An ecological framework for informing permitting decisions on scientific activities in protected areas

被引:7
|
作者
Saarman, Emily T. [1 ]
Owens, Brian [2 ]
Murray, Steven N. [3 ]
Weisberg, Stephen B. [4 ]
Ambrose, Richard F. [5 ]
Field, John C. [6 ]
Nielsen, Karina J. [7 ]
Carr, Mark H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA
[2] Calif Dept Fish & Wildlife, Belmont, CA USA
[3] Calif State Univ Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92634 USA
[4] Southern Calif Coastal Water Res Project, Costa Mesa, CA USA
[5] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA USA
[6] NOAA, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Santa Cruz, CA USA
[7] San Francisco State Univ, Romberg Tiburon Ctr Environm Studies, Tiburon, CA USA
来源
PLOS ONE | 2018年 / 13卷 / 06期
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
MARINE RESERVES; NETWORK; CHALLENGES; MANAGEMENT; SCIENCE; IMPLEMENTATION; CONSEQUENCES; COMPLEXITY; DYNAMICS; ACT;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0199126
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
There are numerous reasons to conduct scientific research within protected areas, but research activities may also negatively impact organisms and habitats, and thus conflict with a protected area's conservation goals. We developed a quantitative ecological decision-support framework that estimates these potential impacts so managers can weigh costs and benefits of proposed research projects and make informed permitting decisions. The framework generates quantitative estimates of the ecological impacts of the project and the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and all other projects in the protected area, and then compares the estimated cumulative impacts of all projects with policy-based acceptable impact thresholds. We use a series of simplified equations (models) to assess the impacts of proposed research to: a) the population of any targeted species, b) the major ecological assemblages that make up the community, and c) the physical habitat that supports protected area biota. These models consider both targeted and incidental impacts to the ecosystem and include consideration of the vulnerability of targeted species, assemblages, and habitats, based on their recovery time and ecological role. We parameterized the models for a wide variety of potential research activities that regularly occur in the study area using a combination of literature review and expert judgment with a precautionary approach to uncertainty. We also conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the relationships between model input parameters and estimated impacts to understand the dominant drivers of the ecological impact estimates. Although the decision-support framework was designed for and adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for permitting scientific studies in the state-wide network of marine protected areas (MPAs), the framework can readily be adapted for terrestrial and freshwater protected areas.
引用
收藏
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Measuring the ecological benefits of protected areas
    Ana S. L. Rodrigues
    Marie-Morgane Rouyer
    Nature, 2023, 622 : 39 - 40
  • [12] Evaluating the ecological performance of protected areas
    Coetzee, Bernard W. T.
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2017, 26 (01) : 231 - 236
  • [13] The scientific value of Amazonian protected areas
    Correia, Ricardo A.
    Malhado, Ana C. M.
    Lins, Lays
    Gamarra, Norah Costa
    Bonfim, Waltyane A. G.
    Valencia-Aguilar, Anyelet
    Bragagnolo, Chiara
    Jepson, Paul
    Ladle, Richard J.
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2016, 25 (08) : 1503 - 1513
  • [14] The scientific value of Amazonian protected areas
    Ricardo A. Correia
    Ana C. M. Malhado
    Lays Lins
    Norah Costa Gamarra
    Waltyane A. G. Bonfim
    Anyelet Valencia-Aguilar
    Chiara Bragagnolo
    Paul Jepson
    Richard J. Ladle
    Biodiversity and Conservation, 2016, 25 : 1503 - 1513
  • [15] Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services
    M. A. Cebrián-Piqueras
    A. Filyushkina
    D. N. Johnson
    V. B. Lo
    M. D. López-Rodríguez
    H. March
    E. Oteros-Rozas
    C. Peppler-Lisbach
    C. Quintas-Soriano
    C. M. Raymond
    I. Ruiz-Mallén
    C. J. van Riper
    Y. Zinngrebe
    T. Plieninger
    Landscape Ecology, 2020, 35 : 2549 - 2567
  • [16] Scientific and local ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem services
    Cebrian-Piqueras, M. A.
    Filyushkina, A.
    Johnson, D. N.
    Lo, V. B.
    Lopez-Rodriguez, M. D.
    March, H.
    Oteros-Rozas, E.
    Peppler-Lisbach, C.
    Quintas-Soriano, C.
    Raymond, C. M.
    Ruiz-Mallen, I.
    van Riper, C. J.
    Zinngrebe, Y.
    Plieninger, T.
    LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2020, 35 (11) : 2549 - 2567
  • [17] Informing Strategic Efforts to Expand and Connect Protected Areas Using a Model of Ecological Flow, with Application to the Western United States
    Dickson, Brett G.
    Albano, Christine M.
    McRae, Brad H.
    Anderson, Jesse J.
    Theobald, David M.
    Zachmann, Luke J.
    Sisk, Thomas D.
    Dombeck, Michael P.
    CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2017, 10 (05): : 564 - 571
  • [18] SPORTS AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES IN PROTECTED AREAS
    Pegsutic, Andrea
    Bucar, Kristina
    5TH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ON KINESIOLOGY, PROCEEDINGS BOOK, 2008, : 369 - 372
  • [19] The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: The United Kingdom
    Gaston, Kevin J.
    Charman, Kevin
    Jackson, Sarah F.
    Armsworth, Paul R.
    Bonn, Aletta
    Briers, Robert A.
    Callaghan, Claire S. Q.
    Catchpole, Roger
    Hopkins, John
    Kunin, William E.
    Latham, Jim
    Opdam, Paul
    Stoneman, Rob
    Stroud, David A.
    Tratt, Ros
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2006, 132 (01) : 76 - 87
  • [20] Private protected areas and ecological connectivity in Chile
    Jackson, Alvaro F. Escobar
    Fuller, Richard A.
    CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2024, 6 (12)