The Usefulness of a Threat and Disturbance ... - Springer Link

6 downloads 0 Views 360KB Size Report
Oct 8, 2010 - Developed for Queensland Wetlands to Environmental. Management ... of ecosystem condition between stakeholders, agencies, states, and nations ..... 1991) and for the IUCN (2001) Red List categories of extinction risk. ... adopted in modified forms by the Federal Government and most State and territory ...
Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9562-7

RESEARCH

The Usefulness of a Threat and Disturbance Categorization Developed for Queensland Wetlands to Environmental Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation A. J. J. Lynch

Received: 22 July 2009 / Accepted: 26 August 2010 / Published online: 8 October 2010  Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract There is no comprehensive system of describing threats and disturbances currently used in Australia, despite the widespread impacts of human activities on natural ecosystems. Yet a detailed categorization would facilitate the collation of threatening process information into information systems; enable standardized collection and availability of data; and enable comparative analyses of ecosystem condition between stakeholders, agencies, states, and nations, particularly for environmental reporting and evaluation mechanisms such as State of the Environment. As part of the Queensland Wetlands Programme (QWP), a threat and disturbance framework was developed, focused on the pressure and impacts components of the DPSIR (driver-pressure-state-impacts-response) framework. A wetland inventory database was developed also that included a detailed threat and disturbance categorization using the QWP framework. The categorization encompasses a broad range of anthropogenic and natural processes, and is hierarchical to accommodate varying levels of detail or knowledge. By incorporating detailed qualitative and quantitative information, a comprehensive

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9562-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. A. J. J. Lynch Environmental Information Systems Unit, Department of Environment and Resource Management, P.O. Box 15155, Brisbane City East, QLD 4002, Australia Present Address: A. J. J. Lynch (&) Centre for Environmental Management, Regional Futures Research Theme, School of Science and Engineering, University of Ballarat, Mt Helen, VIC 3353, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

123

threats and disturbances categorization can contribute to conceptual or spatially explicit knowledge and management assessments. The application of the framework and categorization to several threatening processes is demonstrated, and its relationship to current natural resource condition indicators is discussed. Threat evaluation is an essential component of ecological assessment and environmental management, and a standardized categorization enables consistency in attributing processes, impacts and their short- to long-term consequences. Such a systematic framework and categorization demonstrates the importance and usefulness of comprehensive approaches, and this approach can be readily adapted to management, monitoring and evaluation of other target ecosystems and biota. Keywords Threat  Disturbance  Wetland  Framework  Categorization  Environmental management  Adaptive management

Introduction Assessment of the threats and disturbances affecting or potentially affecting ecosystems is important for understanding the condition and status of ecosystems and for developing appropriate strategies for their environmental management, monitoring and evaluation. Sustainable management of wetlands, in particular, requires a multidisciplinary, scientific approach given that they combine attributes of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Loiselle and others 2001). Wetlands also exemplify some of the obstacles to long-term sustainable ecosystem management, including inadequate knowledge of their biological diversity, ecosystem functioning and dynamics; a system complexity that transcends management boundaries; and a

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

public prioritization of economic and social values over risk of ecosystem degradation (Christensen and others 1996; see also RCS 2007a, p. 7). A scientific, adaptive and sustainable ecosystem management approach requires goals, policies, practices, monitoring, research and evaluation that is informed by knowledge of the levels of biological organization, and the ecological interactions and processes that sustain ecosystem composition, structure and functions (Christensen and others 1996; SCBD 2005). Adaptive management acknowledges that managers have inadequate knowledge and paradigms of ecosystem function but can develop management approaches using research and monitoring that assess ecosystem responses to human behavioural change (Christensen and others 1996; Lee 1999). Inventory of the location, distribution and character of ecosystems, their values and uses, and the threats to them is essential baseline information for sustainable management and wise use (RCS 2007b, p. 51). Some countries such as the United States have focused their wetland management approaches on assessing the location, extent and types of habitats and the extent of land use change and ecosystem loss (see Noss and others 1995; Dahl and Bergeson 2009). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) acknowledged that baseline and trend information on wetland habitat condition is needed but that analysis of qualitative changes in structure, function or composition can be challenging. Research and development of methods to support a National Wetland Condition Assessment was initiated in 2007 (US EPA 2008). Various frameworks have been employed internationally to evaluate impacts on ecosystems and biota. Some frameworks identify various factors as ‘‘direct drivers’’ of change (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework, MEA 2005; Ramsar Convention guidelines, RCS 2007a), as ‘‘pressures’’ (OECD 1993), or as large scale ‘‘stressors’’ on natural systems (e.g. Ogden and others 2005). These factors are a product of indirect, driving forces that are external to the natural system, such as demographic, economic, socio-political, scientific, technological, cultural and religious factors (MEA 2005; RCS 2007a). The drivers, pressures and stressors in turn can lead to societal responses (OECD 2003), socio-economic and human well-being effects through their impacts on ecosystem services (MEA 2005); or ecological effects by impacting on the biological components or attributes of natural systems (e.g. Ogden and others 2005). Nevertheless, identification of specific threatening processes and disturbances has been largely ad hoc with most assessment reports identifying key categories of major ecosystem impacts with sporadic in-text references to specific impacts (Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) report identified seven high-level, very broad direct drivers

41

(e.g. ‘‘land use change’’; Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material), and referred to a range of more specific direct drivers (e.g. infrastructure development, agricultural expansion) and impacts (e.g. reduced biodiversity, wetland connectivity and natural flood control functions) in the text, figures and working group reports. The Ramsar Convention Secretariat handbooks for the wise use of wetlands (see RCS 2007c) followed the MEA (2005) framework but identified eight high-level factors that may affect (positively and negatively) wetland features, and also five broad causes of adverse change to a wetland’s ecological character (habitats, species and natural processes) (Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material; see RCS 2007c pp. 40, 54). Similarly, the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA 2001) identified five high-level ‘‘major concerns’’ with an associated 22 ‘‘environmental issues’’ that may impact on water bodies (Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material) and almost 100 related socio-economic impacts. The OECD (2003), in contrast, identified a range of ‘‘pressures’’, ‘‘conditions’’ and ‘‘responses’’ as a set of core environmental indicators for 14 environmental issues (eight relevant to wetlands; Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material). While a valuable progression towards identification of threats within an environmental monitoring and assessment framework, the core indicators were limited in scope. The issue of biodiversity, for example, included only ‘‘habitat alteration and land conversion’’ as a pressure; the proportion of threatened or extinct species of the total known as an indicator of condition; and the proportion of protected areas and representation of ecosystems as indicators of management response. In the same manner, the only indicator of pressure identified for water resources was the intensity of use. A few systematic typologies of threats are evident in the literature but without integration in a broader environmental management framework. The Mediterranean Wetland Inventory (Hecker and others 1996) supplied relatively comprehensive lists of 136 activities and 37 natural processes in ten categories of activity codes (Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material) that may impact upon the conservation status of a wetland site, along with eight categories of negative impact codes (Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material) including 120 types of impact. Salafsky and others (2002) presented a preliminary taxonomy of threats to biodiversity which listed examples of specific threats for four ecosystem types against three categories of general threats and 13 subcategories. The IUCN (2006) developed a hierarchical classification of causes of species decline which included ten threat categories and 171 subcategories. However, both the latter classifications mixed ecosystem, habitat or species impacts (e.g. habitat loss, degradation or disruption, species elimination) with broad-scale, complex factors (e.g. climate change, economic development)

123

42

and processes (e.g. conversion to agricultural land, exotic species invasion, natural disasters) that directly or indirectly impact on ecosystems, habitats or species. This lack of distinction between indirect or driving processes and ecological impacts undermines the facility to represent causal or multiple, interacting relationships, where they are known, and to develop conceptual models of ecosystem function to aid in adaptive management. These two classifications also contained some inefficiencies; for example, the IUCN (2006) classification included fire as a subcategory of habitat loss/degradation, natural disasters (i.e. wildfires), and other human disturbance, while changes in native species dynamics was a category of threat as well as a subcategory of habitat loss/degradation. Construction of a detailed, standardized typology of threats to ecosystems within an environmental management framework would assist environmental researchers and managers to understand and communicate some of the complexity, uncertainty and lack of knowledge inherent in managing natural system–human society interactions (Haney and Power 1996; Salafsky and others 2002). It would also assist with adaptive management—the combining of research and action in an iterative learning technique that uses hypotheses and models to describe current understanding of a system and its condition, to identify threats to the system, and to select management goals, objectives, strategies, tools and monitoring approaches to improve capacity and evaluate outcome and intervention effectiveness (Salafsky and others 2002; Margoluis and others 2009). Specifying the ‘‘detail complexity’’ (the large number of system variables) and the ‘‘dynamic complexity’’ (unpredictable interactions of variables) facilitates the deconstruction and improved understanding of contextual complexity (Margoluis and others 2009). A linked hierarchical approach enables ecosystem inventory to encapsulate variables at different spatial scales for different management and evaluation purposes (RCS 2007b, p. 10). Furthermore, consistent usage by different environmental managers of categories with particular definitions reduces ambiguity in interpretation between people and management assessments. This is an important issue even in environmental management framework categories, such as in differing usages of the term ‘‘stressors’’. Some authors (e.g. US EPA 2002; Ogden and others 2005) refer to stressors as the pressures or threats on a natural system whereas other authors (e.g. Scheltinga and Moss 2007) define the term as referring to a component of the environment (e.g. aquatic sediments, litter, nutrients, organic matter, pest species, pH, toxicants) that changes in response to a pressure or ‘‘stressor source’’; notably, some of these would qualify as pressures under the first approach. As part of the State and national commitment to the sustainable use, management and conservation of wetlands,

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

the Queensland Wetlands Programme (QWP) has been developing databases, tools and protocols for identifying and capturing information to improve the conservation and management of Queensland wetlands, particularly those in the catchments of the internationally significant Great Barrier Reef. To meet the programme objectives, adequate and comprehensive information is needed on the types and distributions of wetlands in the State, and their condition, values, importance, threats and management requirements. Development of a comprehensive typology of threats and disturbances was seen as a critical information gap relevant to wetland conservation and to environmental management more generally. This paper describes the threat and disturbance categorization that was developed for the QWP to record information about processes and disturbances adversely affecting wetland ecosystems, their mechanisms and the resulting environmental impacts. It discusses the limitations of existing approaches, and describes the development of the threat categorization within an environmental management framework. The usefulness of the approach to environmental managers is demonstrated by describing various widespread threats and how they would be categorized and recorded in the wetland inventory database. Finally, the paper summarizes the benefits of the approach and its potential usefulness for other ecosystem assessments.

Development of the Approach and Data Requirements The national and international literature was surveyed for existing threat typologies, and especially for systems that categorized components of a threat, i.e. the cause, mechanism of operation, and resultant impacts. These lists of threats and others sourced from the literature were compiled as a detailed inventory of potential and known threatening processes and disturbances for the Queensland Wetland Inventory Database (Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material). The inventory database was established to categorize and store such information, and was designed to be publicly accessible through an interactive website (WetlandInfo) to facilitate data entry and evaluation by stakeholders across the State. Threats and disturbances in the literature had been described in varying levels of detail, indicating the inconsistency in reporting upon them. A high level of detail relating to descriptors of the threats and disturbances was incorporated into the inventory database to maximize the information available on processes adversely affecting wetlands in Queensland. Several environmental management frameworks for describing threats to ecosystems were assessed by a QWP reference group for their ease of use, clarity of terminology and relevance to the jurisdiction of the QWP. The reference

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

group developed a revised framework that enabled explicit identification of threatening processes, their causes and impacts. This framework was then used to categorize threats and disturbances within the inventory database. The scope of threat and disturbance information and the nature of the inventory database categories was driven to a large part by the multiple objectives of the QWP. The information to support the QWP needed to be based on environmental legislative obligations and policy objectives; land, water and species management requirements; and socio-cultural, including education objectives. Threat and disturbance information is necessary to address relevant state and national legislative, policy and international convention obligations. The Ramsar Convention, for example, requires regular monitoring of listed wetlands in order to detect changes in ecological character, so baseline information and knowledge of the system is necessary to set sensible signal levels (Bennun 2001). More generally, some threats have been identified as having sufficient potentially adverse implications to be listed as a ‘key threatening process’ on Australian national legislation (i.e. the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). Internationally also, threat information underlies decisions about conservation listing and prioritization of species, such as under the Endangered Species Act 1973 in the United States (Noss and others 1995; see also Master 1991) and for the IUCN (2001) Red List categories of extinction risk. A comprehensive threat and disturbance typology can provide a system for documenting and databasing threat information that also can be linked to quantitative data, not only for wetland ecosystems but potentially for other ecosystems, communities, sites or taxa. Additionally, threat-related information for the QWP needed to include data relating to baseline and current ecosystem conditions; the types, intensity, and timescale of disturbances; as well as mitigating and ameliorative factors. Management information was needed also, such as on site tenure, existing or draft statutory or other management plans, and in situ management actions. However, sitespecific spatial information was considered to be contextual and most useful in a geographic information system rather than in the threats and disturbances component of the inventory database.

The Scope of Ecosystem Condition Assessment Frameworks Many environmental management frameworks that are used internationally identify drivers of change but not in relation to specific ecosystem impacts. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), Ramsar wise use guidelines (RCS 2007a), Global International Waters

43

Assessment (GIWA 2001), and Mediterranean Wetland Inventory (Hecker and others 1996) are similar in identifying drivers of change on the conservation status, ecosystem services or socio-economic values of an ecosystem or site. However, these frameworks tend not to distinguish systematically between human activities, threatening processes, the effect of human activities and threatening processes on ecosystems, and the root causes of such activities. For example, both human actions and the effects of those actions tended to be considered as ‘threats’ rather than being separated into the threatening process and the consequent impacts of that process. This lack of differentiation between threats and impacts was evident also in the threat typologies of the IUCN (2006) and Salafsky and others (2002). Some other conceptual frameworks, however, have been developed that distinguish threats from their effects. The ‘‘pressure–state–response’’ or PSR framework (Fig. 1) was developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 1993) for structuring its work on environmental policies and reporting. The framework has been adopted for State of the Environment reporting in many countries across Eurasia under the UNEP’s ENRIN initiative to improve environmental information management, access and capacity building (Simonett and others 1998). In Australia, this framework has been adopted or adopted in modified forms by the Federal Government and most State and territory governments for State of the Environment reporting (e.g. EPA Qld 1999, 2003; EPA SA 2003; ASEC 2006; DEC NSW 2006), although it is also known as the ‘‘pressure–condition–response’’ or PCR framework (EPA Qld 2003; EPA WA 2009) and the ‘‘condition–pressure–response’’ framework (ANZECC 2000; RPDC Tasmania 2003; ACT CSE 2008; see also Darwin City Council n.d.). The PSR/PCR framework is a cause-effect model that was developed firstly to represent the effect of human activities as ‘‘pressures’’ on the environment that may alter the quality and quantity (i.e. ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘condition’’) of natural resources. The second part of the framework is the societal ‘‘response’’ to such environmental changes through environmental, economic and sectoral policy formulation and implementation (OECD 1993). Societal decisions and actions (i.e. responses) form a feedback loop to the imposed pressures since they affect the state of the environment and pressures upon it (Bell 2000). Notably, the OECD (1993) framework, like most others, focuses on human-induced pressures and human responses rather than specifying either intrinsic ‘‘pressures’’ of natural variability or change in environmental conditions, or environmental responses to pressures. In contrast, the DPSIR framework (Fig. 1) has been utilized by the European Environment Agency (Smeets and

123

44

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 MEA HUMAN WELL-BEING & POVERTY REDUCTION

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CAPACITY

e.g. health, security, freedom, choice, living standards, social relations

e.g. provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting (e.g. primary production, soil formation)

INDIRECT DRIVERS OF CHANGE

DIRECT DRIVERS OF CHANGE

e.g. demographic, economic, socio-political, technological, cultural, religious factors

e.g. land use/cover change, species introductions, resource consumption, external inputs (e.g. fertilizer), natural processes

PSR/PCR PRESSURE

STATE/CONDITION

e.g. point source discharge from urban development

e.g. change in wetland fish communities

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE e.g. licensing of industry discharges

DPSIR DRIVERS

PRESSURE

e.g. population growth

e.g. urban development

DRIVERS e.g. population growth

PRESSURE

STATE

IMPACT

e.g. change in wetland fish communities

e.g. loss of fish biodiversity

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE e.g. licensing of industry discharges

PVR

e.g. urban development

+ VECTORS

MEDIATORS e.g. local species resistant to toxicants

ECOSYSTEM RESPONSES e.g. loss of fish biodiversity

e.g. toxicants

QWP STATE

PRESSURE DRIVERS

Threat

Physical

Threat mechanism

Chemical

IMPACT MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

Biological

Fig. 1 The components of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Pressure State Response (PSR)/Pressure Condition Response (PCR), Driver Pressure State Impact Response (DPSIR), and Pressure Vector Response (PVR) frameworks of human–environment interactions;

with the QWP threatening process framework. Dotted boxes are not key components of a framework. The MEA components have been realigned to show correspondence with other frameworks

Weterings 1999) and, in Australia, by the Queensland and Victorian Governments for their most recent State of the Environment reporting (see EPA Qld 2008; CES 2005). This ‘‘drivers–pressure–state–impact–response’’ framework represents a systems analysis view of environment– human systems relationships. It is similar to the PSR/PCR framework but extended to distinguish drivers of anthropogenic pressures and also the impacts resulting from changes in environmental state or quality. These impacts

potentially include effects on human health, ecosystems and materials (Smeets and Weterings 1999), although applications of the framework (e.g. Costantino and others 2003) tend to focus on anthropocentric impacts. A variation on these two frameworks is the ‘‘pressure– vector–response’’ or PVR framework (Fig. 1), adopted in Australia by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water (DNRW) for use in their Stream and Estuary Assessment Programme. The PVR framework is

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

similar in scope to the PSR/PCR and DPSIR models but represents ecosystem responses to pressures rather than human responses to altered ecosystem states. Natural ecosystem functions are implicitly recognized and interpreted within a regional context (J. Marshall, DNRW, pers. comm.). In the PVR system, ‘‘vectors’’ act in conjunction with ‘‘pressures’’, which are the result of ‘‘drivers’’ or driving forces. The vectors are the mechanisms by which a pressure impacts upon an ecological function. The model can also represent mediating factors that moderate the intensity, scale and timeframes of the resultant impacts. Natural drivers, such as climate, hydrology and geology, determine biophysical mediating factors such as geomorphic setting, habitat connectivity, size and population structure of affected species, etc (Marshall and others 2006). The drivers themselves can be influenced by pressures on the environment. The combination of pressures and vectors in the PVR model (Fig. 1) equate to the ‘‘pressures’’ component of the PSR/PCR and DPSIR models, since they describe aspects of threatening processes. In contrast, ‘‘responses’’ in the PVR model corresponds to ‘‘state’’ and ‘‘impact’’ in the other two models, since all of these attributes represent environmental responses, conditions or impacts. Notably, however, the PSR/PCR and DPSIR models only include anthropogenic drivers, pressures and responses. The categories of ‘‘state’’ and ‘‘impact’’ are the only components of the PSR/PCR and DPSIR models to describe conditions and tendencies in the natural environment.

45

Because of the pre-existing connotations and ambiguous generality of terms such as ‘‘pressure’’, ‘‘state’’, ‘‘impact’’, ‘‘response’’ and ‘‘ecosystem services’’, fairly generic yet descriptive terminology was adopted for the QWP framework. The term ‘‘environmental values’’ was retained in accordance with its usage in the Queensland Environment Protection Act 1994, Section 9. Accordingly, •







A Threat and Disturbances Assessment Framework for Queensland Wetlands In comparison to the PSR/PCR and DPSIR models, the PVR framework has a greater capacity to represent the complexity of threats and disturbances to wetlands and other ecosystems, since it distinguishes pressures from the way in which they are enacted and also from the consequent environmental effects. It is also more useful from a conservation and ecological perspective since it incorporates natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) processes whereas the other two models focus on anthropogenic activities, processes or actions. However, since the DPSIR and PSR/PCR models are utilized already in Australia for national and State environmental reporting, a State-level categorization of threats and disturbances should ideally follow a complementary model. Accordingly, the QWP threatening process framework was based on the DPSIR model, but focused on the ‘‘pressure’’, ‘‘state’’ and ‘‘impact’’ components in order to separate the activity that leads to a negative impact (the ‘‘threat’’) from the mechanism by which the wetland is impacted (the ‘‘threat mechanism’’) (Fig. 1).



An ‘‘environmental value’’ is ‘‘a quality or physical characteristic of the environment that is conducive to ecological health or public amenity or safety’’ (OQPC 2006). This term reinforces that both intrinsic (i.e. natural) and anthropocentric (i.e. socio-economic and cultural) values are included. ‘‘Threats’’ are any human process or activity that may compromise the environmental values of a system. Threats therefore correspond to ‘‘pressures’’ in most other frameworks, that is, they correspond to the actions or activities (not the ‘‘driving forces’’ i.e. socio-economic factors) leading to a threat mechanism by which the threat directly impacts the environmental values by altering ecosystem attributes or processes. A ‘‘disturbance’’ is a non-anthropogenic threat. Some authors define disturbances by their effects on biota e.g. White and Pickett (1985). However, in relation to the QWP framework, the definition in Lake (2000) is appropriate: ‘‘A disturbance occurs when potentially damaging forces are applied to habitat space occupied by a population, community or ecosystem’’. The ‘‘threat mechanism’’ is the means by which a threat causes a direct environmental impact. The threat mechanism relates closely to some ecosystem component by impacting upon an ecosystem attribute or process. A threat mechanism corresponds to a ‘‘vector’’ in the PVR system. ‘‘Impacts on wetland ecosystems and processes’’ corresponds to ‘‘ecosystem responses’’ in the PCR/PSR model. The ‘‘wetland ecosystems and processes’’ designate the natural conditions, components, processes and functioning of a wetland. They correspond to ‘‘state’’ in the DPSIR framework and their status relates to ‘‘condition’’ in the PCR/PSR model.

The QWP framework is consistent with an ecosystem approach as specified under the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD 2005): integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. The inclusion of biotic and abiotic factors as aspects of ecosystem processes and functioning is consistent with the SCBD (2005, p. 586) focus on ‘‘levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment’’. Although the categorization is not

123

46

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

exhaustive, it provides a substantial foundation for further development. Both natural and anthropogenic processes and actions are relevant to a threats and disturbance framework for conservation and management purposes. However, it is useful to distinguish anthropogenic threats and disturbances from other ‘‘natural’’ types since those that are created or influenced by human actions may be more easily mitigated. Indeed, some assessment approaches have focused specifically on anthropogenic pressures and stressors (e.g. US EPA 2002; Fennessy and others 2004; Ogden and others 2005; RCS 2007a), acknowledging that human actions are diminishing ecosystem functioning. The Ramsar environmental management approach, for example, views the wise use of wetlands as being the maintenance of their ecological character, with change in ecological character perceived as the past, future or potential human-induced adverse alteration of any ecosystem component, process, human benefits or services characterising a wetland with reference to its baseline status (RCS 2007a, 2007c). The Ramsar approach specifically excludes processes of natural evolutionary change and positive human-induced change (RCS 2007a). Biological condition is highest, ecosystems most resilient, and biological communities are most similar to those that were shaped by the interaction of biogeographic and evolutionary processes when human disturbance is minimal (US EPA 2002). Notably, however, the Ramsar (RCS 2007a), SCBD (2005) and MEA (2005) approaches also recognize humans as an integral component of many ecosystems in a dynamic, two-way interaction. Nevertheless, definitive classifications of threatening processes are difficult to develop since, although threats tend to be of only two types—environmental or anthropogenic—these categories are not exclusive. For example, in South-east Queensland, Lynch and Drury (2006) found that forest plants were predominantly affected by disturbances that were largely influenced or initiated by human actions or by drought; but the effects of the latter are also potentially exacerbated by human activities. Additionally, threats tend to vary in their extent and severity, while species vary in their susceptibility to particular processes. Even separating the effects of management from those of concurrent environmental and ecological change can be difficult since the act of management changes the system (Walters and Holling 1990; Lee 1999). Other factors that relate to the QWP framework but that were beyond the scope of this paper include: •

‘‘drivers’’, which include the underlying anthropogenic causes of ecosystem loss and degradation (i.e. sociocultural and socio-economic forces) as well as natural drivers of ecosystem processes (e.g. climate, geology, hydrology)

123







‘‘mediators’’, which are the biophysical conditions that may moderate ecosystem responses to particular threat mechanisms or vectors (e.g. the geomorphic conditions, habitat connectivity, size and population structure of affected species, flow and surface-water/ground-water interactions) ‘‘impacts on socio-economic conditions’’ acknowledges changes in ecosystem services provided by an ecosystem to human use and well-being that are detrimental to the provision of those services. These impacts are differentiated from changes to intrinsic ecosystem functioning and natural values ‘‘management responses’’ are the actions of society to an environmental situation and may be management, socioeconomic, political or legislative actions undertaken to address the threats, threat mechanisms, ecosystem conditions or impacts on the environmental values.

Due to the recent nature of the transition from reporting under the PCR/PSR compared to the DPSIR framework in Queensland, the Department of Environment and Resource Management (formerly the Environmental Protection Agency) currently reports only against environmental pressures and states, and management responses. However, future reporting could incorporate the DPSIR components of ‘‘drivers’’ of pressures and ‘‘impacts’’ of environmental states. Underlying pressures or driving forces (cf. Finlayson and Rea 1999; Weston and Goosem 2004) could be listed under ‘‘drivers’’, while management actions could be incorporated under ‘‘responses’’.

The Importance of a Systematic, Hierarchical Categorization A deficiency of current categorizations is that imprecise and inconsistent definition of threats introduces ambiguity in threat identification and comparison between agencies, programs and research studies. For example, GIWA (2001) listed ‘‘habitat and community modification’’ as a threat and McComb and Lake (1988) defined a threat with the cause ‘‘developments involving reclamation or modification of wetlands’’. By being precise about what was modified, the type of development, and whether reclamation or modification was involved enables a clearer representation of the environmental attributes that have been affected, the degree of effect (i.e. reclamation implies a loss whereas modification may be a partial change), and the precise cause. This approach distinguishes the underlying cause or causes from the symptoms of wetland degradation. Furthermore, having a systematic framework facilitates direct comparison and understanding between managers, researchers and other stakeholders.

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

A hierarchical categorization also allows flexibility in accordance with the level of knowledge, as well as greater precision. Greater detail is encapsulated, for example, by Finlayson and Eliot’s (2001) specification of ‘‘salinization’’, ‘‘eutrophication’’ and ‘‘pesticides/fertilizers’’ as categories of ‘‘eutrophication and other pollution’’ compared to the category of ‘‘pollution’’ as a threat in the Mediterranean Wetland Inventory (Hecker and others 1996). However, a categorization also needs to be consistent in the relationship of a threat to its impact. For example, while Bunn and others (1997) separated direct from indirect threats, they listed oil discharge and spills as indirect threats along with the more esoteric threats of ‘‘lack of coordinated policy’’ and ‘‘lack of recognition of wetlands’’ as linked, interdependent systems. The importance of identifying the underlying causes of wetland loss and degradation (i.e. the indirect drivers), and their relationships to a variety of socio-economic, political and administrative factors, was stressed by Finlayson and Rea (1999). Examples of fundamental underlying causes of threats to wetlands include economic development, bureaucratic obstacles, lack of information, lack of recognition of wetlands as interdependent systems, lack of public and political awareness of, and commitment to, wetland values, lack of coordinated catchment-scale planning policies, poor resourcing and legislative enforcement, limited international pressure, and focus on policy and study rather than action (McComb and Lake 1988; Hollis 1992; Finlayson and Rea 1999). Such underlying pressures on wetlands are strongly related to human usage and sustainability of land, water and biological resources (Weston and Goosem 2004). These underlying pressures are complex and inter-related, being embedded in social, economic and value systems (Weston and Goosem 2004). A useful threat categorization needs to clearly differentiate between these underlying pressures and more directly impacting threats.

Using the Framework in an Adaptive Management Context The QWP threat and disturbance framework differentiates a threat from the threat mechanism and from the associated direct effects of the process. In practice, however, only a part of these inter-relationships may be evident. A threatening process often may become evident by its impacts, such as loss of habitat or increased salinity, rather than being recognized either as cause-effect or feedback processes. Further, while many threatening processes can be clearly identified as anthropogenic, many other threats involve complex interactions of ecosystem processes, delayed timeframes of effects, and geographic or ‘‘downstream’’, ‘‘flow-on’’ effects. The importance of the framework

47

is its broad scope and capacity to separate threats from mechanisms and impacts where this information is available. This enables a systematic way of comparing processes affecting ecosystems and of identifying what further knowledge is required to manage and evaluate those processes. Thus, the knowledge base accumulates and can be enhanced in a targeted manner. Indeed, managers and researchers may focus on different knowledge gaps as priorities for research, or may contribute detailed spatial or temporal data for specific regions that can be linked via a geographical information system. Identification of the pressures or stressors, their mechanisms and their ecological effects also can be used to build conceptual models and system diagrams as working hypotheses of ecosystem functioning that can be used with ecological conservation or restoration programs (Ogden and others 2005; Margoluis and others 2009). These relationship models can form powerful tools for scientists, managers and policy-makers to communicate about system functioning, resource quality and threat impacts, and for developing adaptive management strategies, goals, performance measures, indicators, and monitoring and evaluation programs (Ogden and others 2005). They provide a basis for analyzing predicted or ex-poste hypotheses of change by making explicit the assumptions about a system and the hypothesized cause and effect relationships between direct threats, indirect contributing factors, interventions and conservation targets (Margoluis and others 2009). The cause-effect relationships specified in conceptual models of ecosystem functioning also can be linked to lists of specific potential indicators in developing integrated monitoring and evaluation programs. Such models have been developed by Ojeda-Martı´nez and others (2009) using the DPSIR framework to specify the impacts of fishing and tourism sectors on marine protected areas and relevant indicators for each part of the framework. However, their paper provided detail on the relationships between particular pressures and the impacts in the associated text rather than in the presented conceptual model. For example, links were indicated between the pressures created by fish harvesting gear, its loss and other discarded equipment, as well as from waste hydrocarbons, solids, emissions and chemical pollution to the impacts on biotic populations and assemblages, the habitat spatial structure, and human socio-economic relationships. Another approach is to detail the specific threat mechanisms diagrammatically within the conceptual model. This visual representation can enhance communication between stakeholders, managers and researchers by assisting scientists to easily convey the complexity of the multiple and inter-related processes involved (see Fig. 2), with reference to background reports as useful justification or sources of detailed data. This modeling of system

123

48

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 THREAT

THREAT MECHANISMS Damage or destruction of habitat (M4.5)

Direct modification of wetland - dredging (T28.5)

IMPACTS Decrease in habitat extent to partial loss (I12.2)

Damage or destruction of food resource (M4.6) Accidental mortality from collision with marine vehicle or propellor

Community impact - Change in native fauna species composition (I9)

Accidental mortality from netting/ mesh netting (M3.1.3)

Decline in total population size (I1.2)

Large scale/industrial fishery (T11.1) Changes in population demographics or structure (M6)

Population impact - Change in age composition of species (I5.1)

Altered native species dynamics (directly impacting other biota) (M10) Altered community structure (I10) Primary effluent treatment (T16.3.1)

Increased organic content in water-body (M17.4.1)

Increase in scavengers (I10.2.6)

Increased prey or food availability (M10.3.1)

Increase in high trophic level taxa (I10.1.2)

Entanglement in debris (M3.1.5)

Decline in total population size (I1.2)

Burial or smothering by debris or waste products (especially benthic marine) (M3.1.7) Waste disposal (T16.4)

Waste disposal in marine environment (M23.1.1) Use or disposal of chemicals (M20) Local decline of population (I2.2) Poisoning (M3.1.10) Vehicle emissions - gaseous, liquid, particulate (M20.5)

Fig. 2 Some potential links between threats, threat mechanisms and impacts for the fishing sector (adapted from Ojeda-Martı´nez and others 2009). Alphanumerical codes relate to elements in the categorization (Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material)

complexity and relationships then enables systematic targeting of particular cause-effect relationships in management actions and discussions, but also aids recognition that addressing one component (e.g. reducing discarded or lost netting; see Fig. 2) may not alleviate the threat impact (e.g. decline in total population size of susceptible species such as turtles and sea mammals) because of other (in this example, fishing-related) threats and threat mechanisms (e.g. waste disposal in the marine environment). Ecological models can be developed that assess the local and regional level implications of change for ecosystem functions and resource quality while socio-economic models can be developed to evaluate the socio-economic implications (e.g. Loiselle and others 2001). As an example of a combined socio-ecological model, Nunn (2003) described the multiple, interlinked effects of regional climate change at AD 1300 on Pacific Island societies. The impacts included the primary threat of El Nin˜o frequency increase, its various primary effects (e.g. increased precipitation, lower sea-level, decreased temperature), and a range of secondary (i.e. environmental) effects and tertiary (i.e. human) effects. While Nunn (2003) graphically depicted cause-effect relationships between the primary threat, its primary (regional biophysical) effects, secondary (local environmental effects) and the tertiary (human) effects, an alternative depiction (Fig. 3) can clarify some of the presumed threat mechanisms, multiple inter-relationships

123

between factors, and feedbacks of threat mechanisms in creating other threats to ecosystems. Although not developed to convey socio-economic impacts, the QWP framework can be adapted for this purpose by conceiving humans as a biotic component of ecosystem dynamics (e.g. interpreting cessation of longdistance voyaging as reduced migration; settlement of new environments as increased habitat variability). Notably, this may reveal additional flow-on threats (e.g. floodplain development; non-commercial harvesting; Fig. 3) given that the QWP and other environmental management frameworks have been designed to focus on anthropogenic actions as threats and for identifying management responses. Furthermore, use of the QWP framework forces consideration of terms such as ‘‘ecosystem stress’’ used by Nunn (2003) in terms of detailing the ecosystem components and processes that may be affected; lack of knowledge of specific effects indicates a need for further research or evaluation. Since a primary aim of identifying threats is to enable their assessment and mitigation, the QWP threats and disturbances framework can be extended to accommodate monitoring and indicator frameworks. Comprehensive lists are available in Australia of core environmental indicators (ANZECC 2000) while other lists relate to particular systems, such as regional scale aquatic ecosystem health monitoring indicators (e.g. Scheltinga and Moss 2007). However, further work is needed to develop a

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 THREAT

49 THREAT MECHANISMS

IMPACTS

Increased frequency of El Niño events (T43.1.1) Reduced migration (M8.1) Increased cyclone or storm incidence (T38.2.1)

Damage or destruction of food resource (M4.6)

Decreased food or prey availability (M10.3.2)

Increased aggressive behaviour (M10.2.5) Rainfall change (quantity, intensity, seasonality, etc) (T42.1)

Decreased incidence of vegetation clearance with fire (T5.3.2)

Increased rainfall quantity (M13.1.1)

Increased erosion (M15.1.1)

Altered habitat variability (I16)

Increased sedimentation or siltation (M15.1.2)

Increase in habitat extent (I13.1)

Floodplain development (T16.5) Increased dispersal (M8.6) Development of island areas (T16.8) Aquatic non-commercial harvesting (T12)

Lowering of sea-level (M14.3.5)

Regional climate change (T43)

Decrease in habitat extent to complete loss (I13.3) Decreased area of inundation (M14.3.2)

Lowering of water-table (M14.3.3)

Decrease in habitat quality (I14.2)

Decrease in mean annual temperature (T42.2.2) Development on reef areas (T16.7)

Fig. 3 Some potential links between threats, threat mechanisms and impacts for AD 1300 altered climate on Pacific Islands (adapted from Nunn 2003). Alphanumerical codes relate to elements in the categorization (Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material)

comprehensive system that merges indicators relevant to a threat assessment framework (such as that provided by Ojeda-Martı´nez and others 2009) with a detailed threat typology. In essence, the ANZECC (2000) approach is a ‘‘top-down’’ system that considers the indicator of a threat or pressure (e.g. aquatic habitat destruction) to be a quantifiable measure of that threat or pressure (e.g. rate of destruction, in hectares per annum, of freshwater and marine habitats). In contrast, the indicator system of Scheltinga and Moss (2007, see also DERM 2009) is a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach to identifying lists of indicators useful in water quality monitoring and relating them through 14 ‘‘stressors’’ or environmental components (e.g. biota removal/disturbance, aquatic sediments, nutrients, pH) that may be affected by particular threats. In addition, there are other indicator approaches that identify indicators for all levels of the PSR/PCR framework (see Rump 1996, Table 5.4). The following section provides examples of the QWP framework’s use in categorizing some potential key links between threats, threat mechanisms and their impacts for various threatening processes upon the physical and biological components of environments (see Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material). Selected impacts are identified for key threats, such as the effects on local environments, populations, communities, habitats, physical and chemical conditions, and physical and chemical processes.

Primary Industries The use of terrestrial and aquatic areas for primary production may have wide-ranging effects on wetland and terrestrial ecosystems. For example, livestock grazing may involve selective consumption of plant biomass, trampling of plants and soil, altered nutrient inputs, and the introduction and dispersal of seeds and other propagules with consequent negative impacts on vegetation structure, population densities, the diversity of native species and habitats, and ecosystem functioning (e.g. nutrient cycling and succession) (King and Hutchinson 1983; Fleischner 1994; Yates and others 2000; Reeves and Champion 2004). Even over-grazing by native animals may be a threat with significant impacts, such as when large populations of elephants cause the conversion of woodland habitats towards grassland by destroying understorey vegetation and ringbarking mature trees, and, in so doing, themselves lose condition and ultimately decline in numbers as the availability of suitable habitat decreases (Laws 1970). In addition, activities associated with particular industries may have negative impacts. For example, land management actions to enhance grazing productivity may be a threat if the impacts of tree clearing and altered fire regimes include altered community structure, decreased habitat availability and connectivity, and local population

123

50

extinctions (Fisher and Harris 1999). Alternatively, some threats are landscape-scale by-products of past environmental management, such as the widespread increase of salinity in Australian agricultural lands, but these can have substantial adverse impacts for regional agricultural productivity as well as the ecosystem services of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Hart and others 2003). Similarly, some spatially localised industries such as marine aquaculture and commercial cotton farming involve processes which may have more widespread or long-lasting effects. Chronic changes in the nutrient levels of waterbodies or the build-up of pesticides, herbicides (or their resistance) and fertilizers may impact on vegetation and fauna communities, or affect physical and chemical conditions (e.g. McLaughlin and Mineau 1995; Kookana and others 1998; Naylor and others 2000). Extractive Industries and Harvesting Some other industries that involve removal or exploitation of a natural resource may be threats to ecosystems, their components or their characteristics. Commercial fishing, timber harvesting and mining are well-known examples of this kind of potential threat (e.g. Manner and others 1984; Jones 1992; Norton 1996; van Nieuwenhuyse and LaPerriere 2007; Parks 2008). Open-cut mining of phosphate in Nauru, for example, has been associated with the threat mechanism of vegetation clearance and the impacts of decreased extent of, and potentially permanent changes to, mature Calophyllum forest, increased abundance of weeds, and the loss of culturally valuable plants (Manner and others 1984). Similarly, the impacts on subArctic Alaskan streams by placer gold mining include reduced chlorophyll production and altered photosynthesis rates due to the threat mechanism of increased turbidity, residue and solids levels (van Nieuwenhuyse and LaPerriere 2007). Even recreational or sport fishing has been estimated to have a significant impact on global fish harvests, and to have led in Canada to environmental degradation, collapse of inland fisheries and altered population structures through mechanisms such as high juvenile mortality and harvest or post-release mortality acting as selective forces (Cooke and Cowx 2004). Indeed, the latter authors note that these impacts are typically addressed through managing symptoms rather than underlying causes; so clarifying impacts and mechanisms is important. Urbanization, Industrialization, and Related Infrastructure Development Urban development and industrialization produces high local extinction rates, eliminates a majority of native species, often has more persistent effects than other types of habitat loss, continues to expand and threaten other local

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

ecosystems, and causes biotic homogenization through replacement of native species with exotics (McKinney 2002). In addition, natural remnants become subject to fragmentation, colonization by weeds, predation by nonnative animals, high levels of disturbance and altered fire regimes (Gill and Williams 1996; McKinney 2002). Threat mechanisms, such as vehicle collisions, increased pollution and nutrient levels, soil and drainage disturbance, altered fire regimes, altered vegetation structure, and altered dispersal and movement patterns may lead to impacts such as range contractions and population declines of native species, reduced habitat quality, and altered nutrient cycling. This in turn may enhance the chances of establishment of exotic weeds or the success of herbivorous insects, cause erosion and sedimentation, and lead to tree decline and further habitat degradation (Gill and Williams 1996). Furthermore, there are a range of ecological impacts associated with roads and their construction that include short- and long-term effects (see Spellerberg 1998). Biological Introductions and Ad Hoc Human Activities A very large number of non-native species have been introduced to countries such as Australia and the United States as agricultural crops and food plants, livestock and their feed, horticultural and domestic species, recreational species (e.g. exotic fish), for landscape restoration, biological pest control, and cultural reasons, or as accidents associated with forms of human transport (e.g. ships, planes, cargo) (Pimentel and others 2000; Williams and West 2000). The impacts of such species are widespread and varied, and may result in major economic losses. The threat mechanisms tend to be taxon dependent, but include toxicity for native taxa, altered food webs, changes in vegetation structure and characteristics such as light availability, with consequent impacts such as native species population variability or loss, and habitat degradation. In addition, control of pests and weeds may also impact on native species, such as when poisons affect non-target species like predatory birds. Other threats to ecosystems and native species have been noted from anthropogenic activities such as the sound pollution associated with geological surveys. Marine seismic surveys utilise airguns for echo-location but the creation and transmission of such sounds may impact on marine fauna through loss of hearing, or disruption of feeding, mating or migratory activities (Cummings and Brandon 2004). Human-Induced Changes in Hydrographics Dams, drainage diversions and river management reduce flooding of wetlands or may inundate them permanently,

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

alter their ecology and habitat structure, and cause declines or losses of biodiversity and increases of exotic species (Kingsford 2000). Particular threat mechanisms may include alteration of flow or flooding regimes, prevention of migration of aquatic species, filtering or loss of woody debris that forms habitat areas, and altered temperature and biochemical conditions (Kingsford 2000; Bunn and Arthington 2002; McAllister and others n.d.). Potential impacts include altered biotic composition, population extent or viability, and altered longitudinal and lateral connectivity. Natural Process Pressures (Abiotic) Natural processes may also be categorized as threats or disturbances. Drought may impact upon taxa that lack drought tolerance, avoidance strategies or high mobility (e.g. Boulton 2003); for example, altered physicochemical conditions may cause population declines which result in reduced population viability. Similarly, wildfires are a threat to long-lived, low mobility, slow reproducing fauna such as desert tortoises when mortality and increased predation impact as changes to vertebrate communities in burned areas (Esque and others 2003). Cyclones also threaten some species when vegetation removal causes decreased habitat structure (e.g. Tanner and others 1991; Burslem and others 2000).

Discussion Categorizing threats and disturbances in a systematic framework is useful for a variety of reasons. First, it enables standardized collection and availability of data in information systems. This facilitates collation and targeted building of knowledge as data gaps become apparent or for linking of detailed spatial or temporal data via a geographical information system. It also assists comparative analyses of ecosystem conditions, threats and disturbances between stakeholders, agencies, environmental managers and countries. Threat evaluation is an essential component of ecological assessment and environmental management, and an important part of species and ecosystem monitoring and evaluation. The comprehensiveness and hierarchical structure of the threat and disturbance categorization developed for the Queensland Wetlands Programme demonstrates the usefulness of such an approach. The categorization encompasses a broad range of anthropogenic and natural processes, while its hierarchical structure enables varying levels of detail or knowledge to be incorporated into the information system. It can accommodate detailed qualitative and quantitative information and data but can also be

51

used at thematic levels or to focus on part of the framework, such as identifying all impacts at a site. In this way the categorization can be used by environmental managers, policy-makers and researchers to link national assessments of ecosystem status, trends and loss (e.g. Dahl and Bergeson 2009) with regional analyses of ecosystem or species changes and declines, the current and potential threats to each ecosystem, and conservation and restoration initiatives for each region and its component ecosystems (Noss and others 1995). Furthermore, it facilitates communication between scientists, managers and other stakeholders of the potential complexity and inter-relations of the multiple processes involved with a threat and its effects on an ecosystem. Different levels of detail are required for particular management priorities and activities. For State-level identification of key threats of significance or high impact, such as is used by environmental managers and policy-makers in State of the Environment reporting, the highest levels of categorization of a threat may be sufficient. Similarly, both conservation and resource management planning will be informed by listing the high-level impacts of such threats, e.g. declining amounts or patterns of biodiversity, reduced water supply or quality, increased pollution or soil toxicity. In contrast, on-ground management and mitigation of threatening processes requires knowledge of the particular mechanisms enabling such threats to directly cause change in an ecosystem attribute, state or value, i.e. the direct effects of a threat. Consequently, for management of specific pressures, detailed understanding and documentation of the inter-relationships between framework components and their negative or positive impacts is valuable. Detailed conceptual models of system functioning and inter-relationships can be built and used in research planning and communication, monitoring and evaluation of adaptive management strategies. Accordingly, providing as much and as specific information as possible on particular threats and the ways in which they operate will maximize the information relevance and use to the variety of stakeholders involved in threat identification and management. The capacity of the threat and disturbance framework to be used in system modeling also helps detail the complexities of ecosystems. Multiple threats, disturbances and system variables are likely to operate within ecological systems (i.e. high detail complexity), and each threat may have multiple threat mechanisms. By identifying separate threats and distinguishing the ways in which they impact upon environments, a more comprehensive evaluation of management requirements and effectiveness can be made, and a more realistic analysis of the pressures affecting biota and ecosystems. Furthermore, many processes and potential effects of threats may be unknown or there may be unpredictable interactions of variables (i.e. high dynamic

123

52

complexity). Identification of some threats will be evident through declines in populations or species, but for others, careful assessment of mechanisms and impacts is necessary along with recognition of the high uncertainty and lack of knowledge inherent in managing natural system–human society interactions. Complex inter-relations and dependencies in ecosystems can be attributed using the framework. Particular conditions or processes may be defined as threat mechanisms or impacts depending on a particular situation. For example ‘‘altered turbidity levels’’ can be a threat mechanism or an impact (Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material). Activities associated with known threats may also be attributed as a threat on their own or by linking multiple threats, threat mechanisms or impacts. In this case, some threats may only have severe impacts in conjunction with other threats, or some threats may have multiple mechanisms or impacts. The standardized categorization and relational structure of the framework and associated inventory database enables consistency in attributing the source processes, impacts and short- to long-term consequences. Awareness of the root cause of a threatening process, rather than symptomatic processes, is necessary to decide upon appropriate management interventions. This process understanding can also guide the selection of appropriate indicators for monitoring of ecological functions and successful management intervention. It is also possible for information describing recommended threat management actions, standard indicators for assessing change in resource condition and program performance, protocols for indicator sampling, measurement and interpretation, and jurisdictional responsibilities (e.g. Australian Government 2003a, b; Ojeda-Martı´nez and others 2009) to be linked to the database according to threat categories. Furthermore, a spatially referenced record of threats may form a critical component of ongoing monitoring of impacts. The application of the framework to various threatening processes demonstrates the usefulness of comprehensive frameworks to management, monitoring and evaluation of a range of target ecosystems and biota. Although developed for evaluation of wetlands, such classifications and tools can be extended for application to general environmental reporting. By not restricting the attributes to those specific to wetland systems, and by using a general ecosystem approach, such a framework can have wider application to more general environmental evaluation and reporting mechanisms, such as State of the Environment assessments. In conjunction with monitoring guidelines, indicators and protocols, the systematic compilation of baseline and current ecosystem conditions and a detailed assessment of threats and disturbances to ecosystem attributes and processes forms a powerful and synergistic approach to ecosystem management. By documenting data on these

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55

factors and by making knowledge available to a range of stakeholders, there is an enhanced opportunity for improved ecosystem management that is integrated from planning and legislative levels through to on-ground management actions and further research. There is especial opportunity in countries such as Australia and the United States, where coordinated wetland threat and condition assessment approaches are being developed and refined, to integrate baseline landscape assessments of ecosystem status and trends with a systematic, comprehensive categorization of threats and disturbances that can be used in rapid condition assessments, intensive system modeling, and in monitoring and evaluation of adaptive management effectiveness. Acknowledgments Contributions to the development of the framework were made by Mike Ronan, Lynne Turner, Mark Cushing, Christine Madden, Arthur Knight, John Bennett, Gay Deacon, Greg Miller, Michael Patchett, Brendan Robinson and Jonathan Burcher (Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), and Jonathan Marshall and Glen Moller (Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water). Jonathan Hodges, Ruth O’Connor and Paul Cavallaro (EPA) edited, and provided figures for, the unpublished report underlying this paper. Christine Madden, Arthur Knight (EPA) and four anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on the draft manuscripts. This work was conducted as part of the Wetlands Information Capture project, under the Queensland Wetlands Programme, with funding from the Queensland and Australian Governments through the Great Barrier Reef Coastal Wetlands Protection Programme and the Queensland Natural Heritage Trust Wetlands Programme.

References ACT CSE (2008) ACT State of the Environment report 2007/08. ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Canberra, Australia. Accessed online 7 June, 2009: http://www.environment commissioner.act.gov.au/soe/2007actreport ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) (2000) Core environmental indicators for reporting on the State of the Environment. ANZECC State of the Environment reporting task force. Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia ASEC (Australian State of the Environment Committee) (2006) Australia State of the Environment 2006. Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia. Accessed online June 7, 2009: http://www. environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/report/pubs/soe-2006report.pdf Australian Government (2003a) National natural resource management monitoring and evaluation framework. Australian Government NRM team, Canberra, Australia. Accessed online June 20, 2006: http://www.nrm.gov.au/monitoring/index.html Australian Government (2003b) National framework for natural resource management standards and targets. Australian Government NRM team, Canberra, Australia. Accessed online June 20, 2006: http://www.nrm.gov.au/monitoring/index.html Bell K (2000) The pressure—state—response framework. Excerpt from report to the Taranaki Regional Council, New Zealand,

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 Review of State of the Environment reporting. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. Accessed online June 21, 2006: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/monitoring/intropressure-state-response-framework.php Bennun LA (2001) Long-term monitoring and the conservation of tropical wetlands: high ideals and harsh realities. Hydrobiologia 458:9–19 Boulton AJ (2003) Parallels and contrasts in the effects of drought on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 48:1173–1185 Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30(4):492–507 Bunn SE, Boon PI, Brock MA, Schofield NJ (1997) National wetlands R&D program: scoping review. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia. Accessed online August 8, 2006: http://www.lwa.gov.au/down loads/publications_pdf/PR970192.pdf Burslem DFRP, Whitmore TC, Brown GC (2000) Short-term effects of cyclone impacts and long-term recovery of tropical rain forest on Kolombangara, Solomon Islands. Journal of Ecology 88:1063–1078 CES (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability) (2005) Framework for State of the Environment reporting. CES, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Accessed online June 7, 2009: http://www.ces. vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/F85848DB8E218BE2CA257 204000BFA7C/$File/Framework?for?State?of?Environment ?Reporting.pdf Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6(3):665–691 Cooke SJ, Cowx IG (2004) The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises. BioScience 54(9):857–859 Costantino C, Falcitelli F, Femia A, Tudini A (2003) Integrated environmental and economic accounting in Italy. Powerpoint presentation to the Workshop Accounting Frameworks to Measure Sustainable Development, 14–16 May 2003. OECD, Paris. Accessed online June 27, 2006: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/61/9/2633265.ppt Cummings J, Brandon N (2004) Sonic impact: a precautionary assessment of noise pollution from ocean seismic surveys. Accessed online April 24, 2009: http://www.anp.gov.br/brnd/ round9/round9/guias_R9/sismica_R9/Bibliografia/Cummings% 20e%20Brandon%202004%20-%20Greenpeace%20-%20sonic %20impacts%20color.pdf Dahl TE, Bergeson MT (2009) Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the nation’s wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Washington DC Darwin City Council (no date) State of the Environment. Darwin City Council, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. Accessed online 7 June, 2009: http://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/aboutcouncil/publications_ forms/documents/state_of_environment.pdf DEC NSW (Department of Environment and Conservation, New South Wales) (2006) NSW State of the Environment 2006. DEC, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Accessed online June 7, 2009: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2006/index.htm DERM (Department of Environment and Resource Management) (2009) Assessment framework. How the wetlands assessment framework works. DERM, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Accessed online May 18, 2009: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/ wetlandinfo/site/SupportTools/MonitoringExtentAndCondition/ UsingAssessmentFramework.html

53 EPA Qld (Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) State of the Environment Queensland 1999. EPA, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed online August 8, 2006: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/ environmental_management/state_of_the_environment/state_of_ the_environment_1999/ EPA Qld (Environmental Protection Agency) (2003) State of the Environment Queensland 2003. EPA, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed online June 26, 2006: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/ environmental_management/state_of_the_environment/state_of_ the_environment_2003/ EPA Qld (Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland) (2008) State of the Environment Queensland 2007. EPA, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed online June 7, 2009: http://www.epa.qld. gov.au/environmental_management/state_of_the_environment/ state_of_the_environment_queensland_2007/ EPA SA (Environment Protection Authority, South Australia) (2003) The state of our environment. State of the Environment report for South Australia 2003. EPA, Adelaide, South Australia. Accessed online 7 June 2009: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/soe2003/ EPA WA (Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia) (2009) State of the Environment report: Western Australia 2007. EPA, Perth, Western Australia. Accessed online 7 June 2009: http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/ Esque TC, Schwalbe CR, DeFalco LA, Duncan RB, Hughes TJ (2003) Effects of desert wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates. The Southwestern Naturalist 48(1):103–111 Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2004) Review of rapid methods for assessing wetland condition. Report no. EPA/620/R04/009. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC Finlayson CM, Eliot I (2001) Ecological assessment and monitoring of coastal wetlands in Australia’s wet-dry tropics: a paradigm for elsewhere? Coastal Management 29:105–115 Finlayson CM, Rea N (1999) Reasons for the loss and degradation of Australian wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:1–11 Fisher AM, Harris SJ (1999) The dynamics of tree cover change in a rural Australian landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 45:193–207 Fleischner TL (1994) Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8(3):629–644 Gill AM, Williams JE (1996) Fire regimes and biodiversity: the effects of fragmentation of southeastern Australian eucalypt forests by urbanization, agriculture and pine plantations. Forest Ecology and Management 85:261–278 GIWA (Global International Waters Assessment) (2001) GIWA Methodology. Detailed assessment, causal chain analysis, policy option analysis. GIWA, Kalmar, Sweden. Accessed online June 22, 2006: http://www.giwa.net/methodology/GIWA_Methodology_DA-CCAPOA_English.pdf Haney A, Power RL (1996) Adaptive management for sound ecosystem management. Environmental Management 20(6): 879–886 Hart BT, Lake PS, Webb JA, Grace MR (2003) Ecological risk to aquatic systems from salinity increases. Australian Journal of Botany 51:689–702 Hecker N, Costa LT, Farinha JC, Vives PT (1996) MedWet. Volume II. Mediterranean Wetland Inventory: data recording. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands, and Instituto da Conservac¸a˜o da Natureza, Lisboa, Portugal Hollis GE (1992) The causes of wetland loss and degradation in the Mediterranean. In: Finlayson CM, Hollis GE, Davis TD (eds) Managing Mediterranean wetlands and their birds, pp 83–92. Proceedings of an International Waterfowl and Wetland Research Bureau (IWRB) international symposium, Grado, Italy, 3–10 February, 1991. IWRB special publication no. 20. IWRB, Slimbridge, Gloucester, UK

123

54 IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) (2006) Authority files for habitats, threats, conservation actions and utilization of species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Accessed online June 22, 2006: http://www. iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/authority.htm Jones JB (1992) Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26:59–67 King KL, Hutchinson KJ (1983) The effects of sheep grazing on invertebrate numbers and biomass in unfertilized natural pastures of the New England Tablelands (NSW). Australian Journal of Ecology 8:245–255 Kingsford RT (2000) Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25:109–127 Kookana RS, Baskaran S, Naidu R (1998) Pesticide fate and behaviour in Australian soils in relation to contamination and management of soil and water: a review. Australian Journal of Soil Research 36:715–764 Lake PS (2000) Disturbance, patchiness, and diversity in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(4): 573–592 Laws RM (1970) Elephants as agents of habitat and landscape change in East Africa. Oikos 21:1–15 Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/ iss2/art3 Loiselle S, Rossi C, Sabio G, Canziani G (2001) The use of systems analysis methods in the sustainable management of wetlands. Hydrobiologia 458:191–200 Lynch AJJ, Drury WL (2006) Assessing the conservation status and threats to priority plants: A threat assessment approach and case study in South-east Queensland, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 13(1):36–51 Manner HI, Thaman RR, Hassall DC (1984) Phosphate mining induced vegetation changes on Nauru Island. Ecology 65(5): 1454–1465 Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M (2009) Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation. Evaluation and Program Planning 32:138–147 Marshall J, McGregor G, Marshall S, Radcliffe T, Lobegeiger J (2006) Development of conceptual pressure-vector-response models for Queensland’s riverine ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems technical report no. 57, version 2. Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Master LL (1991) Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5(4):559–563 McAllister D, Craig J, Davidson N, Murray D, Seddon M (no date) Biodiversity impacts of large dams. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Accessed online April 24, 2009: http://dams.org/docs/kbase/ contrib/env245.pdf McComb AJ, Lake PS (1988) The conservation and management of Australian wetlands. In: McComb AJ, Lake PS (eds) The conservation of Australian wetlands. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia, pp 179–184 McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. BioScience 52(10):883–890 McLaughlin A, Mineau P (1995) The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 55:201–212 MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC

123

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MCM, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenko J, Mooney H, Troell M (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405:1017–1024 Norton TW (1996) Conserving biological diversity in Australia’s temperate eucalypt forests. Forest Ecology and Management 85:21–33 Noss RF, LaRoe ET III, Scott JM (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. National Biological Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC Nunn PD (2003) Nature—society interactions in the Pacific Islands. Geografiska Annaler 85B(4):219–229 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1993) OECD Core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. A synthesis report by the Group on the State of the Environment. Environment Monographs No. 83. OECD, Paris. Accessed online June 21, 2006: http://www.virtualcentre. org/en/dec/toolbox/Refer/gd93179.pdf OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2003) OECD Environmental Indicators: development, measurement and use. OECD, Paris. Accessed online June 22, 2006: http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,2350,en_2649_34441_1_ 119669_1_1_37465,00.html Ogden JC, Davis SM, Jacobs KJ, Barnes T, Fling HE (2005) The use of conceptual ecological models to guide ecosystem restoration in south Florida. Wetlands 25(4):795–809 Ojeda-Martı´nez C, Casalduero FG, Bayle-Sempere JT, Cebria´n CB, Valle C, Sanchez-Lizaso JL, Forcada A, Sanchez-Jerez P, Martı´n-Sosa P, Falco´n JM, Salas F, Graziano M, Chemello R, Stobart B, Cartagena P, Pe´rez-Ruzafa A, Vandeperre F, Rochel E, Planes S, Brito A (2009) A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 52:89–101 OQPC (Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel) (2006) Environmental Protection Act 1994. Reprinted as in force on 30 March 2006. Reprint No. 7. OQPC, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed online October 24, 2006: http://www.legislation. qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/EnvProtA94.pdf Parks N (2008) Shale oil: alternative energy or environmental degradation? BioScience 58(6):490 Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50(1):53–65 RCS (Ramsar Convention Secretariat) (2007a) Wise use of wetlands: a conceptual framework for the wise use of wetlands. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, vol 1, 3rd edn. RCS, Gland, Switzerland RCS (Ramsar Convention Secretariat) (2007b) Wetland inventory: a Ramsar framework for wetland inventory. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, vol 12, 3rd edn. RCS, Gland, Switzerland RCS (Ramsar Convention Secretariat) (2007c) Managing wetlands: frameworks for managing wetlands of international importance and other wetland sites. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, vol 16, 3rd edn. RCS, Gland, Switzerland Reeves PN, Champion PD (2004) Effects of livestock grazing on wetlands: literature review. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand. Accessed online July 13, 2006: http://www.wetlandtrust.org.nz/documents/ grazing.pdf RPDC Tasmania (Resource Planning and Development Commission) (2003) State of the Environment Tasmania 2003, Index of case studies. RPDC, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Accessed online 7 June, 2009: http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/index/casestudy. php

Environmental Management (2011) 47:40–55 Rump PC (1996) State of the Environment reporting: source book of methods and approaches. Report no. UNEP/DEIA/TR.96-1. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16(6):1469–1479 SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity) (2005) Handbook of the convention on biological diversity including its Cartagena protocol on biosafety, 3rd edn. SCBD, Montreal, Canada Scheltinga DM, Moss A (2007) A framework for assessing the health of coastal waters: a trial of the national set of estuarine, coastal and marine indicators in Queensland. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra, Australia Simonett O, Claasen D, Denisov N, Heberlein C (1998) The Environment and Natural Resources Information Network (ENRIN) in Central and Eastern Europe and the NIS. UNEP’s Capacity Development in Environmental Information Management. GRID-Arendal Occasional Papers 2/1998. Accessed online 21 April, 2010: http://enrin.grida.no/tools.cfm?article=4 Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Report prepared by TNO Centre for Strategy, Technology and Policy, The Netherlands, for the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Accessed online June 22, 2006: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/TEC25/en/tech_25_ text.pdf Spellerberg IF (1998) Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7:317–333 Tanner EVJ, Kapos V, Healey JR (1991) Hurricane effects on forest ecosystems in the Caribbean. Biotropica 23(4a):513–521

55 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Introduction to wetland biological assessment. Report no EPA-822-R-02-014. Office of Water, US EPA, Washington DC US Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) National Wetlands Inventory: A strategy for the 21st century. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2008) National Wetland Condition Assessment. Fact sheet. Wetlands Division, US EPA, Washington DC van Nieuwenhuyse EE, LaPerriere JD (2007) Effects of placer gold mining on primary production in subarctic streams of Alaska. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 22(1): 91–99 Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6):2060–2068 Weston N, Goosem S (2004) Sustaining the Wet Tropics: a regional plan for natural resource management. Volume 2A, condition report: biodiversity conservation. Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM Ltd, Cairns, Queensland, Australia White PS, Pickett STA (1985) Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: Pickett STA, White PS (eds) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp 3–13 Williams JA, West CJ (2000) Environmental weeds in Australia and New Zealand: issues and approaches to management. Austral Ecology 25:425–444 Yates CJ, Norton DA, Hobbs RJ (2000) Grazing effects on plant cover, soil and microclimate in fragmented woodlands in southwestern Australia: implications for restoration. Austral Ecology 25:36–47

123