Ecosystem-based management is a method used to study and protect environments by considering all parts of an ecosystem, including humans, instead of focusing only on one problem, species, or service. This approach can be used in both land and water environments, though each has its own challenges. In marine areas, these challenges are harder to measure because some species move long distances, and changes in the environment or human activities can quickly affect habitats. To manage fish populations well, it is important to understand not only the biology of the species but also the environmental conditions they face. Factors such as the number and type of individuals in a species, their life patterns, how they interact with other species, their role in the food web, changes in tides and salt levels, and human influences must all be considered to use ecosystem-based management effectively. Interest in this method for marine areas has grown in recent years due to concerns about declining fish populations and ocean health. However, progress has been slow because the concept is not clearly defined and ecosystems are complex. In freshwater lakes, managing habitats with an ecosystem-based approach has been shown to improve fish populations more than other methods.
On land, ecosystem-based management, sometimes called ecosystem management, became more widely used in the 1980s and 1990s in the western United States. This was due to conflicts over protecting endangered species, conserving land, managing water, grazing rights, and logging activities.
History
The beginnings of ecosystem-based management can be traced to the ecosystem management policy used in the Great Lakes of North America in the late 1970s. A law passed in 1978, called the "Great Lakes Basin and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement," was based on the idea that "no park is an island." This meant that strict protection of a single area was not the best way to preserve nature. This management approach had earlier ideas that developed over time through testing and challenges to traditional ecosystem management practices.
Before this system was fully formed, its history can be traced back to the 1930s. Scientists who studied ecology noticed that the way national parks were managed did not effectively protect the species living there. In 1932, a group from the Ecological Society of America said that national parks needed to protect all ecosystems within them to create a complete and functional sanctuary. They also emphasized the need for cooperation between agencies, better public education, and challenged the idea that managing parks could "improve" nature. These ideas became the foundation for modern ecosystem-based management.
As understanding of ecosystem management changed, new ideas were added to the system. Scientists George Wright and Ben Thompson studied the size and boundaries of parks and helped change how park lines were drawn. They explained that large animals, like mammals, could not survive in the limited areas of national parks. To protect these animals and their ecosystems, a new approach was needed. Other scientists later worked on similar ideas, but none created a clear system for ecosystem-based management.
In 1979, two biologists, John and Frank Craighead, revived interest in ecosystem-based management. They found that grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park could not survive if they were only allowed to live inside the park. This showed that ecosystems must be defined more broadly, based on the needs of the largest animals living there.
The idea of ecosystem-based management gained attention, and projects in American national parks began to focus on protecting entire ecosystems, not just areas limited by laws or ecology. In 1988, Jim Agee and Darryll Johnson wrote a report explaining how to manage ecosystems. They did not fully support ecosystem-based management but stressed the importance of clear goals, cooperation between agencies, monitoring results, and strong leadership at the national level. They also highlighted the need to consider human influence and the social context of scientific work. Recognizing how people affect ecosystems became a key step in moving from ecological management to ecosystem-based management.
Although ecosystem-based management is becoming more widely accepted, debates about it continue. Grumbine (1994) argued that while the approach has evolved, it has not yet been fully used in management practices because the most effective methods have not been clearly developed. He said the current situation requires the most complete approach to managing ecosystems. This is partly because biodiversity is declining rapidly and because society’s views on nature are constantly changing. Conflicts over public interests and understanding of the natural world have created conditions that require cooperation between agencies, which is a key part of ecosystem-based management.
Implementation
Ecosystem-based management is used in large and varied areas that include many interactions between living things, natural parts of the environment, and humans. This process is often seen as complex and hard to carry out. Slocombe (1998b) noted that uncertainty is common, and making predictions about outcomes is difficult. However, because ecosystems are often damaged, a method that combines environmental knowledge, coordination with government groups, and public education is needed to protect habitats and species. In the future, ecosystem-based management is likely to be used more often as a way to manage the environment. Some steps for using this method include:
Setting clear and simple goals is a key step in successfully using ecosystem-based management. These goals should include not only scientific reasons but also social, cultural, economic, and environmental factors. It is also important to involve the community and people who are affected throughout the process. Slocombe (1998a) noted that one single goal cannot solve all problems, but instead, a combination of goals and how they relate to each other should be the focus.
As Slocombe (1998a) explained, goals should be broad, measurable, and observable, and ideally supported by many people to increase the chance of success. Goals should guide thinking and actions while avoiding the idea of keeping ecosystems unchanged. They should also be flexible enough to handle uncertainty and change as knowledge and conditions change. This may involve focusing on specific problems, such as habitat loss or invasive species. Overall, goals should include the structure, organization, and processes of managing an area. Good ecosystem-based management should have goals that are both "substantive," meaning they explain the importance of protecting an area, and "procedural," meaning they explain how to achieve these goals.
As described by Tallis et al. (2010), steps in ecosystem-based management may include:
This step involves gathering information from many sources to understand important parts of an ecosystem. Sources can include books, informal knowledge from people like Indigenous residents, resource users, or environmental experts. Information can also come from statistical analysis, computer models, or diagrams.
Ecological indicators help track the health of an ecosystem and show how management efforts are working, as noted by Slocombe (1998a). Examples include the number of a species or the amount of pollution in water. Social indicators, such as the number of jobs in environmental work or the living conditions of Indigenous groups, can also be used.
Tallis et al. (2010) suggest setting limits, or thresholds, for each indicator and setting targets that show the desired health of an ecosystem. Examples might include the types of species in an area or the condition of habitats based on local observations or interviews with people who live there. Thresholds can help guide management decisions, such as using standards for species conservation set by government agencies or models like the minimum number of individuals needed for a species to survive.
Natural and human causes can affect indicators. Risk is the chance that an indicator will be harmed by a disturbance. Tools like population models can help assess this risk.
Checking how well management strategies work is important to see if they are helping ecosystems. Evaluation involves monitoring and analyzing data to compare results with original goals. Tools like computer models or groups of people with different interests can help assess progress.
It is important to note that these steps for using ecosystem-based management are limited by the rules and laws in place for a region, the amount of data available to understand ecosystem changes, and the time allowed to act.
Challenges
Ecosystems vary greatly and have different levels of weakness, making it hard to use a single system that works everywhere. The steps and parts of ecosystem-based management can mostly be used in many situations and are suggestions for handling complex problems. Because there are many influences, effects, and interactions to consider, challenges, obstacles, and criticism often happen in ecosystem-based management. More data, both in space and over time, is needed to help managers make good choices for keeping ecosystems healthy.
One common challenge is creating management units that are meaningful and suitable. Slocombe (1998b) said these units must be large enough to include value for people inside and outside protected areas. Aberley (1993) suggested using "bioregions" as management units, which can help people connect with the area. Defining management units as inclusive areas instead of strict ecological zones can avoid problems caused by narrow political or economic policies. Slocombe (1998b) said better management units should be flexible and build on existing ones, with the biggest challenge being creating units that managers can use as clear standards.
Another issue is forming administrative groups. These groups should work together toward shared goals. Gaps in administration or research, conflicting goals between agencies and governments due to overlapping areas of responsibility, or unclear goals like sustainability or biodiversity can lead to poor or broken management. Tallis (2010) noted that limited knowledge about ecosystems and time limits often make it hard to focus on long-term goals.
The biggest challenge in ecosystem-based management is the lack of knowledge about how ecosystems work and how effective the system is. Slocombe (1998b) said that without enough resources to use the system, it is hard to get support for it.
Slocombe (1998a) mentioned that criticism of ecosystem-based management includes its reliance on comparisons, overly broad systems, overlap with other methods like ecosystem management or environmental management, unclear ideas and applications, and ignoring historical or individual factors that affect ecosystems.
Tallis (2010) said ecosystem-based management is an important planning and management system for protecting or restoring ecosystems, though it is not widely used. An ecosystem approach looks at many relationships across different areas, living things, and organizations and is a goal-focused way to restore and keep ecosystems healthy. Ecosystem-based management includes community input and planning from local, regional, and national groups. All must work together to create a future where ecosystems are in better condition, especially after major damage. Slocombe (1998b) said moving forward, ecosystem-based management should use adaptive management, which allows flexibility and inclusion to handle ongoing changes in the environment, society, and politics.
Marine systems
Ecosystem-based management of marine environments now focuses on considering all important activities that affect the ocean, rather than only protecting single species or parts of the ocean. Managers must understand the life cycle of fish, how they interact with their environment, their role in the food web, where they live in the water, and how human activities harm them. The goal is to keep ocean ecosystems healthy so they can continue to provide resources and benefits for future people.
In recent years, scientists have noticed that human activities, such as climate change, overfishing, pollution from land, coastal development, accidental catching of non-target species, and destruction of habitats, are harming marine ecosystems. These ecosystems provide many benefits to humans, including food, fuel, medicines, and opportunities for recreation, trade, research, and education.
Guerry (2005) said that improving the management of ecosystems, especially near coasts, is urgent to ensure they remain healthy. People depend on the ocean for resources, but without careful planning, ecosystems may collapse. Olsson et al. (2008) said that poor management and weak rules are major causes of ecosystem damage. Groups like the Pew Oceans Commission and the United States Commission on Ocean Policy have encouraged moving from separate management plans to a more connected approach that considers the whole ecosystem.
Stock assessment is an important part of managing fish populations, but it is difficult, expensive, and sometimes causes disagreements. To assess fish stocks accurately, scientists need to know about their reproduction, physical traits, and how they move.
All living things in an ecosystem affect each other, and managing wildlife requires understanding how species interact in the food web. For example, when a top predator like sea otters is removed, it can lead to an increase in sea urchins, which then destroy kelp forests. On the other hand, when plants and phytoplankton (the base of the food web) are limited, it affects all species above them. For example, the decline of puffins in the North Sea is linked to a decrease in sand eels, which they eat.
Red snapper is an important fish in the Gulf of Mexico, but its management is complicated by the accidental catching of young fish in shrimp fishing nets. The number of red snapper that die is not explained by how many are caught for sale but by how many are caught as bycatch.
Ecosystem-based management is about understanding how everything in the ocean is connected, including how humans, economies, and species interact. For example, in the Caribbean, spiny lobsters are managed using a model that works for many fish species. However, these lobsters grow, stop growing to molt their shells, and later slow their growth to reproduce, which makes their growth pattern different from the von Bertalanffy model. Knowing more about ecosystems and how they work helps improve management.
Ecosystem-based management looks at how human actions affect the benefits that come from the ocean, rather than treating each action separately. Loss of biodiversity in the ocean shows how many human activities can harm ecosystems together. Activities like overfishing, building on coasts, mining, and dredging all reduce biodiversity and harm ecosystems. Before research begins, scientists must understand how species affect each other and the environment. This work must happen yearly because species and their relationships with the environment change as humans alter the environment.
To address the many ways humans harm the ocean, different industries must work together to set shared goals for protecting ecosystems. Some rules affect only one industry, while others affect many. For example, protecting endangered species might impact fishing, mining, shipping, and tourism. Better management happens when all groups agree on rules together, not when each group makes its own rules. In the Gulf of Mexico, the red snapper fishery is shared by commercial and recreational fishermen and is important to the economy. During the Deepwater oil spill, the red snapper population and the quality of the catch were harmed, showing how environmental disasters can affect many areas of life.
Not everyone knows about the dangers facing the ocean, so it is important to educate the public about these issues. Management decisions should consider the needs of the public, not just those who directly benefit, because public support helps management agencies make decisions. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) had trouble getting public support for its plan to create no-fishing zones. Olssen (2008) helped by starting a campaign called "Reef Under Pressure" to show the public how the reef is being harmed by human activities.
Other examples
The Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) was started by the British Columbia Government (Canada) in the mid-1990s in the Great Bear Rainforest. Its goal was to create a system where many groups could work together to plan how land is used. The plan aimed to "keep ecosystems healthy and improve people's lives." Key steps included protecting old-growth forests, preserving forest structures, protecting endangered species and ecosystems, saving wetlands, and using adaptive management. MacKinnon (2008) noted that the program had a major problem: it did not focus enough on improving people's lives through social and economic efforts.
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was created under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to use ecosystem-based management. Changing from a narrow focus to a broader approach was difficult because it required cooperation between the Canadian and American governments. This involved different cultural, political, and regulatory views about the lakes. Hartig et al. (1998) listed eight principles to make ecosystem-based management successful: involving many stakeholders, leaders showing strong support, agreeing on what information is needed, creating plans within a strategic framework, developing human resources, using results to measure progress, regularly reviewing and providing feedback, and ensuring stakeholder satisfaction.
The Elwha dam removal in Washington state was the largest dam removal project in the United States. The dam blocked salmon from reaching their natural habitat and trapped millions of tons of sediment behind it.
Peruvian Bay Scallop is farmed in the benthic environment (the bottom of the ocean or sea). Overfishing has raised concerns, so the focus has shifted to environmental management. Scientists now use food web models to study the ecosystem and set proper stocking levels. They are considering how scallops affect the environment, other species, and issues like phytoplankton blooms, overstocking, diseases, and overuse in a single year. This study helps guide fishermen and managers to ensure long-term success for the fishery and the ecosystem.
Scientists and angling clubs worked together on a large study involving 20 gravel pit lakes over six years. They compared the effects of ecosystem-based habitat improvements to other management methods in fisheries. In some lakes, shallow water areas were created. In others, bundles of coarse wood were added to increase habitat diversity. Some lakes were stocked with five fish species important to fisheries. Other lakes were left unchanged to serve as controls. The study included data from over 150,000 fish. Radinger et al. (2023) found that adding fish to lakes did not help, but creating shallow zones increased fish numbers, especially young fish. The authors argue that restoring natural processes and habitats has greater potential to meet conservation goals than focusing only on specific species.