Advanced search
Publication Cover
Ecosystems and People Volume 19, 2023 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
404
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Paper

Recreational beneficiaries and their landscape dependencies across national estuary program sites: Tillamook Bay (OR) and Tampa Bay (FL), USA

Chanda Jones Littlesa Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Fellow, Environmental Protection Agency - Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Newport, OR, USA;b Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR, USACorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4208-9061View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Nathaniel S. Lewisa Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Fellow, Environmental Protection Agency - Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Newport, OR, USA;c Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station (COMES), Oregon State University, Newport, OR, USAORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5096-1315View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Theodore H. DeWittd Environmental Protection Agency - Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Newport, OR, USAORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8410-1452View further author information
ORCID Icon &
Matthew C. Harwelld Environmental Protection Agency - Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Newport, OR, USAORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6765-7857View further author information
ORCID Icon
Article: 2276756 | Received 09 Oct 2022, Accepted 23 Oct 2023, Published online: 15 Nov 2023

References

  • Angradi TR, Launspach JJ, Debbout R. 2018. Determining preferences for ecosystem benefits in great lakes areas of concern from photographs posted to social media. J Great Lakes Res. 44(2):340–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2017.12.007.
  • Austin A, McVittie A, McCracken D, Moxey A, Moran D, White PCL. 2016. The co-benefits of biodiversity conservation programmes on wider ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 20:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.002.
  • Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Mon. 81(2):169–193. doi: 10.1890/10-1510.1.
  • Barton K. 2020. MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.43.17. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.
  • Boerema A, Meire P. 2017. Management for estuarine ecosystem services: a review. Ecol Eng. 98:172–182. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.10.051.
  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ. 63(2–3):616–626. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.
  • Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, Skaug HJ, Maechler M, Bolker BM. 2017. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9(2):378–400. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066.
  • Brunson JR, Read QD. 2023. ggalluvial: Alluvial Plots in ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.12.5. http://corybrunson.github.io/ggalluvial/.
  • Byczek C, Longaretti P-Y, Renaud J, Lavorel S, Li L. 2018. Benefits of crowd-sourced GPS information for modelling the recreation ecosystem service. PLoS One. 13(10):e0202645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202645.
  • Couture-Beil A. 2018. rjson: JSON for R. R package version 0.2.20. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjson.
  • Cunha J, Elliott M, Ramos S. 2018. Linking modelling and empirical data to assess recreation services provided by coastal habitats: the case of NW Portugal. Ocean Coast Manag. 162:60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.022.
  • Daw TM, Hicks CC, Brown K, Chaigneau T, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Cheung WWL, Rosendo S, Crona B, Coulthard S, Sandbrook C, et al. 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 21(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-08173-210211.
  • De La Cruz PMC. 2021. The knowledge status of coastal and marine ecosystem services - challenges, limitations and lessons learned from the application of the ecosystem services approach in management. Front Mar Sci. 8:684770. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.684770.
  • DeWitt TH, Berry WJ, Canfield TJ, Fulford RS, Harwell MC, Hoffman JC, Johnston JM, Newcomer-Johnson TA, Ringold PL, Russel MJ, et al. 2020. The final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) approach: a beneficiary-centric method to support ecosystem-based management. In: O’Higgins T, Lago M DeWitt TH, editors. Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Amsterdam: Springer; p. 127–148. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_7.
  • Dubininkas V, Consulting OE. 2016. Using social media to evaluate the relationship between coral reef bleaching and non-consumptive wildlife tourism pressure.
  • EPA. 2021. NESCS Plus Webtool Version 3.0. Washington (DC): United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://geopub.epa.gov/nescs/application/multipleQuery.
  • EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. National ecosystem services classification system (NESCS): framework design and policy application. Washington (DC): United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-800-R-15-002.
  • FGDC, Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2012. Coastal and marine ecological classification standard. FGDC-STD-018-2012. Reston (VA): Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/cmecs.pdf.
  • Fisher DM, Wood SA, White EM, Blahna DJ, Lange S, Weinberg A, Tomco M, Lia E. 2018. Recreational use in dispersed public lands measured using social media data and on-site counts. J Environ Manage. 222:465–474. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.045.
  • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 1999. Florida land use, cover and forms classification system [handbook], department of transportation, surveying and mapping, geographic mapping section. https://www.nwfwater.com/content/download/4688/32122/fluccmanual.pdf.
  • Fulford R, Yoskowitz D, Russell M, Dantin D, Rogers J. 2016. Habitat and recreational fishing opportunity in Tampa Bay: linking ecological and ecosystem services to human beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv. 17:64–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.009.
  • Ghermandi A, Sinclair M. 2019. Passive crowdsourcing of social media in environmental research: a systematic map. Glob Environ Change. 55:36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.003.
  • Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV, Reed DJ, Stoms DM, Koch EW, Kennedy CJ, Cramer LA, Hacker SD, Barbier EB, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol. 24(1):207–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01355.x.
  • Grêt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Kienast F, Rabe S-E, Zulian G. 2015. A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 13:16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.008.
  • Grolemund G, Wickham H. 2011. Dates and times made easy with lubridate. J Stat Softw. 40(3):1–25. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i03/.
  • Hartig F. 2021. Dharma: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-Level/Mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa.
  • Hausmann A, Toivonen T, Slotow R, Tenkanen H, Moilanen A, Heikinheimo V, Minin Di E. 2018. Social media data can be used to understand tourists’ preferences for nature-based Experiences in protected areas. Conserv Lett. 11(1):e12343. doi: 10.1111/conl.12343.
  • Imperial MT, Hennessey T, Robadue D. 1993. The evolution of adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: the National estuary Program and its precursors. Ocean Coast Manag. 20(2):147–180. doi: 10.1016/0964-5691(93)90056-5.
  • IPBES. 2023. Thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Roy, H. E., Pauchard, A., Stoett, P., and Renard Truong, T., editors. IPBES secretariat. Bonn (Germany). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7430682.
  • Jordan SJ, Hayes SE, Yoskowitz D, Smith LM, Summers JK, Russell M, Benson WH. 2010. Accounting for natural Resources and Environmental sustainability: linking ecosystem services to human well-being. Environ Sci Technol. 44(5):1530–1536. doi: 10.1021/es902597u.
  • Kosanic A, Petzold J. 2020. A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Ecosyst Serv. 45:101168. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101168.
  • Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification System (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. Washington (DC): United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
  • Lang DT. 2021a. Rcurl: General network (HTTP/FTP/…) client interface for R. R package version 1.98-1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RCurl.
  • Lang DT. 2021b. XML: tools for parsing and generating XML within R and S-Plus. R package version 3.99-0.8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=XML.
  • Lenth RM. 2021. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.6.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
  • Levesque P. 2013. A history of the Oregon Solutions Southern flow Corridor project - landowner preferred alternative: a review of the alternatives and a summary of public involvement. Tillamook County and Oregon Soulutions; [accessed 2022 Jan 30]. https://ossfc.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/b_white-paper.pdf.
  • Levin N, Lechner AM, Brown G. 2017. An evaluation of crowdsourced information for assessing the visitation and perceived importance of protected areas. Appl Geogr. 79:115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.12.009.
  • Liquete C, Cid N, Lanzanova D, Grizzetti B, Reynaud A. 2016. Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: the assessment of the nursery function. Ecol Indic. 63:249–257. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.058.
  • Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis S, Charef A, Egoh B. 2013. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a systematic review. PloS One. 8(7):e67737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067737.
  • Littles CJ, Jackson CA, DeWitt TH, Harwell MC. 2018. Linking people to coastal habitats: a meta-analysis of final ecosystem goods and services on the coast. Ocean Coast Manag. 165:356–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.009.
  • Loomis DK, Paterson SK. 2014. The human dimensions of coastal ecosystem services: managing for social values. Ecol Indic. 44:6–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.035.
  • Lüdecke D. 2021. _sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science_. R package version 2.8.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.
  • Martin L. 2014. The use of ecosystem services information by the U.S. national estuary programs. Ecosyst Serv. 9:139–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.004.
  • McPhearson T, Hamstead ZA, Kremer P. 2014. Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York City. Ambio. 43(4):502–515. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0509-8.
  • Mulvaney KK, Atkinson SF, Merrill NH, Twichell JH, Mazzotta MJ. 2020. Quantifying recreational use of an estuary: a case study of three bays, Cape Cod, USA. Estuar Coast. 43(1):7–22. doi: 10.1007/s12237-019-00645-8.
  • Nelson S, Follensbee B, Hinzman R. 1998. Introduction: a diverse and dynamic coastal landscape. In: Hinzman R, Nelson S Booth J, editors. Tillamook Bay Environmental Characterization. Garibaldi (OR): Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project; p. 1–12.
  • Newcomer-Johnson T, Andrews F, Corona J, DeWitt T, Harwell M, Rhodes C, Ringold P, Russell M, Sinha P, van Houtven G. 2020. National ecosystem services classification system (NESCS Plus). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-20/267.
  • O’Higgins T, Lago M, DeWitt TH, eds. 2020. Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Amsterdam: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0.
  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, et al. 2020. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
  • Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Plieninger T. 2018. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol Indic. 94:74–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.009.
  • Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. J Bioinf. 20(2):289–290. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412.
  • Phelan AA, Ruhanen L, Mair J. 2020. Ecosystem services approach for community-based ecotourism: towards an equitable and sustainable blue economy. J Sustain Tour. 28(10):1665–1685. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1747475.
  • Pouso S, Uyarra MC, Borja Á. 2018. The recovery of estuarine quality and the perceived increase of cultural ecosystem services by beach users: a case study from northern Spain. J Environ Manage. 212:450–461. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.033.
  • R Core Team. 2023. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
  • Sessions C, Wood SA, Rabotyagov S, Fisher DM. 2016. Measuring recreational visitation at U.S. National parks with crowd-sourced photographs. J Environ Manage. 183:703–711. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.018.
  • Sharp R, Douglass J, Wolny S, Arkema K, Bernhardt J, Bierbower W, Chaumont N, Denu D, Fisher D, Glowinski K, et al. (2020) InVEST 3.9.2.post17+ug.gbe19f67 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund. https://storage.googleapis.com/releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest-userguide/latest/index.html.
  • Shaw GR, Dundas SJ. 2021. Socio-economic impacts of the Southern flow Corridor restoration project: Tillamook Bay, Oregon. Garibaldi, OR: Tillamook Estuaries Partnership; p. 47. https://ossfc.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/shawdundas_memooct2021_v3.pdf.
  • Sheaves M. 2009. Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 391:107–115. doi: 10.3354/meps08121.
  • Sinclair M, Ghermandi A, Sheela AM. 2018. A crowdsourced valuation of recreational ecosystem services using social media data: an application to a tropical wetland in India. Sci Total Environ. 642:356–365. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.056.
  • Slowikowski K. 2021. Ggrepel: automatically position non-overlapping text labels with ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.9.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggrepel.
  • Sonter LJ, Watson KB, Wood SA, Ricketts TH, Yang J. 2016. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics and value of nature-based recreation, estimated via social media. PloS One. 11(9):e0162372. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162372.
  • TBEP. 2017. Charting the course: the comprehensive conservation and management plan for Tampa Bay. August 2017 revision. St. Petersburg (FL); [accessed 2022 Jan 30]. https://indd.adobe.com/view/cf7b3c48-d2b2-4713-921c-c2a0d4466632.
  • TEP, Tillamook Estuaries Partnership. 2019. Tillamook estuaries Partnership’s comprehensive conservation and management plan. CCMP update. Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program, Garibaldi, OR. Completed Under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement 01J04301. [accessed 2022 Jan 30]. https://www.tbnep.org/comprehensive-conservation-and-management-plan.php.
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005) Tillamook Bay and National estuary, Oregon general investigation feasibility report. Portland (OR).
  • van Berkel DB, Tabrizian P, Dorning MA, Smart L, Newcomb D, Mehaffey M, Neale A, Meentemeyer RK. 2018. Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR. Ecosyst Serv. 31:326–335. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.022.
  • Wickham H. 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.
  • Wickham H. 2019. Stringr: simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.4.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr.
  • Wickham H. 2020. Httr: tools for working with URLs and HTTP. R package version 1.4.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=httr.
  • Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K. 2021. Dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.0.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr.
  • Wood SA, Guerry AD, Silver JM, Lacayo M. 2013. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci Rep. 3(1):2976. doi: 10.1038/srep02976.
  • Yee S, Bousquin J, Bruins R, Canfield TJ, DeWitt TH, de Jesús-Crespo R, Dyson B, Fulford R, Harwell MC, Hoffman J, et al. 2017. Practical strategies for integrating final ecosystem goods and services into community decision-making. Gulf Breeze (FL): US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-17/266.
  • Yee SH, Sullivan S, Williams KC, Winters K. 2019. Who benefits from national estuaries? Applying the FEGS classification system to identify ecosystem services and their beneficiaries. Int J Environ Res. 16(13):2351. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132351.
  • Yoshimura N, Hiura T. 2017. Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in hokkaido. Ecosyst Serv. 24:68–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.009.
  • Yoskowitz D, Russell M. 2015. Human dimensions of our estuaries and coasts. Estuar Coast. 38(S1):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s12237-014-9926-y.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.