IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p1739-d1342319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The EPA Ecosystem Services Tool Selection Portal

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew C. Harwell

    (Pacific Ecological Systems Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR 97365, USA)

  • Leah M. Sharpe

    (Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA)

  • Kaitlyn Hines

    (Contractor to US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA)

  • Cody Schumacher

    (Contractor to US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA)

  • Stephanie Kim

    (Region 2 Superfund and Emergency Management Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, New York, NY 10007, USA)

  • Gina Ferreira

    (Region 2 Superfund and Emergency Management Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, New York, NY 10007, USA)

  • Tammy A. Newcomer-Johnson

    (Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA)

Abstract

The dynamics of an environmental decision-making context can be complicated. The use of decision support tools can help better facilitate restoring and maintaining ecosystems that provide environmental benefits (ecosystem services) to people. Although an ecosystem services assessment tool is designed for specific purposes, having access to a comprehensive suite of tools offers the user additional insight and resources to help in decision making. A range of approaches exist to connect ecosystem services to a given decision context ranging from less to more complex: using the best professional judgment; applying examples from other efforts; testing individual tool applications; and using a systematic, decision-tree approach to navigate among relevant tools and frameworks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a decision-tree approach for a user to navigate the question of how to choose among a suite of ecosystem services assessment tools for three decision contexts: (1) ecological risk assessments; (2) cleanup of contaminated sites; (3) and generic structured decision-making processes. This tool selection navigator was developed with/for the intended user, including developing crosswalks between tool functionality and the user’s language for what they require in a tool. To navigate the tool, the user first chooses one of three decision contexts. Second, the user selects among the different phases of the decision process. Third, the user selects among a few ecosystem-services related tasks relevant to the decision context chosen to identify potential tools. The tool uses simple language to navigate the decision pathways and provides the user with a suite of potential ES resources and tools for their given decision context.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew C. Harwell & Leah M. Sharpe & Kaitlyn Hines & Cody Schumacher & Stephanie Kim & Gina Ferreira & Tammy A. Newcomer-Johnson, 2024. "The EPA Ecosystem Services Tool Selection Portal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1739-:d:1342319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1739/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1739/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Harrell Yee & Angelica Sullivan & Kathleen C. Williams & Kirsten Winters, 2019. "Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Beneficiaries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Laura Jackson & Jessica Daniel & Betsy McCorkle & Alexandra Sears & Kathleen Bush, 2013. "Linking ecosystem services and human health: the Eco-Health Relationship Browser," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(5), pages 747-755, October.
    3. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Ingram, Jane Carter & Shapiro, Carl D. & La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Vallecillo, Sara & Casey, C. Frank & Glynn, Pierre D. & Heris, Mehdi P. & Johnson, Justin A. & Lau, 2021. "Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dennis Fixler & Julie L. Hass & Tina Highfill & Kelly M. Wentland & Scott A. Wentland, 2024. "Accounting for Environmental Activity: Measuring Public Environmental Expenditures and the Environmental Goods and Services Sector in the US," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Environmental Public Goods: A National Accounts Perspective, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Yongjun Tang & Qi Li & Fen Zhou & Mingjia Sun, 2024. "Does Clan Culture Promote Corporate Natural Resource Disclosure? Evidence from Chinese Natural Resource-Based Listed Companies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 167-190, June.
    3. Joachim Maes & Adrián G. Bruzón & José I. Barredo & Sara Vallecillo & Peter Vogt & Inés Marí Rivero & Fernando Santos-Martín, 2023. "Accounting for forest condition in Europe based on an international statistical standard," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Abdullah Addas & Ahmad Maghrabi, 2021. "Social Evaluation of Public Open Space Services and Their Impact on Well-Being: A Micro-Scale Assessment from a Coastal University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    6. Mirko Winkler & Martin Röösli & Martina Ragettli & Guéladio Cissé & Pie Müller & Jürg Utzinger & Laura Perez, 2015. "Mitigating and adapting to climate change: a call to public health professionals," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 60(6), pages 631-632, September.
    7. Benjamin Guinaudeau & Mark Brink & Beat Schäffer & Martin A. Schlaepfer, 2023. "A Methodology for Quantifying the Spatial Distribution and Social Equity of Urban Green and Blue Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Anna Normyle & Michael Vardon & Bruce Doran, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting and the need to recognise Indigenous perspectives," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    9. Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    10. Wang, Shuhong & Xing, Lu & Chen, Xueli & Song, Malin, 2024. "Evaluating and enhancing natural resource asset management efficiency in China: A data envelopment analysis study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    11. Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer & Valeria Tadini & Boris Salak & Karolina Taczanowska & Andrzej Tucki & Giulio Senes, 2019. "Do Protected Areas Contribute to Health and Well-Being? A Cross-Cultural Comparison," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Rebeca de Jesus Crespo & Richard Fulford, 2018. "Eco-Health linkages: assessing the role of ecosystem goods and services on human health using causal criteria analysis," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(1), pages 81-92, January.
    13. Huixin Wang & Jing Xie & Shixian Luo & Duy Thong Ta & Qian Wang & Jiao Zhang & Daer Su & Katsunori Furuya, 2023. "Exploring the Interplay between Landscape Planning and Human Well-Being: A Scientometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-24, June.
    14. Yee, Susan H. & Paulukonis, E. & Simmons, C. & Russell, M. & Fulford, R. & Harwell, L. & Smith, L.M., 2021. "Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes in ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 440(C).
    15. Ferdouz Cochran & Laura Jackson & Anne Neale & John Lovette & Liem Tran, 2019. "A Community EcoHealth Index from EnviroAtlas Ecosystem Services Metrics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, August.
    16. Oosterbroek, Bram & de Kraker, Joop & Huynen, Maud M.T.E. & Martens, Pim, 2016. "Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: A tool review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 237-254.
    17. Luying Wang & Kai Su & Xuebing Jiang & Xiangbei Zhou & Zhu Yu & Zhongchao Chen & Changwen Wei & Yiming Zhang & Zhihong Liao, 2022. "Measuring Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) in Guangxi, China, from 2005 to 2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Lennon, Mick & Douglas, Owen & Scott, Mark, 2019. "Responsive environments: An outline of a method for determining context sensitive planning interventions to enhance health and wellbeing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 68-78.
    19. Rachel Simon†Kumar & Sara MacBride†Stewart & Susan Baker & Lopamudra Patnaik Saxena, 2018. "Towards North†South Interconnectedness: a Critique of Gender Dualities in Sustainable Development, the Environment and Women's Health," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 246-263, May.
    20. Daixin Dai & Mingyang Bo & Youmei Zhou, 2022. "How Do the Young Perceive Urban Parks? A Study on Young Adults’ Landscape Preferences and Health Benefits in Urban Parks Based on the Landscape Perception Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-25, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1739-:d:1342319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.