Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Ecosystem Approach (ecosystem + approach)
Selected AbstractsThe ecosystem approach in corporate environmental management , expert mental models and environmental drivers in the Finnish forest industryCORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2009Petteri Vihervaara Abstract The ecosystem approach has been adopted as the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and is recommended to be used widely in the integrated management of land, water and living resources, to promote conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way, also in corporations. The forest industry is a resource-intensive branch with various impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Our aims in this study were to examine (i) how the ecosystem approach is implemented in the Finnish forest industry; and (ii) to outline the mental models of environmental experts of corporations, and their conceptualization of some key terms of ecosystem thinking. We interviewed 12 experts about their opinions on the main future challenges, the risks, the mistakes of the past, the possibilities and the successes confronting the forest industry. The results were analyzed using the DPSIR (Driving forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses) framework model. Finally, we give several recommendations as to how the ecosystem approach can be integrated into corporate environmental management. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [source] Model uncertainty in the ecosystem approach to fisheriesFISH AND FISHERIES, Issue 4 2007Simeon L. Hill Abstract Fisheries scientists habitually consider uncertainty in parameter values, but often neglect uncertainty about model structure, an issue of increasing importance as ecosystem models are devised to support the move to an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). This paper sets out pragmatic approaches with which to account for uncertainties in model structure and we review current ways of dealing with this issue in fisheries and other disciplines. All involve considering a set of alternative models representing different structural assumptions, but differ in how those models are used. The models can be asked to identify bounds on possible outcomes, find management actions that will perform adequately irrespective of the true model, find management actions that best achieve one or more objectives given weights assigned to each model, or formalize hypotheses for evaluation through experimentation. Data availability is likely to limit the use of approaches that involve weighting alternative models in an ecosystem setting, and the cost of experimentation is likely to limit its use. Practical implementation of an EAF should therefore be based on management approaches that acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in model predictions and are robust to it. Model results must be presented in ways that represent the risks and trade-offs associated with alternative actions and the degree of uncertainty in predictions. This presentation should not disguise the fact that, in many cases, estimates of model uncertainty may be based on subjective criteria. The problem of model uncertainty is far from unique to fisheries, and a dialogue among fisheries modellers and modellers from other scientific communities will therefore be helpful. [source] A Strategic Framework for Monitoring Coastal Change in Australia's Wet-dry Tropics , Concepts and ProgressGEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, Issue 2 2009C. MAX FINLAYSON Abstract A strategic framework for monitoring natural and human-induced change in the coastal plains of the Alligator Rivers Region in the wet-dry tropics of northern Australia is presented. The framework also supports refinement of methods used to monitor the vulnerability of coastal areas to change, including human-induced climate change and sea-level rise. The information derived through the framework can be used to assess scenarios, highlight the potential significance and implications of changes, and assist land managers formulate management responses. The framework incorporates several large-scale studies for monitoring atmospheric and hydrodynamic processes as well as mapping and monitoring projects specific to environmental change in the freshwater wetlands and the floodplains of the Region. Monitoring is proposed to address processes influencing the stability and rate of change of the floodplain environments. These include large-scale processes, such as inter-annual variability in weather conditions affecting the morphology of the coastal plains, shoreline and riverbank stabilisation, headward expansion of tidal creeks, and salinisation of freshwater basins. Information management is also addressed, and a Geographic Information System structure proposed for effective data collation, analysis and management. The information management system will facilitate data sharing and participation of multiple agencies and organisations interested in coastal change, especially where a landscape perspective or whole ecosystem approach is advocated. [source] Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasionsJOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 5 2006PHILIP E. HULME Summary 1Government departments, environmental managers and conservationists are all facing escalating pressure to address and resolve a diversity of invasive alien species (IAS) problems. Yet much research to date is primarily concerned with quantifying the scale of the problem rather than delivering robust solutions and has not adequately addressed all stages of the invasion process, and only a few studies embrace the ecosystem approach. 2Three successive steps, prevention, eradication and control, form the cornerstones of recommended best practices aimed at managing IAS. The goal of such actions is the restoration of ecosystems to preserve or re-establish native biodiversity and functions. 3Prevention is widely promoted as being a more environmentally desirable strategy than actions undertaken after IAS establishment, yet is hindered by the difficulty in separating invasive from non-invasive alien species. Furthermore, the high number of candidate IAS, the investment required in taxonomic support and inspection capacity, and the expense of individual risk assessments may act against the net benefits of prevention. More rewarding avenues may be found by pursuing neural networks to predict the potential composition of pest assemblages in different regions and/or model introduction pathways to identify likely invasion hubs. 4Rapid response should be consequent on early detection but, when IAS are rare, detection rates are compromised by low occurrence and limited power to discern significant changes in abundance. Power could be increased by developing composite indicators that track trends in a suite of IAS with similar life histories, shared pathways and/or habitat preferences. 5The assessment of management options will benefit from an ecosystem perspective that considers the manipulation of native competitors, consumers and mutualists, and reviews existing management practices as well as mitigates other environmental pressures. The ease with which an IAS can be targeted should not only address the direct management effects on population dynamics but also indirect effects on community diversity and structure. Where the goal is to safeguard native biodiversity, such activities should take into account the need to re-establish native species and/or restore ecosystem function in the previously affected area. 6Synthesis and applications. A comprehensive approach to IAS management should include consideration of the: (i) expected impacts; (ii) technical options available; (iii) ease with which the species can be targeted; (iv) risks associated with management; (v) likelihood of success; and (vi) extent of public concern and stakeholder interest. For each of these issues, in addition to targeting an individual species, the management of biological invasions must also incorporate an appreciation of other environmental pressures, the importance of landscape structure, and the role of existing management activities and restoration efforts. [source] Ecosystem science and human,environment interactions in the Hawaiian archipelagoJOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, Issue 3 2006PETER VITOUSEK Summary 1Tansley's ecosystem concept remains a vital framework for ecological research in part because the approach facilitates interdisciplinary analyses of ecological systems. 2Features of the Hawaiian Islands , particularly the nearly orthogonal variation in many of the factors that control variation among ecosystems elsewhere , make the archipelago a useful model system for interdisciplinary research designed to understand fundamental controls on the state and dynamics of ecosystems, and their consequences for human societies. 3Analyses of rain forest sites arrayed on a substrate age gradient from c. 300 years to over 4 million years across the Hawaiian archipelago demonstrate that the sources of calcium and other essential cations shift from > 80% rock-derived in young sites to > 80% derived from marine aerosol on substrates older than 100 000 years. Rock-derived phosphorus is retained longer within ecosystems, but eventually long-distance transport of continental dust from Asia becomes the most important source of phosphorus. 4A biogeochemical feedback from low nutrient availability to efficient resource use by trees to slow decomposition and nutrient regeneration accentuates the geochemically driven pattern of low phosphorus availability and phosphorus limitation to net primary productivity in the oldest site. 5Variations in ecosystem biogeochemistry across the archipelago shaped the development and sustainability of Polynesian agricultural systems in the millennium between their discovery of Hawai'i and contact by Europeans. Irrigated pondfields were largely confined to stream valleys on the older islands, while rain-fed dryland systems occupied a narrow zone of fertile, well-watered soils on the younger islands. 6The ecosystem approach often represents the most appropriate level of organization for analyses of human influences on ecological systems; it can play a central role in the design and analysis of alternative agricultural, industrial and residential systems that could reduce the human footprint on the Earth. [source] Understanding fish habitat ecology to achieve conservation,JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY, Issue 2005J. C. Rice Habitat science can provide the unifying concepts to bring together ecological studies of physiological tolerances, predator avoidance, foraging and feeding, reproduction and life histories. Its unifying role is built on two assumptions, imported from terrestrial habitat science and not always stated explicitly: that competition is present interspecifically and intraspecifically under at least some conditions, and that habitat features have some persistence and predictability in space and time. Consistent with its central conceptual position in ecology, habitat science has contributed importantly to scientific advice on pollution, coastal zone management and many other areas of environmental quality, although it has been largely divorced from developments in fish populations dynamics done in support of fisheries management. Commitments by most management agencies to apply an integrated, ecosystem approach to management of human activities in marine systems, poses new challenges to marine science advisors to management. Integrated management and ecosystem approaches both inherently require spatial thinking and spatial tools, making habitat science a particularly relevant advisory framework, particularly because of the unifying role of habitat in ecology. The basic mechanisms behind ocean biological dynamics, productivity, concentration and retention, however, present much weaker opportunities for competition and less persistence and predictability, weakening the foundations of theory and concepts behind current habitat science. The paper highlights the new types of thinking about ,habitat' that will be required, if habitat science is to meet the advisory needs of the new approaches to management. [source] A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock assessment and managementFISH AND FISHERIES, Issue 1 2001In 1977, Peter Larkin published his now-famous paper, ,An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield'. Larkin criticized the concept of single-species maximum sustained yield (MSY) for many reasons, including the possibility that it may not guard against recruitment failure, and the impossibility of maximising sustainable yields for all species simultaneously. However, in recent years, there has been a fundamental change in the perception of the fishing mortality associated with MSY (FMSY) as a limit to be avoided rather than a target that can routinely be exceeded. The concept of FMSY as a limit is embodied in several United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) agreements and guidelines, and has now been incorporated into the US Magnuson,Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As a result, the United States now requires the development of overfishing definitions based on biological reference points that treat the FMSY as a limit reference point and must also define a lower limit on biomass below which rebuilding plans with strict time horizons must be developed. This represents a major paradigm shift from the previously mandated (but often unachieved) objective to simply maintain fishing mortalities at levels below those associated with recruitment overfishing. In many cases, it requires substantial reductions in current fishing mortality levels. Therefore, the necessity of the new paradigm is continually questioned. This paper draws on examples from several fisheries, but specifically focuses on the recent US experience illustrating the practical difficulties of reducing fishing mortality to levels below those corresponding to MSY. However, several studies suggest that even more substantial reductions in fishing mortality may be necessary if ecosystem considerations, such as multispecies interactions, maintenance of biodiversity and genetic diversity, and reduction of bycatch and waste, are taken into account. The pros and cons of moving beyond single-species assessment and management are discussed. A US plan for improving stock assessments indicates that even a ,basic' objective such as ,adequate baseline monitoring of all managed species' may be extremely costly. Thus, the suggestion of Larkin (1983, 1997) that the costs of research and management should not exceed 10,20% of the landed value of the catch may preclude comprehensive ecosystem management. More importantly, neither single-species nor ecosystem-based fisheries management is likely to improve appreciably unless levels of fishing capacity are aligned with resource productivity, as is currently being promoted by FAO and several individual nations. [source] | ||||||||||||||||