You are here:
Lessons Learned From Applying An Ecosystem Services Framework for Post-Hurricane Sand Recovery and Resiliency Planning in Long Island, NY
Citation:
Seeteram, N., J. Halfon, JohnM Johnston, AND R. Kieber. Lessons Learned From Applying An Ecosystem Services Framework for Post-Hurricane Sand Recovery and Resiliency Planning in Long Island, NY. ACES 2016, Jacksonville, FL, December 05 - 09, 2016.
Impact/Purpose:
Supports SHC Project 2.61 Task 4 National and Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
Description:
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the second costliest hurricane in U.S. history, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Stony Brook University, The Nature Conservancy, and New York State (NYS) Department of State partnered with county governments on Long Island, NY, to identify the value Long Island communities derive from the goods and services provided by nature, and how these values could be incorporated into climate change resiliency and recovery planning after hurricanes and flooding. Integrating the concept of ecosystem services (ES) and resiliency into government planning has garnered attention in recent years. In 2014, NYS passed the Community Risk and Resiliency Act, or CRRA, which requires municipalities to consider the concept of “resiliency” into their planning in order to continue to receive state assistance by 2017, and in 2015, the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-16-01, which directs federal agencies to develop and enact policies that incorporate ES where appropriate. Within this context, the researchers in this partnership adopted an ES framework derived from the “Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services” guidelines published by the National Ecosystem Services Partnership at Duke University to provide a methodical approach for integrating the values of ES into planning. However, the application of an ES framework within a federal interagency and private partnership that also incorporates varying levels of state and local governance can be problematic. From our efforts in the first year, four areas were identified as keys to success including (1) partner buy-in, (2) the role of a facilitator in lieu of adopting a centralized decision making process, (3) outcome- based consensus building, and (4) use of adaptive management. Congruous partner buy-in is critical for advancing project goals, while a facilitator resolves differences amongst partners and partner organizations. Furthermore, emphasis on an outcome-based consensus that balances a process-driven approach with principles of adaptive management engenders project progression and is necessary given the uncertainties that arise in the research process.
