ArticleEnvironmental management2022
Identifying and Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Article in Environmental management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying priority ecosystem services in tidal wetland restoration.Frontiers in ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Connecting stakeholder priorities and desired environmental attributes for wetland restoration using ecosystem services and a heat map analysis for communications.Frontiers in ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Ecosystem Services Profiles for Communities Benefitting from Estuarine Habitats along the Massachusetts Coast, USA.Ecological informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ecosystem restoration may require implementing programs or best management practices (BMPs) in areas that are geographically far from the target ecosystem. Stakeholders in these areas may feel disconnected from the target ecosystem or may not have a clear understanding of local benefits from implemented practices. To achieve widespread participation in restoration efforts, it is important to engage stakeholders located where BMPs need to be implemented to identify and consider their local priorities and impacts. Here, we demonstrate use of a structured decision-making approach to identify ecosystem services associated with BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and connect them with the priorities of stakeholders they benefit. We follow a four-step approach to define the bounds of the decision context, identify ecosystem services and beneficiaries relevant to that decision context, engage stakeholders to understand priorities, and identify potential metrics and indicators. Our approach highlights the utility of different tools, such as ecosystem service classification systems and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool, in engaging stakeholders to identify, communicate, and prioritize ecosystem services. The results demonstrate a method by which to connect large-scale regional restoration efforts, and the managers overseeing such efforts, with the priorities of local communities where programs will be implemented. This work will help Chesapeake Bay restoration partners identify and promote management actions that will provide the most value for communities throughout the watershed, while also benefiting restoration of Chesapeake Bay.
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.