DOCSLIB.ORG

JOURNAL of the AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION Distingillshing BETWEEN WATERSHEDS and Ecoregionsl James M. Omernik and Robe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JOURNAL of the AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION Distingillshing BETWEEN WATERSHEDS and Ecoregionsl James M. Omernik and Robe JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION VOL. 33, NO.5 AMERICAN WATERRESOURCES ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 1997 DISTINGillSHING BETWEEN WATERSHEDS AND ECOREGIONSl JamesM. Omernik and Robert G. Bailey2 ABSTRACT: In an effort to adopt more holistic ecosystem To accomplishthis redirection, the need for a spa- approaches to resource assessment and management, many state and federal agencies have begun using watershed or ecoregion tial framework is obvious.The problem is which one. frameworks. Although few would question the need to make this Do we use existing frameworks, or do we need to move from dealing with problems and issues on a case by case or developone to fit this particular purpose?Many have point-type basis to broader regional contexts, misunderstanding of felt that watershedsprovide the spatial tool necessary each of the frameworks has resulted in inconsistency in their use for effective research, assessment,and management and ultimate effectiveness. The focus of this paper is on the clarifi- cation of both frameworks. We stress that the issue is not whether of ecosystems(Water Environment Federation, 1992; to use watersheds (or basins or hydrologic units) or ecoregions for Armitage, 1995; Montgomery et al., 1995; Parsons, needs such as developing ecosystem management and non-point 1985; USFWS, 1995; Cannon, 1994; Lotspeich, 1980; source pollution strategies or structuring water quality regulatory FEMAT, 1993; Maxwell et al., 1995; CoastalAmerica, programs, but how to correctly use the frameworks together. Defmi- 1994; USEPA, 1996a). However, publications recom- tions, uses, and misuses of each of the frameworks are discussed as well as ways watersheds and ecoregions can be and have been used mending use of the watershed framework do not all together effectively to meet resource management needs. agree on how and at what scales this use should be (KEY TERMS: ecoregions; basins; watersheds; hydrologic units; undertaken. For example, Montgomery et al. (1995) ecosystem management.) and the report by the Forest EcosystemManagement AssessmentTeam (FEMAT, 1993) suggestthe water- shed (or basin) framework is applicable at two middle hierarchical levels, with physiographic regions or eco- BACKGROUND logical regions (also known as ecoregions),such as we have developed (Omernik, 1995; Bailey, 1995a, Much of the recent popularity with the terms 1995b), being appropriate at the broadest level, and "watershed" and "ecoregion"has come about because project or site delineations being most useful at the of the attempt by government agencies at regional, more detailed levels (largest scales).Others, such as state, national, and international levels to adoptmore the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), recom- holistic approaches to research, assess, monitor, mend use of watersheds,basins, or hydrologic units at inventory, and manage their resources. The intent all hierarchical levels (USFWS, 1995). appears to be to shift from dealing with single issues, There have been warnings regarding the potential point-sourceproblems, and micro scales,to a broader misuse and misunderstanding of watersheds for approachthat considers spatial patterns of the aggre- structuring ecological research and management gate of natural and anthropogenic interrelationships (Omernik and Griffith, 1991; Hughes and Omernik, involving ecosystemsand their components.This no 1981; Hughes et al., 1994), but unfortunately such doubt stems from a growing realization of the insidi- caveatsare often veiled (Cannon,1994; Born and Son- ous nature of increased human population and modifi- zogni, 1995; Water "Environment Federation, 1992). cation of environmental resources(Holling, 1994). At the Watershed'93 Conference,John Cairns (1994) IPaper No. 96178 of the Journal of the American Water ResourcesAssociation (formerly Water ResourcesBulletin). Discussions are open until June 1, 1998. ZRespectively, Research Geographer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Labora. tory, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, Oregon 97333; and Leader, Ecosystem Management Analysis Center, USDA For. est Service, 3825 East Mulberry St., Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 935 JAWRA Omernik and Bailey gave a plenary presentation titled "The Current State management strategies. We stress that it is not an of Watersheds in the United States: Ecological and "either/or" argument. Both frameworks have impor- Institutional Concerns." Except for its appearancein tant purposes and are complementary when used the title, the word "watershed" canbe found only once together correctly. in the proceedingsmanuscript. The bulk of the paper was aptly focused on the complexities of ecosystems, what we do not know about them, and ecosystem management and restoration scenarios. Cairns DEFINITIONS stressed that although lip service is given to it, little understanding exists of ecosystems and ecosystem Ecoregions management in a holistic sense.He stated that cur- rent efforts to emphasize watershed management remain focused on componentssuch as water quality. The most glaring difference betweenthe definitions When discussing the spatial extrapolation of ecosys- of watersheds and ecoregionsconcerns the degree of tem level restoration activities, Cairns referred to agreement on the definitions. Whereas the definition of the term watershed is fairly widely accepted,there ecoregions rather than watersheds. Repeatedly, Cairns made the point that there has been a reluc- are marked differences of opinion regarding ecore- tance to deal with that in which few have experience gions and how they can or should be delineated. and understanding, i.e., ecosystem-leveldecisions. Much of the difference in approachesto define ecore- Jonathan Cannon (1994), in another paper in the gions sterns from a lack of agreement on a definition of that which we are attempting to regionalize - proceedingsof the Watershed'93 Conference,strongly ecosystemsin aggregate (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). endorsed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Allen et al. (1993)claimed that the conceptof ecosys- (EPA)watershed approachand cited the "Water Qual- ity 2000" report which stated that watershedsprovide tem is both widely understood and diffuse and the appropriate spatial framework for total environ- ambiguous. Some question the concept itself (Calli- mental and economic planning (Water Environment cott, 1995;Fitzsimmons, 1996). In discussingthe com- plexities of this problem, Kay and Schneider (1994) Federation 1992).He acknowledgedthe caveatburied stated that most North American ecologicaljournals in "Water Quality 2000" stating: "In some water- sheds, planning and management activities may be (particularly U.S. journals) do not consider holistic more effective in attaining water quality goals if they ecosystemresearch a fit topic because it does not fol- low traditional scientific methods in that there are are organized by ecologicalregions (sub-watersheds). not observer-independent ways of defining ecosys- This is because the natural differences in climate, tems. The definition of "ecosystem" as it relates to geology,soil, land form, and vegetation may not con- form strictly to hydrologic regions.These features can regionalization and ecosystemmanagement (versus individual lakes, streams, wetlands, forests, etc., com- determine the ecological character of surface water and near-surfacegroundwater." Notice, however, that prising ecosystems)appears to be evolving (Haeuber and Franklin, 1996; Grumbine, 1994; Barnes, 1993). in this statement ecoregions are considered "sub- Originally the definition was centered on the biota watersheds," indicating at least an imprecise use of and then becamethought of as subsuming biotic and terms, if not a lack of understanding of the difference abiotic characteristics but in the absence of humans. between ecoregionsand watershedsand their hierar- More recently the term has taken on a more holistic chical nature. meaning that considershumans as part of the biota The purpose of this paper is to clarify the difference (McDonnell and Pickett, 1993; Barnes, 1993;Rowe, between watersheds and ecological regions and to 1990, 1992). The definition has also evolved some- explain some appropriate and inappropriate uses of what regarding scale. It is now commonto consider these spatial frameworks. We will not present a dis- ecosystemsin a multi-scale sense, from specific sites cussion of the different techniques for defining ecore- to global regions, as opposed to mostly relatively gions. Although we are not in complete agreement homogeneoussmall areas. Some of the difference in regarding the delineation of ecoregions,we share the definition is the result of our different educational concern that a spatial framework of watersheds, backgrounds and experiencesand differences in the basins, or hydrologic units has very different purposes missions of the agencieswe work within. than one of ecologicalregions, and that there is an Although the authors of this paper have employed urgent need to clarify the differences to reduce the dissimilar approachesin developingecological regions misuse of each framework. We also wish to address (Bailey, 1995a; Omernik, 1995), our objectives have some common misconceptions about watersheds, been similar, and as we revise our understandings of ecoregions,and hydrologic units that are germane to the meaning of the term "ecosystems"the products of their utility for the regionalization
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology, Water Resources Management and the People of the Great Lakes - St
    CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON HYDROLOGY, WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE GREAT LAKES - ST. LAWRENCE SYSTEM: A TECHNICAL SURVEY A report prepared for the International Joint Commission Reference on Consumption, Diversions and Removals of Great Lakes Water Compiled by Linda Mortsch Environment Canada with support from Murray Lister, Brent Lofgren, Frank Quinn and Lisa Wenger This report has relied extensively on Canada Country Study -Water resources Chapter with contributions from: N. Hoffman, L. Mortsch, S. Donner, K. Duncan, R. Kreutzwiser, S. Kulshreshtha, A. Piggott, S. Schellenberg, B. Schertzer, M. Slivitzky 8L Climate Change Impacts: an Ontario Perspective prepared for the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy with contributions from: 1. Burton, S. Cohen, H. Hengeveld, G. Koshida, N. Mayer, B. Mills, L. Mortsch, J. Smith, P. Stokoe July, 1999 1 DISCLAIMER The information contained herein was assembled as part of a basic fact-finding effort in support of the International Joint Commission Reference on Consumption, Diversion and Removal of Great Lakes Water. The views expressed are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent the opinions of either the Commission or its Study Team. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 6 ENHANCING THE ‘GREENHOUSE EFFECT’ 6 CLIMATE RESPONSE TO A CHANGING ATMOSPHERE 7 2. CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE 8 TEMPERATURE 8 TEMPERATURE TRENDS 8 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON TEMPERATURE 11 PRECIPITATION 14 PRECIPITATION TRENDS 14 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON PRECIPITATION 16 EVAPORATION I EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 17 EVAPORATION TRENDS 19 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON EVAPORATION 19 SURFACE FLOWS 20 VARIABILITY AND EXTREME EVENTS 20 RIVER DISCHARGEISTREAMFLOW TRENDS 20 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON STREAMFLOW AND RUNOFF 21 The St.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent State of the Environment Report: Evidence Base
    Kent state of the ENVIRONMENT 2015 A review of current and potential indicators within the Kent Environment Strategy Contents Executive summary 3 6.0 Biodiversity 35 Introduction 5 6.1 Introduction 35 1.0 Overview of Kent 6 6.2 Vision for Kent 36 1.1 Land and habitat types 6 6.3 Indicators 36 1.2 Kent Demographics 7 6.4 Current state of play in Kent 38 1.3 Employment and business demographics (any trends or projections) 10 7.0 Water resources 39 1.4 Climate (trends in rainfall, temperature, and sea level) 12 7.1 Introduction 39 2.0 Climate Change 13 7.2 Vision for Kent 39 2.1 Introduction 13 7.3 Indicators 39 2.2 Vision for Kent 15 7.4 Current state of play in Kent 40 2.3 Indicators 15 8.0 Resources 44 2.4 Current state of play in Kent 15 8.1 Energy generation and consumption 44 2.5 Severe weather events 17 8.2 Waste 46 3.0 Air quality 19 9.0 Infrastructure – transport, housing and land 51 3.1 Introduction 20 9.1 Introduction 51 3.2 Vision for Kent 21 9.2 Vision for Kent 52 3.3 Indicators 22 9.3 Indicators 53 3.4 Current state of play in Kent 22 9.4 Current state of play 54 4.0 Water quality 26 10.0 Economy 57 4.1 Introduction 26 10.1 Introduction 58 4.2 Vision for Kent 26 10.2 Vision 58 4.3 Indicators 28 10.3 Indicators 58 4.4 Current state of play in Kent 28 10.4 Current state of play in Kent 58 5.0 Flood Risk 30 11.0 Health and Wellbeing 60 5.1 Introduction 30 11.1 Introduction 60 5.2 Vision for Kent 31 11.2 Vision for Kent 60 5.3 Indicators 31 11.3 Indicators 61 5.4 Current state of play in Kent 31 11.4 Current state of play in Kent 63 12.0 References 64 Kent State of the Environment 2 Executive summary In 2011 the Kent Environment Strategy set out a series of priorities that changes needed to address the environmental challenges that lie ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Pollution-Free Planet
    Towards a Pollution-Free Planet Report of the Executive Director United Nations Environment Programme Advance Copy (long version) Copy Advance unep.org/environmentassembly This advance version of the report "Towards a Pollution-Free Planet" by the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme is meant to support the preparations for the third session of the UN Environment Assembly. This is not for quotation or citation at this point. Comments to the secretariat are welcome by 14 July. A shorter version of this paper targeting policy makers will be prepared and provided in September. Towards a Pollution-Free Planet Report of the Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme Advance Copy (long version) Towards a Pollution-Free Planet Table of Contents Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 1 EVIDENCE OF A POLLUTED PLANET: THE SCIENCE, IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC COSTS ..................................5 1.1 Air pollution ............................................................................................................................5 1.2 Land and soil pollution ...........................................................................................................9 1.3 Freshwater pollution .............................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering the Environment: Regulatory Engineering at the U.S
    Engineering the Environment: Regulatory Engineering at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970-1980 Jongmin Lee Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Science and Technology Studies Matthew H. Wisnioski, Chair Mark V. Barrow, Jr. Gary L. Downey Saul Halfon Ann Johnson August 2, 2013 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: air pollution, control technology, environmental regulation, regulatory engineering, catalytic converter, scrubber, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Copyright Jongmin Lee Engineering the Environment: Regulatory Engineering at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970-1980 Jongmin Lee ABSTRACT My dissertation addresses how engineers, scientists, and bureaucrats generated knowledge about pollution, crafted an institution for environmental protection, and constructed a collective identity for themselves. I show an important shift in regulators’ priorities, from stringent health-based standards to flexible technology-based ones through the development of end-of-pipeline pollution control devices, which contributed to the emergence of economic incentives and voluntary management programs. Drawing on findings from archival documents, published sources, and oral history interviews, I examine the first decade of the EPA amid constant organizational changes that shaped the technological and managerial character of environmental policy in the United States. Exploring the EPA’s internal research and development processes and their relationship with scientific and engineering communities sheds light on how the new fields of environmental engineering and policy were co-produced in the 1970s. I argue that two competing approaches for environmental management, a community health approach and a control technology approach, developed from EPA’s responses to bureaucratic, geographical, and epistemic challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Environment Reporting
    ITALY STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORTING First Environmental Report published by National System for Environmental Protection National Environmental Agency launches its Environmental Yearbook website (https://annuario.ispram biente.it/) Environmental Data Yearbook is the source of the main Italian environmental reports. Italy publishes national and regional SoE reports First Italian Environmental Yearbook published by National Environmental Agency The first EEA SOER Report was used for the mid- term review of the 5th EAP (1993–2000) First SoE report published by Italian Ministry of the Environment Next SoE Report by MoE and Environmental Yearbook by ISPRA Scheduled for 2020 Environmental criminal offence law Milestones Italy State of the environment tools and building blocks TOPICS COVERED Themes Data Indicators Scoreboards Assessments from showing environmental giving insight in providing knowledge on • Biodiversity • Industrial pollution • Freshwater • Natural hazards • Environmental monitoring DPSIR EEA typology • Environmental trends • State and past trends • Land and soil • Contaminated sites • Key registers and databases • Driving forces • Descriptive • Policy progress • Trends and outlooks • Marine environment • Hydrological disasters Pressures • Performance • Environmental state • Systemic challenges and • Climate change mitigation and adaption • Environment and well being • Dedicated data sources and • • Efficiency responses • Air pollution • Environmental knowledge analysis • States • Waste and resources • Impacts • Policy effectiveness
    [Show full text]
  • State and Pressures of the Marine and Coastal Mediterranean Environment
    1 Environmental issues series No 5 State and pressures of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment UNEP 2 State and pressures of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment NOTE The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Communities or other European Communities institutions. Neither the European Environ- ment Agency nor any person or company acting on the behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1999 Cover: EEA Layout: Folkmann Design ISBN © European Communities, 1999 Printed in Printed on recycled chlorine-free paper European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 DK-1050 Copenhagen K Tel. (+45) 33 36 71 00 Fax (+45) 33 36 71 99 E-mail: [email protected] Home page: http://www.eea.eu.int 3 Contents List of contributors ........................................................................................................6 Foreword ......................................................................................................................7 Executive summary ........................................................................................................9 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Environment: Soil Quality Report
    State of the Environment Soil Quality Report 1 Foreword 2 Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 1.1 The Soil Resource 6 1.2 Soil Quality 11 1.3 Soil Monitoring 12 1.4 Pressures on Soil Quality 13 1.5 Soil Protection Legislation 13 2. Impacts of Industry 16 2.1 Derelict and Vacant Land 16 2.2 Chemically Contaminated Land 18 2.3 Radioactively Contaminated Land 21 2.4 Deposition from the Atmosphere 23 2.4.1 Acidifying and Eutrophying Compounds 23 Contents 2.4.2 Heavy Metals 29 2.4.3 Persistent Organic Pollutants 31 2.5 Climate Change 32 3. Impacts of Agriculture and Forestry 34 3.1 Soil Loss 35 3.2 Fertiliser and Pesticide Use 38 3.2.1 Fertilisers 38 3.2.2 Pesticides 41 3.3 Gaseous Emissions 43 3.3.1 Nitrous oxide 43 3.3.2 Methane 44 3.3.3 Carbon dioxide 44 3.3.4 Ammonia 45 3.4 Forestry 45 4. Impacts of Waste Application to Land 49 4.1 Organic Wastes 49 4.1.1 Sewage Sludge 50 4.1.2 Industrial Wastes 52 4.1.3 Agricultural Wastes 53 4.1.4 Composted Waste 54 4.2 Landfill 55 5. Summary 57 5.1 Pressures from Industry 57 5.2 Pressures from Agriculture and Forestry 57 5.3 Pressures from Waste Application to Land 59 5.4 Regulatory Framework 59 6. Conclusions and Recommendations 62 References 64 Glossary 68 Units 68 Acronyms 69 Useful Web Addresses 69 Acknowledgements 69 Photographs and Figures 69 Foreword The effects of air and water pollution are visible and obviously threatening to human health but the importance of soil is often overlooked.
    [Show full text]
  • The Government's Environmental Policy and the State of The
    Summary in English: Report No. 21 (2004–2005) to the Storting The Government’s Environmental Policy and the State of the Environment in Norway Translation from the Norwegian. For information only. Table of Contents 1 Environmental status 2005 . 5 7 Hazardous substances. 26 1.1 A shared global responsibility . 5 7.1 Goals . 26 1.2 The state of the environment in 7.2 Policy instruments and measures . 26 Norway . 5 1.3 The path forward . 10 8 Waste management and recovery . 27 2 Key priorities of Norwegian 8.1 Goals . 27 environmental policy . 12 8.2 Policy instruments and measures . 27 2.1 Halting the loss of biodiversity . 12 2.2 Developing a more ambitious 9 Climate change, air pollution and climate policy . 13 noise . 28 2.3 Reducing NOx emissions in 9.1 Climate . 28 accordance with the Gothenburg 9.2 Depletion of the ozone layer. 29 Protocol . 13 9.3 Long-range air pollution . 29 2.4 Halting emissions of 9.4 Local air quality . 30 environmentally hazardous 9.5 Noise . 31 substances. 14 2.5 Improving waste management 10 International environmental and increasing waste recovery . 15 cooperation, environmental 2.6 Developing environmental assistance, and environmental policy at local level . 15 protection in the polar regions . 32 2.7 Moving to sustainable production 10.1 EU/EEA environmental legislation 32 and consumption . 16 10.2 International environmental 2.8 Focusing on environmental bodies . 32 technologies . 17 10.3 International agreements with 2.9 Greening public procurement. 18 implications for the environment . 33 2.10 Developing a knowledge-based 10.4 Bilateral and regional environmental policy .
    [Show full text]
  • Urbanization, Economic Development and Environmental Change
    Sustainability 2014, 6, 5143-5161; doi:10.3390/su6085143 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article Urbanization, Economic Development and Environmental Change Shushu Li 1 and Yong Ma 2,* 1 Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China; E-Mail:[email protected] 2 China Financial Policy Research Center, School of Finance, Renmin University of China, Haidian District, 59 Zhong Guan Cun Street, Beijing 100872, China * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-8250-9318. Received: 4 May 2014; in revised form: 28 July 2014 / Accepted: 31 July 2014 / Published: 11 August 2014 Abstract: This paper applies the pressure-state-response (PSR) model to establish environmental quality indices for 30 administrative regions in China from 2003 to 2011 and employs panel data analysis to study the relationships among the urbanization rate, economic development and environmental change. The results reveal a remarkable inverted-U-shaped relationship between the urbanization rate and changes in regional environmental quality; the “turning point” generally appears near an urbanization rate of 60%. In addition, the degree and mode of economic development have significant, but anisotropic effects on the regional environment. Generally, at a higher degree of economic development, the environment will tend to improve, but an extensive economic growth program that simply aims to increase GDP has a clear negative impact on the environment. Overall, the results of this paper not only further confirm the “environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis”, but also expand it in a manner. The analysis in this paper implies that the inverted-U-shaped evolving relationship between environmental quality and economic growth (urbanization) is universally applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Degradation
    THEAUSTRALIANCOLLABORatION A Collaboration of National Community Organisations Land Degradation What is Land Degradation? Extent and Type of Degraded Land There are many definitions of land degradation but all Land degradation is a global issue for a number of reasons share the idea that detrimental changes to the condition but most significantly because productive land is one of of land have occurred because of the many ways land has several resources where a reducing supply threatens our been developed and used. The term ‘degradation’ is used to capacity to feed a growing world population estimated to describe changes that are additional to those occurring be over 9 billion by 2050. In his book ‘Coming Famine’, naturally and carries with it the notion of change that is Julian Cribb points out that of the 1.5 billion hectares of undesirable and brought about by humans. Land degrada- global farmland, a quarter is affected by serious degrada- tion then refers to chemical and biophysical changes in tion, up from 15% two decades ago. The seriousness of this land that reduce both its quantity and quality. Frequently, is clear when we are told that the world demand for food is these changes are linked to a reduction in the productive growing many times faster than the area of land being capacity of land and its economic value. farmed. The term ‘land’ generally includes rocks, soils and miner- In Australia, about two thirds of agricultural land is als and the vegetation and animal habitats it supports – degraded. The major types of land degradation are soil ero- the combination of all these elements form landscapes.
    [Show full text]
  • OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 Summary in English
    OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 Summary in English • How will economic and social developments drive environmental change to 2030? What policies are needed to address the main environmental challenges? How can OECD and non-OECD countries best work together to tackle these challenges? • The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 provides analyses of economic and environmental trends to 2030, and simulations of policy actions to address the key challenges. Without new policies, we risk irreversibly damaging the environment and the natural resource base needed to support economic growth and well-being. The costs of policy inaction are high. • But the Outlook shows that tackling the key environmental problems we face today -- including climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and the health impacts of pollution -- is both achievable and affordable. It highlights a mix of policies that can address these challenges in a cost-effective way. The focus of this Outlook is expanded from the 2001 edition to reflect developments in both OECD countries and Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, South Africa (BRIICS), and how they might better co-operate on global and local environmental problem- solving. OECD ENVIRONMENTAL OUTLOOK TO 2030 ISBN 978-92-64-04048-9 © OECD 2008 – 1 KEY MESSAGES The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 is based on projections of economic and environmental trends to 2030. The key environmental challenges for the future are presented according to a “traffic light” system (see Table 1). The Outlook also presents simulations
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Integrated World Ocean Assessment: Linking Observations to Science and Policy Across Multiple Scales
    fmars-06-00298 June 6, 2019 Time: 16:34 # 1 REVIEW published: 06 June 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00298 The Global Integrated World Ocean Assessment: Linking Observations to Science and Policy Across Multiple Scales Karen Evans1*, Sanae Chiba2, Maria J. Bebianno3, Carlos Garcia-Soto4, Henn Ojaveer5, Chul Park6, Renison Ruwa7, Alan J. Simcock8, C. T. Vu9 and Tymon Zielinski10 1 CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, TAS, Australia, 2 Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), Yokosuka, Japan, 3 Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal, Edited by: 4 Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Santander, Spain, 5 Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Pärnu, Estonia, Eric Delory, 6 Department of Oceanography, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea, 7 Kenya Marine and Fisheries Oceanic Platform of the Canary Research Institute, Mombasa, Kenya, 8 Retired, Richmond, United Kingdom, 9 Hanoi University of Natural Resources Islands, Spain and Environment, Hanoi, Vietnam, 10 Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Reviewed by: Mustafa Yucel, In 2004, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly approved a Regular Process to Middle East Technical University, Turkey report on the environmental, economic and social aspects of the world’s ocean. The Oscar Schofield, Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, United States Environment, including Socioeconomic Aspects produced the first global integrated George Petihakis, assessment of the marine environment in December 2016 (known as the first World Hellenic Centre for Marine Research Ocean Assessment). The second assessment, to be delivered in December 2020, will (HCMR), Greece build on the baselines included in the first assessment, with a focus on establishing *Correspondence: Karen Evans trends in the marine environment with relevance to global reporting needs such [email protected] as those associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
    [Show full text]