Aspects of adaptive management of coastal wetlands: Case studies of processes, conservation, restoration, impacts and assessment

Coastal wetlands are dynamic and include the freshwater-intertidal interface. In many parts of the world such wetlands are under pressure from increasing human populations and from predicted sea-level rise. Their complexity and the limited knowledge of processes operating in these systems combine to make them a management challenge.Adaptive management is advocated for complex ecosystem management (Hackney 2000; Meretsky et al. 2000; Thom 2000;National Research Council 2003).Adaptive management identifies management aims,makes an inventory/environmental assessment,plans management actions, implements these, assesses outcomes, and provides feedback to iterate the process (Holling 1978;Walters and Holling 1990). This allows for a dynamic management system that is responsive to change. In the area of wetland management recent adaptive approaches are exemplified by Natuhara et al. (2004) for wild bird management, Bunch and Dudycha (2004) for a river system, Thom (2000) for restoration, and Quinn and Hanna (2003) for seasonal wetlands in California. There are many wetland habitats for which we currently have only rudimentary knowledge (Hackney 2000), emphasizing the need for good information as a prerequisite for effective management. The management framework must also provide a way to incorporate the best available science into management decisions and to use management outcomes as opportunities to improve scientific understanding and provide feedback to the decision system. Figure 9.1 shows a model developed by Anorov (2004) based on the process-response model of Maltby et al. (1994) that forms a framework for the science that underlies an adaptive management system in the wetland context.

Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.