We sat down with WHSRN’s Isadora Angarita-Martínez to find out how she was originally inspired to work in Ecosystem Services, and how she envisions their growing role in shorebird conservation. Curious how the WHSRN Executive Office can support Ecosystem Service Assessments at your site? Read on!
Maina Handmaker: How did you first get involved with Ecosystem Services?
Isadora Angarita-Martínez: I studied biology in university, and came to a moment in my career when I realized my dream was not to be a scientist. There are so many scientists doing important research in the world, and I wanted to work to put that science to use for conservation.
Between 2007 and 2009, I was working in Cambodia on the conservation of endangered and traded species. We mainly worked in “preservation” – keeping natural places as they are without letting people use them. But this was something I felt very conflicted about, because despite the value of preserving these places, the local people had depended on these protected areas for their livelihoods for generations and generations. I wanted to figure out a way to allow protected areas to be used sustainably by local communities. As it turns out, this is very connected to Ecosystem Services work, but I didn’t know this at the time!
Isadora leads a group in the field sampling process to evaluate how grasslands contribute to global climate regulation, while at the same time training these biology students in the evaluation of ecosystem services. Photos: Raquel Carvalho, SAVE Brasil.
MH: How did you discover Ecosystem Services as the framework for your career and conservation goals?
IAM: After working in Southeast Asia, I began my Master’s in Conservation Leadership at the University of Cambridge in the UK. The program was a collaboration with BirdLife International, Flora and Fauna International, and several other NGOs. BirdLife was in the final stages of developing the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA), and needed practitioners to test it. I was learning so much from BirdLife’s Ecosystem Services Officer that I decided to focus on Ecosystem Services for my Mater’s Project. For this Master’s project I was placed with the Wildlife Conservation Society in Colombia (WCS Colombia). I conducted an opportunity analysis to help them find a distinct and effective role to play alongside other NGOs doing Ecosystem Services work in the country. I learned a lot about Ecosystem Services in Colombia through that process. It was during this time that I applied for my job at BirdLife International, and was hired to begin after completing my project with WCS.
MH: How did Ecosystem Services play into your role with BirdLife International?
IAM: I worked as the Americas Flyways Coordinator for the BirdLife International Americas Secretariat as they were beginning to implement TESSA, and I helped them conduct the first Ecosystem Services Assessment in the Americas using the Toolkit, in Ecuador. Even after this process, I felt I did not fully understand the depth and reach of TESSA. To improve my knowledge of how to use the Toolkit, I went through a training in the UK and spoke with Ecosystem Services officers from many NGOs doing bird conservation in the UK and abroad. This helped me contribute to many more Ecosystem Service Assessments, and I grew more confident with the Toolkit through projects in places like the Dominican Republic, the wetlands of the high Andes, and advising Asociación Calidris on their bird-friendly rice project in my native Colombia. I also helped conduct an Ecosystem Service Assessment for grasslands important for Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Calidris subruficollis) in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina.
A Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Calidris subruficollis) at the WHSRN Site Bahía Samborombón in Argentina. Photo: Brad Winn.
MH: Can you describe a project where you witnessed Ecosystem Services help unite groups of stakeholders with very different priorities?
IAM: The project I mentioned in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina is a great example. We were working with the Alianza del Pastizal (The Grasslands Alliance) to help cattle ranchers interested in maintaining their traditional ranching practices. The beef industry wasn’t paying them enough, so many ranchers were forced to sell or rent their land for soy production. This conversion to large-scale monocrop agriculture was quickly destroying habitat for many resident and migratory birds, including grassland shorebirds like Buff-breasted Sandpiper and Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). We needed numbers to prove that ranches following the practices of the Grasslands Alliance were providing more ecosystem services than ranches that were not members of the Alliance. The Ecosystem Services Assessment not only helped gather this data, but it brought together cattle ranchers and bird conservationists towards a shared goal – one that helped achieve the priorities of both groups.
Healthy ecosystems benefit human well-being. Visit our Ecosystem Services page to learn more about the importance of assessing ecosystem services, and how the WHSRN Executive Office can help. Diagram: WHSRN Executive Office
MH: Your role on the WHSRN Executive Office team is Conservation Specialist with a focus on Ecosystem Service Assessments. WHSRN Site Partners and anyone curious to learn more can visit the Ecosystem Services page of our website to learn more about how you can support sites through this process. What are the three main points you want WHSRN sites to consider about Ecosystem Services?
IAM: Here’s what I think is important to remember:
- Ecosystem Services are not Ecosystem Services unless they are benefiting people. The official definition is the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing. If human communities are not benefiting from a certain ecosystem, there is no “ecosystem service” from that ecosystem. People and Ecosystem Services are inextricably linked.
- Assessing Ecosystem Services through a participatory process allows local communities and direct beneficiaries to get involved in the process. Their engagement enriches the process, as they can provide the best information on how they foresee changes to the ecosystem impacting them and their livelihoods.
- Assessing Ecosystem Services generates economic, social, and cultural arguments for the conservation of important sites for biodiversity.
MH: Speaking of those arguments in support of biodiversity conservation, do shorebirds provide ecosystem services?
IAM: In many cases, birds provide very valuable ecosystem services. But unlike some bird groups that are heralded for their services as pollinators or seed-dispersers, it can be more challenging to define ecosystem services provided by shorebirds. Shorebirds typically use areas that are also very used by people, such as beaches and wetlands, so we need to work to make people aware of the effects they are having on these habitats. The Ecosystem Services process can help us do that – but remember that, by definition, these services need to reflect the long-term benefit shorebird conservation can have on people’s livelihood and wellbeing, not only the argument that shorebirds are intrinsically valuable to ecosystems. Here are some examples:
- Nature-based recreation: globally, birdwatching represents the primary form of ecotourism, and in the United States alone, an estimated US $40.9 billion was spent on birding equipment and bird-trip-related expenses in 2011 (Carver 2013). Watching birds can be an important component of maintaining people’s connection to nature in a rapidly urbanizing world (Cox and Gaston 2016) and if managed correctly can have positive conservation outcomes (Șekercioğlu 2002).
- Cultural services: interactions with nature have been shown to provide a wide array of health and well-being benefits to people, including physical, mental, and social gains (Keniger et al. 2013, Hartig et al. 2014). Which components of nature are most important for these benefits is not well understood. However, interactions with birds have repeatedly been highlighted as contributing (Kaplan 2001, Keniger et al. 2013) because these can be visually and vocally conspicuous, and some can be attracted to feeders to provide positive nature experiences at close proximity (Cox and Gaston 2016). Studies have documented positive relationships between human well-being and real or perceived avian species richness (Fuller et al. 2007, Dallimer et al. 2012, Shwartz et al. 2014).
It would be great to hear from WHSRN site partners to help grow the list of Ecosystem Services provided by shorebirds in different habitats, communities, and ecosystems. If we have this argument ready, it is another tool to help bring diverse stakeholders together towards actions that support the conservation of shorebirds and their habitats.
Don’t forget to check out the Ecosystem Services page to learn about assessing Ecosystem Services at your site. Contact Isadora for more information about this Site Support service from the WHSRN Executive Office.
We want your help!
What benefits do shorebirds contribute to your site? What would you add to the list of Ecosystem Services provided by shorebirds?
Submit your ideas by contributing to the discussion on the Shorebird Forum.
Cover Photo: Short-billed Dowitchers (Limnodromus griseus) roosting in Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) during high tide. Photo: Maina Handmaker.
References:
- Carver E. 2013. Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis: Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. US Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Economics. [Google Scholar]
- Cox DTC, Gaston KJ. 2016. Urban bird feeding: Connecting people with nature. PLOS ONE11 (art. e0158717). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Şekercioğlu ÇH. 2002. Impacts of birdwatching on human and avian communities. Environmental Conservation29: 282–289. [Google Scholar]
- Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller RA. 2013. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health10: 913–935. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. 2014. Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health35: 207–228. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior33: 507–542. [Google Scholar]
- Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. 2007. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters3: 390–394. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Armsworth PR, Maltby L, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. 2012. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience62: 46–55. [Google Scholar]
- Shwartz A, Turbe A, Simon L, Julliard R. 2014. Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment. Biological Conservation171: 82–90. [Google Scholar]
