Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38628570›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in ecology and evolution2024

Connecting stakeholder priorities and desired environmental attributes for wetland restoration using ecosystem services and a heat map analysis for communications.

Connie L Hernandez, Leah M Sharpe, Chloe A Jackson, Matthew C Harwell, Theodore H DeWitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 2024. 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

5 authors.

Connie L HernandezOak Ridge Institute of Science and Education, Newport, OR, United States.
Leah M SharpeGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Gulf Breeze, FL, United States.
Chloe A JacksonOak Ridge Institute of Science and Education, Newport, OR, United States.
Matthew C HarwellPacific Ecological Systems Division, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Newport, OR, United States.
Theodore H DeWittPacific Ecological Systems Division, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Newport, OR, United States.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Framing ecological restoration and monitoring goals from a human benefits perspective (i.e., ecosystem services) can help inform restoration planners, surrounding communities, and relevant stakeholders about the direct benefits they may obtain from a specific restoration project. We used a case study of tidal wetland restoration in the Tillamook River watershed in Oregon, USA, to demonstrate how to identify and integrate community stakeholders/beneficiaries and the environmental attributes they use to inform the design of and enhance environmental benefits from ecological restoration. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool, we quantify the types of ecosystem services of greatest common value to stakeholders/beneficiaries that lead to desired benefits that contribute to their well-being in the context of planned uses that can be incorporated into the restoration project. This case study identified priority stakeholders, beneficiaries, and environmental attributes of interest to inform restoration goal selection. This novel decision context application of the FEGS Scoping Tool also included an effort focused on how to communicate the connections between stakeholders, and the environmental attributes of greatest interest to them using heat maps.

Indexed as

decision-makingecosystem servicesnature’s benefitsrestorationstakeholderstidal wetlands

Identifiers

PMID38628570
PMCPMC11018255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.