CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS
98
What data should we collect? A framework
for identifying indicators of ecosystem
contributions to human well-being
Paul L Ringold1*, James Boyd2, Dixon Landers1, and Matt Weber1,3
The lack of a clear framework identifying data to link ecosystems to analyses of human well-being has
been highlighted in numerous studies. To address this issue, we applied a recently developed economic
theory termed “final” ecosystem goods and services – the biophysical features and qualities that people
perceive as being directly related to their well-being. The six-step process presented here enabled us to
identify metrics associated with streams that can be used in the analysis of human well-being; we illustrate these steps with data from a regional stream survey. Continued refinement and application of this
framework will require ongoing collaboration between natural and social scientists. Framework application could result in more useful and relevant data, leading to more informed decisions in the management of ecosystems.
Front Ecol Environ 2013; 11(2): 98–105, doi:10.1890/110156 (published online 11 Jan 2013)
D
ata improve our ability to manage the considerable
but finite capacity of ecosystems to support diverse
human activities. Yet numerous studies (eg US GAO
1981; Guerrero 2000; US GAO 2000; MA 2005; The
Heinz Center 2008; Carpenter et al. 2009; UNEP–
WCMC 2011) point to the lack of appropriate data as a
major barrier to natural resource management. The problem, however, is not merely the lack of data, but also the
lack of a clear framework that can be used to identify
those data that will be most useful for facilitating the
analysis of human well-being (Heal et al. 2004; Nahlik et
In a nutshell:
• People benefit from ecosystems in diverse ways, based on different “final” ecosystem goods and services
• Final ecosystem goods and services are biophysical features and
qualities with clear, direct, and intuitive meaning to people
• Final ecosystem goods and services, examples of which are discussed in this paper, are the most useful links between ecosystems and human well-being
• “Intermediate” ecosystem goods and services are ones that are
essential in understanding, predicting, and managing final
ecosystem goods and services, but their economic value is
derived from their role in producing final goods and services
• Policy makers and other consumers of natural science information should encourage and ultimately expect ecologists to communicate ecosystem status, trends, and possible futures in terms
of final ecosystem goods and services
1
US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health
and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology
Division, Corvallis, OR *([email protected]); 2Resources for
the Future, Washington, DC; 3US EPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Sustainable Technology Division, Corvallis, OR
www.frontiersinecology.org
al. 2012). One approach is to focus on the identification
and measurement of “final” (as opposed to “intermediate”) ecosystem goods and services, hereafter referred to
as “final services”. Final services are defined as biophysical features, quantities, and qualities that require little
further translation to make clear their relevance to
human well-being (Boyd 2007; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;
Fisher et al. 2008, 2009; Johnston and Russell 2011).
Final services are those consumed, used, or enjoyed
directly by humans; intermediate services are those
required to produce final services. For example, for a
recreational angler, stream habitat is one of many intermediate services necessary to produce fish, a final service.
It is useful to think of intermediate services as being
linked to final services by ecological production function
models that are also sensitive to natural and anthropogenic stressors.
Final services are things we experience, make choices
about, and that have real meaning for people. If they can
be measured and quantified, they are the biophysical metrics most amenable to social evaluation. Our goal here is
to identify the biophysical metrics of the final services in
a particular ecological system and to describe how the
data quantifying those biophysical metrics might be
aggregated to facilitate social and economic comprehension. We do so by reporting on our efforts to: (1) develop
a transferable process for identifying biophysical metrics
that best link ecosystems to human well-being, (2) use
that process to identify such biophysical metrics, and (3)
illustrate and evaluate the capacity of current systems to
provide information (ie indicators of these biophysical
metrics), using stream ecosystems as our example. This
paper is based on, and extends, two transdisciplinary
workshops. The first focused on streams, the second on
wetlands and estuaries (Ringold et al. 2009, 2011); our
© The Ecological Society of America
PL Ringold et al.
Data linking ecosystems to people
© The Ecological Society of America
B
pr en
ef ef
er ic
en ia
ce ry
s
Be
ne
lis fici
t ar
y
purpose is not to describe how eco5
3
2
1
nomic and other methods can be used
Benefit
Indicators of
Metrics of final
Ecosystems
analysis
final goods
goods and
to evaluate these final services – a
and services
services
topic discussed elsewhere (eg Freeman
2003; Heal et al. 2004; Boyd and
Krupnick 2009; NCEE 2010) – but
rather to examine how these services
4
Other goods
are identified and measured.
and services
Our focus on identifying the indicators of final services underlines the
importance of studying intermediate
services for understanding and manag- Figure 1. Conceptual relationship between ecosystems and benefits. Viewing
ing ecosystems and predicting change. ecosystems from the perspective of each category of beneficiary enables us to identify
In fact, managers typically focus their metrics of final services. Understanding beneficiary preferences allows us to combine
efforts not only on the final service but metrics into indicators of final services. Indicators of final services, in combination with
also on the intermediate services that other information (eg complementary goods), support the analysis of benefits. Green is
assigned to features that are biophysical, blue to human-based features; “Other goods
produce the final service.
Final services have three specific and services” can be either biophysical or human-based features.
uses. First, they are the features most
appropriate for use in communicating with various “benefi- these principles and this model for three specific beneficiaries” (eg recreational anglers, irrigators, or non-use ben- ciaries of stream ecosystems.
In developing a set of biophysical metrics and indicaeficiaries; see WebPanel 1). Second, they are particularly
suitable for use in analyses of social well-being. Third, they tors of final services concepts, we needed to proceed
could be the basis for a national natural resource account through six steps:
or “green gross dynamic product” (eg Nordhaus and (1) provide a practical definition of the boundary of the
ecosystem of interest;
Kokkelenberg 1999; Boyd 2008). While metrics focused
on final services are important in linking ecosystems to (2) develop a list of beneficiaries of the resource of interest;
human well-being, it is equally crucial to recognize that the
use of this information complements broader considera- (3) develop a list of general categories of ecosystem
attributes valued by its beneficiaries;
tions, including factors not easily included in any ecosystem services framework, such as the intrinsic worth of (4) conduct an analysis of which ecosystem attributes
provide a final service for each beneficiary and the
ecosystems (MA 2003; McCauley 2006).
specification of a working hypothesis about what metThe concept of intermediate and final services is useful
ric would reasonably represent that service for that
in translating the ecosystem service classification
user;
scheme offered by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA) into measurable biophysical metrics (5) consider the ways in which combinations of metrics
lead to indicators of the quantity of services; and
that can be used in analyses of social outcomes. For
example, Barbier et al. (2009) reviewed the manner in (6) identify additional biophysical measures required to
translate indicators of final services into benefits to
which the four classes of MA services – provisioning,
people.
cultural, regulating, and supporting – contribute to ecoThese issues are discussed in the workshop reports mennomic values. In each case, the focal biophysical unit
equates to a final service; for example, in valuing a regu- tioned above (Ringold et al. 2009, 2011). We summarize
lating service, the key to the analysis is a production the key points below.
function model linking changes in an intermediate service (eg wetland area) to expected changes in a final ser- Beneficiaries
vice (eg the incidence of natural disasters, for instance,
floods). The value of the wetland (or of other intermedi- People benefit from ecosystems in many ways; for
ate ecosystem features) is derived from the value of the instance, some people enjoy birdwatching, others earn
their livelihoods by catching and selling fish. Each benefinal service.
ficiary interacts directly with different components of the
ecosystem, leading to different metrics and indicators of
Translating
the
final
services
concept
into
n
the final service for each beneficiary. Thus, a complete
biophysical metrics
listing of beneficiary classes is needed. This list is imporTo translate the final services concepts into a practical set tant because final services are only identifiable based on
of metrics, we specify a series of assumptions. We integrate the wants, needs, and perceptions of the beneficiaries.
and extend these assumptions in a simple conceptual WebPanel 1 provides our working list of beneficiaries and
model (Figure 1). We then illustrate the application of the rationale for this list.
www.frontiersinecology.org
99
Data linking ecosystems to people
100
Ecosystem attributes, metrics, and indicators
In order to identify metrics of final services for each beneficiary, we consider the ways in which that beneficiary
directly interacts with an ecosystem. First, we identified
broad attributes of ecosystems that provide these services
(see the column headings in Table 1 in Ringold et al.
2009 for a listing of these broad attributes). We then
refine the broad attributes into specific metrics (Box 2 in
Figure 1) for each beneficiary. We based this refinement
on discussions at the workshops (Ringold et al. 2009,
2011), expert judgment, and subjective opinion. We were
guided by two questions: (1) what biophysical amounts,
features, and qualities do each beneficiary want more of
or less of? (2) Is this biophysical unit the most concrete,
tangible, and intuitive feature for this beneficiary? In
some instances – reflecting limitations in knowledge or in
the desire to avoid excessive speculation – the metric
listed remained vague and in need of further refinement
in consultation with affected beneficiaries (eg “toxicity of
stream water to livestock”), but in most cases, the metric
provided was substantially more specific (eg daily average
flow of water and the daily standard deviation). A full
listing of those metrics is available at www.epa.gov/
nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html (specific metrics for
three beneficiaries are provided and discussed below,
under the heading “Three examples of final services”).
For each beneficiary, we have listed multiple metrics.
Appropriate combinations of metrics that reflect beneficiary perspectives are indicators of the final service (Box
3 in Figure 1), just as metrics describing vertebrate assemblages combine to provide an indicator of biotic integrity
(eg Stoddard et al. 2008b) or as multiple economic metrics combine to provide The Conference Board’s Leading
Economic Index, an indicator of future economic activity
(Levanon et al. 2011).
Additional information needs for analyses of social
well-being
Analyses of social well-being require data, not only on
the final services but also on the scarcity of the services,
their substitutes and complements, and a range of other
factors (eg technology or knowledge that enables people
to benefit from ecosystems). These kinds of information
should be reflected in the design of any comprehensive
program linking ecosystem to human well-being, especially when these features are spatially explicit and
observable.
For example, a recreational angler needs access to
streams containing desired fish. This access, the complementary service, may be in the form of human infrastructure (eg roads, boat ramps) or a biophysical feature (eg the absence of cliffs limiting access to stream
reach). Thus, analysis of human well-being requires
that we know not only the status of valued ecological
resources but also their location with respect to other
ecological or anthropogenic features that make the
www.frontiersinecology.org
PL Ringold et al.
natural resources available for or valuable to a specific
beneficiary.
The relationship between ecosystems and benefits
Figure 1 summarizes our view of the relationship between
ecosystems and benefits. Viewing ecosystems from the
perspective of each beneficiary enables us to identify metrics of final services. Understanding beneficiary preferences allows us to combine metrics into indicators of final
services. Indicators of final services in combination with
other information (eg complementary goods) help to
inform the analysis of benefits.
n Three examples of final services
We illustrate our approach with examples based on
three types of beneficiaries of stream ecosystems: catchand-release anglers, crop irrigators, and municipal dischargers. Our illustration has three purposes. It (1)
demonstrates the process we developed to define metrics
of final services, (2) shows the translation of conceptual
principles to practical measures for different beneficiaries, and (3) defines the biophysical data of most relevance to specific beneficiaries and therefore to resource
managers. The approach emphasizes the need for data to
address such questions as: how can the resource be managed to sustain or enhance the service and the benefits
that it provides? Where are these services and benefits?
For a given level of effort, what is the best way to allocate resources to enhance this resource and the benefits
that flow from it? Having biophysical measures that
effectively link ecosystems to human well-being, ie metrics and indicators of final services, is a key to addressing
such questions.
Our examples use data from several sources, but especially from the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program – Western Streams and Rivers Pilot
(EMAP-W) study (Stoddard et al. 2005a, b; Peck et al.
2006; Hughes and Peck 2008). Although EMAP-W was
designed to report on the ecological condition of streams
rather than the services they provide, the use of the
EMAP-W data for this analysis is useful, since the
EMAP-W design (the spatial design, the field protocols,
and the assessment protocol) was the foundation for
national surveys now underway (US EPA 2010).
Catch-and-release anglers
Catch-and-release anglers are one of numerous types of
anglers with motivations that reflect combinations of
ecological and social factors (Bryan 1977; Ditton et al.
1992; Fedler and Ditton 1994; Fisher 1997; Connelly et
al. 2001; Arlinghaus 2006). Catch-and-release anglers are
a subset of the broader beneficiary class, “Recreational
Fishing and Hunting”. A member of another subset of the
class, a catch-and-consume angler, is shown in Figure 2.
© The Ecological Society of America
PL Ringold et al.
Data linking ecosystems to people
Our hypothesis is that four stream attributes are related to
the well-being of catch-and-release anglers.
101
Metrics
One key metric of the final service provided to a recreational angler is the size and abundance of native or naturalized recreational fish taxa. This metric includes naturalized alien fish but excludes stocked fish, because the
presence and abundance of stocked fish are typically a
reflection of human activity rather than of ecosystem production. A second set of key metrics reflect the aesthetic
importance of the stream setting; the aesthetic appeal of a
site is well described (eg Coughlin 1976; Hetherington
et al. 1993). A third set of measures relate to the usability of
a site for a catch-and-release angler. Some of these measures
(eg road access to a site) are complementary goods – they
are important for determining benefits but not metrics of
final services. However, other metrics relate to biophysical
features and can be considered as providing final services.
The appropriate metrics will vary with the mode of fishing;
for example, a catch-and-release angler wading in a stream
will directly experience characteristics of the streambed and
the stream’s hydrologic state. Streambed characteristics are
well captured by EMAP-W sampling protocols (Kaufmann
et al. 1999) but are not translated into information that
would be meaningful to a wading angler who may only wish
to know, “can I safely wade in this location?”
Because we assume that catch-and-release angling is a
water contact activity, a fourth set of measures relating to
water safety is also important (eg chemicals, pathogens,
and parasites). EMAP-W measures chemistry but not
pathogens or parasites. Furthermore, chemical levels are
not translated into measures of water safety.
Complementary goods
Figure 2. A catch-and-consume recreational angler with a
winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), caught on the Nestucca River in Oregon.
example using data and existing metrics from EMAP-W,
as well as crude but reasonable assumptions based on two
of the four attributes for this beneficiary. These assumptions are detailed in WebPanel 2.
The results of our analysis, as illustrated in Figure 3, show
that of the 12 western states, Colorado has the greatest proportion of high-quality streams (abundant fish of desirable
taxa in an appealing location) for recreational anglers. In
fact, Colorado ranks highest whether access is considered
or not. While six states have substantial proportions of
streams with high fishing quality and no access, in five
states all of the high-quality fishing sites are in an accessible location. Only one state – North Dakota – has no high-
Proportion of stream length
Complementary goods, especially those
High fishing quality
providing access to a desired resource,
With road access
are important in translating biophysical
No road access
features into human well-being for all
0.8
but non-use beneficiaries. Without
access, abundant fish at a given location
Low or medium
0.6
fishing quality
provide no potential direct benefit for
With road access
recreational anglers. Abundance is likely
No road access
to be valuable for other reasons, perhaps
0.4
as an intermediate good in generating
abundance at other locations where
Fishing quality not
access is available. Of course, other fea0.2
assessed
tures also affect the benefits derived
from the ecosystem; these include local
0.0
abundance of recreational fishing sites,
AZ CA CO ID MT ND NV OR SD UT WA WY
management practices and regulations,
State
the distance people have to travel to the
Figure 3. Fishing quality and access on western US streams (an illustrative example of
site, and crowding at the site.
an indicator of a final service combined with information on a complementary good).
Example
This example involves a recreational angler. The methods used to identify and integrate
To demonstrate the steps linking multiple metrics are described in WebPanel 2. A benefits analysis would consider many
ecosystems to benefits we provide an other factors, including other complementary goods.
© The Ecological Society of America
www.frontiersinecology.org
Data linking ecosystems to people
PL Ringold et al.
therefore a better representation of a final service provided by ecosystems than is flood protection.
A second set of metrics relates to the quality of
the water and its suitability for irrigation. A key
metric of water quality is its salinity, because
increases in salinity can be the dominant factor
reducing the value of freshwater (Shannon and
Grieve 1998).
102
A complementary good
EPA
The complementary good we chose to include in
this analysis is the presence of agricultural land
within 1 km of the sample site, or, from the irrigator’s perspective, the withdrawal site.
Example
Figure 4. Crop irrigation in Idaho. In 2005, 247 000 km2 of land were
irrigated in the US. Just under half was irrigated with sprinklers, one type of We illustrate the provision of final services prowhich is shown in this figure, with the remainder irrigated by flooding (44%) vided by streams for irrigators for the western US
or micro-irrigation (7%; Kenney et al. 2009).
by showing the stream length in salinity safety
quality sites for recreational angling, given the assumptions
of our analysis.
Crop irrigators
Irrigation, one type of which is shown in Figure 4, is second only to thermoelectric power generation in withdrawal of water from freshwater lakes and streams in the
US (Kenney et al. 2009). Our hypothesis is that two
stream attributes are related to human well-being for
irrigators.
Metrics
One key measure of the final service available to irrigators is the quantity and temporal variability of the water:
(1) daily average flows and the daily standard deviation at
all points within the stream network for each day during
the irrigation season, and (2) flood levels during periods
that would interfere with agricultural operations. We list
not only the average daily flows but also a measure of the
variability of the flow. Flow variability matters to irrigators, for example, because it helps describe the likelihood
that water will be available during growing seasons.
Variability also matters because it indicates the likelihood
that damaging or beneficial flooding events will occur. In
addition, we describe the measure of the service provided
in terms of probability of flooding, rather than in terms of
flood protection (which may be provided by the presence
of upstream natural wetlands or dams, either of which
may reduce peak flows). Flood protection is often the subject of valuation studies (eg Brander et al. 2006) and is
clearly important in predicting and managing floods.
Still, we would argue that the probability of flooding and
not the degree of flood protection provides a better foundation for spatial analysis of multiple attributes, is more
clearly the attribute that beneficiaries experience, and is
www.frontiersinecology.org
classes – safe for sensitive crops on most sensitive soils, safe for sensitive crops on least sensitive soils,
and unsafe for sensitive crops on any soil – as a function
of stream size and the presence of agricultural lands. We
use stream order as a surrogate for water quantity (Hughes
et al. 2011) and salinity safety classes as defined by
deHayr and Gordon (2004). Our illustration does not
include other components of stream chemistry that may
be important to an irrigator (eg compounds that may
damage crops or harm their consumers), nor information
on flooding, because this information is not consistently
available.
The service varies according to stream size and presence of adjacent agricultural lands (Figure 5). Almost all
small streams provide water with the safest salinity.
However, most small streams are not near agricultural
land; thus, the potential benefit is infrequently realized
for this beneficiary in these locations. For large streams,
one-fifth of the stream length contains water too saline
for use in irrigating sensitive crops, whereas in small
streams this amounts to only 5%.
Municipal dischargers
Discharges from thousands of municipal wastewater
treatment plants are regulated by federal and state technology and water-quality standards. It is tempting to
consider the ability of a stream to assimilate waste as a
final service for a municipal discharger. However, discharge regulations are meant to protect the interests of
beneficiaries other than those of the municipal discharger. The effects of compliance (eg improved recreational fish abundance, water that is safer for swimming)
will be accounted for by listing and evaluating the final
services for groups benefiting from changes in those features, such as recreational anglers and swimmers.
Regulations are justified because of the benefits that
© The Ecological Society of America
PL Ringold et al.
Metrics
The only measure of a stream’s final
services for a municipal discharger is
the probability of flooding that
would interfere with the operation
of the discharge facility. Information
on the probability of flooding
throughout the stream network is
not consistently available, so this
information is neither quantitatively analyzed nor illustrated here.
n Discussion and conclusions
Small streams
Safe for sensitive crops
on least sensitive soils
Conductivity
class
Safe for sensitive crops
on most sensitive soils
Conductivity
class and
presence of
agriculture
No adjacent agriculture
0
100
150
200
250
300
Conductivity
class
Conductivity
class and
presence of
agriculture
0
20
40
60
80
Thousand stream miles
100
Figure 5. Provision of water suitable for crop irrigation and proximity of agriculture.
Example of an indicator of a final service combined with information on a complementary
good. This example is based on a crop irrigator. Small streams are of Strahler order 0 to 3;
large streams are of Strahler order 4 and above (Hughes et al. 2011). Strahler order
numbers are assigned to streams based on their position within the stream network. Streams
with fewer tributaries receive lower scores, those with more tributaries receive higher scores.
Conductivity classes are as defined by deHayr and Gordon (2004). A benefits analysis
would consider many other factors, including other complementary goods.
Data form the basis for policy-relevant analyses, including reporting on status and trends
in ecosystems, determining progress toward stated environmental goals, and evaluating model predictions.
The right data enable these analyses to link ecosystems
to human well-being and make such data more relevant
and useful. The challenge is to identify the right data,
or at least to develop a process to identify the right
data. Our approach, founded on “final ecosystem services” (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Fisher et al. 2008) and
reflected in a conceptual model linking ecosystems to
human well-being (Figure 1), has enabled us to identify
such a process and to suggest specific metrics that will
be useful for this link. We summarize future research
needs below, but the central point is that progress in
quantifying the relationship between ecosystems and
human well-being will require continued focused collaboration that integrates both social and natural science theory and practice.
© The Ecological Society of America
50
Unsafe for sensitive crops
on any soil
Large streams
arise from biophysical features for
beneficiaries, not because of compliance with regulations.
The distinction between regulations and final services is important
generally. An examination of virtually any regulatory document reveals
a focus on an intermediate service,
which is then justified in terms of a
final service. For example, the 2003
Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria (US EPA 2003)
says: “adequate protection of fish
and wildlife, recreational uses, and
sources of drinking water [ie final
services] depend on having well
crafted standards and criteria [ie typically intermediate services] in place
for our waters”. Notably, the social
value of these intermediate services
as Barbier et al. (2009) noted is
embodied in the value of the final
service.
Data linking ecosystems to people
Evaluation of the framework and research needs
We recognize that these metrics and the assumptions
used in generating them necessarily involve subjective
judgment about which stream attributes matter and to
whom. A goal of future research should be to evaluate
the proposed metrics. There are also several other areas
that would benefit from further study, two of which we
discuss below. We anticipate that progress and answers in
these areas may be ambiguous, uncertain, and possibly
unknowable. Thus, there is a need for thoughtful dialogue on how to make practical operational decisions in
the face of this changing understanding (eg Ringold et al.
1999).
Indicators
Beneficiaries typically interact with a number of different metrics. Indicators of final services must therefore
www.frontiersinecology.org
103
Data linking ecosystems to people
104
integrate multiple metrics based on the processes that
create value for the beneficiary. In general, we believe
that in cases where the beneficiary is a well-understood
commercial entity, the perspectives necessary to integrate metrics into indicators may be reasonably well
known or easily knowable. In other cases, while there
is a considerable conceptual foundation to build upon,
based on the development of composite indicators by
both social scientists (OECD 2008) and natural scientists (Stoddard et al. 2008a), a more fundamental
understanding needs to be developed. While indicators
that integrate multiple metrics may facilitate communication and illustration, such aggregation may not
facilitate social evaluation unless the meaning of the
indicator is clearer to the beneficiary than the individual metrics.
Temporal and spatial characteristics of final services
Each step in the process described above requires consideration not only of the biophysical features but also of the
temporal and spatial features of the final services of the
information required. How large is the stream that a
recreational angler directly interacts with? Does this
angler directly interact with fish during only one specific
season or over a broader time frame? Answers to questions such as these have practical importance in defining
the specifications for mapping, monitoring, and/or modeling. They are also important because our preliminary
gap analyses, which compare current capabilities to the
need for information on final services, suggest that gaps
associated with temporal and spatial dimensions may be
more difficult to fill than those requiring refinement of
biophysical measures.
It is also important to recognize that the temporal and
spatial dimensions of an intermediate service that produces a final service are unlikely to match the dimensions
of the final service (eg the characteristics of the watershed and the stream channel that will result in flooding at
a given point). This linkage across scales must be
included in ecological production function models.
As we improve our understanding of what data to collect, our capacity to meaningfully report and manage
natural resources will improve correspondingly. The
framework described here is designed to assist in quantifying the biophysical metrics regarding the important
ways in which ecosystems affect human well-being at
multiple temporal and spatial scales. It is highly adaptable to revisions in the working hypothesis regarding
what those metrics are. Every scenario in which environmental management choices are discussed, from
restoration of a backyard creek to mitigation of the
impacts of climate change, relies on actual predicted
biophysical changes. We believe our framework
increases the usefulness and consistency of these building blocks of decision making. The framework is at once
tractable from a monitoring standpoint and directly
applicable to analysis of human well-being. Only by
www.frontiersinecology.org
PL Ringold et al.
directly hypothesizing the data “wish list” can the
hypotheses be tested and refined.
n Acknowledgements
This paper benefited from discussions with the participants
at a workshop to address this issue for streams (Ringold et
al. 2009) and a follow-up workshop for wetlands and estuaries (Ringold et al. 2011). Our collaboration with the
Council of State Governments was invaluable in organizing this effort, through Cooperative Agreement #
832356010. The information in this document has been
funded wholly or in part by the US Environmental
Protection Agency. The work benefited from the editorial
assistance of SL Ringold and from comments provided by
T DeWitt. It has been subjected to review by the National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s
Western Ecology Division and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the
views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
n References
Arlinghaus R. 2006. On the apparently striking disconnect
between motivation and satisfaction in recreational fishing:
the case of catch orientation of German anglers. N Am J Fish
Manage 26: 592–605.
Barbier EBS, Baumgartner K, Chopra C, et al. 2009. The valuation
of ecosystem services. In: Naeem S, Bunker DE, Hector A, et al.
(Eds). Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human wellbeing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Boyd J. 2007. Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be
counted in green GDP? Ecol Econ 61: 716–23.
Boyd J. 2008. Counting nonmarket, ecological public goods: the
elements of a welfare-significant ecological quantity index.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Boyd J and Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The
need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol
Econ 63: 616–26.
Boyd JW and Krupnick AJ. 2009. The definition and choice of
environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Brander L, Florax R, and Vermaat J. 2006. The empirics of wetland
valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of
the literature. Environ Resour Econ 33: 223–50.
Bryan H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout anglers. J Leisure Res 9: 174–87.
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 1305–12.
Connelly NA, Knuth BA, and Brown TL. 2001. An angler typology
based on angler fishing preferences. T Am Fish Soc 130: 130–37.
Coughlin RE. 1976. The perception and valuation of water quality.
In: Craik KH and Zube EH (Eds). Perceiving environmental
quality. New York, NY: Plenum.
deHayr R and Gordon I. 2004. Irrigation water quality: salinity and
soil structure stability. Brisbane, Australia: Department of
Environment and Resource Management, Queensland
Government. www.derm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/water/w55.pdf.
Viewed 14 May 2012.
Ditton RB, Loomis DK, and Choi S. 1992. Recreation specialization: reconceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J
Leisure Res 24: 33–51.
© The Ecological Society of America
PL Ringold et al.
Fedler AJ and Ditton RB. 1994. Understanding angler motivations
in fisheries management. Fisheries 19: 6–13.
Fisher B, Turner K, Zylstra M, et al. 2008. Ecosystem services and
economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol
Appl 18: 2050–67.
Fisher B, Turner RK, and Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying
ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68: 643–53.
Fisher MR. 1997. Segmentation of the angler population by catch
preference, participation, and experience: a management-oriented application of recreation specialization. N Am J Fish
Manage 17: 1–10.
Freeman III AM. 2003. The measurement of environmental and
resource values. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Guerrero PF. 2000. Identification and remediation of polluted
waters impeded by data gaps. Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Committee
on Environment and Public Works, US Senate GAO/TRCED-00-131. Washington, DC: US GAO.
Heal GM, Barbier EB, Boyle KJ, et al. 2004. Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Hetherington J, Daniel TC, and Brown TC. 1993. Is motion more
important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environment perception research. J Environ Psychol 13: 283–91.
Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, and Weber MH. 2011. National and
regional comparisons between Strahler order and stream size. J
N Am Benthol Soc 30: 103–21.
Hughes RM and Peck DV. 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic
resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. J N Am Benthol Soc 27: 837–59.
Johnston RJ and Russell M. 2011. An operational structure for
clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecol Econ 70: 2243–49.
Kaufmann PR, Levine P, Robison EG, et al. 1999. Quantifying
physical habitat in wadeable streams. Washington, DC: US
EPA. EPA/620/R-99/003.
Kenney JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS, et al. 2009. Estimated use of water
in the United States in 2005. Reston, VA: USGS. Circular 1344.
Levanon G, Ozyildirim A, Schaitkin B, and Zabinska J. 2011.
Comprehensive benchmark revisions for the Conference Board
Leading Economic Index for the United States. New York, NY:
The Conference Board.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2003. Ecosystems and
human well-being: a framework for assessment. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and
human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.
McCauley DJ. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443: 27–28.
Nahlik AM, Kentula ME, Fennessy MS, and Landers DH. 2012.
Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving
ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol Econ 77: 27–35.
NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics). 2010.
Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. Washington, DC:
US EPA.
Nordhaus WD and Kokkelenberg EC (Eds). 1999. Nature’s num-
© The Ecological Society of America
Data linking ecosystems to people
bers: expanding the national economic accounts to include the
environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development). 2008. Handbook on constructing composite
indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris, France: OECD.
Peck DV, Herlihy AT, Hill BH, et al. 2006. Environmental monitoring and assessment program: surface waters western pilot
study – field operations manual for wadeable streams. Washington, DC: US EPA. EPA 620/R-06/003.
Ringold PL, Boyd JW, Landers DH, and Weber MA. 2009. Report
from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services
for Streams. Corvallis, OR: US EPA. EPA/600/R-09/137. www.
epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html. Viewed 14 May 2012.
Ringold PL, Boyd JW, Nahlik A, and Bernard D. 2011. Report from
the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for
Wetlands and Estuaries. Corvallis, OR: US EPA. EPA/600/X11/014. www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html. Viewed 14 May 2012.
Ringold PL, Mulder B, Alegria J, et al. 1999. Establishing a regional
monitoring strategy: the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. Environ
Manage 23: 179–92.
Shannon MC and Grieve CM. 1998. Tolerance of vegetable crops
to salinity. Sci Hortic-Amsterdam 78: 5–38.
Stoddard JL, Herlihy AT, Peck DV, et al. 2008a. The EMAP
approach to creating multi-metric indices. J N Am Benthol Soc
27: 878–91.
Stoddard JL, Herlihy AT, Peck DV, et al. 2008b. A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J N
Am Benthol Soc 27: 878–91.
Stoddard JL, Peck DV, Olsen AR, et al. 2005a. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): western streams
and rivers statistical summary. Washington, DC: US EPA.
Stoddard JL, Peck DV, Paulsen SG, et al. 2005b. An ecological
assessment of western streams and rivers. Washington, DC: US
EPA. EPA 620/R-05/005.
The Heinz Center. 2008. The state of the nation’s ecosystems 2008:
measuring the land, waters, and living resources of the United
States. Washington, DC: Island Press.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. National
rivers and streams assessment. Washington, DC: US EPA.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Water
quality standards and criteria strategy: setting priorities to
strengthen the foundation for protecting and restoring the
nation’s waters. Washington, DC: US EPA.
US GAO (US Government Accountability Office). 2000. Key
EPA and state decisions limited by inconsistent and incomplete data. Washington, DC: GAO.
US GAO (US Government Accountability Office). 1981. Better
monitoring techniques are needed to assess the quality of rivers
and streams. Washington, DC: GAO. CED-81-30.
UNEP–WCMC (UN Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2011. Developing ecosystem service indicators: experiences and lessons learned from subglobal assessments and other initiatives. Montreal, Canada:
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
www.frontiersinecology.org
105