Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34017153›Full record

ArticleEcological modelling2020

Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes in ecosystem services.

Susan H Yee, E Paulukonis, C Simmons, M Russell, R Fulford, L Harwell, L M Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological modelling, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Convergence Analysis of Cross-Province Human Well-Being in China: A Spatiotemporal Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Trends in Lakeshore Zone Development: A Comparison of Polish and Hungarian Lakes over 30-Year Period.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Susan H YeeGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.
E PaulukonisGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.
C SimmonsGeneral Dynamics Information Technology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC27711.
M RussellGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.
R FulfordGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.
L HarwellGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.
L M SmithGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Changing patterns of land use, temperature, and precipitation are expected to impact ecosystem services, including water quality and quantity, buffering of extreme events, soil quality, and biodiversity. Scenario analyses that link such impacts on ecosystem services to human well-being may be valuable in anticipating potential consequences of change that are meaningful to people living in a community. Ecosystem services provide numerous benefits to community well-being, including living standards, health, cultural fulfillment, education, and connection to nature. Yet assessments of impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being have largely focused on human health or monetary benefits (e.g. market values). This study applies a human well-being modelling framework to demonstrate the potential impacts of alternative land use scenarios on multi-faceted components of human well-being through changes in ecosystem services (i.e., ecological benefits functions). The modelling framework quantitatively defines these relationships in a way that can be used to project the influence of ecosystem service flows on indicators of human well-being, alongside social service flows and economic service flows. Land use changes are linked to changing indicators of ecosystem services through the application of ecological production functions. The approach is demonstrated for two future land use scenarios in a Florida watershed, representing different degrees of population growth and environmental resource protection. Increasing rates of land development were almost universally associated with declines in ecosystem services indicators and associated indicators of well-being, as natural ecosystems were replaced by impervious surfaces that depleted the ability of ecosystems to buffer air pollutants, provide habitat for biodiversity, and retain rainwater. Scenarios with increases in indicators of ecosystem services, however, did not necessarily translate into increases in indicators of well-being, due to covarying changes in social and economic services indicators. The approach is broadly transferable to other communities or decision scenarios and serves to illustrate the potential impacts of changing land use on ecosystem services and human well-being.

Indexed as

ecosystem servicesHuman Well-Being Indexland use changerelationship functionsscenario analysis

Identifiers

PMID34017153
PMCPMC8128708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.