Ecological Integrity in Protected Areas:Two Interpretations

• Author: Gordon Steinhoff
• Pages: 109-132

109

Chapter 6

Ecological Integrity in

Protected Areas:

Two Interpretations

Ecological integrity has been extensively discussed within the mana ge-

ment literature. A number of management experts, including James

Kay and Stephen Woodley, have recommended that managers seek

to maintain and restore ecological integrity within national parks, wilder-

ness, and other protected areas. In Beyond Naturalness, David Cole and oth-

ers propose that protected area legislation and policy be rewritten to a llow

managers to adopt goals alternative to naturalness, including maintaining

ecological integrity.1 Indeed, ecological integrity is currently the management

goal required by law in Canadian national park s.2

“Ecological integrity” has no uniformly accepted meaning, however. At least

two dierent interpretations can be found in the literature. In one interpreta-

tion, an ecosystem has ecological integrity if it is either pristine, existing entirely

free of human inuence, or it has been only minimally inuenced by humans.3

An ecosystem with ecological integrity may serve as a standard or benchmark

for assessing the degradation of natural ecosystems by human activities. Kay,

Woodley, and other experts have in mind the second interpretation in which

humans are considered an essential component of many ecosystems. An eco-

system is thought to have ecological integrity if it satises preferences within

society concerning how that ecosystem is structured and functions. e focus

here is on desired attributes rather than natural conditions.4

1. D N. C  L Y, B N: R P  W S-

   E  R C 7-8, 50-51, 57-58, 85-87, 106-22, 179-82 (2010).

2. See Canada Nat’l Parks Act, S.C. 2000, ch. 32.

3. Laura Westra et al., Ecological Integrity and the Aims of the Global Integrity Project, in E

I: I E, C,  H 19, 23-26 (David Pimentel

et al. eds., Island Press 2000).

4. See, e.g., C  Y, supra note 1, at 106-10, 112-13, 120-22. at “ecological integrity” has two

distinct interpretations in the literature has been discussed by other authors, though descriptions of

Note: is chapter is adapted from Ecological Integrity in Protected Areas: Two

Interpretations, 3 S J. E. L. 155 (Spring 2013).

110 Naturalness and Biodiversity

In this chapter I will argue that ecologica l integrit y, understood in this

second way, is at odds with the fundamental goal in protected areas of pre-

serving native biodiversity. ere are many examples of losses and threat-

ened losses of native species as human preferences are imposed onto natural

ecosystems. e second interpretation has merit, however, a nd cannot be

ignored. I will explore how the two interpretations of ecologica l integrity

properly t together in the management of protected areas.

Nature Apart From Humans

“Ecological integrity” is most broadly characterized by use of dictionary de-

nitions of integrity. “Ecological integrity” means, most broadly, that an eco -

system is whole, intact, sound, unimpaired, and well-functioning.5 e two

interpretations arise from dierent ways of understanding what it means for

an ecosystem to be whole, intact, sound, unimpaired, a nd well-functioning.

In the rst interpretation, an ecosystem possesses these properties, and so has

ecological integrity, if it is either pristine, existing entirely apart from human

inuence, or it has been only minimally inuenced by humans.6 e goal of

maintaining ecological integrity is understood as the goal of protecting an

ecosystem from signica nt human inuence.

An ecosystem t hat possesses ecologica l integrity (or simply “integrity”)

may serve as a standard for assessing the human-caused degradation of natu-

ral ecos ystems. e Index of Biological Integrity (IBI), for example, is used

to assess the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. IBI is a measu re of biologica l

degradation as a site is compared to a standard, a minimally disturbed site or

sites. According to the inventor of IBI, James K arr, “e biota of minimally

disturbed sites—t hose with integrity—provides a benchmark, a standard by

which others are measured.”7 Karr adds that national pa rks are among the

few places that have been set a side for the purpose of protecting minima lly

disturbed sites that ca n be used as standa rds.

In this interpretation of ecological integrity, nature is conceived in its pur-

est state as existing apart from humans. An ecosystem is considered per-

fectly whole, intact, sound, unimpaired, etc. if it exists entirely unaected

by human inuence. Any human inuence represents degradation, bringing

the two interpretations are somewhat dierent. See, e.g., Shaun Fluker, Ecological Integrity in Canada’s

National Parks: e False Promise of Law, 29 W R. L  S. I 89 (2010).

5. See C  Y, supra note 1, at 108, 121; see also Westra et al., supra note 3, at 20.

6. Westra et al., supra note 3, at 23-26.

7. See James R. Karr, Health, Integrity, and Biological Assessment: e Importance of Measuring Whole

ings, in E I: I E, C,  H 209,

214 (David Pimentel et al. eds., Island Press 2000).