Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes

Alan D Steinman; Bradley J Cardinale; Wayne R Munns Jr; Mary E Ogdahl; J David Allan; Ted Angadi; Sarah Bartlett; Kate Brauman; Muruleedhara Byappanahalli; Matt Doss; Diane Dupont; Annie Johns; Donna Kashian; Frank Lupi; Peter McIntyre; Todd Miller; Michael Moore; Rebecca Logsdon Muenich; Rajendra Poudel; James Price; Bill Provencher; Anne Rea; Jennifer Read; Steven Renzetti; Brent Sohngen; Erika Washburn

doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2017.02.004

Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes

J Great Lakes Res. 2017 Jun 1;43(3):161-168. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2017.02.004.

Authors

Alan D Steinman¹, Bradley J Cardinale², Wayne R Munns Jr³, Mary E Ogdahl², J David Allan⁴, Ted Angadi⁵, Sarah Bartlett⁶, Kate Brauman⁷, Muruleedhara Byappanahalli⁸, Matt Doss⁹, Diane Dupont¹⁰, Annie Johns¹¹, Donna Kashian¹², Frank Lupi¹³, Peter McIntyre¹⁴, Todd Miller¹⁵, Michael Moore⁴, Rebecca Logsdon Muenich¹⁶, Rajendra Poudel¹⁷, James Price¹⁸, Bill Provencher¹⁹, Anne Rea²⁰, Jennifer Read¹⁶, Steven Renzetti¹⁰, Brent Sohngen²¹, Erika Washburn²²

Affiliations

¹ Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University, Muskegon, MI 49441, USA.
² Cooperative Institute of Limnology and Ecosystems Research and School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
³ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA.
⁴ School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
⁵ Mid-Continent Ecology Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN 55812, USA.
⁶ School of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
⁷ Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
⁸ Great Lakes Science Center, United States Geological Survey, Chesterton, IN 46304, USA.
⁹ Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Economics, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada.
¹¹ Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA, Washington, DC 20230, USA.
¹² Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
¹³ Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
¹⁴ Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
¹⁵ School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
¹⁶ Graham Sustainability Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
¹⁷ Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN, USA.
¹⁸ US Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Technology Division, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
¹⁹ Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
²⁰ Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
²¹ Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. USA.
²² Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, University of Wisconsin Extension, Superior, WI 54880, USA.

Abstract

A comprehensive inventory of ecosystem services across the entire Great Lakes basin is currently lacking and is needed to make informed management decisions. A greater appreciation and understanding of ecosystem services, including both use and non-use services, may have avoided misguided resource management decisions in the past that have resulted in legacies inherited by future generations. Given the interest in ecosystem services and lack of a coherent approach to addressing this topic in the Great Lakes, a summit was convened involving 28 experts working on various aspects of ecosystem services in the Great Lakes. The invited attendees spanned a variety of social and natural sciences. Given the unique status of the Great Lakes as the world's largest collective repository of surface freshwater, and the numerous stressors threatening this valuable resource, timing was propitious to examine ecosystem services. Several themes and recommendations emerged from the summit. There was general consensus that 1) a comprehensive inventory of ecosystem services throughout the Great Lakes is a desirable goal but would require considerable resources; 2) more spatially and temporally intensive data are needed to overcome our data gaps, but the arrangement of data networks and observatories must be well-coordinated; 3) trade-offs must be considered as part of ecosystem services analyses; and 4) formation of a Great Lakes Institute for Ecosystem Services, to provide a hub for research, meetings, and training is desirable. Several challenges also emerged during the summit, which are discussed in the paper.

Keywords: Ecosystem services; Laurentian Great Lakes; use and non-use values.

Grants and funding

EPA999999/Intramural EPA/United States