选择正确的工具:湿地评估方法比较研究

IF 1.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
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) &amp; 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) &amp; 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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球有 700 多种符合特定机构目标的水生生态评估方法。然而,在许多情况下,多种评估工具都是为了满足相同的管理需求而设计的,这就造成了一系列令人困惑的重叠选项。在此,我们研究了目前在美国蒙大拿州使用的六种河流湿地评估方法,并询问哪种工具(1)能最好地捕捉跨干扰梯度的状况,以及(2)在满足法规或管理需求方面最具实用性。我们使用描述性统计来比较由景观开发强度决定的干扰梯度上的湿地评估(n = 18)。因素分析表明,许多工具的内部指标与总体结果并不一致,这妨碍了工具按照设计发挥作用。我们对地区湿地管理者(n = 56)进行了调查,以确定他们对六种工具中每种工具的使用程度,以及他们对评估工具所提供信息的信任程度。我们发现,蒙大拿州湿地评估方法对干扰范围的测量效果最佳,在满足《清洁水法案》(CWA§ 404)需求方面的实用性最高。蒙大拿州环境质量部最适合满足 CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) 的需求。美国自然资源保护局的 "河岸评估工具 "在管理人员使用最多的工具中排名第三,但该工具区分各种干扰的能力最弱,其次是美国土地管理局的 "适当功能状态"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Choosing the Right Tool: A Comparative Study of Wetland Assessment Approaches

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wetlands
Wetlands 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
108
审稿时长
4.0 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信