You are here:
Gaps Between What We Measure and What We Want to Know to Value Streams
Citation:
Ringold, P., M. Weber, J. Boyd, D. Landers, AND A. Nahlik. Gaps Between What We Measure and What We Want to Know to Value Streams. Presented at Aces and Ecosystem Markets 2012, December 10 - 14, 2012.
Impact/Purpose:
This work explicitly recognizes and considers the diverse ways in which people benefit from ecosystems. It suggests that for each of those ways there are a set of ecological features most meaningful to those people that we ought to consider when we design monitoring programs or develop model specifications. It identifies examples of those ecological features and then considers the gap between those features and our existing modeling and monitoring capacity.
Description:
We have found the concept “Final Ecosystem Goods and Services” (FEGS) useful in linking ecosystems and human well-being. We define FEGS as ecological features people perceive to be directly relevant to their welfare, as opposed to the larger set of essential intermediate ecological processes and features on which the FEGS depend. This conceptual construct presents ecosystems as systems of production. A “production function” then links changes in stressors to changes in FEGS. As the first step in our examination of FEGS, we identified metrics of FEGS for streams, wetlands and estuaries in two interdisciplinary workshops (http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html). Reports from these workshops not only identify sets of metrics, and transferable principles useful for identifying metrics of FEGS more generally. As a second step in our evaluation, we consider the gaps between required FEGS information and the capacity to provide this information at national and regional scales. Here we focus on national stream monitoring. We compare the workshop listing of FEGS to the available stream metrics at a national scale. Our gap analysis first specifies uses of FEGS information. We identify four general uses – 1) general communication, 2) reporting of status and trends, 3) providing information for analyses of human well being and 4) providing the biophysical information that might be included in a Green GDP. Each of these uses has requirements not only with regard to the biophysical measurement, but also with regard to its temporal and spatial attributes. In addition, some uses depend upon the capacity to predict changes in FEGS with changes in stressors. We present a specific example of our gap analysis for recreational anglers, and provide general conclusions examining other beneficiaries.