Elsevier

Ocean & Coastal Management

Volume 165, 1 November 2018, Pages 356-369
Ocean & Coastal Management

Linking people to coastal habitats: A meta-analysis of final ecosystem goods and services on the coast

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Industry and recreation dominated final coastal ecosystem goods/services literature.

  • Recreational users were linked to the widest array of coastal habitats.

  • Evidence linking users to estuarine waters was most prominent.

  • The relevance of coastal habitats to intermediate services was cited often.

  • Improve future ecosystem goods and services research by adding local user information.

Abstract

Coastal ecosystem goods and services (EGS) have steadily gained traction in the scientific literature over the last few decades, providing a wealth of information about underlying coastal habitat dependencies. This meta-analysis summarizes relationships between coastal habitats and final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) users. Through a “weight of evidence” approach synthesizing information from published literature, we assessed habitat classes most relevant to coastal users. Approximately 2800 coastal EGS journal articles were identified by online search engines, of which 16% addressed linkages between specific coastal habitats and FEGS users, and were retained for subsequent analysis. Recreational (83%) and industrial (35%) users were most cited in literature, with experiential-users/hikers and commercial fishermen most prominent in each category, respectively. Recreational users were linked to the widest diversity of coastal habitat subclasses (i.e., 22 of 26). Whereas, mangroves and emergent wetlands were most relevant for property owners. We urge EGS studies to continue surveying local users and identifying habitat dependencies, as these steps are important precursors for developing appropriate coastal FEGS metrics and facilitating local valuation. In addition, understanding how habitats contribute to human well-being may assist communities in prioritizing restoration and evaluating development scenarios in the context of future ecosystem service delivery.

Introduction

The relatively recent (since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA, 2005) boom in literature addressing ecosystem goods and services (EGS) underscores an important relationship between healthy, functioning ecosystems, and human well-being (Naeem, 2009). These associations are often exemplified in coastal regions where tourism, recreation, aesthetic amenities, property protection, and fisheries, each with a unique dependency on habitats, are large economic drivers (Barbier et al., 2011; Arkema et al., 2013; Rao et al., 2015). Coastal areas face several challenges related to balancing the needs of an ever-increasing population, while preserving habitats and functions that support continual EGS delivery (Moberg and Rönnbäck, 2003; Rönnbäck et al., 2007; Barbier et al., 2011; Rao et al., 2015). Given stressors such as flooding, hurricanes, tsunamis, and sea level rise that may disproportionately affect EGS in coastal communities (Scott et al., 2004; Adger et al., 2005; Costanza et al., 2008; Craft et al., 2009; Mattheus et al., 2010; Gosling, 2013; Hernández-Delgado, 2015; Neumann et al., 2015; Runting et al., 2016), factoring human beneficiaries and their associated habitat dependencies into the decision process for long-term resiliency planning efforts may ultimately lead to better conservation outcomes, more holistic coastal planning initiatives, and meaningful stakeholder engagement (Adger et al., 2005; Egoh et al., 2007; Daily et al., 2009; Munang et al., 2013; Luisetti et al., 2014; Arkema et al., 2015; Elliff and Kikuchi, 2015; Zaucha et al., 2016).

The inherent relationships between ecosystem properties (e.g., habitats) and human benefits have been understood for quite some time, and have served as the basis for valuing EGS at local and global scales (de Groot, 1987; Costanza et al., 1997, 2017; Kubiszewski et al., 2017). Numerous studies have specifically focused on mapping the spatial distribution or potential availability of EGS based on attributes of land-cover, ecosystems, and/or habitats (Schägner et al., 2013; Werner et al., 2014; Brown and Fagerholm, 2015; Le Clec'h et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2016). Given the growing number of studies linking EGS to coastal features (e.g., Barbier, 2012; Carollo et al., 2013; Cabral et al., 2015), our aim was to quantify the state of knowledge for the extent to which coastal habitats broadly contribute to EGS, based on EGS mapping studies and other publications documenting human use along the coast. We focused on specific user groups (i.e., people using the coastal environment in similar ways or to achieve the same overarching purpose, like recreational opportunities) to hone in on final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS), those goods and services directly affecting people. We view FEGS endpoints as a subset of all EGS endpoints identified in broader classification schemes (MEA, 2005; de Groot et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010; Costanza et al., 2017; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018).

We conducted a meta-analysis of existing literature to provide a synopsis of common use:habitat linkages in coastal environments. Given the intensive data requirements and expertise needed for spatially-explicit EGS mapping studies, this overview of linkages can help coastal communities with limited resources begin to plan for FEGS resilience. Proactive land-use planning in coastal communities requires that we account for the array of potential human users in a given area, understand how they derive benefits from their environment (e.g., which FEGS they use), and evaluate how changes in coastal landscapes might affect the availability and/or delivery of priority FEGS, that will likely change in the context of community needs and values (de Groot et al., 2010). While this analysis should not be interpreted as an exhaustive tally of all possible use:habitat linkages, it does provide a snapshot of the current state of knowledge and highlights areas of more/less emphasis within the literature. We hope coastal communities can couple this information with localized knowledge (e.g., concerning landscape features and primary user groups) to more readily incorporate FEGS considerations into habitat management decisions and long-term resiliency planning. Whether results complement existing mapping resources (e.g., EnviroAtlas; Pickard et al., 2015), or form the basis for a new resource providing a preliminary assessment of how users could be affected by land use decisions, coastal communities will benefit from a basic understanding of use:habitat dependencies.

Over the last decade, several models and tools have been developed to help communities evaluate ecosystem service tradeoffs in the context of land-management decisions (Tallis and Polasky, 2009; Arkema et al., 2013; Bagstad et al., 2013; Martín-López et al., 2014; Villa et al., 2014; Cabral et al., 2015; Berg et al., 2016; Zank et al., 2016; Owuor et al., 2017). Mapping flows of EGS from ecosystems, and related habitats, to groups of human users can help build consensus within communities in the context of local priorities (Crossman et al., 2013; Carmen et al., 2018), and there are numerous methodologies. Value estimates can vary widely depending on scale, model assumptions, indicators selected, and the resolution and type of data available for a particular site (Hauck et al., 2013; Schägner et al., 2013; Sharps et al., 2017). In addition, many coastal communities lack the time, resources, and expertise to undertake detailed ecosystem service valuation studies, and the timeframe required to complete such studies often exceeds that in which decisions must be made. Interim approaches that aid coastal communities in quickly assessing FEGS, relationships to mappable habitat features, and potential vulnerabilities can lead to more informed land-use planning decisions.

It is important for coastal communities to consider how local users could be affected by land-use changes and/or habitat modifications. By first synthesizing evidence from literature, then summarizing linkages in a cohesive manner, we present a means for coastal community stakeholders to quickly assess or map potential FEGS vulnerabilities related to habitat (i.e., final services that could be diminished by habitat alterations or losses) and incorporate these considerations into land-use planning discussions. We investigated the evidence for users benefiting from different coastal habitats and explored how the strength of evidence varied over space and time. An online search was undertaken first to identify potential publications addressing coastal EGS. Next, we reviewed each resulting publication more thoroughly to determine which FEGS users and habitats were being addressed. Lines of evidence (i.e., user group deriving benefits from one or more habitats) were then scored using three criteria evaluating the strength of evidence. We then developed statistical models testing for significant differences in the amount of evidence among user groups and habitats. Lastly, we appraised the amount of evidence across biogeographic realms and over time to assess the potential effects of study location and the time period over which studies were completed. Given the range of users dependent on coastal habitats, this meta-analysis may serve as a first-step in understanding how to build FEGS resiliency by protecting and restoring habitats in coastal communities.

Section snippets

Background

We implemented a “weight of evidence” (WOE) framework, historically used in risk assessment (Burton Jr et al., 2002; Weed, 2005; Linkov et al., 2009, 2011, 2015), to assess the amount of evidence linking FEGS users to coastal habitats. This approach begins with a primary question or hypothesis of interest (e.g., to what extent do coastal users depend on specific coastal habitats, in our case); synthesizes information from multiple lines of evidence based on the relevance, quality, and extent of

Evidence overview

The online search identified 2839 unique published articles for potential inclusion in the meta-analysis. After evaluating titles, abstracts, and full-texts against exclusion criteria, 360 articles (Appendix 1) were assessed for full consideration of linkages. These sources contributed to 1833 lines of evidence pertaining to FEGS user groups with 3022 links to habitat.

Score analysis

The habitat specificity and user specificity score components appeared uncorrelated, though not significantly (z = 1.43, τ

Discussion

A synopsis of the inherent linkages between coastal users and habitats is both timely and necessary, given ongoing threats to coastal ecosystems and communities relying on their associated EGS (Scott et al., 2004; Costanza et al., 2008; Craft et al., 2009; Gosling, 2013; Hernández-Delgado, 2015). Results highlight patterns and relationships between users and habitats derived from an unbiased sample of coastal ecosystem services literature. Given the high concentration of people near coastlines (

Conclusions

We evaluated literature-based evidence to assess direct human utilization of coastal habitats. Using existing classification schemes for both aspects (i.e., FEGS-CS and CMECS), we were able to identify clear distinctions in the amount of evidence, distribution of evidence across ecoregions, and specific habitat dependencies that may make certain users more or less vulnerable to changes. Results, like the use:habitat matrix, are presented in a transparent manner to facilitate stakeholder

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank Susan Yee and Marisa Mazzotta for their thoughtful reviews prior to journal submission. We also appreciate the feedback provided by the larger U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development's Sustainable and Healthy Communities research program throughout manuscript development. Primary author was supported by an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) postdoctoral fellowhsip, funded by the U.S. EPA through Interagency

References (107)

  • R. Costanza et al.

    Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go?

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2017)
  • B.R. Crawford et al.

    Building capacity for integrated coastal management in developing countries

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (1993)
  • N.D. Crossman et al.

    A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2013)
  • R.S. de Groot et al.

    Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making

    Ecol. Complex.

    (2010)
  • J. Dick et al.

    Stakeholders' perspectives on the operationalization of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2018)
  • J. Duxbury et al.

    Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: in the context of coastal disasters

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2007)
  • B. Egoh et al.

    Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2007)
  • C.I. Elliff et al.

    The ecosystem service approach and its application as a tool for integrated coastal management

    Nat. Conserv.

    (2015)
  • B. Fisher et al.

    Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2009)
  • S. Fletcher et al.

    England's evolving marine and coastal governance framework

    Mar. Pol.

    (2014)
  • E. Gómez-Baggethun et al.

    The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2010)
  • J. Hauck et al.

    “Maps have an air of authority”: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2013)
  • E.A. Hernández-Delgado

    The emerging threats of climate change on tropical coastal ecosystem services, public health, local economies and livelihood sustainability of small islands: cumulative impacts and synergies

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2015)
  • S. Jacobs et al.

    ‘The matrix reloaded’: a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services

    Ecol. Model.

    (2015)
  • I. Kubiszewski et al.

    The future value of ecosystem services: global scenarios and national implications

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2017)
  • Y. Li et al.

    Landscape effects of environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion and development policy: a case study of Lianyungang, China

    Landsc. Urban Plann.

    (2010)
  • S. Li et al.

    Evaluation of the threat from sea-level rise to mangrove ecosystems of Tieshangang Bay, southern China

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2015)
  • X. Li et al.

    GIS-based methodology for erosion risk assessment of the muddy coast in the Yangtze Delta

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2015)
  • I. Linkov et al.

    Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2009)
  • C. Liquete et al.

    Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: the assessment of the nursery function

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2016)
  • M.G. Lloyd et al.

    Towards a social-ecological resilience framework for coastal planning

    Land Use Pol.

    (2013)
  • T. Luisetti et al.

    Coastal zone ecosystem services: from science to values and decision making; a case study

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2014)
  • L. Maltby et al.

    Is an ecosystem services-based approach developed for setting specific protection goals for plant protection products applicable to other chemicals?

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • L. Martin

    The use of ecosystem services information by the U.S. national estuary programs

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2014)
  • C.L. Martin et al.

    A systematic quantitative review of coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services: current status and future research

    Mar. Pol.

    (2016)
  • B. Martín-López et al.

    Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2014)
  • M.L. Mártinez et al.

    The coasts of our world: ecological, economic, and social importance

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2007)
  • C.R. Mattheus et al.

    Impact of land-use change and hard structures on the evolution of fringing marsh shorelines

    Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci.

    (2010)
  • F. Moberg et al.

    Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2003)
  • R. Munang et al.

    The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2013)
  • A.M. Nahlik et al.

    Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2012)
  • W.R. Nascimento et al.

    Mapping changes in the largest continuous Amazonian mangrove belt using object-based classification of multisensory satellite imagery

    Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci.

    (2013)
  • M.A. Owuor et al.

    Mapping of ecosystem services flow in Mida, Kenya

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2017)
  • L. Pendleton et al.

    Is the non-market literature adequate to support coastal and marine management?

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2007)
  • B.R. Pickard et al.

    EnviroAtlas: a new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2015)
  • A.F. Rahman et al.

    Detecting large scale conversion of mangroves to aquaculture with change point and mixed-pixel analyses of high-fidelity MODIS data

    Rem. Sens. Environ.

    (2013)
  • N.S. Rao et al.

    Global values of coastal ecosystem services: a spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2015)
  • J.P. Schägner et al.

    Mapping ecosystem services' values: current practice and future prospects

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2013)
  • K. Sharps et al.

    Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three ecosystem services modelling tools in a diverse UK river catchment

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • P.C. Sutton et al.

    Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2002)
  • Cited by (17)

    • The ecosystem service of property protection and exposure to environmental stressors in the Gulf of Mexico

      2020, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      When wave energy dissipation decreases, the incoming wave energy flux increases, leading to more severe beach erosion (Kuriyama and Banno, 2016). The exposure of coastal FEGS to environmental change differs from place to place, depending on the beneficiary portfolio of the region (e.g., Littles et al., 2018) and how land cover may change as a result of management practices (Epanchin-Niell et al., 2017). Cities along the Gulf of Mexico have a heavy concentration of human activities (e.g., tourism) and beach use (including major real estate development) along the coastline (Ariza et al., 2014).

    • Coastal Ecology: Living Shorelines Reduce Coastal Erosion

      2019, Current Biology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Coastal wetlands, including salt marshes, provide numerous ecological and economic benefits [1–3].

    • Adaptive capacity and social-ecological resilience of coastal areas: A systematic review

      2019, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Even so, these areas show high vulnerability to the effects of environmental change (Bruno et al., 2018; Hagerman et al., 2010; Knapp et al., 2014; Lewis, 2013; Martínez and Aránguiz, 2016; Mehvar et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2015) and to other types of stressors derived from human development (Aswani et al., 2017; Teng et al., 2016). It is important to highlight how important these areas are in terms of the ecological, economic, social and cultural benefits they provide (Arkema et al., 2015; Barbier et al., 2011; Littles et al., 2018; Mehvar et al., 2018; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Sausner and Webster, 2016); at the same time they are home to a significant proportion of the world's population, a trend that is likely to increase in the coming decades (Bunce et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2014; Rasheed et al., 2016). In this context, the number of policy interventions addressing the reduction of vulnerability in coastal communities has also increased (Cinner et al., 2012; Portman, 2018; Serrao-Neumann et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2011, 2010), as have studies in the fields of human ecology, ecological economics and rural sociology that address the adaptation of human communities established in coastal zones (Adger, 2000; Engle, 2011; Kotzee and Reyers, 2016; Moreno-Sánchez and Maldonado, 2013; Thathsarani and Gunaratne, 2018).

    • Using wave runup modeling to inform coastal species management: An example application for sea turtle nest relocation

      2019, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Sandy beach ecosystems provide a range of ecosystem services including storm protection, tourism and recreation, and habitat space (Barbier et al., 2011; Littles et al., 2018; McLachlan and Brown, 2006; Seabloom et al., 2013; Zeppel, 2008).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text