Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Integrating Human Wellbeing and Ecosystem Services into Near Term Action Planning in the Puget Sound
EPA Grant Number: R836946Title: Integrating Human Wellbeing and Ecosystem Services into Near Term Action Planning in the Puget Sound
Investigators: Biedenweg, Kelly
Institution: Oregon State University
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: August 1, 2017 through July 31, 2019 (Extended to July 31, 2021)
Project Amount: $399,831
RFA: Integrating Human Health and Well-Being with Ecosystem Services (2016) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Human Health
Objective:
This community-engaged project worked with four watershed-scale planning groups in Puget Sound, Washington to integrate human wellbeing in ecosystem recovery. Our research team included an early career assistant professor, a postdoctoral scholar, a PhD student, an online professional master’s degree student, and a masters-level research associate. We worked in deep collaboration with over a dozen partners in state, county, and regional governments to develop research projects that could support human wellbeing integration and to facilitate planning processes that considered human wellbeing as well as biophysical ecosystem services.
We had two overarching project objectives
1. Develop community-engaged integrated ecosystem restoration plans with Puget Sound Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs)
2. Empower LIOs and other partners to integrate human wellbeing and ecosystem services when making decisions locally and regionally
After four years, our work resulted in tangible and intangible benefits at both local and basin-wide scales.
• Five research projects collaboratively developed, implemented, interpreted and applied:
o An Analysis of Beliefs About Environmental Governance and Connection to Environmental Services and Disservices
o Integrating Human Wellbeing in Stillaguamish-Snohomish Watershed Planning
o Shellfish Harvesting and Closures due to Toxics/Pollution
o Nature’s Contributions to People in Puget Sound
o Factors Influencing Integration of HWB and Social Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning
• Four strategic planning efforts facilitated to integrate human wellbeing and ecosystem services
• One two-day trainings conducted on Structured Decision Making and human wellbeing integration with 25 partners
• Over 60 presentations and discussions led with partners
• Over 22 academic presentations summarizing the work nationally and internationally
• 11 peer-reviewed publications
• 5 white paper reports (one being an extensive web-based, adaptive human wellbeing protocol with multiple appendices specific to outcomes from this project)
• 1 dissertation and 1 professional master’s degree completed
• An interactive geovisualization website for partners to explore human wellbeing and ecosystem service data across the region
These stepwise outputs culminated in what we believe to be our largest impact: the adoption of a fifth objective to the 2022-2026 region-wide Action Agenda called “Ensure Human Wellbeing”. The formalization of this category will encourage human wellbeing integration in hundreds of ecosystem recovery strategies implemented by county, city, state, and Tribal governments.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The project was implemented with two parallel approaches.
1) Community-engaged planning and research
In this first approach, we worked directly with four LIOs (community-based watershed organizations) to identify, design, implement, and interpret both small research projects and the application of findings from those projects into their biennial ecosystem restoration planning. We recruited four watershed groups from the nine defined in the Puget Sound Basin to participate over the four years as co-designers of the effort. As a group, we met bimonthly throughout the award period. In the first year, meetings focused on identifying priority needs to engage in the project and sharing key data and policy process that could influence participation and products. In year two, we defined the processes each LIO wanted to pursue to integrate wellbeing and ecosystem services in their planning. In year three, we shared lessons learned from each group, as well as mid-term ethnographic results for collaborative interpretation. We also identified a couple of small research projects that would inform planning to be conducted by our PhD student. In year four, we reported out on final products from the research and planning processes, and evaluated the community-engaged effort overall.
In addition to these monthly group meetings, we had more regular meetings with each community group to facilitate the implementation of their planning. We assigned each of our research team to a group (Biedenweg (PI) with Hood Canal LIO, Trimbach (Postdoc) with Island and Stillaguamish-Snohomish LIOs, and Fleming (PhD student) with Strait LIO). The frequency and intensity of meeting with these groups varied on the time of year and process. For example, Trimbach met weekly for several hours with his communities in the first two years to work through their planning approach, whereas because of the timing of Hood Canal’s planning, Biedenweg worked intensively over the final 18months with her group. Meetings were in person until COVID 19, when they seamlessly switched to virtual.
2) Ethnographic study of the planning process
While engaging communities in this process, the research team also took detailed notes of all meetings as well and policy processes and other contextual factors occurring over the duration of the project. In addition, the research team conducted pre and post interviews to test the extent to which engaging in a targeted integrated planning approach modified their acceptance of and interest in integrating human health and wellbeing in ecosystem restoration. Figure 2 shows the hypothesized relationships of the planning process to expected outputs.
Conclusions:
Project 1: An Analysis of Beliefs About Environmental Governance and Connection to Environmental Services and Disservices
The funded PhD student on this project chose to focus her dissertation on the relationship between perceived environmental governance (as one metric of wellbeing) and indicators of ecosystem health. She leveraged existing data for her analyses. Environmental governance beliefs were collected from over 2000 respondents to a biennial randomized household survey to residents in the Puget Sound. Environmental metrics came from several sources. Her dissertation resulted in three chapters, with the primary findings bulleted below. All three chapters have been submitted for publication, with one in press. Detailed analyses and findings can be found in the dissertation linked above.
- In a sample of Puget Sound residents (n=2,323), beliefs about environmental governance were significantly associated with biophysical components related to environmental health.
- Beliefs about environmental governance were negatively correlated with environmental health for every tested metric (i.e., beliefs were more favorable in areas of poorer environmental health).
- Place attachment and psychological restoration were not important drivers of beliefs about environmental governance.
Figure 1. Maps of the association between governance beliefs and measures of environmental effects and exposures across Puget Sound using cluster analysis. Black points indicate points of high values for governance beliefs, and high effects or exposures. Blue points indicate points of low values for governance beliefs, and effects or exposures. Pink points indicate points of high values for governance beliefs, and low effects or exposures. Yellow points indicate points of low values for governance beliefs, and effects or exposures. Circled areas indicate cold and hotspot locations from figure 3.8. Panels are as follows: A) environmental effects and, B) environmental exposures.
Project 2: Integrating Human Wellbeing in Stillaguamish-Snohomish Watershed Planning
Project summary: We worked with an online master’s student to complete her capstone project as both a member of one of our participating communities and a rising scholar. She focused her capstone project on analyzing quantitative and qualitative data from pre-post interviews conducted by Trimbach with members of LIOs that had participated in the EPA-supported project and LIOs that did not participate.
• Overall, increased attention has been given to the human dimensions of Puget Sound recovery across the LIOs, including those that participated in the HWB integration project and those that did not.
• For the LIOs that did engage in the project, there was evidence that the implementation of a SDM tool resulted in members having an increased perception of transparency in their planning processes and trust among fellow LIO members. It also highlighted specific shortcomings around representation and increased members perceptions that not all the right people are being included in their decision-making.
• There was evidence that engaging in the HWB integration project and implementing SDM did increase the LIO’s consideration of human dimensions throughout the duration of the project and will likely have lasting positive impacts going forward.
• Interest in realizing the full potential of SDM for the LIOs was high. There was a desire to address the gaps that the SDM pilot process brought to the forefront, including developing specific strategies, goals, and metrics associated with the HWB Vital Signs to add in an update to their Ecosystem Recovery Plan.
Project 3: Shellfish Harvesting and Closures due to Toxics/Pollution
Project Summary: In response to a request from LIO partners, graduate students on the team took a closer look at the spatial interactions between shellfish bed closures due to toxins and where people who like to harvest shellfish live. The goal of this was to identify if there were inequitable distributions of these closures by race or geography. The primary approach was to develop geospatial data for harvester frequency and race from a biennial randomized survey of 2000 Puget Sound residents and geospatial data for shellfish closures during the same time from Washington Department of Health. These data layers were created within an interactive geovisualization tool to explore relationships visually. Statistical analyses tested the correlation of self-identified harvester race (white/non-white), harvest frequency, and closures.
Figure 2. Duration of recreational shellfish harvest closures and reported frequency of shellfish harvests.
Figure 3. Screenshot of interactive geovisualization tool.
Findings Summary:
• There was a direct relationship between the duration of shellfish harvest closures
and reported harvest frequencies of individuals in the year 2020, and this relationship was strongest with regards to biotoxin-related closures.
• There was a direct relationship between non-white population and the duration of pollution-related shellfish harvest closures, primarily driven by year-round harvest closures around the racially diverse Seattle metro area.
• There was no relationship between reported harvest frequencies of individuals and non-white population in the year 2020, indicating that shellfish harvesting may be an important cultural activity which is independent of race.
• Using the duration of shellfish harvest closures as our risk metric was statistically insignificant in showing a regional trend of disproportionate access to shellfish among diverse communities, but it was qualitatively relevant in mapping local disparities which beg further investigations on differential human wellbeing where the duration of closures, frequent harvesters, and non-white populations spatially intersect.
Project 4: Nature’s Contributions to People in Puget Sound
Primary Output: peer reviewed manuscript in progress
Project Summary: Using existing data from large datasets in the Puget Sound, the graduate student team explored ecosystem service predictors of two metrics associated with psychology wellbeing: life satisfaction and psychological restoration from nature. Tested environmental predictors included air quality, landcover change (forest and agriculture), bird species richness, proportion of natural areas and diversity of natural areas near one’s home. Data for these indicators were obtained from well-documented regional datasets and cleaned for purposes of this project. Demographic predictors included years of residency in Puget Sound, sex, years of education, income, race (white/not white), age and political ideology of the respondent. Wellbeing and demographic data were obtained from over 2000 respondents to a biennial mail survey from a randomized population of Puget Sound residents conducted by the Human Dimensions lab at Oregon State University. Probit regressions in R software were conducted to test predictors of the wellbeing variables.
Findings Summary
- The most strong predictors of life satisfaction were relational variables (operationalized as psychological restoration from nature and outdoor activities). Even though the predicted explanation of variance was small, it was on par with, or explained more than commonly tested demographic measures
- Both intrinsic (bird diversity and habitat diversity) and instrumental values (air quality and land cover change) of nature were important to individuals’ frequency of experiencing psychological restoration and participation in outdoor activities.
- The effects of these ecosystem services may not be equitable. Race was the most significant predictor of both psychological restoration and outdoor recreation.
Project 5: Factors Influencing Integration of HWB and Social Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning
Primary Output: Biedenweg, K., D. Trimbach and W. Fleming. 2021. Integrating Social Science in Puget Sound Restoration. Journal of Ecological Restoration.
Project summary. This overarching project was the primary research encompassing the community-engaged work. Data to respond to our research questions in this project came from detailed meeting notes, policy analyses, lived experiences, and interviews with 36 participating and non-participating LIO members as well as other planners in the region. For the regional scale, we used a governance framework to analyze the conditions that facilitated social scientific engagement or were missing. The local analysis is still in progress, but we are similarly using governance frameworks to understand the factors affecting human wellbeing integration because we found the social psychological variables to be less influential (largely because there was less variation in them).
Regional Analysis
• The Puget Sound region of Washington State, USA, has conceptually and symbolically integrated social science in ecosystem recovery planning
• Integration occurred at various points in the restoration governance system, including government mandates, internal and external funding and social scientific support, integrated planning frameworks, and interested clientele
• Clients from different scales of implementation, however, noted there are still several barriers to using social science in planning and restoration activities
• Functional (or instrumental) social science integration may rely on a science-policy interface that uses knowledge co-production with social scientists, natural scientists, and lay experts
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 20 publications | 3 publications in selected types | All 3 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Fleming W, Hallman T, Van Den Hoek J, Johnson S, Biedenweg K. Measuring Spatial Associations between Environmental Health and Beliefs about Environmental Governance. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2022;Early Access. |
R836946 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.