ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2019
Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of wetland restoration by use of the rapid benefit indicators approach.
Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The EPA Ecosystem Services Tool Selection Portal.Sustainability · 2024Article
- Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA's Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community, and Sustainability Decision Making.Sustainability · 2021Article
- Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Beneficiaries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- A Geospatial Assessment of Flood Vulnerability Reduction by Freshwater Wetlands-A Benefit Indicators Approach.Frontiers in environmental science · 2019Article
- Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning.Environmental management · 2018Article
- Non-monetary valuation using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Using a strength-of-evidence approach to inform choices among alternatives.Ecosystem services · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wetlands in urban and urbanizing areas are often smaller, more degraded, and subject to more stressors than those in undeveloped locations. Their restored level of functioning may never equal that of a site in an undisturbed landscape. Yet, the social benefits from restoring these wetlands may be significant because of the relative scarcity of wetlands and natural areas in urban settings and also the large number of people who may benefit. In this study, we have outlined a systematic approach to compiling nonmonetary indicators of wetlands restoration benefits: The Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach. The RBI approach is grounded in economic theory and compatible with methods used by environmental economists to value ecosystem services. We illustrate the RBI approach with a comparison of 2 sites within the Woonasquatucket River Watershed in Rhode Island. As an urbanizing watershed, the Woonasquatucket illustrates how decisions may differ when based primarily on evaluations of ecological functioning versus those that incorporate benefits to people. It demonstrates how small urban sites with relatively low ecological function can provide large social benefits. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:148-159. Published 2018. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.