Environmental Management

, Volume 34, Supplement 1, pp S111–S124 | Cite as

Toward a Scientifically Rigorous Basis for Developing Mapped Ecological Regions

  • Gerard McMahon
  • Ed B. Wiken
  • David A. Gauthier
Article

Abstract

Despite the wide use of ecological regions in conservation and resource-management evaluations and assessments, a commonly accepted theoretical basis for ecological regionalization does not exist. This fact, along with the paucity of focus on ecological regionalization by professional associations, journals, and faculties, has inhibited the advancement of a broadly acceptable scientific basis for the development, use, and verification of ecological regions. The central contention of this article is that ecological regions should improve our understanding of geographic and ecological phenomena associated with biotic and abiotic processes occurring in individual regions and also of processes characteristic of interactions and dependencies among multiple regions. Research associated with any ecoregional framework should facilitate development of hypotheses about ecological phenomena and dominant landscape elements associated with these phenomena, how these phenomena are structured in space, and how they function in a hierarchy. Success in addressing the research recommendations outlined in this article cannot occur within an ad hoc, largely uncoordinated research environment. Successful implementation of this plan will require activities—coordination, funding, and education—that are both scientific and administrative in nature. Perhaps the most important element of an infrastructure to support the scientific work of ecoregionalization would be a national or international authority similar to the Water and Science Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences.

Ecological regions Hypothesis testing Research 

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Bailey, R. G. 1987Suggested hierarchy of criteria for multiscale ecosystem mappingLandscape and Urban Planning14313319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey, R. G. 1996Ecosystem geographySpringerNew York204Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey, R. G. 2004. Boundaries on ecoregion maps. Environmental Management (this issue).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, R. G., Zoltai, S. C., Wiken, E. B. 1985Ecological regionalization in Canada and United StatesGeoforum16465275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barham, E. 2001Eco-boundaries as community boundaries: The politics of watershedsSociety and Natural Resources14181191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boughton, D. A., Smith, E. R., O’Neill, R. V. 1999Regional vulnerability: A conceptual frameworkEcosystem Health5312322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryce, S. A., Omernik, J. M., Larsen, D. P. 1999Ecoregions: A geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem managementEnvironmental Practice1141155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canadian Forest Service (CFS). 2000. The state of Canada’s forest—1999–2000. Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng, A., Kruger, L. E., Daniels, S. E. 2003“Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agendaSociety and Natural Resources1687104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drummond, I., Marsden, T. 1999The condition of sustainabilityRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forman, R. T. T., Godron, M. 1986Landscape ecologyJohn Wiley and SonsNewYork619Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf, W. L. 2001Damage control: Restoring the physical integrity of America’s riversAnnals of the Association of American Geographers91127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gryseels, G., and A. Kassam. 1994. Characterization and implementation of the CGIAR ecoregional concept in Proceedings of International Food Policy Research Institute Ecoregional/2020 Vision Workshop, November 1994. Airlie Conference Center, Virginia.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hargrove, W. W., and F. M. Hoffman. 2004. Extending the ecoregion concept beyond the limits of human experience using quantitative methods. Environmental Management (this issue).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hargrove, W. W., and R. J. Luxmore. 1998. A new high-resolution national map of vegetation ecoregions produced empirically using multivariate spatial clustering. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. http://www.esd.ornlgov/~hnw/esri98 (August, 30, 2002).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hart, J. F. 1982The highest form of the geographer’s artAnnals of the Association of American Geographers72129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heiskary, S. A., Wilson, C. B. 1989The regional nature of lake water quality across Minnesota: An analysis for improving resource managementJournal of the Minnesota Academy of Sciences557177Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hudson, B. D. 1992The soil survey as paradigm-based scienceSoil Science Society of America56836841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hughes, R. M. 1995

    Defining biological status by comparing with reference conditions

    Davis, W. S.Simon, T. P. eds. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision-makingLewis PublishersBoca Raton, Florida
    Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keys, J. E., Jr., C. A. Carpenter, S. L. Hooks, F. G. Koeneg, W. H. McNab, W. E. Russell, and M. L. Smith. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern United States—first approximation. Technical Publication R8-TP 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Map scale 1:3,500,000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsen, D. P., Thorton, K. W., Urquart, N. S., Paulsen, S. G. 1994The role of sample surveys for monitoring the conditions of the Nation’s lakesEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment32101134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levin, S. A. 1992The problem of pattern and scale in ecologyEcology7319431967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loveland, T. R., and G. McMahon. 2004. Overview of the Sioux Falls ecoregionalizationsymposium, September 2001. Environmental Management (this issue).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGarigal, K., and B. J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 122 pp.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McMahon, G., Cuffney, T. F. 2000Quantifying urban intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological conditionsJournal of the American Water Resources Association3612471262Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McMahon, G., Gregonis, S., Waltman, S., Omernik, J. M., Thorson, T., Freeouf, J., Rorick, A., Keyes, J. 2001Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United StatesEnvironmental Management28293316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    North American Ecosystem Working Group (NAEWG)1997Ecological regions of North America: Towards a common perspectiveCommission for Environmental CooperationMontreal, Quebec71Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olsen, A. R., Schreuder, H. T. 1997Perspectives on large-scale natural resource surveys when cause-effect is a potential issueEnvironmental and Ecological Statistics4167180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olson, D. M, Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. O., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoureux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., Kassem, K. R. 2001Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on EarthBioScience51933938Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Omernik, J. M. 1987Ecoregions of the conterminous United StatesAnnals of the Association of American Geographers77118125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Omernik, J. M. 1995

    Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management

    Davis, W. S.Simon, T. P. eds. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision-makingLewis PublishersBoca Raton, Florida
    Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Omernik, J. M. 2004. Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environmental Management (this issue).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Neill, R. V. 2001Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (with full military honors, of course!)Ecology8232753284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rowe, J. S., Sheard, J. W. 1981Ecological land classification: A survey approachEnvironmental Management5451464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sokal, R. R. 1974Classification: Purposes, principles, progress, prospectsScience18511151123Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strayer, D.L. , Power, M.E., Fagan, W.F. , Pickett, S.T. , Belnap, J. 2003A Classification of ecological boundaries BioScience53(8)723729Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taylor, P. J., Garcia-Barrios, R. 1995The social analysis of ecological change: From systems to intersecting processesSocial Science Information34530Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Turner, M. D., Taylor, P. J. 2003Critical reflections on the use of remote sensing and GIS technologies in human ecological researchHuman Ecology31177182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wiens, J. A., Crawford, C.S., Gosz, J.R. 1985Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystemsOikos45421427Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wiens, J. A. 1989Spatial scaling in ecologyFunctional Ecology3385397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Whittier, T. R., Hughes, R. M., Larsen, D. P. 1988The correspondence between ecoregions and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in OregonCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences4512641278Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wiken, E. B. 1995. Environmental/ecological monitoring: Strategies for transition (some experience and examples from a Canadian review). Pages 121–131 in Proceedings of the Moscow seminar on the development of the unified state environmental monitoring system in the Russian Federation. Pub GA/205024-95/6. GRID Arendal, Norway.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wiken, E. B. 1996a. Ecosystems: Frameworks for thought. in Proceedings of World Conservation 1/96. IUCN. Rue, Mauverney 28, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wiken, E. B. 1996b. Introduction to Canada’s ecozones. State of the Environment Report of the Conserving Canada’s Natural Legacy. CD ROM. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A OE7.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wiken, E. B. 1997. State of the environment reporting in Canada and North America: An overview of the concepts and applications. Pages C13–C18 in Proceedings of the first national workshop on the state of the environment reporting workshop. SOER Occasional Paper No. 1. ISBN: 0-7974-1744-3. Government of the Republic Zimbabwe. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Harare, Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wiken, E. B., and D. Gauthier. 1997. Conservation and ecology in North America. inProceedings of the caring for home place: Protected areas and landscape ecology. ISBN 0-88880-362-1. University Extension Press and the Canadian Plains Research Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wiken, E. B., D. Gauthier, I. Marshall, K. Lawton, and H. Hirvonen. 1996. A perspective on Canada’s ecosystems: An overview of the terrestrial and marine ecozones. Occasional paper no. 14. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA), Ottawa, Ontario, 69 pp.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). 2001. The status of wildlife habitats in Canada 2001. Wildlife Habitat Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 98 pp.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wolock, D. M., T. C. Winter, and G. McMahon. 2004. Definition and evaluation of hydrologic landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate analysis. Environmental Management (this issue).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhou, Y. 1996. An ecological regionalization model based on NOAA/AVHRR data. Pages 1001–1006 in International archives of photogrammetry and remote sensing (ISPRS), Vol. XXXI, Part B4, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard McMahon
    • 1
  • Ed B. Wiken
    • 2
  • David A. Gauthier
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyRaleigh, North Carolina 27607USA
  2. 2.National Habitat Science and Policy ProgramWildlife Habitat CanadaOttawa, ON, Canada, K1Y 4P1
  3. 3.Canadian Plains Research CenterUniversity of ReginaSaskatchewanCanada S4S 0A2

Personalised recommendations