Abstract
AbstractWetland restoration is an important water quality and climate resilience strategy. Wetland restoration rarely considers tradeoffs at large spatial and temporal scales, which limits capacity to aid decision makers. High resolution data can reveal hundreds to thousands of possible restoration options across a landscape, but guidance for setting restoration targets at these scales is limited. This study uses structured decision making (SDM) as a process for evaluating the desirability of numerous restoration options, with a case study on the Outer Coastal Plain of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. The Nature Conservancy, in partnership with federal, state, and nonprofit organizations, evaluated a decision to target large-scale wetland restoration based on two fundamental objectives: improve water quality and enhance climate resilience. A total of 964 potentially restorable alternatives were delineated across the study area. The alternatives were evaluated on seven water quality and climate resilience criteria. High-priority alternatives were mapped based on multi-criteria ranking methods and principal component analysis. Sensitivity analysis included varying nutrient load data, implementing multiple ranking methods with different assumptions, and varying criteria weights. The maps revealed seven distinct regions of restoration opportunities. Tradeoffs were evaluated to distinguish between desirable and less desirable regions. Results indicated that three regions were promising choices to initiate landowner engagement and outreach. This study highlights the advantages of SDM to structure large-scale restoration decisions. In doing so, our work offers a roadmap toward further developing SDM in future applied restoration contexts.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pollution,Ecology,Global and Planetary Change
Reference70 articles.
1. Arkema KK, Guannel G, Verutes G, Wood SA, Guerry A, Ruckelshaus M, Kareiva P, Lacayo M, Silver JM (2013) Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat Clim Change 3:913–918. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1944
2. Arvai J, Gregory R (2003) Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environ Sci Technol 37:1469–1476. https://doi.org/10.1021/es020762p
3. Arvai JL, Gregory R, McDaniels TL (2001) Testing a structured decision approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Anal 21:1065–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216175
4. Anderson MG, Barnett A, Clark M, Prince J, Olivero Sheldon A, Vickery B (2016) Resilient and connected landscapes for terrestrial conservation. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Eastern Regional Office, Boston
5. Bessette DL, Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2019) Do people disagree with themselves? Exploring the internal consistency of complex, unfamiliar, and risky decisions. J Risk Res 24:593–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569107
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献