Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35359239›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2022

Ecosystem-Service Scaling Techniques to Evaluate the Benefits of Marine Debris Removal.

Adam Domanski, Amanda L Laverty

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Adam DomanskiEnduring Econometrics, 1455 NW Leary Way Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98107, United States. domanski@enduringecon.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5197-1064
Amanda L LavertyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Program Analysis Branch, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4146-398X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While knowledge of the ecological impacts of marine debris is continually advancing, methods to evaluate the comparative scale of these impacts are less well developed. In the case of costly environmental restoration in marine and coastal environments, quantifying and comparing the ecological impacts of diverse forms of ecosystem injuries can facilitate a more efficient selection of restoration projects. This article proposes evaluating marine debris removal projects in an ecological service equivalency analysis framework that can be used to compare marine debris removal to other types of environmental restoration. Drawing on existing spatial and temporal data with respect to marine debris impacts on habitats and resources, we demonstrate how resource managers and organizations involved in marine debris removal can quantify the ecological service benefits of a removal project and use it to comparatively select between projects based on present value ecological benefits. This valuation can be useful in natural resource damage assessment restoration selection, and for directing limited funds to marine debris removal projects which produce the greatest gains in ecological services. This ecological scaling framework is applied to a seagrass injury case study to demonstrate its application for scaling marine debris removal as compensatory restoration.

Indexed as

EcosystemEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationConservation of Natural ResourcesNatural ResourcesEcosystem servicesHabitat-based resource equivalency analysisHabitat equivalency analysisMarine debrisNatural resource damage assessmentResource equivalency analysis

Identifiers

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.