4.1 Article

Conservation strategies for coastal wetlands in the Gulf of California, Mexico

期刊

WETLANDS ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 267-288

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11273-013-9328-0

关键词

Gulf of California; Mexico; Coastal wetland; Wetland conservation

资金

  1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2006-30328]
  2. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza-Fondo para la Conservacion del Golfo de California
  3. Global GreenGrant Fund
  4. International Community Foundation
  5. Marisla Foundation
  6. Sandler Family Supporting Foundation
  7. Nature Conservancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wetlands worldwide, the fisheries they support, and the communities that depend on them are threatened by habitat modification. We describe strategies being used for wetland conservation in the Gulf of California, Mexico, their effectiveness, and challenges for implementation. We base our analysis on the authors' experience working for local environmental non-governmental organizations and available literature. The strategies discussed include public and private policy instruments such as Environmental Impact Evaluations, environmental land easements, concessions and transfer agreements, Natural Protected Areas, and international agreements such as the Ramsar convention and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. We present examples from the Gulf of California that highlight some of the challenges to wetland conservation. These challenges range from governmental failure to enforce existing environmental legislation, lack of verification of requirements for development projects, to low economic penalties for wetland modification or destruction. We found that in the Gulf of California successful conservation of coastal wetlands required a combination of policy instruments and relied on integrating science, management, and public participation through partnerships between non-governmental institutions, academic institutions, community stakeholders, and government agencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据