Guiding concepts for park and wilderness stewardship in an era of global environmental change

Abstract

The major challenge to stewardship of protected areas is to decide where, when, and how to intervene in physical and biological processes, to conserve what we value in these places. To make such decisions, planners and managers must articulate more clearly the purposes of parks, what is valued, and what needs to be sustained. A key aim for conservation today is the maintenance and restoration of biodiversity, but a broader range of values are also likely to be considered important, including ecological integrity, resilience, historical fidelity (ie the ecosystem appears and functions much as it did in the past), and autonomy of nature. Until recently, the concept of “naturalness” was the guiding principle when making conservation‐related decisions in park and wilderness ecosystems. However, this concept is multifaceted and often means different things to different people, including notions of historical fidelity and autonomy from human influence. Achieving the goal of nature conservation intended for such areas requires a clear articulation of management objectives, which must be geared to the realities of the rapid environmental changes currently underway. We advocate a pluralistic approach that incorporates a suite of guiding principles, including historical fidelity, autonomy of nature, ecological integrity, and resilience, as well as managing with humility. The relative importance of these guiding principles will vary, depending on management goals and ecological conditions.

Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States

“…In special cases, however, highly valued species, ecosystems, and places might be targeted for extraordinary efforts to maintain past structures and functions (e.g., rare plant species habitats and ancient groves). A more general and effective goal is to maintain and restore ecological processes, where capacity exists, achieved by means of creative manipulation (43,45). In moving toward novel future environments, cautious experimentation is merited.…”

Ecosystem response to removal of exotic riparian shrubs and a transition to upland vegetation

“…However, because southwestern rivers are largely controlled by dams and water diversions, and have floodplains that are drier than historic conditions, the plant communities that establish following exotic shrub removal may be distinct from historic plant communities (Seastedt et al 2008;Johnson 2002). Environmental shifts away from historic conditions are an essential consideration when planning restoration and understanding potential outcomes (Hobbs et al 2010;Hobbs et al 2009). Key ecosystem factors that will influence the future community composition include water, seed, and nutrient availability (Richter and Stromberg 2005;Berlow et al 2003).…”

What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

“…In particular, autonomous communities that passed their laws at later dates regulate human activities in the park to larger extents. Such patterns are also evident in other countries because management is usually adapted to a larger system of PAs that are already in place [13] rather than to the IUCN categories. The devolution of authority has become a core issue in recent years.…”

“…These documents define the conservation aims of the PA and provide specific regulations concerning human use. According to Stolton [12] and Hobbs et al [13], the articulation of clear purposes and human activities that are acceptable for meeting conservation goals is imperative for effective management of PAs. In practice, however, these aims are often unclear and are highly influenced by social, economic and political goals other than biodiversity protection [8,14].…”