Information Needs Assessment for Coastal and Marine Management and Policy: Ecosystem Services Under Changing Climatic, Land Use, and Demographic Conditions

Environmental Management

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1502-1513

  Goldsmith, Kaitlin A ^a   Granek, Elise F ^a   Lubitow, Amy ^a  

^a PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coastal ecosystems; Coastal management; Communication; Data needs; Ecosystem services; Evidence based decisions

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; LAND USE; POPULATION STATISTICS;

COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS; COASTAL MANAGEMENT; DATA NEEDS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; EVIDENCE- BASED DECISIONS;

DECISION MAKING;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA SET; DECISION MAKING; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT; LAND USE; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; MARINE POLICY; NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENT; PARADIGM SHIFT;

ARTICLE; CLIMATE CHANGE; COASTAL WATERS; DECISION MAKING; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; ESTUARY; FISHERY MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; LAND USE; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY; UNITED STATES; WIND POWER; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEOGRAPHY; OREGON; PROCEDURES;

OREGON; UNITED STATES;

CLIMATE CHANGE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GEOGRAPHY; HUMANS; OREGON;

EID: 84945476350     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-015-0576-z     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Batker D, Swedeen P, Costanza R, de la Torre I, Boumans R, Bagstad K (2010) A new view of the Puget sound economy: the economic value of nature’s services in the Puget sound basin. Earth Economics, Tacoma
2. Berkes F, Folke C (2000) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York
3. Cantrill J, Senecah S (2001) Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environ Sci Policy 4:185–203
4. Carr E, Worth A (2001) The use of the telephone interview for research. Nurs Times Res 6(511):511–524. doi:10.1177/136140960100600107
5. Chan K, Shaw M, Cameron D, Underwood E, Daily G (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4(11):2138–2152
6. Cheng A, Daniels S (2003) Examining the interaction between geographic scale and ways of knowing in ecosystem management: a case study of place-based collaborative planning. Forest Sci 49(6):841–854
7. Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland M, Salinsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policymakers work together? J Epidemiol Commun Health 59:632–637
8. Daily G, Matson P (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28):9455–9456
9. Davis E, Moseley C, Olsen C, Abrams J, Creighton J (2013) Diversity and dynamism of fire science and user needs. J Forest 111(2):101–107
10. Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, Fysh A (2007) Information transfer: what do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci 2(20):1–12
11. Drake J, Kontar Y, Rife G (eds) (2014) New trends in earth-science outreach and engagement: the nature of communication., Advances in natural and technological hazards researchSpringer, New York
12. Francis T, Whittaker K, Shandas V, Mills AV, Graybill JK (2005) Incorporating science into the environmental policy process: a case study from Washington State. Ecol Soc 10(1):35
13. Gareau B (2007) Ecological values amid local interests: natural resource conservation, social differentiation, and human survival in Honduras. Rural Sociol 72(2):244–268
14. Granek E, Polasky S, Kappel C, Reed D, Stoms D, Koch E, Kennedy C, Wolanski E (2010) Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 24(1):207–216
15. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2011) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 update. Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
16. Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G, Polasky S (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):701–704
17. Karrer L, Beldia II P, Dennison B, Dominici A, Dutra G, English C, Gunawan T, Hastings J, Katz L, Kelty R, McField M, Nunez E, Obura D, Ortiz F, Quesada M, Sivo L, Stone G (2011) Science-to-action guidebook. Science and Knowledge Division, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia. www.science2action.org. Accessed 9 Nov 2014
18. Kerkhoff L (2005) Integrated research: concepts of connections in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 8(2005):452–463
19. Lach D, Parker A, Boesl M (2012) Assessing regional climate needs. Pacific Northwest Climate Decision Support Consortium
20. Martinez R, Rusch E (2012) Understanding the connections between coastal waters and ocean ecosystem services and human health: Basic services, valuation, and resiliency (workshop). Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine, Washington
21. Matso K, Becker M (2014) What can funders do to better link science with decisions? Case studies of coastal communities and climate change. Environ Manag. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0347-2
22. McGregor M (2006) What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health 9(3):181–185
23. McLeod K, Leslie H (eds) (2009) Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington
24. Metz D (2013) The language of conservation 2013: updated recommendations on how to communicate effectively to build support for conservation. Public Opinion Strategies, Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, Los Angeles
25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington
26. National Ocean Council (U.S.) (2014) National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. http://www.whitehouse.gov//sites/default/files/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015
27. National Research Council (2012) Using science as evidence in public policy. Committee on the use of social science knowledge in public policy. In: Prewitt K, Schwandt TA, Straf ML (eds) Division of behavioral and social sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
28. National Research Council (U.S.) (2013) An ecosystem services approach to assessing the impacts of the deepwater horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The National Academies Press, Washington
29. National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (2013) Science for an ocean nation: Update of the ocean research priorities plan. Washington, DC 2502. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ocean_research_plan_2013.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015
30. Novick G (2008) Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Res Nurs Health 31:391–398
31. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (1990) Principle Policies of the Oregon ORMP. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Pages/Ocean_Policies.aspx. Accessed 8 Jan 2014
32. Pacific Coast Collaborative (2013) Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. http://www.pacificcoastcollaborative.org/Documents/Pacific%20Coast%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015
33. Panetta L, Adams J, Claussen E, Guerrero C, Hayden M, Heal G, Kennel CF, Knowles T, Lubchenco J, Packard J, Parravano P, Pataki G, Riley J Jr., Rockerfeller D Jr., Rufe R Jr., Sullivan K, Ware M, White P (2003) America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change (A Report to the Nation). PEW Oceans Commission
34. Patton M (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Qual Soc Work 1(3):261–283. doi:10.1177/1473325002001003636
35. Rees S, Austen M, Attrill M, Rodwell L (2013) Incorporating indirect ecosystem services into marine protected area planning and management. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8(3):273–285. doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.680500
36. Regional Data Framework Action Coordination Team (2013) West Coast Governor’s Alliance on Ocean Health Regional Data Framework Action Coordination Team Work Plan. http://www.westcoastoceans.org/media/data_network_act/rdf_work_plan_final_3-12-13.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015
37. Rowe A, Lee K (2012) Linking knowledge with action: and approach to philanthropic funding of science for conservation. A report to the conservation and science program. David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Los Altos
38. Stokstad E (2005) Taking the pulse of earth’s life-support systems. Science 308(5718):41–43
39. Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162(01):265–283
40. Thomas D (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27(237):237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748
41. Wainger LA, King DM, Mack RN, Price EW, Maslin T (2010) Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions? Ecol Econ 69(5):978–987. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.011
42. West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health (2013) WCGA Restructure Document. http://www.westcoastoceans.org/media/august2012excommmeeting/wcgalliance_restructure_final.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2015
43. White C, Halpem S, Kappel C (2012) Ecosystem services tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. PNAS 109(12):4696–4701
44. Wolf A (2004) Research strategies for policy relevance. Soc Policy J N Z 23:65–85
45. Worm B, Barbier E, Beaumont N, Duffy J, Folke C, Halpern B, Jackson J, Lotze H, Micheli F, Palumbi S, Sala E, Selkoe K, Stachowicz J, Watson R (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314:787–790
46. Zheng W, Shi H, Chen S, Zhu M (2009) Benefit and cost analysis of mariculture based on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68(6):1626–1632