2.61's focus on ecosystem goods and
services in contaminated sites and EPA's 2018 Strategic Plan and the 2017 Superfund Task Force
Recommendations:
"EPA will identify, assess, conduct, and apply the best available science to address
current and future environmental hazards, develop new approaches, and improve the
scientific foundation for environmental protection decisions." (EPA Strategic Plan
Objective 3.3)
"One of EPA's top priorities is accelerating progress on Superfund sites." (EPA Strategic
Plan, Objective 1.3)
"EPA can play a significant role in helping communities realize the associated
health, economic and social benefits that accompany Superfund site
redevelopment." (Superfund Task Force Recommendations, Strategy 2)
Ecosystem Goods and Services in Contaminated Sites:
Examples of SHC 2.61 related research focusing on elements of ecosystem goods and services in
contaminates sites include:
Lipps et al. (2017): The report, Ecosystem Services at Contaminated Site Cleanups, provides
cleanup site teams with information about EGS, and how concepts and tools are useful for
characterization of future land use options or design of a cleanup that is consistent with
anticipated ecological reuse, depending on the regulatory authority of the cleanup program.
Examples of important take-home lessons from SHC 2.61 research on the elements of ecosystem goods
and services in contaminated sites include:
17
-------
Ongoing EPA Office of Research and Development collaborations with partners is focusing
on whether EGS that may be impacted by contaminated site cleanup operations can be
examined qualitatively or quantitatively with a variety of free, publicly available tools.
By using EGS characterizations as a tool, contaminated site teams are better positioned to
develop approaches to avoid damage to sections of a site with high EGS values, and to
address sections with low EGS values.
Having the ability to model the potential changes in EGS for each remedial option under
consideration could result in improved stakeholder engagement, better ecological and social
outcomes, cost savings, and integration of EGS at remediation projects across the country.
For example, SHC 2.61 and ORD's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Project (SSWR)
5.01a are collaborating to enhance the Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management
Assessments (VELMA) watershed simulator to include contaminant fate and transport for
point and nonpoint sources of organic chemicals (pesticides, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc.) and heavy metals (mercury, lead, zinc, etc.)
in urban and rural environments. This tool addresses the effectiveness of on-site engineered
and natural infrastructure remediation actions, as well as downstream benefits for
important services such as provisioning of clean drinking water, recreational opportunities,
and fish and wildlife habitat.
A framework and suite of tools can be used to assess potential changes in EGS provided on
and around a contaminated site and can be factored into the decision-making process as
project managers consider various site cleanup management options.
There is no single tool to evaluate site information and provide
complete results on EGS for all sites. Choosing which tool to use for a
particular site depends on the site's landscape setting, the size of the
site, the types of ecosystems present or that could be impacted by the
cleanup or restoration, and the resources available to conduct the
analysis.
18
-------
Ecosystem Goods and Services Case Studies and Models Support
Community Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health
Relationship Browser
Product Description
The synthesis report entitled Ecosystem Goods and Services Case
Studies and Models Support Community Decision Making using the
EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser provides an
overview of how EPA is developing conceptual, scientific, and practical
strategies for community decision support. This EPA-600 series report
is available electronically.
Ecosystem Goods and Services Case
Studies and Models Support Community
Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas
and Eco-Health Relationship Browser
Citation: Bolgrien, D.W., T.R. Angradi, J. Bousquin, T.J. Canfield, T.
DeWitt, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C. Hoffman, T.P.
Hollenhorst, J.M. Johnston, J.J. Launspach, J. Lovette, R.B.
McKane, T.A. Newcomer-Johnson, M.J. Russell, L.S. Sharpe, A.
Tashie, K. Williams, and S.H. Yee. (2018). Ecosystem Goods and Services Case Studies and
Models Support Community Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health
Relationship Browser. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, EPA/600/R-18/167
Background
The EPA is committed to promoting sustainable solutions for protecting human health and the
environment with research supporting environmental decision making based on translational science.
Translational science is a core practical strategy in that scientific information is made useful for decision
making. A key goal of this report is the demonstration of translational science through application of
tools and approaches in real communities with a focus on the application of two tools developed by the
EPA. The EnviroAtlas is a tool for identifying and organizing spatial data on EGS and human health
(Figure 6). It is both a source of information and a platform to combine information in useful ways that
improve translational science. This report discusses use of the EnviroAtlas in specific tools and case
studies. The Eco-Health Relationship Browser is a visualization tool for understanding connections
between EGS and human health (Figure 7). It is based on peer-reviewed science and allows multiple
connections to be explored at once by bringing the information closer to real-world problems that cross
over disciplinary lines. The Eco-Health Relationship Browser allows for structured approaches to
complex decisions. This report discusses use of the Eco-Health Relationship Browser in stakeholder
engagement and evaluation of decision trade-offs.
Summary of Results
The case studies presented in this report demonstrate how the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health
Relationship Browser serve as gateways between scientific data and decision makers. Successful
community problem solving depends on such gateways that facilitate effective communication among
partners and make data accessible to establish robust and mutually understandable decisions. A case
study in Milwaukee (Wl) demonstrates how an expert-stakeholder partnership for Milwaukee's Harbor
19
-------
District used an indicator evaluation framework to connect revitaiization
goals to related EGS indicators in the EnviroAtlas (both intermediate and
final EGS). A case study in Duluth (MN) demonstrates how expert-
stakeholder partnerships can translate public input into an EGS context for
decision making. The EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser
serve to openly inform the decision process because the information they
contain are publicly accessible and understandable to diverse audiences.
Clearly, the EGS concept and EGS indicators are not relevant to every
community or decision context. However, the national- and community-
scale EGS data in the EnviroAtlas and the health outcomes related to EGS
described in the Eco-Health Relationship Browser are intrinsically valuable
for translating scientific data for use by the public. The report also explores
how the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser can be used
with other EGS tools to improve decision support.
Envir©Atlas Interactive Map
Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity
( ) ) Carbon Storage
( ) ) Crop Productivity
( ) ) Ecosystem Markets (~T~)
( ) ) Energy Potential
__ Engagement with
Outdoors
Health and Economic
Outcomes
( ) ) Impaired Waters
Land Cover: Near-
Water
("D Land Cover: Type
CD Landscape Pattern
Near-Road
' Environments Q3
| Search All Layers
CD National EnviroAtlas Communities j)
CD
CD
Pollutant Reduction:
Air
Pollutant Reduction:
Water
CD Pollutants: Nutrients
CD Pollutants: Other
( ) ) Protected Lands
Species: At-Risk and
Priority
( ) ) Species: Other
Water Supply, Runoff,
^ and Flow
( ) ) Water Use
( ) ) Weather and Climate
Wetlands and
Lowlands
CD
~ Filter EnviroAtlas Data by Geography | Topic
0 of 309 Maps
gHide Icons
Various methodologies, tools, and approaches exist that can facilitate
incorporating EGS concepts into community decision making. Community
issues and their decision processes are highly diverse, often at different
stages of implementation, and with variable levels of stakeholder experience
with EGS. Practical strategies for EGS-based decision support require a wide
array of adaptable tools and approaches that can be implemented at various
scales, stages of the decision process, and levels of experience. Ultimately the use of the EnviroAtlas,
Figure 6. EnviroAtlas EGS and
Biodiversity layers.
Ecosystem Services
Aesthetics &
Engagement
with Nature
TOpics: Aesthetics & Engagement wi
Click a topic bubble or choose a topic from the dropdown list above.
Hover over linkages (+) to view the relationship between elements.
Details
Description: Aesthetics &
Engagement with Nature
Many people around the world enjoy
recreating, relaxing, and spending time
outdoors. Scientific studies show that
exposure to nature is positively
associated with numerous aspects of
both physiological and psychological
health, as well as with good social
relations. Causal mechanisms for some
of these associations have been
demonstrated in the laboratory: fester
recovery from neurological fatigue
appears to be responsible for the
observed effects that greenness has on
mental concentration and the alleviation
Of ADHD symptoms in children.
Exposure to natural scenery, even
through a window or a photograph,
slows the heart rate and calms anxiety.
Humans' innate affinity for nature may
be responsible for observations that
people are preferentially drawn to
community green space, where they are
more inclined to interact with neighbors
while relaxing or recreating. These
interactions are directly beneficial by
increasing social capital (Putnam 2000),
which in turn contributes positively to a
Citations / Sou rces
Louv. 2005: Putnam, 2000; Wilson, 1984
You are here: Social Relations I Aesthetics & Engagement with Nature
Figure 7. Eco-Health Relationship Browser showing
multiple ecosystems connect with Aesthetics and
Engagement with Nature (an EGS) connected with
multiple endpoints of health and well-being (blue
arrows). Scientific literature documenting these
connections are in the box to the right.
Eco-Health Relationship Browser, and
companion EGS tools can be used
synergistically to facilitate the integration
of EGS concepts into decision making.
The EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health
Relationship Browser represent important
and valuable resources for EPA support of
state, community, and federal partners
and broader goals of fostering translational
science. Decision making that is based on
production and delivery of EGS is more
likely to be sustainable and promote
stakeholder well-being. Tools are only
useful if they are accessible, transferable
between locations and issues, and
generate information in clear, decision-
specific language. The EPA practical
strategies for EGS-based decision support,
including tools like the EnviroAtlas and
Eco-Health Relationship Browser, are
being used to inform protection of human-
health and the environment based on the
core goal for translational science.
20
-------
EcoService Models Library
Product Description EcoService Models Library (ESML)
The website entitled
EcoService Models Library
provides an online
database for finding,
examining, and comparing
ecological models that can be
useful for estimating the
production of ecosystem
goods and services (Figure 8).
Home Search EMs Mv EMsfOV Learn about ESML View ESML Data Man
Figure 8. The EcoService Models Library {https://esml.epa.gov) lets users find
and compare ecological models to help make better decisions on protection,
restoration and use of ecosystems.
Citation: Newcomer-Johnson, T. (2018). Science in Action: The EcoService Models Library Fact Sheet.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Background
Human health and strength of our global economy depend on many goods and services provided by
ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and estuaries as well as agroecosystems and urban green spaces.
Ecosystems regulate the quality of our air and water, provide protection from storms and floods,
produce food and other essential materials, and provide opportunities for recreation. Recognizing these
EGS, and understanding how society's decisions affect them, is critical to citizens' well-being.
Fortunately, our knowledge about the underlying processes by which ecosystems provide these goods
and services is growing. Ecological models describing these processes are developed and used by
scientists in government, academia, and business, and have been used to help protect and enhance
human well-being. However, information about these ecological models is scattered throughout
journals, websites, and government reports, and might not be readily available when needed to inform
decision makers. The quality, usefulness, and transferability of these models is also varied and could be
difficult to assess through regular bibliographic searches.
* EM Source Document
(uniquely Identified
by UIJH nt ll>i
EM Identity
EM Locations
Environments, Ecology
& Description
Ecological Model (EM)
EM Modeling
Approach
EM Ecosystem Goods
and Services (EGS)
VariableType
Variable Values,
Variability &
Validation
EM Variable
(uniquely Identified
by Variable 10)
Variable Spatial &
Temporal Aspects
Figure 9. The ESML
Data Map includes
three kinds of records:
Source Documents;
Ecological Models
(EMs); and EM
Variables.
21
-------
EPA's EcoService Models Library
The EPA's EcoService Models Library (ESML) is an online database for finding, examining, and comparing
ecological models that can be useful for estimating the production of EGS (Bruins et al. 2017;
Newcomer-Johnson 2018). The EPA created the ESML to catalog and characterize ecological models and
make that information more readily available. The ESML is designed for use by scientists, planners, and
economists who give advice to communities, businesses, and conservation organizations on land-use
and other community-to-landscape scale planning decisions. It is also meant to be used by those who
develop computer-based decision support systems. Additionally, the ESML is designed for researchers
interested in improving ecological modeling methods.
Benefits of DSeirviice Models Library
The ESML database focuses on models that can estimate how much goods and services an ecosystem
produces. Some models include how production of these goods and services might be affected by
different scenarios such as land use. Understanding the production of EGS is an important step toward
showing the connection between changes in natural systems to changes in human health, the economy,
or other aspects of well-being. The ESML helps decision makers better understand the consequences to
communities when changes are made to natural systems.
The ESML provides detailed descriptions of ecological models (Figure 9). Currently, it includes over 50
individual descriptors, covering purpose, approach, and environmental use for each ecological model in
the database. An additional 40 descriptors are applied to each of a model's variables. An informative
help screen is provided for each descriptor, and searchable bibliographic source information is available
for each model.
While modeling expertise is not required to explore the information in ESML, the website is designed to
enable analysts and model users to search and view information on models in the database, compare
models to examine potential model appropriateness for other applications, and export model
descriptions. With this information, the ESML helps user identify the best model for a given situation. It
helps users compare the objectives, environmental contexts, and feasibility of models given a user's
specific needs. It also helps users understand the level of uncertainty associated with each model.
The ESML also provides a means to check for potential alignment between different models that could
allow them to be mathematically linked. Users can compare the response variables (outputs) of one
model with the predictor variables (inputs) of another. A close match indicates the potential for a
linkage that could enhance the user's ability to achieve modeling objectives.
A Growing Database
The ESML database currently describes over 150 ecological models that are useful for estimating EGS.
These models have been selected from collections such as EnviroAtlas, i-Tree, Envision online tools,
VELMA, literature sources, and EPA research. While this collection of ecological models is large, it is not
yet comprehensive, especially as new ecological models continue to be developed. Model users and
authors are encouraged to nominate new models for inclusion in ESML. Adding a new model is a
collaborative and iterative process. Overtime, EPA will continue to build ESML content to reflect the
state of science and address user needs. Scientists at EPA will use the information gathered in ESML to
better understand the transferability of ecological models and model predictions. The EPA also expects
to link ESML with other tools as part of an integrated approach to environmental decision support.
22
-------
References
Note: The Italics annotation at the end of each relevant EPA citation refers the reader to the
appropriate Appendix that captures: a compilation of Executive Summaries or Abstracts from reports
(Appendix A); and the compilation of abstracts from peer-reviewed journal publications (Appendix B).
Barnhart, B.L., H.E. Golden, J.R. Kasprzyk, J.J. Pauer, C.E. Jones, K.A. Sawicz, N. Hoghoogi, M. Simon, R.B.
McKane, P.M. Mayer, A.N. Piscopo, D.L. Ficklin, J.J. Halama, P.B. Pettus, and B. Rashleigh. (2018).
Embedding co-production and addressing uncertainty in watershed modeling decision-support tools:
Successes and challenges. Environmental Modelling & Software 109:368-379. Appendix B
Bell, M.D., J. Phelan, T.F. Blett, D. Landers, A.M. Nahlik, G. Van Houtven, C. Davis, C.M. Clark, and J.
Hewitt. (2017). A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an environmental
stressor and final ecosystem services. Ecosphere 8(5). Appendix B
Bolgrien, D.W., T.R. Angradi, J. Bousquin, T.J. Canfield, T. DeWitt, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C.
Hoffman, T.P. Hollenhorst, J.M. Johnston, J.J. Launspach, J. Lovette, R.B. McKane, T.A. Newcomer-
Johnson, M.J. Russell, L.S. Sharpe, A. Tashie, K. Williams, and S.H. Yee. (2018). Ecosystem Goods and
Services Case Studies and Models Support Community Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas and the
Eco-Health Relationship Browser. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, EPA/600/R-
18/167. Appendix A
Boyd, J.W., P.L. Ringold, A.J. Krupnick, R.J. Johnston, M. Weber, and K. Hall. (2015). Ecosystem services
indicators: Improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. RFF DP 15-40, Resources
for the Future, Washington, DC. https://www.rff.org/publications/working-papers/ecosvstem-services-
indicators-improving-the-linkage-between-biophvsical-and-economic-analvses/. Appendix B
Bradley, P., W. Fisher, D. Dyson, S. Yee, J. Carriger, G. Gambirazzio, J. Bousquin, and E. Huertas. (2015).
Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in Guanica
Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Narragansett, Rl, EPA/600/R-15/248. Appendix A
Bruins R.J., T.J. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A.M. Nahlik, and R.B. Shafer. (2017). Using ecological
production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 13:52-61. doi: 10.1002/ieam.l842. Appendix B
Cooter, E.J., R. Dodder, J. Bash, A. Elobeid, L. Ran, V. Benson, and D. Yang. (2017). Exploring a United
States maize cellulose biofuel scenario using an integrated energy and agricultural markets solution
approach. Annals of Agricultural & Crop Sciences 2(2). Appendix B
de Jesus Crespo, R. and R. Fulford. (2017). Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the role of ecosystem goods
and services on human health using causal criteria analyses. International Journal of Public Health. DOI:
10.1007/s00038-017-1020-3. Appendix B
EcoService Models Library (ESML). (2018). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://esml.epa.gov.
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). (2017). Cooperative Federalism 2.0. June 2017.
https://www.ecos.org/news-and-updates/cooperative-federalism-2-0/.
23
-------
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services - Classification System (FEGS-CS). (2018). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/eeo-researeh/final-eeosystem-goods-and-serviees-
classification-system-fegs-cs. Appendix A
Fulford, R.S., L.M. Smith, M. Harwell, D. Dantin, M. Russell, and J. Harvey. (2015). Human well-being
differs by community type: Towards reference points in a human well-being indicator useful for
decision support. Ecological Indicators 56:194-204. Appendix B
Fulford, R.S., R. Bruins, T. Canfield, J.B. Handy, J.M. Johnston, P. Ringold, M. Russell, N. Seeteram, K.
Winters, and S. Yee. (2016a). Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to Community
Decision Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/136. Appendix A
Fulford, R.S., M. Russell, J. Harvey, and M. Harwell. (2016b). Sustainability at the Community Level:
Searching for Common Ground as a Part of a National Strategy for Decision Support. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/152. Appendix A
Harwell, M.C. and C. Jackson. (2018). FY17 Output (2018) - SHC 2.61.2 Practical Strategies for Assessing
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services in Community Decision Making. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-18/183. Appendix A
Harwell, M.C. and J.L. Molleda. (2018). FY 16 Output SHC 2.61.1 Ecosystem Goods and Services
Production and Benefits Case Studies Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-18/189. Appendix A
Herbert, E.R., J. Schubauer-Berigan, and C.B. Craft. (2018). Differential effects of chronic and acute
simulated seawater intrusion on tidal freshwater marsh carbon cycling. Biogeochemistry.
https://doi.org/10.1007/slQ533-018-0436-z. Appendix B
Johnston, J.M., R. de Jesus Crespo, M.C. Harwell, C. Jackson, M. Myer, N. Seeteram, K. Williams, S. Yee,
and J. Hoffman. (2017). Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human
Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA, EPA/600/R-17/309. Appendix A
Hoghooghi, N., H.E. Golden, B.P Bledsoe, B.L. Barnhart, A.F. Brookes, K.S. Djang, J.J. Halama, R.B.
McKane, C.T. Nietch, and P.P. Pettus. (2018). Cumulative effects of low impact development on
watershed hydrology in a mixed land-cover system. Water 10(8):991.
https://doi.ore/10.3390/wl0080991. Appendix B
Lenox C., R. Dodder, C. Gage, O. Kaplan, D. Loughlin, and W. Yelverton. (2013). U.S. Nine-region MARKAL
Database: Database Documentation. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/600/B-13/203. Appendix A
Li, S., C.S. Hopkinson, J.P. Schubauer-Berigan, and S.C. Pennings. (2018). Climate drivers of Zizaniopsis
miliacea biomass in a Georgia, U.S.A. tidal fresh marsh. Limnology and Oceanography.
doi:10.1002/lno.10937. Appendix B
24
-------
Lipps, J.M., M.C. Harwell, M. Kravitz, K. Lynch, M. Mahoney, C. Pachon, and B. Pluta. (2017). Ecosystem
Services at Contaminated Site Cleanups. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/542/R-17/004.
Appendix A
Littles, C.J., C. Jackson, T. DeWitt, and M.C. Harwell. (2018). Linking people to coastal habitats: A meta-
analysis of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) on the coast. Ocean & Coastal Management
165:356-369. Appendix B
Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, C. Ojo, K. Hychka, C. Gottschalk Druschke, W. Berry, and R. McKinney.
(2016). Assessing the Benefits of Wetland Restoration: A Rapid Benefit Indicators Approach for Decision
Makers. Narragansett (Rl): USEPA, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-16/084.
https://www.epa.eov/water-research/rapid-benefit-indicators-rbi-approach. Appendix A
Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, W. Berry, C. Ojo, R. McKinney, K. Hychka, and C. Gottschalk Druschke.
(2018). Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of wetland restoration using the Rapid Benefit
Indicators approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15(1):148-159. Appendix
B
Moon, J.B., T.H. DeWitt, M.N. Errend, R.J.F. Bruins, M.E. Kentula, S.J. Chamberlain, M.S. Fennessy, and
K.J. Naithani. (2017). Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and generalizability
of ecological models. Ecosphere 8(10). Appendix B
Myer, M.H., S.R. Campbell, and J.M. Johnston. (2017). Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and
sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes. Ecosphere 8(6). Appendix B
Newcomer-Johnson, T. (2018). Science in Action: The EcoService Models Library Fact Sheet. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
O'Dea, C.B., S. Anderson, T. Sullivan, D. Landers, and C.F. Casey. (2017). Impacts to ecosystem services
from aquatic acidification: Using FEGS-CS to understand the impacts of air pollution. Ecosphere 8(5).
Appendix B
Sharpe, L. and S. Jenkins. (2018). FEGS Scoping Tool User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-18/167. Appendix A
Tashie, A., and P. Ringold. (2019). A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according
to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services classification scheme. Ecosphere. 10(3), e02665. Appendix B
U.S. EPA. (2017). Superfund Task Force Recommendations. Washington, D.C.
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-task-force-recommendations.
U.S. EPA. (2018). FY 2018-2022 EPA Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
DC, EPA/190/R-18/003.
Williams, K.C, D.W. Bolgrien, J.C. Hoffman, T.R. Angradi, J. Carlson, R. Clarke, A. Fulton, M. MacGregor,
H. Timm-Bijold, A. Trebitz, and S. Witherspoon. (2018). How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods
and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and
Revitalization Projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, EPA/600/R-17/292.
Appendix A
25
-------
Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.
Harwell, J. Hoffman, C.J. Littles, J.M. Johnston, R.B. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N.
Seeteram, A. Tashie, and K. Williams. (2017). Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods
and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-17/266. Appendix A
Notice and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development (ORD)
funded and collaborated in the research described herein. This document has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement or recommendation
for use. This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.
The citation for this report is:
Harwell1, M.C. and C. Jackson2. (2019) FY18 Output - SHC 2.61.3 - Incorporation of Ecosystem Goods
and Services into Community-Level Decision Support Using EnviroAtlas and Other Tools. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-19/087.
1 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
2 Student Services Contractor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
26
-------
11 , ,. ii l |, »in (Hi 11 * i 11
This Appendix covers Executive Summaries or Abstracts taken directly from the following EPA Reports:
Bolgrien, D.W., T.R. Angradi, J. Bousquin, T.J. Canfield, T. DeWitt, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C.
Hoffman, T.P. Hollenhorst, J.M. Johnston, J.J. Launspach, J. Lovette, R.B. McKane, T.A. Newcomer-
Johnson, M.J. Russell, L.S. Sharpe, A. Tashie, K. Williams, and S.H. Yee. (2018). Ecosystem Goods and
Services Case Studies and Models Support Community Decision Making using the EnviroAtlas and the
Eco-Health Relationship Browser. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, EPA/600/R-
18/167.
This report presents multiple lines of inquiry on how data in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) EnviroAtlas and Eco-Health Relationship Browser and the concepts and tools of ecosystem goods
and services (EGS) can be used together to improve a community's ability to address environmental,
social, and economic problems. The EnviroAtlas and Eco-Health Relationship Brower are examples of
data and communication platforms needed for translational science research. Translational research
emphasizes the use of multilateral communication to connect scientific data and the information needs
of communities for decision making. When coupled with data in the EnviroAtlas, EGS tools can be
applied at various spatial scales and for diverse decision contexts. Case studies show that EGS indicators
complement stakeholder engagement processes, such as public meetings and surveys. The Eco-Health
Relationship Browser can help stakeholders use EGS to connect changes in infrastructure policies (e.g.,
transportation and parks) to social fairness and human well-being. The purpose of translational EGS
tools and models is to make scientific information and approaches practical, relevant, and accessible so
that more and increasingly diverse stakeholders can make better decisions. Diverse tools, aided by the
flexibility of the EnviroAtlas, allow stakeholders to explore, and in some cases, quantify, changes in
human well-being. The report provides information on how EGS models and EnviroAtlas data can be
translated and adapted for use in new places and for novel contexts. The report summarizes current
strategies for using EGS to support community decision making using the EnviroAtlas and Eco-Health
Relationship Browser. Most importantly, the report presents paths forward for translational EGS
research and applications at EPA.
Bradley, P., W. Fisher, D. Dyson, S. Yee, J. Carriger, G. Gambirazzio, J. Bousquin, and E. Huertas. (2015).
Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in
Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Narragansett, Rl, EPA/600/R-15/248.
This report demonstrates the application of a structured decision-making (SDM) process in the Guanica
Bay watershed (GBW) in southwestern Puerto Rico. SDM is an organized approach for helping people,
especially groups, identify creative options and make informed, defensible and transparent choices. It is
particularly useful in complex decision situations. SDM has six steps: 1) clarify the decision context; 2)
define objectives and evaluation criteria; 3) develop alternatives; 4) estimate consequences; 5) evaluate
trade-offs and select alternatives and 6) implement, monitor and review. Key to the SDM process is the
engagement of stakeholders, experts and decision-makers in a deliberative environment that deals
rigorously with facts and values in decision-making.
27
-------
The Guanica Bay watershed has been a priority for research, assessment and management since the
1970s, and since 2008, has been the focus of a U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) research initiative
involving multiple agencies assembled to address the effect of land management decisions on coastal
resources. Municipal and agricultural growth in the Guanica Bay watershed has provided social and
economic value but has led to changes in forest cover (highly valued for biodiversity, endangered
species and ecotourism), declining quality and availability of drinking water, and increased sediment and
nutrient runoff that adversely affects coastal seagrasses, mangroves and coral reefs. Communities in the
coastal region, such as the city of Guanica, rely partially on fishing and tourism economies, both of which
are adversely affected by diminishing coastal water quality. In 2008, with funding from NOAA's Coral
Reef Conservation Program, the Center for Watershed Protection developed a Watershed Management
Plan (WMP) that included a suite of proposed management actions to reduce sediment runoff and its
harmful effects in the coastal zone. The WMP served as the initial SDM decision context for EPA's
research to generate tools and procedures to better inform the decisions made across the watershed
and to facilitate complementary actions.
Application of SDM in Guanica Bay included archival research on social and economic history of the
region and three workshops with stakeholders, experts and decisionmakers to explore past decisions,
characterize the decision landscape for the WMP, and better understand what stakeholders value in the
watershed. The workshops included detailed discussions of the effects of human activity in the
watershed on downstream environmental condition and ecosystem services.
The outcomes of this investigation and these workshops include:
An improved understanding of multiple values and perceptions of citizens in different
communities of the watershed;
A broader, more comprehensive decision landscape (beyond coral reef protection); and
A clearer understanding of the decision alternatives and how they might support or conflict with
different objectives.
Through this process, EPA scientists and members of the USCRTF gained important insights to the value
of engaging stakeholders early and often in the decision process. This report is intended to serve as a
demonstration of the techniques and procedures used in SDM.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services - Classification System (FEGS-CS). (2018). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosvstem-goods-and-serviceS"
classification-svstem-fegs-cs.
This site introduces the EPA-developed "Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System"
(FEGS-CS) and provides access to a new, interactive draft tool that allows users to query and customize
information from the systems for incorporating the benefits provided by natural ecosystems into their
own research and decision-making. It is part of EPA's commitment to meet its regulatory obligations
while simultaneously helping states and local communities become healthier and more prosperous.
Appropriately defining and classifying ecosystem servicesbenefits supplied by natureto minimize
double-counting and to relate them directly to users is a fundamental challenge. The Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) (Landers and Nahlik, 2013) provides a foundation for
measuring, quantifying, mapping, modeling, and valuing ecosystem services.
28
-------
From this report, the EPA developed a suite of definitions and a classification system that can: (a) be
applied at multiple spatial scales; (b) promote interdisciplinary communication about the nature of
ecosystem services; and (c) facilitate development of biophysical metrics that could be measured to link
ecosystem goods and services to human well-being.
Using the notion of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS), we designed a two-part classification
system composed of: 1) the biophysical components produced and derived from nature; and 2) the
identification of an explicit human beneficiary of these specific goods and services.
Using this approach, we identified 15 different Environmental Classes and Sub-Classes, most of which
are identifiable using satellite remote sensing. We also identified 52 explicit Beneficiary Categories and
Sub-Categories. Together, they define 342, specific and measurable FEGS. Each FEGS is assigned a
unique four digit number in the resulting database, presented in the appendices of this Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) EPA report as FEGS Matrices (i.e., data tables) and
now available on-line. This new interactive tool allows users to query and customize FEGS information.
We envision that through user-participation, this tool will promote the collaborative development and
support of a defined set of useful FEGS that can be consistently measured across multiple landscape
types. We expect that the FEGS-CS will serve as a basis for valuation of FEGS, leading to greater
standardization of approaches and metrics for implementing the ecosystem services perspective.
Fulford, R.S., R. Bruins, T. Canfield, J.B. Handy, J.M. Johnston, P. Ringold, M. Russell, N. Seeteram, K.
Winters, and S. Yee. (2016a). Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to
Community Decision Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-
16/136.
Human well-being is inextricably connected to the sustainable use of natural and built resources. The
ecosystem goods and services (EGS) concept has become increasingly valuable for identifying and
evaluating important trade-offs among diverse beneficiary groups and by extension has become a
central element of decision support for both public and private institutions. We extend that model here
by referring to final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) as those goods and services directly linked to a
human beneficiary, as this allows for a direct link to human benefit to be integrated into discussion. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been particularly active in researching methods for
incorporation of FEGS into decision making to protect human health and the environment.
Place-based studies (PBS) are a critical element of FEGS-based research, as they more fully integrate
environmental, social, and economic services into evaluation of decision alternatives. PBS provide a
proving ground for the operationalizing of scientific information for decision making through the
integration of science with social, economic, and environmental characteristics of a place. As such, the
application of FEGS approaches in a PBS-based research program is a valuable step in development of
effective science-based decision support tools.
This report is intended to describe lessons learned from the application of FEGS-based research in a
series of PBS conducted by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and make this information
available and useful for planning future research into local decision support for sustainability. A key goal
of this report is to break the FEGS approach into a series of steps, called the "FEGS approach," and
examine how each of these steps may, or may not, have been applied in prior PBS. To begin, we
29
-------
introduce a general model of local decision making based on the FEGS approach. This conceptual model
represents a guidance tool for future research.
This report concerns existing and past placed-based research in ORD with the objective of describing
how this research has (or has not) applied the elements of our EGS-based conceptual model for decision
support. The data used for this analysis of EGS use in place-based studies comes from an information
request sent out to project and task leads throughout the EPA Office of Research and Development. A
total of 15 place-based studies (25 communities) participated in the data request. These sites are
distributed throughout the continental U.S. and Puerto Rico and cover a spatial scale from individual
municipalities to watersheds containing multiple communities. The data request was organized into four
chapters, each corresponding to chapters of the report (Decision Context/Stakeholder Engagement,
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services [FEGS], Ecological Production Functions [EPF], and Human Benefits).
Each chapter addresses specific elements of the conceptual model with the goal of explaining how these
specific elements have been used in practice, why they did what they did, what was the result, and what
could have been the result if that element was not a part of the work. Chapter 6 contains a synthesis of
lessons learned across all the model elements and also addresses how the model might be used going
forward to develop tools and approaches for community-based decision support focused on
sustainability of ecosystem goods and services.
Overall the application of FEGS-based decision support across the PBS participating in this study can be
described as pervasive but incomplete. Multiple studies reported use of FEGS approaches, stakeholder
engagement, application of environmental models, or direct measures of human benefit linked to
environmental action. Yet, the focus was almost universally on a subset of these elements usually tied to
the specific project objectives. For instance, in one PBS located in the Pacific Northwest, the emphasis
was on the application of quantitative models to address existing land management issues, but because
the issues were well-established, minimal stakeholder engagement occurred during the project and
direct measures of human benefit were not developed. This incomplete application of the core FEGS
elements, as well as the need for integration of these elements into a cohesive approach, represents a
major area for future work in decision support research. More detail specific to the four report chapters
are given below.
Decision Context/Stakeholder Engagement
Many methods, tools, and approaches have been used to integrate ecosystem services into a
community decision process and to engage stakeholders in those decisions. This review was divided into
five steps with the first step to identify the degree to which studies have used a structured process to
identify five decision-relevant science needs or facilitate decision making (Chapter 2.2), and the degree
to which studies involved stakeholders in their process (Chapter 2.3). Second, examples are provided of
decision contexts for which ecosystem goods and service concepts are directly relevant from the place-
based studies (Chapter 2.4). Third, ecosystem services concepts are placed within the larger context of
community social and economic goals (Chapter 2.5). Fourth, the degree to which place-based studies
evaluated changes in ecosystem goods and services under alternative decision scenarios, and some of
the tools and approaches used for scenario analysis, are reviewed (Chapter 2.6). Finally, a synopsis is
provided of the lessons learned from place-based studies when linking ecosystem services concepts to
community decision making (Chapter 2.7).
Structured decision analysis provides one approach for evaluating tradeoffs in a way that encourages
greater public participation, collaborative decision making, and allows consideration of multiple
30
-------
attributes. A problem with ecosystem services assessments is that they are often aimed at adapting
tools to a problem, rather than allowing the problem to determine the appropriate set of tools. To
accomplish this, more studies are needed that integrate ecological structure and function, ecosystem
services, human welfare, and decisions into a single study. The place-based studies examined here
provide more than a dozen examples of studies that are attempting such an integrated approach,
illustrating tools and approaches with a high potential for transferability to other communities and
relevance to decision makers. Developing guidance that clearly lists the common themes identified in
this report will assist future studies with the incorporation of stakeholder engagement that will lead to
more productive outcomes of the process. Ultimately this will lead to better decision making that
promotes more sustainable approaches to balancing the gives and takes inherent between economic,
environmental and social aspects in decisions communities face every day.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)
A key to collaboration between stakeholders and natural and social scientists is the identification and
measurement of indicators of final ecosystem goods and services. FEGS indicators measure what directly
affects people's welfare. Figuring out what directly matters to community stakeholders is not as
straightforward as it may seem. There is no crisp definitional test of an "outcome that directly matters."
However, we can apply certain principles in our search for such outcomes. We first need to describe
environmental change in terms of service production and we then need to connect changes in service
production as directly as possible to human welfare. Critical to the second principal are efforts to define
specific metrics and indicators of FEGS that are linked to specific beneficiaries. Specification of indicators
of FEGS therefore starts with the identification of the beneficiary.
EGS-specific information was provided from four of the information request questions. Responses to
these questions from PBS provided twenty-six suspected intermediate EGS metrics or indicators, fifteen
possible FEGS metrics or indicators, nine for an economic good or service, and three that were
uncertain.
On the basis of inspecting these PBS responses we identified five conclusions:
One case study claimed to look at existence values, and none looked at option values.
Endpoints listed are often intermediate measures, or single attribute measures, rather than
FEGS.
Methods for identifying beneficiaries are highly variable.
Some beneficiaries previously identified were not human, (e.g., bald eagles).
Some areas of refinement of the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System
(FEGS-CS) came from a result of this information request.
The primary lesson learned regarding stakeholder engagement in PBS is that place-based study
practitioners need a more detailed implementation of the FEGS approach in future studies.
Ecological Production Functions (EPFs)
Quantifying the production of ecosystem goods and services in natural systems in response to human
impacts is an important method for the use of scientific data for guiding decisions. Accounting
approaches that estimate ecosystem services only as a function of ecosystem areas are useful for
estimating the ecosystem-service impacts of management actions that change land-use/land cover
(LULC), but they are insufficient for estimating impacts of management actions that impose other kinds
of changes. When the environmental management decisions that communities face entail changes in
31
-------
water or air pollutant delivery, species and habitat abundance, or other ecological processes, predictive
modeling approaches may also be a valuable tool for decision support.
Most of the place-based studies that were considered for this study reported some use of models to
estimate endpoints related to the production of ecosystem services. Of 15 case studies examined, 13
reported the intention to model ecosystem services-related endpoints, seven reported completion of at
least some modeling, and seven reported that modeling was underway or being planned. Results of
modeling have already been published in five cases; in several cases, no documentation was available of
case study modeling, but documentation was available of the models themselves.
Seven of the case studies used, or intended to use, decision support systems (DSS) (e.g., Envision, EPA
H20) to coordinate multiple models and examine more complex scenarios. For example, the Tampa Bay
study's EPA H20 tool (Russell et al. 2015) uses static land use conditions to drive the following EPFs for
each subwatershed included in the model: stormwater retention, based on an improved soil-specific
calculation of water retention; air pollutant removal and carbon sequestration by vegetation using the
UFORE or i-Tree Eco model (USDA 2012); and an arithmetic summation of geographic features of
ecological interest. The integration of models allowed for the examination of multiple land use changes
at once such as watershed urbanization combined with shoreline restoration. The Guanica Bay case
study used the Envision decision support platform to link a dynamic coral reef model to 28 other EPFs
corresponding to specific, service-related endpoints (Yee et al. 2012). The use of Envision greatly aided
the consideration of scenarios including both agricultural land use and coastal tourism issues. Decision
support systems help integrate multiple EPFs both in terms of input data and the usefulness of the
output for guiding decisions.
These PBSs were encountered at different stages of execution, and the modeling information obtained
was therefore highly uneven. It should be noted that several issues of importance in EPF selection and
use, such as spatial extent and scale, could not be evaluated very well via the information request
employed for this study. Nor could the level of integration of the modeling process with all aspects of
the decision context, such as stakeholder engagement and benefit estimation, be evaluated, nor
whether trade-off analysis were systematically examined. Nonetheless, in several of the completed and
documented studies, EPF use was relatively well executed and integrated, showing several
characteristics that bode well for the continued improvement of ecosystem-service modeling state-of-
the art and feasibility:
The frequent use of multiple EPFs to estimate production of multiple services is important
for enabling robust trade-off evaluation and avoiding the problem of unforeseen
consequences.
The practice of linking different EPFs enables the use of existing, relatively complex process
simulation models (off-the-shelf or with adaptation) to model management action
influences on ecosystem processes, to be complemented by relatively simple, logic-based
models that are readily adapted to local conditions of final ecosystem service delivery and
use.
The bundling of these different EPFs within a decision support tool (DST) coordinates the
computation of multiple EPFs for given scenario conditions and may enable policy
simulation or optimization.
Many of the models used had been used previously or were considered by the investigators
to be readily transferable.
32
-------
At the same time, several deficiencies in how models were chosen or used were noted, or were
suspected:
The lack of replication of any EPF or DSS across these case studies may speak in part to the
small number of studies involved, the diversity of their settings and the relative newness of
efforts to include ecosystem services, but it may also suggest an investigator-specific
approach has been taken to model selection. Coordination of tools use across communities
facing similar issues would greatly aid the comparability of results and the universality of the
solutions. A more formal approach to model suitability evaluation may be needed. Both
practical guidance for assessing model transferability, and the establishment of
communities of practice around specific EPFs or DSS', or around EGS modeling in general,
could help to make model evaluation and model transfer more systematic.
Part of that suitability evaluation would require more systematic approaches to the various
facets of uncertainty assessment and ensuring that uncertainty assessment is built into DSS
so as to become more routine - not only to modeling practitioners but to users of
ecosystem service production estimates.
In the information available for this analysis, it was not always clear that EPF choice was
based on the decision context, as well as the ecosystem characteristics, of the PBS site.
Therefore, a final issue for increased emphasis is ensuring alignment of EPF capabilities with:
(a) the characteristics of management alternatives (which generally should align with model
inputs); and (b) stakeholder goals and the FEGS that most closely meet them (which should
align with model outputs). This alignment-to-context may be accomplished in a single EPF or
via multiple, linked EPFs.
Human Benefits
As stated in the discussion of stakeholder engagement, it is critical to the application of ecosystem
goods and services to link change in service production directly to human welfare. Comparison of the
value placed on ecosystem services across communities is problematic because of varying level of
awareness, understanding and appreciation of the concept of FEGS benefits as it relates to human
health and welfare. A benefit is something that has an explicit impact on changes in human welfare,
such as more food, better hiking, less flooding, which differs from FEGS, which are the "components of
nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being". As seen in the conceptual
model In Chapter 1, benefit functions represent the link between FEGS and human well-being, and
"demonstrates what people would be willing to pay to achieve a gain or avoid a loss in an ecosystem
service or suggests a relative magnitude of social value when willingness-to-pay is not measurable"
(Wainger and Mazzotta 2011). In other words, benefits can be quantified through economic valuation
methods or through assessing tradeoffs when presented with limited information. Conducting these
types of assessments provides vital information upon the contributions of FEGS towards human well-
being.
Identifying FEGS and the resulting benefits can be achieved through a variety of means. Within the
place-based studies, most project leads (n= 15) indicated that the stakeholder engagement process
(32.3%) and literature reviews (32.3%) were the most widely used sources for ES identification, but local
expert consultation (25.8%) and other sources including peer groups, social media, news sources (9.7%)
were also utilized.
When asked if stakeholders struggled with understanding the definition of benefits used in a particular
PBS, 64.3% of project leaders stated "no," while 21.4% indicated that stakeholders did struggle with this
33
-------
concept. Only 14.3% of project leads expressed that stakeholders had a "mixed response" to the
explanation of this concept. In order to increase comprehension around benefits, project leads
suggested that "further explanation of benefits and ES" and "connecting their priorities to the domains
of human well-being" were helpful in reducing misunderstandings.
Project leads were asked to indicate which of the following terms they used during the stakeholder
engagement process to describe "natural resources." Results are presented in Chapter 5 with most
(33.3%) of project leads indicating that they used "ecosystem services" to describe "natural resources/'
followed by 14.8% of project leads indicating they also used "nature's benefits" and "environmental
value/' within these discussions. When asked how frequently they used these terms, project leads
expressed that they used "ecosystem services" most (37.5%) followed by "nature's benefits" (18.7%).
Within place-based studies that incorporate ecosystem services into their project framework, success is
dependent on the goals of the study, and there can be several. Complete follow-through on the
identification of benefits would be an incorporation of agreed-upon measures of these benefits (i.e.,
benefits indicators) into the goals of the project. However, this was not at all common among the PBS
included in this study. In terms of defining and measuring success, "stakeholder engagement" elicited
the highest degree of prioritization with 21.7% of respondents, followed by 17.4% of project leads who
selected "publications/dissemination" of results as measure of success. "Other" measures of success
was another frequently selected option. When asked to elaborate on this selection, project leads
indicated that "increased interest, support, and participation in the study," "creating awareness about
environmental/ health issues within local communities," and "making an impact on [the] decision" were
amongst the responses. One of the most effective ways of achieving the latter goal includes developing
"benefit relevant indicators" (BRIs) that directly integrates the benefits people receive from
enhancement of EGS. The Woonasquatucket PBS demonstrated how hydrologic and hydraulic
simulation model results can be used to address critical questions regarding EGS provisioning and
beneficiaries in order to develop indicators for a specific decision context (Bousquin et al. 2015).
However, this PBS was the exception rather than the rule for integrating benefits into assessment of
project success.
A few conclusions can be drawn from the information presented in Chapter 5. First, project leads
indicated that local expert consultation was "extremely important" in identifying ES for use in their
studies. While consulting local experts may have been the most effective source to use in ES
identification, project leads utilized a variety of sources for the most comprehensive understanding of
priority ES. In doing so, project leads were likely well equipped to engage with stakeholders, local
decision makers, and experts. Following this positive conclusion, project leads observed that the
majority of stakeholders did not struggle in understanding the concept of "benefits," even though they
used the term "ecosystem services" to frame the discussion more frequently than "nature's benefits" or
"nature's value." Further studies should be conducted to test the effectiveness of using one phrase over
the other, as terminology choice and framing can substantially alter discussions with stakeholder and
local decision makers. The identification and practical application of benefit indicators is a key gap
observed in the PBS considered for this study and this represents a key area for future research into
decision support and its acceptance at the community level.
Conceptual Model for Application of Ecosystem Goods and Services
In this report, a complete conceptual model for an FEGS approach at the community level has been
evaluated in the context of existing and previous place-based studies with an eye towards how this
model has been used, and what gaps exist that might be filled to maximize its successful use in future
34
-------
PBS. Taken as a whole, the model provides critical linkages across the respective elements that can bring
about a novel integration of science and policy and yield much more effective measures of decision
outcomes. Stakeholders bring an understanding of both potential actions and the desired outcomes
from those actions; and science provides a defendable, robust understanding of how actions can
translate into desired outcomes. Barriers to such an integration of science and policy include a lack of
stakeholder involvement and understanding of an FEGS approach, challenges of matching EPFs to the
problem at hand, use of inadequate short-term objectives as measures of benefit, and a need to better
integrate multiple issues into a common decision framework. An EGS-based conceptual model for
decision support, such as the one proposed here, can be highly effective in overcoming these challenges
by linking the decision process together in a clear way, but more work needs to be done. Place-based
studies offer a rich opportunity to explore the application of this conceptual model to real-world issues
and as such are a vital link in EPA research into community-based decision support and the fostering of
sustainable human and environmental health.
Fulford, R.S., M. Russell, J. Harvey, and M. Harwell. (2016b). Sustainability at the Community Level:
Searching for Common Ground as a Part of a National Strategy for Decision Support. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/152.
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program is intended to support resource
sustainability and decision making at the community level. Sustainability is defined as the ability of a
community to meet present needs without compromising the ability of society and the environment to
meet the economic, social, and environmental needs of future generations. The USEPA and its partners
seek a national strategy that maximizes impacts by identifying common ground among communities
that can inform the decision process. In this report, communities are compared based on four distinct
metrics (community type; human well-being index; stakeholder priorities; and availability of ecosystem
goods and services) with the purpose of seeking common ground for defining and measuring
sustainability at the local scale. Overlying this comparison is the question of the usefulness of a
community classification system (CCS) for generalizing the findings to new communities.
Community type was found to be informative regarding the relative importance of elements of well-
being. Two major delineations of community type are considered here. First is geographic, or simply
asking if a place defines how communities measure well-being. The second was the CCS described in
detail in Chapter 2. We then examine whether values of a specific measure of well-being, the human
well-being index (HWBI), differ either geographically or by community type. Stakeholder priorities are
then examined in Chapter 4, with two methods, both involving elements of the HWBI. The objective was
to link stakeholder priorities to HWBI and look for differences in these priorities among communities.
Finally, we examined if available ecosystem resources differ either geographically or by community type
and provide some recommendations for using all of the information as a part of a national strategy for
classifying communities in support of decision making for sustainability.
The analysis in Chapters 2 and 3 involves the description of a CCS and the amount of information
regarding human well-being (HWB) contained in the CCS. This is important because community decision
makers may use the CCS to help identify baseline well-being values from which to assess the impact of
decisions as shifts in community-specific HWB. Measures of community-specific HWB also allow
communities to restore, achieve and sustain what matters most to them in terms of human well-being.
The environmental components (e.g., ecoregion) of the CCS were less informative about community
35
-------
type than the economic and social components (i.e., Lifemode and Location Quotient), yet the
differences in community type were strongly driven by economic and social dependence on local
environmental resources either through employment or through land use. This finding points to a clear
link between environmental service flows and HWB.
The approach of setting local HWB reference points based on community classification assumes that
common ground is important for describing community priorities. The limitations of this approach are
that specific factors important to individual communities are not considered and are likely to change in
importance across communities and at different spatial scales than considered here. Decision makers
wishing to set reference points for HWB will need to consider the consistency of the group assignments
to their situation, but in cases where this is an effective approach, much will be gained by allowing
similar communities to compare their HWB values.
The community classification system developed during this study was also intended to inform decision
makers about a community's priorities. The association of these priorities with human well-being is a
tool for informing decision makers about sustainable decision outcomes in a community-specific
context. Stakeholder engagement is an important tool for understanding the priorities of a community.
In Chapter 4, two methods for stakeholder engagement were explored with the HWBI as an engagement
framework in each case. In Chapter 4.1, a workshop approach is described based on structured decision
making (Structured Decision Making; accessed 14 September 2016), while in Chapter 4.2 an automated
analysis of strategic planning documents is described based on keyword counting method. Key
differences were observed in the outcomes of these two methods. The workshop method generated
more diverse findings that nonetheless consistently reported high importance in the domains of
Education and Social Cohesion. In contrast, the keyword method was always dominated by Living
Standards, which is the primary economic domain of HWBI. In terms of meaning, the keyword results
are based on strategic planning, which is predictably action-focused and heavily weighted to economic
aspects of a community's well-being. In contrast, workshop results show a broader influence, and this is
likely the result of facilitation and the separation of community priorities from a particular action
(Chapter 4.1). The findings of the keyword analysis can be thought of as hierarchical with the secondary
outcomes being more similar to workshop outcomes. There is, thus, strong support for the
complementarity of the two methods. Consistent results across the two approaches provide good
support for the complementary nature of the data and the value of applying both methods
simultaneously to identify community priorities.
The stakeholder workshops held as a part of this study generated important insights into the nature and
hierarchical structure of core community values and implications for indices of sustainability.
Communities participating in the workshops demonstrated an innate capacity for systems thinking, and
this suggests that in the context of community decisions and action, values associated with the most
fundamental aspects of well-being could be the highest priorities. Practical sustainability indices will
need to be adaptable to changes in a way that measures and emphasizes core values that remain high
priorities over time and values associated more immediate priorities. The workshops also afforded an
opportunity to explore the elements of the HWBI, particularly the relative importance values (RIV), the
factors used to weight different domain scores to derive element scores (e.g., economic well-being) and
an overall HWBI value. Workshop findings suggest that, from a community perspective, a set of indices
or indicators, rather than aggregated indices, may be more responsive to community needs. The RIVs
could also change over time. This suggests the need to periodically update RIVs.
36
-------
There is always a question regarding the within-community generalizability of workshop findings with
respect to core community values. In this case, there were promising linear associations between the
priority placed on Education (based on mapping and ranking exercises) and the shares of households in
the four participating communities with children and youth; as well as between the priority placed on
Health (based on mapping and/or dot voting), a critical factor affecting household expenses, and the
unemployment rates and percentages of owner-occupied and renter households that spend 35% or
more of their income on housing costs in the four communities. The analysis of workshop data also
revealed no significant bias in terms of higher prioritization of goals and values that are most closely
aligned with the central issues. The ability to generalize the results of community engagement
workshops to the whole community can be improved by holding multiple workshops at different times
of the day, week and year and by holding workshops in different forums.
Similar to workshops, keyword analysis of strategic planning documents shows great promise as a
contributing method for clarifying the long-term priorities of stakeholders. Clarifying community
priorities from document analysis is limited by the scope of the document, as well as the level to which
the document reflects community input rather than the input of elected officials or hired external
experts. Yet, these issues can largely be minimized by appropriate document selection. A key
consistency among communities in this analysis was the importance of quality of life metrics to
stakeholder priorities. Across communities and community types the consistently dominant domains, in
terms of total number of keyword hits, were Living Standards followed by Safety and Security followed
closely by Social Cohesion and Leisure Time. An interest in quality of life seems to be a common
community attribute, which is not surprising. The consistent low scores for either Connection to Nature
and Health were surprising but suggest these are not community-level priorities but may be important
at a different scale (e.g., personal/family). For instance, even in cases where an action may directly
benefit human health (e.g., investment in hospitals) the community-scale priority for the action may not
be directly tied to health, but rather to ancillary benefits more aligned with community-scale priorities
such as job creation, reductions in burden on public services, or community reputation. These
differences can be important to setting measures of success at the appropriate scale. It is also important
to understand if these results differ among community types.
The dominant delineations for stakeholder priorities at the community level were between states and
CCS groups. States differed most for Safety and Social Cohesion, while CCS groups differed most in Living
Standards and Leisure time. The less commonly mentioned domains such as Connection to Nature were
more important in specific categories such as median age and ethnic composition of the community.
The value of understanding these differences among groups is to identify the domains of human well-
being for which the CCS or geographic delineations are the most informative. These most informative
differences lie on a gradient from an emphasis on Safety and Living Standards on one end to an
emphasis on Leisure Time and Social Cohesion on the other end. This gradient is also consistent with an
urban to rural gradient in that it is directly related to population size, and demographics as 'ruralness'
tends to be related to an increased emphasis on social connectivity. As communities become more
urban, more diverse, or less dependent on local natural resources they seem to prioritize Safety, Living
Standards and Connection to Nature; and reduce priorities for Social Cohesion and Education. The most
informative delineation of keyword data at the community scale is for CCS groups followed by state
differences, but other delineations become more important at smaller scales within the community.
Domains such as Connection to Nature and Education do not parse out very well at the community scale,
as indicated by the lack of difference among communities for these domains, and the lack of information
about them contained in categories such as CCS and geography. Nonetheless, they can be quite
important in driving individual priorities and so have a collective influence at the community level not
37
-------
well captured by review of community planning documents. As such, it is not advised that any
conclusions can be drawn about community priorities for these domains with a keyword-based method.
These findings strongly suggest that keyword analysis combined with a CCS based comparison can be
very informative regarding differences in the relative importance of community-scale priorities such as
Social Cohesion, Living Standards, Leisure Time, and Safety.
Beyond the specifics, it is evident that communities differ in how they rank and prioritize the domains of
human well-being and these differences are predictable based on community type. This indicates the
value of community delineations for informing the decision process. However, it also indicates that
measures of success can only be partially generalized, and the very definition of human well-being may
differ among community types. Such differences must be kept in mind when comparing the objective
well-being across communities, particularly along the urban to rural gradient. Therefore, use of this
technique in the future should focus on improving the understanding of how community type may
inform differences in the importance of the domains of human well-being that can be used to both
develop and assess decision options at the community level.
Overall, stakeholder priorities were more consistent across communities than across community types.
For both analytical methods, community type was most informative about the relative importance of
low scoring domains of HWBI such as Connection to Nature and Cultural Fulfillment. This is important
information for scoring HWBI and will be used to explore relative weighting within HWBI, but the
dominance of Living Standards, Safety, Education, and Social Cohesion was consistent in both
stakeholder engagement approaches and so seems robust to categorization. Community-specific
deviations were more evident. However, community-level differences are to be expected and the
overarching consistency of multiple domains across communities suggests important common themes
that should be explored for their value in informing and measuring the success of community level
decision support.
Alongside delineation of HWB and stakeholder priorities are measurable differences among
communities in the production and availability of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) that support
decision making (Smith et al. 2013). Ecosystem goods and services represent a community's ties to the
local environment and as such contribute to economic stability, sense of place, and community identity
(Smith et al. 2013). In Chapter 5, we examine how well two delineations of communities (i.e., CCS, state)
inform about community priorities and therefore aid efforts to inform the local decision process.
The largest difference in EGS value between groups was for CCS, with the exception of useable water,
which differed more by U.S. state. Urban (CCS type 1) communities in both LA and FL had higher specific
value for usable air and flood protection, while more rural (CCS type 3) communities were consistently
lower in total area of both developed land and forest, and highest in wetlands, the latter which provide
higher denitrification, but the former provide more carbon burial and water retention during flood
events. These differences suggest tradeoffs exist between EGS categories in terms of benefits to
humans. In the abstract it seems plausible that flood protection, high denitrification, and high carbon
burial could co-exist at the spatial scale of this analysis (10-100 km), but in practice different land cover
types contributed to each and that land cover types were both distributed differently and affected
differently by human development linked to changes in impervious surface and canopy cover. Carbon
burial, which contributes to a more stable climate, and flood protection are clearly affected by
development and the level of urbanization in a community. Denitrification, which contributes to clean
water, differed more by state than CCS group indicating a lower impact from development but a
stronger regional influence. These realized tradeoffs are important in that they can help clarify
38
-------
differences in the impacts of development likely to affect decision outcomes. These trade-offs also
support the conclusion that local priorities for sustainability may differ based on the existing high value
services they need to sustain and/or improve and thus CCS groups can help inform the prioritization
process. This conclusion is tied to the notion that spatial demand for ecosystem services is the reciprocal
of spatial supply.
An important overarching question for this report is how the USEPA and its partners should make use of
CCS and HWBI as a part of a national strategy for local decision support. Community-based decision
support is a national scale issue in that the collective impacts of multiple local decisions can have large
and pervasive results on resource sustainability particularly in coastal areas. Central to the question of
national- or regional-scale community decision support is the balance between treating all communities
the same or focusing on the unique issues of each individual community. Treating all communities the
same in the design of metrics and tools is risky because it allows for avoidable variability in community
characteristics to bias the evaluation of metrics and tools, and the resulting tools may be viewed as
'externally driven', which limits the acceptability of the support by community stakeholders. In contrast,
treating each community as totally unique is inefficient and ignores potentially valuable commonalities.
A key focus of this work has been to consider how this balance should be struck in practice, and the
outcome is that a CCS can be a valuable way to approach the issue. The CCS examined in this report
shows promise as a generalizing tool for decision support and more importantly linking it to HWBI allows
for structured local input 'what matters', so that the approach is transferable and adaptable as needed.
Yet, well-being is a moving target and measuring human benefit is tied to tradeoffs in access to natural
resources and most importantly changes across the rural to urban gradient. Therefore, a balance is
proposed between subjective and objective criteria in measuring well-being sustainability at the local
level that may be best achieved through use of the weighted HWBI examined in Chapter 3. Exploration
of methods for effectively applying HWBI/CCS at the community level is an important research question.
The collective outcome of this report strongly supports exploration of a balanced approach for local
decision support that begins with identification of community type and the calculation of weighted
HWBI. Community-level decision support is a national scale issue and should be approached with a
coherent national strategy by seeking common tools to inform similar decisions across multiple
communities. Doing so will maximize the impact of EPA-led efforts and can result in a more effective and
accepted measure of community sustainability.
Harwell, M.C. and C. Jackson. (2018). FY17 Output (2018) - SHC 2.61.2 Practical Strategies for
Assessing Final Ecosystem Goods and Services in Community Decision Making. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-18/183.
This report, Practical Strategies for Assessing FEGS in Community Decision Making, describes the U.S.
EPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) research to incorporate the sustainability of final
ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) production and benefits into community-scale decisions across the
U.S. This report discusses research in the Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project
in the Sustainable and Healthy Communities National Research Program that demonstrates the
importance of articulating the decision contexts, the utility of decision support tools, the types of
ecosystem service metrics examined, the types of ecological modeling of FEGS production examined,
human benefits endpoints and estimation, and the utilization of these suites of tools and approaches by
communities. This report summarizes how community-based studies have previously utilized ecosystem
services to inform aspects of their decision making, to identify best practices that may be transferred to
39
-------
other communities, and to identify gaps in those practices that need to be addressed. This report builds
upon a 2017 report, Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services, into
Community Decision Making by Yee et al. (2017) and a number of other deliverables and ongoing
research in this project covering work through FY 17. This report includes summaries and excerpts from
those deliverables and ongoing research.
Harwell, M.C. and J.L. Molleda. (2018). FY 16 Output SHC 2.61.1 Ecosystem Goods and Services
Production and Benefits Case Studies Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
E PA/600/ R-18/189.
This SHC 2.61.1 Output report (Ecosystems Goods and Services Production and Benefit Functions Case
Studies Report) describes the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) research to
incorporate the sustainability of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) production and benefits into
community-scale decision making at several study sites around the U.S. This Output report discusses
research in this Project that demonstrates the importance of articulating the decision contexts, the
utility of decision support tools, the types of ecosystem service metrics examined, the types of
ecological modeling of FEGS production examined, human benefits endpoints and estimation, and the
utilization of these suites of tools and approaches by communities. This report summarizes how
community-based studies have previously utilized ecosystem services to inform aspects of their decision
making, to identify best practices that may be transferred to other communities, and to identify gaps in
those practices that need to be addressed. This report builds upon a SHC 2.61.5 Coordinated Case
Studies Task FY 16 Product (Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to Community
Decision Making) and other deliverables in SHC 2.61 covering work through FY 16.
Johnston, J.M., R. de Jesus Crespo, M.C. Harwell, C. Jackson, M. Myer, N. Seeteram, K. Williams, S.
Yee, and J. Hoffman. (2017). Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services:
Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, EPA/600/R-17/309.
As part of the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program, the National and Community
Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Task is focused on translating the provisioning of final
ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) into community health and well-being. As stated by the EPA
Science Advisory Board, "The science of sustainability must emphasize the interrelated aspects of
human actions and [human] well-being and the functions of human altered and natural supporting
ecosystems". While other tasks in the SHC Research Program are centered on assessing the economic
valuation of FEGS, the Benefits task will create a complementary link to indicators of human health and
well-being, providing a more comprehensive accounting of the benefits that ecosystems provide.
Task objectives are being met through literature synthesis and case studies across the country. This
report provides a summary of three of our research projects: 1) an evaluation of the quality of scientific
evidence associating green spaces with health benefits, along with ensuing research in San Juan, Puerto
Rico; 2) a Health Impact Assessment of a Long Island sewering pilot program in Suffolk County, NY that
revealed health benefits associated with control of sewage- and effluent-related ecosystem goods and
services; and 3) a Great Lakes community case study that used ethnographic methods to characterize
how a community values FEGS affected by aquatic ecosystem remediation and restoration. Each chapter
40
-------
is written as a standalone section with a narrative synthesis. Each study represents the experiences of
social, public health, and environmental scientists recruited to ongoing interdisciplinary research
projects at the Agency.
Lenox C., R. Dodder, C. Gage, O. Kaplan, D. Loughlin, and W. Yelverton. (2013). U.S. Nine-region
MARKAL Database: Database Documentation. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/B-13/203.
The evolution of the energy system in the United States is an important factor in future environmental
outcomes including air quality and climate change. Given this, decision makers need to understand how
a changing energy landscape will impact future air quality and contribute to meeting mitigation targets
and adaptation goals. Energy scenario analyses, incorporating drivers of emissions such as technological
advances, population growth, fuel availability and utilization, and consumer choice, give important
insights into the environmental effects of the changing energy system. To perform such scenario
analyses, a detailed representation of the energy system is needed. To address this need, a group of
researchers in EPA ORD's Air and Energy Management Division, Energy and Natural Systems Branch
developed a nine-region representation of the U.S. energy system for use in scenario analysis within the
MARKAL and TIMES modeling frameworks.
Lipps, J.M., M.C. Harwell, M. Kravitz, K. Lynch, M. Mahoney, C. Pachon, and B. Pluta. (2017).
Ecosystem Services at Contaminated Site Cleanups. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/542/R-17/004.
This issue paper introduces ecosystem services concepts and tools to managers of contaminated site
cleanups. Ecosystem services terminology explains how ecosystems connect to human health and well-
being. The discussion and evaluation of ecosystem services at Superfund sites may help improve site
management, communication with the public and engagement with stakeholders. Likewise, a site's
ecological risk assessment may utilize ecosystem services as assessment endpoints. Quantitative
information about ecosystem services at a site supports the characterization of reasonably anticipated
future land use and selection of greener cleanup BMPs for ecological reuse.
Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, C. Ojo, K. Hychka, C. Gottschalk Druschke, W. Berry, and R. McKinney.
(2016). Assessing the benefits of wetland restoration: A Rapid Benefit Indicators Approach for
Decision Makers. Narragansett (Rl): USEPA, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-16/084.
https://www.epa.eov/water-research/rapid-benefit-indicators-rbi-approach.
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:
1. Describe the decision context
2. Select ecosystem services and describe benefits
3. Compile benefit indicators
41
-------
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 highlight their particular features and benefits through
an example application in the Woonasquatucket River Watershed in Rhode Island, USA.
Sharpe, L. and S. Jenkins. (2018). FEGS Scoping Tool User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-18/167.
Incorporating ecosystem service thinking into community-level decision-making processes can be
challenging because commonly used ecosystem service related metrics (e.g., carbon sequestration) may
not be valued by the community. This leaves non-ecosystem service related decision criteria (i.e.,
socioeconomic criteria) to drive the decision-making process. The FEGS (Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services) Scoping Tool provides a simple, straightforward, and transparent process for identifying a set
of ecosystem service related metrics that are valued by the community. The FEGS Scoping Tool informs
the early stage of decision making, when decision makers are aware of a decision that needs to be
made, but before any actions are taken. This community-level decision support tool allows decision-
makers to identify ecosystem service related decision metrics that are relevant and meaningful to the
community and, by doing so, facilitates incorporation of ecosystem service thinking into their decision-
making processes. The tool helps users identify and prioritize stakeholders, beneficiaries, and
environmental attributes through a structured, transparent, and repeatable process. These relevant and
meaningful environmental attributes can then be used to evaluate decision alternatives. The FEGS
Scoping Tool is predicated on the idea that community decisions are complex and that environmental
decision criteria are both relevant and hard to identify. The goal of the tool is to provide a transparent,
repeatable, defendable approach for selecting relevant environmental attributes as decision criteria.
Williams, K.C, D.W. Bolgrien, J.C. Hoffman, T.R. Angradi, J. Carlson, R. Clarke, A. Fulton, M.
MacGregor, H. Timm-Bijold, A. Trebitz, and S. Witherspoon. (2018). How the Community Value of
Ecosystem Goods and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation,
Restoration, and Revitalization Projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN,
EPA/600/R-17/292.
Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R) is a place-based practice that requires ongoing
communication amongst federal and state agencies, local governments, and citizens. Each of these
entities has a different relationship with and responsibility for sites where R2R2R progresses. Sediment
remediation and habitat restoration project goals, community planning, and lived experiences diverge
depending on the agency or individual and can make collaboration or communication difficult. To better
understand the dynamics of R2R2R in a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC), data were collected
between June 2015 and December 2016 to examine the collaborations happening in the St. Louis River
AOC in Duluth, Minnesota. Participant observation was conducted at AOC management meetings, St.
Louis River Habitat Committee, City of Duluth St. Louis River Technical Advisory Committee, and City of
Duluth St. Louis River Corridor (hereafter SLR Corridor) park planning public meetings, as well as
community group meetings. In addition to regular attendance at meetings and document analysis,
ongoing consultation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of Duluth, and USEPA
42
-------
Region 5 and Great Lakes National Program Office officials provided opportunities for consideration of
partner research interests, as well as dissemination of findings. Data were analyzed to identify forces
that shaped decisions, participation, and the inclusion of stakeholder and the public values. The results
are the creation of two frameworks that can be used to facilitate interpretation and transparency. One
framework can be applied to decision contexts to discuss the who-what-how-outcomes of the decisions.
The second framework can be used to interpret distinct values and facilitate communication or
comparison across boundaries of experience or responsibility. The frameworks are designed to improve
transparency and facilitate conversations about decisions and ecosystem services.
Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.
Harwell, J. Hoffman, C.J. Littles, J.M. Johnston, R.B. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N.
Seeteram, A. Tashie, and K. Williams. (2017). Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf
Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-17/266.
The concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) explicitly connects ecosystem services to the
people that benefit from them. This report presents a number of practical strategies for incorporating
FEGS, and more broadly ecosystem services, into the decision-making process. Whether a decision
process is in early or late stages, or whether a process includes informal or formal decision analysis,
there are multiple points where ecosystem services concepts can be integrated.
This report uses Structured Decision Making (SDM) as an organizing framework to illustrate the role
ecosystem services can play in a values-focused decision-process, including:
Clarifying the decision context: Ecosystem services can help clarify the potential impacts of
an issue on natural resources together with their spatial and temporal extent based on
supply and delivery of those services and help identify beneficiaries for inclusion as
stakeholders in the deliberative process.
Defining objectives and performance measures: Ecosystem services may directly represent
stakeholder objectives or may be means toward achieving other objectives.
Creating alternatives: Ecosystem services can bring to light creative alternatives for
achieving other social, economic, health, or general well-being objectives.
Estimating consequences: Ecosystem services assessments can implement ecological
production functions (EPFs) and ecological benefits functions (EBFs) to link decision
alternatives to stakeholder objectives.
Considering trade-offs: The decision process should consider ecosystem services objectives
alongside other kinds of objectives (e.g., social, economic) that may or may not be related to
ecosystem conditions.
Implementing and monitoring: Monitoring after a decision is implemented can help
determine whether the incorporation of ecosystem services leads to measurable benefits,
or what levels of ecosystem function are needed for meaningful change. An evaluation of
impacts on ecosystem services from past decisions can provide a learning opportunity to
adapt future decisions.
Each chapter of this report details one of these steps, and each chapter is paired with a set of
appendices providing examples of tools and approaches that decision makers can use for that step. This
report also presents a number of case study examples that illustrate the ecosystem services concepts,
43
-------
approaches, and tools for a variety of community decision processes, such as resiliency planning or
sustainability planning, watershed or coastal management, habitat restoration, risk assessments, or
environmental impact assessments. Advantages of integrating ecosystem services concepts into
community decision-making through values-focused thinking include: improved information collection,
improved communication, expanded stakeholder engagement, creative development and evaluation of
alternatives, interconnected decisions, and strategic thinking.
44
-------
\bstracts
This Appendix covers abstracts taken directly from the following EPA publications:
Barnhart, B.L., H.E. Golden, J.R. Kasprzyk, J.J. Pauer, C.E. Jones, K.A. Sawicz, N. Hoghoogi, M. Simon,
R.B. McKane, P.M. Mayer, A.N. Piscopo, D.L. Ficklin, J.J. Halama, P.B. Pettus, and B. Rashleigh. (2018).
Embedding co-production and addressing uncertainty in watershed modeling decision-support tools:
Successes and challenges. Environmental Modelling & Software 109:368-379.
Decision-support tools (DSTs) are often produced from collaborations between technical experts and
stakeholders to address environmental problems and inform decision making. Studies in the past two
decades have provided key insights on the use of DSTs and the importance of bidirectional information
flows among technical experts and stakeholders - a process that is variously referred to as co-
production, participatory modeling, structured decision making, or simply stakeholder participation.
Many of these studies have elicited foundational insights for the broad field of water resources
management; however, questions remain on approaches for balancing co-production with uncertainty
specifically for watershed modeling decision support tools. In this paper, we outline a simple conceptual
model that focuses on the DST development process. Then, using watershed modeling case studies
found in the literature, we discuss successful outcomes and challenges associated with embedding
various forms of co-production into each stage of the conceptual model. We also emphasize the "3 Cs"
(i.e., characterization, calculation, communication) of uncertainty and provide evidence-based
suggestions for their incorporation in the watershed modeling DST development process. We conclude
by presenting a list of best practices derived from current literature for achieving effective and robust
watershed modeling decision-support tools.
Bell, M.D., J. Phelan, T.F. Blett, D. Landers, A.M. Nahlik, G. Van Houtven, C. Davis, C.M. Clark, and J.
Hewitt. (2017). A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an environmental
stressor and final ecosystem services. Ecosphere 8(5).
Anthropogenic stressors such as climate change, increased fire frequency, and pollution drive shifts in
ecosystem function and resilience. Scientists generally rely on biological indicators of these stressors to
signal that ecosystem conditions have been altered. However, these biological indicators are not always
capable of being directly related to ecosystem components that provide benefits to humans and/or can
be used to evaluate the cost-benefit of a change in health of the component (ecosystem services).
Therefore, we developed the STEPS (STressor-Ecological Production function-final ecosystem Services)
Framework to link changes in a biological indicator of a stressor to final ecosystem services. The STEPS
Framework produces "chains" of ecological components that explore the breadth of impacts resulting
from the change in a stressor. Chains are comprised of the biological indicator, the ecological production
function (EPF, which uses ecological components to link the biological indicator to a final ecosystem
service), and the user group who directly uses, appreciates, or values the component. The framework
uses a qualitative score (high, medium, low) to describe the strength of science (SOS) for the
relationship between each component in the EPF. We tested the STEPS Framework within a workshop
setting using the exceedance of critical loads of air pollution as a model stressor and the Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) to describe final ecosystem services. We identified
chains for four modes of ecological response to deposition: aquatic acidification, aquatic eutrophication,
terrestrial acidification, and terrestrial eutrophication. The workshop participants identified 183 unique
45
-------
EPFs linking a change in a biological indicator to a FEGS; when accounting for the multiple beneficiaries,
we ended with 1104 chains. The SOS scores were effective in identifying chains with the highest
confidence ranking as well as those where more research is needed. The STEPS Framework could be
adapted to any system in which a stressor is modifying a biological component. The results of the
analysis can be used by the social science community to apply valuation measures to multiple or
selected chains, providing a comprehensive analysis of the effects of anthropogenic stressors on
measures of human well-being.
Boyd, J.W., P.L. Ringold, A.J. Krupnick, R.J. Johnston, M. Weber, and K. Hall. (2015). Ecosystem
services indicators: Improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. RFF DP 15-40,
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. https://www.rff.org/publications/working-
papers/ecosvstem-services-indicators-improving-the-linkage-between-biophvsical-and-economic-
analyses/.
For ecosystem services analysis, a key to collaboration between natural and social scientists is the
identification and measurement of linking indicators: biophysical indicators that facilitate social
evaluation, including monetary valuation of ecological changes. As ecosystem service analysts and
practitioners better recognize the various ways in which people benefit from ecosystems, natural
scientists will be called on to develop, use, and report on metrics and indicators that link to those
diverse benefits. The paper develops principles to guide the identification of linking indicators, compares
their features with those of more commonly collected ecological measures, and reviews empirical
evidence pertinent to their identification, definition, and performance, primarily from the point of view
of conducting monetary valuation of ecological outcomes.
Bruins R.J., T.J. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A.M. Nahlik, and R.B. Shafer. (2017). Using ecological
production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 13:52-61. doi: 10.1002/ieam.l842.
Ecological production functions (EPFs) link ecosystems, stressors, and management actions to ecosystem
services (ES) production. Although EPFs are acknowledged as being essential to improve environmental
management, their use in ecological risk assessment has received relatively little attention. Ecological
production functions may be defined as usable expressions (i.e., models) of the processes by which
ecosystems produce ES, often including external influences on those processes. We identify key
attributes of EPFs and discuss both actual and idealized examples of their use to inform decision making.
Whenever possible, EPFs should estimate final, rather than intermediate, ES. Although various types of
EPFs have been developed, we suggest that EPFs are more useful for decision making if they quantify ES
outcomes, respond to ecosystem condition, respond to stressor levels or management scenarios, reflect
ecological complexity, rely on data with broad coverage, have performed well previously, are practical to
use, and are open and transparent. In an example using pesticides, we illustrate how EPFs with these
attributes could enable the inclusion of ES in ecological risk assessment. The biggest challenges to ES
inclusion are limited data sets that are easily adapted for use in modeling EPFs and generally poor
understanding of linkages among ecological components and the processes that ultimately deliver the
ES. We conclude by advocating for the incorporation into EPFs of added ecological complexity and
greater ability to represent the trade-offs among ES.
46
-------
Cooter, E.J., R. Dodder, J. Bash, A. Elobeid, L. Ran, V. Benson, and D. Yang. (2017). Exploring a United
States maize cellulose biofuel scenario using an integrated energy and agricultural markets solution
approach. Annals of Agricultural & Crop Sciences 2(2).
Biofuel feedstock production in the United States (US) is an emergent environmental nutrient
management issue, whose exploration can benefit from a multi-scale and multimedia systems modeling
approach that explicitly addresses diverging stakeholder interests. In the present analysis, energy and
agricultural markets models and a hybrid process-based agricultural production model are integrated to
explore the potential environmental consequences of increased biofuel production from maize grain
and stover feedstocks. Yield and cropland reallocation projections are simulated for 20 agricultural crops
at a 12km grid resolution across the continental United States. Our results are presented across
multiple, spatially expanding domains, and our results for the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) are
compared to previous studies. Our analysis highlights the critical continuing role of agricultural and crop
science to provide physically plausible estimates and physical process drivers of yield increases, and
suggests that while the UMRB is the target of the greatest agricultural changes under our scenarios, its
response does not necessarily reflect the interests of a broad stakeholder community.
de Jesus Crespo, R. and R. Fulford. (2017). Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the role of ecosystem goods
and services on human health using causal criteria analyses. International Journal of Public Health.
DOI: 10.1007/S00038-017-1020-3.
Objectives: In the last decade, we saw an upsurge of studies evaluating the role of ecosystem goods and
services (EGS) on human health (Eco-Health). Most of this work consists of observational research of
intermediate processes and few address the full pathways from ecosystem to EGS to human health,
limiting our ability to assess causality.
Methods: We conducted a causal criteria analysis of Eco-Health literature using Eco-Evidence, a
software tool that helps evaluate evidence of cause-effect relationships. We focus on the context of
green spaces providing "buffering" EGS that may influence disease.
Results: We found support for a causal linkage between green spaces and all of the EGS tested, and
sufficient evidence linking EGS to gastro intestinal disease and heat morbidities. Inconsistencies were
found when assessing the link between EGS to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Few studies
directly link green spaces to health. Those that do, support a connection to cardiovascular disease, and
heat morbidities, but provide inconsistent evidence regarding respiratory illness.
Conclusions: Our results help establish an agenda to shape future Eco-Health research and define
priorities for managing green spaces to provide human health benefits.
47
-------
Fulford, R.S., L.M. Smith, M. Harwell, D. Dantin, M. Russell, and J. Harvey. (2015). Human well-being
differs by community type: Towards reference points in a human well-being indicator useful for
decision support. Ecological Indicators 56:194-204.
Human activity has growing impacts on the natural capital humans depend on for existence. While many
of these impacts are regional, national, or international in scope, it is increasingly evident that decisions
made at the local community level are also important. Yet, understanding the impacts of local decisions,
as well as how to correct or mitigate these impacts, can be problematic, as communities differ in
resources, priorities, dependencies on natural capital, and even opinions about whether these impacts
actually affect quality of life. Every community has unique characteristics, however effective decision
support at the community level requires common reference points in measures of human well-being
upon which to base decision support. We have developed a community classification system that is
intended to find such common ground in community characteristics and tie these common elements to
measures of human well-being. This community classification system was developed in the USA with
publicly available data on resource dependence, socio-economic composition, and existence of natural
capital. The resulting classification was applied to coastal communities at the county level and then used
to predict human well-being based on an existing human well-being index. Coastal communities were
separated into eight characteristics groups based on Bayesian cluster analysis. Classification groups were
found to be associated with significant differences in human well-being. More importantly, significant
differences in specific elements of well-being were associated with key community characteristics, such
as population density and economic dependence on local natural resources. In particular, social
cohesion and the leisure time were strong elements of well-being in low density communities with high
natural resource dependence but this association weakened as population densities and economically
diversity increased. These sorts of commonalities in community type that can be tied to differences in
human well-being are important because they provide clear ties to environmental service flows, as well
as a meaningful reference point from which to measure the local impacts of decisions as changes in
community-specific human well-being.
Herbert, E.R., J. Schubauer-Berigan, and C.B. Craft. (2018). Differential effects of chronic and acute
simulated seawater intrusion on tidal freshwater marsh carbon cycling. Biogeochemistry.
https://doi.org/10.lQ07/sl0533-018-Q436-z.
Tidal freshwater ecosystems experience acute seawater intrusion associated with periodic droughts, but
are expected to become chronically salinized as sea level rises. Here we report the results from an
experimental manipulation in a tidal freshwater Zizaniopsis miliacea marsh on the Altamaha River, GA
where diluted seawater was added to replicate marsh plots on either a press (constant) or pulse (2
months per year) basis. We measured changes in porewater chemistry (SO4 2~, CI", organic C, inorganic
nitrogen and phosphorus), ecosystem C02 and CH4 exchange, and microbial extracellular enzyme
activity. We found that press (chronic) seawater additions increased porewater chloride and sulfate
almost immediately, and ammonium and phosphate after 2-4 months. Chronic increases in salinity also
decreased net ecosystem exchange, resulting in reduced C02 and CH4 emissions from press plots. Our
pulse treatment, designed to mimic natural salinity incursion in the Altamaha River (September and
October), temporarily increased porewater ammonium concentrations but had few lasting effects on
porewater chemistry or ecosystem carbon balance. Our findings suggest that long-term, chronic
saltwater intrusion will lead to reduced C fixation and the potential for increased nutrient (N, P) export
while acute pulses of saltwater will have temporary effects.
48
-------
Hoghooghi, N., H.E. Golden, B.P Bledsoe, B.L. Barnhart, A.F. Brookes, K.S. Djang, J.J. Halama, R.B.
McKane, C.T. Nietch, and P.P. Pettus. (2018). Cumulative effects of low impact development on
watershed hydrology in a mixed land-cover system. Water 10(8):991.
https i//doi. org/ 10.3390/wl0080991.
Low Impact Development (LID) is an alternative to conventional urban stormwater management
practices, which aims at mitigating the impacts of urbanization on water quantity and quality. Plot and
local scale studies provide evidence of LID effectiveness; however, little is known about the overall
watershed scale influence of LID practices. This is particularly true in watersheds with a land cover that
is more diverse than that of urban or suburban classifications alone. We address this watershed-scale
gap by assessing the effects of three common LID practices (rain gardens, permeable pavement, and
riparian buffers) on the hydrology of a 0.94 km2 mixed land cover watershed. We used a spatially-explicit
ecohydrological model, called Visualizing Ecosystems for Land Management Assessments (VELMA), to
compare changes in watershed hydrologic responses before and after the implementation of LID
practices. For the LID scenarios, we examined different spatial configurations, using 25%, 50%, 75% and
100% implementation extents, to convert sidewalks into rain gardens, and parking lots and driveways
into permeable pavement. We further applied 20 m and 40 m riparian buffers along streams that were
adjacent to agricultural land cover. The results showed overall increases in shallow subsurface runoff
and infiltration, as well as evapotranspiration, and decreases in peak flows and surface runoff across all
types and configurations of LID. Among individual LID practices, rain gardens had the greatest influence
on each component of the overall watershed water balance. As anticipated, the combination of LID
practices at the highest implementation level resulted in the most substantial changes to the overall
watershed hydrology. It is notable that all hydrological changes from the LID implementation, ranging
from 0.01 to 0.06 km2 across the study watershed, were modest, which suggests a potentially limited
efficacy of LID practices in mixed land cover watersheds.
Li, S., C.S. Hopkinson, J.P. Schubauer-Berigan, and S.C. Pennings. (2018). Climate drivers of Zizaniopsis
miliacea biomass in a Georgia, U.S.A. tidal fresh marsh. Limnology and Oceanography.
doi:10.1002/lno. 10937.
Tidal fresh marshes are at least as productive as nearby salt marshes, but much less is known about
controls on primary production in tidal fresh vs. salt marshes. We studied a tidal fresh marsh in Georgia,
U.S.A., dominated by the C3 grass Zizaniopsis miliacea. We documented seasonal variation in Z. miliacea
above-ground biomass and below-ground macro-organic matter over 1 yr, and annual variation in end-
of-season aboveground biomass over 15 yr in creekbank and midmarsh zones. Aboveground biomass
showed a distinct peak in July and October. Belowground macro-organic matter was much greater than
aboveground biomass and peaked in October. Overall productivity was similar to that of salt marshes
downstream. Z. miliacea end-of-season aboveground biomass showed a classic hump-shaped "subsidy-
stress" relationship with plot elevation, but on average the creekbank supported about twofold more
above-ground biomass than the midmarsh, and both zones varied in biomass about 1.7-fold among
years. Annual variation in above-ground biomass was negatively correlated with maximum and mean
temperature in both zones, and positively with river discharge in the creekbank zone. Sea level,
precipitation and water column salinity showed biologically plausible trends with respect to biomass.
The responses of Z. miliacea to abiotic drivers were muted compared with the responses of nearby salt
marshes dominated by Spartina alterniflora. Temperature was more important for Z. miliacea. whereas
drivers of porewater salinity were more important in the salt marsh. Likely future changes in
49
-------
temperature, precipitation, and river discharge may pose a threat to the high productivity of tidal fresh
marshes.
Littles, C.J., C. Jackson, T. DeWitt, and M.C. Harwell. (2018). Linking people to coastal habitats: A
meta-analysis of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) on the coast. Ocean & Coastal
Management 165:356-369.
Coastal ecosystem goods and services (EGS) have steadily gained traction in the scientific literature over
the last few decades, providing a wealth of information about underlying coastal habitat dependencies.
This meta-analysis summarizes relationships between coastal habitats and final ecosystem goods and
services (FEGS) users. Through a "weight of evidence" approach synthesizing information from
published literature, we assessed habitat classes most relevant to coastal users. Approximately 2800
coastal EGS journal articles were identified by online search engines, of which 16% addressed linkages
between specific coastal habitats and FEGS users, and were retained for subsequent analysis.
Recreational (83%) and industrial (35%) users were most cited in literature, with experiential-
users/hikers and commercial fishermen most prominent in each category, respectively. Recreational
users were linked to the widest diversity of coastal habitat subclasses (i.e., 22 of 26). Whereas,
mangroves and emergent wetlands were most relevant for property owners. We urge EGS studies to
continue surveying local users and identifying habitat dependencies, as these steps are important
precursors for developing appropriate coastal FEGS metrics and facilitating local valuation. In addition,
understanding how habitats contribute to human well-being may assist communities in prioritizing
restoration and evaluating development scenarios in the context of future ecosystem service delivery.
Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, W. Berry, C. Ojo, R. McKinney, K. Hychka, and C. Gottschalk Druschke.
(2018). Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of wetland restoration using the Rapid Benefit
Indicators approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15(1):148-159.
Wetlands in urban and urbanizing areas are often smaller, more degraded, and subject to more
stressors than those in undeveloped locations. Their restored level of functioning may never equal that
of a site in an undisturbed landscape. Yet, the social benefits from restoring these wetlands may be
significant because of the relative scarcity of wetlands and natural areas in urban settings and also the
large number of people who may benefit. In this study, we have outlined a systematic approach to
compiling nonmonetary indicators of wetlands restoration benefits: The Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI)
Approach. The RBI approach is grounded in economic theory and compatible with methods used by
environmental economists to value ecosystem services. We illustrate the RBI approach with a
comparison of 2 sites within the Woonasquatucket River Watershed in Rhode Island. As an urbanizing
watershed, the Woonasquatucket illustrates how decisions may differ when based primarily on
evaluations of ecological functioning versus those that incorporate benefits to people. It demonstrates
how small urban sites with relatively low ecological function can provide large social benefits.
50
-------
Moon, J.B., T.H. DeWitt, M.N. Errend, R.J.F. Bruins, M.E. Kentula, S.J. Chamberlain, M.S. Fennessy,
and K.J. Naithani. (2017). Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and
generalizability of ecological models. Ecosphere 8(10).
The use of models by ecologists and environmental managers, to inform environmental management
and decision-making, has grown exponentially in the past 50 yr. Due to logistical, economical, and
theoretical benefits, model users frequently transfer preexisting models to new sites where data are
scarce. Modelers have made significant progress in understanding how to improve model
generalizability during model development. However, models are always imperfect representations of
systems and are constrained by the contextual frameworks used during their development. Thus, model
users need better ways to evaluate the possibility of unintentional misapplication when transferring
models to new sites. We propose a method of describing a model's application niche for use during the
model selection process. Using this method, model users synthesize information from databases, past
studies, and/or past model transfers to create model performance curves and heat maps. We
demonstrated this method using an empirical model developed to predict the ecological condition of
plant communities in riverine wetlands of the Appalachian Highland physiographic region, USA. We
assessed this model's transferability and generalizability across (1) riverine wetlands in the contiguous
United States, (2) wetland types in the Appalachian Highland physiographic region, and (3) wetland
types in the contiguous United States. With this methodology and a discussion of its critical steps, we set
the stage for further inquiries into the development of consistent and transparent practices for model
selection when transferring a model.
Myer, M.H., S.R. Campbell, and J.M. Johnston. (2017). Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and
sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes. Ecosphere 8(6).
Suffolk County, New York, is a locus for West Nile virus (WNV) infection in the American northeast that
includes the majority of Long Island to the east of New York City. The county has a system of light and
gravid traps used for mosquito collection and disease monitoring. In order to identify predictors of WNV
incidence in mosquitoes and predict future occurrence of WNV, we have developed a spatiotemporal
Bayesian model, beginning with over 40 ecological, meteorological, and built-environment covariates. A
mixed-effects model including spatially and temporally correlated errors was fit to WNV surveillance
data from 2008 to 2014 using the R package "R-INLA," which allows for Bayesian modeling using the
stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) approach. The integrated nested Laplace approximation
(INLA) SPDE allows for simultaneous fitting of a temporal parameter and a spatial covariance, while
incorporating a variety of likelihood functions and running in R statistical software on a home computer.
We found that land cover classified as open water and woody wetlands had a negative association with
WNV incidence in mosquitoes, and the count of septic systems was associated with an increase in WNV.
Mean temperature at two-week lag was associated with a strong positive impact, while mean
precipitation at no lag and one-week lag was associated with positive and negative impacts on WNV,
respectively. Incorporation of spatiotemporal factors resulted in a marked increase in model goodness-
of-fit. The predictive power of the model was evaluated on 2015 surveillance results, where the best
model achieved a sensitivity of 80.9% and a specificity of 77.0%. The spatial covariate was mapped
across the county, identifying a gradient of WNV prevalence increasing from east to west. The Bayesian
spatiotemporal model improves upon previous approaches, and we recommend the INLA SPDE
methodology as an efficient way to develop robust models from surveillance data to develop and
enhance monitoring and control programs. Our study confirms previously found associations between
51
-------
weather conditions and WNV and suggests that wetland cover has a mitigating effect on WNV infection
in mosquitoes, while high septic system density is associated with an increase in WNV infection.
O'Dea, C.B., S. Anderson, T. Sullivan, D. Landers, and C.F. Casey. (2017). Impacts to ecosystem
services from aquatic acidification: Using FEGS-CS to understand the impacts of air pollution.
Ecosphere 8(5).
Increases in anthropogenic emissions of sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) have resulted in increases in the
associated atmospheric deposition of acidic compounds. In sensitive watersheds, this deposition has
initiated a cascade of negative environmental effects on aquatic ecosystems, resulting in a degradation
or loss of valuable ecosystem goods and services. Here, we report the activities of an expert workgroup
to synthesize information on acidic deposition-induced aquatic acidification from the published
literature and to link critical load exceedances with ecosystem services and beneficiaries, using the
Stressor-Ecological Production function-Final Ecosystem Services (STEPS) Framework and the Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). Experts identified and documented the
sensitive aquatic ecosystem ecological endpoints valued by humans, and the environmental pathways
through which these endpoints may experience degradation in response to acidification. Beneficiary
groups were then identified for each sensitive ecological endpoint to clarify relationships between
humans and the effects of aquatic acidification, and to lay the foundation for future research and
analysis to value these FEGS.
Tashie, A., and P. Ringold. (2019). A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data
according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services classification scheme. Ecosphere. 10(3), e02665.
The last decade has seen a proliferation of studies describing the benefits people accrue from natural
processes by translation of spatially explicit land use and landcover data to ecosystem service provision.
Yet, critical assessment of systemic bias resulting from reliance on land use and landcover data is
limited. Here, we evaluate an extensive collection of ecosystem service-related data based on land use
and landcover according to a broadly applicable ecosystem service frameworkFinal Ecosystem Goods
and Services (FEGS). In this framework, ecosystems are viewed from the perspective of a comprehensive
set of beneficiaries and the biophysical features directly relevant to each. In this examination, we create
a database identifying over 14,000 linkages between 255 data layers from EnviroAtlas and FEGS
beneficiaries. Through these linkages, we identify major gaps in beneficiary identification and systemic
biases resulting from the utilization of translations from land use and landcover data. Importantly, we
find that for many beneficiaries there is an absence of data on FEGS at extensive scales in the United
States. We provide a roadmap for the integration of extant ecosystem service research efforts using the
FEGS classification scheme and critically appraise this scheme, highlighting inconsistent specification
among beneficiary categories and environmental classes. We also explore the benefits of crosswalking
different ecosystem service data and frameworks for researchers, by reducing the otherwise high buy-in
cost of data exploration, and for data developers, by increasing the exposure of their work.
52
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development
(8101R)
Washington, DC
20460
EPA/600/R-19/087
53
------- |