Policy Framework Issues for Protecting Biological Diversity

  • Orie L. Loucks


For the purposes of this paper, I define policy as the setting of a course of action, i.e., a decision in regard to choices among possible actions. We think of “policy” commonly in terms of the foreign policy considerations of many countries; we hear of it often in energy policy, and occasionally it is the subject of a public welfare concern such as the protection of biological diversity. Framework indicates concern about the scope of the problems to be considered in formulating policy—local, national, or international. In the protection of biological diversity, we are examining a relatively new aspect of public welfare, concern about the variety of species in nature, many of them important for the services they perform for direct or indirect human benefit. A policy framework for protecting biological diversity, therefore, must address the array of interests—from scientific to social, ethical, and international—that bear on decisions affecting the risk of losing or impoverishing species due to the effects of air pollution.


Biological Diversity National Park Policy Framework Policy Position Secondary Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Armentano, T.V., and O.L. Loucks. 1983. Air pollution threats to U.S. national parks of the Great Lakes region. Environ. Conserv. 10:303–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avery, M., and R.K. Schreiber. 1979. The Clean Air Act: Its relation to fish and wildlife resources. FWS/OBS-76/20.8. Washington, DC: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, J.P. 1985. Overview of air pollution in national parks in 1985. Park Sci. 5:8–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Culhane, P.J., H.P. Friesema, and J.A. Beecher. 1987. Forecasts and environmental decision making: The content and predictive accuracy of Environmental Impact Statements. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Master, L. 1990. The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals. Biodiversity Network News 3 (3): 1–3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCune, B. 1988. Lichen communities along O3 and SO2 gradients in Indianapolis. Bryologist 91 (3): 223–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 1985. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: An evolving instrument for ecosystem management. National Research Council of the United States and the Royal Society of Canada. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raven, P.H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical forests. In Biodiversity, ed. E.O. Wilson and F.M. Peter. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sand, P.H. 1990. Lessons learned in global environmental governance. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sand, P.H. 1991. International cooperation: The environmental experience. In Preserving the global environment: The challenge of shared leadership, ed. J.T. Mathews. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon, H. 1947. Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, W.H. 1981. Air pollution and forests: Interactions between air contaminants and forest ecosystems. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tingey, D.T., W.E. Hogsett, and S. Henderson. 1990. Defmition of adverse effects for the purpose of establishing secondary national ambient air quality standards. J. Environ. Qual. 19:635–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Congress. 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Public Law 93–205, 93rd Congress. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual (Draft): Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting. Research Triangle Park, NC: US EPA Office of Air Quality.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wetstone, G.S., and A. Rosencranz. 1983. Acid rain in Europe and North America: National responses to an international problem. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson, E.O., and F.M. Peter, eds. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woodwell, G.M., ed. 1990. The Earth in transition: Patterns and processes of biotic impoverishment. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodwell, G.M., and A.L. Rebuck. 1967. Effects of chronic gamma irradiation on the structure and diversity of an oak-pine forest. Ecol. Monogr. 37:53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woodwell, G.M., and R.A. Houghton. 1990. The experimental impoverishment of natural communities: Effects of ionizing radiation on plant communities, 1961–1976. In The Earth in transition: Patterns and processes of biotic impoverishment, ed. G.M. Woodwell. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orie L. Loucks

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations