Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, state and regional governments have given greater attention to the social and ecological benefits of ecosystem restoration, largely because it fulfills their dual mandates of protecting public goods and protecting the public. Natural resource managers, however, have little training in integrating social and ecological data to prioritize multi-benefit restoration strategies. This study sought to 1) understand how watershed restoration groups in the Puget Sound basin make strategic funding decisions and in what ways they considered human wellbeing in their planning and 2) experiment with three pathways for integrating human wellbeing and ecosystem service data to prioritize restoration activities that cumulatively contribute to both ecosystem service and human wellbeing outcomes. We answered the first question by conducting semi-structured interviews that included a cognitive map activity with 37 individuals from nine watershed boards that make biennial funding decisions for restoration priorities. The second component was addressed using participatory research with four of the nine boards, taking detailed notes as the research team facilitated the use of three tools to structure decisions: Consequence Tables (from DASEES), Bayesian (from DASEES), and spatial overlays of human wellbeing trends and ecosystem services (from EnviroAtlas and regional data).
Results/Conclusions
We found that while social and economic benefits are embedded as evaluative criteria within agency-prescribed decision-making tools, none of the nine watershed groups explicitly emphasize human wellbeing in their decision making because they don’t have the resources, stakeholders, understanding, or support to adequately do so. All recognized common factors needed for such integration (1) access to and knowledge of data, (2) experience and understanding of human wellbeing and social science more broadly, (3) understanding socio-ecological linkages, (4) the presence of structures or systems that inform their decision making (e.x.: planning processes, prescribed decision-making tools), and (5) stakeholder inclusion and equity. While most watershed groups tend to share enabling factors to human wellbeing integration, there are some distinctions, reflecting local group or place-based variations. The use of both consequence tables from DASEES and spatial overlays from EnviroAtlas and regional monitoring data will be used by some, but not all of the groups due to limit capacity in their annual workplans, technological confidence of the lead restoration planner, and willingness to engage with new planning terminology.
This study may guide institutions in this and other regions that are still grappling with how to integrate social and ecological benefits into resource management decisions.