fbpx
Wikipedia

Ecosystem management

Ecosystem management is an approach to natural resource management that aims to ensure the long-term sustainability and persistence of an ecosystem's function and services while meeting socioeconomic, political, and cultural needs.[1][2][3] Although indigenous communities have employed sustainable ecosystem management approaches implicitly for millennia, ecosystem management emerged explicitly as a formal concept in the 1990s from a growing appreciation of the complexity of ecosystems and of humans' reliance and influence on natural systems (e.g., disturbance and ecological resilience).[4][5]

Prescribed burning is a technique used in ecosystem management. This indirectly benefits society via the maintenance of ecosystem services and the reduction of severe wildfires.

Building upon traditional natural resource management, ecosystem management integrates ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional knowledge and priorities through diverse stakeholder participation.[6] In contrast to command and control approaches to natural resource management, which often lead to declines in ecological resilience, ecosystem management is a holistic, adaptive method for evaluating and achieving resilience and sustainability. As such, implementation is context-dependent and may take a number of forms including adaptive management, strategic management, and landscape-scale conservation.[1][3][7]

Formulations edit

 
 
El Yunque National Forest 5 months pre-Hurricane Maria (top) and 7 months after the hurricane (bottom). Although ecosystem management goals often differ on their specifics, achieving resilience to disturbance is a common aim.

The term “ecosystem management” was formalized in 1992 by F. Dale Robertson, former Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Robertson stated, “By ecosystem management, we mean an ecological approach… [that] must blend the needs of people and environmental values in such a way that the National Forests and Grasslands represent diverse, healthy, productive and sustainable ecosystems.”[8]

A variety of additional definitions of ecosystem management exist.[7] For example, Robert T. Lackey emphasizes that ecosystem management is informed by ecological and social factors, is motivated by societal benefits, and is implemented over a specific timeframe and area.[7] F. Stuart Chapin and co-authors emphasize that ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services,[9] while Norman Christensen and coauthors emphasize that it is motivated by defined goals, employs adaptive practices, and accounts for the complexities of ecological systems.[10] Peter Brussard and colleagues emphasize that ecosystem management balances preserving ecosystem health while sustaining human needs.[11]

As a concept of natural resource management, ecosystem management remains both ambiguous and controversial, in part because some of its formulations rest on contested policy and scientific assertions.[12] These assertions are important for understanding much of the conflict surrounding ecosystem management. For instance, some allege that professional natural resource managers, typically operating from within government bureaucracies and professional organizations, mask debate over controversial assertions by depicting ecosystem management as an evolution of past management approaches.

Principles of ecosystem management edit

A fundamental concern of ecosystem management is the long-term sustainability of the production of goods and services by ecosystems,[9] as "intergenerational sustainability [is] a precondition for management, not an afterthought."[10] Ideally, there should be clear, publicly stated goals with respect to future trajectories and behaviors of the system being managed. Other important requirements include a sound ecological understanding of the system including ecological dynamics and the context in which the system is embedded. An understanding of the role of humans as components of the ecosystems and the use of adaptive management is also important.[10] While ecosystem management can be used as part of a plan for wilderness conservation, it can also be used in intensively managed ecosystems (e.g., agroecosystems and close to nature forestry).[10]

Core principles and common themes of ecosystem management:[7][13]

  1. Systems thinking: Management has a holistic perspective rather than focusing on a particular level of biological hierarchy in an ecosystem (e.g., only conserving a specific species or only preserving ecosystem functioning).
  2. Ecological boundaries: Ecological boundaries are clearly and formally defined, and management is place-based.
  3. Ecological integrity: Management is focused on maintaining or reintroducing native biological diversity and on preserving natural disturbance regimes and other key processes that sustain resilience.
  4. Data collection: Broad ecological research and data collection is needed to inform effective management (e.g., species diversity, habitat types, disturbance regimes, etc.).
  5. Monitoring: The impacts of management methods are tracked, allowing for their outcomes to be evaluated and modified, if needed.
  6. Adaptive management: Management is an iterative process in which methods are continuously reevaluated as new scientific knowledge is gained.
  7. Interagency cooperation: As ecological boundaries often cross administrative boundaries, management often requires cooperation among a range of agencies and private stakeholders.
  8. Organizational change: Successful implementation of management requires shifts in the structure and operation of land management agencies.
  9. Humans and nature: Nature and people are intrinsically linked and humans shape, and are shaped by, ecological processes.
  10. Values: Humans play a key role in guiding management goals, which reflect a stage in the continuing evolution of social values and priorities.

History edit

 
Sustainable harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs maintains the species' population size, while preserving traditional Huna Tlingit customs.

Pre-industrialization edit

Sustainable ecosystem management approaches have been used by societies throughout human history. Prior to colonization, indigenous cultures often sustainably managed their natural resources through intergenerational traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). In TEK, cultures acquire knowledge of their environment over time and this information is passed on to future generations through cultural customs including folklore, religion, and taboos.[14][4] Traditional management strategies vary by region; examples include the burning of the longleaf pine ecosystem by Native Americans in what is today the southeastern United States,[15] the ban of seabird guano harvest during the breeding season by the Inca,[16] the sustainable harvest practices of glaucous-winged gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit,[17] and the Maya milpa intercropping approach (which is still used today).[18]

Post-industrialization edit

In industrialized Western society, ecosystems have been managed primarily to maximize yields of a particular natural resource.[5] This method for managing ecosystems can be seen in the U.S. Forest Service's shift away from sustaining ecosystem health and toward maximizing timber production to support residential development following World War II.[19] Furthermore, natural resource management has typically assumed a view that each ecosystem has a single best equilibrium and that minimizing variation around this equilibrium results in more dependable, greater yields of natural resources.[20][4] For example, this perspective informed the long-held belief in forest fire suppression in the United States, which drove a decline in populations of fire-tolerant species and a buildup of fuel, leading to higher intensity fires.[21] Additionally, these approaches to managing natural systems tended to (a) be site- and species-specific, rather than considering all components of an ecosystem collectively, (b) employ a “command and control” approach, and (c) exclude stakeholders from management decisions.[3]

The latter half of the 20th century saw a paradigm shift in how ecosystems were viewed, with a growing appreciation for the importance of ecological disturbance and for the intrinsic link between natural resources and overall ecosystem health.[5] Simultaneously, there was acknowledgment of society's reliance on ecosystem services (beyond provisioning goods) and of the inextricable role human-environment interactions play in ecosystems.[22][23] In sum, ecosystems were increasingly seen as complex systems shaped by non-linear and stochastic processes, and thus, they could not be managed to achieve single, fully predictable outcomes.[20] As a result of these complexities and often unforeseeable feedback from management strategies, DeFries and Nagendra deemed ecosystem management to be a “wicked problem”.[5] Thus, the outcome of natural resource management's "evolution" over the course of the 20th century is ecosystem management, which explicitly recognizes that technical and scientific knowledge, though necessary in all approaches to natural resource management, are insufficient in themselves.[3]

Stakeholders edit

Stakeholders are individuals or groups who are affected by or have an interest in ecosystem management decisions and actions.[24] Stakeholders may also have power to influence the goals, policies, and outcomes of management.[24] Ecosystem management stakeholders fall into the following groups based on their diverse concerns:[3]

  1. Stakeholders whose lives are directly tied to the ecosystem (e.g., members of local community)
  2. Stakeholders who are not directly impacted, but have an interest in the ecosystem or its ecosystem services (e.g., NGOs, recreational groups)
  3. Stakeholders concerned with the decision-making processes (e.g., environmental advocacy groups)
  4. Stakeholders funding management plans (e.g., taxpayers, funding agencies)
  5. Stakeholders representing public interest (e.g., public officials)
 
Stakeholders implementing sustainability by planting trees in an area of deforestation. This is important to the stakeholder label due to the fact that stakeholders are individuals or groups who are affected by or have an interest in ecosystem management decisions and actions.

Strategies to stakeholder participation edit

The complexity of ecosystem management decisions, ranging from local to international scales, requires the participation of stakeholders with diverse understandings, perceptions, and values of ecosystems and ecosystem services.[25][26] Due to these complexities, effective ecosystem management is flexible and develops reciprocal trust around issues of common interest, with the objective of creating mutually beneficial partnerships.[27] Key attributes of successful participatory ecosystem management efforts have been identified:[26][6]

  • Stakeholder involvement is inclusive, equitable, and focused on trust-building and empowerment.
  • Stakeholders are engaged early on, and their involvement continues beyond decision and into management.
  • Stakeholder analysis is performed to ensure parties are appropriately represented. This involves determining the stakeholders involved in the management issue; categorizing stakeholders based on their interest in and influence on the issue; and evaluating relationships between stakeholders.[24]
  • Stakeholders agree upon the aims of the participatory process from its beginning, and the means and extent of stakeholder participation are case-specific.
  • Stakeholder participation is conducted through skilled facilitation.
  • Social, economic, and ecological goals are equally weighed, and stakeholders are actively involved in decision making, which is arrived at by collective consensus.
  • Stakeholders continually monitor management plan’s effectiveness.
  • Multidisciplinary data are collected, reflecting multidisciplinary priorities, and decisions are informed by both local and scientific knowledge.
  • Economic incentives are provided to parties responsible for implementing management plans.
  • To ensure long-term stakeholder involvement, participation is institutionalized.
 
Ecosystem management decisions for the Malpai Borderlands were determined through active participation of diverse stakeholder groups.

Examples of stakeholder participation edit

Malpai Borderland management:

In the early 1990s, there was ongoing conflict between the ranching and environmentalist communities in the Malpai Borderlands.[3][6] The former group was concerned about sustaining their livelihoods, while the latter was concerned about the environmental impacts of livestock grazing.[28] The groups found common ground around conserving and restoring rangeland, and diverse stakeholders, including ranchers, environmental groups, scientists, and government agencies, were engaged in management discussions. In 1994, the rancher-led Malpai Borderlands Group was created to collaboratively pursue the goals of ecosystem protection, management, and restoration.[6][28]

Helge å River & Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve:

In the 1980s, local government agencies and environmental groups noted declines in the health of the Helge å River ecosystem, including eutrophication, bird population declines, and deterioration of flooded meadows areas.[29][30] There was concern that the Helge å, a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance, faced an imminent tipping point. In 1989, led by a municipal organization, a collaborative management strategy was adopted, involving diverse stakeholders concerned with the ecological, social, and economic facets of the ecosystem. The Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve was established in 2005 to promote the preservation of the ecosystem's socio-ecological services.[29][30]

Strategies to ecosystem management edit

Several strategies to implementing the maintenance and restoration of natural and human-modified ecosystem exist. Command and control management and traditional natural resource management are the precursors to ecosystem management. Adaptive management, strategic management, and landscape-level conservation are different methodologies and processes involved in implementing ecosystem management:[3]

Command and control management edit

 
Wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park in January 1995. Observed increases in ecological resilience since wolf return demonstrate the potential cascading impacts of command and control management.

Command and control management utilizes a linear problem solving approach, in which a perceived problem is resolved through controlling devices such as laws, threats, contracts, and/or agreements.[20] This top-down approach is used across many disciplines, and it is best suited for addressing relatively simple, well-defined problems, which have a clear cause and effect, and for which there is broad societal agreement as to policy and management goals.[31] In the context of natural systems, command and control management attempts to control nature in order to improve natural resource extractions, establish predictability, and reduce threats.[20] Command and control strategies include the use of herbicides and pesticides to improve crop yields;[20] the culling of predators to protect game bird species;[32] and the safeguarding of timber supply, by suppressing forest fires.[21]

However, due to the complexities of ecological systems, command and control management may result in unintended consequences.[3] For example, wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1920s to reduce elk predation. Long-term studies of wolf, elk, and tree populations since wolf reintroduction in 1995 demonstrate that reintroduction has decreased elk populations, improving tree species recruitment.[33] Thus, by controlling ecosystems to limit natural variation and increase predictability, command and control management often leads to a decline the resilience of ecological, social, and economic systems, termed the “pathology of natural resource management”.[20] In this “pathology”, an initially successful command and control practice drives relevant institutions to shift their focus toward control, over time obscuring the ecosystem’s natural behavior, while the economy becomes reliant on the system in its controlled state.[3] Consequently, there has been a transition away from command and control management, and increased focus on more holistic adaptive management approaches and on arriving at management solutions through partnerships between stakeholders.[31]

Natural resource management edit

 
Shelterwood cutting allows for timber extraction, while maintaining ecosystem structure and allowing forest regeneration.

The term natural resource management is frequently used in relation to a particular resource for human use, rather than the management of a whole ecosystem.[34] Natural resource management aims to fulfill the societal demand for a given resource without causing harm to the ecosystem, or jeopardizing the future of the resource.[35] Due to its focus on natural resources, socioeconomic factors significantly affect this management approach.[34] Natural resource managers initially measure the overall condition of an ecosystem, and if the ecosystem's resources are healthy, the ideal degree of resource extraction is determined, which leaves enough to allow the resource to replenish itself for subsequent harvests.[35] The condition of each resource in an ecosystem is subject to change at different spatial and time scales, and ecosystem attributes, such as watershed and soil health, and species diversity and abundance, need to be considered individually and collectively.[36]

Informed by natural resource management, the ecosystem management concept is based on the relationship between sustainable ecosystem maintenance and human demand for natural resources and other ecosystem services.[36] To achieve these goals, ecosystem managers can be appointed to balance natural resource extraction and conservation over a long-term timeframe.[37] Partnerships between ecosystem managers, natural resource managers, and stakeholders should be encouraged in order to promote the sustainable use of limited natural resources.[38]

Historically, some ecosystems have experienced limited resource extraction and have been able to subsist naturally. Other ecosystems, such as forests, which in many regions provide considerable timber resources, have undergone successful reforestation and consequently, have accommodated the needs of future generations. As human populations grow, introducing new stressors to ecosystems, such as climate change, invasive species, land-use change, and habitat fragmentation, future demand for natural resources is unpredictable.[39] Although ecosystem changes may occur gradually, their cumulative impacts can have negative effects for both humans and wildlife.[37] Geographic information system (GIS) applications and remote sensing can be used to monitor and evaluate natural resources and ecosystem health.[36]

Adaptive management edit

Adaptive management is based on the concept that predicting future influences and disturbances to an ecosystem is limited and unclear.[40] Therefore, an ecosystem should be managed to it maintain the greatest degree of ecological integrity and management practices should have the ability to change based on new experience and insights.[41][42][40] In an adaptive management strategy, a hypotheses about an ecosystem and its functioning is formed, and then management techniques to test these hypotheses are implemented.[43][44] The implemented methods are then analyzed to evaluate if ecosystem health improved or declined,[43] and further analysis allows for the modification of methods until they successfully meet the needs of the ecosystem.[42] Thus, adaptive management is an iterative approach, encouraging “informed trial-and-error”.[40][44]

This management approach has had mixed success in the field of ecosystem management, fisheries management, wildlife management, and forest management, possibly because ecosystem managers may not be equipped with the decision-making skills needed to undertake an adaptive management methodology.[45] Additionally, economic, social, and political priorities can interfere with adaptive management decisions.[45] For this reason, for adaptive management to be successful it must be a social and scientific process, focusing on institutional strategies while implementing experimental management techniques.[44][46]

Strategic management edit

As it relates to ecosystem management, strategic management encourages the establishment of goals that will sustain an ecosystem while keeping socioeconomic and politically relevant policy drivers in mind.[2] This approach differs from other types of ecosystem management because it emphasizes stakeholders' involvement, relying on their input to develop the best management strategy for an ecosystem. Similar to other methods of ecosystem management, strategic management prioritizes evaluating and reviewing any impacts of management intervention on an ecosystem, and flexibility in adapting management protocols as a result of new information.[47]

Landscape-level conservation edit

 
The designation of Gold Butte National Monument in 2016 established a wildlife corridor linking Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument.

Landscape-level (or landscape-scale) conservation is a method that considers wildlife needs at a broader landscape scale when implementing conservation initiatives.[48] By considering broad-scale, interconnected ecological systems, landscape-level conservation acknowledges the full scope of an environmental problem.[36] Implementation of landscape-scale conservation is carried out in a number of ways. A wildlife corridor, for example, provides a connection between otherwise isolated habitat patches, presenting a solution to habitat fragmentation.[49] These implementations can be found crossing over or under highways to reduce segmentation. In other instances, the habitat requirements of a keystone or vulnerable species is assessed to identify the best strategies for protecting the ecosystem and the species.[50] However, simultaneously addressing the habitat requirements of multiple species in an ecosystem can be difficult, and as a result, more comprehensive approaches have been considered in landscape-level conservation.[51]

In human-dominated landscapes, weighing the habitat requirements of wild flora and fauna versus the needs of humans presents challenges.[52] Globally, human-induced environmental degradation is an increasing problem, which is why landscape-level approaches play an important role in ecosystem management.[53] Traditional conservation methods targeted at individual species may need to be modified to include the maintenance of habitats through the consideration of both human and ecological factors.[53]

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ a b Szaro, R.; Sexton, W.T.; Malone, C.R. (1998). "The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool for meeting people's needs and sustaining ecosystems". Landscape and Urban Planning. 40 (1–3): 1–7. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(97)00093-5.
  2. ^ a b Brussard Peter, F; Reed Michael, J; Richard, Tracy C (1998). "Ecosystem Management: What is it really?". Landscape and Urban Planning. 40 (1–3): 9–20. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(97)00094-7.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Meffe, Gary; Nielsen, Larry; Knight, Richard; Schenborn, Dennis, eds. (2013). Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Island Press. ISBN 978-1-55963-824-1.
  4. ^ a b c Berkes, Fikret; Colding, Johan; Folke, Carl (2000). "Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management". Ecological Applications. 10 (5): 1251–1262. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:roteka]2.0.co;2. ISSN 1051-0761.
  5. ^ a b c d DeFries, Ruth; Nagendra, Harini (2017-04-20). "Ecosystem management as a wicked problem". Science. 356 (6335): 265–270. Bibcode:2017Sci...356..265D. doi:10.1126/science.aal1950. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 28428392. S2CID 11224600.
  6. ^ a b c d Keough, Heather L.; Blahna, Dale J. (2006). "Achieving Integrative, Collaborative Ecosystem Management". Conservation Biology. 20 (5): 1373–1382. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00445.x. ISSN 1523-1739. PMID 17002755. S2CID 8910111.
  7. ^ a b c d Lackey, R.T. (1998). "Seven pillars of ecosystem management". Landscape and Urban Planning. 40 (1–3): 21–30. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00095-9.
  8. ^ Kaufmann, M. R.; Graham, R. T.; Boyce, D. A.; Moir, W. H.; Perry, L.; Reynolds, R. T.; Bassett, R. L.; Mehlhop, P.; Edminster, C. B.; Block, W. M.; Corn, P. S. (1994). An ecological basis for ecosystem management (Technical report). Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-246.
  9. ^ a b Chapin, F. Stuart; Pamela A. Matson; Harold A. Mooney (2002). Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York: Springer. pp. 362–365. ISBN 978-0-387-95443-1.
  10. ^ a b c d Christensen, Norman L.; Bartuska, Ann M.; Brown, James H.; Carpenter, Stephen; D'Antonio, Carla; Francis, Robert; Franklin, Jerry F.; MacMahon, James A.; Noss, Reed F.; Parsons, David J.; Peterson, Charles H.; Turner, Monica G.; Woodmansee, Robert G. (1996). "The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management". Ecological Applications. 6 (3): 665–691. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.404.4909. doi:10.2307/2269460. JSTOR 2269460. S2CID 53461068.
  11. ^ Brussard, Peter F.; J. Michael Reed; C. Richard Tracy (1998). "Ecosystem management: what is it really?" (PDF). Landscape and Urban Planning. 40 (1): 9–20. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00094-7.
  12. ^ Lackey, Robert T (1999). "Radically contested assertions in ecosystem management". Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 9 (1–2): 21–34. doi:10.1300/J091v09n01_02.
  13. ^ Grumbine, R. Edward (1994). "What Is Ecosystem Management?". Conservation Biology. 8 (1): 27–38. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010027.x. ISSN 0888-8892. JSTOR 2386718.
  14. ^ Janssen, Marco A. (2001). "An Immune System Perspective on Ecosystem Management". Conservation Ecology. 5 (1). doi:10.5751/es-00242-050113. hdl:10535/2615. ISSN 1195-5449.
  15. ^ Pyne, Stephen J. (2009). America's fires : a historical context for policy and practice (Rev. ed.). Durham, N.C.: Forest History Society. ISBN 978-0-89030-073-2. OCLC 458891692.
  16. ^ Leigh, G. J. (2004-09-09), "Nitrogen Fixation, Agriculture, and the Environment", The World's Greatest Fix, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oso/9780195165821.003.0005, ISBN 978-0-19-516582-1
  17. ^ Hunn, Eugene S.; Johnson, Darryll R.; Russell, Priscilla N.; Thornton, Thomas F. (2003). "Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a "Wilderness" Park". Current Anthropology. 44 (S5): S79–S103. doi:10.1086/377666. ISSN 0011-3204.
  18. ^ Nigh, Ronald; Diemont, Stewart AW (2013). "The Maya milpa: fire and the legacy of living soil". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11 (s1): e45–e54. doi:10.1890/120344. ISSN 1540-9309.
  19. ^ Kessler, Winifred B.; Salwasser, Hal; Cartwright, Charles W.; Caplan, James A. (1992). "New Perspectives for Sustainable Natural Resources Management". Ecological Applications. 2 (3): 221–225. doi:10.2307/1941856. ISSN 1939-5582. JSTOR 1941856. PMID 27759263.
  20. ^ a b c d e f Holling, C. S.; Meffe, Gary K. (1996). "Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management". Conservation Biology. 10 (2): 328–37. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x. S2CID 58908762.
  21. ^ a b Donovan, Geoffrey H.; Brown, Thomas C. (2007). "Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of Smokey Bear". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 5 (2): 73–79. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[73:BCWYWF]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1540-9309.
  22. ^ Loomis, John; Richardson, Leslie; Kroeger, Timm; Casey, Frank (2014). "Valuing ecosystem services using benefit transfer: separating credible and incredible approaches". Valuing Ecosystem Services: 78–89. doi:10.4337/9781781955161.00014. ISBN 9781781955161.
  23. ^ Parkes, Margot (2006-08-15). "Personal Commentaries on "Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis—A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment"". EcoHealth. 3 (3): 136–140. doi:10.1007/s10393-006-0038-4. ISSN 1612-9202. S2CID 5844434.
  24. ^ a b c Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stinger, L.C. (2009). "Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management". Journal of Environmental Management. 90 (5): 1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001. PMID 19231064.
  25. ^ Billgren, C.; Holmen, H. (2008). "Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management". Land Use Policy. 25 (4): 550–562. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.004.
  26. ^ a b Reed, M.S. (2008). "Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review". Biological Conservation. 141 (10): 2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
  27. ^ Mushove, P.; Vogel, C. (2005). "Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation area management". Global Environmental Change. 15 (3): 184–198. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.008.
  28. ^ a b DeBano, Leonard H.; Ffolliott, Peter H.; Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Hamre, Robert H.; Edminster, Carleton B. (1995). "Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico". Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 669 P. 264. doi:10.2737/RM-GTR-264.
  29. ^ a b Olsson, Per; Folke, Carl; Hahn, Thomas (2004). "Social-Ecological Transformation for Ecosystem Management: the Development of Adaptive Co-management of a Wetland Landscape in Southern Sweden". Ecology and Society. 9 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-00683-090402. hdl:10535/2865. ISSN 1708-3087. JSTOR 26267691.
  30. ^ a b Olsson, Per; Folke, Carl; Galaz, Victor; Hahn, Thomas; Schultz, Lisen (2007). "Enhancing the Fit through Adaptive Co-management: Creating and Maintaining Bridging Functions for Matching Scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden". Ecology and Society. 12 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-01976-120128. hdl:10535/3208. ISSN 1708-3087. JSTOR 26267848.
  31. ^ a b Knight, Richard L.; Meffe, Gary K. (1997). "Ecosystem Management: Agency Liberation from Command and Control". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25 (3): 676–678. ISSN 0091-7648. JSTOR 3783518.
  32. ^ Côté, Isabelle M.; Sutherland, William J. (1997). "The Effectiveness of Removing Predators to Protect Bird Populations". Conservation Biology. 11 (2): 395–405. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95410.x. ISSN 1523-1739. S2CID 73670296.
  33. ^ Ripple, William J.; Beschta, Robert L. (2012-01-01). "Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15years after wolf reintroduction". Biological Conservation. 145 (1): 205–213. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.005. ISSN 0006-3207. S2CID 9750513.
  34. ^ a b Kellert, Stephen R; Mehta, J. N.; Ebbin, S. A.; Lichtenfeld, L. L (2000). "Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality". Society and Natural Resources. 13 (8): 705–715. doi:10.1080/089419200750035575. S2CID 219696057.
  35. ^ a b Grimble, Robin; Wellard, K. (1997). "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities". Agricultural Systems. 55 (2): 173–193. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(97)00006-1.
  36. ^ a b c d Boyce, Mark S.; Haney, Alan W., eds. (1997). Ecosystem management : applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06902-2. OCLC 35174989.
  37. ^ a b Ascher, W (2001). "Coping with complexity and Organizational Interests in Natural Resource Management". Ecosystems. 4 (8): 742–757. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0043-y. S2CID 37406535.
  38. ^ Ecosystem Services Working Group (2007). Ecosystem services and Australian natural resource management (NRM) futures: Paper to the Natural Resource Policies and Programs Committee (NRPPC) and the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee (NRMSC). Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. ISBN 9780-64255-3874.
  39. ^ Folke, Carl; Kofinas, Gary P.; Chapin, F. Stuart, eds. (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship : resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world (1st ed.). New York: Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-73033-2. OCLC 432702920.
  40. ^ a b c Pahl-Wostl (2007). "Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change". Water Resources Management. 21: 49–62. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4. S2CID 15441300.
  41. ^ Walters, Carl J. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-947970-3. OCLC 13184654.
  42. ^ a b Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-932846-07-2.
  43. ^ a b United States Department of Interior. Technical Guide: Chapter 1: What is Adaptive Management? Viewed 8 Sep. 2010.http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide/Chapter1.pdf
  44. ^ a b c "Resilience Alliance - Adaptive Management". www.resalliance.org. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  45. ^ a b Gregory, R.; Ohlson, D.; Arvai, J. (2006). "Deconstructing Adaptive Management: Criteria for Applications to Environmental Management". Ecological Applications. 16 (6): 2411–2425. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2411:DAMCFA]2.0.CO;2. hdl:1794/22080. ISSN 1939-5582. PMID 17205914.
  46. ^ Habron, Geoffrey (2003-01-01). "Role of Adaptive Management for Watershed Councils". Environmental Management. 31 (1): 29–41. doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2763-y. ISSN 0364-152X. PMID 12447573. S2CID 19511546.
  47. ^ Shmelev, S.E; Powell, J.R (2006). "Ecological-economic modeling for strategic regional waste management". Ecological Economics. 59 (1): 115–130. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.030.
  48. ^ Donaldson, Lynda; Wilson, Robert J.; Maclean, Ilya M. D. (2017-03-01). "Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century". Biodiversity and Conservation. 26 (3): 527–552. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1257-9. ISSN 1572-9710. PMC 7115020. PMID 32269427.
  49. ^ Hudgens, Brian R.; Haddad, Nick M. (2003-05-01). "Predicting Which Species Will Benefit from Corridors in Fragmented Landscapes from Population Growth Models". The American Naturalist. 161 (5): 808–820. doi:10.1086/374343. ISSN 0003-0147. PMID 12858286. S2CID 6299857.
  50. ^ Lambeck, Robert J (1997). "Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation". Conservation Biology. 11 (4): 849–56. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96319.x. S2CID 17944751.
  51. ^ Vos, CC; Verboom, J; Opdam, PFM; Ter Braak, CJF (2001). "Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices". The American Naturalist. 183 (1): 24–41. doi:10.2307/3079086. JSTOR 3079086.
  52. ^ Opdam, Paul; Wascher, Dirk (2004-05-01). "Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation". Biological Conservation. 117 (3): 285–297. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.008. ISSN 0006-3207.
  53. ^ a b Velázquez, Alejandro; Bocco, Gerardo; Romero, Francisco J.; Vega, Azucena Pérez (2003). "A Landscape Perspective on Biodiversity Conservation". Mountain Research and Development. 23 (3): 240–246. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2003)023[0240:ALPOBC]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0276-4741. S2CID 134441393.

ecosystem, management, approach, natural, resource, management, that, aims, ensure, long, term, sustainability, persistence, ecosystem, function, services, while, meeting, socioeconomic, political, cultural, needs, although, indigenous, communities, have, empl. Ecosystem management is an approach to natural resource management that aims to ensure the long term sustainability and persistence of an ecosystem s function and services while meeting socioeconomic political and cultural needs 1 2 3 Although indigenous communities have employed sustainable ecosystem management approaches implicitly for millennia ecosystem management emerged explicitly as a formal concept in the 1990s from a growing appreciation of the complexity of ecosystems and of humans reliance and influence on natural systems e g disturbance and ecological resilience 4 5 Prescribed burning is a technique used in ecosystem management This indirectly benefits society via the maintenance of ecosystem services and the reduction of severe wildfires Building upon traditional natural resource management ecosystem management integrates ecological socioeconomic and institutional knowledge and priorities through diverse stakeholder participation 6 In contrast to command and control approaches to natural resource management which often lead to declines in ecological resilience ecosystem management is a holistic adaptive method for evaluating and achieving resilience and sustainability As such implementation is context dependent and may take a number of forms including adaptive management strategic management and landscape scale conservation 1 3 7 Contents 1 Formulations 1 1 Principles of ecosystem management 2 History 2 1 Pre industrialization 2 2 Post industrialization 3 Stakeholders 3 1 Strategies to stakeholder participation 3 2 Examples of stakeholder participation 4 Strategies to ecosystem management 4 1 Command and control management 4 2 Natural resource management 4 3 Adaptive management 4 4 Strategic management 4 5 Landscape level conservation 5 See also 6 ReferencesFormulations edit nbsp nbsp El Yunque National Forest 5 months pre Hurricane Maria top and 7 months after the hurricane bottom Although ecosystem management goals often differ on their specifics achieving resilience to disturbance is a common aim The term ecosystem management was formalized in 1992 by F Dale Robertson former Chief of the U S Forest Service Robertson stated By ecosystem management we mean an ecological approach that must blend the needs of people and environmental values in such a way that the National Forests and Grasslands represent diverse healthy productive and sustainable ecosystems 8 A variety of additional definitions of ecosystem management exist 7 For example Robert T Lackey emphasizes that ecosystem management is informed by ecological and social factors is motivated by societal benefits and is implemented over a specific timeframe and area 7 F Stuart Chapin and co authors emphasize that ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long term sustainability of ecosystem services 9 while Norman Christensen and coauthors emphasize that it is motivated by defined goals employs adaptive practices and accounts for the complexities of ecological systems 10 Peter Brussard and colleagues emphasize that ecosystem management balances preserving ecosystem health while sustaining human needs 11 As a concept of natural resource management ecosystem management remains both ambiguous and controversial in part because some of its formulations rest on contested policy and scientific assertions 12 These assertions are important for understanding much of the conflict surrounding ecosystem management For instance some allege that professional natural resource managers typically operating from within government bureaucracies and professional organizations mask debate over controversial assertions by depicting ecosystem management as an evolution of past management approaches Principles of ecosystem management edit A fundamental concern of ecosystem management is the long term sustainability of the production of goods and services by ecosystems 9 as intergenerational sustainability is a precondition for management not an afterthought 10 Ideally there should be clear publicly stated goals with respect to future trajectories and behaviors of the system being managed Other important requirements include a sound ecological understanding of the system including ecological dynamics and the context in which the system is embedded An understanding of the role of humans as components of the ecosystems and the use of adaptive management is also important 10 While ecosystem management can be used as part of a plan for wilderness conservation it can also be used in intensively managed ecosystems e g agroecosystems and close to nature forestry 10 Core principles and common themes of ecosystem management 7 13 Systems thinking Management has a holistic perspective rather than focusing on a particular level of biological hierarchy in an ecosystem e g only conserving a specific species or only preserving ecosystem functioning Ecological boundaries Ecological boundaries are clearly and formally defined and management is place based Ecological integrity Management is focused on maintaining or reintroducing native biological diversity and on preserving natural disturbance regimes and other key processes that sustain resilience Data collection Broad ecological research and data collection is needed to inform effective management e g species diversity habitat types disturbance regimes etc Monitoring The impacts of management methods are tracked allowing for their outcomes to be evaluated and modified if needed Adaptive management Management is an iterative process in which methods are continuously reevaluated as new scientific knowledge is gained Interagency cooperation As ecological boundaries often cross administrative boundaries management often requires cooperation among a range of agencies and private stakeholders Organizational change Successful implementation of management requires shifts in the structure and operation of land management agencies Humans and nature Nature and people are intrinsically linked and humans shape and are shaped by ecological processes Values Humans play a key role in guiding management goals which reflect a stage in the continuing evolution of social values and priorities History edit nbsp Sustainable harvest of glaucous winged gull eggs maintains the species population size while preserving traditional Huna Tlingit customs Pre industrialization edit Sustainable ecosystem management approaches have been used by societies throughout human history Prior to colonization indigenous cultures often sustainably managed their natural resources through intergenerational traditional ecological knowledge TEK In TEK cultures acquire knowledge of their environment over time and this information is passed on to future generations through cultural customs including folklore religion and taboos 14 4 Traditional management strategies vary by region examples include the burning of the longleaf pine ecosystem by Native Americans in what is today the southeastern United States 15 the ban of seabird guano harvest during the breeding season by the Inca 16 the sustainable harvest practices of glaucous winged gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit 17 and the Maya milpa intercropping approach which is still used today 18 Post industrialization edit In industrialized Western society ecosystems have been managed primarily to maximize yields of a particular natural resource 5 This method for managing ecosystems can be seen in the U S Forest Service s shift away from sustaining ecosystem health and toward maximizing timber production to support residential development following World War II 19 Furthermore natural resource management has typically assumed a view that each ecosystem has a single best equilibrium and that minimizing variation around this equilibrium results in more dependable greater yields of natural resources 20 4 For example this perspective informed the long held belief in forest fire suppression in the United States which drove a decline in populations of fire tolerant species and a buildup of fuel leading to higher intensity fires 21 Additionally these approaches to managing natural systems tended to a be site and species specific rather than considering all components of an ecosystem collectively b employ a command and control approach and c exclude stakeholders from management decisions 3 The latter half of the 20th century saw a paradigm shift in how ecosystems were viewed with a growing appreciation for the importance of ecological disturbance and for the intrinsic link between natural resources and overall ecosystem health 5 Simultaneously there was acknowledgment of society s reliance on ecosystem services beyond provisioning goods and of the inextricable role human environment interactions play in ecosystems 22 23 In sum ecosystems were increasingly seen as complex systems shaped by non linear and stochastic processes and thus they could not be managed to achieve single fully predictable outcomes 20 As a result of these complexities and often unforeseeable feedback from management strategies DeFries and Nagendra deemed ecosystem management to be a wicked problem 5 Thus the outcome of natural resource management s evolution over the course of the 20th century is ecosystem management which explicitly recognizes that technical and scientific knowledge though necessary in all approaches to natural resource management are insufficient in themselves 3 Stakeholders editStakeholders are individuals or groups who are affected by or have an interest in ecosystem management decisions and actions 24 Stakeholders may also have power to influence the goals policies and outcomes of management 24 Ecosystem management stakeholders fall into the following groups based on their diverse concerns 3 Stakeholders whose lives are directly tied to the ecosystem e g members of local community Stakeholders who are not directly impacted but have an interest in the ecosystem or its ecosystem services e g NGOs recreational groups Stakeholders concerned with the decision making processes e g environmental advocacy groups Stakeholders funding management plans e g taxpayers funding agencies Stakeholders representing public interest e g public officials nbsp Stakeholders implementing sustainability by planting trees in an area of deforestation This is important to the stakeholder label due to the fact that stakeholders are individuals or groups who are affected by or have an interest in ecosystem management decisions and actions Strategies to stakeholder participation edit The complexity of ecosystem management decisions ranging from local to international scales requires the participation of stakeholders with diverse understandings perceptions and values of ecosystems and ecosystem services 25 26 Due to these complexities effective ecosystem management is flexible and develops reciprocal trust around issues of common interest with the objective of creating mutually beneficial partnerships 27 Key attributes of successful participatory ecosystem management efforts have been identified 26 6 Stakeholder involvement is inclusive equitable and focused on trust building and empowerment Stakeholders are engaged early on and their involvement continues beyond decision and into management Stakeholder analysis is performed to ensure parties are appropriately represented This involves determining the stakeholders involved in the management issue categorizing stakeholders based on their interest in and influence on the issue and evaluating relationships between stakeholders 24 Stakeholders agree upon the aims of the participatory process from its beginning and the means and extent of stakeholder participation are case specific Stakeholder participation is conducted through skilled facilitation Social economic and ecological goals are equally weighed and stakeholders are actively involved in decision making which is arrived at by collective consensus Stakeholders continually monitor management plan s effectiveness Multidisciplinary data are collected reflecting multidisciplinary priorities and decisions are informed by both local and scientific knowledge Economic incentives are provided to parties responsible for implementing management plans To ensure long term stakeholder involvement participation is institutionalized nbsp Ecosystem management decisions for the Malpai Borderlands were determined through active participation of diverse stakeholder groups Examples of stakeholder participation edit Malpai Borderland management In the early 1990s there was ongoing conflict between the ranching and environmentalist communities in the Malpai Borderlands 3 6 The former group was concerned about sustaining their livelihoods while the latter was concerned about the environmental impacts of livestock grazing 28 The groups found common ground around conserving and restoring rangeland and diverse stakeholders including ranchers environmental groups scientists and government agencies were engaged in management discussions In 1994 the rancher led Malpai Borderlands Group was created to collaboratively pursue the goals of ecosystem protection management and restoration 6 28 Helge a River amp Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve In the 1980s local government agencies and environmental groups noted declines in the health of the Helge a River ecosystem including eutrophication bird population declines and deterioration of flooded meadows areas 29 30 There was concern that the Helge a a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance faced an imminent tipping point In 1989 led by a municipal organization a collaborative management strategy was adopted involving diverse stakeholders concerned with the ecological social and economic facets of the ecosystem The Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve was established in 2005 to promote the preservation of the ecosystem s socio ecological services 29 30 Strategies to ecosystem management editSeveral strategies to implementing the maintenance and restoration of natural and human modified ecosystem exist Command and control management and traditional natural resource management are the precursors to ecosystem management Adaptive management strategic management and landscape level conservation are different methodologies and processes involved in implementing ecosystem management 3 Command and control management edit nbsp Wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park in January 1995 Observed increases in ecological resilience since wolf return demonstrate the potential cascading impacts of command and control management Command and control management utilizes a linear problem solving approach in which a perceived problem is resolved through controlling devices such as laws threats contracts and or agreements 20 This top down approach is used across many disciplines and it is best suited for addressing relatively simple well defined problems which have a clear cause and effect and for which there is broad societal agreement as to policy and management goals 31 In the context of natural systems command and control management attempts to control nature in order to improve natural resource extractions establish predictability and reduce threats 20 Command and control strategies include the use of herbicides and pesticides to improve crop yields 20 the culling of predators to protect game bird species 32 and the safeguarding of timber supply by suppressing forest fires 21 However due to the complexities of ecological systems command and control management may result in unintended consequences 3 For example wolves were extirpated from Yellowstone National Park in the mid 1920s to reduce elk predation Long term studies of wolf elk and tree populations since wolf reintroduction in 1995 demonstrate that reintroduction has decreased elk populations improving tree species recruitment 33 Thus by controlling ecosystems to limit natural variation and increase predictability command and control management often leads to a decline the resilience of ecological social and economic systems termed the pathology of natural resource management 20 In this pathology an initially successful command and control practice drives relevant institutions to shift their focus toward control over time obscuring the ecosystem s natural behavior while the economy becomes reliant on the system in its controlled state 3 Consequently there has been a transition away from command and control management and increased focus on more holistic adaptive management approaches and on arriving at management solutions through partnerships between stakeholders 31 Natural resource management edit Main article Natural resource management nbsp Shelterwood cutting allows for timber extraction while maintaining ecosystem structure and allowing forest regeneration The term natural resource management is frequently used in relation to a particular resource for human use rather than the management of a whole ecosystem 34 Natural resource management aims to fulfill the societal demand for a given resource without causing harm to the ecosystem or jeopardizing the future of the resource 35 Due to its focus on natural resources socioeconomic factors significantly affect this management approach 34 Natural resource managers initially measure the overall condition of an ecosystem and if the ecosystem s resources are healthy the ideal degree of resource extraction is determined which leaves enough to allow the resource to replenish itself for subsequent harvests 35 The condition of each resource in an ecosystem is subject to change at different spatial and time scales and ecosystem attributes such as watershed and soil health and species diversity and abundance need to be considered individually and collectively 36 Informed by natural resource management the ecosystem management concept is based on the relationship between sustainable ecosystem maintenance and human demand for natural resources and other ecosystem services 36 To achieve these goals ecosystem managers can be appointed to balance natural resource extraction and conservation over a long term timeframe 37 Partnerships between ecosystem managers natural resource managers and stakeholders should be encouraged in order to promote the sustainable use of limited natural resources 38 Historically some ecosystems have experienced limited resource extraction and have been able to subsist naturally Other ecosystems such as forests which in many regions provide considerable timber resources have undergone successful reforestation and consequently have accommodated the needs of future generations As human populations grow introducing new stressors to ecosystems such as climate change invasive species land use change and habitat fragmentation future demand for natural resources is unpredictable 39 Although ecosystem changes may occur gradually their cumulative impacts can have negative effects for both humans and wildlife 37 Geographic information system GIS applications and remote sensing can be used to monitor and evaluate natural resources and ecosystem health 36 Adaptive management edit Adaptive management is based on the concept that predicting future influences and disturbances to an ecosystem is limited and unclear 40 Therefore an ecosystem should be managed to it maintain the greatest degree of ecological integrity and management practices should have the ability to change based on new experience and insights 41 42 40 In an adaptive management strategy a hypotheses about an ecosystem and its functioning is formed and then management techniques to test these hypotheses are implemented 43 44 The implemented methods are then analyzed to evaluate if ecosystem health improved or declined 43 and further analysis allows for the modification of methods until they successfully meet the needs of the ecosystem 42 Thus adaptive management is an iterative approach encouraging informed trial and error 40 44 This management approach has had mixed success in the field of ecosystem management fisheries management wildlife management and forest management possibly because ecosystem managers may not be equipped with the decision making skills needed to undertake an adaptive management methodology 45 Additionally economic social and political priorities can interfere with adaptive management decisions 45 For this reason for adaptive management to be successful it must be a social and scientific process focusing on institutional strategies while implementing experimental management techniques 44 46 Strategic management edit As it relates to ecosystem management strategic management encourages the establishment of goals that will sustain an ecosystem while keeping socioeconomic and politically relevant policy drivers in mind 2 This approach differs from other types of ecosystem management because it emphasizes stakeholders involvement relying on their input to develop the best management strategy for an ecosystem Similar to other methods of ecosystem management strategic management prioritizes evaluating and reviewing any impacts of management intervention on an ecosystem and flexibility in adapting management protocols as a result of new information 47 Landscape level conservation edit Main article Landscape scale conservation nbsp The designation of Gold Butte National Monument in 2016 established a wildlife corridor linking Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument Landscape level or landscape scale conservation is a method that considers wildlife needs at a broader landscape scale when implementing conservation initiatives 48 By considering broad scale interconnected ecological systems landscape level conservation acknowledges the full scope of an environmental problem 36 Implementation of landscape scale conservation is carried out in a number of ways A wildlife corridor for example provides a connection between otherwise isolated habitat patches presenting a solution to habitat fragmentation 49 These implementations can be found crossing over or under highways to reduce segmentation In other instances the habitat requirements of a keystone or vulnerable species is assessed to identify the best strategies for protecting the ecosystem and the species 50 However simultaneously addressing the habitat requirements of multiple species in an ecosystem can be difficult and as a result more comprehensive approaches have been considered in landscape level conservation 51 In human dominated landscapes weighing the habitat requirements of wild flora and fauna versus the needs of humans presents challenges 52 Globally human induced environmental degradation is an increasing problem which is why landscape level approaches play an important role in ecosystem management 53 Traditional conservation methods targeted at individual species may need to be modified to include the maintenance of habitats through the consideration of both human and ecological factors 53 See also editEcosystem based management Ecosystem Management Decision Support Sustainable forest management Sustainable land managementReferences edit a b Szaro R Sexton W T Malone C R 1998 The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool for meeting people s needs and sustaining ecosystems Landscape and Urban Planning 40 1 3 1 7 doi 10 1016 s0169 2046 97 00093 5 a b Brussard Peter F Reed Michael J Richard Tracy C 1998 Ecosystem Management What is it really Landscape and Urban Planning 40 1 3 9 20 doi 10 1016 s0169 2046 97 00094 7 a b c d e f g h i Meffe Gary Nielsen Larry Knight Richard Schenborn Dennis eds 2013 Ecosystem Management Adaptive Community Based Conservation Island Press ISBN 978 1 55963 824 1 a b c Berkes Fikret Colding Johan Folke Carl 2000 Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management Ecological Applications 10 5 1251 1262 doi 10 1890 1051 0761 2000 010 1251 roteka 2 0 co 2 ISSN 1051 0761 a b c d DeFries Ruth Nagendra Harini 2017 04 20 Ecosystem management as a wicked problem Science 356 6335 265 270 Bibcode 2017Sci 356 265D doi 10 1126 science aal1950 ISSN 0036 8075 PMID 28428392 S2CID 11224600 a b c d Keough Heather L Blahna Dale J 2006 Achieving Integrative Collaborative Ecosystem Management Conservation Biology 20 5 1373 1382 doi 10 1111 j 1523 1739 2006 00445 x ISSN 1523 1739 PMID 17002755 S2CID 8910111 a b c d Lackey R T 1998 Seven pillars of ecosystem management Landscape and Urban Planning 40 1 3 21 30 doi 10 1016 S0169 2046 97 00095 9 Kaufmann M R Graham R T Boyce D A Moir W H Perry L Reynolds R T Bassett R L Mehlhop P Edminster C B Block W M Corn P S 1994 An ecological basis for ecosystem management Technical report Ft Collins CO U S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Gen Tech Rep RM GTR 246 a b Chapin F Stuart Pamela A Matson Harold A Mooney 2002 Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology New York Springer pp 362 365 ISBN 978 0 387 95443 1 a b c d Christensen Norman L Bartuska Ann M Brown James H Carpenter Stephen D Antonio Carla Francis Robert Franklin Jerry F MacMahon James A Noss Reed F Parsons David J Peterson Charles H Turner Monica G Woodmansee Robert G 1996 The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management Ecological Applications 6 3 665 691 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 404 4909 doi 10 2307 2269460 JSTOR 2269460 S2CID 53461068 Brussard Peter F J Michael Reed C Richard Tracy 1998 Ecosystem management what is it really PDF Landscape and Urban Planning 40 1 9 20 doi 10 1016 S0169 2046 97 00094 7 Lackey Robert T 1999 Radically contested assertions in ecosystem management Journal of Sustainable Forestry 9 1 2 21 34 doi 10 1300 J091v09n01 02 Grumbine R Edward 1994 What Is Ecosystem Management Conservation Biology 8 1 27 38 doi 10 1046 j 1523 1739 1994 08010027 x ISSN 0888 8892 JSTOR 2386718 Janssen Marco A 2001 An Immune System Perspective on Ecosystem Management Conservation Ecology 5 1 doi 10 5751 es 00242 050113 hdl 10535 2615 ISSN 1195 5449 Pyne Stephen J 2009 America s fires a historical context for policy and practice Rev ed Durham N C Forest History Society ISBN 978 0 89030 073 2 OCLC 458891692 Leigh G J 2004 09 09 Nitrogen Fixation Agriculture and the Environment The World s Greatest Fix Oxford University Press doi 10 1093 oso 9780195165821 003 0005 ISBN 978 0 19 516582 1 Hunn Eugene S Johnson Darryll R Russell Priscilla N Thornton Thomas F 2003 Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental Knowledge Conservation and the Management of a Wilderness Park Current Anthropology 44 S5 S79 S103 doi 10 1086 377666 ISSN 0011 3204 Nigh Ronald Diemont Stewart AW 2013 The Maya milpa fire and the legacy of living soil Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11 s1 e45 e54 doi 10 1890 120344 ISSN 1540 9309 Kessler Winifred B Salwasser Hal Cartwright Charles W Caplan James A 1992 New Perspectives for Sustainable Natural Resources Management Ecological Applications 2 3 221 225 doi 10 2307 1941856 ISSN 1939 5582 JSTOR 1941856 PMID 27759263 a b c d e f Holling C S Meffe Gary K 1996 Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management Conservation Biology 10 2 328 37 doi 10 1046 j 1523 1739 1996 10020328 x S2CID 58908762 a b Donovan Geoffrey H Brown Thomas C 2007 Be careful what you wish for the legacy of Smokey Bear Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5 2 73 79 doi 10 1890 1540 9295 2007 5 73 BCWYWF 2 0 CO 2 ISSN 1540 9309 Loomis John Richardson Leslie Kroeger Timm Casey Frank 2014 Valuing ecosystem services using benefit transfer separating credible and incredible approaches Valuing Ecosystem Services 78 89 doi 10 4337 9781781955161 00014 ISBN 9781781955161 Parkes Margot 2006 08 15 Personal Commentaries on Ecosystems and Human Well being Health Synthesis A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment EcoHealth 3 3 136 140 doi 10 1007 s10393 006 0038 4 ISSN 1612 9202 S2CID 5844434 a b c Reed M S Graves A Dandy N Posthumus H Hubacek K Morris J Prell C Quinn C H Stinger L C 2009 Who s in and why A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management Journal of Environmental Management 90 5 1933 1949 doi 10 1016 j jenvman 2009 01 001 PMID 19231064 Billgren C Holmen H 2008 Approaching reality Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management Land Use Policy 25 4 550 562 doi 10 1016 j landusepol 2007 11 004 a b Reed M S 2008 Stakeholder participation for environmental management A literature review Biological Conservation 141 10 2417 2431 doi 10 1016 j biocon 2008 07 014 Mushove P Vogel C 2005 Heads or tails Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation area management Global Environmental Change 15 3 184 198 doi 10 1016 j gloenvcha 2004 12 008 a b DeBano Leonard H Ffolliott Peter H Ortega Rubio Alfredo Gottfried Gerald J Hamre Robert H Edminster Carleton B 1995 Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago The Sky Islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico Gen Tech Rep RM GTR 264 Fort Collins CO U S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 669 P 264 doi 10 2737 RM GTR 264 a b Olsson Per Folke Carl Hahn Thomas 2004 Social Ecological Transformation for Ecosystem Management the Development of Adaptive Co management of a Wetland Landscape in Southern Sweden Ecology and Society 9 4 doi 10 5751 ES 00683 090402 hdl 10535 2865 ISSN 1708 3087 JSTOR 26267691 a b Olsson Per Folke Carl Galaz Victor Hahn Thomas Schultz Lisen 2007 Enhancing the Fit through Adaptive Co management Creating and Maintaining Bridging Functions for Matching Scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Ecology and Society 12 1 doi 10 5751 ES 01976 120128 hdl 10535 3208 ISSN 1708 3087 JSTOR 26267848 a b Knight Richard L Meffe Gary K 1997 Ecosystem Management Agency Liberation from Command and Control Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 3 676 678 ISSN 0091 7648 JSTOR 3783518 Cote Isabelle M Sutherland William J 1997 The Effectiveness of Removing Predators to Protect Bird Populations Conservation Biology 11 2 395 405 doi 10 1046 j 1523 1739 1997 95410 x ISSN 1523 1739 S2CID 73670296 Ripple William J Beschta Robert L 2012 01 01 Trophic cascades in Yellowstone The first 15years after wolf reintroduction Biological Conservation 145 1 205 213 doi 10 1016 j biocon 2011 11 005 ISSN 0006 3207 S2CID 9750513 a b Kellert Stephen R Mehta J N Ebbin S A Lichtenfeld L L 2000 Community Natural Resource Management Promise Rhetoric and Reality Society and Natural Resources 13 8 705 715 doi 10 1080 089419200750035575 S2CID 219696057 a b Grimble Robin Wellard K 1997 Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management a review of principles contexts experiences and opportunities Agricultural Systems 55 2 173 193 doi 10 1016 s0308 521x 97 00006 1 a b c d Boyce Mark S Haney Alan W eds 1997 Ecosystem management applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources New Haven Yale University Press ISBN 0 300 06902 2 OCLC 35174989 a b Ascher W 2001 Coping with complexity and Organizational Interests in Natural Resource Management Ecosystems 4 8 742 757 doi 10 1007 s10021 001 0043 y S2CID 37406535 Ecosystem Services Working Group 2007 Ecosystem services and Australian natural resource management NRM futures Paper to the Natural Resource Policies and Programs Committee NRPPC and the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee NRMSC Australian Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment ISBN 9780 64255 3874 Folke Carl Kofinas Gary P Chapin F Stuart eds 2009 Principles of ecosystem stewardship resilience based natural resource management in a changing world 1st ed New York Springer ISBN 978 0 387 73033 2 OCLC 432702920 a b c Pahl Wostl 2007 Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change Water Resources Management 21 49 62 doi 10 1007 s11269 006 9040 4 S2CID 15441300 Walters Carl J 1986 Adaptive management of renewable resources New York Macmillan ISBN 0 02 947970 3 OCLC 13184654 a b Holling C S 1978 Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 978 1 932846 07 2 a b United States Department of Interior Technical Guide Chapter 1 What is Adaptive Management Viewed 8 Sep 2010 http www doi gov initiatives AdaptiveManagement TechGuide Chapter1 pdf a b c Resilience Alliance Adaptive Management www resalliance org Retrieved 2021 04 07 a b Gregory R Ohlson D Arvai J 2006 Deconstructing Adaptive Management Criteria for Applications to Environmental Management Ecological Applications 16 6 2411 2425 doi 10 1890 1051 0761 2006 016 2411 DAMCFA 2 0 CO 2 hdl 1794 22080 ISSN 1939 5582 PMID 17205914 Habron Geoffrey 2003 01 01 Role of Adaptive Management for Watershed Councils Environmental Management 31 1 29 41 doi 10 1007 s00267 002 2763 y ISSN 0364 152X PMID 12447573 S2CID 19511546 Shmelev S E Powell J R 2006 Ecological economic modeling for strategic regional waste management Ecological Economics 59 1 115 130 doi 10 1016 j ecolecon 2005 09 030 Donaldson Lynda Wilson Robert J Maclean Ilya M D 2017 03 01 Old concepts new challenges adapting landscape scale conservation to the twenty first century Biodiversity and Conservation 26 3 527 552 doi 10 1007 s10531 016 1257 9 ISSN 1572 9710 PMC 7115020 PMID 32269427 Hudgens Brian R Haddad Nick M 2003 05 01 Predicting Which Species Will Benefit from Corridors in Fragmented Landscapes from Population Growth Models The American Naturalist 161 5 808 820 doi 10 1086 374343 ISSN 0003 0147 PMID 12858286 S2CID 6299857 Lambeck Robert J 1997 Focal species a multi species umbrella for nature conservation Conservation Biology 11 4 849 56 doi 10 1046 j 1523 1739 1997 96319 x S2CID 17944751 Vos CC Verboom J Opdam PFM Ter Braak CJF 2001 Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices The American Naturalist 183 1 24 41 doi 10 2307 3079086 JSTOR 3079086 Opdam Paul Wascher Dirk 2004 05 01 Climate change meets habitat fragmentation linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation Biological Conservation 117 3 285 297 doi 10 1016 j biocon 2003 12 008 ISSN 0006 3207 a b Velazquez Alejandro Bocco Gerardo Romero Francisco J Vega Azucena Perez 2003 A Landscape Perspective on Biodiversity Conservation Mountain Research and Development 23 3 240 246 doi 10 1659 0276 4741 2003 023 0240 ALPOBC 2 0 CO 2 ISSN 0276 4741 S2CID 134441393 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Ecosystem management amp oldid 1187166106, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.