William J. Kleindl, Sarah P. Church, Mark C. Rains, Rachel Ulrich
{"title":"选择正确的工具:湿地评估方法比较研究","authors":"William J. Kleindl, Sarah P. Church, Mark C. Rains, Rachel Ulrich","doi":"10.1007/s13157-024-01798-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There are over 700 aquatic ecological assessment approaches across the globe that meet specific institutional goals. However, in many cases, multiple assessment tools are designed to meet the same management need, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping options. Here, we look at six riverine wetland assessments currently in use in Montana, USA, and ask which tool (1) best captures the condition across a disturbance gradient and (2) has the most utility to meet the regulatory or management needs. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (<i>n</i> = 18) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development intensity. Factor analysis showed that many of the tools had internal metrics that did not correspond well with overall results, hindering the tool’s ability to act as designed. We surveyed regional wetland managers (<i>n</i> = 56) to determine the extent of their use of each of the six tools and how well they trusted the information the assessment tool provided. We found that the Montana Wetland Assessment Methodology best measured the range of disturbance and had the highest utility to meet Clean Water Act (CWA§ 404) needs. Montana Department of Environmental Quality was best for the CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) needs. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Riparian Assessment Tool was the third most used by managers but was the tool that had the least ability to distinguish across a disturbance, followed by the US Bureau of Land Management’s Proper Functioning Condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":23640,"journal":{"name":"Wetlands","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing the Right Tool: A Comparative Study of Wetland Assessment Approaches\",\"authors\":\"William J. Kleindl, Sarah P. Church, Mark C. Rains, Rachel Ulrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13157-024-01798-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There are over 700 aquatic ecological assessment approaches across the globe that meet specific institutional goals. However, in many cases, multiple assessment tools are designed to meet the same management need, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping options. Here, we look at six riverine wetland assessments currently in use in Montana, USA, and ask which tool (1) best captures the condition across a disturbance gradient and (2) has the most utility to meet the regulatory or management needs. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (<i>n</i> = 18) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development intensity. Factor analysis showed that many of the tools had internal metrics that did not correspond well with overall results, hindering the tool’s ability to act as designed. We surveyed regional wetland managers (<i>n</i> = 56) to determine the extent of their use of each of the six tools and how well they trusted the information the assessment tool provided. We found that the Montana Wetland Assessment Methodology best measured the range of disturbance and had the highest utility to meet Clean Water Act (CWA§ 404) needs. Montana Department of Environmental Quality was best for the CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) needs. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Riparian Assessment Tool was the third most used by managers but was the tool that had the least ability to distinguish across a disturbance, followed by the US Bureau of Land Management’s Proper Functioning Condition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wetlands\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wetlands\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01798-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wetlands","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01798-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Choosing the Right Tool: A Comparative Study of Wetland Assessment Approaches
There are over 700 aquatic ecological assessment approaches across the globe that meet specific institutional goals. However, in many cases, multiple assessment tools are designed to meet the same management need, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping options. Here, we look at six riverine wetland assessments currently in use in Montana, USA, and ask which tool (1) best captures the condition across a disturbance gradient and (2) has the most utility to meet the regulatory or management needs. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (n = 18) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development intensity. Factor analysis showed that many of the tools had internal metrics that did not correspond well with overall results, hindering the tool’s ability to act as designed. We surveyed regional wetland managers (n = 56) to determine the extent of their use of each of the six tools and how well they trusted the information the assessment tool provided. We found that the Montana Wetland Assessment Methodology best measured the range of disturbance and had the highest utility to meet Clean Water Act (CWA§ 404) needs. Montana Department of Environmental Quality was best for the CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) needs. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Riparian Assessment Tool was the third most used by managers but was the tool that had the least ability to distinguish across a disturbance, followed by the US Bureau of Land Management’s Proper Functioning Condition.
期刊介绍:
Wetlands is an international journal concerned with all aspects of wetlands biology, ecology, hydrology, water chemistry, soil and sediment characteristics, management, and laws and regulations. The journal is published 6 times per year, with the goal of centralizing the publication of pioneering wetlands work that has otherwise been spread among a myriad of journals. Since wetlands research usually requires an interdisciplinary approach, the journal in not limited to specific disciplines but seeks manuscripts reporting research results from all relevant disciplines. Manuscripts focusing on management topics and regulatory considerations relevant to wetlands are also suitable. Submissions may be in the form of articles or short notes. Timely review articles will also be considered, but the subject and content should be discussed with the Editor-in-Chief (NDSU.wetlands.editor@ndsu.edu) prior to submission. All papers published in Wetlands are reviewed by two qualified peers, an Associate Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief prior to acceptance and publication. All papers must present new information, must be factual and original, and must not have been published elsewhere.