Prioritizing Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction: A Conceptual Model

In a climate of limited resources, it is often necessary to prioritize restoration efforts geographically. The synoptic approach is an ecologically based tool for geographic prioritization of wetland protection and restoration efforts. The approach was specifically designed to incorporate best professional judgment in cases where information and resources are otherwise limited. Synoptic assessments calculate indices for functional criteria in subunits (watersheds, counties, etc.) of a region and then rank the subunits. Ranks can be visualized in region-scale maps which enable managers to identify areas where efforts optimize functional performance on a regional scale. In this paper, we develop a conceptual model for prioritizing watersheds whose wetlands can be restored to reduce total sediment yield at the watershed outlet. The conceptual model is designed to rank watersheds but not individual wetlands within a watershed. The synoptic approach is valid for applying the sediment yield reduction model because there is high demand for prioritizing disturbed wetlands for restoration, but there is limited, quantitative, accurate information available with which to make decisions. Furthermore, the cost of creating a comprehensive database is prohibitively high. Finally, because the model will be used for planning purposes, and, specifically, for prioritizing based on multiple decisions rather than optimizing a single decision, the consequence of prioritization errors is low. Model results cannot be treated as scientific findings. The conclusions of an assessment are based on judgement, but this judgement is guided by scientific principles and a general understanding of relevant ecological processes. The conceptual model was developed as the first step towards prioritizing of wetland restoration for sediment yield reduction in US EPA Region 4.     

Evaluating Perceived Benefits of Ecoregional Assessments

Abstract: The outcomes of systematic conservation planning (process of assessing, implementing, and managing conservation areas) are rarely reported or measured formally. A lack of consistent or rigorous evaluation in conservation planning has fueled debate about the extent to which conservation assessment (identification, design, and prioritization of potential conservation areas) ultimately influences actions on the ground. We interviewed staff members of a nongovernmental organization, who were involved in 5 ecoregional assessments across North and South America and the Asia‐Pacific region. We conducted 17 semistructured interviews with open and closed questions about the perceived purpose, outputs, and outcomes of the ecoregional assessments in which respondents were involved. Using qualitative data collected from those interviews, we investigated the types and frequency of benefits perceived to have emerged from the ecoregional assessments and explored factors that might facilitate or constrain the flow of benefits. Some benefits reflected the intended purpose of ecoregional assessments. Other benefits included improvements in social interactions, attitudes, and institutional knowledge. Our results suggest the latter types of benefits enable ultimate benefits of assessments, such as guiding investments by institutional partners. Our results also showed a clear divergence between the respondents’ expectations and perceived outcomes of implementation of conservation actions arising from ecoregional assessments. Our findings suggest the need for both a broader perspective on the contribution of assessments to planning goals and further evaluation of conservation assessments.     

The need for spatially explicit quantification of benefits in invasive‐species management

Worldwide, invasive species are a leading driver of environmental change across terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments and cost billions of dollars annually in ecological damages and economic losses. Resources limit invasive‐species control, and planning processes are needed to identify cost‐effective solutions. Thus, studies are increasingly considering spatially variable natural and socioeconomic assets (e.g., species persistence, recreational fishing) when planning the allocation of actions for invasive‐species management. There is a need to improve understanding of how such assets are considered in invasive‐species management. We reviewed over 1600 studies focused on management of invasive species, including flora and fauna. Eighty‐four of these studies were included in our final analysis because they focused on the prioritization of actions for invasive species management. Forty‐five percent (n = 38) of these studies were based on spatial optimization methods, and 35% (n = 13) accounted for spatially variable assets. Across all 84 optimization studies considered, 27% (n = 23) explicitly accounted for spatially variable assets. Based on our findings, we further explored the potential costs and benefits to invasive species management when spatially variable assets are explicitly considered or not. To include spatially variable assets in decision‐making processes that guide invasive‐species management there is a need to quantify environmental responses to invasive species and to enhance understanding of potential impacts of invasive species on different natural or socioeconomic assets. We suggest these gaps could be filled by systematic reviews, quantifying invasive species impacts on native species at different periods, and broadening sources and enhancing sharing of knowledge.