Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem health

Schaeffer, David J.; Herricks, Edwin E.; Kerster, Harold W.

doi:10.1007/bf01873258

Cited by 272 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Is it appropriate to conceive of ecological well-being or ecosystem "health," or should the scientific lexicon, such as ecosystem state/ biodiversity/processes/functions/resilience, continue to predominate? The ecosystem health literature (e.g., Schaeffer et al 1988, Costanza et al 1992 proposes measurement in terms of vigor, organization, and resilience (Costanza 2012), and is generally associated with a utilitarian value and western understandings of ecosystems. The term ecosystem health can be used without reference to feedbacks with people, though some authors do recognize these links (Tiwari et al 1998, Spiegel et al 2001, Tzoulas et al 2007).…”

Section: Nature Should Be Given a Voicementioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Caillon¹,

Cullman²,

Verschuuren³

et al. 2017

E&S

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Diverse and productive ecosystems and human well-being are too often considered opposing targets. This stems mainly from nature being perceived as separate from culture, which results in resilience indicators that focus predominantly on either ecosystems or humans, and that overlook the interplay between the two. Meanwhile, global targets for biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing have yet to be satisfactorily achieved. We believe that in order to develop effective, culturally appropriate, and equitable conservation strategies that ensure social-ecological resilience, conservation planners and practitioners must conceive of human and ecological wellbeings as an interrelated system. By giving nature a voice, and by viewing nature and people as an undifferentiated whole, some indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) have philosophical bases for achieving well-being for both humans and nature. Biocultural approaches to conservation ground management in local knowledges, practices, and ontologies. These approaches encompass both the biological and cultural aspects of a system, address complex relationships and feedbacks within human and ecological well-being, and offer flexible frameworks that facilitate synthesis across different metrics, knowledge systems, and ontologies. The process of developing indicators of resilience with a biocultural approach could help (1) overcome the human-nature dichotomy that often makes global approaches incompatible with local approaches by integrating local peoples' diverse forms of relating to nature, (2) reflect two-way feedbacks between people and their environment by focusing on processes, not just final states, and (3) define, measure, and monitor ecological and human well-being as a whole. It can also facilitate dialog between IPLCs and global decisionmakers who are disconnected from local realities, and between people from a diversity of disciplinary, ontological, and professional backgrounds.

show abstract

Section: Nature Should Be Given a Voicementioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Caillon¹,

Cullman²,

Verschuuren³

et al. 2017

E&S

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ecosystem health is the primary goal of environmental management and ecological restoration [7]. Many experts and scholars have put forward different definitions [8,9] and various indicators [10][11][12] to analyze ecosystem health.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evaluation of Ecosystem Health in a Karst Area of South China

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The purpose of this study is to propose a GIS-based mechanism for diagnosing karst rocky desertification (KRD) ecosystem health. Using the Huajiang Demonstration Area in Guizhou Province as a case study, this research offers a multi-factor indicator system for diagnosing KRD ecosystem health. A set of geologic, environmental, and socio-economic health indicators were developed based on remote sensing images from field-investigation, hydrological, and meteorological monitoring data. With the use of grid GIS technology, this study gives an indicator for diagnosing the spatial expression of desertification at a 5 m × 5 m grid scale. Using spatial overlaying technology based on grid data, the temporal and spatial dynamics of ecosystem health in the Huajiang Demonstration Area were tracked over a 10 year time span. The results of the analysis indicate that ecosystem health in the Huajiang Demonstration Area varies regionally, and has overall improved over time. The proportion of healthy area increased from 3.7% in 2000 to 8.2% in 2010. However, unhealthy and middle-health areas still accounted for 78.7% of the total area by 2010. The most obvious improvement of ecosystem health was in an area where comprehensive control measures for curbing KRD were implemented. These results suggest that comprehensive control of KRD can effectively mitigate ecosystem deterioration and improve ecosystem health in karst regions of South China.

show abstract

“…Les premières permettent d'établir des gammes de toxicité, tandis que les secondes mesurent les effets écologiques sur les peuplements in situ ainsi que sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes récepteurs, c'est-à-dire sur la santé de l'écosystème [voir par exemple Schaeffer et al, 1988ou Rapport, 1992. Une grande variabilité existe toutefois, due au caractère complexe et changeant des déchets testés (la CL 50-240 h diffère entre les deux percolats de scories dans un rapport de 1:1000, par ex.).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Écocompatibilité des eaux de percolation de déchets stabilisés: Évaluation écotoxique au laboratoire et étude expérimentale en canaux artificiels extérieurs

Canivet¹,

Fruget²

2002

Environnement, Ingénierie &Amp; Développement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the research programme on wastes called Ecocompatibility, launched by the French Environmental and Energy Management Agency, was to characterize the potential toxicity of polluting flows (hazard) from waste matrices and to define the conditions of exposure without negative effects for the environnement (risk) according to several experimental studies. In order to develop, validate and calibrate this methodology, two scenarios were used for experimental studies. They correspond to percolation of water through a granular waste deposit, with a high content of metals and salts. Bottom ash from household waste incineration and lead secondary smelting slags were used for experimentation. Among the studies on environmental impact, benthic invertebrate assemblages were reconstituted in experimental systems to test and to predict the effects of some pollutants on different community variables. The experimental systems were microcosms in the laboratory (series of partitioned glass tubes) and outdoor mesocosms (artificial steel channels) for the field-like experiments. The complementarity between the two approaches has been validated: a 1:100 toxicity ratio in the experiment with lead slags showed the risk of separation laboratory and field-like studies. The former allowed to establish scales of toxicity, whereas the latter measure the ecological effects on in situ communities and on the structure and functioning of the receiving environnement. A high variability was however due to the complex and changing character of the wastes tested and involved some analytical problems. Mortality does not appear as sufficient parameter for evaluating toxicity, rate of emergence of the insects or some physiological responses also seem to be good describers. Extensive research must be carried out in this way. Le but du programme de recherche sur les déchets appelé Ecocompatibilité, mis en place par l’Ademe, est de caractériser la toxicité potentielle des flux polluants (notion de danger) issus des matrices déchets et de définir leurs conditions d’exposition sans effets néfastes pour l'environnement (notion de risque) à partir de diverses études expérimentales. Afin de valider et de calibrer cette méthodologie, deux scénarios ont servi de support à ces dernières. Ils correspondent à la percolation d’eau à travers un tas de déchets granulaires, à forte concentration en métaux et en sels. Un mâchefer issu de l’incinération des ordures ménagères et des scories issues de la seconde fusion du plomb ont été utilisés pour les expérimentations. Parmi les études portant sur l’impact environnemental de ces déchets, des communautés d’invertébrés benthiques ont été reconstituées dans des dispositifs expérimentaux afin de tester et de prédire les effets de quelques polluants sur les différents paramètres descripteurs des peuplements. Des microcosmes (séries de tubes de verre partitionnés) ont été utilisés au laboratoire et des mésocosmes extérieurs (canaux artificiels métalliques) ont servi aux expériences de terrain. La complémentarité des deux approches a été validée : un rapport de toxicité de 1:100 a été enregistré lors de l’expérience avec les scories de plomb mettant en évidence le risque de séparer études de laboratoire et études sur mésocosmes extérieurs. Les premières permettent de déterminer des gammes de toxicité tandis que les secondes permettent de mesurer les effets écologiques in situ sur les peuplements et sur la structure et le fonctionnement du milieu aquatique récepteur. Une forte variabilité est toutefois due au caractère complexe et évolutif des déchets testés et engendre certains problèmes analytiques. La mortalité n’apparaît pas être un paramètre suffisant pour évaluer la toxicité, le taux d’émergence des insectes et diverses réponses physiologiques semblent être également de bons descripteurs. Des recherches complémentaires doivent être menées dans cette voie.

show abstract

Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem health

Cited by 272 publications

References 19 publications

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Quantitative Evaluation of Ecosystem Health in a Karst Area of South China

Écocompatibilité des eaux de percolation de déchets stabilisés: Évaluation écotoxique au laboratoire et étude expérimentale en canaux artificiels extérieurs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem health

Cited by 272 publications

References 19 publications

Moving beyond the human&#8211;nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Moving beyond the human&#8211;nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Quantitative Evaluation of Ecosystem Health in a Karst Area of South China

Écocompatibilité des eaux de percolation de déchets stabilisés: Évaluation écotoxique au laboratoire et étude expérimentale en canaux artificiels extérieurs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators