Achieving Integrative, Collaborative Ecosystem Management

Abstract:  Although numerous principles have been identified as being important for successfully integrating social and ecological factors in collaborative management, few authors have illustrated how these principles are used and why they are effective. On the basis of a review of the ecosystem management and collaboration literature, we identified eight factors important for integrative, collaborative ecosystem management—integrated and balanced goals, inclusive public involvement, stakeholder influence, consensus group approach, collaborative stewardship, monitoring and adaptive management, multidisciplinary data, and economic incentives.We examined four cases of successful ecosystem management to illustrate how the factors were incorporated and discuss the role they played in each case's success. The cases illustrate that balancing social and ecosystem sustainability goals is possible. Collaborative efforts resulted in part from factors aimed at making plans economically feasible and from meaningful stakeholder participation in ongoing management. It also required participation in monitoring programs to ensure stakeholder interests were protected and management efforts were focused on agreed-upon goals. Data collection efforts were not all-inclusive and systematic; rather, they addressed the ecological, economic, and social aspects of key issues as they emerged over time. Economic considerations appear to be broader than simply providing economic incentives; stakeholders seem willing to trade some economic value for recreational or environmental benefits. The cases demonstrate that it is not idealistic to believe integrative, collaborative ecosystem management is possible in field applications.     

论地质灾害防治对策及其系统决策

本文在讨论地质灾害基本属性的基础上,提出了地质灾害防治的基本对策,并基于多目标决策特点,构造了三类地质灾害防治决策最优化模型。     

MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN THE NITRA BASIN1

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the implementation of one element of a decision support system (DSS) for regional water quality management, applied to the Nitra River Basin in Slovakia. A model-based, aspiration-led methodology for multicriteria decision support has been used for the study. Several reusable, modular software tools have been developed and implemented: a problem-specific generator to produce the core part of the mathematical programming model, tools for the generation and interactive modification of multicriteria problems, and a solver for the resulting mixed-integer optimization problem. Provided in the paper are the following: a complete formulation of the mathematical model (including the imbedded water quality model), a summary of the aspiration-reservation-led multiple criteria optimization approach applied to decision support, and an overview of results that illustrate the applied approach and provide some interesting insights to the case study.     

某城市建筑泥浆污染现状调查研究

以某城市为例,研究城市建筑泥浆的污染现状,并分析泥浆受到污染的原因.结果表明:对照《地表水环境质量标准》(GB 3838-2002)中的Ⅳ类标准限值,调研的4个工地泥浆水全部超标;该城市地层土壤中的有机质、总氮、总磷含量高是泥浆水超标的重要原因,工地制浆使用的地表水和污水也不能满足Ⅳ类水质的要求.在建筑工地的管理中,应...     

半结构决策方法在松花江蓄洪区选址问题中的研究

研究松花江蓄洪区选址问题的决策方法.松花江蓄滞洪区选址问题涉及诸多定性指标和定量指标,属于半结构决策问题.本文综合层次分析法和模糊优选法,提出求解这类问题的一种半结构决策方法.基本方法是:将评价指标分为定性指标和定量指标;对于定性应用层次分析法,求其评价矩阵;对于定量指标应用相对隶属度方法,求其评价矩阵;二者合成得到全体指标的评价矩阵;最后利用模糊优选法求得最优决策.应用该方法于松花江流域蓄滞洪区的方案选择中.     

基于UAHP的采空区稳定性模糊综合评判

为准确评判矿山采空区稳定性等级,通过分析采空区稳定性各影响因素,确定地质、水文、采空区几何参数、环境等4个2级指标为影响其稳定性的主要因素。运用层次分析法(AHP)并结合模糊数学理论,建立采空区稳定性2级模糊综合评判模型。用区间数表示评判结果,分析处理评判矩阵得到专家评判的相似度和差异度,进而获取专家评判的可信度,建立基于不确定型层次分析法(UAHP)的采空区稳定性模糊评判方法。实例计算结果表明:在Ⅰ级评判指标中,地质构造、周围开采影响、地下水活动程度、跨度对采空区稳定性影响较大;用该采空区的稳定性等级为Ⅱ级。用该方法能得出各影响因素的综合权重,准确评判采空区稳定性等级。     

基于DEMATEL方法的海运行为形成因子影响关系分析

为揭示并量化海运人因可靠性分析(HRA)中行为形成因子(PSF)间复杂的影响关系,采用DEMATEL方法对航海人员值班任务中9个PSF的依赖关系进行建模和分析,并验证该方法的有效性。结果表明:船上组织的完善程度、驾驶台班组成员的合作质量、可用时间等PSF在系统中的作用大;船上组织的完善程度、人机界面(MMI)与运行支持的完善性、值班区间以及培训和准备的充分性4个PSF为原因因素,驾驶台班组成员的合作质量、同时出现的目标任务数量、可用时间、船上工作及船舶航行条件和操作规程/计划的可用性5个PSF为结果因素。安全管理人员应针对作用大或原因因素中的PSF制定安全管理措施,改善情景环境,提高人因可靠性。     

Emergent conservation outcomes of shared risk perception in human-wildlife systems

Human perception of risks related to economic damages caused by nearby wildlife can be transmitted through social networks. Understanding how sharing risk information within a human community alters the spatial dynamics of human-wildlife interactions has important implications for the design and implementation of effective conservation actions. We developed an agent-based model that simulates farmer livelihood decisions and activities in an agricultural landscape shared with a population of a generic wildlife species (wildlife-human interactions in shared landscapes [WHISL]). In the model, based on risk perception and economic information, farmers decide how much labor to allocate to farming and whether and where to exclude wildlife from their farms (e.g., through fencing, trenches, or vegetation thinning). In scenarios where the risk perception of farmers was strongly influenced by other farmers, exclusion of wildlife was widespread, resulting in decreased quality of wildlife habitat and frequency of wildlife damages across the landscape. When economic losses from encounters with wildlife were high, perception of risk increased and led to highly synchronous behaviors by farmers in space and time. Interactions between wildlife and farmers sometimes led to a spillover effect of wildlife damage displaced from socially and spatially connected communities to less connected neighboring farms. The WHISL model is a useful conservation-planning tool because it provides a test bed for theories and predictions about human-wildlife dynamics across a range of different agricultural landscapes.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

The need for spatially explicit quantification of benefits in invasive‐species management

Worldwide, invasive species are a leading driver of environmental change across terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments and cost billions of dollars annually in ecological damages and economic losses. Resources limit invasive‐species control, and planning processes are needed to identify cost‐effective solutions. Thus, studies are increasingly considering spatially variable natural and socioeconomic assets (e.g., species persistence, recreational fishing) when planning the allocation of actions for invasive‐species management. There is a need to improve understanding of how such assets are considered in invasive‐species management. We reviewed over 1600 studies focused on management of invasive species, including flora and fauna. Eighty‐four of these studies were included in our final analysis because they focused on the prioritization of actions for invasive species management. Forty‐five percent (n = 38) of these studies were based on spatial optimization methods, and 35% (n = 13) accounted for spatially variable assets. Across all 84 optimization studies considered, 27% (n = 23) explicitly accounted for spatially variable assets. Based on our findings, we further explored the potential costs and benefits to invasive species management when spatially variable assets are explicitly considered or not. To include spatially variable assets in decision‐making processes that guide invasive‐species management there is a need to quantify environmental responses to invasive species and to enhance understanding of potential impacts of invasive species on different natural or socioeconomic assets. We suggest these gaps could be filled by systematic reviews, quantifying invasive species impacts on native species at different periods, and broadening sources and enhancing sharing of knowledge.