Advertisement

Introduction

  • Mark E. Jensen
  • Patrick S. Bourgeron

Abstract

Ecological assessments are a critical component of land management planning and regulatory decision making. Their scope and nature commonly differ due to the issues addressed; the discipline, agency, or audience involved; and the associated legislative or regulatory requirements (Lessard et al., 1999). In the United States, for example, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 directed that all federal lands be managed to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; (and) to enrich understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation.” To ensure compliance with these objectives, NEPA dictated that the environmental consequences associated with proposed management of federal lands be fully disclosed to the general public through appropriate ecological assessment documents (e.g., environmental impact assessments). In a similar manner, over 40 other countries have legislated the use of some type of ecological assessment as a prerequisite for effective environmental planning and land management (Robinson, 1992; Treweek, 1999).

Keywords

Environmental Impact Assessment Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Assessment Federal Land Assessment Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T. F. H.; Starr, T. B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, W. L. 1992. The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reserves. Landscape Ecol. 7:181–194.Google Scholar
  3. Beek, K. J.; Bannema, J. 1972. Land evaluation for agricultural land use planning—an ecological methodology. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Department of Soil Sciences and Geology, Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  4. Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. W. 1994. An overview of ecological principles for ecosystem management. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric, For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 45–57.Google Scholar
  5. Bourgeron, P. S.; Humphries, H. G; Jensen, M. E.; Brown, B. A. (2001). Integrated regional ecological assessments and land use planning. In: Dale, V.; Haueber, R., eds. Applying ecological principles to land management. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A. 1997. Ecosystem management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, N. L. 1996. The scientific basis for sustainable use of land. In: Diamond, H. L.; Noonan, P., eds. The use of land. Washington, DC: Island Press: 273–308.Google Scholar
  8. Costanza, R.; Wainger, L.; Folke, C.; Maler, K. 1993. Modeling complex ecological economic systems. BioScience 43:545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Everett, R.; Hessburg, P.; Jensen, M.; Bormann, B. 1994. Volume 1: executive summary. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-317. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.Google Scholar
  10. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1976. A framework for land evaluation. 32. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  11. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1993. Guidelines for land use planning. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  12. Forman, R. T. T.; Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  13. Golley, F. B. 1994. Development of landscape ecology and its relation to environmental management. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 34–41.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, R. L.; Hunsaker, C. T.; O’Neill, R. V.; Jackson, B. L. 1991. Ecological risk assessment at the regional scale. Ecol. Appl. 1:196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haynes, R. W.; Graham, R. T.; Quigley, T.M. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.Google Scholar
  17. Heissenbuttel, A. E. 1995. Industry perspectives on ecosystem management: an evolution in forest science and policy. In: Everett, R. L.; Baumgartner, D. M., eds. Ecosystem management in western interior forests. Pullman, WA: Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University: 11–14.Google Scholar
  18. Houing, C. S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Holling, C. S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark, W. M.; Munn, R. E., eds. Sustainable development in the biosphere. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 292–320.Google Scholar
  20. Hunsaker, C. T.; Graham, R. T.; Suter II, G. W.; O’Neill, R.V.; Barnthouse, L.W.; Gardner, R. H. 1990. Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environ. Manage. 14:325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter, M. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In: Kohn, K.A., ed. Balancing on the brink of extinction—the endangered species act and lessons for the future. Washington, DC: Island Press: 256–281.Google Scholar
  22. Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., editors. 1994. Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S.; Everett, R.; Goodman, I. 1996. Ecosystem management: a landscape ecology perspective. J. Amer. Water Resources Association 32:208–216.Google Scholar
  24. Kay, J. J. 1991. A nonequilibrium themodynamic framework for discussing ecosystem integrity. Environ. Manage. 15:483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kessler, J. J., editor. 1997. Strategie environmental analysis, AIDEnvironment. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The Hague.Google Scholar
  26. Klingebiel, A. A.; Montgomery, D. H. 1961. Land capability classification. Agricultural Handbook 210. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. GPO.Google Scholar
  27. Lessard, G.; Jensen, M.E.; Crespi, M.; Bourgeron, P.S. 1999. A general framework for integrated ecological assessments. In: Cordel, H. K.; Bergstrom, J. C, eds. Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment policy and management. Champaign-Urbana, IL: Sagamore: 35–60.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1942–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marcot, B. G. 1986. Concepts of risk analysis as applied to viable population assessment and planning. In: Wilcox, B. A.; Brassard, P. F.; Marcot, B. G., eds. The management of viable populations: theory, applications and case studies. Standord, CA: Center for Conservation Biology.Google Scholar
  30. Maxwell, J. R.; Edwards, C. J.; Jensen, M. E.; Paustian, S.J.; Parrott, H.; Hill, D. M. 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America. NC-GTR-176. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv., North Central Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
  31. May, R. 1976. Simple mathematical models witery complicated dynamics. Nature 261:459–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health: new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Naveh, Z.; Lieberman, A. 1984. Landscape ecology: theory and application. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Noss, R. F.; Cooperrider, A. Y. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  35. Olson, G. W. 1974. Land classifications. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  36. O’Neill, R. V.; King, A. W. 1998. Homage to St. Michael; or, why are there so many books on scale? In: Peterson, D. L.; Parker, V. T., eds. Ecological scale: theory and applications. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. O’Neill, R. V.; DeAngelis, D. L.; Waide, J. B.; Allen, T. F. H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ortolano, L.; Shepherd, A. 1995. Environmental impact assessment. In: Vanclay, F.; Bronstein, D. A., eds. Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons: 3–31.Google Scholar
  39. Peterson, G.; Allen, C. R.; Holling, C. S. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahel, F. J. 1990. The hierarchical nature of community persistence: a problem of scale. Amer. Naturalist 136:328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, N. 1992. International trends in environmental impact assessment. Boston College Environ. Affairs Law Rev. 19(3):591–621.Google Scholar
  42. Samson, F. B.; Knopf, F. L. 1996. Ecosystem management: selected readings. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Slocombe, D. S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management: development of theory, practice, and research for planning and managing a region. BioScience 4:612–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Therivel, R.; Rosărio Partidărio, M. 1996. The practice of strategic environmental assessment. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. Therivel, R.; Thompson, S. 1996. Strategic environmental assessment and nature conservation. Peterborough, UK: English Nature.Google Scholar
  46. Therivel, R.; Wilson, E.; Thompson, S.; Heaney, D.; Pritchard, D. 1992. Strategie environmental assessment. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Treweek, J. 1999. Ecological impact assessment. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  48. Urban, D. L.; O’Neill, R. V.; Shugart, H. H., Jr. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37:119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  51. Wagner, F. H. 1995. What have we learned? In: Wagner, F. H., ed. Proceedings of the symposium: ecosystem management of natural resources in the Intermountain West, April 20-22, 1994, Logan, Utah. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, Logan, UT: College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, 5:121–125.Google Scholar
  52. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Walters, C. J.; Holling, C. S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology. 71(6):2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilcove, D. S.; Blair, R. B. 1995. The ecosystem management bandwagon. Tree 10:345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Zonneveld, I. S. 1988. Basic principles of land evaluation using vegetation and other land attributes. In: Kuchler, A. W.; Zonneveld, I. S., eds. Vegetation mapping. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark E. Jensen
  • Patrick S. Bourgeron

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations