Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:05:57.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The analysis of ecological impacts in human-dominated environments: reply to Stewart-Oaten (2008)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2008

F. BULLERI ,
A. J. UNDERWOOD  and
L. BENEDETTI-CECCHI
F. BULLERI*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, Via A. Volta 6, 56126, Pisa, Italy
A. J. UNDERWOOD
Affiliation:
Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, Marine Ecology Laboratories A11, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
L. BENEDETTI-CECCHI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, Via A. Volta 6, 56126, Pisa, Italy
*
*Correspondence: Dr F. Bulleri Tel: +39 050 2211414 Fax: +39 050 2211410 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We appreciate the effort and thought that Stewart-Oaten (2008) has put into his comment on our paper in Environmental Conservation (Bulleri et al. 2007). Clearly, the philosophical and methodological approaches used in ecological impact assessments (EIAs) warrant much further attention and discussion by ecologists. We would like, however, to clarify that the goals of our comment were far from summarizing available procedures and, even more, from expressing an opinion about which among these should be retained or rejected. This is quite well reflected by the contents of our paper (Bulleri et al. 2007). Our ‘main purpose’ (to quote Stewart-Oaten 2008) was to point out that the degree of naturalness of a site is irrelevant to whether or not some proposed disturbance causes an impact and that all disturbances potentially cause negative impacts.

Type
Comment
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 11 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benedetti-Cecchi, L. & Osio, C.G. (2007) Replication and mitigation of effects of confounding variables in environmental impact assessment: effect of marinas on rocky shore assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 334: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulleri, F., Underwood, A.J. & Benedetti-Cecchi, L. (2007) The assessment and interpretation of ecological impacts in human-dominated environments. Environmental Conservation 34: 181–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraschetti, S., Terlizzi, A. & Benedetti-Cecchi, L. (2005) Patterns of distribution of marine assemblages from rocky shores: evidence of relevant scales of variation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 296: 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R.H. (1979) Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. Chichester, UK: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Stewart-Oaten, A. (2008) Chance and randomness in design versus model-based approaches to impact assessment: comments on Bulleri et al. (2007) Environmental Conservation 35: 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart-Oaten, A. & Bence, J.R. (2001) Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71: 305–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W.W. & Parker, K.R. (1986) Environmental impact assessment: ‘pseudoreplication’ in time? Ecology 67: 929–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A.J. (1991) Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting human impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A.J. (1992) Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 161: 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A.J. (1994) On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar