DOCSLIB.ORG

Prodoc Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prodoc Development WWF GEF PROJECT DOCUMENT Cover Page Project Title: Improving mangrove conservation across the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (ETPS) through coordinated regional and national strategy development and implementation. GEF Project ID: 5771 WWF-US Project ID: G0011 Countries: Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (ETPS) including Costa Rica, Panamá, Colombia and Ecuador. Project Duration: 24 months Expected Start Date: June 2016 Project Type: Medium Sized Project GEF Trust Fund(s): GEFTF -5 GEF Focal Area(s): International Waters GEF Focal Area Objective(s): IW-3 Capacity Building IW-2 Large Marine Ecosystems/ Coasts Project Executing Organization: Conservation International Executing Project Partners: Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS); UNESCO-Quito. GEF Project Cost: 1,900,810 USD GEF Agency Fee: 171,073 USD Total GEF STAR: 2,071,883 USD Project Co-financing: 4,516,858 USD Total Project Cost: 6,588,741 USD Project Team Contact: Stuart Banks WWF GEF Agency Contact: Herve Lefeuvre WWF-US Project Support Team Contact: Andrew Hume Version Date: 12 May 2016 CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 9 SECTION 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 12 1.1 Background and Context ............................................................................................................ 12 1.2 Global Significance ...................................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Baseline Analysis and Gaps ......................................................................................................... 17 1.4 Opportunities & Linkages (GEF & non-GEF interventions) .......................................................... 27 SECTION 2: GEF INTERVENTION STRATEGY .................................................................................. 30 2.1 Project Scope and Vision (GEF Project Objective) ....................................................................... 30 2.2 Conservation Targets Rationale (including GEF Global Environmental Benefits) ........................ 30 2.3 Stakeholder Analysis ................................................................................................................... 34 2.4 Situational Analysis: Direct and Indirect Threats ........................................................................ 39 2.5 Project Strategies (GEF Project Components) and Expected Results .......................................... 41 2.6 Lessons Learned During ProDoc Development ........................................................................... 55 2.7 Risk Analysis and Risk Management Measures (Project Risks) ................................................... 56 2.8 Consistency with National Priorities or Plans ............................................................................. 58 2.9 Consistency with GEF Focal Area/Fund Strategies ...................................................................... 60 2.10 Incremental Cost Reasoning ....................................................................................................... 61 2.11 WWF Comparative Advantage and Consistency with the CI-ETPS Regional Program. ................ 64 2.12 Innovativeness, Sustainability & Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................... 65 2.13 Communication Strategy ............................................................................................................ 68 SECTION 3: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS............... 70 3.1 Project Execution Arrangements and Partners ........................................................................... 70 3.2 Project Steering Committee........................................................................................................ 71 3.3 Project Management Unit. ......................................................................................................... 72 SECTION 4: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 73 4.1 Key stakeholders. ........................................................................................................................ 73 4.2 Stakeholder engagement activities during project preparation. ................................................ 75 4.3 Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines: ......................................................................................... 78 4.4 Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Methods and Timetable. ........................................................... 80 4.5 Monitoring and Reporting. ......................................................................................................... 82 SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS ........................................................... 87 SECTION 6: GENDER MAINSTREAMING ........................................................................................ 88 6.1 Gender dimensions within the project area ............................................................................... 88 6.2 Goals and purpose of Gender Mainstreaming Strategy for the project. ..................................... 89 6.3 Compliance with the WWF Network Policy on Gender Mainstreaming. .................................... 90 6.4 Review of Gender Dimensions in Project activities. .................................................................... 91 6.5 Monitoring and Reporting: ......................................................................................................... 93 SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN ..................................................................... 94 7.1 Organizational commitment to M&E statement, including references to results monitoring and adaptive management ................................................................................................................ 94 7.2 M&E Components and Activities ................................................................................................ 94 7.3 Project staff dedicated to M&E................................................................................................... 97 7.4 Calendar of monitoring activities and reporting requirements .................................................. 98 7.5 Indicative M&E budget ............................................................................................................... 98 7.6 Project evaluation information, including reference to ToRs for evaluation in appendix ........... 98 SECTION 8: PROJECT FINANCING AND BUDGET ......................................................................... 100 8.1 Project Budget .......................................................................................................................... 100 8.2 Project Budget Notes ................................................................................................................ 101 8.3 Project Co-financing.................................................................................................................. 108 TECHNICAL ANNEX ........................................................................................................................... 109 Appendix 1: CEO Endorsement Document ................................................................................... 109 Appendix 2: Project Map .............................................................................................................. 110 Appendix 3: Threats Rating ........................................................................................................... 111 Appendix 4: Conceptual Model .................................................................................................... 112 Appendix 5: Results Chains ........................................................................................................... 113 Appendix 6: Results Based Framework ......................................................................................... 116 Appendix 7: Financial and Economic Analysis ............................................................................... 125 Appendix 8: Environmental and Social Safeguards Compliance ................................................... 126 Appendix 9: Monitoring & Evaluation Plan ................................................................................... 127 Appendix 10: Summary Budget ...................................................................................................... 138 Appendix 11: Co-Financing (USD) by Source (GEF Table C) ............................................................ 141 Appendix 12: Co-Financing Commitment Letters ........................................................................... 142 Appendix 13a: Endorsement Letters of GEF Operational Focal Points ............................................. 148 Appendix 13b: No-Objection to Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia's Boreal Forests
    Forest Area Key Facts & Carbon Emissions Russia’s Boreal Forests from Deforestation Forest location and brief description Russia is home to more than one-fifth of the world’s forest areas (approximately 763.5 million hectares). The Russian landscape is highly diverse, including polar deserts, arctic and sub-arctic tundra, boreal and semi-tundra larch forests, boreal and temperate coniferous forests, temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, forest-steppe and steppe (temperate grasslands, savannahs, and shrub-lands), semi-deserts and deserts. Russian boreal forests (known in Russia as the taiga) represent the largest forested region on Earth (approximately 12 million km2), larger than the Amazon. These forests have relatively few tree species, and are composed mainly of birch, pine, spruce, fir, with some deciduous species. Mixed in among the forests are bogs, fens, marshes, shallow lakes, rivers and wetlands, which hold vast amounts of water. They contain more than 55 per cent of the world’s conifers, and 11 per cent of the world’s biomass. Unique qualities of forest area Russia’s boreal region includes several important Global 200 ecoregions - a science-based global ranking of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding habitats. Among these is the Eastern-Siberian Taiga, which contains the largest expanse of untouched boreal forest in the world. Russia’s largest populations of brown bear, moose, wolf, red fox, reindeer, and wolverine can be found in this region. Bird species include: the Golden eagle, Black- billed capercaillie, Siberian Spruce grouse, Siberian accentor, Great gray owl, and Naumann’s thrush. Russia’s forests are also home to the Siberian tiger and Far Eastern leopard.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Invasive Plant Expansion in Global Ecoregions Under Climate Change
    Potential invasive plant expansion in global ecoregions under climate change Chun-Jing Wang1,2, Qiang-Feng Li2 and Ji-Zhong Wan1 1 State Key Laboratory of Plateau Ecology and Agriculture, Qinghai University, Xining, China 2 College of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Qinghai University, Xining, China ABSTRACT Climate change is increasing the risk of invasive plant expansion worldwide. However, few studies have specified the relationship between invasive plant expansion and ecoregions at the global scale under climate change. To address this gap, we provide risk maps highlighting the response of invasive plant species (IPS), with a focus on terrestrial and freshwater ecoregions to climate change, and further explore the climatic features of ecosystems with a high potential for invasive plant expansion under climate change. We use species distribution modelling to predict the suitable habitats of IPS with records at the global scale. Hotspots with a potential risk of IPS (such as aquatic plants, trees, and herbs) expanding in global ecoregions were distributed in Northern Europe, the UK, South America, North America, southwest China, and New Zealand. Temperature changes were related to the potential of IPS expansion in global ecoregions under climate change. Coastal and high latitude ecoregions, such as temperate forests, alpine vegetation, and coastal rivers, were severely infiltrated by IPS under climate change. Monitoring strategies should be defined for climate change for IPS, particularly for aquatic plants, trees, and herbs in the biomes of regions with coastal or high latitudes. The role of climate change on the potential for IPS expansion should be taken into consideration for biological conservation and risk evaluation of IPS at ecoregional scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Climate Change on the Worldts Most Exceptional Ecoregions
    Impacts of climate change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions Linda J. Beaumonta,b,1, Andrew Pitmanc, Sarah Perkinsc, Niklaus E. Zimmermannd, Nigel G. Yoccoze, and Wilfried Thuillerb aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia; bLaboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Unité Mixte de Recherche Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 5553, Université de Grenoble, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France; cClimate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; dLandscape Dynamics, Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland; and eDepartment of Arctic and Marine Biology, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway Edited by Rodolfo Dirzo, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved December 16, 2010 (received for review June 6, 2010) The current rate of warming due to increases in greenhouse gas 200 would be of immense value to conservation efforts worldwide (GHG) emissions is very likely unprecedented over the last 10,000 y. because of their richness in endemic species, high taxonomic Although the majority of countries have adopted the view that uniqueness, unique ecological or evolutionary phenomena, global global warming must be limited to <2 °C, current GHG emission rarity, and their representation of biomes (16). However, the rates and nonagreement at Copenhagen in December 2009 increase majority of these regions are threatened by habitat loss, frag- the likelihood of this limit being exceeded by 2100. Extensive evi- mentation, and degradation, with 147 of 185 terrestrial and fi dence has linked major changes in biological systems to 20th cen- freshwater regions being classi ed as either vulnerable or critically fi tury warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Support to Grassland Restoration in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation
    Final Report Options for Support to Grassland Restoration in the context of Climate Change Mitigation Freiburg, Germany, May 2012 Options for Support to Grassland Restoration in the context of Climate Change Mitigation Client: FAO Authors: Andreas Wilkes, Katalin Solymosi, Timm Tennigkeit Content Content .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Key messages ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Background and perspectives .................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Economic and food security contributions of grassland-based livestock production ..... 3 1.2 Grasslands: an under-prioritized and vulnerable ecosystem ........................................... 5 1.3 Environmental services of grasslands and grassland restoration .................................... 9 1.4 Climate change mitigation potential of grassland protection and restoration.............. 10 1.5 Synergies between grassland protection / restoration and other policy priorities ....... 15 2 Existing grassland protection and restoration initiatives and incentive mechanisms ........... 16 2.1 Incentive mechanisms for grassland protection and restoration .................................. 16 2.2 Other initiatives for grassland protection and restoration ............................................ 19 2.3 Carbon-targeted initiatives
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected Areas on the World Heritage List
    A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF WETLAND AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites Prepared by Jim Thorsell, Renee Ferster Levy and Todd Sigaty Natural Heritage Programme lUCN Gland, Switzerland September 1997 WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE lUCN The World Conservation Union 530S2__ A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF WETLAND AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of Wodd Heritage Natural Sites Prepared by Jim Thorsell. Renee Ferster Levy and Todd Sigaty Natural Heritage Program lUCN Gland. Switzerland September 1997 Working Paper 1: Earth's Geological History - A Contextual Framework Assessment of World Heritage Fossil Site Nominations Working Paper 2: A Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected Areas on the World Heritage List Working Paper 3; A Global Overview of Forest Protected Areas on the World Heritage List Further volumes (in preparation) on biodiversity, mountains, deserts and grasslands, and geological features. Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from UNEP-WCIVIC, Cambridge littp://www.arcliive.org/details/globaloverviewof97glob . 31 TABLE OF CONTE>rrS PAGE I. Executive Summary (e/f) II. Introduction 1 III. Tables & Figures Table 1 . Natural World Heritage sites with primary wetland and marine values 1 Table 2. Natural World Heritage sites with secondary wetland and marine values 12 Table 3. Natural World Heritage sites inscribed primarily for their freshwater wetland values 1 Table 4. Additional natural World Heritage sites with significant freshwater wetland values 14 Tables. Natural World Heritage sites with a coastal/marine component 15 Table 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Endemic Family
    Endemic family Lomolino et al., 2006 Biogeography 1 Prof. J. Hicke Endemic species Lomolino et al., 2006 Biogeography 2 Prof. J. Hicke Cosmopolitan family Lomolino et al., 2006 Biogeography 3 Prof. J. Hicke Cosmopolitan species www.peregrinefund.org/explore_raptors/ Biogeography 4 Prof. J. Hicke Biogeographic boundaries Biogeography 5 Prof. J. Hicke What’s an angiosperm? Plants gymnosperms angiosperms en.wikipedia.org/wiki Biogeography 6 Prof. J. Hicke Rise of Angiosperms Biogeography 7 Prof. J. Hicke Distribution of pines and southern beeches Long dispersal distances, ocean barriers prevented cold-adapted angiosperms to colonize Northern Hemisphere high latitudes 100 pine species, only several southern beech species (unusual) Biogeography 8 Prof. J. Hicke Biogeographic realms Biogeography 9 Prof. J. Hicke Nearctic/Palearctic Regions • Two regions have similar mammals, angiosperms • similar environmental conditions • physical connections leading to substantial exchange • Mammal fauna smaller than that of tropics • 13 families of terrestrial mammals in Nearctic • 18 in Palearctic • Dominated by placentals (none in Palearctic, one in Nearctic) • More species during Pleistocene than today • Cooling and glaciation in Pleistocene produced cold-adapted mammals; cycles caused extinctions Biogeography 10 Prof. J. Hicke Neotropical Region • Mammals: 23 families • many families shared with Nearctic (e.g., foxes, rabbits, mountain lions) • New World monkeys • 3 families, 84 species of marsupials • Angiosperms: most diverse region (137 families, 50 endemic) • shared families with other regions • High biodiversity: • environmental variety: tundra, temperate and tropical forests, desert • geologic history: early connections with Africa, Antarctica; exchange with Nearctic Biogeography 11 Prof. J. Hicke Ethiopian Region • Has most diverse mammal fauna: 30 families • charismatic megafauna • some families shared with Palearctic, Oriental • later collision with Eurasia • few/none shared with Neotropical, Australasian • early separation from S.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Amphibians and Reptiles from Western Panama
    Herpetology Notes, volume 13: 219-229 (2020) (published online on 09 March 2020) Notes on amphibians and reptiles from western Panama Abel Batista1,5,*, Andreas Hertz4, Marcos Ponce2, and Sebastian Lotzkat3 Abstract. Panama is a hotspot of amphibian and reptile diversity and many areas of the country still remain underexplored. Here we present results of our field work carried out through several years in western Panama, further increasing the numbers of amphibian and reptile species known from the country. We provide the first country records for Smilisca manisorum and Lepidophyma reticulatum. Additionally, we extend the known distributional ranges of Pristimantis taeniatus, Pleurodema brachyops, Leptodactylus fuscus, Bachia blairi, Basiliscus plumifrons, Anolis auratus, A. capito, A. cryptolimifrons, A. humilis, A. kemptoni, A. pseudopachypus, Geophis godmani, Mastigodryas pleei, and Bothriechis supraciliaris. Keywords. Amphibia, distribution, new record, herpetofauna, Panama, Reptilia Introduction van den Burg, 2012). Despite these manifold novelties, the amount of herpetological exploration in western The herpetofauna of Panama has been studied in Panama is still unsatisfactory (Köhler et al., 2008; various areas, with most work concentrated in central Lotzkat, 2014; Hertz, 2015). Panama (Ibáñez et al., 2001; Crawford et al. 2010; The aim of this paper is to provide new records of Voyles et al., 2018). However, there are notable surveys amphibians and reptiles from western Panama, as a since the mid-nineteenth century that were carried out in result of our surveys in the region from 2004 to 2012. western Panama (e.g., Dunn, 1924, 1940, 1947; Slevin, We include two new country records for Panama, and 1942; Myers and Duellman, 1982; see summaries in 14 distribution extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Strategy for the Conservation and Protection of the World's
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Great Plains Studies, Center for Social Sciences Spring 2010 TOWARD A STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE WORLD’S TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS William D. Henwood International Union for Conservation of Nature, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch Part of the American Studies Commons Henwood, William D., "TOWARD A STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE WORLD’S TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS" (2010). Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 1074. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/1074 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Great Plains Research 20 (Spring 2010): 121-34 © 2010 Copyright by the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln TOWARD A STRATEGY FOR THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE WORLD’S TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS William D. Henwood Project Director, Temperate Grasslands Conservation Initiative Leader, Grasslands Protected Areas Specialist Group World Commission on Protected Areas International Union for Conservation of Nature 300­300 W. Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6B 6B4 [email protected] ABSTRACT—Temperate grasslands are one of the world’s great biomes and were once home to some of the largest assemblages of wildlife the earth has ever known.
    [Show full text]
  • WWF Global 200 Reportfinal
    habitats WWF Climate Change Campaign Climate change poses a serious threat to the survival of many species and to the well-being of people around the world. WWF’s campaign has three main aims: • to ensure that industrialised nations make substantial reductions in their domestic emissions of carbon dioxide—the main global warming gas— by 2010 • to promote the use of clean renewable energy in the developing world • to reduce the vulnerability of nature and economies to the impacts of climate change WWF Climate Change Campaign Director Jennifer Morgan c/o WWF US 1250 24th Street, NW Washington DC 20037 USA Tel: +1 202 822 3455 Fax: +1 202 331 2391 Website: www.panda.org/climate WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans can live in harmony with nature, by: Global Warming • conserving the world’s biological diversity and Species Loss in • ensuring that the use of renewable resources is sustainable • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems at risk www.davidsuzuki.org Jay R. Malcolm | Canran Liu | Laurie B. Miller | Tom Allnutt | Lara Hansen © 1986, WWF ® WWF Registered Trademark owner Published February 2002 by WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. © text 2002 WWF. All rights reserved. The material and the geographical designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territo- ry, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • LIVING FORESTS Forest Conservationactions in Asia/Pacific Let’S Leave Our Children a Living Planet
    LIVING FORESTS Forest ConservationActions in Asia/Pacific Let’s leave our children a living planet LIVING FORESTS Forest Conservation Actions in Asia/Pacific Contents Introduction 1 Regional WWF Actions 3 National WWF Actions 7 Cover photo credits Box, from top to bottom: Tropical rainforest, Taman Negara, Malaysia. WWF/Paul S. Sochacewski Tribal women carrying water, Gujarat, India. WWF/Mauri Rautkari Sumatran tiger. WWF/Michel Gunther Diversity of ocean life, French Polynesia. WWF/Denis-Huot/BIOS Background: Palmtree patterns, Malaysia. WWF/Mattias Klum INTRODUCTION "The forest is a peculiar organism of unlimited kindness and benevolence that makes no demands for its sustenance and extends generously the products of its live activity; it offers protection to all beings offering shade even to those who destroy it," Buddha. Forests are home to many important and spectacular wildlife, and in some areas, to people. They are our source of food, medicine, building materials for our homes, and resources for trade. We often use the genetic materials that the forests hold to improve commercial strains. Forests also provide us with a range of benefits which are often difficult to quantify in financial terms. Besides protecting soil and watersheds, forests also absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. Other intangible values of forests include recreational, aesthetic, historical, cultural, educational and spiritual values. Roughly 16 per cent of the world’s forests, or about 565 million ha of forests, are in Asia/Pacific. These forests harbour some of the world’s rarest and unique animals and plants -- the tiger, giant panda, Asian elephant, orang utan, rhino, Rafflesia (the world’s biggest flower) and the many variety of orchids.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Dependency and Perceptions of a Protected Area in a Threatened Ecoregion of Myanmar
    Vol. 12(4), pp. 240-252, October-December 2020 DOI: 10.5897/IJBC2020.1429 Article Number: FEB0DC864826 ISSN 2141-243X Copyright © 2020 International Journal of Biodiversity and Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/IJBC Conservation Full Length Research Paper Community dependency and perceptions of a protected area in a threatened ecoregion of Myanmar Thazin Htay1,2* and Eivin Røskaft1 1Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Realfagbygget, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway. 2Forest Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Office No. 39, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. Received 13 July, 2020; Accepted 5 August, 2020 Local communities living adjacent to protected areas (PA) play a vital role in biodiversity conservation. Understanding communities’ use and perceptions of a PA will increase its conservation effectiveness through reducing anthropogenic pressures and improving park-people relationship. This study assessed local communities’ dependency on the PA and perceptions of benefits and costs accrued from the PA. Using a distance-based stratified random sampling, a total of 230 households from 10 villages around the Indawgyi Wildlife Sanctuary (IWS), in Myanmar, were interviewed. Results showed that 51.3% of local households were dependent on the PA for household income generation and their dependency was determined by the landscape ecology of the residential place. Communities living close to the alluvial area relied the most on the PA due to their lack of permanent agricultural land. Results also showed that although people generated income from the PA, their appreciations of PA’s benefits were not significant. However, communities’ perceptions of the costs incurred from the PA varied significantly with their resource dependency level, distance from the PA, gender and ethnicity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Review of North American Tundra Delineations
    ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2013, 2, 324-348; doi:10.3390/ijgi2020324 OPEN ACCESS ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information ISSN 2220-9964 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi/ Review A Comparative Review of North American Tundra Delineations Kirk C. Silver 1,* and Mark Carroll 2 1 College of the Environment and Life Sciences, 106 Coastal Institute-MESM, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA 2 Sigma Space Corporation, Biospheric Sciences Laboratory, Code 618, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-908-930-2301. Received: 29 January 2013; in revised version: 25 March 2013 / Accepted: 25 March 2013 / Published: 8 April 2013 Abstract: Recent profound changes have been observed in the Arctic environment, including record low sea ice extents and high latitude greening. Studying the Arctic and how it is changing is an important element of climate change science. The Tundra, an ecoregion of the Arctic, is directly related to climate change due to its effects on the snow ice feedback mechanism and greenhouse gas cycling. Like all ecoregions, the Tundra border is shifting, yet studies and policies require clear delineation of boundaries. There are many options for ecoregion classification systems, as well as resources for creating custom maps. To help decision makers identify the best classification system possible, we present a review of North American Tundra ecoregion delineations and further explore the methodologies, purposes, limitations, and physical properties of five common ecoregion classification systems. We quantitatively compare the corresponding maps by area using a geographic information system.
    [Show full text]