How Bridging Approaches Further Relationships, Governance, and Ecosystem Services Research and Practice
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Science and Decision Making
2.2. Community Values and Decisions
2.3. EPA ORD Research
2.3.1. Ecosystem Services Case Studies
2.3.2. Case Study Site Descriptions
- Great Lakes, Minnesota
- 2.
- Puget Sound, Washington
- 3.
- San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico
- 4.
- Tillamook Bay, Oregon
- 5.
- Mobile Bay, Northern Gulf Coast
- 6.
- Ada, Oklahoma
3. Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Who and What Role
4.1.1. Stakeholders
“Stated consequences were tightly aligned with the NEP CCMP [Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan] goals and excluded measures of human benefit such as recreation, health, or economic improvements. Valuation attempted to consider increases in property values and public safety but lacked sufficient data. These things were not prioritized and might have been if a stronger stakeholder engagement exercise had preceded the work”.
4.1.2. Collaborators
4.1.3. Communications
4.2. What Programs or Decisions
Decision Context
4.3. Where: Place and Resources
4.3.1. Geographic Context
4.3.2. Ecosystem Services
4.4. Outcomes
- Informing advocacy for the dredging of the Martin Peña canal (the San Juan Bay study).
- Examining tradeoffs between environmental clean-up solutions (reducing urban trash, dredging the canal, improving water quality in the estuary) versus traditional pesticide spraying (the San Juan Bay study).
- Applying a new San Juan Bay Human Well-Being Index for local- and national-level decision and policy making (the San Juan Bay study).
- Connecting salmon recovery modeling to forest management decisions with the Nisqually Tribe (the Puget Sound study).
- Integrating terrestrial–marine ecosystem service modeling frameworks for informing Puget Sound recovery planning (the Puget Sound study).
- Informing oil spill trajectories and contaminant circulation for US–Canada policy discussions (the Puget Sound study).
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AOC | Area of Concern in the Great Lakes |
DASEES | Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society |
EGS | Ecosystem goods and services |
EPA ORD | US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development |
FEGS | Final ecosystem goods and services |
HIA | Health Impact Assessment |
IAD | Institutional Analysis and Development |
MBNEP | Mobile Bay National Estuary Program |
MNDNR | Minnesota Department of Natural Resources |
NEP | National Estuary Program |
ODA | Oregon Department of Agriculture |
ODEQ | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality |
ODFW | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
SES | Socio-ecological system |
SJBEP | San Juan Bay Estuary Program |
TEP | Tillamook Estuaries Partnership |
VELMA | Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments |
References
- Adger, W.N.; Jordan, A. (Eds.) Governing Sustainability; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kooiman, J. Governing as Governance; Sage: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridge, G.; Perreault, T. Environmental Governance. In A Companion to Environmental Geography; Castree, N., Demeritt, D., Liverman, D., Rhoads, B., Eds.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 475–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E.; Gardner, R.; Walker, J. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources; University of Michigan Press: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Partelow, S.; Schlüter, A.; Armitage, D.; Bavinck, M.; Carlisle, K.; Gruby, R.L.; Hornidge, A.K.; Le Tissier, M.; Pittman, J.; Song, A.M.; et al. Environmental governance theories: A review and application to coastal systems. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F. Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Roberge, J.M.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Bergman, K.O.; Dahlberg, A.; Degerman, E.; Eggers, S.; Esseen, P.A.; Hjältén, J.; et al. Evidence-based knowledge versus negotiated indicators for assessment of ecological sustainability: The Swedish Forest Stewardship Council standard as a case study. Ambio 2013, 42, 29–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weber, E.P.; Belsky, J.M.; Lach, D.; Cheng, A.S. The value of practice-based knowledge. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 1074–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potschin, M.B.; Haines-Young, R.H. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spangenberg, J.H.; Görg, C.; Truong, D.T.; Tekken, V.; Bustamante, J.V.; Settele, J. Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2014, 10, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, K.C.; Sowa, S.P.; Child, M.; Gaden, M.; Anderson, J.; Bunnell, D.B.; Drca, P.; Knight, R.L.; Norton, R.K.; Taylor, R.F. Improving how science informs policy within the Ecosystem Approach. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 2024, 27, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Stigt, R.; Driessen, P.P.; Spit, T.J. A user perspective on the gap between science and decision-making. Local administrators’ views on expert knowledge in urban planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 47, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, S.; Petts, J.; Bulkeley, H. Boundary work: Knowledge, policy, and the urban environment. Environ. Plan. C 2006, 24, 633–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmer, A.; Ogden, L.; Lawton, J.; Sturner, P.; Groffman, P.M.; Schneider, L.; Hart, D.; Halpern, B.; Schlesinger, W.; Raciti, S.; et al. The engaged university: Providing a platform for research that transforms society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enquist, C.A.; Jackson, S.T.; Garfin, G.M.; Davis, F.W.; Gerber, L.R.; Littell, J.A.; Tank, J.L.; Terando, A.J.; Wall, T.U.; Halpern, B.; et al. Foundations of translational ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safford, H.D.; Sawyer, S.C.; Kocher, S.D.; Hiers, J.K.; Cross, M. Linking knowledge to action: The role of boundary spanners in translating ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 560–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Furniss, M.J.; Joyce, L.A.; Millar, C.I.; Neilson, R.P. Workshop approach for developing climate change adaptation strategies and actions for natural resource management agencies in the United States. J. For. 2011, 109, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wall, T.U.; McNie, E.; Garfin, G.M. Use-inspired science: Making science usable by and useful to decision makers. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacMynowski, D.P. Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: Power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 20. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267854 (accessed on 21 April 2025). [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.W.; Moser, S.C. Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ. Change 2000, 10, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNie, E.C.; Parris, A.; Sarewitz, D. Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 884–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meadow, A.M.; Ferguson, D.B.; Guido, Z.; Horangic, A.; Owen, G.; Wall, T. Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim. Soc. 2015, 7, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fulford, R.; Bruins, R.; Canfield, T.; Handy, J.M.; Johnston, J.; Ringold, P.; Russell, M.; Seeteram, N.; Winters, K.; Yee, S. Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to Community Decision-Making; EPA/600/R-16/136; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Cohen, A. Rescaling environmental governance: Watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of science, neoliberalism, and participation. Environ. Plan. A 2012, 44, 2207–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacGillivray, B.H.; Franklin, A. Place as a boundary device for the sustainability sciences: Concepts of place, their value in characterising sustainability problems, and their role in fostering integrative research and action. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 53, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biedenweg, K.; Anderson, L.; Hatfield, S.C.; Hollender, R.; Kintner, L.; Trimbach, D.J. Seeking consilience: Traditional ecological knowledge and Western social science contributions to orca conservation knowledge. J. Nat. Conserv. 2023, 72, 126364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, K.C.; Bolgrien, D.W.; Hoffman, J.C.; Angradi, T.R.; Carlson, J.; Clarke, R.; Fulton, A.; MacGregor, M.; Timm-Bijold, H.; Trebitz, A.; et al. How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and Revitalization Projects; EPA/600/R17/292; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Duluth, MN, USA, 2018.
- Williams, K.C.; Hoffman, J.C. Learning in Great Lakes Areas of Concern—Connecting remediation, restoration, and revitalization. In Ecosystem-Based Management of Laurentian Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Three Decades of U.S.—Canadian Cleanup and Recovery; Hartig, J.H., Munawar, M., Eds.; Ecovision World Monograph Series; Michigan State University Press: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2021; pp. 273–296. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctv1z7kkd4.16 (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program. 2025. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-water-sector/national-estuary-program (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- Fulford, R.S.; Canfield, T.J.; DeWitt, T.H.; Harwell, M.C.; Hoffman, J.; McKane, R.B.; Sharpe, L.; Williams, K.; Yee, S. Transferability and Utility of Practical Strategies for Community Decision Making: Results from a Coordinated Case Study Assessment; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Gulf Breeze, FL, USA, 2023; EPA/600/R-21/304. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=CEMM&dirEntryId=357317 (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- Gregory, R.; Failing, L.; Harstone, M.; Long, G.; McDaniels, T.; Ohlson, D. Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yee, S.; Bousquin, J.; Bruins, R.; Canfield, T.J.; DeWitt, T.H.; de Jesús-Crespo, R.; Dyson, B.; Fulford, R.; Harwell, M.; Hoffman, J.; et al. Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making; EPA/600/R-17/266; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Gulf Breeze, FL, USA, 2017. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=337461&Lab=NHEERL (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kingsbury Bay-Grassy Point Habitat Restoration: A Health Impact Assessment; EPA/600/R21/130; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/kingsbury-bay-grassy-point-hia-report.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- McKane, R.B.; Brookes, A.F.; Djang, K.S.; Halama, J.J.; Pettus, P.B.; Barnhart, B.L.; Russell, M.J.; Vache, K.B.; Bolte, J.B. An integrated multi-model decision support framework for evaluating ecosystem-based management options for coupled human-natural systems. In Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications; O’Higgins, T.G., Lago, M., DeWitt, T.H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, L.M.; Harwell, L.C.; Summers, J.K.; Smith, H.M.; Wade, C.M.; Straub, K.R.; Case, J.L. A US Human Well-Being Index (HWBI) for Multiple Scales: Linking Service Provisioning to Human Well-Being Endpoints (2000–2010); EPA/600/R-14/223; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Gulf Breeze, FL, USA, 2014. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryId=289300 (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- San Juan Bay Estuary Program. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan of the Estuario de la Bahía de San Juan (CCMP). 2014. Available online: https://estuario.org/comprehensive-conservation-and-management-plan-ccmp-for-the-san-juan-bay-estuary/ (accessed on 22 April 2025).
- Tillamook Estuaries Partnership. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 2019. Available online: https://www.tbnep.org/ccmp/ (accessed on 21 April 2025).
- Dyson, B.; Carriger, J.; Newcomer Johnson, T.; Moura, R.; Richardson, T.; Canfield, T.J. Community Resilience Planning: A Decision-Making Framework for Coastal Communities; EPA/600/R-19/066; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=345855&Lab=NRMRL (accessed on 22 April 2025).
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research Design and Methods, 5th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Baxter, P.; Jack, S. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual. Rep. 2008, 13, 544–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lumivero. Nvivo, (Version 12 Pro). 2017. Available online: https://www.lumivero.com (accessed on 22 April 2025).
- Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Fairbrass, J.; Jordan, A.; Paavola, J.; Rosendo, S.; Seyfang, G. Governance for sustainability: Towards a ‘thick’analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1095–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, H.F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheffield, P.E.; Agu, D.P.; Rowe, M.; Fischer, K.; Pérez, A.E.; Rodríguez, L.N.; Avilés, K.R. Health Impact Assessment of the Proposed Environmental Restoration of Caño Martín Peña; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai-Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit: San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2014; Available online: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2015/hia-map/territory/puerto-rico/cao-martin-pea-hia (accessed on 22 April 2025).
- Vohra, S. International perspective on health impact assessment in urban settings. New S. Wales Public Health Bull. 2007, 18, 152–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyson, B.T. Canfield. DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society. In Proceedings of the EPA Region 7 and the State of Lowa Conference on Support Tool DASEES, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 16 November 2018; Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=344370 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
Site Name | Location and Program Details | Research Case Study Goals | Partners | Case Study Research Methodology or Approach |
---|---|---|---|---|
Great Lakes | Duluth, MN St. Louis River Estuary Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Area of Concern | Identify health determinants impacted by AOC restoration project | MN Dept Natural Resources MN Pollution Control Agency City of Duluth | Modeling and ecosystem service mapping Stakeholder engagement and participatory mapping exercise to gather input from with community members; Tribal, professional, and scientific experts Tool: Health Impact Assessment |
Puget Sound | Puget Sound Inlet Northwest coast of WA National Estuary Program | Identify watershed management practices in forests for improving stream conditions for salmon habitats, drinking water, local jobs, and cultural benefits | Nisqually Tribe WA Dept Natural Resources Snoqualmie Tribe OR Dept Fish and Wildlife US Forest Service | Tool: VELMA modeling; stakeholder collaboration and application |
San Juan Bay | San Juan, Puerto Rico San Juan Bay Estuary National Estuary Program | Communicate impacts of estuary management decisions on social, economic, and ecological benefits to San Juan watershed population | San Juan Bay Estuary Program (SJBEP) Martin Peña communities ENLACE Community Group US Army Corps of Engineers | To support San Juan Bay CCMP Tool: Human Well-Being Index |
Mobile Bay | Mobile, AL Mobile Bay Estuary D’Olive Watershed National Estuary Program | Test ecosystem tools and approaches in context of MBNEP-led restoration projects | Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) | To support Mobile Bay CCMP Tool: VELMA (and associated tools); FEGS Scoping Tool |
Tillamook Bay | Tillamook Bay Estuary, OR Northwestern coast of OR National Estuary Program | Examine shellfish harvest closure, decision making, and information gaps, and characterize environmental drivers of fecal bacteria | Tillamook Estuaries Partnership (TEP) OR Dept of Fish and Wildlife OR Dept Agriculture OR Dept Environmental Quality | Shellfish habitat suitability modeling study Fecal bacteria environmental drivers study Incorporated data from stocking assessments and monitoring Tool: VELMA |
City of Ada | Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer Regional water use | Develop and evaluate water resource management options for the City of Ada | City of Ada, OK Chickasaw Nation Oklahoma Water Resources Board | Tool: DASEES |
Products | Where Applied |
---|---|
Reports aligned with existing reporting mechanisms | The three NEPs: Tillamook Bay, Mobile Bay, San Juan Bay |
Other EPA ORD reports | Great Lakes, San Juan Bay, Mobile Bay |
Peer-reviewed journal articles | San Juan Bay, Great Lakes |
Stakeholder-focused communication deliverables | Great Lakes; Tillamook Bay; San Juan Bay; Ada, Oklahoma |
Learning or Knowledge Outcomes | Where Applied |
---|---|
Influencing philosophies, goals, and strategies | Great Lakes |
Contributing to decision making | Great Lakes, San Juan Bay, Puget Sound |
Informing future regulatory or policy context | Great lakes, Puget Sound, Tillamook Bay |
Informing future science efforts | Tillamook and Mobile Bays |
Major Findings |
---|
Geographic context or place is an important consideration because EGSs may be a function of place. |
Longer ORD–partner collaborations resulted in research findings being applied more often. |
When research is more closely aligned with partner needs, it is more salient, credible, and reliable—or usable. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Williams, K.C.; Sharpe, L.M.; Paczuski, S.; Margeson, K.; Harwell, M.C. How Bridging Approaches Further Relationships, Governance, and Ecosystem Services Research and Practice. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094177
Williams KC, Sharpe LM, Paczuski S, Margeson K, Harwell MC. How Bridging Approaches Further Relationships, Governance, and Ecosystem Services Research and Practice. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094177
Chicago/Turabian StyleWilliams, Kathleen C., Leah M. Sharpe, Sebastian Paczuski, Keahna Margeson, and Matthew C. Harwell. 2025. "How Bridging Approaches Further Relationships, Governance, and Ecosystem Services Research and Practice" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094177
APA StyleWilliams, K. C., Sharpe, L. M., Paczuski, S., Margeson, K., & Harwell, M. C. (2025). How Bridging Approaches Further Relationships, Governance, and Ecosystem Services Research and Practice. Sustainability, 17(9), 4177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094177