4.1 Article

Achieving Teamwork: Linking Watershed Planning and Coastal Zone Management in the Great Lakes

期刊

COASTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 57-71

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2011.544540

关键词

coastal management; Great Lakes; Lake Erie; Ohio; Ontario; watershed planning

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  2. Long Point World Biosphere Reserve Committee
  3. Royal Canadian Geography Society
  4. Heritage Resources Centre at the University of Waterloo
  5. Long Point Region Conservation Authority
  6. Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A common challenge within coastal management is how to best integrate watershed planning into regional efforts intended to address critical coastal issues, especially those related to water resources and water quality. To examine this challenge two case studies of watershed planning efforts from the coastal environ of Lake Erie have been selected for comparative review. The preparation of a watershed restoration plan for the Maumee Area of Concern (AOC) in northwest Ohio required the assessment of coastal management measures for the Lake Erie portion of the watershed. For the Long Point region, Ontario, on the north shore of Lake Erie, separate planning initiatives for coastal management and watershed planning have evolved over the last two decades. However, what are the best means to ensure that efforts to address water resources are linked between the often focused but distinct planning approaches for coastal and watershed areas within a common management regime? Can a more effective and efficient planning regime be defined to ensure that there exists a consistent and coordinated management approach? The experiences from the Maumee AOC and Long Point region suggest that a consideration of careful coordination policies is needed and the coastal management should be strongly linked to efforts to undertake broader planning objectives within their respective watersheds.

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