skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Ecosystem Services Connect Environmental Change to Human Health Outcomes

Abstract

Global environmental change, driven in large part by human activities, profoundly impacts the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). We are beginning to push beyond planetary boundaries (Steffan et al. 2015), and the consequences for human health remain largely unknown (Myers et al. 2013). Growing evidence suggests that ecological transformations can dramatically affect human health in ways that are both obvious and obscure (Myers and Patz 2009; Myers et al. 2013). The framework of ecosystem services, designed to evaluate the benefits that people derive from ecosystem products and processes, provides a compelling framework for integrating the many factors that influence the human health response to global change, as well as for integrating health impacts into broader analyses of the impacts of this change

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1333433
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-119124
Journal ID: ISSN 1612-9202
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: EcoHealth; Journal Volume: 13; Journal Issue: 3
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Bayles, Brett R., Brauman, Kate A., Adkins, Joshua N., Allan, Brian F., Ellis, Alicia M., Goldberg, Tony L., Golden, Christopher D., Grigsby-Toussaint, Diana S., Myers, Samuel S., Osofsky, Steven A., Ricketts, Taylor H., and Ristaino, Jean B. Ecosystem Services Connect Environmental Change to Human Health Outcomes. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1007/s10393-016-1137-5.
Bayles, Brett R., Brauman, Kate A., Adkins, Joshua N., Allan, Brian F., Ellis, Alicia M., Goldberg, Tony L., Golden, Christopher D., Grigsby-Toussaint, Diana S., Myers, Samuel S., Osofsky, Steven A., Ricketts, Taylor H., & Ristaino, Jean B. Ecosystem Services Connect Environmental Change to Human Health Outcomes. United States. doi:10.1007/s10393-016-1137-5.
Bayles, Brett R., Brauman, Kate A., Adkins, Joshua N., Allan, Brian F., Ellis, Alicia M., Goldberg, Tony L., Golden, Christopher D., Grigsby-Toussaint, Diana S., Myers, Samuel S., Osofsky, Steven A., Ricketts, Taylor H., and Ristaino, Jean B. 2016. "Ecosystem Services Connect Environmental Change to Human Health Outcomes". United States. doi:10.1007/s10393-016-1137-5.
@article{osti_1333433,
title = {Ecosystem Services Connect Environmental Change to Human Health Outcomes},
author = {Bayles, Brett R. and Brauman, Kate A. and Adkins, Joshua N. and Allan, Brian F. and Ellis, Alicia M. and Goldberg, Tony L. and Golden, Christopher D. and Grigsby-Toussaint, Diana S. and Myers, Samuel S. and Osofsky, Steven A. and Ricketts, Taylor H. and Ristaino, Jean B.},
abstractNote = {Global environmental change, driven in large part by human activities, profoundly impacts the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). We are beginning to push beyond planetary boundaries (Steffan et al. 2015), and the consequences for human health remain largely unknown (Myers et al. 2013). Growing evidence suggests that ecological transformations can dramatically affect human health in ways that are both obvious and obscure (Myers and Patz 2009; Myers et al. 2013). The framework of ecosystem services, designed to evaluate the benefits that people derive from ecosystem products and processes, provides a compelling framework for integrating the many factors that influence the human health response to global change, as well as for integrating health impacts into broader analyses of the impacts of this change},
doi = {10.1007/s10393-016-1137-5},
journal = {EcoHealth},
number = 3,
volume = 13,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Nitrogen (N) loading to aquatic ecosystems can lead to eutrophication, changing the ecosystem within a waterbody, including primary productivity, water clarity, and food web dynamics. Nutrient loading often first affects the primary productivity of aquatic systems through shifts in phytoplankton communities. However, ecologically important changes in phytoplankton are often not relatable to the general public—whose behavior would need to change to alter patterns of nutrient loading. Therefore, we use the STressor–Ecological Production function–final ecosystem Services Framework to develop 154 chains that link changes in biological indicators of aquatic eutrophication (a shift in phytoplankton community) to final ecosystem services that peoplemore » use or appreciate. We identify 13 ecological production functions (EPF) within three different ecosystems (alpine lakes, lakes, and estuaries) that connect changes in phytoplankton and algae to ecological endpoints that the general public and policy makers can appreciate. Using the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System, we identify 18 classes of human beneficiaries that potentially will be impacted by a change in one of these endpoints. We further assign strength-of-science scores to each link within the EPFs for the 154 chains according to how well each link is supported by current peer-reviewed literature. By identifying many pathways through which excess N loading in U.S. surface waters can affect ecosystems and ultimately the beneficiaries of ecosystem services, this work intends to draw attention to gaps in empirical ecological literature that constrain understanding of the magnitude of effects that excess N loading can have on human well-being. Here, results highlight the importance of intersections between the natural and social sciences when managers and policy makers evaluate impacts from ecological stressors. A balance between knowledgeable specialists proved key to applying this approach and will continue to remain important.« less
  • No abstract prepared.
  • We evaluated traditional and modified practices for abating lead-based paint in homes of children with blood-lead concentrations (PbB) greater than 1.4 mumol/L (greater than 29 micrograms/dl). Traditional abatement resulted in acute increases in: (1) lead contaminated house dust (generally 3 to 6-fold over pre-abatement levels, but at abated sites typically 10 to 100-fold); and (2) the PbBs of nearly half of the occupant children. Modified practices represented modest short-term improvement compared to traditional practices but were also inadequate. By six months, it was clear that neither form of abatement resulted in long-term reductions of PbB or house dust lead levels,more » leaving children at continued risk of excessive exposure to lead and permanent adverse neurobehavioral effects. Windows were found to be high sources of lead contaminated house dust. Recommendations are made for improved abatement practices including more complete abatement of window units and more effective clean-up to remove lead-bearing dust. Thirteen million US children live in lead-painted dwellings. Research is needed to identify abatement strategies that will be practical and well suited to the current understanding of low-level lead toxicity.« less
  • Internationally the inclusion of health within environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been shown to be limited. While Australian EIA documentation has not been studied empirically to date, deficiencies in practice have been documented. This research developed an audit tool to undertake a qualitative descriptive analysis of 22 Major Project EAs in New South Wales, Australia. Results showed that health and wellbeing impacts were not considered explicitly. They were, however, included indirectly in the identification of traditional public health exposures associated with the physical environment and to a lesser extent the inclusion of social and economic impacts. However, no health datamore » was used to inform any of the assessments, there was no reference to causal pathways between exposures or determinants and physical or mental health effects, and there was no inclusion of the differential distribution of exposures or health impacts on different populations. The results add conceptually and practically to the long standing integration debate, showing that health is in a position to add value to the EIA process as an explicit part of standard environmental, social and economic considerations. However, to overcome the consistently documented barriers to integrating health in EIA, capacity must be developed amongst EIA professionals, led by the health sector, to progress health related knowledge and tools.« less