2
ducted at a variety of spatial scales and may address one or many issues, the main intent of this
book is to describe topics with particular importance to strategic integrated ecological assessments
at a regional or subregional scale. In this introduction, we begin our discussion with a brief overview
of the relation of ecological assessments to ecosystem management. In Section 2 of this introduction,
we place emphasis on key ecological principles of
ecosystem management and their implications to
the assessment process. In Section 3, we present a
general planning model and describe how ecological assessments are used in adaptive resource
planning. In Section 4, we take the reader on a tour
of the book. First we describe our logic for organizing chapters into generic issue group sections
and related topics. We then present a general framework for ecological assessments to assist the reader
in understanding how the chapters in this book relate to the procedural steps that should be considered in any integrated ecological assessment.
Relation of Ecological
Assessments to Ecosystem
Management
Ecosystem management is an evolving philosophy
that many government agencies have adopted in the
multiple-use, sustained-yield management of federal lands. The primary objective of this philosophy is to sustain the integrity of ecosystems for future generations while providing immediate goods
and services to an increasingly diverse public. This
objective can best be achieved through broad-level
integrated ecological assessments that describe the
maintenance or development of landscape patterns
and processes that meet societal expectations
within the limits ofthe land's ecological potentials.
Landscape ecology, conservation biology, and
adaptive management principles are critical components of this philosophy (Jensen et aI., 1996;
Lessard et al., 1999). In the following discussion,
we review key concepts and objectives of ecosystem management to illustrate some of the underlying components that integrated ecological assessments must address if they are to have broad
application to most land management or regulatory
agencies.
There are about as many definitions of ecosystem management as there are groups that advocate
its use (or limitations) as a basis for land-use planning (Slocombe, 1993; Christensen et al., 1996;
Introduction
Samson and Knoph, 1996; Boyce and Haney, 1997).
According to Wagner (1995), "Definers commonly
couch their definitions in terms of their own values,
and it is the differences in individuals and group
values that produce the definitional differences."
For example, members of the environmental community commonly emphasize the values of preserving biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity,
and sustainability in their definitions of ecosystem
management (e.g., Grumbine, 1994; Wilcove and
Blair, 1995). Advocates of sustainable resource
flows from public lands (e.g., industry) generally
acknowledge the merits of these values; however,
they also emphasize that the goals and objectives of
ecosystem management must include economic and
social needs because humans are also part of the
ecosystem (Slocombe, 1993; Heissenbuttel, 1995).
Wagner (1995) suggests that ecosystem management is the "skillful manipUlation of ecosystems
to satisfy specified societal values." This definition
is useful because it does not imply that optimization of biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity,
and commodity production be included in every
ecosystem management effort. Instead, these values are articulated on a case by case basis, given
the planning objectives and the laws and regulations that apply to a specific planning area. Management goals, therefore, determine the ecosystem(s) to be managed (i.e., the appropriate planning
area), the goods and services, and the desired conditions (e.g., biodiversity, health and integrity, sustainability) of an ecosystem (Wagner, 1995).
Regardless of the specific definition of ecosystem management, three basic ecological principles
should be considered in any ecological assessment
(Haynes et aI., 1996; Lessard et aI., 1999; Bourgeron et aI., 2001).
1. Hierarchy theory: Hierarchy theory provides a
framework for characterizing ecosystem components and their linkages among different scales of
ecological organization (O'Neill and King, 1998;
Peterson et aI., 1998). In multiscaled systems with
hierarchical organization, higher levels provide the
context or environment within which lower levels
evolve; in other words, higher levels constrain the
"behavior" of lower levels (Allen and Starr, 1982).
In aquatic systems, for example, the characteristics
of in-stream channel features are largely determined by the geoclimatic properties of the valley
bottom and watershed settings within which they
are nested (Maxwell et al., 1995). Knowledge of
hierarchical scaling is important to the monitoring
and characterization of ecological systems.
ducted at a variety of spatial scales and may address one or many issues, the main intent of this
book is to describe topics with particular importance to strategic integrated ecological assessments
at a regional or subregional scale. In this introduction, we begin our discussion with a brief overview
of the relation of ecological assessments to ecosystem management. In Section 2 of this introduction,
we place emphasis on key ecological principles of
ecosystem management and their implications to
the assessment process. In Section 3, we present a
general planning model and describe how ecological assessments are used in adaptive resource
planning. In Section 4, we take the reader on a tour
of the book. First we describe our logic for organizing chapters into generic issue group sections
and related topics. We then present a general framework for ecological assessments to assist the reader
in understanding how the chapters in this book relate to the procedural steps that should be considered in any integrated ecological assessment.
Relation of Ecological
Assessments to Ecosystem
Management
Ecosystem management is an evolving philosophy
that many government agencies have adopted in the
multiple-use, sustained-yield management of federal lands. The primary objective of this philosophy is to sustain the integrity of ecosystems for future generations while providing immediate goods
and services to an increasingly diverse public. This
objective can best be achieved through broad-level
integrated ecological assessments that describe the
maintenance or development of landscape patterns
and processes that meet societal expectations
within the limits ofthe land's ecological potentials.
Landscape ecology, conservation biology, and
adaptive management principles are critical components of this philosophy (Jensen et aI., 1996;
Lessard et al., 1999). In the following discussion,
we review key concepts and objectives of ecosystem management to illustrate some of the underlying components that integrated ecological assessments must address if they are to have broad
application to most land management or regulatory
agencies.
There are about as many definitions of ecosystem management as there are groups that advocate
its use (or limitations) as a basis for land-use planning (Slocombe, 1993; Christensen et al., 1996;
Introduction
Samson and Knoph, 1996; Boyce and Haney, 1997).
According to Wagner (1995), "Definers commonly
couch their definitions in terms of their own values,
and it is the differences in individuals and group
values that produce the definitional differences."
For example, members of the environmental community commonly emphasize the values of preserving biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity,
and sustainability in their definitions of ecosystem
management (e.g., Grumbine, 1994; Wilcove and
Blair, 1995). Advocates of sustainable resource
flows from public lands (e.g., industry) generally
acknowledge the merits of these values; however,
they also emphasize that the goals and objectives of
ecosystem management must include economic and
social needs because humans are also part of the
ecosystem (Slocombe, 1993; Heissenbuttel, 1995).
Wagner (1995) suggests that ecosystem management is the "skillful manipUlation of ecosystems
to satisfy specified societal values." This definition
is useful because it does not imply that optimization of biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity,
and commodity production be included in every
ecosystem management effort. Instead, these values are articulated on a case by case basis, given
the planning objectives and the laws and regulations that apply to a specific planning area. Management goals, therefore, determine the ecosystem(s) to be managed (i.e., the appropriate planning
area), the goods and services, and the desired conditions (e.g., biodiversity, health and integrity, sustainability) of an ecosystem (Wagner, 1995).
Regardless of the specific definition of ecosystem management, three basic ecological principles
should be considered in any ecological assessment
(Haynes et aI., 1996; Lessard et aI., 1999; Bourgeron et aI., 2001).
1. Hierarchy theory: Hierarchy theory provides a
framework for characterizing ecosystem components and their linkages among different scales of
ecological organization (O'Neill and King, 1998;
Peterson et aI., 1998). In multiscaled systems with
hierarchical organization, higher levels provide the
context or environment within which lower levels
evolve; in other words, higher levels constrain the
"behavior" of lower levels (Allen and Starr, 1982).
In aquatic systems, for example, the characteristics
of in-stream channel features are largely determined by the geoclimatic properties of the valley
bottom and watershed settings within which they
are nested (Maxwell et al., 1995). Knowledge of
hierarchical scaling is important to the monitoring
and characterization of ecological systems.