Cumulative effects assessment: Linking social, ecological, and governance dimensions

Ecology and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  Weber, Marian ^a   Krogman, Naomi ^b   Antoniuk, Terry ^c  

^a Alberta Innovates Technology Future   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c Salmo Consulting Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cumulative effects; Forest ecosystems; Governance; Scenario models; Social indicators

Indexed keywords

BOREAL FOREST; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LAND USE CHANGE; LAND USE PLANNING; POPULATION GROWTH; SOCIAL INDICATOR;

CANADA; PARAGUAY;

EID: 84864485994     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-04597-170222     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Antoniuk, T., S. Kennett, C. Aumann, M. Weber, S. Davis Schuetz, R. McManus, K. McKinnon, and K. Manuel. 2009. Valued component thresholds (management objectives) project. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 172, ESRF, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [online] URL: http://w ww.esrfunds.org/pdf/172.pdf
2. Carlson, M., E. Bayne, and B. Stelfox. 2007. Seeking a balance: assessing the future impacts of conservation and development in the Mackenzie Watershed. Canadian Boreal Initiative, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
3. Carlson, M. J., R. Mitchell, and L. Rodriguez. 2011. Scenario analysis to identify viable conservation strategies in Paraguay's imperiled Atlantic forest. Ecology and Society 16 (3): 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04267-160308
4. Christensen, L., and N. Krogman. 2012. Social thresholds and their translation into social-ecological management practices. Ecology and Society 17(1): 5. a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04499-170105
5. Dale, V. H., S. Brown, R. A. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. Huntly, R. J. Naiman, W. E. Riebsame, M. G. Turner, and T. J. Valone. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10:639-670.
6. Duinker, P. N., and L. A. Greig. 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27:206-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.11.001
7. Foote, L. 2012. Threshold considerations and wetland reclamation in Alberta's mineable oil sands. Ecology and Society 17(1): 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04673-170135
8. Force, J. E, and G. E. Machlis. 1997. The human ecosystem part II: social indicators in ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources 10:369-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089 41929709381035
9. Francis, S. R., and J. Hamm. 2011. Looking forward: using scenario modeling to support regional land use planning in Northern Yukon, Canada. Ecology and Society 16(4): 18. htt p://dx. doi.org/10.5751/ES-04532-160418
10. Freudenburg, W. R., R. Gramling, S. Laska, and K. T. Erikson. 2008. Organizing hazards, engineering disasters? Improving the recognition of political-economic factors in the creation of disasters. Social Forces 87:1015-1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0126
11. Greene, R., J. E. Luther, R. Devillers, and B. Eddy. 2010. An approach to GIS-based multiple criteria decision analysis that integrates exploration and evaluation phases: case study in a forest-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 260:2102-2114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.052
12. Groffman, P. M., J. S. Baron, T. Blett, A. J. Gold, I. Goodman, L. H. Gunderson, B. M. Levinson, M. A. Palmer, H. W. Paerl, G. D. Peterson, N. LeRoy Poff, D. W. Rejeski, J. F. Reynolds, M. G. Turner, K. C. Weathers, and J. Wiens. 2006. Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9:1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-003-0142-z
13. Gunn, J. H., and B. F. Noble. 2009. Integrating cumulative effects in regional strategic environmental assessment frameworks: lessons from practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 11:267-290. http://dx.do i.org/10.1142/S1464333209003361
14. Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
15. Howitt, R. 2001. Rethinking resource management: justice, sustainability and indigenous peoples. Routledge, London, UK.
16. Ive, J. R., K. D. Cocks, and C. A. Parvey. 1989. Using the LUPIS land management package to select and schedule multi-site operations. Journal of Environmental Management 29:31-45.
17. Kennett, S. A. 2010. Fix it up: why and how to put northern land use planning on track for success. In T. Berger, S. A. Kennett, H. King. Canada's North: what's the plan? The Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
18. Mahmoud M., Y. Liu, H. Hartmann, S. Stewart, T. Wagener, D. Semmens, R. Stewart, H. Gupta, D. Dominguez, F. Dominguez, D. Hulse, R. Letcher, B. Rashleigh, C. Smith, R. Street, J. Ticehurst, M. Twery, H. van Delden, R. Waldick, D. White, and L. Winter. 2009. A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environmental Modeling and Software 24:798-808. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.010
19. Mitchell, R. E., and J. R. Parkins. 2011. The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecology and Society 16(2): 29. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art29
20. Mladenoff, D. J. 2004. LANDIS and forest landscape models. Ecological Modelling 180:7-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.e colmodel.2004.03.016
21. Parkins, J. R. 2011. Deliberative democracy, institution building, and the pragmatics of cumulative effects assessment. Ecology and Society 16(3): 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04236-160320
22. Parlee, B. L., K. Geertsema, and Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council. 2012. Social-ecological thresholds in a changing boreal landscape: insights from Cree knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake region of Alberta, Canada. Ecology and Society 17(2): 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04410-170220
23. Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17:358-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
24. Prato, T. 2007. Evaluating land use plans under uncertainty. Land Use Policy 24:165-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.land usepol.2006.02.003
25. Recatala, L., J. R. Ive, I. A. Baird, N. Hamilton, and J. Sánchez. 2000. Land-use planning in the Valencian Mediterranean Region: Using LUPIS to generate issue relevant plans. Journal of Environmental Management 59:169-184. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1006/jema.2000.0350
26. Rudel, T. K. 2011. Local actions, global effects? Understanding the circumstances in which locally beneficial environmental actions cumulate to have global effects. Ecology and Society 16(2): 19. [online] URL: http://www.ec ologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art19/
27. Schneider, R., S. Boutin, J. Stelfox, and S. Wasel. 2007. Scenarios are plausible stories about the future, not forecasts. Ecology and Society 12(1): r4. [online] URL: http://www.eco logyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/resp4/
28. Schneider, R. R., J. B. Stelfox, S. Boutin, and S. Wasel. 2003. Managing the cumulative impacts of land uses in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin: a modeling approach. Conservation Ecology 7(1): 8. [online] URL: http://www.con secol.org/vol7/iss1/art8/
29. Spyce, A., M. Weber, and W. Adamowicz. 2012. Cumulative effects planning: finding the balance using choice experiments. Ecology and Society 17(1): 22. http://dx.doi.org /10.5751/ES-04491-170122
30. Stankey, G. H., S. F. McCool, and G. L. Stokes. 1984. Limits of acceptable change: a new framework for managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Western Wildlands 10:33-37.
31. Zeldis, J., M. Felsing, and J. Wilson. 2006. Limits of acceptable change: a framework for managing environmental performance of New Zealand marine farming. Water & Atmosphere 14:16-17. [online] URL:http://www.niwa.co.nz/p ublications/wa/vol14-no2-june-2006/limits-of-acceptable-changea-framewor k-for-managing-marine-farming