ArticleEnvironmental management2022
Using Structured Decision Making to Evaluate Wetland Restoration Opportunities in the 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.
- Article
- Implementing constructed wetlands for nutrient reduction at watershed scale: Opportunity to link models and real-world execution.Journal of soil and water conservation · 2024Article
- Using Structured Decision Making to Evaluate Wetland Restoration Opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.Environmental management · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wetland restoration is an important water quality and climate resilience strategy. Wetland restoration rarely considers tradeoffs at large spatial and temporal scales, which limits capacity to aid decision makers. High resolution data can reveal hundreds to thousands of possible restoration options across a landscape, but guidance for setting restoration targets at these scales is limited. This study uses structured decision making (SDM) as a process for evaluating the desirability of numerous restoration options, with a case study on the Outer Coastal Plain of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. The Nature Conservancy, in partnership with federal, state, and nonprofit organizations, evaluated a decision to target large-scale wetland restoration based on two fundamental objectives: improve water quality and enhance climate resilience. A total of 964 potentially restorable alternatives were delineated across the study area. The alternatives were evaluated on seven water quality and climate resilience criteria. High-priority alternatives were mapped based on multi-criteria ranking methods and principal component analysis. Sensitivity analysis included varying nutrient load data, implementing multiple ranking methods with different assumptions, and varying criteria weights. The maps revealed seven distinct regions of restoration opportunities. Tradeoffs were evaluated to distinguish between desirable and less desirable regions. Results indicated that three regions were promising choices to initiate landowner engagement and outreach. This study highlights the advantages of SDM to structure large-scale restoration decisions. In doing so, our work offers a roadmap toward further developing SDM in future applied restoration contexts.
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.