Ecosystem management

Last updated
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. French Hill attends prescribed burn at Rattlesnake Ridge (March 1, 2020) 01.jpg
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.

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]

Contents

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

El Verde Road 2017.jpg
El Verde Road.jpg
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

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

Sustainable harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs maintains the species' population size, while preserving traditional Huna Tlingit customs. Olympic Gull on nest, western Oregon.jpg
Sustainable harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs maintains the species' population size, while preserving traditional Huna Tlingit customs.

Pre-industrialization

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

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

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. Planting trees.jpg
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

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]

Ecosystem management decisions for the Malpai Borderlands were determined through active participation of diverse stakeholder groups. Photo Credit- Warner Glenn MalpaiBorderlands updated (22978607051).jpg
Ecosystem management decisions for the Malpai Borderlands were determined through active participation of diverse stakeholder groups.

Examples of stakeholder participation

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

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

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. Reintroduced wolves being carried to acclimation pens, Yellowstone National Park, January, 1995.jpg
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

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

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

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

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. Gold Butte National Monument 9.jpg
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

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation biology</span> Study of threats to biological diversity

Conservation biology is the study of the conservation of nature and of Earth's biodiversity with the aim of protecting species, their habitats, and ecosystems from excessive rates of extinction and the erosion of biotic interactions. It is an interdisciplinary subject drawing on natural and social sciences, and the practice of natural resource management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habitat conservation</span> Management practice for protecting types of environments

Habitat conservation is a management practice that seeks to conserve, protect and restore habitats and prevent species extinction, fragmentation or reduction in range. It is a priority of many groups that cannot be easily characterized in terms of any one ideology.

Adaptive management, also known as adaptive resource management or adaptive environmental assessment and management, is a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring. In this way, decision making simultaneously meets one or more resource management objectives and, either passively or actively, accrues information needed to improve future management. Adaptive management is a tool which should be used not only to change a system, but also to learn about the system. Because adaptive management is based on a learning process, it improves long-run management outcomes. The challenge in using the adaptive management approach lies in finding the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcome based on current knowledge. This approach has more recently been employed in implementing international development programs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental resource management</span> Type of resource management

Environmental resource management is the management of the interaction and impact of human societies on the environment. It is not, as the phrase might suggest, the management of the environment itself. Environmental resources management aims to ensure that ecosystem services are protected and maintained for future human generations, and also maintain ecosystem integrity through considering ethical, economic, and scientific (ecological) variables. Environmental resource management tries to identify factors affected by conflicts that rise between meeting needs and protecting resources. It is thus linked to environmental protection, sustainability, integrated landscape management, natural resource management, fisheries management, forest management, and wildlife management, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restoration ecology</span> Scientific study of renewing and restoring ecosystems

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is distinct from conservation and preservation in that it is an "attempt to co-design nature with nonhuman collaborators." Ecological restoration can reverse biodiversity loss, combat climate change, and support local economies. The United Nations named 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem service</span> Benefits provided by healthy nature, forests and environmental systems

Ecosystem services are the many and varied benefits to humans provided by the natural environment and healthy ecosystems. Such ecosystems include, for example, agroecosystems, forest ecosystem, grassland ecosystems, and aquatic ecosystems. These ecosystems, functioning in healthy relationships, offer such things as natural pollination of crops, clean air, extreme weather mitigation, and human mental and physical well-being. Collectively, these benefits are becoming known as ecosystem services, and are often integral to the provision of food, the provisioning of clean drinking water, the decomposition of wastes, and the resilience and productivity of food ecosystems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural resource management</span> Management of natural resources

Natural resource management (NRM) is the management of natural resources such as land, water, soil, plants and animals, with a particular focus on how management affects the quality of life for both present and future generations (stewardship).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological resilience</span> Capacity of ecosystems to resist and recover from change

In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly. Such perturbations and disturbances can include stochastic events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation, fracking of the ground for oil extraction, pesticide sprayed in soil, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Disturbances of sufficient magnitude or duration can profoundly affect an ecosystem and may force an ecosystem to reach a threshold beyond which a different regime of processes and structures predominates. When such thresholds are associated with a critical or bifurcation point, these regime shifts may also be referred to as critical transitions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DPSIR</span>

DPSIR is a causal framework used to describe the interactions between society and the environment. It seeks to analyze and assess environmental problems by bringing together various scientific disciplines, environmental managers, and stakeholders, and solve them by incorporating sustainable development. First, the indicators are categorized into "drivers" which put "pressures" in the "state" of the system, which in turn results in certain "impacts" that will lead to various "responses" to maintain or recover the system under consideration. It is followed by the organization of available data, and suggestion of procedures to collect missing data for future analysis. Since its formulation in the late 1990s, it has been widely adopted by international organizations for ecosystem-based study in various fields like biodiversity, soil erosion, and groundwater depletion and contamination. In recent times, the framework has been used in combination with other analytical methods and models, to compensate for its shortcomings. It is employed to evaluate environmental changes in ecosystems, identify the social and economic pressures on a system, predict potential challenges and improve management practices. The flexibility and general applicability of the framework make it a resilient tool that can be applied in social, economic, and institutional domains as well.

Ecosystem-based management is an environmental management approach that recognizes the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including humans, rather than considering single issues, species, or ecosystem services in isolation. It can be applied to studies in the terrestrial and aquatic environments with challenges being attributed to both. In the marine realm, they are highly challenging to quantify due to highly migratory species as well as rapidly changing environmental and anthropogenic factors that can alter the habitat rather quickly. To be able to manage fisheries efficiently and effectively it has become increasingly more pertinent to understand not only the biological aspects of the species being studied, but also the environmental variables they are experiencing. Population abundance and structure, life history traits, competition with other species, where the stock is in the local food web, tidal fluctuations, salinity patterns and anthropogenic influences are among the variables that must be taken into account to fully understand the implementation of a "ecosystem-based management" approach. Interest in ecosystem-based management in the marine realm has developed more recently, in response to increasing recognition of the declining state of fisheries and ocean ecosystems. However, due to a lack of a clear definition and the diversity involved with the environment, the implementation has been lagging. In freshwater lake ecosystems, it has been shown that ecosystem-based habitat management is more effective for enhancing fish populations than management alternatives.

Community-based management (CBM) is a bottom up approach of organization which can be facilitated by an upper government or NGO structure but it aims for local stakeholder participation in the planning, research, development, management and policy making for a community as a whole. The decentralization of managing tactics enables local people to deal with the unique social, political and ecological problems their community might face and find solutions ideal to their situation. Overwhelming national or local economic, political and social pressures can affect the efficiency of CBM as well as its long term application. CBM varies across spatial and temporal scales to reflect the ever-changing distinctive physical and/or human environment it is acting within. While the specifics of each practice might differ, existing research maintains that community based management, when implemented properly, is incredibly beneficial not only for the health of the environment, but also for the well-being of the stakeholders.

Akure Forest Reserve is a protected area in southwest Nigeria, covering 66 km2 (25 sq mi). The Akure Forest Reserve, established in 1948 and spanning approximately 32 hectares, was created with the primary aim of safeguarding the genetic diversity of the forest ecosystem.

Population, health, and the environment (PHE) is an approach to human development that integrates family planning and health with conservation efforts to seek synergistic successes for greater conservation and human welfare outcomes than single sector approaches. There is a deep relationship between population, health and environment. Those subjects are not only related to each other but also to other important aspects that are very necessary for keeping PHE in a close-knit relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forest restoration</span>

Forest restoration is defined as “actions to re-instate ecological processes, which accelerate recovery of forest structure, ecological functioning and biodiversity levels towards those typical of climax forest” i.e. the end-stage of natural forest succession. Climax forests are relatively stable ecosystems that have developed the maximum biomass, structural complexity and species diversity that are possible within the limits imposed by climate and soil and without continued disturbance from humans. Climax forest is therefore the target ecosystem, which defines the ultimate aim of forest restoration. Since climate is a major factor that determines climax forest composition, global climate change may result in changing restoration aims. Additionally, the potential impacts of climate change on restoration goals must be taken into account, as changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may alter the composition and distribution of climax forests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Participatory monitoring</span>

Participatory monitoring is the regular collection of measurements or other kinds of data (monitoring), usually of natural resources and biodiversity, undertaken by local residents of the monitored area, who rely on local natural resources and thus have more local knowledge of those resources. Those involved usually live in communities with considerable social cohesion, where they regularly cooperate on shared projects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nature-based solutions</span> Sustainable management and use of nature for tackling socio-environmental challenges

Nature-based solutions (NBS) is the sustainable management and use of natural features and processes to tackle socio-environmental issues. These issues include climate change, water security, water pollution, food security, human health, biodiversity loss, and disaster risk management. The European Commission's definition of NBS states that these solutions are "inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes, and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions". In 2020, the EC definition was updated to further emphasise that "Nature-based solutions must benefit biodiversity and support the delivery of a range of ecosystem services." Through the use of NBS healthy, resilient, and diverse ecosystems can provide solutions for the benefit of both societies and overall biodiversity.

The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC), established in 2009 in the United States, are a network of 22 regional conservation bodies covering the entire United States and adjacent areas. They are autonomous cooperatives sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Interior and aim to develop coordinated conservation strategies applicable to large areas of land. Partnerships are formed with government and non-government conservation organizations to achieve common goals of conservation. While fairly new as government supported entities, the LCCs are similar to initiatives that have been started or advocated in other countries.

Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) is a sustainable approach for conserving the rapidly disappearing mangrove forests. It can be defined as community driven management and rehabilitation of mangrove forests involving resource users in the management process directly. CBMM decentralizes authority and power from government to local communities. The dual aim of CBMM is the ongoing conservation of mangroves and generation of sustainable livelihood.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Firewood in Nigeria</span> Deforestation and use of fuel wood in Nigeria

In Nigeria, firewood is a traditional source of energy for domestic and commercial use. Fuel wood is derived from cutting and burning wood materials such as logs and twigs. It has long been prevalent among rural and sometimes urban dwellers.

References

  1. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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. 1 2 3 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. 1 2 3 4 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. 1 2 3 4 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. 1 2 3 4 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 4 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 4 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 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. 1 2 Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN   978-1-932846-07-2.
  43. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 "Resilience Alliance - Adaptive Management". www.resalliance.org. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  45. 1 2 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. 1 2 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.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.