Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38487338›Full record

ArticleEcological informatics2023

Ecosystem Services Profiles for Communities Benefitting from Estuarine Habitats along the Massachusetts Coast, USA.

Susan H Yee, Leah M Sharpe, Benjamin L Branoff, Chloe A Jackson, Giancarlo Cicchetti, Susan Jackson, Margherita Pryor, Emily Shumchenia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological informatics, 2023. 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. 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

8 authors.

Susan H YeeGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, USA.
Leah M SharpeGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, USA.
Benjamin L BranoffGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, USA.
Chloe A JacksonOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, USA.
Giancarlo CicchettiAtlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Research and Development, United States, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, USA.
Susan JacksonHealth and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 20460, USA.
Margherita PryorWater Division, Region 1, New England, US Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, USA.
Emily ShumcheniaE&C Enviroscape, LLC, Ashaway, Rhode Island 02804, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Partnership is one of 28 programs in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program (NEP) charged with developing and implementing comprehensive plans for protecting and restoring the biological integrity and beneficial uses of their estuarine systems. The Partnership has recently updated their comprehensive management plan to include restoration targets for coastal habitats, and as part of this effort, the program explored how to better demonstrate that recovery of ecological integrity of degraded ecosystems also provides ecosystem services that humans want and need. An essential step was to identify key stakeholders and understand the benefits important to them. The primary objective of the study presented here was to evaluate variability in beneficial uses of estuarine habitats across coastal communities in Massachusetts Bays. We applied a text mining approach to extract ecosystem services concepts from over 1400 community planning documents. We leveraged a Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) classification framework and related scoping tool to identify and prioritize the suite of natural resource users and ecosystem services those users care about, based on the relative frequency of mentions in documents. Top beneficiaries included residents, experiencers and viewers, property owners, educators and students, and commercial or recreational fishers. Beneficiaries had a surprising degree of shared interests, with top ecosystem services of broad relevance including for naturalness, fish and shellfish, water movement and navigability, water quality and quantity, aesthetic viewscapes, availability of land for development, flood mitigation, and birds. Community-level priorities that emerged were primarily related to regional differences, the local job industry, and local demographics. Identifying priority ecosystem services from community planning documents provides a starting point for setting locally-relevant restoration goals, designing projects that reflect what stakeholders care about, and supporting post-restoration monitoring in terms of accruing relevant benefits to local communities.

Indexed as

coastal habitat restorationdocument analysisecosystem servicesestuarine ecosystemsstakeholder profiles

Identifiers

PMID38487338
PMCPMC10936571

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.