Jepson Paul, Whittaker Robert J
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, United Kingdom.
Conserv Biol. 2002 Feb;16(1):42-57. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01143.x.
World Wildlife Fund-United States ( WWF ) is promoting an ecoregional framework internationally as a new hierarchical approach to organizing and prioritizing conservation efforts. We assessed WWF ecoregions against existing frameworks: (1) the Dasmann-Udvardy ( World Conservation Union [IUCN] ) Biogeographical Representation Framework, (2) the Bailey Ecoregional Framework ( U.S. Forest Service), and (3) the hotspot approach, as exemplified by the BirdLife Endemic Bird Area Approach and the WWF-IUCN Centres of Plant Diversity Program. We examined the genealogy of the schemes from three perspectives: methodological explicitness, transparency and repeatability, and whether the WWF-ecoregions system improves on existing schemes. We considered Indonesia as a case study and assessed the efficacy of each system in the Indonesian context. The existing planning frameworks achieved their objective; in general had explicit, transparent, and repeatable methods; and, in the case of the Dasmann-Udvardy system, attained an institutional reality in Indonesia. The central purpose of the WWF-ecoregions framework is the same as the 25-year-old Dasmann-Udvardy system, and at the coarsest spatial scales it relies on similar spatial delineators ( biomes and faunal regions). The WWF methodology, however, employs a gestalt approach to defining ecoregion boundaries. In the Indonesian context the resulting map appears problematic both in terms of the underlying rationale of the ecoregion approach and in terms of apparent conflict with preexisting protected-area design. We suggest, insofar as refined planning frameworks are needed, that an alternative route that builds on rather than competes with existing approaches would be to combine at the mesoscale the landform delineators that characterize the Bailey ecoregion system with the existing macroscale ecoclimatic and biogeographic delineators of the Dasmann-Udvardy system. We question the investment in developing and promoting the WWF-ecoregion scheme in Indonesia when the existing Dasmann-Udvardy system, used in conjunction with hotspot studies, provides a seemingly adequate system and when the reserve system itself is under considerable pressure.
美国世界自然基金会（WWF）正在国际上推广一种生态区域框架，作为一种新的层级方法来组织保护工作并确定其优先顺序。我们对照现有框架对WWF生态区域进行了评估：（1）达斯曼 - 乌德瓦迪（世界自然保护联盟[IUCN]）生物地理代表性框架，（2）贝利生态区域框架（美国林业局），以及（3）热点方法，以国际鸟类联盟特有鸟类区域方法和WWF - IUCN植物多样性中心计划为例。我们从三个角度审视了这些方案的谱系：方法的明确性、透明度和可重复性，以及WWF生态区域系统是否比现有方案有所改进。我们将印度尼西亚作为案例研究，并评估了每个系统在印度尼西亚背景下的有效性。现有的规划框架实现了其目标；总体上有明确、透明且可重复的方法；并且，就达斯曼 - 乌德瓦迪系统而言，在印度尼西亚有了制度上的落实。WWF生态区域框架的核心目的与已有25年历史的达斯曼 - 乌德瓦迪系统相同，在最粗略的空间尺度上，它依赖于类似的空间划分（生物群落和动物区系区域）。然而，WWF方法采用了一种格式塔方法来定义生态区域边界。在印度尼西亚的背景下，由此产生的地图在生态区域方法的基本原理方面以及在与现有保护区设计的明显冲突方面似乎都存在问题。我们建议，就需要完善规划框架而言，一种基于而非与现有方法竞争的替代途径是在中尺度上将表征贝利生态区域系统的地形划分与达斯曼 - 乌德瓦迪系统现有的宏观尺度生态气候和生物地理划分相结合。当现有的达斯曼 - 乌德瓦迪系统与热点研究结合使用时提供了一个看似足够的系统，并且当保护区系统本身面临巨大压力时，我们质疑在印度尼西亚开发和推广WWF生态区域方案的投入。
