Note that the data published in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Report as well as the 2003 and 2005 Web-Only Updates have been superseded by the 2008 Report and thus should be used with caution. For the most recent data, purchase the 2008 Report from Island Press.

Notes and References

1. Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Natural Resources. 1997. National Environmental Monitoring and Research Workshop: Proceedings. February 25, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/Pubs/nemrwork.pdf.

2. Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Natural Resources, Environmental Monitoring Team. 1997. Integrating The Nation’s Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework. http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/Pubs/framewrk.pdf.

3. National Research Council (NRC), Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments. 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9720.html.

4. The scientific feasibility of such a strategic approach to ecosystem characterization has recently been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. See NRC op. cit.

5. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development developed what is widely known as the “pressure-state-response” framework for reporting on environmental conditions. See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1991. The State of the Environment (Paris).

6. Local- and regional-scale ecosystem indicators clearly are needed to guide many types of public and private decisions. The need for global-scale indicators to support international environmental agreements is increasingly recognized, and has called forth large scale efforts such as the UN Environment Programme’s Global Environmental Outlook reports and the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. National ecosystem indicators are nonetheless also needed, not only to support sound policymaking by nations but also to provide context for domestic regional efforts and input to global reporting efforts. NRC, op. cit.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx).

United Nations Environment Programme. 2000. Global Environmental Outlook—2000. http://www.unep.org/Geo2000/ov-e/index.htm.

7. For example, Odum (1971) defines an ecosystem as “Any unit that includes all of the organisms (i.e., the “community”) in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to a clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (i.e., exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system is an ecological system or ecosystem.” E.P. Odum. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders.

8. An ecoregion is “a relatively large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities”. R.A. Abell et al. 2000. Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

9. L.H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, S. S. Light (eds.). 1994. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

10. In May 2000, a 1½-day meeting was held in Bozeman, Montana, under the joint sponsorship of The Heinz Center and the Department of the Interior. This meeting was with representatives of a range of public and private interests in the Greater Yellowstone area (GYA). While the meeting was not intended to be conclusive, there was general agreement that the basic framework of indicator categories used in this report was applicable in the GYA, and perhaps in other regional/ecosystem contexts as well.