Browsing by Author "Tallis, Heather"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7

Open Access
Best Practices for Integrating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making
(2015-07-20) Olander, Lydia; Johnston, Robert; Tallis, Heather; Kagan, Jimmy; Maguire, Lynn; Polasky, Steve; Urban, Dean; Boyd, James; Wainger, Lisa; Palmer, Margaret
Federal agencies take many actions that influence ecosystem conditions and change the provision of ecosystem services valued by the public. To date, most decisions affecting ecosystems have relied on ecological assessments with little or no consideration of the value of ecosystem services. Best practice for ecosystem services assessments is to apply quantitative measures and methods that express both an ecosystem’s capacity to provide valued services and, through those services, social benefit (value). Although preference evaluation methods are well established, their implementation can be infeasible because of time or resource constraints, particularly when new data need to be collected. In such cases, the minimum standard recommended for an ecosystem services assessment is to use measures that go beyond narrative description and that are carefully constructed to reflect the ecosystem’s capacity to provide benefits to society but that stop short of a formal assessment of people’s preferences. These measures of ecosystem services are benefit-relevant indicators (BRIs). Their use ensures that ecosystem services assessments measure outcomes that are demonstrably relevant to human welfare, rather than biophysical measures that might not be relevant to human welfare. If ecosystem service values or BRIs are not used in some manner, ecosystem services are not being assessed, and no direct insights can be drawn about effects on social welfare. This minimum best practice is broadly achievable across agencies and decision contexts with current capacity and resources.
Open Access
Bigger Change Faster
(2019-09) Mason, Sara; Olander, Lydia; Goldstein, Joshua; Tallis, Heather; Linou, Natalia; Snall, Roy; Huikuri, Suvi; Kreis, Katherine; Ringler, Claudia; Jacobs, Christine; Kelso, Megan; Zobrist, Stephanie
Today’s greatest sustainable development challenges can only be solved if we work together more effectively across the global development, health, and environmental communities. This report, co-authored by the Bridge Collaborative and UNDP, highlights three global challenges that require cross-sector solutions, and actions that can be taken now to drive bigger change faster for people and the world we share. A workbook drawn from this report, Delivering Bigger Change Faster: A Workbook on Strengthening Proposals for Projects With Cross-sector Impacts, Version 2.0 was published in June 2021.
Open Access
Bridge Collaborative Practitioner’s Guide: Principles and Guidance for Cross-sector Action Planning and Evidence Evaluation
(2017-10-25) Tallis, Heather; Kreis, Katharine; Olander, Lydia; Ringler, Claudia
The health, development and environment sectors increasingly realize that they cannot achieve their respective goals by acting in isolation. Yet, as they pivot to act collectively, they face challenges in finding and interpreting evidence on sectoral interrelationships, and thus in developing effective evidence-based responses. Each sector already uses some form of evidence-based research, design and action planning, but methods vary and ideas about the strength of evidence differ, creating stumbling blocks in the way of cross-sector impact. A new initiative, called the Bridge Collaborative, sets out to spark cross-sector problem solving by developing common approaches that the three sectors could agree to and use. Specifically, the collaborative has focused on two linked areas of practice that could unlock cross sector collaboration – results chains and the evaluation of supporting evidence. Through this process, the collaborative has provided a platform for dialogue and collaboration among professionals from across these sectors, allowing for face-to-face interaction and discussion to build professional networks. This document captures a set of principles identified and used by the Collaborative, along with a detailed set of guidance for creating comparable results chains across sectors and evaluating evidence from multiple disciplines in common terms. These principles and guidance reflect novel contributions from the Bridge Collaborative as well as restatements of existing recommendations that resonated among health, development and environment researchers and practitioners.
Open Access
Building Ecosystem Services Conceptual Models
(2018-09-05) Olander, Lydia; Mason, Sara; Warnell, Katie; Tallis, Heather
Funders and developers of infrastructure projects and businesses and managers overseeing critical natural resources are becoming increasingly aware of and interested in ecosystem services. Although methods for incorporating ecosystem services into decisions have been established through academic research, practical guidance for how to do so in the quick, simple, transparent, and low-cost, feasible ways often required for widespread implementation are just now under development. One tool that can support widespread implementation is the use of ecosystem services conceptual models, which can underpin both simple and complex methods while helping to improve consistency and credibility. These conceptual models link changes caused by an external stressor or intervention through the ecological system to socio-economic and human well-being outcomes. Ecosystem services conceptual models can be developed for any given site and intervention or created as reference models for a general type of intervention across sites. This report facilitates development and use of evidence-based ecosystem services conceptual models in federal decision making by presenting a “how-to” guide and illustrative examples.
Open Access
Evidence-Based Causal Chains for Linking Health, Development, and Conservation Actions.
(Bioscience, 2018-03) Qiu, Jiangxiao; Game, Edward T; Tallis, Heather; Olander, Lydia P; Glew, Louise; Kagan, James S; Kalies, Elizabeth L; Michanowicz, Drew; Phelan, Jennifer; Polasky, Stephen; Reed, James; Sills, Erin O; Urban, Dean; Weaver, Sarah Kate
Sustainability challenges for nature and people are complex and interconnected, such that effective solutions require approaches and a common theory of change that bridge disparate disciplines and sectors. Causal chains offer promising approaches to achieving an integrated understanding of how actions affect ecosystems, the goods and services they provide, and ultimately, human well-being. Although causal chains and their variants are common tools across disciplines, their use remains highly inconsistent, limiting their ability to support and create a shared evidence base for joint actions. In this article, we present the foundational concepts and guidance of causal chains linking disciplines and sectors that do not often intersect to elucidate the effects of actions on ecosystems and society. We further discuss considerations for establishing and implementing causal chains, including nonlinearity, trade-offs and synergies, heterogeneity, scale, and confounding factors. Finally, we highlight the science, practice, and policy implications of causal chains to address real-world linked human-nature challenges.
Open Access
GEMS Phase I Report: Oyster Reef Restoration
(2020-02-03) Olander, Lydia; Shepard, Christine; Tallis, Heather; Yoskowitz, David; Coffey, Kara; Hale, Chris; Karasik, Rachel; Mason, Sara; Warnell, Katie; Williams, Lauren; Wowk, Katya
Billions of dollars will be spent on large-scale restoration of Gulf ecosystems over the coming decades, but there is no shared platform to guide assessment and reporting of restoration progress and effectiveness for the broad set of environmental, social, and economic goals shared by the many institutions working in the Gulf. The diversity of these goals—including habitat restoration, water quality improvement, marine resource protection, community resilience, and economic revitalization—means that a variety of metrics are needed to fully evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects. A set of common models and metrics relevant across projects, programs, and locations can facilitate effective project planning and evaluation. While there are existing efforts to collate and standardize ecological and biophysical metrics for Gulf restoration projects (GOMA Monitoring Community of Practice; NRDA Monitoring and Adaptive Management Manual), there is no current effort to do the same for the social, economic, and human well-being outcomes of restoration. This project aims to do that. The GEMS (Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio-Economic Indicators) project aims to advance standardized metrics of restoration success by developing ecosystem service logic models (ESLMs) with stakeholders from the five Gulf states, relevant federal agencies, and technical experts. ESLMs trace the effects of restoration strategies as they influence ecological and social systems to create outcomes that are important to people. The use of logic models is recommended by the National Academies of Science as best practice for monitoring plan design; these models can provide a practical and transferable approach for measuring success at different scales. The GEMS team will develop ESLMs and metrics for a wide range of coastal restoration approaches over the course of the project. This report presents the results of the first phase of the GEMS project, which focused on oyster reef restoration. The Phase II report of the GEMS project identifies metrics available to monitor the social and economic outcomes of a wide variety of coastal projects funded in the Gulf, using ESLMs to illustrate how these projects’ impacts cascade through the biophysical system to result in social and economic outcomes.
Open Access
GEMS Phase II Report: Coastal Restoration
(2021-07-16) Olander, Lydia; Shepard, Christine; Tallis, Heather; Yoskowitz, David; Coffey, Kara; Hale, Chris; Karasik, Rachel; Mason, Sara; Warnell, Katie
Billions of dollars will be spent on large-scale restoration of Gulf ecosystems over the coming decades, but there is currently no shared platform to guide assessment and reporting of restoration progress and effectiveness for the broad set of environmental, social, and economic goals shared by the many institutions working in the Gulf. This report, a product of the Bridge Collaborative — Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, The Harte Research Institute, and The Nature Conservancy, with support from the National Academies' Gulf Research Program — is a part of a project to advance standardized metrics of restoration success by developing ecosystem service logic models (ESLMs) with stakeholders from the five Gulf states, relevant federal agencies, and technical experts. ESLMs trace the effects of restoration strategies as they influence ecological and social systems to create outcomes that are important to people. The use of logic models is recommended by the National Academies of Science as a best practice for monitoring plan design; these models can provide a practical and transferable approach for measuring success at different scales. Numerous strategies for coastal restoration exist, and there are many places along the Gulf coast where restoration can be implemented. ESLMs are a great tool to compare across restoration strategies and locations to match likely restoration outcomes with stakeholder goals. In addition, evidence that accompanies these models can be used to clarify uncertainties that need to be considered and to identify critical research gaps. This Phase II report of the GEMS project identifies metrics available to monitor the social and economic outcomes of a wide variety of coastal projects funded in the Gulf, using ESLMs to illustrate how these projects’ impacts cascade through the biophysical system to result in social and economic outcomes. Phase II expands the focus to assess socioeconomic metrics for 16 coastal project types, including habitat restoration, recreational enhancement, and water quality improvement projects. This report follows the Phase I report, which focused on understanding the various types of oyster reef restoration occurring in the Gulf and how those projects contribute to social and economic well-being.