Although forests play a vital role in US climate strategies, US forest area is expected to decline in the coming decades. Policymakers can help arrest or reverse that decline by strengthening incentives for forest carbon sequestration. Increased funding for afforestation, restoration, and bioenergy and wood products market development will likely benefit the forest sector unevenly across geographic, commercial, and demographic dimensions. This review explores the effects of policies – particularly incentives for afforestation and reforestation, carbon credit market participation, and wood products utilization – on US forest communities. We describe this policy landscape and use various data to investigate effects on diverse stakeholders, with special emphasis on the implications for disadvantaged and forest-dependent communities. Afforestation policies in the South-Central region could significantly enhance carbon dioxide removal while reshaping rural dynamics. Forest carbon credit markets, though crucial for climate goals, may disadvantage small forest owners and communities, instead favoring large corporate entities. Policies promoting wood products in the South-Central region could benefit forest-dependent, high-poverty communities. We also note how policy implementation might ensure an equitable distribution of climate-related benefits among stakeholders in the forest sector.

A recent focus of ecosystem services research has been on the definition of biophysical outcomes and measures most closely linked to social welfare. There is a particular need to identify biophysical outcomes corresponding to existence values. (Values associated with existence apart from any current or future use.) We review economic and ecological evidence to answer two key questions: First, what are ideal characteristics of linking indicators for existence values? Linking indicators should be: understandable, subject to direct sensory perception, represented at relevant temporal and spatial scales, comprehensive, and quantifiable in a repeatable manner. Second, what types of ecosystem outcomes are most likely to be associated with these values? We distinguish between indicators of taxa and ecological landscapes, and then multiple subcategories within each. Our fundamental conclusion is that while there are general principles informing the specification of linking indicators of existence values, there is no compact set of indicators or measures that applies universally. The case-specific nature of these issues - general guidelines notwithstanding - implies the need for sustained partnerships between social and biophysical scientists to address questions of indicator choice.

The US Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) is an important safety net for the protection and recovery of critically imperiled species. One mechanism of the ESA is prohibitions on harming listed species and their habitat, yet the ESA does not require proactive conservation by the private sector, which is necessary for the recovery of many species. A range of ESA programs have been developed – including Candidate Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements, and a Voluntary Prelisting Conservation Actions policy – to enhance flexibility and encourage voluntary conservation activities. But why would businesses and other private landowners voluntarily engage in proactive conservation efforts above and beyond what is required for ESA compliance? We applied a return‐on‐investment ( ROI ) perspective to outline sources of costs and benefits and to explore program participation incentives. This ROI perspective sheds light on the types of financial factors likely to affect private‐sector participation and program effectiveness, and points to better ways to target private‐sector engagement and design more effective programs.

Land plays a critical role in both economic and environmental accounting. As an asset, it occupies a unique position at the intersection of the System of National Accounts (SNA), the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA-CF), and (as a spatial unit) SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA), making land a natural starting point for developing natural capital accounts more generally. We develop a pilot set of national and subnational land accounts for the United States that are consistent with the SEEA-CF and SNA principles, quantified in both physical and monetary terms. The physical accounts utilize detailed land use (National Land Use Database) and land cover (National Land Cover Database) datasets, which provide insights into how land cover in the U.S. is changing over time. To provide aggregate estimates of land values, we use a hedonic approach that exploits fine-grain microdata (“big data” from Zillow) that contains detailed information from hundreds of millions of property transactions and their corresponding physical characteristics covering much of the U.S. Methodologically, we show that it is feasible to produce monetary accounts for land that can be directly linked to and integrated with physical land cover/use. Overall, U.S. land cover has shown declines in forests, cropland, and pasture with increases in barren, scrub/shrub, and developed classes, which are particularly concentrated in the U.S. Southeast. Nominal land values in the U.S. fell about 28% ($7 trillion) from the boom to bust periods in the prior decade, albeit with substantial regional variation, and have subsequently experienced a nearly full recovery in recent years. We estimate private land in the contiguous 48 states to be worth approximately $25.1 trillion in 2016.

TheUSEndangered Species Act (ESA) is an important safety net for the protection and recovery of critically imperiled species. One mechanism of theESAis prohibitions on harming listed species and their habitat, yet theESAdoes not require proactive conservation by the private sector, which is necessary for the recovery of many species. A range ofESAprograms have been developed - including Candidate Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements, and a Voluntary Prelisting Conservation Actions policy - to enhance flexibility and encourage voluntary conservation activities. But why would businesses and other private landowners voluntarily engage in proactive conservation efforts above and beyond what is required forESAcompliance? We applied a return-on-investment (ROI) perspective to outline sources of costs and benefits and to explore program participation incentives. ThisROIperspective sheds light on the types of financial factors likely to affect private-sector participation and program effectiveness, and points to better ways to target private-sector engagement and design more effective programs.

The first Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found widespread, accelerating declines in Earth's biodiversity and associated benefits to people from nature. Addressing these trends will require science-based policy responses to reduce impacts, especially at national to local scales. Effective scaling of science-policy efforts, driven by global and national assessments, is a major challenge for turning assessment into action and will require unprecedented commitment by scientists to engage with communities of policy and practice. Fulfillment of science's social contract with society, and with nature, will require strong institutional support for scientists' participation in activities that transcend conventional research and publication.

Research synthesis is the integration of existing knowledge and research findings pertinent to an issue. The aim of synthesis is to increase the generality and applicability of those findings and to develop new knowledge through the process of integration. Synthesis is promoted as an approach that deals with the challenge of oinformation overload', delivering products that further our understanding of problems and distil relevant evidence for decision-making. However, despite the increasing prominence of synthesis efforts in the science and policy landscape, we know very little about the impacts these initiatives have on research, policy and practice and the assumptions underpinning how they will lead to change. This paper presents a framework for considering the conceptual, strategic, instrumental and network-based impacts of research synthesis on policy. This framework provides insight into the range of underlying assumptions and impacts on policy and practice from 10 case studies of research synthesis related to contemporary sustainability challenges. Findings suggest that research synthesis is having diverse impacts on research, policy and practice including creating a new understanding of problems, establishing new networks, and contributing to changes in policy and practice. These impacts emerged across a range of contexts, synthesis methods, assumptions and operating models. This suggests that there is no single ocorrect way' to design research synthesis for impact, but rather a need to tailor the approach for the context of intended use.

First posted May 7, 2018 For additional information, contact: Director, Science and Decisions Center U.S. Geological Survey 913 National Center 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20192 Natural resource managers must make decisions that affect broad-scale ecosystem processes involving large spatial areas, complex biophysical interactions, numerous competing stakeholder interests, and highly uncertain outcomes. Natural and social science information and analyses are widely recognized as important for informing effective management. Chief among the systematic approaches for improving the integration of science into natural resource management are two emergent science concepts, adaptive management and ecosystem services. Adaptive management (also referred to as “adaptive decision making”) is a deliberate process of learning by doing that focuses on reducing uncertainties about management outcomes and system responses to improve management over time. Ecosystem services is a conceptual framework that refers to the attributes and outputs of ecosystems (and their components and functions) that have value for humans.This report explores how ecosystem services can be moved from concept into practice through connection to a decision framework—adaptive management—that accounts for inherent uncertainties. Simultaneously, the report examines the value of incorporating ecosystem services framing and concepts into adaptive management efforts.Adaptive management and ecosystem services analyses have not typically been used jointly in decision making. However, as frameworks, they have a natural—but to date underexplored—affinity. Both are policy and decision oriented in that they attempt to represent the consequences of resource management choices on outcomes of interest to stakeholders. Both adaptive management and ecosystem services analysis take an empirical approach to the analysis of ecological systems. This systems orientation is a byproduct of the fact that natural resource actions affect ecosystems—and corresponding societal outcomes—often across large geographic scales. Moreover, because both frameworks focus on resource systems, both must confront the analytical challenges of systems modeling—in terms of complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty.Given this affinity, the integration of ecosystem services analysis and adaptive management poses few conceptual hurdles. In this report, we synthesize discussions from two workshops that considered ways in which adaptive management approaches and ecosystem service concepts may be complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may lead to improved natural resource management outcomes. Although the literature on adaptive management and ecosystem services is vast and growing, the report focuses specifically on the integration of these two concepts rather than aiming to provide new definitions or an indepth review or primer of the concepts individually.Key issues considered include the bidirectional links between adaptive decision making and ecosystem services, as well as the potential benefits and inevitable challenges arising in the development and use of an integrated framework. Specifically, the workshops addressed the following questions:How can application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision process improve the outcomes of management and advance understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation?How can these concepts be integrated in concept and practice?What are the constraints and challenges to integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services?And, should the integration of these concepts be moved forward to wider application—and if so, how?

Abstract Human activity has significantly increased the deposition of nitrogen (N) on terrestrial ecosystems over pre‐industrial levels leading to a multitude of effects including losses of biodiversity, changes in ecosystem functioning, and impacts on human well‐being. It is challenging to explicitly link the level of deposition on an ecosystem to the cascade of ecological effects triggered and ecosystem services affected, because of the multitude of possible pathways in the N cascade. To address this challenge, we report on the activities of an expert workshop to synthesize information on N‐induced terrestrial eutrophication from the published literature and to link critical load exceedances with human beneficiaries by using the STressor–Ecological Production function–final ecosystem Services Framework and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS‐CS). We found 21 N critical loads were triggered by N deposition (ranging from 2 to 39 kg N·ha−1·yr−1), which cascaded to distinct beneficiary types through 582 individual pathways in the five ecoregions examined (Eastern Temperate Forests, Marine West Coast Forests, Northwestern Forested Mountains, North American Deserts, Mediterranean California). These exceedances ultimately affected 66 FEGS across a range of final ecosystem service categories (21 categories, e.g., changes in timber production, fire regimes, and native plant and animal communities) and 198 regional human beneficiaries of different types. Several different biological indicators were triggered in different ecosystems, including grasses and/or forbs (33% of all pathways), mycorrhizal communities (22%), tree species (21%), and lichen biodiversity (11%). Ecoregions with higher deposition rates for longer periods tended to have more numerous and varied ecological impacts (e.g., Eastern Temperate Forests, eight biological indicators) as opposed to other ecoregions (e.g., North American Deserts and Marine West Coast Forests each with one biological indicator). Nonetheless, although ecoregions differed by ecological effects from terrestrial eutrophication, the number of FEGS and beneficiaries impacted was similar across ecoregions. We found that terrestrial eutrophication affected all ecosystems examined, demonstrating the widespread nature of terrestrial eutrophication nationally. These results highlight which people and ecosystems are most affected according to present knowledge, and identify key uncertainties and knowledge gaps to be filled by future research.

There is a growing movement in government, environmental non -governmental organizations and the private sector to include ecosystem services in decision making. Adding ecosystem services into assessments implies measuring how much a change in ecological conditions affects people, social benefit, or value to society. Despite consensus around the general merit of accounting for ecosystem services, systematic guidance on what to measure and how is lacking. Current ecosystem services assessments often resort to biophysical proxies (e.g., area of wetland in a floodplain) or even disregard services that seem difficult to measure. Valuation, an important tool for assessing trade-offs and comparing outcomes, is also frequently omitted due to lack of data on social preferences, lack of expertise with valuation methods, or mistrust of valuation methods for non-market services. To address these shortcomings, we propose the use of a new type of indicator that explicitly reflects an ecosystem's capacity to provide benefits to society, ensuring that ecosystem services assessments measure outcomes that are demonstrably and directly relevant to human welfare. We call these Benefit-relevant indicators (BRIs) and describe a process for developing them using causal chains that link management decisions through ecological responses to effects on human well-being. BRIs identify what is valued and by whom, but stop short of valuation. A BRI for the ability of wetlands to ameliorate flooding would connect measures of the quantity and quality of wetland in a floodplain, as affected by wetlands management decisions, to the number of people or properties downstream that are vulnerable to flooding. BRIs can support monetary or non-monetary valuation, but are particularly useful when valuation will not be conducted; in such cases they serve as stand-alone measures of "what is valued" by particular beneficiaries. BRIs are valid measures of ecosystem services in that they are directly linked to human well-being. Flexibility in the development of BRIs helps to ensure that they are broadly applicable across practitioner and stakeholder communities and decision contexts.

This paper reviews literature on aesthetics and describes the development of vista and landscape aesthetics models. Spatially explicit variables were chosen to represent physical characteristics of natural landscapes that are important to aesthetic preferences. A vista aesthetics model evaluates the aesthetics of natural landscapes viewed from distances of more than 1000 m, and a landscape aesthetics model evaluates the aesthetic value of wetlands and forests within 1000 m from the viewer. Each of the model variables is quantified using spatially explicit metrics on a pixel‐specific basis within EcoAIM™, a geographic information system (GIS)–based ecosystem services (ES) decision analysis support tool. Pixel values are “binned” into ranked categories, and weights are assigned to select variables to represent stakeholder preferences. The final aesthetic score is the weighted sum of all variables and is assigned ranked values from 1 to 10. Ranked aesthetic values are displayed on maps by patch type and integrated within EcoAIM. The response of the aesthetic scoring in the models was tested by comparing current conditions in a discrete area of the facility with a Development scenario in the same area. The Development scenario consisted of two 6‐story buildings and a trail replacing natural areas. The results of the vista aesthetic model indicate that the viewshed area variable had the greatest effect on the aesthetics overall score. Results from the landscape aesthetics model indicate a 10% increase in overall aesthetics value, attributed to the increase in landscape diversity. The models are sensitive to the weights assigned to certain variables by the user, and these weights should be set to reflect regional landscape characteristics as well as stakeholder preferences. This demonstration project shows that natural landscape aesthetics can be evaluated as part of a nonmonetary assessment of ES, and a scenario‐building exercise provides end users with a tradeoff analysis in support of natural resource management decisions. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:926–938. © 2017 SETAC.

The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects imperiled species by prohibiting harm to listed species and their habitat. Over the last 20 years, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have developed programs to increase management flexibility under the ESA and to encourage voluntary conservation actions by the private sector — above and beyond what is required for ESA compliance. These programs include Candidate Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements, and a new Prelisting Conservation Policy, among others. Why would private landowners and firms voluntarily engage in proactive conservation efforts? We address that question by exploring the incentives created by ESA programs, using a return on investment (ROI) framework to identify the costs and benefits of participation. The paper is relevant to firms affected by current or potential species listings. It is also relevant to NGO and government conservation advocates interested in encouraging more conservation by the private sector. The analysis sheds light on factors likely to affect participation, programs’ likely effectiveness, ways to better target partnering or cost-share engagements with the private sector, and the design of future programs to achieve conservation goals.

This paper provides a history of two important federal initiatives that call for ecosystem services analysis to support government decision-making: the Conservation Title of the 2008 Farm Bill and the 2012 US Forest Service's Forest Planning Rule. The history shows that an ecosystem services-based approach to resource management not only cleared the significant political, legal, and institutional hurdles associated with national legislation and regulatory reform, but also contributed directly to the reforms' success. However, the history also suggests that it may be difficult to more broadly replicate ecosystem services statutory and regulatory mandates across federal environmental programs.

•Little of the abundant ecosystem services research can directly support decisions.•Researchers can make their research more relevant for decision makers.•Relevance is increased by the use of benefit relevant indicators (BRIs).•Decision makers require methods that balance quality and feasibility.

Natural and managed ecosystems provide food, water, and other valuable services to human societies. Unnoticed by many in the scientific community, the values associated with ecosystem services have been integrated into U.S. government policy. A recent administration memo ([ 1 ][1]) put U.S. federal

This paper describes the programs and processes of a new center designed to enhance interdisciplinary team effectiveness and the building of new communities of social and natural scientists undertaking socio-environmental synthesis research. The theory and organizational structure of the center is motivated by research on interdisciplinary team science from diverse social science fields. A set of core practices was developed to catalyze the formation of new teams, facilitate team development of shared conceptual frameworks and provide customized support for teams that have challenging methodological, computational, or group dynamic issues. The vast majority of the 58 teams thus far have self-reported good progress and positive team experiences and have published extensively. Most teams took advantage of one or more forms of customized support: 21% of the teams used facilitation services, 38% support for meeting design or for resolving problems that hindered team progress, and 46% of teams used advanced computational support. Throughout, we describe the most common problems teams encountered and provide perspectives on factors and practices that may best promote positive interdisciplinary outcomes on synthesis research by teams of social and natural scientists.

Land and natural resource conservation programs are increasingly being evaluated on the basis of their return on investment (ROI). Conservation ROI analysis quantitatively measures the costs, benefits, and risks of investments, which allows conservation organizations to rank or prioritize them. This article surveys the literature in this area. We organize our discussion around the way studies treat the core elements of ROI, which include the definition and measurement of the conservation objective, identification of relevant baselines, the types of conservation investments considered, and investment costs. We discuss the state of the art of ROI analysis, highlight some unresolved issues, and make suggestions for improvements. We also describe options for extending ROI analysis beyond biodiversity conservation, which is the typical objective. The literature indicates that conservation planning that uses ROI analysis can considerably alter the location and targets of conservation, lead to more protection and higher quality conservation outcomes, and result in significant savings. The measurement and prediction of baseline ecological conditions and threats remains a central challenge for conservation ROI analysis, as does accounting for landowner and developer responses to conservation investments. Another key priority for future research is the identification of ways to more comprehensively incorporate ecosystem services and multiple environmental objectives into the assessment framework. (JEL: Q20, Q30, Q51, Q57).