Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to EPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ecol Indic. 2022 Oct 1;143:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109385

A conceptual approach to characterizing ecological suitability: Informing socio-ecological measures for restoration effectiveness

Lisa M Smith 1,*, Erin M Reschke 1, Justin J Bousquin 1, James E Harvey 1, J Kevin Summers 1
PMCID: PMC9727737  NIHMSID: NIHMS1853166  PMID: 36504635

Abstract

A combination of ecological and socio-economic outcome indicators is essential for understanding and assessing the effectiveness of the remediation and restoration of degraded ecosystems and revitalizing communities that could benefit from these ecosystem management activities. In this paper, we propose and develop a conceptual approach to characterize ecological suitability that incorporates ecological attributes that support ecosystem structural diversity and functionality, stakeholder values and perceptions, and the benefits derived from ecosystem goods and services. A structured literature review was used to identify existing restoration frameworks and indicators to inform the conceptual foundation for characterizing ecological suitability. The structure of the conceptual approach primarily builds from ecological and social attributes in the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (Gann et al., 2019). We provide a conceptual example of the ecological suitability approach in estuaries. This example is based on habitat suitability and food web characterizations in combination with the provisioning of ecosystem services and desired social benefits to prioritize and evaluate restoration effectiveness. This foundational work sets the stage for developing a composite measure of ecological suitability. The holistic conceptual approach presented complements existing information regarding restoration effectiveness evaluations. Characterizing ecological suitability is a novel way to incorporate ecological and social information and communicate potential restoration outcomes to ecosystem managers and stakeholders.

Keywords: Conceptual approach, Ecological suitability, Ecosystem goods and services, Ecosystem management, Estuarine habitats, Restoration effectiveness, Stakeholders

1. Introduction

Ecosystems worldwide continue to degrade while societal demand for ecosystem services increases. Addressing this imbalance requires targeted ecosystem-based management aimed at achieving ecological conditions suitable to improve ecosystem functionality while still supporting human uses. Prior to 2010, the evaluation of ecological restoration success has been largely focused on ecological processes, ecosystem structure, and species diversity and abundance, whereas the past decade has witnessed significantly more inclusion of ecosystem function, ecosystem service production and human well-being metrics. Wortley et al. (2013) noted that only 3.5 % of the 301 papers in their review of ecological restoration success monitoring and assessment literature included both ecological and socio-economic attributes. Ballari et al. (2020) estimated that globally, just over a quarter of restoration research frameworks utilized socio-ecological studies. More recently, socio-economic measures beyond investment in restoration have been suggested to help prioritize ecological restoration projects and monitor their success over time (Martin and Lyons, 2018). A range of socio-economic outcomes presented as ecosystem services, benefits, and stakeholder values and perceptions have been incorporated into frameworks and approaches for prioritizing restoration projects and activities (Engel et al., 1999; Thom et al., 2004; Pinto et al., 2010; Díaz et al., 2011; Wainger and Mazzotta, 2011; Allan et al., 2012; Pinto et al., 2014; Budiharta et al., 2016; Pandit et al., 2020; Sharpe et al., 2020; Adams et al., 2020) and measuring restoration outcomes (Johnson et al., 2003; Brooks et al., 2006; Hein et al., 2017).

A combination of ecological and socio-economic outcome indicators is essential for understanding and assessing the effectiveness of the remediation and restoration of degraded ecosystems and the revitalization of communities that could benefit from these ecosystem management activities. The successful transformation of ecosystems from degraded to desirable conditions, based on identified restoration goals, is driven by the degree of human intervention required after remediation or removal of stressors, the structural and functional potential of ecosystems once biophysical properties are restored, and the anticipated provisioning of ecosystem goods and services and desired ecological attributes that contribute to community well-being (North et al., 2010; Mayer et al., 2013; Krueger et al., 2017; Gann et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020; Adams et al., 2020; Carlucci et al., 2020).

One restoration approach considering socio-ecological goals of remediation and restoration is the Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R) framework designed to support stakeholder needs by improving both ecological and social outcomes from remediation and restoration efforts (Allan et al., 2012). This strategy addresses factors informing restoration project selection and removal of Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs). BUIs are changes in chemical, physical, or biologic integrity that cause one of fourteen impairments such as degradation of benthos, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). BUI removal is dependent on local restoration targets, which have realistic, measurable indicators that are periodically reviewed (Angradi et al., 2019).

Hartig et al. (2019) discuss the importance of adaptive management across shared resources (Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, etc.) to achieve common goals for remediation and establishing quantitative species community and habitat objective metrics. Habitat metrics and indicators have been used to assess and monitor stream, lake, and estuarine habitats over time to help understand habitat status and inform conservation and restoration actions (Nelitz et al., 2007). These habitat indicators, along with a suite of other metrics, have been used to create, monitor, and guide the initial development of conceptual models illustrating linkages among management actions, environmental stressors, and ecological and societal effects. Such conceptual models can be used as a basis for developing and testing hypotheses and models with quantitative criteria, ultimately improving restoration success (Gentile et al., 2001).

Considering habitat requirements for both ecologically and socially important species is inherent in establishing restoration goals. Habitat attributes and requirements for multiple species paired with stakeholder values can be used to prioritize restoration strategies and establish a reasonable future condition, given ecosystem constraints (Johnson et al., 2003). Environmental indices (e.g., habitat suitability indices; hydrogeomorphic indices) have been used to evaluate environmental outcomes from alternative restoration plans (Thom et al., 2004); but typically lack a socio-ecological component. On the other hand, approaches to quantify and rank stakeholder preferences have been used to steer conservation and restoration actions for shorelines and waterways by using a best-worst scaling analysis (Tyner and Boyer, 2020).

In this paper, we propose a conceptual approach for characterizing ecological suitability to inform restoration prioritization and restoration effectiveness assessments. Our ecological suitability approach incorporates ecological attributes that support structural diversity and ecosystem functionality as well as stakeholder values and perceptions, and the benefits derived from ecosystem goods and services. We describe generalized ecological and social categories and present results from a structured review of existing ecological restoration frameworks and indicators that inform the conceptual approach. Within this review, we identify sub-categories of restoration indicators that could be generally used in an ecological suitability approach, regardless of ecosystem type. Lastly, we provide a conceptual example for assessing ecological suitability in estuaries. The proposed approach focuses on habitat and food web characterizations in combination with the provisioning of ecosystem services and desired social benefits evaluating prioritize and evaluate restoration effectiveness.

2. Approach

2.1. Building upon restoration principles: An overview

For our conceptual approach, we define ecological suitability as the degree to which an ecosystem functions to promote a balance of ecological resiliency with the provision of ecosystem services valued and used by people. The proposed ecological suitability characterization combines quantitative assessments of habitats for ecologically and socially relevant species, weighted by ecological functional roles and desired social targets. The conceptual approach outlined will serve as the foundation for developing a composite measure to characterize ecological restoration effectiveness. Our ecological suitability approach allows the translation of restoration goals into a meaningful action and prevents social wants and needs from overshadowing the importance of ecological function.

Gann et al. (2019) offer a rating system to evaluate the success of restoration projects based on a set of individually scored ecological and social attributes; however, they do not suggest an integrated measure of these attributes. Building on Gann et al. (2019), our conceptual approach to characterizing ecological suitability is based on generalized categories of ecosystem conditions and social outcomes applicable to any ecosystem type. Our proposed ecosystem condition categories align with the six ecological attributes identified in Gann et al. (2019). Briefly, our ecosystem-based categories for prioritizing restoration and characterizing restoration effectiveness are:

  • Stressors: Direct threats or pressures on the ecosystem that can impact or alter natural functioning.

  • Biophysical: Biophysical indicators are habitat conditions or characteristics required to sustain the target ecosystem and target organisms. Biophysical indicators include ambient conditions (physical and chemical condition and quality of soil and water), topography, vegetation condition and characteristics, and organism condition, health, and behavior.

  • Structural Diversity: Diversity of crucial structural components in a system. These include biodiversity, community composition, habitat diversity and connectivity, species abundance and richness, and system resilience.

  • Ecosystem Functionality: Essential functions the ecosystem performs. These include maintaining appropriate levels of biogeochemical and nutrient cycling, processes/cycles/exchanges, natural disturbances, growth, survival, reproduction, and productivity while allowing for proper ecosystem services provisioning and maintaining system resilience.

Gann et al. (2019) further explore social aspects of restoration by identifying six social attributes for consideration in establishing goals and determining the success of restoration activities. Based on previous ecosystem goods and services, stakeholder engagement, and decision science research (Yee et al., 2017; DeWitt et al., 2020; Sharpe et al., 2020; Sharpe et al., 2021), we reconsidered Gann et al.’s social attributes and chose to use three distinct, complementary social categories. We focus on ecosystem goods and services and potential benefits that may be provided or increased from ecological restoration in addition to characterizing what people value that can be tied back to those restoration efforts (Wainger and Mazotta, 2011; Mayer et al., 2013; Sharpe et al., 2020; DeWitt et al., 2020). The three social categories are described generally as follows:

  • Ecosystem Goods and Services: outputs of natural systems that are directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human wellbeing and benefits

  • Benefits: positive socio-economic impacts on human well-being that may have monetary or non-monetary value

  • Stakeholder Values and Perceptions: interests, goals, contributions, and perceptions derived from stakeholder engagement

2.2. Literature review and categorizing indicators

2.2.1. Using existing restoration frameworks and indicators to inform ecological suitability

A literature search and review was conducted to identify existing restoration frameworks that could be used as components or a starting point for a new, integrated approach and would include features that could be utilized in our proposed ecological suitability structure to evaluate restoration effectiveness. A structured literature review was used to identify potential indicators that could be used to populate the ecological suitability framework and to group those indicators into descriptive sub-categories for each of the ecosystem and social categories of our approach (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Organization of the information from the Structured Literature review used to inform the Ecological Suitability approach.

Combinations of 27 keyword terms were used across five Google Scholar searches (the list of searches can be found in Appendix A). The Google Scholar searches were aimed at topics ranging from background information on ecosystem management about remediation and ecological restoration effectiveness to more specific information applicable to habitat restoration frameworks inclusive of ecological and social indicators and, more specifically, food web approaches. Additional focus was placed on identifying restoration literature with indicators specific to estuarine habitats (searches specific to estuarine habitats can also be found in Appendix A). The results were combined with a set of additional author-suggested publications for a total of 2,291 unique references. Reviews of these citations by the co-authors yielded 718 references for abstract review.

Abstracts were reviewed for content specific to the following restoration-related topics:

  1. Management Effectiveness in terms of Remediation, Restoration, and Revitalization;

  2. Restoration Concepts, Frameworks, and Approaches;

  3. Indicators/Metrics/Models for assessing restoration effectiveness; and.

  4. Estuarine-specific restoration monitoring indicators.

Reviewed abstracts were narrowed down based on their specific applicability to restoration and the presentation of indicators and frameworks. These publications were included in the final set reviewed for the four ecosystem and three social categories proposed for our ecological suitability approach.

2.2.2. Categorizing indicators and developing an estuarine conceptual example

Indicators described in these publications were assigned to one of the seven categories (four ecosystem or three social). Sub-categories were developed based on commonalities across indicator descriptions and intended uses cited. Indicators are designed to provide information about specific characteristics of the socio-ecological system. Combining indicators into sub-categories assists in grouping common information. Multiple indicators from different sub-categories may be needed to understand the system and may have relationships with one another as well. Considering multiple different types of indicators and how they relate to one another helps conceptualize the system and its overall suitability.

Building upon the proposed sub-categories for characterizing the ecosystem and social categories of ecological suitability and the estuarine-specific indicators identified from the literature review, we developed a new, integrated conceptual approach for estuarine habitat restoration based on multiple ecologically and socially relevant species. This example illustrates the relationships between the sub-categories in the ecological suitability approach and outlines a foundation for developing an overall composite measure.

3. Results

3.1. Literature supporting ecological suitability concepts

Twenty-six publications were reviewed to identify 568 indicators to populate the proposed ecological suitability approach’s four ecosystem and three social categories (Table 1). All publications reviewed included indicators for one or more of the identified ecosystem categories. Within the ecosystem categories, 20 publications included stressors, 23 included biophysical indicators, all included structural diversity indicators and 24 included ecosystem functionality indicators. Six publications reviewed did not include indicators associated with our social categories. Most publications with indicators of ecosystem goods and services also included indicators of either benefits or stakeholder values and perceptions. Eight publications included indicators within all three social categories. Seven publications included indicators across all ecosystem and social categories.

Table 1.

Indicators categorized by ecosystem type for each citation from the structured literature review. Sources identified are specific to ecological restoration frameworks and conceptual approaches and measures for monitoring restoration effectiveness.

Ecosystem/Citation Ecosystem Social
Stressors Biophysical Structural Diversity Ecosystem Functionality Ecosystem Goods and Services Benefits Stakeholder Values and Perceptions
Estuary/Coast/Great Lake
Adams et al. 2020 X X X X X X X
Allan et al. 2012 X X X X X X
Engel et al. 1999 X X X X X
Harwell et al. 2019 X X X X X X
Hein et al. 2017 X X X X X X X
James et al. (2020) X X X
Johnson et al. 2003 X X X X X
Krueger et al. 2017 X X X X
Mayer et al. 2013 X X X X X X X
North et al. 2010 X X X X X
Pinto et al. 2010 X X X X
Rheinhardt and Brinson, 2007 X X X X X
River/Lake/Stream
Crossman et al. 2011 X X X X X X X
Pander and Geist (2013) X X X X
Poikane et al. (2014) X X X
Schwartz (2016) X X X
Violin (2011) X X X X
Wetland
Tazik (2012) X X X X X X X
Thom et al. 2004 X X X X X X X
Forest
Budiharta et al., 2016 X X X X
Pandit et al., 2020 X X X X X X
General/Multiple Ecoystem Types
Díaz et al., 2011 X X X X X
Gomez et al. 2017 X X X X X X X
Hines et al. 2015 X X X
Nelitz et al. (2007) X X X X X X
Pastorok et al. 1997 X X X X X
Open in a new tab

The following subsections will describe, in detail, how we used the results of the literature survey to compile information and develop a new, integrated conceptual approach for evaluating ecological suitability. The steps from the use of literature review retrieval information to final development of an integrated framework conceptualization of ecological suitability include:

  1. Development of sub-categories based on indicator groupings (Section 3.2);

  2. Determination of Indicators to be Included for both Categories and Sub-Categories (Section 3.3); and

  3. Integration of Ecosystem and Social categories and sub-categories into a Final Conceptualization of the Ecological Suitability Approach for estuaries (Section 3.4).

This stepwise development of the conceptual approach clearly shows the development of our proposed framework from the earlier efforts described in the literature review.

3.2. Sub-Categories developed from indicator groupings

Indicators (n = 568) that were grouped into each of the seven categories were used to develop sub-categories. Thirty-four sub-categories were developed based on indicator commonalities across the five ecosystem types– 22 ecosystem and 12 social sub-categories (Fig. 2, Table 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Thirty-four sub-categories developed from the ecological and social indicators (n = 568) identified from the structured literature review used to inform the Ecological Suitability approach.

Table 2.

Indicator sub-category descriptions and the number of indicators assigned to each sub-category.

Indicator Sub-category (# of Indicators Identified) Description Indicator Sub-category (# of Indicators Identified) Description
Contaminant/Pollution (n = 22) Any substances in water, soil, or air that degrade the natural quality of the environment or cause a health hazard Processes/Cycles/Exchanges(n = 19) Biogeochemical processes, cycling, and external exchanges
Human Use (n = 25) Activities that have direct or indirect impacts on ecosystems Food web/Trophic Structure/Trophic Dynamics (n = 38) Predator-prey relationships and interactions among individuals and populations
Hydrological Alterations/Habitat Alterations and Loss/Sediment Loss (n = 24) Human alterations of habitat, hydrological alterations, changes to naturally occurring environmental factors, and sediment loss Growth and Survival/Reproduction/Fecundity (n = 23) The ability for individuals to survive, grow, and reproduce
Natural Disturbances (n = 3) Pattern, frequency, timing, or occurrence of naturally occurring disturbance events Ecosystem Services Provisioning (n = 18) The ability of ecosystems to provide services such as clean water, food, etc.
Nutrient/Sediment/Organic Loading (n = 12) Quantity of nutrients, sediments, or organic content entering a system that can affect the natural processes Productivity/Biomass (n = 8) Rate of generation of biomass and the total mass of organisms
Water Quality (n = 75) Abiotic conditions (biophysical) and changes in water quality outside the normal threshold values (stressor) Resilience (n = 7) The ability of ecological and social systems to recover from disturbance (functional, structural, values and perceptions)
Organism Condition/Health/Behavior (n = 4) Condition, health, or behavior at the individual level that may impact the overall community Aesthetics (n = 2) Environmental characteristics that are appreciated due to their beauty, balance, form, etc.
Invasive/Non-native Species Interactions (n = 3) Invasion by non-native species offsetting natural native species habitat and behaviors Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage (n = 9) Values or final ecosystem goods and services based on cultural or spiritual practices, histories or heritage of an area
Habitat Condition/Suitability (n = 21) Condition of the habitat based on physiochemical conditions and species’ tolerances Educational/Scientific Opportunities (n = 4) Opportunities to further knowledge of the ecosystem
Sediment Quality/Soil Quality/Bottom Type (n = 26) Status of the soil/sediment and substrate properties General Ecosystem Goods & Services (n = 2) Goods and services lacking a specific endpoint to be measured
Topography (n = 14) Physical features of a surface area including relative elevations and the position of natural and man-made features Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw Materials (n = 15) Volume of raw materials/goods, food products, and fuel available for consumption or use
Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition (n = 11) Measures of vegetation health and restoration status (biophysical), and diversity and areal extent (structural diversity) Recreation/Tourism/Ecotourism (n = 12) Number and variety of tools and activities available to the public for recreation and tourism
Biodiversity (n = 19) Diversity within species, between species and within ecosystems Ecological Values/Biodiversity/Desired Species (n = 13) Importance of ecosystem-based values to user groups, e.g. biodiversity, desired species (for viewing or consumption)
Community Composition/Structure (n = 46) Number of species in a community, their relative abundance, population structure, age distribution & life history distribution Existence and Bequest (n = 3) Value placed on knowing that something exists and the value of passing on the resource to future generations
Habitat Diversity/Complexity/Patch Size/Connectivity (n = 35) The availability of habitats, their connections, & the complexity of habitat interactions Monetary Valuation (n = 14) Estimation of ecosystem services value in monetary units
Species Abundance/Richness (n = 18) Number of individuals within a species and the number species in an area Non-monetary Valuation (n = 6) Quantitative and qualitative measures of ecosystem services or benefits that are difficult to monetize.
Social/Economic Preferences (n = 10) General partiality toward monetary benefits and contributions to overall well-being
Open in a new tab

Four hundred seventy-six indicators were placed in the ecosystem sub-categories and 92 into the social sub-categories (Table 3). Although seven publications included indicators for all seven of our categories, none of these publications included indicators within all sub-categories. Indicators are enumerated for all ecosystem types by sub-category and specifically for Estuary/Coast/Great Lake ecosystems, referred to as ECG from this point forward (see Appendix B for a complete list of indicators identified, along with their assigned category, sub-category, and ecosystem type).

Table 3.

Number of indicators identified within indicator sub-categories for all publications and indicators specific to restoration of estuarine, coastal and great lake (ECG) ecosystems.

Category/Indicator Sub-Category All Ecosystem Types Estuary/Coastal/Great Lake Ecosystems
Stressors 95 52
Contaminant/Pollution 22 11
Human Use 25 11
Hydrological Alterations/Habitat Alterations and Loss/Sediment Loss 24 16
Invasives/Non-native Species Interactions 3 2
Natural Disturbances 3 2
Nutrient/Sediment/Organic Loading 12 8
Water Quality 6 2
Biophysical 149 50
Ambient Conditions 7 1
Habitat Condition/Suitability 21 6
Organism Condition/Health/Behavior 4 2
Sediment quality/Soil quality/Bottom Type 26 4
Topography 14 5
Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition 8 5
Water Quality 69 27
Structural Diversity 122 42
Biodiversity 19 4
Community Composition/Structure 46 19
Habitat Diversity/Complexity/Patch size/Connectivity 35 13
Resilience 1 1
Species Abundance/Richness 18 5
Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition 3 –
Ecosystem Functionality 110 60
Ecosystem Services Provisioning 18 10
Food Web/Trophic Structure/Trophic Dynamics 38 23
Growth and Survival/Reproduction/Fecundity 23 16
Processes/Cycles/Exchanges 19 7
Productivity/Biomass 8 3
Resilience 4 1
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services 40 24
Aesthetics 2 1
Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage 6 3
Educational/Scientific Opportunities 4 2
General Ecosystem Goods and Services 2 –
Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw Materials 14 9
Recreation/Tourism/Ecotourism 12 9
Benefits 20 9
Monetary Valuation 14 5
Non-monetary Valuation 6 4
Stakeholder Values and Perceptions 32 13
Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage 3 –
Ecological Values/Biodiversity/Desired Species 13 7
Existence and Bequest 3 1
Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw Materials 1 –
Resilience 2 1
Social/Economic Preferences 10 4
Open in a new tab

Indicators associated with each sub-category (Table 3) are discussed in section 3.2 with example indicators and select ECG publications cited. One sub-category may be assigned to multiple categories (e.g., water quality sub-category in both the stressor and biophysical categories).

3.3. Example indicators by category and sub-category

3.3.1. Stressors

Ninety-five stressor indicators were identified from the publications reviewed. Over half of the stressor-related indicators were associated with ECG. Stressor indicators were grouped into seven indicator sub-categories. Contaminant/Pollution indicators were mostly related to load concentrations of toxic metals and pesticides (Harwell et al., 2019). Human Use indicators included land use and development (Engel et al., 1999; Hein et al., 2017), and recreational/commercial pressures resulting in the overexploitation of living resources (Adams et al., 2020). Hydrological Alterations/Habitat Alterations and Loss/Sediment Loss indicators were focused on freshwater inflow and diversions (Engel et al., 1999), hydrologic alterations (Rheinhardt et al., 2007; Krueger et al., 2017), and erosion (Johnson et al., 2003). In contrast to erosion, sedimentation and sediment supply were included as Nutrient/Sediment/Organic Loading stressors (Hein et al., 2017). Invasive and nuisance species and the imbalance of natural populations were identified as ecosystem stressors in the Invasive/Non-native Species Interactions sub-category (Krueger et al., 2017; Adams et al., 2020). Natural Disturbances indicators included biological disturbances (Allan et al., 2012) and storms (Johnson et al., 2003). Water Quality as a stressor included hypoxia (Harwell et al., 2019) and algal overgrowth (Hein et al., 2017).

3.3.2. Biophysical

Over 33 % of ecosystem indicators (n = 149) were classified as biophysical. Fifty of these indicators were associated with ECG ecosystem restoration. Six indicator sub-categories were developed for the Biophysical category. Water quality measures comprised nearly half of biophysical indicators and included overall water quality (North et al., 2010), salinity (Johnson et al., 2003), temperature (Krueger et al., 2017), turbidity (Johnson et al., 2003), nutrient concentrations (Rheinhardt et al., 2007; Pinto et al., 2010), and total suspended solids or suspended sediments (Harwell et al., 2019). Habitat Condition/Suitability indicators included general habitat conditions (Engel et al., 1999), hydrology and hydrodynamics in specific habitats, and sediment dynamics (Adams et al., 2020; Krueger et al., 2017). Sediment Quality/Soil Quality/Bottom Type included measures like sediment and substrate type (Rheinhardt et al., 2007) and sediment characteristics (Allan et al., 2012). Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition indicators included macrophyte content (Adams et al., 2020) and SAV extent (Harwell et al., 2019). Indicators in the Organism Condition/Health/Behavior sub-category included disease (Hein et al., 2017) and pathologies (Engel et al., 1999).

3.3.3. Structural diversity

One hundred twenty-two indicators were organized into the six sub-indicator categories for structural diversity. Forty-four of those indicators were associated with ECG ecosystems. Biodiversity sub-category indicators included species diversity and biodiversity (Pinto et al., 2010; Allan et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 2013; Hein et al., 2017). Nineteen ECG indicators were included in the Community Composition and Structure sub-category and included overall community composition (Adams et al., 2020), and species and taxonomic composition and community indices (Rheinhardt et al., 2007; James et al., 2020). Community Composition/Structure example indicators also included presence or absence of species (native, non-native and invasive species) (Allan et al., 2012), sentinel species (Rheinhardt et. al 2007), population density and dynamics (Pinto et al., 2010; Mayer et al., 2013), and population age structure (North et al., 2010; Harwell et al., 2019). Species Abundance/Richness sub-category ECG indicators included species richness and abundance (Adams et al., 2020) and minimal numbers of invasive/nuisance predators (Krueger et al., 2017). In ECG ecosystems, indicators such as extent of habitat (Engel et al., 1999), habitat patch size (Harwell et al., 2019), habitat structural complexity (Hein et al., 2017; Krueger et al., 2017), habitat quality and capacity (Krueger et al., 2017) were included in the Habitat Diversity/Complexity/Patch Size/Connectivity sub-category. No example indicators within the Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition sub-category were identified for ECG, but example indicators from other ecosystem types included vegetation types and dispersal/development (Diaz et al., 2011), vegetation structure (Pandit et al., 2020), and canopy cover (Violin, 2011). ECG indicators associated with the Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition sub-category were assigned under the Biophysical category as discussed above. Structural resilience (redundancy in habitat) and habitat mosaics were identified as indicators within the Resilience sub-category (Mayer et al., 2013; Harwell et al., 2019).

3.3.4. Ecosystem functionality

Ecosystem Functionality indicators (n = 110) represented 23.1 % of all ecosystem indicators. Of those, a little over half were ECG indicators. The Ecosystem Functionality indicators were organized into six sub-categories. ECG indicators comprised over half of the Ecosystem Services Provisioning sub-category and included general ecosystem services provisioning (Adams et al., 2020), supporting and regulating ecosystem services (Mayer et al., 2013), storm surge protection (Mayer et al., 2013), and improved water quality as a result of oyster functioning (North et al., 2010). Over one-third of ecosystem functionality indicators identified were in the Food Web/Trophic Structure/Trophic Dynamics sub-category, and over half of those were ECG. James et al. (2020) described the food web structure using Bayesian mixing models land stable isotope ratios (13C and 15N isotopes). Food web structure (Johnson et al., 2003; Allan et al., 2012) trophic structure (Rheinhardt et al., 2007) and predation (Hein et al., 2017) were identified as ECG indicators of Food Web/Trophic Structure/Trophic Dynamics sub-category. Growth and Survival/Reproduction/Fecundity included the following indicators: growth (Engel et al., 1999), recruitment (Hein et al., 2017), areal extent of breeding and reproduction (Harwell et al., 2019), spawning stock (North et al., 2010), and reproduction (Johnson et al., 2003). Nutrient cycling and dynamics comprised over half of the Processes/Cycles/Exchanges sub-category (Mayer et al., 2013; Harwell et al., 2019). Biomass of desired species (Allan et al., 2012) and plankton biomass (North et al., 2010) were ECG indicators identified for the Productivity/Biomass sub-category. Only one ECG indicator, functional resilience, was identified for the Resilience sub-category (Mayer et al., 2013).

3.3.5. Ecosystem goods and services

Ecosystem goods and services indicators represented 43 % of all social indictors identified. These indicators were included into six sub-categories. Most Ecosystem Goods and Services sub-category indicators were for ECG ecosystems (60 %), and General/Multiple Ecosystem Types (27.5 %). ECG indicators were largely categorized as Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw Materials (n = 9) and Recreation/Tourism/Ecotourism (n = 9). Harvestable fish, fish stocks, and fishing products were the most common indicators of Ecosystem Goods and Services for ECG and Wetlands ecosystems. Recreation/Tourism/Ecotourism included recreational opportunities (Allan et al., 2012), tourism/ecotourism (Hein et al., 2017), and birdwatching (Harwell et al., 2019). Hein et al. (2017) included non-specified measures of General Ecosystem Goods and Services indicators. Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage indicators identified for ECG included cultural services (Adams et al., 2020) and spiritual (Mayer et al., 2013) indicators. Educational/Scientific opportunities and Aesthetics were considered in Pinto et al., (2010).

3.3.6. Benefits

Two sub-categories were identified for the 20 indicators in the Benefits category and 45 % of those were for ECG ecosystems. Most benefits indicators were categorized as Monetary Valuation. This included economic and personal value (Adams et al., 2020) and monetary value (Mayer et al., 2013). Additionally, the cost of restoration and identifying optimal sites to yield the biggest socio-economic benefits were indicators noted in North et al., (2010). Non-Monetary valuation focused on well-being (Mayer et al., 2013), personal benefits (Adams et al., 2020) and user satisfaction (Hein et al., 2017).

3.3.7. Stakeholder values and Perceptions

Of the 32 Stakeholder Values and Perceptions indicators, 40 % were associated with ECG ecosystem restoration. Indicators categorized as Stakeholder Values and Perceptions were divided into six sub-categories. Social/Economic Preferences and Ecological Values/Biodiversity/Desired Species comprised over 70 % of Stakeholder Values and Perceptions indicators. Indicators such as species diversity (Allan et al., 2012), charismatic species (Rheinhardt et al., 2007), and economically important species (Harwell et al., 2019) were assigned to Ecological Values/Biodiversity/Desired Species or Social/Economic preferences depending on the context. Capacity (Hein et al., 2017), use (Adams et al., 2020), and community stability (Mayer et al., 2013) are examples of Social/Economic Preferences sub-category indicators. No ECG indicators were identified for the Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage sub-category. Indicators for this sub-category for other ecosystem types included cultural dependence (Budiharta et al., 2016), cultural values (Pandit et al., 2020), and traditional knowledge and practices (Pandit et al., 2020). No ECG indicators for Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw Materials were identified under the Stakeholder Values and Perceptions category. All ECG indicators under this sub-category fell within the Ecosystem Goods and Services category based on their use context. One indicator (existence) for the Existence and Bequest sub-category and one indicator for Resilience (general resilience) were identified for ECG ecosystems in Mayer et al. (2013).

3.4. The ecological suitability conceptual approach: An estuarine habitat example

We utilized the sub-categories to develop an integrated conceptual approach for characterizing ecological suitability based on the restoration of habitat for multiple species of ecological and societal importance in estuarine ecosystems. The following section describes the general relationships among the Ecosystem and Social categories of the approach in the context of assessing estuarine habitat suitability as depicted in the conceptual diagram (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual approach to characterize Ecological Suitability in context of estuarine habitat restoration to support multiple species of ecological and societal importance. Ecosystem categories are represented by green boxes; yellow boxes represent Social categories. Sub-categories are shown as white boxes within the categories. Information shown in blue boxes are based on calculated values. Grey arrows show relationships within and among Ecological Suitability categories, sub-categories, calculations and restoration goals. White arrows depict the relationship between ecosystem management and restoration goals (orange boxes) and an adaptive management approach.

Ecosystem management is aimed at maintaining viable native populations and ecological processes while also accommodating human use and benefits (Allan et al., 2012; Gomez et al., 2017; Harwell et al., 2019; Adams et al., 2020). Identification of ecological and social outcomes in the context of restoration goals requires stakeholder engagement and monitoring of ecological conditions. Achieving these restoration goals is key to determining the effectiveness of ecosystem management and implementing adaptive management strategies.

Stressors must first be identified and then remediated to restore ecosystems to a desired state that supports ecosystem management goals. The restoration of hydrologic flows and habitats can help restore ecosystem resilience to natural disturbances. Once identified, other stressors can be reduced, removed, or remediated to improve biophysical conditions. The prioritization of stressor removal in the context of habitat restoration may be driven by a combination of desired ecological and social outcomes reflected as a composite measure of Ecological Suitability.

Biophysical Measures such as light availability, water quality, in situ contaminants and sediment characteristics have direct influences on submerged aquatic vegetation and organisms. The presence or absence of aquatic vegetation, certain sediment characteristics, and a range of select water quality parameters determine the suitability of habitats as noted in existing habitat suitability indices for specific species at different life stages (Harwell et al., 2019; James et al., 2020; Rheinhardt and Brinson, 2007). Additional water quality parameters and in situ contamination need to be considered as modifying factors to these existing HSIs to fully characterize habitat quality and suitability for species occupying different trophic levels within estuarine food webs (Johnson et al., 2003; North et al., 2010; Pinto et al., 2010). We propose that modified HSI values, Habitat Characterizations, for multiple species of ecological and social importance be utilized in the calculation of an ecological suitability measure to inform restoration prioritization and assess restoration effectiveness goals as determined by ecological and social outcomes.

Mosaics of suitable habitats support multiple species and can create more complex Structural Diversity reflected in higher biodiversity, increased species richness and abundance, and more diverse community composition and structure. These types of indicators can be indicative of structural resilience within estuarine ecosystems (Harwell et al., 2019; James et al., 2020; Rheinhardt and Brinson, 2007; Krueger et al., 2017; Engel et al., 1999). Structural Diversity as defined by the indicator sub-categories in our conceptual approach is directly linked to the overall Ecosystem Functionality. Structural diversity indicators are also linked to Stakeholder Values and Preferences. For example, species abundance and community structure have been identified by stakeholders as valued ecological characteristics to be considered in estuarine restoration (Harwell et al., 2019; Adams et al., 2020; Rheinhardt and Brinson, 2007; Mayer et al., 2013). As noted earlier, species abundance and community structure are important structural diversity indicators that allow ecosystems to function at a higher level, potentially resulting in more benefits to stakeholders.

Ecosystem Functionality is important both ecologically and socially. From an ecological perspective, cycles, processes, and exchanges are critical to regulating services that support the delivery of ecosystem goods and services such as recreation and harvestable biomass (Díaz et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2013). Growth, reproduction, and survival are linked to biomass that can be harvested as food products. Trophic dynamics and food web structures are directly related to food availability for different trophic levels and feeding guilds and nutritional requirements of species at different life stages reflected in species’ growth rates, fecundity and overall survival (North et al., 2010; Mayer et al., 2013; Díaz et al., 2011). Trophic dynamics and food web structure indicators can be used as ecological weighting factors in the calculation of ecological suitability. These factors may include predator and prey connections in the food web, feeding guild membership, and trophic position. A well-functioning ecosystem is an ecological outcome that can demonstrate restoration effectiveness.

Stakeholder engagement is a critical component of effective ecosystem management and is key to helping identify values, perceptions, and desired benefits from the restoration. Benefits are a direct reflection of what people value (Adams et al., 2020; Crossman et al., 2011; Díaz et al., 2011) and are based on Stakeholder Values and Perceptions and the utilization of Ecosystem Goods and Services. Based on our interpretation of the relationship between Ecosystem Goods and Services and the Benefits derived, a combination of monetary and non-monetary measures can be used as a social outcomes proxy measure of restoration effectiveness (Wainger and Mazzotta, 2011; Munns et al., 2015). Benefits resulting from restoration activities can be used as social weighting factors in the calculation of an ecological suitability measure. For example, a weighting factor may include measures of economic dependence on specific and/or multiple species, the number of associated ecosystem services and beneficiaries, and/or the valuation of species associated with habitat restoration activities.

Ultimately, the proposed Ecological Suitability measure (ESspx) for a given spatial unit (represented by hexagon) would be a composite measure of Habitat Characterization for a species of ecological and social importance (HCspx) (Fig. 3). HCspx for each species could be weighted using the species’ ecological role in the food web and within trophic guilds, represented as Eco_wtspx. Stakeholder benefits associated with that species could be used as societal weighting factors (Soc_wtspx). The sum of ESspx values across species represents the Ecological Suitability for multiple species within the spatial unit. Summed ESspx values could be used to help prioritize areas for habitat restoration and assess restoration effectiveness over time.

4. Discussion

The ecological suitability approach presented is intended to support ecosystem management decisions aimed at meeting ecological and social targets for ecosystem restoration. Our conceptual foundation addresses ecological suitability as a measure of restoration effectiveness and provides a blueprint for prioritizing restoration to maximize social and ecological benefits and to monitor effectiveness over time. The estuarine habitat restoration conceptualization differs from many others in that we couple habitat characterizations with ecological weighting factors (e.g., food web relationships, trophic dynamics, feeding guilds) and social factors (e.g., economic dependence, beneficiaries, species valuation) to inform a composite measure of ecological suitability. The four categories of ecological attributes and three categories of social attributes related to desired outcomes of restoration are common themes in scientific and sociological publications, but rarely have they been combined to reflect a holistic view and integrated measure of overall ecological suitability.

Our ecological suitability approach, including the indicator sub-categories, can be mapped to the Gann et al. (2019) ecological and social attributes of restoration (Appendix C). Although their five-star scorecard approach for assessing ecological restoration effectiveness differs from our proposed ecological suitability assessment, the two approaches should be viewed as complementary. Our review of indicators from the structured literature review provides a framework to group indicators and develop indicator sub-categories to inform the ecological suitability measures and can serve as a valuable resource for selecting indicators to measure restoration effectiveness across various ecosystem types.

Our literature review identified many approaches and frameworks that included indicators and factors that were relevant to our ecological suitability approach, but many were subjective or dependent upon expert opinion. Our approach is more objective, transparent, and data driven. Additionally, the approach involves community input and other social measures. Examining the intended uses and commonalities among different indicators across multiple ecosystem types provides a way to group these indicators into the aforementioned sub-categories and categories. The sub-categories developed for the ecological suitability approach are transferrable to other ecosystem types by selecting appropriately scaled indicators and data for the ecosystem of interest.

While our approach is grounded in information from published literature, professional judgement and community engagement could contribute significantly to its application. Stakeholder engagement can inform different restoration scenarios for consideration by environmental decision makers, important elements in our approach (Dewitt et al 2020; Sharpe et al., 2021). Using stakeholder and beneficiaries’ values and perceptions in the development of weighting factors helps ensure those factors support the delivery and utilization of desired ecosystem goods and services (Sharpe et al., 2020). Without professional judgement or engagement, economic indicators such as resource dependence (e.g., number of people employed in fisheries, economic valuation of a species, etc.) may have to be used as proxy measures for social weighting factors.

The estuarine habitat restoration example utilizes information from the described structured literature review and the sub-categories developed to illustrate the relationships between and among the components of the ecological approach (Fig. 3). Although no specific ECG indicators for the Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw Materials and Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage sub-categories were identified from the literature under the Stakeholder Values and Perceptions category (Table 3), these sub-categories were included in our conceptual example for estuaries. Since both harvestable biomass and cultural services were identified as ecosystem goods and services ECG indicators within the publications reviewed, we added them to the Stakeholder Values and Perceptions, as it is inferred that ecosystem services that have known beneficiaries, will by default, be valued by certain stakeholder groups. Additionally, ecosystem management actions to protect and restore habitat for the purposes of enhancing fisheries have been found to have positive impacts on many other ecosystem services (Needles et al., 2015).

Our conceptualization of the ecological suitability approach for estuarine habitat restoration expands traditional habitat models, such as those published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by combining habitat suitability indices (HSIs) for target species that have ecological and social value. Our expansion of traditional HSIs to include biophysical modifications of habitat critical to maintaining suitable habitats and food webs for species of interest is an important step forward for these types of models. The inclusion of biophysical factors such as in situ contaminants and water quality that can be actively monitored allows for a measurement of success for the habitat of interest. These attributes will in turn influence ecological structural diversity and ultimately ecosystem functionality (Cortina et al., 2006; Pinto et al., 2014; Schleuning et al., 2015; Strong et al., 2015; Horn et al., 2021).

Data availability may create issues when using habitat suitability for ecological and socially important species as a foundation for ecological restoration. While habitat suitability indices already exist for many species, some species still lack validated information regarding optimal habitat requirements for various life stages. Examples for how to improve upon existing HSI models can be found in Lindquist et al. (2020). Their approaches to improve HSI models ranged from meta-analysis of published literature to generalized linear mixed models and generalized additive models. Many of these models include parameters considered in our biophysical and structural diversity categories that could be considered as habitat modifiers (e.g., chlorophyll a concentrations, mosaic of structural habitats). The addition of these habitat modifiers to existing models improved water quality and structural components of HSI models for many ecologically and socially important species and more reasonably represented species’ habitat distribution (Lindquist et al., 2020). These improved models are intended for evaluating the impact of different restoration scenarios on target species.

Complex fisheries habitat and food web dynamics models can be difficult to explain to beneficiaries, stakeholders, and ecosystem managers (Fulton et al, 2015). Additionally, improving upon existing HSI models can be data-intensive, as can evaluating ecosystem functionality. Often, extensive data gaps exist, and efforts to harmonize datasets and extrapolate data are needed before developing models and evaluating relationships between habitats, species, and the provisioning of ecosystem services. To apply this ecological suitability approach, it may be necessary to build upon existing model outputs, such as those mentioned in Lindquist et al. (2020), and to estimate the provisioning of services based on known information, such as ecosystem production functions (EPFs) applied to ecosystem condition (Bruins et al., 2017). Considering the number of final ecosystem goods available, benefit production functions (BPFs) may be a useful approach to estimating the resulting benefits to people, as demonstrated by Yee et al., (2021).

Effective ecosystem management requires an iterative approach, constantly reviewing restoration goals and updating supporting information represented by the categories and sub-categories of the ecological suitability approach (Fig. 3). These adaptive management strategies are important for addressing both short- and long-term goals, to maximize ecological outcomes so that social benefits can be sustained (Kondolf et al., 2008). Ecological suitability approaches are best used in conjunction with an adaptive management strategy, such as R2R2R. As information needs are identified and filled (Fig. 3, green and yellow boxes), and habitat characterizations are calculated, verified, and weighted (Fig. 3, blue boxes), our approach can be utilized to focus on both ecological and socio-economic desired outcomes. The effectiveness of restoration projects can be measured by the success of creating and maintaining physical, biological, and chemical characteristics that support desirable outcomes, such as numbers and diversity of wildlife and fish, and the removal of invasive or non-native species to restore beneficial uses to an area of concern. This R2R2R approach complements our conceptual approach, and when used with adaptive management strategies, could be a powerful tool to effectively monitor, measure, and adjust ecosystem restoration strategies.

Developing an integrated, composite measure based on functional ecosystem conditions and intended social outcomes is a unique and useful approach for characterizing ecological suitability, regardless of the spatial unit and ecosystem type. Evaluation of restoration effectiveness through the lens of ecosystem services in this manner, as highlighted in our estuarine habitat restoration example, is a good start at moving toward a meaningful measure of ecological suitability. Different users will have different goals for this conceptual approach. Some decision-makers may only want the ESspx values to compare across different projects, while other users (e.g., communities) might want to explore how each of the components that contribute to those values is calculated or developed. The conceptual approach allows exploration and open discussion about factors that contribute to characterizing ecological suitability.

The estuarine example presented demonstrates how to develop the methods for calculating a composite measure of ecological suitability. The next steps in the development of the methods for a composite measure of ecological suitability for estuarine resources will include:

  • identifying ecologically and socially important species and their habitat requirements;

  • identifying habitat modifiers and calculating habitat characterization values;

  • developing methods for assigning ecological and social weighting factors to species of interest;

  • estimating the areal extent of ecological suitability at the estuarine scale.

These four steps are critical to operationalizing an ecological suitability approach to evaluate and maximize long-term restoration effectiveness in estuarine ecosystems.

Supplementary Material

Supplement1
Supplement2
Supplement3

Acknowledgments

This product has been prepared by staff at the U.S. EPA. Any findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. This product does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Footnotes

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Lisa M. Smith: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Erin M. Reschke: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Justin J. Bousquin: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. James E. Harvey: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. J. Kevin Summers: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109385.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

  1. Adams JB, Whitfield AK, Van Niekerk L, 2020. A socio-ecological systems approach towards future research for the restoration, conservation and management of southern African estuaries. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci 45, 231–241. 10.2989/16085914.2020.1751980. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan D, Burton GA, Boyer G, Haffner GD, Höök T, Johnson L, Karatayev A, Burlakova L, Val Klump J, Lodge D, Miller CJ, Pitts D, Read J, Scavia D, Shuchman R, Steinman A, Stevenson RJ, Stepien C, Taylor W, Twiss M, Uzarski D, 2012. Science Strategy for Improving the Great Lakes Restoration. http://graham.umich.edu/media/files/GLScienceStrategy_Final.pdf.
  3. Angradi TR, Williams KC, Hoffman JC, Bolgrien DW, 2019. Goals, beneficiaries, and indicators of waterfront revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern and coastal communities. J. Great Lakes Res 45, 851–863. 10.1016/j.jglr.2019.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballari SA, Roulier C, Nielsen EA, Pizarro C, Anderson CB, 2020. A review of ecological restoration research in the global south and north to promote knowledge dialogue. Conserv. Soc 18 (3), 298–310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26937770. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Thornton KW, Whigham D, Hershner C, Brinson MM, Shortle JS, 2006. Integration of ecological and socioeconomic indicators for estuaries and watersheds of the Atlantic Slope. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Proection Agency STAR Program, Agreement R-82868401, Washington, DC. Prepared by the Atlantic Slope Consortium, University Park, PA. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2687&context=reports. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruins RJ, Canfield TJ, Duke C, Kapustka L, Nahlik AM, Schäfer RB, 2017. Using ecological production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag 13 (1), 52–61. 10.1002/ieam.1842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Budiharta S, Meijaard E, Wells JA, Abram NK, Wilson KA, 2016. Enhancing feasibility: Incorporating a socio-ecological systems framework into restoration planning. Environ. Sci. Pol 64, 83–92. 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlucci MB, Brancalion PH, Rodrigues RR, Loyola R, Cianciaruso MV, 2020. Functional traits and ecosystem services in ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol 28, 1372–1383. 10.1111/rec.13279. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cortina J, Maestre FT, Vallejo R, Baeza MA, Valdecantos A, Pérez-Devesa M, 2006. Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: are they related? J. Nat. Conserv 14, 152–160. 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crossman ND, Rustomji P, Brown A, Pollino C, Colloff M, Lester R, Arthur A, Doody T, Jolly I, Bark R, Kandulu J, 2011. Status of the aquatic ecosystems of the Murray–Darling Basin and a framework for assessing the ecosystem services they provide. An interim report to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority from the CSIRO Multiple Benefits of the Basin Plan Project. [Google Scholar]
  11. DeWitt TH, Berry WJ, Canfield TJ, Fulford RS, Harwell MC, Hoffman JC, Johnston JM, Newcomer-Johnson TA, Ringold PL, Russell MJ, Sharpe LA, Yee SH, 2020. The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Approach: A Beneficiary-Centric Method to Support Ecosystem-Based Management. In: O’Higgins TG, Lago M, DeWitt TH (Eds.), Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services, and Aquatic Biodiversity Theory, Tools, and Applications. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 127–145. [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz S, Qúetier F, Cáceres DM, Trainor SF, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Bret-Harte MS, Finegan B, Peña-Claros M, Poorter L, 2011. Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. P. Natl. A. Sci 108 (3), 895–902. 10.1073/pnas.1017993108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Engel DW, Thayer GW, Evans DW, 1999. Linkages between fishery habitat quality, stressors, and fishery populations. Environ. Sci. Policy 2, 465–475. 10.1016/S1462-9011(99)00043-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fulton EA, Boschetti F, Sporcic M, Jones T, Little LR, Dambacher JM, Gray R, Scott R, Gorton, 2015. A multi-model approach to engaging stakeholder and modelers in complex environmental problems. Environ. Sci. Policy 48, 44–56. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, 2019. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration: Summary. Washington, DC: Society for Ecological Restoration. 11 p. Online: https://www.ser.org/page/SERStandards. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gentile JH, Harwell MA, Cropper W Jr., Harwell CC, DeAngelis D, Davis S, Ogden JC, Lirman D, 2001. Ecological conceptual models: a framework and case study on ecosystem management for South Florida sustainability. Sci. Total Environ 274, 231–253. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(01)00746-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gomez CM, Delacamara G, Jaehnig S, Langhans SD, Domisch S, Hermoso V, Piet G, 2017. Developing the AQUACROSS Assessment Framework: Deliverable 3.2. European Union. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hartig JH, Munawar M, Hamza W, Al-Yamani F, 2019. Transferring lessons learned from use of an ecosystem approach to restore degraded areas of North American Great Lakes to the Arabian Gulf. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health 22, 149–159. 10.1080/14634988.2019.1622986. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harwell MA, Gentile JH, McKinney LD, Tunnell JW Jr., Dennison WC, Kelsey RH, Stanzel KM, Stunz GW, Withers K, Tunnell J, 2019. Conceptual framework for assessing ecosystem health. Integr. Environ. Asses 15, 544–564. 10.1002/ieam.4152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hein MY, Willis BL, Beeden R, Birtles A, 2017. The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restor. Ecol 25, 873–883. 10.1111/rec.12580. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hines J, van der Putten WH, De Deyn GB, Wagg C, Voigt W, Mulder C, Weisser WW, Engel J, Melian C, Scheu S, Birkhofer K, 2015. Towards an integration of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning and food web theory to evaluate relationships between multiple ecosystem services. In Advances in ecological research 53: 161–199. Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Horn S, Coll M, Asmus H, Dolch T, 2021. Food web models reveal potential ecosystem effects of seagrass recovery in the northern Wadden Sea. Restor. Ecol 29, e13328. doi: 10.1111/rec.13328. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. James WR, Lesser JS, Litvin SY, Nelson JA, 2020. Assessment of food web recovery following restoration using resource niche metrics. Sci. Total Environ 711, 134801 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson G, Thom R, Whiting A, 2003. An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Habitat Restoration Projects with Emphasis on Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, 2003 Technical Report (No. DOE/BP-00000652–14). Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Portland, OR, United States. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kondolf GM, Angermeier PL, Cummins K, Dunne T, Healey M, Kimmerer W, Moyle PB, Murphy D, Patten D, Railsback S, Reed DJ, 2008. Projecting cumulative benefits of multiple river restoration projects: an example from the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system in California. Environ. Manage 42, 933–945. 10.1007/s00267-008-9162-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Krueger KL, Bottom DL, Hood WG, Johnson GE, Jones KK, Thom RM, 2017. An expert panel process to evaluate habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River estuary. J. Environ. Manage 188, 337–350. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lewis NS, Marois DE, Littles CJ, Fulford RS, 2020. Projecting Changes to Coastal and Estuarine Ecosystem Goods and Services. In: O’Higgins TG, Lago M, DeWitt TH (Eds.), Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services, and Aquatic Biodiversity Theory, Tools, and Applications. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 235–253. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindquist DC, Sable SE, D’Acunto L, Hijuelos AC, Johnson EI, Langlois SRM, Michel NL, Nakashima L, O’Connell AM, Percy K, Robinson EM, 2020. 2023 Coastal Master Plan: Habitat Suitability Index Model Improvements. Draft Final (189 p.). Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [Google Scholar]
  29. Martin DM, Lyons JE, 2018. Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol 26, 1045–1050. 10.1111/rec.12888. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mayer LA, Boufadel MC, Brenner J, Carne RS, Cooper CK, Deming JW, 2013. An Ecosystem Services Approach to Assessing the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Report Brief. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Munns WR Jr., Rea AW, Mazzotta MJ, Wainger LA, Saterson K, 2015. Toward a standard lexicon for ecosystem services. Integr. Environ. Asses 11, 666–673. 10.1002/ieam.1631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Needles LA, Lester SE, Ambrose R, Andren A, Beyeler M, Connor MS, Eckman JE, Costa-Pierce BA, Gaines SD, Lafferty KD, Lenihan HS, 2015. Managing bay and estuarine ecosystems for multiple services. Estuar. Coast 38, 35–48. 10.1007/s12237-013-9602-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nelitz M, Wieckowski K, Porter M, 2007. Refining habitat indicators for Strategy 2 of the Wild Salmon Policy: Identifying metrics and benchmarks. https://data.skeenasalmon.info/dataset/9c955b58-585f-42c3-aa79-7a4cf3adf48c/resource/486e4631-9302-46f3-a1bc-46149895ddd3/download/nelitz-m.-refining-habitat-indicators.pdf.pdf.
  34. North EW, King DM, Xu J, Hood RR, Newell RIE, Paynter K, Kellogg ML, Liddel MK, Boesch DF, 2010. Linking optimization and ecological models in a decision support tool for oyster restoration and management. Ecol. Appl 20, 851–866. 10.1890/08-1733.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pander J, Geist J, 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecol. Indic 30, 106–118. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pandit R, Parrotta JA, Chaudhary AK, Karlen DL, Vieira DLM, Anker Y, Chen R, Morris J, Harris J, Ntshotsho P, 2020. A framework to evaluate land degradation and restoration responses for improved planning and decision-making. Ecosyst. People 16, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2019.1697756. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pastorok RA, MacDonald A, Sampson JR, Wilber P, Yozzo DJ, Titre JP, 1997. An ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects. Ecol. Eng 9, 89–107. 10.1016/S0925-8574(97)00036-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pinto R, Patrício J, Neto JM, Salas F, Marques JC, 2010. Assessing estuarine quality under the ecosystem services scope: ecological and socioeconomic aspects. Ecol. Complex 7, 389–402. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pinto R, de Jonge VN, Marques JC, 2014. Linking biodiversity indicators, ecosystem functioning, provision of services and human well-being in estuarine systems: application of a conceptual framework. Ecol. Indic 36, 644–655. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Poikane S, Portielje R, van den Berg M, Phillips G, Brucet S, Carvalho L, Mischke U, Ott I, Soszka H, Van Wichelen J, 2014. Defining ecologically relevant water quality targets for lakes in Europe. J. Appl. Ecol 51, 592–602. 10.1111/1365-2664.12228. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rheinhardt RD, Brinson MM, 2007. Framework for developing a reference-based assessment approach for evaluating the ecological condition of coastal watersheds. East Carolina University. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Rheinhardt/publication/267568245_Framework_for_Developing_a_Reference-based_Assessment_Approach_for_Evaluating_the_Ecological_Condition_of_Coastal_Watersheds/links/54528f4f0cf2cf51647a4649/Framework-for-Developing-a-Reference-based-Assessment-Approach-for-Evaluating-the-Ecological-Condition-of-Coastal-Watersheds.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schleuning M, Fründ J, García D, 2015. Predicting ecosystem functions from biodiversity and mutualistic networks: an extension of trait-based concepts to plant–animal interactions. Ecography 38, 380–392. 10.1111/ecog.00983. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwartz JS, 2016. Use of ecohydraulic-based mesohabitat classification and fish species traits for stream restoration design. Water 8 (11), 520. 10.3390/w8110520. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sharpe LM, Harwell MC, Jackson CA, 2021. Integrated stakeholder prioritization criteria for environmental management. J. Environ. Manage 111719. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sharpe LM, Hernandez CL, Jackson CA, 2020. Prioritizing Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, and Environmental Attributes: A Tool for Ecosystem-Based Management. In: O’Higgins TG, Lago M, DeWitt TH (Eds.), Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services, and Aquatic Biodiversity Theory, Tools, and Applications. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 189–211. [Google Scholar]
  46. Strong JA, Andonegi E, Bizsel KC, Danovaro R, Elliott M, Franco A, Garces E, Little S, Mazik K, Moncheva S, Papadopoulou N, 2015. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships: the potential for practical monitoring applications. Estuar. Coast. Shelf S 161, 46–64. 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.04.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tazik DJ, 2012. Evaluating protocols to quantify the significance of aquatic ecosystems at regional and national scales: proceedings of a workshop. Cambridge, MA. [Google Scholar]
  48. Thom RM, Diefenderfer HL, Hofseth KD, 2004. A framework for risk analysis in ecological restoration projects. US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronald-Thom/publication/266497418_A_Framework_for_Risk_Analysis_in_Ecological_Restoration_Projects/links/551473aa0cf260a7cb2b0db3/A-Framework-for-Risk-Analysis-in-Ecological-Restoration-Projects.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tyner EH, Boyer TA, 2020. Applying best-worst scaling to rank ecosystem and economic benefits of restoration and conservation in the Great Lakes. J. Environ. Manage 255, 888. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Great Lakes AOCs, BUI Descriptions. https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/bui-descriptions (accessed 3 January 2021).
  51. Violin CR, 2011. Macroinvertebrate responses to watershed land use and local-scale stream restoration. PhD Dissertation, University of North Carolina; at Chapel Hill. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wainger L, Mazzotta M, 2011. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ. Manage 48, 710–733. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9726-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wortley L, Hero JM, Howes M, 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restor. Ecol 21 (5), 537–543. 10.1111/rec.12028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yee S, Bousquin J, Bruins R, Canfield T, DeWitt T, DeJesus-Crespo R, Dyson B, Fulford R, Harwell M, Hoffman J, Littles C, Johnston JM, Mckane B, Ruiz-Green L, Russell M, Sharpe L, Seeteram N, Tashie A, Williams K, 2017. Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-17/266. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yee SH, Paulukonis E, Simmons C, Russell M, Fulford R, Harwell L, Smith LM, 2021. Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes in ecosystem services. Ecol. Model 440, 109358 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement1
NIHMS1853166-supplement-Supplement1.xlsx (36.5KB, xlsx)
Supplement2
NIHMS1853166-supplement-Supplement2.docx (15.3KB, docx)
Supplement3
NIHMS1853166-supplement-Supplement3.docx (284.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

RESOURCES