Skip to main content
Log in

Formulating an ecosystem approach to environmental protection

  • Forum
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has embraced a new strategy of environmental protection that is place-driven rather than program-driven. This new approach focuses on the protection of entire ecosystems. To develop an effective strategy of ecosystem protection, however, EPA will need to: (1) determine how to define and delineate ecosystems and (2) categorize threats to individual ecosystems and priority rank ecosystems at risk. Current definitions of ecosystem in use at EPA are inadequate for meaningful use in a management or regulatory context. A landscape-based definition that describes an ecosystem as a volumetric unit delineated by climatic and landscape features is suggested. Following this definition, ecosystems are organized hierarchically, from megaecosystems, which exist on a continental scale (e.g., Great Lakes), to small local ecosystems.

Threats to ecosystems can generally be categorized as: (1) ecosystem degradation (occurs mainly through pollution) (2) ecosystem alteration (physical changes such as water diversion), and (3) ecosystem removal (e.g., conversion of wetlands or forest to urban or agricultural lands). Level of threat (i.e., how imminent), and distance from desired future condition are also important in evaluating threats to ecosystems. Category of threat, level of threat, and “distance” from desired future condition can be combined into a three-dimensional ranking system for ecosystems at risk. The purpose of the proposed ranking system is to suggest a preliminary framework for agencies such as EPA to prioritize responses to ecosystems at risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Albert D. A., S. R. Denton, and B. V. Barnes. 1986. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan. School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 32 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen T. F. H., and T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 310 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.Environmental Management 7:365–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1985. The factor of scale in ecosystem mapping.Environmental Management 9:271–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1987. Suggested hierarchy of criteria for multiscale ecosystem mapping.Landscape and Urban Planning 14:313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. V., K. S. Pregitzer, T. A. Spies, and V. H. Spooner. 1982. Ecological forest site classification.Journal of Forestry 80:493–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begon, M. E., J. L. Harper, and C. R. Townsend. 1990. Ecology: Individuals, populations and communities. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, 945 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. 230/2-87-025A. February 1987. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC, 100 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1990a. Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. SAB-EC-90-021. September 1990. Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1990b. The report of the ecology and welfare subcommittee; reducing risk, appendix A. EPA SAB-EC-90-021A. September 1990. Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC, 77 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. February 1992. Risk assessment forum. Washington, DC, 41 pp.

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities. EPA 230-B-93-003. September 1993. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC, 199 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. The new generation of environmental protection: EPA's five year strategic plan. EPA 200-B-94-002. July 1994. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC, 167 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Region III. No date. Comparative risk project: A risk-based assessment of environmental problems. Region III, US Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, 46 pp.

  • Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management?Conservation Biology 8:27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. W. 1993. Considerations of scale and hierarchy. Pages 19–46in S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G. Francis (eds.), Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. St. Lucie Press, 220 pp.

  • Klijn, F., and H. A. Udo de Haes. 1994. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification.Landscape Ecology 9:89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. 1994. Great Lakes intergovernmental cooperation: A framework for endangered species conservation.Endangered Species Update 10(3&4):48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 574 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the coterminous United States.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, R. V., D. L. DeAngelis, T. F. H. Allen, and J. B. Waide. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 272 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, R. V., A. R. Johnson, and A. W. King. 1989. A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale.Landscape Ecology 3:193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt, J. 1969. Theorems on boundaries in hierarchical systems. Pages 201–214in L. L. Whyte, A. G. Wilson, and D. Wilson (eds.), Hierarchical structures. American Elsevier, New York, 322 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs, R. E. 1983. The economy of nature. Chiron Press, New York, 510 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. S. 1961. The level-of-integration concept and ecology.Ecology 42:420–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. S., and B. V. Barnes 1994. Geo-ecosystems and bioecosystems.Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 75:36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. S., and J. W. Sheard. 1981. Ecological land classification: A survey approach.Environmental Management 5:451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106:467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spurr, S. H., and B. V. Barnes, 1980. Forest ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 687 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, G. W. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 538 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, G. W., and S. Bartell. 1993. Ecosystem-level effects. Pages 275–308in G. W. Suter (ed.), Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 538 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, F. J., T. K. Kratz, N. Caine, and R. G. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes.BioScience 38:92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNC (The Nature Conservancy) 1994. The conservation of biological diversity in the Great Lakes ecosystem: issues and opportunities. The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program. The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, 118 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology.Functional Ecology 3:385–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gonzalez, O.J. Formulating an ecosystem approach to environmental protection. Environmental Management 20, 597–605 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204133

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204133

Key words

Navigation