Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change

Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosys...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	L. A. Wainger [verfasserIn] D. H. Secor [verfasserIn] C. Gurbisz [verfasserIn] W. M. Kemp [verfasserIn] P. M. Glibert [verfasserIn] E. D. Houde [verfasserIn] J. Richkus [verfasserIn] M. C. Barber [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Ecosystem Health and Sustainability - American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016, 3(2017), 4
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:3 ; year:2017 ; number:4

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1002/ehs2.1268

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ059711833

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ059711833
003	DE-627
005	20230308235023.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1002/ehs2.1268 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ059711833
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a QH540-549.5
100	0		\|a L. A. Wainger \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses.
650		4	\|a benefit‐relevant indicators
650		4	\|a climate change
650		4	\|a economic valuation
650		4	\|a ecosystem services
650		4	\|a non‐monetary benefit indicators
650		4	\|a resilience
650		4	\|a total maximum daily load
650		4	\|a water quality
653		0	\|a Ecology
700	0		\|a D. H. Secor \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a C. Gurbisz \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a W. M. Kemp \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a P. M. Glibert \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a E. D. Houde \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a J. Richkus \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a M. C. Barber \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Ecosystem Health and Sustainability \|d American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016 \|g 3(2017), 4 \|w (DE-627)821017500 \|w (DE-600)2815489-7 \|x 23328878 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:3 \|g year:2017 \|g number:4
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2147
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2148
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 3 \|j 2017 \|e 4

Indexfelder

author_variant	l a w law d h s dhs c g cg w m k wmk p m g pmg e d h edh j r jr m c b mcb
matchkey_str	article:23328878:2017----::eiineniaosuprvlainfsurneoytmetr
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
callnumber-subject-code	QH
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.1002/ehs2.1268 doi (DE-627)DOAJ059711833 (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH540-549.5 L. A. Wainger verfasserin aut Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses. benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality Ecology D. H. Secor verfasserin aut C. Gurbisz verfasserin aut W. M. Kemp verfasserin aut P. M. Glibert verfasserin aut E. D. Houde verfasserin aut J. Richkus verfasserin aut M. C. Barber verfasserin aut In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016 3(2017), 4 (DE-627)821017500 (DE-600)2815489-7 23328878 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2017 4
spelling	10.1002/ehs2.1268 doi (DE-627)DOAJ059711833 (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH540-549.5 L. A. Wainger verfasserin aut Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses. benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality Ecology D. H. Secor verfasserin aut C. Gurbisz verfasserin aut W. M. Kemp verfasserin aut P. M. Glibert verfasserin aut E. D. Houde verfasserin aut J. Richkus verfasserin aut M. C. Barber verfasserin aut In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016 3(2017), 4 (DE-627)821017500 (DE-600)2815489-7 23328878 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2017 4
allfields_unstemmed	10.1002/ehs2.1268 doi (DE-627)DOAJ059711833 (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH540-549.5 L. A. Wainger verfasserin aut Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses. benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality Ecology D. H. Secor verfasserin aut C. Gurbisz verfasserin aut W. M. Kemp verfasserin aut P. M. Glibert verfasserin aut E. D. Houde verfasserin aut J. Richkus verfasserin aut M. C. Barber verfasserin aut In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016 3(2017), 4 (DE-627)821017500 (DE-600)2815489-7 23328878 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2017 4
allfieldsGer	10.1002/ehs2.1268 doi (DE-627)DOAJ059711833 (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH540-549.5 L. A. Wainger verfasserin aut Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses. benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality Ecology D. H. Secor verfasserin aut C. Gurbisz verfasserin aut W. M. Kemp verfasserin aut P. M. Glibert verfasserin aut E. D. Houde verfasserin aut J. Richkus verfasserin aut M. C. Barber verfasserin aut In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016 3(2017), 4 (DE-627)821017500 (DE-600)2815489-7 23328878 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2017 4
allfieldsSound	10.1002/ehs2.1268 doi (DE-627)DOAJ059711833 (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH540-549.5 L. A. Wainger verfasserin aut Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses. benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality Ecology D. H. Secor verfasserin aut C. Gurbisz verfasserin aut W. M. Kemp verfasserin aut P. M. Glibert verfasserin aut E. D. Houde verfasserin aut J. Richkus verfasserin aut M. C. Barber verfasserin aut In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016 3(2017), 4 (DE-627)821017500 (DE-600)2815489-7 23328878 nnns volume:3 year:2017 number:4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2017 4
language	English
source	In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3(2017), 4 volume:3 year:2017 number:4
sourceStr	In Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3(2017), 4 volume:3 year:2017 number:4
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality Ecology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
authorswithroles_txt_mv	L. A. Wainger @@aut@@ D. H. Secor @@aut@@ C. Gurbisz @@aut@@ W. M. Kemp @@aut@@ P. M. Glibert @@aut@@ E. D. Houde @@aut@@ J. Richkus @@aut@@ M. C. Barber @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	821017500
id	DOAJ059711833
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ059711833</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308235023.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1002/ehs2.1268</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ059711833</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH540-549.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">L. A. Wainger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">benefit‐relevant indicators</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">climate change</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">economic valuation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ecosystem services</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">non‐monetary benefit indicators</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">resilience</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">total maximum daily load</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">water quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Ecology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">D. H. Secor</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C. Gurbisz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">W. M. Kemp</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">P. M. Glibert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">E. D. Houde</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">J. Richkus</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M. C. Barber</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Ecosystem Health and Sustainability</subfield><subfield code="d">American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2017), 4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)821017500</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2815489-7</subfield><subfield code="x">23328878</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	Q - Science
author	L. A. Wainger
spellingShingle	L. A. Wainger misc QH540-549.5 misc benefit‐relevant indicators misc climate change misc economic valuation misc ecosystem services misc non‐monetary benefit indicators misc resilience misc total maximum daily load misc water quality misc Ecology Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
authorStr	L. A. Wainger
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)821017500
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	QH540-549
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	23328878
topic_title	QH540-549.5 Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change benefit‐relevant indicators climate change economic valuation ecosystem services non‐monetary benefit indicators resilience total maximum daily load water quality
topic	misc QH540-549.5 misc benefit‐relevant indicators misc climate change misc economic valuation misc ecosystem services misc non‐monetary benefit indicators misc resilience misc total maximum daily load misc water quality misc Ecology
topic_unstemmed	misc QH540-549.5 misc benefit‐relevant indicators misc climate change misc economic valuation misc ecosystem services misc non‐monetary benefit indicators misc resilience misc total maximum daily load misc water quality misc Ecology
topic_browse	misc QH540-549.5 misc benefit‐relevant indicators misc climate change misc economic valuation misc ecosystem services misc non‐monetary benefit indicators misc resilience misc total maximum daily load misc water quality misc Ecology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
hierarchy_parent_id	821017500
hierarchy_top_title	Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)821017500 (DE-600)2815489-7
title	Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ059711833 (DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249
title_full	Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
author_sort	L. A. Wainger
journal	Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
journalStr	Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
callnumber-first-code	Q
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	L. A. Wainger D. H. Secor C. Gurbisz W. M. Kemp P. M. Glibert E. D. Houde J. Richkus M. C. Barber
container_volume	3
class	QH540-549.5
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	L. A. Wainger
doi_str_mv	10.1002/ehs2.1268
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
callnumber	QH540-549.5
title_auth	Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
abstract	Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses.
abstractGer	Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses.
abstract_unstemmed	Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	4
title_short	Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change
url	https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268 https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129 https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878
remote_bool	true
author2	D. H. Secor C. Gurbisz W. M. Kemp P. M. Glibert E. D. Houde J. Richkus M. C. Barber
author2Str	D. H. Secor C. Gurbisz W. M. Kemp P. M. Glibert E. D. Houde J. Richkus M. C. Barber
ppnlink	821017500
callnumber-subject	QH - Natural History and Biology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1002/ehs2.1268
callnumber-a	QH540-549.5
up_date	2024-07-04T00:36:24.093Z
_version_	1803606697281847296
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ059711833</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308235023.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1002/ehs2.1268</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ059711833</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH540-549.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">L. A. Wainger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Economic valuation of ecological restoration most often encompasses only the most tangible ecosystem service benefits, thereby omitting many difficult‐to‐measure benefits, including those derived from enhanced reliability of ecosystem services. Because climate change is likely to impose novel ecosystem stressors, a typical approach to valuing benefits may fail to capture the contribution of ecosystem resilience to sustaining long‐term benefits. Unfortunately, we generally lack predictive probabilistic models that would enable measurement and valuation of resilience. Therefore, alternative measures are needed to complement monetary values and broaden understanding of restoration benefits. We use a case study of Chesapeake Bay restoration (total maximum daily load) to show that ecosystem service benefits that are typically monetized leave critical information gaps. To address these gaps, we review evidence for ecosystem services that can be quantified or described, including changes in harmful algal bloom risks. We further propose two integrative indicators of estuarine resilience—the extent of submerged aquatic vegetation and spatial distribution of fish. Submerged aquatic vegetation extent is indicative of qualities of ecosystems that promote positive feedbacks to water quality. Broadly distributed fish populations reduce risk by promoting diverse responses to spatially heterogeneous stresses. Our synthesis and new analyses for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that resilience metrics improve understanding of restoration benefits by demonstrating how nutrient and sediment load reductions will alleviate multiple sources of stress, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to absorb or adapt to extreme events or novel stresses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">benefit‐relevant indicators</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">climate change</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">economic valuation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ecosystem services</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">non‐monetary benefit indicators</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">resilience</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">total maximum daily load</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">water quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Ecology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">D. H. Secor</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C. Gurbisz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">W. M. Kemp</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">P. M. Glibert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">E. D. Houde</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">J. Richkus</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M. C. Barber</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Ecosystem Health and Sustainability</subfield><subfield code="d">American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2017), 4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)821017500</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2815489-7</subfield><subfield code="x">23328878</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/200557d3550648bdb8d991b96ba89249</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1268</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2096-4129</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400179

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Resilience indicators support valuation of estuarine ecosystem restoration under climate change

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?