Field Trip Report - Ecosystem Management | ESRM 425, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Environmental Science

Download Field Trip Report - Ecosystem Management | ESRM 425 and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Environmental Science in PDF only on Docsity! ESRM425/CFR590 September 23, 2008 FINAL ASSIGNMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Field Trip Report Report of 1200 words minimum due October 10 delivered via email attachment to both Jerry (jff@u.washington.edu) and James (jafchen@u.washington.edu). Report to address the following topics (responses to all 3 required): 1. How what you learned and experienced on the field trip have affected your perspectives on natural resource management OR How what you think what you learned and experienced on the field trip will intersect with your personal values and professional goals 2. What you view as the most profound insight or epiphany from the field trip. 3. An outline of your essay (see below): subject and general approach that you intend to take (in the form of a brief or an outline) Essay or Research Paper Paper of 2500 words (minimum) due December 1 based upon the field trip and subsequent independent study. Paper to include at least 10 appropriately cited books, articles or other materials to provide evidence of the independent study. The paper should address one of the following subjects: Addressing environmental change in ecosystem management. How should society/agencies incorporate climate and other environmental changes into policies and management practices. One approach mentioned on the trip was management to reduce risk or to increase options but what do think that means? What are other alternative approaches? Incorporating ecosystem science and perspectives into policy. How is and/or how should such science be incorporated into policy and management? The NW Forest Plan provided one example, but it is unique in that scientists led this process. Contrast ecosystem management with traditional natural resource management. What do you see as the fundamental differences between the two approaches? Or are the differences simply variations along a gradient of possibilities?