山地问题的紧迫性美国大黄石生态系统中的景观规划

作者：托马斯·A·克拉克翻译：何伟

校对：唐彧玮 李正

山地问题的紧迫性美国大黄石生态系统中的景观规划

作者：托马斯·A·克拉克翻译：何伟

校对：唐彧玮 李正

对于维护生物栖息地以及保护那些被人类所欣赏的或人工再造过的地区，全球多山地区都提供了一个重要机会。然而当下人类管理如此复杂广阔的地区及其所庇护的生态系统面临着多重挑战，这些挑战目前尚无完全有效的解决之道。在描述了山地的全球维度之后，本文转而审视一个有着最悠久国家公园建设历史的地区及其更大范围的生态系统，即黄石国家公园，以期从源头上追溯公园及生态系统管理实践。本文就当代管理挑战的四大不同维度进行探究：公园内部和联邦各部门间之事务，短期参观，大黄石生态系统内私人土地管理与非联邦土地规划，诸如全球变暖等发生在区域尺度的互动关系。上述分析是在一个统一概念框架中进行的，即影响该生态系统的生态过程以及从这些自然保护地中流入流出的环境交互媒介。山地问题的紧迫性源自一个简单的事实：环境快速恶化所需的时间也许比人类展开有效行动所需的时间要短本文提供了在全球各山地区加速这种行动的建议，同时确认在这方面黄石经验适用于所有山地。

大黄石生态系统；综合生态系统管理；国家公园；区域环境治理；生物多样性；区域景观规划；山区栖息地保护；野生生物廊道

1 引言

山地面积占世界陆地表面的1/4（若德兹，2011）。世界上至少10%的人口居住在高海拔地区，另有40%居住在附近中低海拔地区（普里斯和梅塞丽，2002）。世界上半数人口受到山区生态和水文作用的影响。全球70%的饮用水产自山地。然而山地的重要性源自两个方面，它们值得注意不仅是因为其与人类福祉的基于就近性和丰富资源的联系，也因这些高海拔而难以达到的景观保护了生物栖息地和圣物（本伯恩，1998；德巴比克思，2004；瓦娃，2014）。它们见证了地质构造抬升的巨大威力和强烈程度（诺特 et al., 2016）。高山之巅和深海之沟是地球秘密最主要的仅存储藏处，也是地球生物群的一个重要组成部分。

2 山地的全球性功能

在联合国发布的《21世纪议程》中提到：

“山地是水、能源和生物多样性的重要来源之一……（它们）……对全球生态系统的存续至关重要。”（第13章，联合国，1992）

虽然那些最高大雄伟的山峰更容易引起人类的关注和敬畏，但具有更大影响的却是那些位于各个大陆远古地质抬升带上的山脉（克拉克， 2006）。因为只有在那些山脉中才能找到丰富的物种资源，这种丰富度唯有在高海拔与开阔空间的协同作用下才能存续。同时这些地质特征也限制了人类侵入，使得自然过程得以在较少人类干扰的状况下进行。

最新研究表明，在地球上可能存在约870万个物种（莫拉 et al., 2011）。其中3/4是陆生的，其余的均在海洋中。虽然许多物种在刚果盆地、亚马逊地区、新几内亚等世界上残存的原始自然环境中找到了安全的庇护所，更多的物种却面临危机（威尔森，2002；百丽，2014）。山地因其高海拔、位置和难以进入性而发挥着类似功能，但一些山地所承载的生物栖息地正因人类干扰和全球变暖而面临危机。

3 山地政策的目的

无论山地景观的内在价值是什么，明文规定的保护目的往往一开始只涉及这些价值的一部分，栖息地保护仅是目的之一。随着时间的推移，这些目的会增加或被重新权衡，由于目的在不断变化，为达成目标所需采取的策略也要随之改变。随着科学调研的深入和大众认知水平的提高，近些年来针对山地景观的承诺愈发显现。

3.1 倡导者，利益相关者及全球声明

例如，2002年被定为“国际山地年”（联合国大会，1998）。在里约热内卢举办的联合国可持续发发展大会的最终报告中提到：

“我们认识到，源自山地区域的益处对于可持续发展至关重要。（同时）……脆弱的山地生态系统特别容易受到气候变化、毁林和森林退化、土地利用变化、土地退化和自然灾害的影响；世界各地的山地冰川正在退缩和变薄，这对环境和人类福祉的影响越来越大。”（联合国，2012）

然而，山地区域也必须像其他地理环境一样，努力争取到政治方面的重视。

“虽然对海洋、湿地和热带森林的管理已经相当完备，但山地尚未被国际社会广泛认作是一个全球环境问题，除了在一个所谓的国际‘山地团体'圈子之内”（若德兹，2011，p. 46）。

也许造成这种结果的原因是山地的巨大尺度和偏僻性。当然，在最高峰之上空气稀薄且缺氧，生命无法维持。在中低海拔山地，海拔和纬度共同决定着栖息地的存在可能及其生物独特性。那些拥有最独特和最少物种的地方显然是栖息地保护的重点对象。正如我们所看到的，山地倡导者团体对栖息地保护——包括山区栖息地的呼吁特别强烈。

3.2 本文内容说明

本文追溯全球自然保护地的演化，以世界上第一个国家公园，即美国黄石国家公园为重点。我们将研究这个公园一开始是如何建立的，以及其使命是如何被界定的。我们将看到随着时间的推移，内部过程和外部力量是如何威胁到黄石国家公园实现其使命的能力，该使命本身如何开始发生变化，以及自然过程保护本身如何变得不再是唯一目的。此外，将自然过程置于人类享受之上最终促进了对公园范围之外的相邻空间的关注，从而使更大范围的生物栖息地得以保护。不过截至这种管理思维出现之时，这些毗邻土地已在政府和私营部门所有制的支持下开始破碎化。

因此，本文的主要侧重点在如何管理这些相邻空间，以期列举出跨界协作的可能方式。我们意识到并非所有此类保护地都庇护着重要栖息地，但即使那些不具有重要栖息地的保护地，如果被不协调的景观所包围，也可能从跨界管理中受益。当然我们理解，并非所有山地景观都能或都需要被官方指定为保护地，也并非所有保护地都致力于栖息地保护。世界上的山脉中不少仍与世隔绝而未受威胁，不论其特征如何。

4 弥合山地规划中的全球力量与当地社区间的利益鸿沟

尽管山地保护和其他领域以及气候变化的原因已经引起了国际舆论的关注，但其仍面临阻力。被民族国家主导的国际环境会议仍在努力解决国际争端、各国议程及能力的分歧（百思格和德巴比克恩，2011）。这些努力尚未形成一种全球文明秩序（卡尔和诺曼

2008；克拉克 et al., 1998，弗德 2003）。民族国家政府的承诺不能超过当地社区的承受能力。这在巴黎举办的第21届联合国气候大会（COP21）上体现的最为明显，与会的195个国家表面上承诺致力于减少碳排放量，每个国家在2015年12月都公布了其国家自定贡献预案（INDC）。

何伟/1990年生/男/博士/北京林业大学园林学院（北京100083）

Translator:

HE Wei, who was born in 1990, is a PH.D student in School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University.

校对简介：

唐彧玮/1993年生/女/硕士/北京林业大学园林学院（北京100083）

李正/1984生/男/浙江人/美国伊利诺伊大学风景园林学博士/北京林业大学园林学院/研究方向：中国现代山地可持续发展的历史与理论（北京 100083）

Proofreading:

TANG Yu-wei, who was born in 1993, is a postgraduate student in School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University.

LI Zheng, who was born in 1984, Zhejiang Province, holds

目前越来越多人意识到，国际议程最终须基于当地社区的能力（参见德巴比克恩和普里斯，2008）。国际议程也许落实在某一管辖区内，或由多个的管辖区共同监督，多个管辖区间或在国家层面水平组织，或垂直组织。鉴于内部治理关系的复杂性，采取一致行动困难重重并不奇怪（举例来自德巴比克恩，2009）。然而，若想使全球声明真正起效果，必定要考虑到当地或区域的承载力，承认各国相关利益集团构成的差异性、相关区域多元性方面的差异以及政策实施所能调动资源的差异性。在评估全球环境会议的贡献时，我们能发现进展的证据（德巴比克恩和若德，2015；梅塞丽和维斯，1997；明格和米乐，2006）识别出基于这些主题的一些正在逐步出现的共识，包括跨界取向、全球公有地的划定、 多元主义、 长期性价值取向及相关科学基础。

5 国家公园：全球分类

值得注意的是，各个国家越来越关注对其公共土地和开放空间保护地的捍卫。然而，并不是所有应受此种保护的地区和空间都被指定为了国家公园地或保护区。事实上，关于国家公园或保护区的构成特征并不存在一个全球接受的标准，只有以下两点共识：（1）此类地区必须由单一管理主体（通常是国家）来进行监管；（2）对于此类地区的保护必须要有稳定的财政支持。国际自然与自然资源保护联盟（IUCN，总部设在瑞士的格朗，前身为世界自然保护联盟）估计已有近100个国家都拥有被称作“国家公园”的区域，虽然其中仅一小部分位于山地上（布莱斯 et al.,2003）。该联盟将国家公园置于第二类保护区之下，并将该类保护地界定为最能在生态系统层面维护生态完整性，并能兼容人类娱乐需求。为了消除关于“国家公园”这一概念的误解，该联盟制定了一套相关标准来定义这类空间（IUCN，2016）。1969年国际自然与自然资源保护联盟提出国家公园应该具备以下特点（1971年得到补充）：

（1）“具备一个或多个未因人类开发或居住而改变的生态系统，生态系统中的动植物、地貌特征和栖息地具有特别的科学、教育和娱乐价值，或含有极为美丽的自然景观。禁止开采自然资源...（但兼容）....诸如体育和垂钓等活动以及 管理和设施需求。

（2）自然保护优先的分区不小于1 000hm2（即10km2）（作者注：这大大小于世界上第一个国家公园，即美国黄石国家公园，所具有的的8 992km2自然保护优先分区）。

（3）国家最高职能部门已采取措施尽快防止或消除对该类场地的开发和占用。

（4）特定的条件下，出于寻求灵感、教育、文化和娱乐等目的的游客可被允许进入”。（IUCN，国际保护自然与自然资源联盟2016）

美国大部分国家公园都符合这些标准。不过梅萨维德国家公园（Mesa Verde National Park）却代表着另一类致力于人类历史而非栖息地保护的公园类型，该公园内有4 000多个与古代普韦布洛人有关的考古遗址，普韦布洛人（Puebloan）在那里生活了700年。

6 观点演变

从19世纪末到20世纪初，山地往往是所有地区中最先被指定为国家公园的，到今天或许此类地区在国家公园体系中所占比重过高了（德巴比克恩，2004）。Arpin和Cosson指出（2015），早期将山地指定为国家公园是基于一种观点，即该类空间是世界的缩影，穿越各种海拔区域及其栖息地。对此观点我们还应补充以高山固有之引力，以及此类地区因之前极少被过度开发而容易被指定为国家公园。重要的是，随着一种更为细致入微的环境意识的崛起，“山地单纯作为微缩世界之保护者”的定位开始让位于一些新的期望。随着“山地作为微缩世界”的提法变为“山地作为生物多样性之宝库”，山地管理者的办事能力日益被质疑。这种批判转而开启了山地管理和山地公园合法化的新时代，该时代的开启因人们对全球气候变化的关注而进一步加速。Arpin和 Cosson（2015，13-14）展示了该情况在欧洲的出现。类似情况也出现在我们接来下要探讨的美国。

7 黄石国家公园：其历史与重要性

从“山地作为微缩世界景观的缩影”到“山地作为生物多样性”的思想转变最集中反应在黄石国家公园的发展历史中，该公园是美国第一个被指定为国家公园的山地区域（图1）。标明了黄石国家公园及其周边地区的位置，在后者后来被非正式地指定为大黄石生态系统(简称“GYE”）。该公园位于落基山脉的中部，该山脉从美国的新墨西哥州向北一直延伸到加拿大英属哥伦比亚和阿拉斯加州。公园本身占地8 992 km2。落基山脉是一系列几乎连续不断的山脉的最北部分。该山系始于阿拉斯加地区的布鲁克斯山脉，经北美洲育空地区、中美洲马德雷山脉地区和南美洲安第斯山脉，最终到达南极洲。所有这些山脉构成了北美和南美山系——世界上最长的南北走向山系，

虽然并不完全连续。

a Ph.D. degree in Landscape architecture from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is teaching at School of Landscape Architecture in Beijing Forestry University. His research focuses on the history and theory of sustainable mountain development in the context of modern China.

美国政府在1803年从法国购得了包括后来成为黄石公园的区域在内的土地（即路易斯安那购地案）。杰佛逊总统随后派出探险家梅里韦瑟·刘易斯（Meriwether Lewis）和威廉·克拉克（William Clark）研究并测绘这片区域，并且选定从圣路易斯向西到太平洋的路线。在1805年4月，他们发现了后来被称作黄石河的地方。在他们的日记中并没有提到他们曾看到此地区最与众不同的特点，但克拉克的日记后来提到一些传闻：

“在这条河的端头，土著人描述在那里经常能听到如同打雷般的巨响，巨响使得大地颤抖，他们说之所以他们很少去那里是因为声响会吓得孩子睡不着觉。……他们觉得那个地方住着神灵，他们并不想让人们靠近。”（莫尔顿，1983年至1999年）。

上述文字当然指的是与间歇泉相关的噪音，这是该公园最显著的特征。黄石国家公园中目前已知的间歇泉数量超过1 0000，占到世界间歇泉总量的2/3。与其周围的高山相比，这些间歇泉在黄石国家公园最初划界时起到了决定性作用，如今这个边界跨越了美国的3个州：主体位于怀俄明州和蒙大拿州，仅公园西缘一小部分位于爱荷华州。在1872年这些州尚未建立，当后来在国会讨论这些州的边界时，并无人提出将公园完全置于单一州内。

黄石国家公园是在1872年的美国《组织法》下建立的。该公园如今自认为其在环境保护方面的重要性是全球公认的。1972年联合国教科文组织将其命名为生物圈保护地，这是美国的第一例。1998年该公园制定为联合国教科文组织世界遗产地。1872年《组织法》的前言是这么表述的：

“成为黄石国家公园的这块土地……特此被保护而不允许居住、占有或售卖……保留作为一个为人民利益和享受服务的公园或娱乐场……这些规则（正如需要被建立的）应使公园内的林木、矿产、自然、奇珍异品或奇观免于破坏并维持自然状态”（美国法案，1872年）。

以上表述界定了一个公园空间，明确了其目的，附于其管理以责任，赋予其管理者（即美国内政部秘书）以制定保护自然资产的规则。公园旅游被孤例，但各种自然属性将被保护。国会未强烈反对该决定，因为黄石当时还很偏远而被认为是无用的，且当时土地资源还很丰富。此外，建立规则在当时看起来并不需要付出太多代价（参考安森，2000）。最重要的是，类似各种尺度的偏远公园，黄石并非是一个人类居住的地方。然而，压力在世纪之交变大了，因为铁路交通发展的推动下越来越多来自远方的猎人和游客被吸引至该公园。

截至1906年俄勒冈短线铁路已经开始为黄石国家公园西部交通提供服务，这是进入该公园的最西部入口。1912，南部铁路从爱达荷州艾什顿向南在延伸到爱达荷州维克托。到了20世纪20年代，维克托是从西部各州进入怀俄明州的杰克逊霍尔以及进入公园北部的最繁忙入口。

在黄石国家公园建立后的几十年中，更多的风景在美国内政部的支持之下得以保留，但对于这些空间完整性的调整如此频繁以至于国会被迫建立了国家公园管理局（以下简称“NPS”）。

依照1916年《组织法》，国家公园管理局被设于内政部中，其很快取代了此前美国军队在黄石国家公园管理中扮演的不合适角色。这一法案至今仍是国家公园管理局管理美国公有土地所基于的根本大法，且此后对于其指令的挑战大多也是基于对该法案的不同解读（百伯和埃斯波西托，2016）。当前，美国有890万km2的国土，其中约34%为联邦所有，联邦土地中的6%被包含在全美59个国家公园中（公共土地法律审查委员会，1970）。也就是说，国家公园中的土地占超过2%的国土面积。

截至2016年，国家公园管理局管辖着352处并非国家公园的各类场地，包括国家纪念地，历史场地，以及诸如海岸线、公园道、保护地、休闲区、景区步道等各类其他场地。在其指导原则下，一个欲申请成为国家公园的地方必须满足以下3个标准：（1）具有特别的和全国性的自然或文化重要性；（2）能为科学研究或公众享受提供优良的机会；（3）是某种资源或国家遗产的一个几乎完全没有受损的表现（美国国家公园管理局, 2016a）。黄石国家公园是世界上现存最大的完整中纬度温带生态系统之一，为公众使用和娱乐提供了诸多机会。在历史上，其尺度和重要性超过几乎其他所有美国国家公园。

8 黄石国家公园：物质景观

黄石国家公园呈正方形，但其面向怀俄明州阿博萨洛卡山脉的东缘呈不规则形态（详见地图，美国国家公园管理处，2016a）。在阿博萨洛卡山脉以东是肖松尼国家森林公园的部分区域。公园里遍布高山、深谷和茂林。其整体形状和当前内部构造如图2所示。

对国会记录的分析可以揭示公园划界时所考虑的因素，但就本文目的而言，能推断出该划界决定并未参考当时的科学就足够了。黄石国家公园边界的划分主要是基于一个目标，即要囊括该地区200个活跃的间歇泉和其它地热特征（泥泉，喷气孔和温泉）。今天我们知道，这些高酸性地热特征中拥有一些世界上最独特和顽强的微生物。公园内拥有70多座超过2400m海拔的有名山峰，它们耸立于4个不同山脉中，其中沃什伯恩和红山这两个山脉被完全包含在公园中，剩下的加勒廷和阿柏萨罗卡两个山脉延伸至公园以外。高达3 466m的鹰峰是公园的最高峰。

公园正是边界的确定完全依据初始目标和条件。一般来说，人烟最稀少的区域最容易被纳入国家公园范围之内。同样重要的是当时的知识水平。公园大小和边界位置的确定取决于当时对上述两者关系和既定公园任务的理解。美国国家公园在不同程度上为多个目标服务。黄石国家公园在1872年被定位成一个

服务于那些寻求自然慰藉和娱乐机会者的“乐土”（图2美国代码，1872）。对其自然特征的保护本身是一种目的，但更是实现其他目的的手段。

8.1 黄石国家公园中的火山

64万年前，黄石国家公园的中心区域像之前至少两次喷发一样发生喷发，喷出的火山灰蔓延数千公里（见图2）。之后出现了一个近3 500km2大小的火山口，该火山是因一个空心了的岩浆库的崩塌而形成的（诺特等，2016）。喷发留下一个充满蒸汽热点和间歇泉的土地，“老忠实泉”现在成了公园的主要标志。该间歇泉喷发时温度升至近1 000C，蒸汽向上升到5.5m处。这个核心景观毫无疑问是建立公园的最主要促因。黄石的山脉、山谷、丰富的植物和大型哺乳动物无疑是具有吸引力的，但这些特征在1872年到处可见。火山现象却并不多见。

1600万年前，黄石热点位于爱达荷州的西南角。其在之后的时期中穿过爱达荷州南部，爬升到当今的蛇河山谷直至它目前在黄石国家公园中的位置处（诺特等，2016）。诸如黄石这样的超级火山可能产生超过1 015kg的喷发物。无论是在美国西部、南美洲西部山区、印度尼西亚、或西北太平洋，没有任何火山能超过黄石的爆发潜力。黄石的最近一次喷发发生在7万年前，并不剧烈。如发生类似64万年前那次的完全喷发则将造成巨大破坏，可将美国西半部埋在巨量火山灰之下，严重遮蔽全球天空，干扰全球农业，真正威胁到整个全球生态系统（史密森学会，2015）。

8.2 威胁环境完整性的外部因素：1872年到1930年

从1872年成立黄石国家公园到1930年，美国国家公园的数量不断增加，一系列管理问题开始出现（谢弗， 2012）。在此期间，大提顿国家公园（以下简称“GTNP”）在1929年成立。公园位于黄石国家公园以南16km，占地1 300km2（面积大小仅有黄石国家公园的14%），在1950年接收了以约翰·洛克菲勒为首的自然资源保护者们所秘密拼凑以来的一系列相邻土地。在大提顿国家公园中，绵延着64km的提顿山脉，最高峰大提顿峰海拔高度达4 200m。

由于黄石在1872年还处于与世隔绝的状态，国会很难预见到对公园的游访和对毗邻公园地区的利用迟早会威胁到公园的初始使命。国会也无法预料到不久之后就有人提交了关于建设一条横穿黄石国家公园北部区域的铁轨的请愿书（巴特利特，1989, 309-312；布莱克2012）。这份请愿书在1880年被驳回，但这不过诸多试图将公园向旅游、狩猎和商业开放的努力中最早的一次（谢弗，2012、13）。随着该区域人口的增加以及来自东西部城市来的游客量攀升，地热资源掠夺、非法狩猎、史前古器物和公园资源的掠夺、外来物种的引进等问题出现了。跨界犯罪也愈演愈烈，最严重的是对公园附近动物的猎杀，导致那些习惯于在冬季大雪封山时从黄石国家公园内的高地下至邻近低地觅食的麋鹿无法获得充足食物（布莱克，2012；法雷尔，2015）

8.3 更具保护主义倾向之议程的出现

20世纪30年代中期，乔治·赖特和一批生物学家们最先在美国敲响了警钟，哀叹"外部影响"对国家公园的不良影响（怀特和汤普森，1935, 124）。二战的爆发以及其余波无疑转移了公众对国内事务的关注，这也解释了在国会关于公园管理问题的讨论为何相对沉寂（谢弗，2012、13）。但在20世纪60年代，对于上述问题的担忧持续，促使有关当局再次承诺应对一个日益被承认的问题，即世界范围内的公园和保护地正变成日益遭到外部力量威胁的生态孤岛。在美国，内政部长斯图尔德·尤德尔委托动物学家斯塔克·利奥波德对国家公园的管理工作进行评估。该评估的成果是“利奥波德报告”（1963年），其全称为《国家公园中的野生动植物管理》，包含一系列关于生态系统管理的建议，这些建议由野生动植物管理特别顾问委员会呈递（美国内政部，1963）。

8.4 科学在环境管理中的作用

上述分析和批判导致一种基于证据的和以科学为导向的全新美国国家公园管理方式出现。其核心观点是不允许这些地方变成被一系列被源于周边地区之威胁所包围的生态孤岛。为了发展这种观点，第二届世界国家公园大会于1972年秋在黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园召开。

9 构想的生态系统

20世纪60年代一种更为综合和科学的美国公园管理议程的出现是源于一个同步兴起的关于生态系统及其管理的讨论。威利斯（1997）将“生态系统”这一术语的创造归于归于英国谢菲尔德大学一个名叫罗伊·克拉珀姆的备受敬仰的植物学家。他的同事阿瑟·坦斯利对该术语进行补充，将生态系统定义为“一个不仅包括生物综合体、也包括构成所谓环境的各种物质因素的整体系统”(坦斯利，1935)。

尤金·奥德姆在他著名的教科书中对生态系统概念进行了进一步润色。他认为生态系统可以是：

“任何一个包括将某给定区域中所有生物体（如群落）及其物质环境的单元，两者结合使得该系统内的能量流动产生明确可辨的营养结构、生物多样性和物质循环”（奥德姆，1971年；同见于奥德姆，1969年）。

因此，本质上生态系统可被视为这样的一个网络：其生物成分（植物，动物，微生物）和非生物成分（能量，空气，水，土壤，诸如氮等化学成分）各自或相互发生复杂的相互作用。

10 从生态系统到生态系统管理

本文剩余部分将探讨生态系统的一般性概念如何渗透进生态系统管理，因为将这些仍然模糊的生态系统概念转化成为可操作的议程并非易事。生态系统是一个描述某客体对象的名词，该对象最突出的特征是生物多样性。但生物多样性本身是生态系统的一种状态，必须符合当地状况和能力。生态系统管理依赖于许多众所周知的科学观点，这些观点承认生态系统是复杂和天生不稳定的。因此这些系统倾向于扩展至管辖边界以外。所以有效的管理需要相关治理主体和管理机构之间共同协调。

“生态系统管理要求在适当的时空尺度上制定自然资源政策，以在不损害基本（生态）系统和过程之完整性的前提下满足人类需求。……生态系统管理的首要目标之一是基于乡土动植物状况来保护和生物多样性”（凯特，1994，p. 302）。

要实现这些目标，政策必须参考科学，考虑到生态系统的不稳定性和不可预测性，对各种绩效措施的监督必须持续展开。对于此类监督方法的完善工作正在进行之中（霍首尔l et al., 2010）。显然不是每个生物门和种都可以或应该共存于每一个可能的自然环境中。

我们进一步聚焦于公园的外围环境。事实上，几乎所有制定政策的困难来自园外。我们特别关注的将是国家公园，以黄石国家公园及其相邻的大提顿国家公园为核心。正如我们所知，赖特和汤普森（1935年）最早提出要在更广阔的空间范围内容纳大型哺乳动物，如那些被发现在黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园中的动物。克雷格黑德兄弟、约翰和弗兰克随后提出，发挥保护区功能之公园的最大范围应根据其非迁徙之多数哺乳动物的需要来计算（卡瑞海德，1977）。其他学者也认为依据生态来划界应成为界定自然保护区的规范（阿吉和约翰逊，1990）。

虽然生态系统的早期观念及相关管理方法优先保护物种，但当下越来越多的人意识到人类动因应被考虑在内。正如之前引文所表明的，生物科学引导了这种观念变化（见克

里斯滕森等，1996； DeFries et al., 2007；英曼等，2013；汉森等，2009）。不少先驱在这方面付出了努力。威尔逊到处宣传将各种学科进行大融合的可能性（威尔逊，1998）。对这方面的一个更具诗意的贡献见于最近的生态系统管理概念，这些概念承认在公园保护区的管理中存在多元利益和利益相关者（贝内特， 2014；里德，2008； 福塞斯，2003； 科勒等，2012；林奇和马吉奥， 2000； 帕厄斯, 2010； 威尔逊，1997； 思扎偌, 1998； 巴鲁斯德, 1998）。

11 灰熊：熊栖息地在黄石国家公园生态系统管理中的重要性

克雷格黑德兄弟发现黄石国家公园中最大的哺乳动物（体重超过200kg）灰熊所需要的空间远远大于现有公园面积。重达115kg的中国大熊猫（ailuropodamelanoleuca）同样十分脆弱。它的仅存的栖息地位于中国中部内陆地区（四川省，陕西省和甘肃省）。在以上两个例子中，如果熊群要维持在一个能确保其不会灭绝的数量，就需要更多活动空间。图3描绘了对棕熊栖息地的最新划界，该界线超出了黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园的狭窄范围。

在美国48个相互接壤的州中分布有两种不同的熊群，一种分布在蒙大纳西北部至加拿大的“北部大陆分水岭生态系统”中，另一种分布于前者以南165km的黄石国家公园、大提顿国家公园及其周边地区，该地区被两条高速干道穿越（汉德森 et al., 2010）。遗传分析证实这两个不同种群尽管相距不远，但相互之间基本没有发生相互交配（同上, p.1）。然而，除了灰熊位于食物链顶端之外，没有其他理由将灰熊栖息地的重要性置于公园内其他大型哺乳动物栖息地之上。灰熊在食物链中地位的上升可以部分归因于一个相邻位阶物种的灭绝。

11.1 灰熊死亡率激发对公园生物群的保护

20世纪70年代初，灰熊死亡率因黄石国家公园中露天堆放垃圾场的关闭而快速攀升。公园内的灰熊已经变得如此依赖这些垃圾场中的食物为生，以至于这些大型杂食动物在垃圾场被关闭之时不得不重新学习如何通过传统方式觅食。在其后一个拯救灰熊的急迫工作中，美国鱼类及野生动植物管理局（以下简称“USFWS”）根据《美国濒危物种法》将黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园中的熊群一起列为濒危物种（以下简称“YNP+GTNP”）。这两大熊群的数量如今又增加了（同上, pp. 1-2）。不过熊群的恢复近来又导致有人呼吁将灰熊从濒危物种名单中删除，并将其管理从联邦政府下放到各州。

11.2 公园中的生物多样性

野牛是黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园内大型哺乳动物中最大的草食动物。黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园是48个州中唯一一个从史前时代至今一直栖息有野牛的区域。然而相对于其他不那么稀少的物种，灰熊和野牛因其稀少性而被赋予更多重要性。其他居住在公园区的大型哺乳动物包括驼鹿、麋鹿、黑熊、美洲狮、大角羊、北美野山羊、狼、山猫、猞猁等。此外，还有超过300种鸟类，4种两栖动物、6种爬行动物、50种较小的哺乳动物和世界上数量最多的内陆鳟鱼（图3）。

对于黄石国家公园中濒危物种和栖息地的监控工作正在进行中（汉森, 2009）。此外还有1 000多个原生植物类群。这些物种的栖息地范围多变，且该类范围在许多方面是因物种间的相互作用而决定的，从而使公园划界相当困难。我们或许可以认为，在黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园内实际上存在多个生态系统，其中一些可能相互重叠和共存。物种和类群的某些组合可能适合共同生活，而其他组合可能会在面临不受约束的捕食时自我消亡。

11.3 生态系统停滞：不太可能发生的前景

在如此复杂的生态环境中出现和维持生态停滞是极其困难的。更有可能出现的情况是，即使在那些完全没有人类干预的尺度合理的保护区中，各物种和类群之间永远无法达到完美平衡。在这种状况下，再高超的管理水平在缺少某种干预时都难以实现一个完全令人满意的和可持续的平衡程度。

将人类因素纳入上述复杂系统中只会使管理任务变得更为复杂。在相对停滞期，自然生态系统中各部分的相互作用可能会产生或多或少“自然”而暂时稳定的系统状态。这种自然生态系统中的相互作用是有序的，符合本土生物群的遗传组成、景观的化学物质、重力以及空气和水的运动。源自自然界而超出保护区范围的外来入侵能激发系统向新的平衡转变。在当下这一全球变暖时期，谨慎的做法或许是通过进一步扩展栖息地范围来缓解草料范围内大小、密度和竞争方面的变化所产生的影响。

11.4 管理优先事项：绩效指标的不可比性

对公园保护区和毗邻空间的频繁入侵可能会阻碍保护区实现完全停滞。该系统在寻求平衡，但很难达到平衡。如果允许旅游、娱乐、商务、居住、基础设施等人类活动发生在公园内及周边，那么生态系统管理将必然需要处理那些本质上不可比的系统产物。绩效指标相互差异很大，因而不具有总结性。关于“如果在公园内建设100座新住房会减少2%的灰熊数量，这能否接受？”之类问题的答案，我们只能从利益相关者的价值取向方面去寻找。解答方法将是政治性而非数字性的。

如果存在持不同价值取向的诸多利益相关者群体，就必须有一定的方法来确定应给与每一个利益相关者群体多大影响力。

12 为生态系统划界：从外生到内生

影响自然保护区整体绩效的因素数量众多、类型多样且难以明确界定，这些因素中包括了以维护该绩效为任务的美国国家公园所涉及的因素。同时，生态系统空间范围越大，则其所涉及的管理对象数量越多，而管理必须解决的目标也多元。黄石公园和其南边的姊妹公园大提顿国家公园为在现实世界中评估上述因素提供了极好基础。谢弗（2012）认为，这些因素对那些发挥自然保护区功能的国家公园的生态完整性真正造成了威胁。

显然，生物多样性在当下的公园管理目标体系中的重要性正被提升。但实现该目标的同时是否也能满足美国国家公园设立的初衷，即满足游客体验自然景观及其乡土动物的需求？过于狭隘的划定一个生态系统的范围，肯定会使许多对该生态系统产生影响的因素成为外因。将人类活动纳入公园范围可使其成为内因，既影响系统表现，也被该系统表现所影响。大约40年前，国家公园管理局曾着手调查公园所遭受的威胁，发现超过一半的威胁来自于公园边界之外（National Park Service, 2016b）。

13 生态系统管理的目标：20世纪80年代发生的转变

读者应该记得前面提到的关于欧洲山地景观管理的转折点。阿平和科森 (2015, pp. 61-63)在欧洲山地相关讨论中发现了一个变化，即重点从“山地作为微缩世界”变为“山地作为生物多样性宝库”。一个类似的转折点也出现在美国：1980年国家公园管理局将一份粗略的自检报告报告列举了其所面临的最紧迫问题。此后不久，里斯（1984）将公众注意力引向了国家公园管理局更早时候所记录的另一些问题，这些挑战尚未被公园管理者有效应对解决。这些问题包括能源开发（石油和天然气、地热、水电）、资源开采（开矿和伐木）和公园周边的人类开发。里斯的工作因其对园外（他称之为大黄石生态系统）力量的强调而值得注意。

虽然国家公园管理局在20世纪80年代逐步推行对这些问题的改善措施，但1981年罗纳德·里根就任总统及随后詹姆斯·瓦特被任命为内政部长后，整个里根总统任内事实上中止了进一步以更为积极的方式保护公园生物群体的努力。

正如谢弗（2012，p. 13）提到的：

“在此期间，国家公园管理局被要求不要处理或是谈论发生在公园边界外的资源问题。消除外部威胁被一些特殊利益团体认为是侵犯了私人土地权和阻碍了工业部门获取资源的机会。”

国家公园建立所基于的1916年《组织管理法》当然早于作为政策架构的生态系统管理。生态系统管理得到普遍认可是在20世纪60年代，然而直到20世纪80年代国家公园管理局才完全接受这种方式。这一转变因1983年大黄石联盟的建立而获得进一步促进。这个非政府组织（NGO）已经成为解决大黄石生态系统整体性问题的最有效组织。

14 大黄石生态系统之下的黄石国家公园与大特顿国家公园：边界管理的困境

如今，国家公园管理局积极追求一种公园边界内的生态系统管理方式（弗赖穆特，1997），但几乎没有可以影响边界外状况的方法。虽然很多影响公园的因素来源于边界之外，公园管理从未获得管理这一领域的权威（林奇，2008）。一些评论员认为，修正了1916年《组织法》的1978年《红杉法》已经允许对公园边界以外之非联邦土地采取某种跨界行动（凯特，1994）。这鼓舞人心的推测鼓励一定程度的跨界行动这种行动在今天则会遇到相当大的政治阻力。与此同时，大黄石生态系统中的非公园用地相当大的一部分为联邦政府所有。正如我们将看到的，国家公园管理局与其他联邦土地管理部门之间的协调正在进行。

在黄石国家公园和大特顿国家公园随时间演化的同时，人们达成了一种认识：（1）人类以被允许方式使用公园可能会与生态系统保护发生冲突；（2）许多威胁公园完整性的因素是来自于公园的边界外（吉米，2011）。假如1872年国会更具远见的话，黄石国家公园也许会被赋予更大面积和更宽广边界以包括后来被纳入大特顿国家公园之内的高大山脉，但当时其附近的土地大部分是空置而未被威胁的。

14.1 协调联邦公园和非公园联邦土地的管理工作

在同一时间，国家公园管理局确实曾试图与那些管理公园周边空间的联邦机构、州级和地级辖区进行磋商和协调（大黄石协调委员会，2008）。1964年，大黄石协调委员会成立，这是截至那时解决采取黄石国家公园和大特顿国家公园所面临的最棘手挑战的最具希望的一步。该委员会从一开始即是国家公园管理处和美国林务局之间的一个正式联盟，该林务局管辖着上述国家公园四周广阔的林地，并与其他联邦机构携手管理所有基于1964年美国《野生动物法》而制定的野生动物保护区。

美国土地管理局直至2012年才成为了大

黄石协调委员会的一个合作伙伴。大黄石协调委员会不仅力图促进联邦土地管理者之间的协调，而且还发明干预那些未被联邦机构规管的私人土地之规划的方法。为此，委员会于2008年给机构工作人员分发了“工具包”以帮助公园和林业管理者更好掌握那些促进自发性的园外土地保护的方法，以及在园外毗邻城镇和县的土地规划决策中有效提出公园的关切。

14.2 大黄石生态系统：内容和维度

上述讨论使我们认识到，鉴于我们当代对生态系统功能的理解，黄石公园的边界本应该划定一个更广大的区域。结果我们只能寻求补救措施，这种措施在黄石国家公园与大特顿国家公园的案例中是以一个被非正式成为“大黄石生态系统”的概念为核心的。一个更大胆的努力可能是将大黄石生态系统纳入一个更为雄心勃勃的计划：建立黄石至育空（以下简称“Y-to-Y”）的栖息地走廊。

“大黄石生态系统”是一个指代包括黄石国家公园和大特顿国家公园的广阔地区的非正式术语（见大分水岭相关地图，2016）。其在1970年代初的首次使用是为了涵盖灰熊在公园周边的主要栖息地。对该划界方式之效力的进一步承认发生在1985年美国国会举行的相关公证听证会上。该非正式而实用性的区域划分一开始包含了16000km2，但最新的定义接近80000km2（相当于31250平方英里，2000万英亩，或809万hm2）。尽管这个空间不具有法律地位，它已成为一个激励人心的空间，被认为是将公园所遭受的外部威胁包括在内了。

被称为大黄石生态系统的区域不仅尺度巨大而且对整个国家至关重要，其影响远远超出其最大范围之外。例如，它包括密苏里河与密西西比河、哥伦比亚河（蛇河）及科罗拉多河的源头。它还包括俄怀明、爱达荷和蒙大纳三个州的部分地区，在该地区内有着20个县（地级行政单位）。在这些县中有着诸多自治市。在大黄石生态系统中，国家公园外的土地使用受到多个政治实体的监督，每个政治实体都有其自己的利益相关者、规章和法律，这些实体包括：州政府土地、5大国家森林的部分面积、3个国家野生动物庇护地、美国土地管理局辖地以及由部落政府管辖的部落领地。此外还有一些私有土地，它们虽然不为县或自治市政府所有，但却受后者监督。

这个复杂的空间包括多个气候带、植被区和若干子生态系统。国家公园局称：

“它的许多植物和动物物种是罕见的、受威胁的、濒临灭绝的、或有着特别的价值，包括100多种植物、数百种无脊椎动物、六种鱼类、若干种两栖类动物、至少有20种鸟类和18种哺乳动物。以上仅为估数，因为综合清查尚未完成”（国家公园局，2016c；参见汉森，2009）。

14.3 国家公园与大黄石生态系统剩余部分之间的环境效应传播

汉森和德福瑞斯（2007）对生态机制进行了研究，经由这些机制，那些发生于公园外、大黄石生态系统内的土地利用活动影响了公园保护区内关键性的生态过程和生物多样性。这些机制在很大程度上与更大区域的尺度和内容相关联。它们：

“……涉及生态系统尺度的变化，与最小动态区域、物种——面积效应和营养结构有关；物质和干扰从保护区流入流出方式的改变；对那些关乎季节性和迁徙运动以及人工资源机制的栖息地的影响；以及通过狩猎、偷猎、外来物种以及疾病而与人类产生的关联”（汉森和德福瑞斯，2007）。

这段话所用的用辞很容易解密。这些术语来自于“岛屿生物地理学”相关文献（麦克阿瑟和威尔逊，1967；特纳等，2001）。后者是当今保护区设计的主要依据。关注最小动态区域是为了保证，保护区内任何物种灭绝的趋势可以被其它外来物种的迁入所抵消。作为岛屿生物地理学的第二大原则，物种——面积效应基于有限的试验证据提出假设，认为物种多样性会随生态系统面积变大而增加。然而，这种增加的速度会随着面积变大而减缓。营养结构针对的是一定空间内食物链组成方式的变化。所谓的顶级掠食者往往需要更大的栖息地范围，同时以相对较低的密度生存。如果自然保护区中顶级掠食者遭遇物种消亡，那么中级掠食者或食草动物将蓬勃发展，从而危害食物链的更低层级。

除了刚才提到的自然保护区及其周边区域的相互作用（与栖息地尺度向协调）外，岛屿生物地理学还谈论空气和水的流动，这种流动将花粉、种子、微生物、火灾产物（热量、灰尘）和有机碎屑从保护区运进运出。人类对于不受保护之景观的改变可能会严重改变这些流动，从而损害这些保护区和其内部的生物群。在山区这些影响可能会因急剧的地形变化，更复杂的水文情况以及主要隆起区附近加速的上升气流而更为显著。有人发现，由跨大陆气流搬来的包括氮氧化物和氨在内的空气污染物在北美各处自然环境中引起了物种灭绝。这些空气污染物似乎促进了速生性外来物种的生长，置生长较慢的乡土物种于险境（西姆金等，2016）。

基于上述发现出现了设计和其他政策标准，这些标准支持最大化栖息地的面积，维持生态过程区域和关键性迁移栖息地和廊道（尤其是为黄石国家公园和大特顿国家公园中的

野牛、灰熊和麋鹿群），以及缓解公园周边人类居住、农耕和畜牧活动对生态过程的冲击。

顶级掠食者以及某种程度上那些在食物链中位置较低者的自由活动的方便性是极为重要的（英曼等，2013；洛克和弗朗西斯，2012）。如果这种活动被物质障碍（不可逾越的基础设施，人类密集发展的区域 ，自然堵塞物）或某种将动物置于其不习惯之噪音或威胁（狩猎等）的干扰性空间所妨碍，那么栖息地将受到限制（麦金尼等，2010）。尽可能地消除这些干扰并制止栖息地破碎化是十分关键的（裴凯乐等，2012）。对重要走廊的记录正在进行中（奎门，2016）。

我们不必对这些过程做更深的探究了，不过需要说明的是，保护区的尺度很重要，而且与诸如黄石和大特顿国家公园等公园保护区及其周边环境相关之土地利用规划的主要目标包括：（1）确保足够的规模和畅通的生物走廊；（2）确保上面提到的流动不会对保护区产生负面的影响。资源开采（即在保护区内部、附近或地下开采矿产、石油、天然气）也必须被处理。

15 山地生态及其政策启示

诸如黄石和大特顿国家公园等山地区域对于实现这些目标造成了特别的困难。这样的地区被高山穿越，高山成为生物迁徙的季节性障碍。此外，较大的此类区域可能会穿过多个栖息地和植被区，反映出在纬度和海拔两种状态上的变化。这两个因素一同将丰富的生物多样性限制在相对狭小的空间内，这让生态系统的管理变成一项更加艰巨的事业。当然，气候变化也威胁着山区之生命承载能力。（巴切莱特，2013；汉森，et al.，2016）。

如将大黄石生态系统与其北部的落基山脉和加拿大育空地区相连，则可在面对急剧气候变化时最大程度地保护物种。这条走廊（被称为黄石－育空走廊）是一个激励人心但尚未取得合法地位的栖息地划分方式（格兰里西和弗兰西斯，2010；切斯特，2015）。要创造这种横跨大陆的廊道空间所面临的挑战可能是难以克服的（切斯特，2006；安多诺娃等，2009），即使这一概念已经拥有了热心而敢于表达的信众（威尔森，2002）。

16 外围区域的管理

最后我们要讨论与公园外、大黄石生态系统内之公私土地相关的主要挑战和潜在对策。在毗邻黄石国家公园和大特顿国家公园的区域主要面临两种类别的挑战：（1）在联邦和州政府机构监管下之公共土地中开展支持性的管理工作；（2）在自制市和县的主持下规管私人土地的发展，以及在部落当局治下规管部落土地。如图4显示，公园周边分布着由不同联邦机构（国家公园管理局，美国林务局，美国渔业和野生动物服务局，美国土地管理局）拥有或监管的各类土地、印第安人保护区，以及那些由较低级别政府（如自制市和县）所监管的非公有土地。

16.1 跨部门协作：联邦政府的角色

公园附近的联邦土地管理主要是美国林务局和土地管理局这两个联邦机构的责任。在基于国家公园局和美国林务局之共识而成立于1964年的大黄石协调委员会主持下，协调大黄石生态系统内之各种管理方案的努力仍在继续（参见大黄石协调委员会，1991）。土地管理局和美国渔业和野生动物服务局已经加入了这个委员会。由于这些管理机构有不同的任务，实现适当的协调是困难的。大多数机构间的冲突是关于何种类型和强度的人类活动应被允许。但协调栖息地走廊和努力阻止栖息地破碎化通常是可以实现的协议主题。此外，当上述机构所监管的空间与“荒野地”的制定重叠时，不同的联邦机构的任务往往会趋于一致。这些有待将来考虑。

黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园周边被国家林务局所监管的大部分国家森林区域是指定的荒野区域。这些根据1964年《荒野地法》而制定的区域与之前制定的区域是重叠的，但黄石区域的荒野地是由国家林务局管理的，在其他荒野地则由该地之前所属的州或联邦机构管理。州和联邦政府都可以申请将某些特定空间指定为荒野地。这一法案的规定是如此包罗万象以至于无法在本文章展开讨论（参见wilderness.net，2016）。不具备荒野地制定资格的区域仍然可以基于其他联邦政府规定获得不同程度上的保护，这些规定涉及国家公园、国家森林、国家纪念物、国家海岸线、国家休闲娱乐区、国家自然保护区、国家野生动物保护区、郊野和风景河流、以及国家风景名胜步道。

自然保护区的扩大，尤其在经历快速城市化和远郊开发的地区是极其昂贵的。相关努力总是难以达成目标。1964年联邦土地和水资源保护基金的设立就是为了这一目的（福雷斯塔，1984，p. 237），但土地价格却令人望而却步。为数不多的替代方案包括：（1）收购那些不具备永久地权的不动产权（如土地及附着其上的建筑物）；（2）鼓励州和地方政府采取任何看起来有效的保护措施，如监管或征购；（3）鼓励私有土地主自愿放弃一些或全部相关地产（图4）。

首先，以“非完全所有权”方式征地成本较低（less-than-fee simple acquisition），因为联邦政府只获得一部分不动产权。在对那些关乎栖息地完整性的土地特征进行保护的同时，这种方式有时也可允许农业或有限的城市

建设在区内发生。处理这个问题的关键，就是努力维持那些受保护物种的活动通道，让它们能够自由通行和啃食牧草。具体措施例如：限制设置围挡、约束狩猎行为，减少人工照明和噪音，避免破碎化，通过设置高架或地下通道来确保在危险区域内的安全移动等等。

土地管制手段在许多人看来是特别有效的，因为它似乎不会牵扯到任何公共开支。然而，在私有地产中严重限制私人权力并不符合美国宪法第五修正案，该修正案禁止政府在缺少合适补偿的情况下在私有地产中剥夺私人权力。

16.2 大黄石生态系统范围内县和镇的私有土地规划

大黄石生态系统内公园边界方面的最棘手挑战是与私有土地上人类活动的冲突。正如我们所看到的那样，这些区域发展十分迅速，而协调它们与公有土地的关系的可采取的手段是十分受限的。目前看来，整体形势不容乐观。截止到2000年，在50多个国家公园附近1km2的范围内，建设了至少85 000套住房（西奥博尔德，2010）。毗邻国家公园的私人土地上近70%的自然栖息地已经被开发。

16.2.1 新西部区域的增长与发展

美国西部11个州的自然景观正以前所未有的速度在转变。在2001-2011这10年间，因人类活动而丧失的自然区域的面积共计增加了约3%，其主要由城市扩张、能源开采加工、交通基础设施建设以及农业与伐木业的发展造成的（科学保护集团，2016）。在这11各州中，该时期被破坏的自然区域中超过半数是因为城市扩展所导致的。事实上，据说每2.5分钟就有一块相当于美式足球场那么大的纯自然地带被破坏。这11个州内，没有任何一个地方距离人类活动影响区可以超过平均5.6公里。

在大黄石生态系统所覆盖的3个州（爱达荷州，蒙大纳和怀俄明州），类似的自然区域破坏速度也出现了。从2001年到2011年间，因能源开发相关活动造成的自然区域损失超过30%，同时因城市扩张造成的损失也超过了15%（在前面引用的书中提到）。

2000年大黄石生态系统范围内的常住人口接近37万人，2.54人/km2仍然是一个比较低的聚集密度（古德等，2006）。但这个数字并不能说明人类产生的影响很小（戴维斯和汉森，2011；费雷尔，2015）。以人口密度增长还有区域经济急速的转型为标志的快速增长在西部各州是十分常见的现象。一个以高新技术、旅游、度假房和其他现象为特征的“新西部”正在迅速冲击以牧场、资源开发、抵制外来管制为特点的“旧西部”（特拉维斯，2007；戈斯内尔等，2006；科学保护集团，2016）。2015年超过310万人参观了黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园。此外，大黄石生态系统范围内的很多家庭并不是常年在此生活（参见Zimmermann，齐默尔曼2006）。但是他们拥有房产并可能每年在内住很长一段时间，其逗留时间也许会因该地区不断增加的四季吸引力而延长。

这些反映全国性趋势的状况是由3个要素造成的：1.互联网让国民经济某些领域的发展可以在任何地方进行；2.上述领域从业者、退休者及其他人群日益增长的对于舒适环境的追求（莫斯，2006；布雷，2010）；3.公园入口区文化性的不断丰富，以满足日益增长之居民（包括度假房主）以及游客的需求。

第三个因素还通过提供各种季节性节事和活动来进一步增加该区域的吸引力，包括冬季运动，秋季狩猎，夏季钓鱼、划船、登山、漂流、高尔夫、各式表演活动以及多种竞技比赛，比如马拉松，自行车赛、马球等（德雷珀，2000；吉尔和威廉姆斯，2006）。这些活动不仅增加了地区的吸引力，而且也创造了广泛的就业机会（拉斯克和汉森，2000）。此外，在怀俄明州不征收“州所得税”，因此该地区吸引了许多寻求保护他们的资产的个人。

16.2.2 流域下游的发展：区域劳动力市场和与城市蔓延

家庭收入的差异已经成为影响城市蔓延的重要因素。富人往往消耗面积较大、距离城市中心较远的土地，而收入较低的劳动力被赶到远离富人度假区的流域下游，在那里经济适用的房子供不应求，尽管当地政府正努力改善这个问题。（克拉克，2006；哈特曼，2006）。例如，在怀俄明州杰克逊市工作的服务业和其他产业工人通常需要向西穿过提顿公路到爱德华州那些尺度更小和生活成本更少的城镇（如维克多和德里格斯）居住，但即使这些小镇也开始出现短期无法解决的房源短缺问题（约翰逊等人，2006）。同时，通过土地利用管制来减缓公园入口区的发展会造成人口与产业向周边地区的溢流。例如，位于俄明州杰克逊市以西仅30英里(48.28km)的爱达荷州提顿县在2000-2007年国家经济衰退前夕经历了前所未有的增长。

在提顿县，许多年老的农民即将退休，爱达荷州政府迅速促使该县对居住区建设项目予以批准。政府希望通过该政策能让这些农民退休后继续在当地居住。这些居住区数量极大且分布很广，然而，当经济衰退时，政府的希望破灭了。至今那些空置的居住区仍在无声地述说着这一不幸突变事件，政府正在努力拆除这些前景黯淡以及缺少需求的所谓“僵尸”居住区（霍尔韦等人，2014）。

16.2.3 城市远郊开发的空间状况

据报道，1970至1999年间，住在大黄石生态系统中的人口增长了58%，而低密度城市远郊开发所占用的土地面积增加了350%（古德等，2006）。基础设施完备、邻近公园且供水充足之低洼地成为了上述开发的热点地区，开发使得这些地区与公园产生直接冲突（PALMS，2011；古德等，2006）。由于这些低地有着整个地区内最为肥沃的土壤，此类开发也置农场和牧场于险境。毗邻公园保护区的开发也会加剧森林火灾的风险（穆勒等，2006），这一问题随着西部各州积雪厚度减少和夏季温度升高而日益引起关注（托马斯，2006）。

16.2.4 人类的影响：4个方面

总的来讲，人类对大黄石生态系统生态的影响分为4类：（1） 对公共土地本身的管理；（2）造访国家公园及其周边地区的游客；（3）聚集于城镇与分散于远郊的常年居民，以及被该地区生活方式和退休机会吸引而来的非常年性居民；（4）影响更大生态系统内之土地使用的所有其他城乡人类活动。或许有人认为，维护此类生态系统的终极解决措施是在一开始就在保护区周边设定足够宽度的边界，然后采取能够严格限制人类干扰的管理方法。当然这种积极的解决措施只有可能在诸如最偏远的地区实施，例如占地972 000km2的世界上最大的国家公园东北格陵兰岛国家公园。

在人口较多的低纬度地区，对土地的竞争是非常激烈的，这些地区的生态保护和管理的成本是非常高的。然而，这些地区有着一些他处无法找到的物种，如果这些物种需要被保护，我们就得去保护此类地区。山区通常不仅具备成为生态保护区的独特潜质,而且，由于其高度、区位和难以进入性、以及相对未开发状态，山区往往也更容易被划作保护区。

16.2.4.1 选项一：增加公共用地储备

对那些可施以最严密控制的公有土地进行有追溯力的扩大是一个正在实施的选项（参

见谢弗，2010）实际上，至少有一所美国的国家公园，即红杉国家公园，就是通过完全不动产权征购方式（比如征收毗邻土地的产权）被扩大的，以防止有害的资源开采（谢弗，2012，p. 1101）。但是，最需要通过征地进行扩大的地方也将是成本最高而阻力最大之处。除了征地，联邦土地管理工作也可通过充分协调那些监管毗邻土地的各联邦机构的土地管理政策来进一步改进。

我们已经看到了这种协调是如何发生在国家公园管理局、林务局和土地管理局对于大黄石生态系统的管理中。确保毗邻国家公园的林务局属地的荒野地地位是非常有效的，在林务局、土地管理局以及某些州属土地中创建管理缓冲区和栖息地走廊也非常有效。当这些措施正被考虑的时候,在西部各州产生了一些希望转移公园所有权到州政府的呼吁。这些往往会削弱生态系统的保护。有些人甚至希望出售部分联邦土地，将其置于私有土地市场的摆布中，生态系统完整性在这种市场中一般不被看作是最高和最好的功能，因而会被其他土地利用方式排挤。

16.2.4.2 选项二：游客管理

第二个保护手段是抑制大黄石生态系统中游客对国家公园产生的潜在影响。黄石国家公园和大提顿国家公园的年均游人量达310万，游客以短时游玩为主，从数天到数周不等，四季不断。游客大多途径如杰克逊市、西黄石市、德里格斯市（维克多市）、利文斯顿市和寇迪市等公园门户城市，在那些地方消磨时光和消费。许多游客来此自驾游，并且活动游线基本不离主要的公园路，因此对公园的的干扰比想象的要小。公园的可进入性当然会在冬季受到诸多限制，但这些公园中的游客数量可能比不上诸如大塔夷、杰克森洞及大天空等周边地区的滑雪度假区。限制此类游客对地区的影响是可能的，但请记住，国家公园的使命不仅是保护自然，同时也应吸纳游客。实际上，以任何方式方法限制游客游玩会削弱民众拥护，而国家公园及其他公有土地亟需这种民众拥护来维持国会支持和拨款。

16.2.4.3 选项三：私人土地上的土地及景观规划

这些土地，除了那些在联邦土地之内散布的和只有有限期限持有权的私人土地之外，其余均为由自治市政府管理和县政府管理的土地。美国有两种县市级司法管辖区：法定和地方自治。后者在土地管理上被赋予了更多灵活的使用权力。这些权力在司法管辖区的运用方式及目的取决于民选的县委委员、市政议会以及某些其他指定机构、董事会和其他成员的表决。如果选举者不了解或不支持大黄石生态系统的需求，他们所选出的代表将不太可能采取支持性政策，那么他们选出的代表将不太可能采取相应的支持政策。因此就黄石国家公园和大黄石生态系统的价值和脆弱性开展公众教育是至关重要的（更多内容参见罗迪斯，2000）。

黄石和大提顿国家公园相关3个州的州政府都授予地方政府县市政府以相当大的土地使用规划方面的自治权（参考康派斯，2007；谢弗，2015）。这种情况发生在几乎所有州，虽然有些州为地方性规划颁布了较为严格的指导文件（英格拉姆等，2009，第二章）。由此，在没有政府间协议或区域（不同行政辖区之间）管理合同的情况下，每个地方政府都能相对自由地按照其认为合适的方式规划土地。此外，虽然爱荷华州与怀俄明州都要求其下辖县编制规划，大黄石生态系统范围内的20个县中尚有15个没有对县域土地进行分区，所以即使他们编制规划，这些规划大多也不具备强制性。重要的是，3个州的权利法案并未要求地方性规划与周边地区的规划（不管是联邦的还是地方的）取得一致性（商业与国土安全研究所，2007）。这是一个致命缺陷。但在上述3个州中，那些确实选择编制土地利用规划的地方也必须采取实施规划的土地分区控制（参考爱荷华州法律，2016；蒙大拿州法律，2016；怀俄明州法律，2016）。

各地（自治市、县、及相关地方行政辖区）开展的所谓“增长管理”或“精明增长”实践已经成为美国大量文献的研究对象，英格拉姆等人对这些文献进行了总结（英格拉姆等，2009）。这些实践主要试图通过影响土地利用开发来控制城市扩张和引导增长。在英格拉姆等人所编书的第二章中，我对比了各州的具体做法，艾伦•沃利斯和我共同绘制的图表展现了在被选定研究的州中增长管理机构与相关实践的变化。

17 私人土地规划的政策选择

在大黄石生态系统中，私人土地利用方面最迫切需要的土地利用方式是：（1）创造开放空间以缓冲土地利用发展对脆弱生态系统空间造成危害（可通过管理分区，或者通过包括土地信托在内的公共和私人组织对完全开放的空间进行收购）；（2）在私有土地上维护廊道时允许一定程度的私人使用；（3）对废物处理、噪音、交通、用火、设置妨碍动物自由活动之障碍（如栅栏和车行道等）采取约束措施；（4）管理好车行道和其他可能会威胁动物生命安全的地形地物；（5）将各栖息地破碎化程度降至最低。

总之，先进的土地规划将采取不同方法以指导地方和区域的增长：控制（土地分区和居住区管控），引导（针对被公认可接受的开发项目的鼓励措施），处罚（强制太高开发成本，制定时间性或空间性开发的延期

补偿），关于驱动发展的基础设施的战略布局，和仅在具备特定能力（学校及其他公共机构、道路、水电管网等的能力）之处采取并行立法。所有这些影响都必须进行被准确估量以实现总体规划文件中描绘的空间土地利用结果。

缺少一个财务和执行机制的计划将注定失败。与生态系统管理相关的一些目标需要有更精细的空间细节的等级区分，这种区分并非是增长管理工具箱之类能够提供的。而且，诸如大黄石这样的生态系统还会随时间推移不断变化。物种种群的发展所需的栖息地大小不断变化。气候变化可能会使大型栖息地的较暖部分干涸，这将逼迫动物去寒冷地区中求生。人类发展对一个地区的生态系统造成压力后可能需要在其他地方采取补救行动。

18 培养一个支持生态系统管理的选民群体

财富和意愿，即财政资源和政治决心，是在地方行政辖区（包括镇和县）内进行有效土地利用规划所不可或缺的要素。缺少其中任何一个，就难有进展。最终生态系统维护的成功较少依赖于在公共土地内被认可的管理行为的性质以及公共土地外的土地管理工具，而是更多依赖生态系统支持者及其关注的可被觉察的合法性。同时，潜在的国家利益相关者的组成是多元的，他们的差异不能轻易地弥合。

因此，联邦法律和法规的规范进程非常缓慢。对于大黄石生态系统，费雷尔识别出了五类不同的利益相关者：利益团体（在大黄石生态系统中存在243个非盈利团体），一般公民，政府机构，民选官员和技术专家（费雷尔，2015）。他对于每类利益相关者基本论点的仔细分析表明，这些团体之间还是有达成有限共识的可能。但目前没有人可以确定在可以预见的未来里将出现这种共识。

19 结语

正如我所记述的，大黄石生态系统正在发生深刻的变化。气候变化已经开始影响区域的景观，人们很有必要认真考虑什么下一步怎么走（谢弗， 2014；科斯迪亚克 2011；巴舍莱，2013）。有些人将关注点北移，希望构建一个自南部的大黄石生态系统到加拿大的育空地区的大型生态系统空间（切斯特， 2015； 格兰米克和弗朗西斯， 2010； 索耶， 1998；安多诺娃等人， 2009， 马特森等人， 2011）。

近段时间，政治观点的分歧仍然泾渭分明。争论的一方倾向于强调农耕、畜牧、开矿和狩猎等定义了人类居住方式长达一个多世纪的利益。这些人大多抵制外来权力以及那些试图规划土地和为基础设施选址的政府行为。这些人是“老西部”派。争论的另一方是新移民和改变想法的旧西部人。他们构成了“新西部”派。其中包括了被称之为“孤鹰”的人，他们基于互联网的灵活生活方式使得其能居住在小城镇和或偏远的地方。“新西部”派还包括退休人员，游客，和所有热爱山地氛围和美景的人。短期内，这两个集团之间的分歧将继续影响那些关于区域自由土地利用之最佳规划方法的公众讨论。

迟早，这些共同居住在大黄石生态系统的人们将找到达成共识。或者，那些“旧西部”派人口将相对逐渐减少，使得一个有关该地区未来的新共识出现。同时，我们必须认识到，国家公园管理局、美国林务局和美国土地管理局所监管的联邦土地倾向于回应地方或国家层面选民群体的诉求，所以他们也许会在土地管理方面采取更为一致的行动。

世界上的山区不仅仅是庇护独特多样的生物群的一类地区，而且也能供人类深入欣赏和娱乐享受。此类地区是人类优先考虑予以保护之处。它们在横向上及竖向上的与世隔绝使得其成为合乎常理的候选保护地。本文标题中“山地问题的紧迫性”指的是，环境快速恶化所需的时间可能短于采取有效行动所需的时间。

缩略语对照表：

YNP 黄石国家公园

GTNP 大提顿国家公园

YNP+GTNP黄石国家公园+大提顿国家公园

GYE 大黄石生态系统

NPS 国家公园管理局

USFS 美国林务局

BLM 美国土地管理局

USFWS 美国鱼类和野生动物管理局

GYCC 大黄石协调委员会

IUCN 国际自然保护联盟

GYC 大黄石联盟

1 Introduction

Mountains occupy one-quarter of the world's terrestrial surface (Rudaz, 2011). At least 10% of the world’s population resides on the higher elevations, and another 40% nearby on the lesser slopes (Price and Messerli, 2002). Half of the world’s residents are affected by the mountain ecology and hydrologic impact. Mountainous terrain yields 70% of the global supply of potable water. The source of their significance, however, is bifurcated. They command our attention not only because of their links with human welfare, a function of proximity and endowment, but also because of the isolation of the higher, less accessible landscapes that serve as nurturing habitats as well as sacred objects (Bernbaum, 1998; Debarbieux, 2004; also Vava, 2014).They offer testimony to the sheer power and violence of geologic tectonic uplift (Knott et al., 2016). The upper reaches of our highest ranges and the lowest depths of our oceans are the primary remaining repositories of earth’s mystery and a significant portion of its biota.

2 The Global Function of Mountains

As the United Nation's Agenda 21 put it:

“Mountains are an important source of water, energy and biological diversity. ….. (They are) ….. essential to the survival of the global ecosystem. (United Nations, 1992, Ch. 13)

While the highest and most majestic mountain peaks most readily capture our attention and awe, it is the wider ranges in the global zones of ancient uplift on every continent that have the greater consequence (Clark, 2006). For it is there that is to be found a particular richness of species that can only be sustained by the combined effects of higher elevations and expansive spaces. These attributes of physical geography, moreover, conspire to limit human encroachment, permitting natural processes to proceed less impeded by human encroachment.

Recent research indicates the earth may harbor 8.7 million species (Mora et al., 2011). Three-quarters of these are terrestrial with the remainder in oceans. While many species find safe refuge in the world’s remaining intact natural settings such as the Congo Basin, the Amazon region, and New Guinea, many more are at risk (Wilson, 2002; Barry, 2014). Because of their height, location and inaccessibility mountains serve a similar function, but the habitats some afford are at risk, the consequence of both human intrusion and global warming.

3 Purposing Policy for Mountainous Terrain

Whatever the intrinsic value of mountain landscapes, the stated purposes for their preservation typically address only a subset of these at the start. Habitat preservation is but one of these. Over time these purposes tend to multiply or are re-balanced. As purposes change so must the strategies required to achieve them. A commitment to mountain landscapes has become more apparent in recent years, the result of scientific inquiry and popular recognition.

3.1 Advocates, Stakeholders and Global Pronouncements

The year 2002, for example, was declared the "International Year of Mountains" (United Nations General Assembly, 1998). The final report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro states:

"We recognize that the benefits derived from mountain regions are essential for sustainable development. (Moreover) ….. fragile mountain ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, deforestation and forest degradation, land use change, land degradation and natural disasters; and mountain glaciers around the world are retreating and getting thinner, with increasing impacts on the environment and human well-being" (United Nations 2012).

Mountain terrain nevertheless has yet to secure the sort of political cache associated with other geographical features.

"…..although oceans, wetlands, and tropical forests are well-examined cases, the identification of mountains by the international community as (constituting)….. a global environmental issue is not widely recognized outside of what one might call the international "mountain community"(Rudaz, 2011, p. 46).

Perhaps this is due to their sheer scale and remoteness. Of course atop the very highest peaks the air is so thin and oxygen so scarce that such places cannot sustain life. At the lesser elevations both elevation and latitude determine their habitat potentials, and tend to govern how unique is their biotic imprint. Those harboring the most unique and least abundant species are clearly the most important candidates for habitat preservation. As we shall see, the "community" of mountain advocates has been especially vocal in pressing for habitat preservation, including mountainous habitat.

3.2 Paper Prospectus

This paper traces the evolution of natural reserves worldwide, with principal focus on the world’s first national park, namely Yellowstone National Park (hereafter 'YNP') in the USA. We will examine how this Park was first established and its mission defined. We will see how, over time, internal processes and external forces came to threaten its capacity to achieve its mission, how this mission itself began to drift, and how maintenance of natural processes became more of an end in itself. Privileging natural process over human enjoyment, moreover, eventually fostered a concern for management of adjoining spaces outside the Park perimeter in order to sustain more expansive biotic habitats. By the time this management posture had emerged however, these adjoining lands had begun to fragment under both government and private sector ownership auspices.

The paper's principal emphasis thereafter is upon the overall effort to manage these adjoining spaces, enumerating possible approaches for transboundary coordination. It is recognized that not all such land reserves harbor critical habitats, yet even these, if surrounded by dissonant landscapes, may benefit from extraterritorial management. And of course it is understood that not all mountainous landscapes can or need be assigned official designation as reserves, nor all reserves be devoted to habitat preservation. Many of the world's ranges remain isolated hence as yet unthreatened, whatever their content.

4 Bridging the Global/Local Divide in Mountain Planning

Despite the global rhetorical attention paid to the protection of mountains and the other environmental domains and to the cause of climate change, resistance persists. State-dominated international environmental conferences continue to grapple with international rivalries, and disparate national agendas and capacities (Balsiger and Debarbieux, 2011) NGO’s (Non-governmental organizations). These have yet to forge a global civic order (Car and Norman, 2008; Clark et al., 1998; Ford, 2003). National governments can promise no more than localities can deliver. This is nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Paris UN Climate Conference accord, otherwise known as COP21, wherein 195 nations ostensibly committed to tame carbon emissions, each declaring an INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) in December 2015.

There is now an emerging recognition that global agendas must ultimately be grounded in the capacities of localities (See also Debarbieux and Price, 2008). They may fall within a singular governing jurisdiction or be overseen by a multiplicity of jurisdictions organized either laterally (geographically) within or among nations, or hierarchically. Given the complexity of such internal governance relations it is no wonder that cohesive action is difficult to achieve (See for example, Debarbieux, 2009). If global pronouncements are to have utility, however, they must reflect local/ regional capacities, acknowledging variance in the composition of national and sub-national stakeholder groupings, in the diversity of regions overseen, and in the resources available for policy effectuation. Assessing the contribution of global environmental conferences one can find evidence of progress (Debarbieux and Rudaz, 2015; Messerli and Ives, 1997). Minger and Miller (2006) identify the emerging commonality founded on these themes: a trans-boundary orientation, delineation of a global commons, pluralism, a long term values orientation, and scientific grounding.

5 National Parks: Global Classification

The growing attention paid to the defense of public lands and protected open spaces within individual nations is noteworthy. Not all places and spaces deserving such protections, however, have yet been embraced as national parklands, reservesor preserves, of course. Indeed there is no globally accepted standard for what actually constitutes a national park or preserve, with two exceptions—namely that (1)such a place must be overseen by a singular, typically national, governance body, and (2) there be available a firmer financial commitment to its preservation than would be true of lesser spaces. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), headquartered in Gland, Switzerland and formerly known as the World Conservation Union however estimates that almost 100 nations now harbor spaces called "national parks" though only a small fraction of these are on mountainous terrain (Blyth et al., 2003). It places national parks in its Category 2 of protected areas, offering the hopeful characterization that such places are ones most likely to maintain ecological integrity at the ecosystem level while allowing recreation. Seeking to dispel confusion over the meaning of "national park", the IUCN has developed a set of pertinent criteria defining this class of space (IUCN, 2016). The IUCN, in 1969 (as augmented in 1971), proposed that any national park should have these

characteristics:

(1)"One or several ecosystems not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation, where plant and animal species, geomorphological sites and habitats are of special scientific, educational, and recreational interest or which contain a natural landscape of great beauty. Prohibition of exploitation of natural resources ….. (while allowing for) ….. such activities as sport, fishing, (and) the need for management, facilities, etc.

(2)Minimum size of 1,000 hectares (i.e. 10 km2) within zones in which protection of nature takes precedence. (Author's note: This would be considerably less than the 8992 km2, in Yellowstone National Park in the USA, the world's first such park).

(3)Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible ….. .

(4)Visitors are allowed to enter, under special conditions, for inspirational, educative, cultural, and re-creative purposes". (IUCN, 2016)

Of the national parks in the United States most would meet these criteria. Mesa Verde National Park however is emblematic of a class of parks devoted less to habitat preservation than to human history. It contains over 4,000 archeological sites associated with the 700-year habitation of the ancestral Puebloan people.

6 Evolving Perceptions of Purpose

During the late 19th and early 20th century, mountainous terrain was often the frontrunner among all places in winning national park designation. Such terrain is perhaps overrepresented to this day (Debarbieux, 2004). According to Arpin and Cosson (2015) these early designations were justified by the assertion that such spaces were microcosms of the world, traversing all elevations and the habitats therein. To this we must add the base allure of high peaks, and the fact that such places have seldom undergone so much prior development as to make them resistant to such designations. Importantly, with the rise of a more nuanced environmental consciousness "mountains as mere microcosmic conservators" began to give way to a new set of expectations. With the nominative progression from “mountains as microcosm" to "mountains as repositories of biodiversity" the effectiveness of mountain managers was increasingly called into question. This critique in turn ushered in a new era of mountain management and mountain park legitimation, one whose onset was hastened further by the concern for global climate change. Arpin and Cosson (2015, 61-63), lay out this scenario in the European context. Something similar was at work in the United States, the region to which we turn next.

7 Yellowstone National Park: History and Significance

The intellectual progression from "mountains as microcosm" to "mountains as repositories of biodiversity" is mirrored most forcefully in the history of the mountainous area in the United States that became this nation's and indeed the world’s first national park, namely Yellowstone National Park (hereafter, "YNP"). Figure 1 locates the YNP within the surrounding area later informally designated the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (hereafter "GYE"). It resides in the middle portion of the Rocky Mountain chain that stretches from the U.S. state of New Mexico all the way north to the upper reaches of British Columbia, Canada and Alaska. The Park itself contains 8992 km2. The Rockies are the northern most component of an almost continuous sequence of ranges running from Alaska's Brooks Range down through North (Yukon Territory), Central (Sierra Madres) and South America (Andes), terminating in Antarctica. Combined these constitute the North and South American Cordillera, the world's longest though discontinuous north-south mountain traverse.

The United States acquired the territory (the Louisiana Purchase) containing what would become this Park from France in 1803. President Jefferson subsequently sent the explorers, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, on an expedition to study and map the region and locate a route westward from St. Louis to the Pacific. In April 1805 the men came upon what became known as the Yellow Stone River. No mention in their diaries is made of their having viewed the place's most distinctive feature. But Clark’s diaries later noted that it had been heard that:

"At the head of this river the natives (sic) give an account that there is frequently herd (sic) a loud noise, like Thunder, which makes the earth Tremble, they State that they seldom go there because their children Cannot sleep—and Conceive it possessed of spirits, who were averse that men Should be near them" (Moulton, 1983-1999).

This passage, of course, refers to the noise associated with the thermal geysers, the Park's most notable feature. Over 10,000 thermal features are

now known to reside within the YNP, two-thirds of the world’s total. These, more than the higher terrain surrounding them, were most instrumental in the initial delineation of this Park which today traverses three American states: Wyoming, Montana and just a sliver in Idahoon the Park’s western flank. In 1872 these states had not been established and when their boundaries were later negotiated in Congress no effort was expended to position the park within a single state.

Yellowstone National Park was established under terms of U.S. Organic Act of 1872. The YNP lays claim today to a global acknowledgment of its importance in environmental conservation. In 1972 UNESCO named YNP a Biosphere Reserve, the first in the U.S. In 1998 the Park was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The preamble of the 1872 Organic Act read like this:

"(The tract of land that is to become Yellowstone National Park)….. is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale ….. and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people …... Such regulations (as must be established) shall provide for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition" (U.S. Code, 1872).

These words (1) bounded a park space, (2) defined its purpose, (3) affixed responsibility for its management, and (4) empowered its manager, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, to set rules and establish regulations to protect its natural assets. Visits to the Park were encouraged, but nature in all its facets was to be preserved. Congressional resistance was modest since the area was remote and deemed otherwise useless, and land was abundant. In addition, setting "rules and regulation" did not seem then to entail a significant expense (but see Ansson, 2000). Above all, like all extant “parks” of any scale, Yellowstone was not to be a place of human habitation. However, pressures were mounting by the turn of the century. Population surrounding the Park was gradually increasing, and hunters and tourists from far afield of the Park were being drawn to the Park in increasing numbers, aided by rail transport development.

By 1906, the Oregon Short Line Railroad provided service to West Yellowstone, the westernmost gateway into YNP. In 1912, rail service carried south from Ashton, Idaho ending in Victor, Idaho. By the 1920’s, Victor was the busiest point of entry from the western states to Jackson Hole, Wyoming and to the parks to its north.

In ensuing decades following the establishment of YNP more landscapes were preserved under auspices of the U.S. Department of the Interior, but challenges to the integrity of these spaces became so frequent that Congress was compelled to establish the National Park Service (hereafter "NPS").

Under the Organic Act of 1916, the NPS was to be situated within the Department of the Interior, and it would soon displace the U.S. Army from the incongruous role in YNP management that it had played until then. This Act remains to this day the principal legal foundation under which the Park Service manages the public lands of America, and most but not all legal challenges to its directives undertaken since then are based upon the evolving interpretation of this law (Biber and Esposito, 2016). Today there are 8.9 million km2of land in the United States. Approximately 34% of this land is federally owned, and roughly 6% of this federal land is contained in the nation's 59 national parks (Public Land Law Review Commission, 1970). That is, land in the national parks accounts for just over 2% of the land area in this nation.

The NPS oversees an additional 352 spaces of various sorts, not national parks, as of 2016. These include national monuments, historic sites and sundry other places: shorelines, parkways, preserves, recreation areas, scenic trails and so on. Under NPS guidelines a place seeking national park status must satisfy three criteria. It must (1) be of exceptional national natural or cultural significance, (2) offer outstanding opportunity for scientific research or public enjoyment, and (3) be an almost wholly unspoiled expression of a resource or of the nation's heritage (National Park Service, 2016a). Yellowstone National Park is one of the very largest remaining intact mid-latitude temperate ecosystems in the world offering extensive opportunities for public use and recreation. In history, scale and significance its stands apart from almost all other U.S. national parks.

8 YNP: The Material Landscape

Yellowstone National Park is square-shaped but with an irregular eastern edge facing the mountainous Absaroka Range in Wyoming (See also map, National Park Service, 2016a). East beyond this Absaroka Range are segments of the Shoshone National Forest. The Park is filled with high mountains, deep canyons, and massive forests. The overall shape and current interior configuration

of the Park is presented in Figure 2.

Analysis of Congressional records would expose factors considered in bounding this space, but for present purposes it is sufficient to infer that this decision could not have been informed by the insights of contemporary science. It boundaries were surely drawn with principally one objective in mind: to encompass all the region's 200 active geysers and other thermal features (mud spots, fumaroles and hot springs). Today we know that these highly acidic thermal features contain some of the world's most unique and intrepid microscopic life forms. The Park landscape counts over 70 named peaks over 2,400 meters high arrayed in four distinct mountain ranges, two of which are wholly contained with the Park (Washburn and Red), and two extending well beyond the Park's edge (Gallatin and Absaroka). Eagle Peak, is the highest in the Park, rising 3,466 meters.

Definition of formal park boundaries is wholly dependent on objectives and conditions at onset. Generally the least intensely inhabited areas are most easily secured. Equally important is the state of knowledge at the time of onset. Determining park size and boundary location depends on the current understanding of the relation between these two attributes and the designated park mission. National Parks in the U.S. serve multiple purposes in varying degrees. YNP, recall, was meant in 1872 to be a "pleasuring ground" for humans seeking a natural respite and recreational opportunity (Figure 2 U.S. Code, 1872). Preservation of its natural features was a means to these ends more than an end in itself.

8.1 Volcanism in the YNP

Over 640,000 years ago the center of what became the Park exploded as it had at least two times previously, spewing ash out for thousands of kilometers (See Figure 2). A crater almost 3,500 km2in size appeared in the aftermath, a caldara, formed with the collapse of an emptied magma chamber (Knott et al., 2016). Left behind was a terrain filled with steaming hot spots and geysers, one now the Park's principal icon, "Old Faithful". Temperatures at its vent rise to almost 1000C, with steam rising to upwards of 5.5 meters. This core landscape was without question the single greatest impetus to the Park's formation. Its mountains and valleys and its rich store of plants and large mammals undoubtedly were of interest, but in 1872 such features were widespread. Volcanism was not.

Sixteen million years ago the Yellowstone Hot Spot rested near the southwest corner of Idaho. It travelled in ensuing eras across southern Idaho and up the valley of the present-day Snake River on its way to its current placement under YNP (Knott et al., 2016). Super Volcanoes such as Yellowstone are ones able to produce eruptions having a potential ejecta mass greater than 1015 kg. None elsewhere, whether in the western U.S., or on the mountainous western edge of South America, or in Indonesia or in the northwest Pacific, is known to exceed Yellowstone's explosive potential. It last eruption, a minor episode, occurred 70,000 years ago. A full release such as occurred 640,000 years ago would wreak havoc, covering the western half of the U.S. under huge quantities of ash, severely darkening global skies, disrupting global agriculture, indeed threatening the entirety of the global ecosystem (Smithsonian Institution, 2015).

8.2 External Threats to Environmental Integrity: 1872 to the 1930's

From YNP's founding in 1872 through the 1930's a growing catalogue of troublesome management issues emerged regarding the expanding list of U.S. national parks in general (Shafer, 2012). In this period also, Grand Teton National Park (hereafter "GTNP") was established, in 1929. Located just 16 km south of YNP the Park today covers 1300 km2(just 14% as large as the YNP) having absorbed in 1950 a set of adjoining lands that had been assembled surreptitiously by conservationists led by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Within the GTNP is the 64 km Teton Range whose highest peak, the Grand Teton, rises to a height of 4.2 km.

Given the isolation of the region in 1872, Congress could not easily have foreseen that park visitation and utilization of areas adjoining the park would in time threaten its mission as first defined. Nor did it anticipate how soon would be put forward a petition to build a railroad track traversing the northern reaches of YNP (Bartlett, 1989, 309-312; Black, 2012). Rejected in the 1880's, this was but the first of a number of efforts to open up the park to tourism, hunting and commerce (Shafer, 2012, 13). Despoliation of thermal features, poaching, looting of park resources and artifacts, and introduction of nonnative species materialized in these same years as regional population increased and as travel from both western and eastern cities accelerated. Transboundary transgressions were also becoming apparent. Foremost was the grazing of animals

adjacent the Parks, depleting the feed stocks for the Elk herds accustomed to descending from higher ground within YNP onto these nearby lower lands as winter snows covered mountain foliage (Black, 2012; Farrell, 2015).

8.3 Emergence of a More Protectionist Agenda

By the mid-1930's George Wright and fellow biologists were among the first in the U.S. to sound the alarm, bemoaning the incessant assault of "external influences" upon parklands (Wright and Thompson, 1935, 124). World War II and its aftermath undoubtedly drew attention away from domestic matters, explaining the relative quiescence in the debates surrounding park management (Shafer, 2012, 13). But by the 1960's persistence of such concerns provoked a renewed commitment to address the growing acknowledgment that the world's parks and preserves were becoming ecological islands increasingly threatened by external forces. In the U.S., Secretary of the Interior Steward Udall commissioned A. Starker Leopold, a zoologist, to assess management practices in the national parks. The resulting "Leopold Report" (1963), formally called the report on Wildlife Management in the National Parks, was composed of a series of ecosystem management recommendations that were presented by the Special Advisory Board on Wildlife Management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1963).

8.4 The Role of Science in Environmental Management

The upshot of such analyses and critiques was the emergence of a radically different evidence-based, scientific-oriented approach to the management of national parklands in the United States. At its heart was a determination not to permit these places to become mere ecological islands, surrounded by a multitude of threats originating on adjoining lands. In the fall of 1972 the Second World Conference on National Parks was convened at the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks to cultivate this perspective.

9 Ecosystems Conceived

The appearance of a more comprehensive and scientific agenda in the 1960’s for American park management was rooted in a parallel discourse on ecosystems and ecosystem management. Willis (1997) attributes the coinage of the term to Roy Clapham, a much-honored plant physiologist at Sheffield University, UK. Arthur Tansley, Clapham’s colleague, fleshed out the term, defining the ecosystem as: "The whole system .… including not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical factors forming what we call the environment" (Tansley, 1935).

Eugene Odum, embellished the concept of the ecosystem still further in his prominent textbook. For him, an ecosystem is

"Any unit that includes all of the organisms (ie: the "community") in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic (author’s insertion: i.e. nutritional) structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (i.e: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system is an ecosystem" (Odom, 1971; See also Odum, 1969).

At base then, the ecosystem can be conceived as a network of complex interactions within and between its biotic components (plants, animals, microbes) and its abiotic components (energy, air, water, soils, and chemical composition, most notably nitrogen).

10 From Ecosystems to Ecosystem Management

The remainder of this paper considers how the general notion of the ecosystem informs the task of ecosystem management, for it is no simple matter to translate these still vague ecosystem conceptualizations into an actionable agenda. The word ecosystem is a noun identifying an object whose most salient characteristic is biodiversity. But biodiversity is itself a state of the eco-system that must be tailored to local conditions and capacities. Ecosystem management rests on a number of widely accepted science-based propositions acknowledging the fact that such systems are complex and inherently unstable. As such they tend to sprawl over jurisdictional boundaries. Effective management therefore requires concerted coordination among involved governance bodies and administrative agencies.

"Ecosystem management requires that natural resource policies be framed at the appropriate temporal and spatial scale to meet human needs without impairing the integrity of underlying (ecological) systems and processes. ….. A paramount goal of ecosystem management is the preservation and restoration of biological diversity within regional flora and fauna," (Keiter, 1994, p. 302).

To achieve these ends policy must be informed by science, and given the instability and

unpredictability of such systems careful monitoring of the various performance measures must be undertaken on an ongoing basis. The effort to perfect these approaches is ongoing (Hodsoll et al., 2010).Clearly not every biotic phylum and species can or should be expected to coexist within every possible natural setting.

We further focus in upon the environs outside the official park boundaries. Indeed, most but not all the major policy challenges reside beyond the park perimeter. Our particular focus will be national parks, and of these, most centrally YNP along with its neighbor, the GTNP. As we have seen, it was Wright and Wright (1935) who were among the first to address the need for more expansive spaces in which to accommodate large mammals such as those found in YNP and GTNP. The Craigheads, John and Frank, subsequently proposed that the maximal extent of parks serving as preserves be calibrated to the needs of the largest of the resident mammals (Craighead, 1977). Others came to agree that ecologically defined boundaries should be the norm in delimiting nature preserves (Agee and Johnson, 1990).

Though the early notions of ecosystems and the management thereof gave priority to species preservation there is a growing recognition today that human agency must be factored into the mix. The biological sciences led the way as previous citations attest (See also Christensen et al., 1996; DeFries et al., 2007; Inman et al., 2013; Hansen, 2009). The effort has multiple progenitors E.O. Wilson touted the potential for a grand mergerconsilience-of the intellectual disciplines (Wilson, 1998). A more prosaic contribution to the effort may be found in the most recent conceptualizations of ecosystem management which acknowledge the presence of multiple interests and stakeholders in managing park preserves (Bennett, 2014; Reed, 2008; Forsyth, 2003; Kohler et al., 2012; Lynch and Maggio, 2000; Paasi, 2010; Wilson, 1997; Szaro et al., 1998; and Brussard et al., 1998).

11 UrsusArctos: The Relevance of Bear Habitat in YNP Ecosystem Management

The Craigheads found that the grizzly bear (ursusarctos), one of the YNP's largest mammals (weighing upwards of 200kg), would require considerably more space than was available to it within YNP as originally bounded. China's Giant Panda bear (ailuropodamelanoleuca), weighing upwards of 115kg, is similarly vulnerable. Its lone remaining habitat is in the nation's central interior (Sichuan, Shaanxi and Gansu provinces). Considerably more space may be required in both instances if the bear population is to be maintained at a size sufficient to ensure its perpetual existence. Figure 3 depicts a recent demarcation of the grizzly bear’s habitat which reaches well beyond the narrow confines of the combined Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park boundaries.

There are in fact two distinct bear populations in the 48 contiguous states of the U.S., one in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem in northwestern Montana spilling over into Canada, and one rooted 165 km to the south—a distance traversed by two major highways-in YNP and GTNP and surrounding areas (Haroldson et al., 2010). Genetic analysis confirms minimal interbreeding between these two distinct populations despite their close proximity (Ibid., p.1). There seems however to be no incontrovertible basis for privileging bear habitat over that of the Parks'other large mammals excepting its top predator status. The grizzly's elevated status can be partly attributed to a near species collapse.

11.1 Grizzly Mortality Stimulates Move to Preserve Park Biota

During the early 1970's, grizzly mortality spiked upward with the closing of the YNP's openpit dumps. Park bears had become so reliant on food in these dumps for sustenance that when they were shut these big omnivores had to re-learn how to secure food by more conventional means. In a desperate effort to save the grizzlies thereafter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter "USFWS") listed the combined park (hereafter "YNP+GTNP") population as severely threatened, acting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Both the population in and extent of the two grizzly ecosystem ranges are again ascendant today (Ibid., pp. 1-2). Their recovery however is leading today to calls to "delist" the animal from the endangered species list and to turn their management over from the federal government to the states.

11.2 Biodiversity in the Parks

Among the other large mammals in YNP+GTNP is the largest grazing mammal, the bison. The Parks are the only place among the lower 48 states that have continuously housed wild bison since prehistoric times. The scarcity of both grizzly bears and bison, however, would seem to elevate their importance vis-à-vis other less scarce species. Other large mammals resident in the park region include moose, elk, black bears, mountain

lions, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, gray wolves, bobcats, lynx, coyotes, and more. Also to be found are over 300 bird species, 4 of amphibians, 6 of reptiles, 50 smaller mammal species, and the world's largest inland population of cutthroat trout (Figure.3).

Efforts are underway to monitor which species and habitats in YNP are most at risk (Hansen, 2009). In addition there are more than 1000 native plant taxa. The habitat ranges of these vary, and in many respects they are mutually contingent, making park delimitation quite difficult. It would be expected in fact that within YNP and GTNP reside multiple ecosystems, some potentially overlapping and coexistent. Certain combinations of species and taxa might be fit for cohabitation whereas other combinations might self-destruct in the face of unchecked predation.

11.3 Ecosystem Stasis: An Unlikely Prospect

Ecological stasis is exceedingly difficult to nurture and sustain in so complex an ecologic environment. More likely, balance amongst resident species and taxa will forever be imperfect, even within properly scaled preserves made totally devoid of human intrusion. No degree of management prowess in such situations can achieve a fully satisfactory and sustainable degree of balance without intervention in one form or another.

Adding human involvements into the mix only complicates the task of management. Component interactions within natural ecosystems may yield more or less “natural”, momentarily stable system states during period of relative stasis. Such interactions in natural ecosystems are ordered in accord with the genetic composition of the resident biota, the chemistry of the landscape, gravity and the movements of air and water. Exogenous intrusions originating in nature, beyond the boundaries of the preserve itself, can set in motion the search for new equilibria. In a time of significant global warming it may be prudent to further expand habitat ranges to alleviate the effects of shifts in the size, density and competition within of forage domains.

11.4 Management Priorities: The Incommensurability of Performance Metrics

Repeated intrusions into park reserves and adjoining spaces occurring at frequent intervals will likely prevent the reserve's ever achieving full stasis. The system is equilibrium seeking, but seldom equilibrium attaining. If human activities are permitted in and around the preserve—tourism, recreation, commerce, habitation, infrastructure—management of the ecosystem will invariably need to address system outcomes that are fundamentally incommensurable. The performance metrics, that is, differ widely, and are thus not simply summative. Answers to such questions as "is it acceptable if construction of 100 new housing units on the park perimeter reduces the grizzly population of 2%?" The only answer here must be found in the value orientations of the relevant stakeholders. Resolution will be political not arithmetic. And if there are different stakeholder groups each with its own distinctive value orientation there must be some means to determine how much influence should be accorded each.

12 Bounding Ecosystems: From Exogenous to Endogenous

Factors affecting the overall performance of nature reserves, including that subset of U.S. national parks meant to serve this function, are numerous, diverse, and not easily bounded. Moreover, the wider the spatial delineation of the ecosystem, the greater the number of management entities involved, and the more diverse the purposes that management must address. Yellowstone National Park, and its sister to the south, the Grand Teton National Park ("YNP+GTNP") furnish an excellent basis for assessing such factors in a real world setting. For Shafer (2012), these factors are really threats to the ecological integrity of those National Parks serving as nature reserves.

Clearly biodiversity is ascendant in the hierarchy of park management objectives today. But can it be achieved while also honoring the original intent of the U.S. national parks to also serve the needs of visitors determined to experience the natural landscape and its resident animals? Too narrow a circumscription of an ecosystem will of course render more and more of the factors affecting an ecosystem as exogenous. Incorporating human enterprise within and beyond the park perimeter renders it an endogenous force, both affecting system performance and being affected by that system’s performance. Almost four decades ago the NPS undertook to survey threats to its parks in general, finding that more than half originated outside park boundaries (National Park Service, 2016b).

13 Purposing Ecosystem Management: Transition in the 1980's

The reader will recall the turning point in the treatment of European mountain landscapes mentioned earlier. Arpin and Cosson (2015, pp. 61-63) find evidence in the European mountain discourse for a shift in emphasis from mountains as microcosm to mountains as repositories of biodiversity (paraphrasing). A similar turning point was reached in the U.S. in the public reception of a self-critical but cursory 1980 NPS report enumerating its most pressing challenges. Soon thereafter, Reese (1984) drew additional attention to a subset of the threats documented earlier by the NPS which had yet to be effectively addressed by Park managers. Among them were energy resource exploitation (oil/gas, geothermal, hydro), resource extraction (mining and logging), and human development outside the park perimeter. His work was noteworthy for its emphasis on forces at work outside the parks, within what he called the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (otherwise the "GYE" as previously noted).

While the NPS took small steps throughout the decade of the 1980's to address these concerns, the ascendance of Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Presidency in 1981 and the subsequent appointment of James Watt as Interior Secretary essentially closed down further efforts in Reagan's Presidential terms to adopt a more active effort in defense of park biota.

As Shafer (2012, p. 13) notes:

"During this time, NPS was instructed not to deal with or even talk about many resource issues occurring outside park boundaries. Abating external threats was perceived by some special interest groups as an infringement on private land rights and a preclusion of industry's resource extraction opportunities."

The Organic Act of 1916 establishing the NPS, of course, predated the rise of ecosystem management as a policy construct. Whereas ecosystem management gained general recognition in the 1960’s the NPS did not fully embrace the practice until the late 1980's. The shift was further bolstered by the establishment of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in 1983 (Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 2016).This non-governmental organization (an NGO) body has become the most effective of all such entities in addressing the entirety of the GYE.

14 YNP+GTNP Under-bounds the GYE: Dilemmas Managing the Periphery

Today the NPS actively pursues a form of ecosystem management (Freemuth, 1997) within park boundaries, but has few means for influencing conditions beyond those boundaries. While many forces affecting park preserves originate outside park boundaries, park management has never secured authority over this area (Lynch, 2008). Extra-territorial involvement on non-federal lands beyond park boundaries of some sort though was thought by a few commentators to have been permitted by the 1978 Redwoods Act which amended the 1916 Organic Act (Keiter, 1994). Such encouraging speculations urge a degree of extra-territorial involvement that would meet with considerable political resistance today. At the same time, a substantial fraction of all non-park land within the GYE is federally owned. As we will see coordination between the NPS and these other federal land management entities is indeed proceeding.

Over time, YNP and GTNP missions have evolved with the recognition that (1) permissible human park uses may conflict with ecosystem preservation, and (2) many of the threats to park integrity originate outside park boundaries (Gimmi et al., 2011). Greater prescience in 1872 might have produced an even larger park and a more distant perimeter, possibly including the high mountain range to the south that eventually became GTNP, but at the time adjoining lands were largely empty and threatening.

14.1 Coordinating Federal Park and Non-Park Federal Land Management Practices

At the same time, the NPS does indeed attempt to confer and coordinate with those who manage the space adjoining parks-both federal agencies and state and sub-state jurisdictions (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 2008). Establishment of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (hereafter "GYCC") in 1964 was the most hopeful step undertaken to that point in time to address the most vexing challenges faced by the two parks-YNP and GTNP. At its onset the GYCC was a formal alliance between NPS and the U.S. Forest Service (hereafter "USFS") which oversees wide swaths of forested territory on all sides of these parks and participates with other federal agencies in the management of all the designated wilderness areas established under terms of the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (hereafter "BLM") only became a partner in the GYCC in 2012.The GYCC not only sought to foster coordination among federal land managers

but also to devise means by which to influence the planning of private lands officially overseen by no federal agency. To this end it issued a "toolkit" for agency staff in 2008 that encouraged park and forest managers to become more conversant with means to facilitate voluntary land conservation outside the Parks' perimeter, and to effectively represent park concerns in local land planning decisions outside the parks themselves in nearby towns and counties.

14.2 Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Content and Dimensions

This brings us to the fundamental recognition that the boundaries of Yellowstone, given our contemporary understanding of ecosystem functionality, should have delimited a far wider area. As a result we are left to pursue remedial actions, and in the case of YNP+GTNP these center on what has become informally known as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). A still more audacious effort would fold the GYE into an even more ambitious plan to establish the Yellowstoneto-Yukon (hereafter "Y-to-Y") habitat corridor.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is the term informally assigned to the wider region encompassing both YNP and GTNP (See maps in Great Divide Graphics, 2016). Its initial rendering in the early 1970’s was meant to encompass the grizzly bear’s principal habitat surrounding the parks. Further acknowledgment of the potency of this delineation came when the U.S. Congress held hearings on the GYE in 1985. The initial delineation of this informal, functional regionalization contained 16,000 km2, but the most recent definition approaches 80,000 km2(equivalents: 31,250 square miles, 20 million acres, 8.09 million hectares). While this space has no legal standing, it has become an aspirational space within which it is generally understood that the primary external threats to the Parks reside.

The region called GYE is both massive and consequential for the nation at large, yielding impacts far beyond its maximal extent. It contains, for example, the headwaters of the Missouri-Mississippi, Columbia (Snake), and Colorado Rivers. It also includes portions of three states-Wyoming, plus Idaho and Montana-, and within these three reside 20 counties (sub-state jurisdictions). Within these counties reside multiple municipalities. Within the GYE land use outside the Parks is overseen by multiple entities, each with its own stakeholders, regulations, and laws: stateowned lands, portions of five national forests, three national wildlife refuges, U.S. Bureau of Land Management holdings, and tribal lands overseen by tribal governments. In addition there are the private lands not owned by but nevertheless overseen by either sub-state county or municipal governments.

This complex space counts multiple climate and vegetation zones, and several if not many subecosystems. According to the NPS,

"Many of its plant and animal species are rare, threatened, endangered, or of special concern, including more than 100 plants, hundreds of invertebrates, six fish species, several amphibian species, at least 20 bird species, and 18 mammal species. These are estimates because comprehensive inventories have not been completed" (NPS, 2016c; See also Hansen, 2009).

14.3 Transmission of Environmental Effects Between the Parks and the Remainder of the GYE

Hansen and DeFries (2007) examine the ecological mechanisms whereby land using activities outside the Parks but within the GYE affect critical ecological processes and biodiversity within the Park reserves. These mechanisms largely correlate with the overall size and content of the wider area.

"….. involve changes in ecosystem size, with implications for minimum dynamic area, species–area effect, and trophic structure; altered flows of materials and disturbances into and out of reserves; effects on crucial habitats for seasonal and migration movements and population source/sink dynamics; and exposure to humans through hunting, poaching, exotics species, and disease"(Hansen and DeFries, 2007).

The terminology of this passage can be readily demystified. The terms originate in the literature on island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Turner et al., 2001). It is today the principal foundation for conservation area design. The attention paid to minimum dynamic area aims to insure that any tendency towards species extinction within the reserve can be offset by the arrival of additional species members who would migrate to the reserve from external habitats. The species-area effect, a second tenant of island biogeography, postulates, based on limited empirical evidence, that species diversity increases with ecosystem area. However, the rate of such increase slows as the size of the area increases. Trophic structure addresses the evolving composition of the food chain in confined spaces. The so-called top predators tend to require larger habitat ranges and exist at relatively low densities. If top predators

suffer species collapse within the reserve, mid-level predators or herbivores will flourish jeopardizing the next lower levels of the food chain.

Beyond the just-noted interactions between reserve and its periphery, that are attuned to habitat size, are flows of both air and water that transport pollen, seeds, microorganisms, fire effects (heat, ash) and general organic detritus both to and from the reserve. Human alteration of unprotected landscapes may seriously alter these flows to the detriment of the reserve and its biota. These effects could be more pronounced in mountainous areas due to the steeper terrain gradients, greater hydrologic complexity, and the acceleration of updrafts near major uplift zones. Airborne pollutants including nitrogen oxide and ammonia carried by continent-spanning air currents have been found to initiate species extinctions in natural environments across North America. These appear to stimulate growth in faster growing non-native species placing slower-growing native species in jeopardy (Simkin et al., 2016).

From these findings emerge design and other policy criteria that favor maximizing habitat areas, maintaining ecological process zones and key migration habitats and corridors (especially for the herds of bison, grizzly and elk in YNP+GTNP), and shaping areas of human occupation, farming and ranching on the Park periphery to soften their impingement upon ecological processes.

Ease of unfettered movement of the top predators and to some extent the occupants of the lesser levels of the food chain is essential (Inman et al., 2013; Locke and Francis, 2012). If such movements are impeded by physical barriers (impassable infrastructure, areas occupied by dense human development, natural blockages), or intervening spaces that expose the animals to unaccustomed noise or physical threat (hunting and so on) then the habitat will be restricted (McKinney et al., 2010). Eliminating such intrusions where possible while limiting habitat fragmentation will be essential (Piekielek et al., 2012). Documentation of prime corridors is well underway (Quammen, 2016).

We shall delve no more deeply into these processes except to say that scale of reserves matters greatly and that the principal objectives of land use planning in relation to major park reserves such as YNP+GTNP and their surrounds are (1) to assure sufficient scale and unimpeded biotic corridors, and (2) to insure that the flows just-noted do not produce a net negative effect on reserves. Resource extraction-mining in or near reserves, and oil and gas extraction in/under or near reservesmust also be reckoned with.

15 Mountain Ecology and Its Policy Implications

Mountainous areas such as YNP+GTNP pose a particular challenge in realizing these objectives. Such areas are traversed by higher ranges that act as migratory barriers whose effects are seasonal. Further, the larger of such regions may traverse multiple habitat and vegetation zones reflecting variations in the twin conditions of latitude and elevation. These two conspire to bring the potential of inordinate biological diversity into relatively tight spaces, making ecosystem management all the more daunting an enterprise. Climate change, of course, threatens major transformations in the life-supporting qualities of mountainous regions (Bachelet, 2013; Hansen, et al., 2016).

Linking the GYE to the portion of the Rocky Mountains to the north, all the way to Canada's Yukon, would afford the greatest degree of species protection in the face of dramatic climate changes. This corridor-known as the Yellowstone-to-Yukon corridor-, is an aspirational habitat delineation having as yet has no legal status (Graumlich and Francis, 2010; Chester, 2015). The challenges that would have to be overcome in creating such continent-spanning corridor spaces could be insurmountable (Chester, 2006; Andonova et al., 2009) though the notion has acquired an earnest and vocal following (Wilson, 2002).

16 Managing the Periphery

Lastly we address the principal challenges and potential remedies associated with land, both public and private, and its usage outside formal Park boundaries but within the GYE and other such large-scale ecosystems. There are two primary categories of challenges in the case of the lands adjoining YNP+GTNP: (1) formulating supportive management practices in the public lands overseen by both federal and state bodies, and (2) orchestrating development on private lands under both municipal and county auspices, and tribal lands under the rule of tribal authorities. As exhibited in Figure 4, the Park periphery is a mosaic of lands owned or overseen by diverse federal entities (NPS, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management), Native American (Indian) Reservations and those non-public ("private" lands) overseen by the lower levels of the governance hierarchy (i.e. municipalities and counties).

16.1 Interagency Coordination: Federal Roles

Federal (national) land management on the park periphery is principally the responsibility of two key federal agencies: the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Efforts continue to coordinate the management plans within the GYE under auspices of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee established in 1964 by mutual consent of the National Park Service and the USFS (See Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 1991). The BLM and the USFWS have since joined this Committee. Because these administrative entities have different missions, achieving proper coordination is difficult. Most of the interagency conflicts regard the degrees and kinds of human activities allowed. But coordination of habitat corridors and efforts to combat habitat fragmentation are topics for which agreement can frequently be achieved. Moreover, when the spaces overseen by the agencies are overlain by the "wilderness" designation, disparate federal agency missions tend to converge. Consider these next.

Major portions of National Forests overseen by the USFS surrounding YNP+GTNP are designated Wilderness Areas. These Areas are an overlay, established under terms of the Wilderness Act of 1964, but managed by the USFS in the case of the Yellowstone region, or by other state or federal agencies that managed such areas elsewhere prior to being assigned this designation. Both state and federal governments may petition for such a designation for specific spaces. The provisions of this Act are so extensive that they cannot be addressed in the current article (See Wilderness.net, 2016). Areas ineligible for this designation and its protections may still secure degrees of protection under other federal provisions associated with: national parks, national forests, national monuments, national seashores, national recreation areas, national conservation areas, national wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and national scenic and historic trails.

Augmentation of natural preserves, especially in areas undergoing rapid urban and exurban development is extremely costly. Efforts to do so invariably fall short. The 1964 federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was set up for just this purpose (Foresta, 1984, p. 237), but land costs proved prohibitive. The alternatives are few: (1) acquisition of rights in real property (i.e. land and buildings affixed to the land) which are "lessthan-fee simple", (2) encouraging sub-national government (states and localities) to undertake protection in whatever ways seem efficacious such as regulation or purchase, (3) encouraging private non-governmental land owners voluntarily to relinquish some or all of their rights in involved properties (Figure 4).

The first, less-than-fee simple acquisition is less costly as only a portion of rights in private property are secured by the federal government. This can at times permit agriculture or only limited urban/exurban development to occur while protecting those features of land needed to ensure habitat integrity. Key here are efforts to sustain grazing and free passage for protected species: for example, limiting fencing, hunting constraints, abating light and noise, discouraging fragmentation, and insuring safe movements in hazardous areas via road over/under passes and so on.

Land regulation seems to many to be especially efficacious as it might appear to entail no public expense. However, regulation that severely limits private rights in private property tends to fall under the strictures of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prevents regulatory "takings" of private rights in private property without appropriate compensation. 16.2 Planning the Privately-owned Lands in Towns and Counties within the GYE

The most vexing challenge on the park perimeter within the GYE is conflict with human activity on privately owned lands. As we will see, these spaces are burgeoning with development, and the means for planning these areas in coordination with the public lands already described, are limited. The national picture is troubling. By 2000 at least 85,000 housing units were within 1 km of the nation's 50+ national parks (Theobald, 2010). Almost 70% of the natural habitat on private lands adjoining the nation's parks has been lost to development.

16.2.1 Growth and Development in the New West

Transformation of the natural landscapes of the 11 states comprising the American West is occurring at an unprecedented pace. During 2001-2011 the natural areas lost due to human activities at large-the result of sprawling development, energy extraction/processing, transport infrastructure and agriculture logging-increased by almost 3% (Conservation Science Partners, 2016). Within the eleven western states overall, sprawl accounted for in excess of half of the loss in natural areas in this period. Indeed, it is said that the equivalent of one

football field (American) of natural area is being lost every 2.5 minutes. No location in these eleven states is more on average than 5.6 km from land impacted by human activities. Within the three states (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) that together house the GYE, a comparable loss rate occurred. Areal loss to energy-related activities exceeded 30%, while the area lost to sprawl exceeded 15% during 2001-11 (op. cit).

The full-time resident population of the GYE in 2000 approached 370,000, with a still low aggregate density of just 2.54 persons per km2(Gude et al., 2006). This number does not capture the sheer weight of human involvement however (Davis and Hansen, 2011; Ferrell, 2015). Such rapid growth throughout the western states is endemic, marked not only by growing population densities in select urban and other areas, but also a profound transformation of the regional economy. The socalled New West of high tech, tourism, secondhomes and more is rapidly interjecting itself into the Old West of ranchlands, resource extraction and an entrenched resistance to external authority (Travis, 2007; Gosnell et al., 2006; and for maps see Conservation Science Partners, 2016). Over 3.1 million persons visited YNP+GTNP in 2015. In addition a significant number of households live only part-time in the GYE (See also Zimmermann, 2006). But they own homes and may occupy them for a considerable portion of each year, a fraction in fact that may be growing as a result of the growing attractiveness of the region across all seasons.

Conditions in the GYE reflecting these national trends are energized by three factors: (1) the increasing foot-looseness of segments of the national economy able to operate anywhere as a result of their reliance on the internet, (2) the growing preference of workers in these footloose sectors, retirees, and others for amenity-rich environs (Moss, 2006; also Bray, 2010), and (3) the cultural enrichments of gateway communities (points of park entry) in response to the increased demand associated not only with growing resident populations (including part-time secondhomeowners) but also steady increases in the numbers of park visitors.

The third further enhances the area’s appeal by providing a plethora of seasonal events and activities (winter sports, hunting in the fall, summertime fishing/boating/hiking/rafting/ golf, performances of every type, and various competitive events like marathons, bike races, polo, and so on) (Draper, 2000); Gill and Williams, 2006). These activities only increase the area’s appeal and also of course generate employment opportunity (Rasker and Hansen, 2000). In addition, Wyoming has no state income tax so the area draws many seeking to protect their personal assets.

16.2.2 Down-valley Development: Regional Labor Markets and Sprawl

The bifurcation of household incomes has become a further agent of sprawl. While the wealthy often consume large and often remote tracts of land, the lesser paid service workers tend to be driven down-valley to places some distance away from the resort localities where despite local efforts affordable housing remains in short supply (Clark, 2006; Hartmann, 2006). Service and other workers employed in Jackson, Wyoming, for example, regularly commute over Teton Pass to the smaller and more affordable towns to the west in Idaho such as Victor, and Driggs, but even these are beginning to experience shortages for which there is no immediately apparent remedy (Johnson et al., 2006). At the same time, efforts to slow growth through land use regulation in the Parks'gateway communities can produce over-spill of both residents and commerce into adjoining areas. Teton County, Idaho, just 30 miles west of Jackson, Wyoming, for example experienced unprecedented growth during 2000-2007 in the run-up to the national economic recession.

Numerous aging farmers approaching retirement in Teton County, Idaho were quick to secure county approval for residential subdivisions on their lands. This, they hoped, would sustain them in their retirement years. These subdivisions were numerous and widely scattered, however, and when the recession came their hopes were dashed. Empty subdivisions stand to this day as a mute reminder of this unfortunate turn of events, and efforts are now underway to decommission these so-called "zombie" subdivisions wherever prospects remain dim and where development would be least desired (Holway et al., 2014).

16.2.3 The Geography of Exurban Development

It has been reported that population residing within the GYE increased by 58% during 1970-1999 and the quantity of land supporting very low density exurban development increased by 350% in these same years (Gude et al., 2006). Low-lying, well-watered areas served by existing infrastructure and proximate to the Parks have been a magnet for such growth, bringing these spaces into direct conflict with Park mandates (PALMS, 201l; Gude et al., 2006). Since these low-lying lands

offer the region's richest soils, such development also places both farms and ranches in jeopardy. Development proximate to the Park reserves also could exacerbate the risk of forest fire (Muller at al., 2006), a problem of increasing concern in the western states as winter snowpack falls and summertime temperatures rise (Thomas, 2006).

16.2.4 Human Impact: Four Dimensions

Human impact on the GYE ecosystem, in sum, originates in four distinct categories: (1) management of the public lands per se, (2) visitors to the Parks and the wider terrain, (3) both fulltime residents clustered in towns and cities and scattered over the exurban domain, and part-time residents drawn to the region's life-style and/or retirement opportunities, and (4) all other human activities affecting the use of land within the wider ecosystem, both urban and rural. It could perhaps be argued that the ultimate remedy for maintaining this and other such ecosystems is to devise sufficiently wide boundaries around these reserves at the start and then adopt management practices that severely restrict human encroachment. This proactive remedy, of course, is only possible in the most remote areas as for example the Northeast Greenland National Park which at 972,000 km2is the world's largest national park.

In the more populated latitudes land use competition is fierce, and preservation and management more costly. In these areas however reside many species not found elsewhere so there is no real alternative but to protect such places if these are to be preserved. Not only do mountains offer an often unique potential as ecological preserves, but they tend also to be easier to secure as preserves because of their height, location and inaccessibility, and their relatively undeveloped status.

16.2.4.1 Option 1: Augmenting Public Land Holdings

Retroactive enlargement of those public lands over which the tightest controls can be applied is one option going forward (See also Shafer, 2010). At least one U.S. national park, Redwoods, in fact was augmented through purchase in fee simple (i.e. full acquisition of property rights in adjoining land) to prevent unwanted resource extraction (Shafer, 2012, p. 1101). But where expansion through procurement is most needed is also where it will be most costly and where resistance may be most extreme. Short of procurement, federal land management practices can be further improved to insure sufficient coordination of the land management policies of the various federal agencies overseeing adjoining land tracts.

We have already seen how this is occurring among the NPS, USFS and the BLM in the GYE. Securing Wilderness status for USFS lands that adjoin the parks is singularly effective. Creating administrative buffers and habitat corridors in both USFS and BLM lands and also on certain stateowned lands is also effective. At the very time such measures are being considered, calls are arising in the western states to transfer park ownership to the states themselves. These would often, though not always, weaken ecosystem protections. Some even wish to sell off portions of the federal lands, throwing them to the mercy of private land markets in which ecosystem integrity will generally not be considered the "highest and best" use and therefore will be out-bid by alternatives land uses.

16.2.4.2 Option 2: Visitation Management

Dampening potential impacts of visitors to the Parks in the GYE is a second class of protective actions. Of the approximately 3.1 million visitors to YNP+GTNP each year, stays are generally of short duration-from a few days to a few weeks. They occur across all seasons. And most pass through one or another of the major gateway cities such as Jackson, West Yellowstone, Driggs/ Victor, Livingston and Cody spending there both time and money. Most traverse both Parks by car, seldom venturing far off the Parks' roadways so their impact is much less than might be expected. Park access of course is restricted in various ways in the winter months, but in these park visitation is likely second to skier visits to such local ski areas as Grand Targhee, Jackson Hole and Big Sky. Restricting impacts of such visitors to the region is potentially possible but remember, the mission of the national parks is not only to maintain nature but also to accommodate visitors. Indeed, constricting visitation in any way could weaken the political support the Parks and other public lands so desperately require to maintain Congressional support and funding.

16.2.4.3 Options 3 and 4: Land and Landscape Planning on Private Lands

These lands, excepting scattered and timelimited in-holdings within the federal lands, are overseen within municipal boundaries by local governments, and elsewhere by county governments. There are two types of sub-state jurisdictions in the United States: statutory and home-rule. The latter are accorded somewhat more flexibility in the utilization of their governing powers. How these powers are applied in substate jurisdictions, and to what end, is dependent

on elected county commissioners and elected town/city councils, and certain other appointed agencies, boards and commissions. If the resident electorates-i.e. the voting publics-are not conversant with and supportive of the needs of the GYE, their elected representatives will be far less likely to adopt supportive policies. Public education regarding the values and vulnerabilities of both the Parks and the wider GYE is therefore essential (more generally see Rhoades, 2000).

Land use law in all three states associated with YNP+GTNP confers substantial autonomy upon local and county governments with respect to land use planning (See also Compas 2007; Shafer, 2015). This is so in virtually all states though some states have established firmer guidelines for local planning (Ingram et al., 2009, Ch. 2). As a result each, absent intergovernmental agreements or regional (inter jurisdictional) service contracts, is relatively free to plan its own lands as it see fit. Moreover, though counties are nominally required to prepare plans in both Idaho and Wyoming, 15 of the 20 counties in the GYE have no county-wide zoning, so even if they plan, the plans are for the most part not enforceable. Importantly, none of the three states’enabling laws stipulates that local plans must be consistent with plans in neighboring areas, whether federal or local (Institute for Business and Home Safety, 2007). This is a critical defect. But in all three, localities that do elect to adopt land use plans must also adopt zoning regulations that enforce the plan (See Idaho Statutes, 2016; Montana Statutes, 2016 and: Wyoming Statutes, 2016).

So-called growth management or smart growth practices undertaken by localitiesmunicipalities, counties and related sub-state jurisdictions-are the subject of a voluminous literature in the United States substantially summarized by Ingram and others (Ingram et al., 2009). These principally seek to slow sprawl and guide growth by influencing land use development. In Chapter 2 of this publication I compare such practices across states, and in the appendix, Alan Wallis and I present charts depicting the evolution of growth management institutions and practices in select states.

17 Policy Options for Private Land Planning

Land use outcomes most urgently required in the utilization of privately held lands within the GYE include: (1) creation of open space buffers in places whose development would otherwise compromise the most fragile ecosystem spaces (achieved through regulatory zoning, or outright open space acquisition by public or private entities including land trusts), (2) maintenance of corridors on private lands while permitting limited private usage, (3) adoption of constraints regarding waste disposal, noise, traffic, use of fire, and the placement of barriers to the free movement of animals such as fences, roadways and the like, (4) management of roadways and other hazardous features likely to place animal lives at risk, and (5) minimization of habitat fragmentation everywhere.

Overall, progressive land planning deploys diverse approaches in guiding growth in localities and regions: regulation (zoning and subdivision regulations), inducement (incentives to undertake development considered acceptable), penalties (mandating higher development costs, instituting temporal or spatial development moratoria), strategic placement of development-enabling infrastructure, and concurrency legislation permitting development only where specified capacities are in place (capacities in school and other public institutions, roads, water/sewer/ electricity lines and so on). All of these influences must be calibrated to achieve the spatial land use outcomes depicted in master planning documents.

Plans without both a financial and an enforcement mechanism are likely to fail. Certain of the objectives associated with ecosystem management call for a finer gradation of spatial detail than such growth management tool kits can deliver. Further, ecosystems such as the GYE evolve over time. Species populations evolve, requiring less or more habitat, climate change may dry out the warmer reaches of large habitats, pushing the search for sustenance to cooler areas, and human development pressures in one area of an ecosystem may require remedial action elsewhere.

18 Cultivating a Supportive Constituency for Ecosystem Management

Wealth and will-financial resources and political determination-are the sine qua non for effective land use planning in sub-state jurisdictions, including towns and counties. Lacking either, progress is difficult. Ultimately success in ecosystem maintenance depends less upon the nature of sanctioned management practices in the public lands, and land management tools outside these public lands, than it does the perceived legitimacy of ecosystems advocates and their concerns. At the same time, the composition of potential national stakeholders is diverse and their

differences are cannot easily be bridged.

As a consequence, federal laws and regulations evolve very slowly. Within the GYE itself, Ferrell identifies five distinct classes of stakeholders: interest groups (there are 243 non-profits in the GYE), citizens in general, bureaucratic agencies, elected officials, and technical experts (Ferrell, 2015, Ch. 2). His careful analysis of the foundational arguments of each suggests the potential for at least a limited reconciliation. However, no one is prepared to say at this stage that any sort of blanket consensus will emerge in the foreseeable future.

19 Final Word

As I write, profound changes are afoot in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Climate change has begun to transform the regional landscape, requiring serious consideration of what next steps will be necessary (Shafer, 2014; Kostyack 2011; Bachelet, 2013). Some are casting their sight northward, imagining a massive ecosystem space running from the GYE in the south, up to Canada’s Yukon Territory (Chester, 2015; Graumlich and Francis, 2010; Sawyer, 1998; also Andonova et al., 2009, and Mattson et al., 2011).

In the nearer term the political battle lines remain firmly drawn. On one side are those prone to value the farming/ranching/mining/ hunting interests that defined human occupance for more than a century. These tend, with occasional exceptions, to resist distant authority and governmental efforts in general to plan land and locate infrastructure. They are the Old West. On the other side are the newcomers and Old West converts. They constitute the New West. Included are the so-called lone-eagles whose foot-loose reliance on the internet enables residence in small towns and remote places. They are also retirees, recreationists, and all who enjoy the ambience and beauty of mountainous regions. In the shorter term disagreements between these two groupings will continue to influence public debates about how best to plan the use of the region-s privately-owned lands.

In time, perhaps these co-residents of the GYE will find a basis for consensus. Or, those of the Old West will gradually diminish in relative numbers permitting a new consensus to emerge about the region’s future. At the same time, we must recognize that the federal lands overseen by the NPS, the USFS, and the BLM tend to respond to both local and national constituencies and so here there may be greater potential to act more cohesively in relation to land management.

Not only are mountainous regions the over world a category of place harboring unique biotic complexes, but they are also a source of profound human appreciation and active enjoyment. Such places are among the first we might wish to consider for preservation. The lateral isolation of most and the vertical isolation of all make them logical candidates. The urgency of mountains is that the time span for rapid environmental erosion may be shorter than the span of time required for efficacious action.

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS:

YNP Yellowstone National Park

GTNP Grand Teton National Park

YNP+GTNP Space containing these two parks

GYE Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

NPS National Park Service

USFS U.S. Forest Service

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GYCC Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee

GYC Greater Yellowstone Coalition

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Reserves

Agee, J.K., and Johnson, D., 1990. Ecosystem management for parks and wilderness. Environmental History Review 15(2),109-110

Andonova, L.B., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H., 2009. Transnational climate governance. global environmental politics 9, 52—73.

Ansson Jr., R.J., 2000. Ecosystem management and national parks: will ecosystem management become a guiding theory for our national parks in the 21st century? Journal of Environmental Law (University of Baltimore) 7, 87—121.

Arpin, I., and Cosson, A., 2015.The category of mountain as source of legitimacy for national parks. Environmental Science and Policy 49, 57-65.

Bachelet, D., 2013. Integrating conservation planning with projected trends in climate change. In: Craighead, F.L., Convis Jr., C.L. (Eds.), Conservation Planning: Shaping the Future. ESRI Press, Redlands, California, 317—342.

Balsiger, J., Debarbieux, B., 2011. Regional environmental governance. In: Balsiger, J., Debarbieux, B. (Eds.), Regional Environmental Governance: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Theoretical Issues, Comparative Designs. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 14, 1—8.

Barry, G., 2014. Terrestrial ecosystem loss and biosphere collapse. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 25(5), 542-563.

Bartlett, R.A., 1989. Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Bennett, G., 2004. Integrating Biodiversity and Sustainable Use: Lessons Learned from Ecological Networks. World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland.

Bernbaum, Edwin. 1998. Sacred Mountains of the World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Biber, E., and Esposito, E.L., 2016. The national park service organic act and climate change. Natural Resources Journal. University of New Mexico School of Law. 56(1), 193-245.

Black, G., 2012. Empire of Shadows: The Epic Story of Yellowstone. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Blyth, S., Chape, S., Fish, L., Fox, P., and Spalding, M., 2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Available at http://www.

nationalparks.gov.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/ nationalparksareprotectedareas/iucncategories

Bray, Z., 2010. Reconciling development and natural resource beauty: the promise and dilemma of conservation easements. Harvard Environmental Law Review 34, 119—177. Brussard, P.F., Reed, M. J., Richard, T.C., (1998). Ecosystem management: what is it really? Landscape and Urban Planning 40, 9—20.

Carr, D., and Norman, E., 2008. Global civil society? the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development. Geoforum 39(1), 358—371

Chester, C.C., 2006. Conservation Across Borders: Biodiversity in an Interdependent World. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Chester, C.C. 2015. Yellowstone to Yukon: transborderconservation across a vast international landscape. Environmental Science and Policy 49, 75-84.

Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D’Antonio, D., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parson, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G., Woodmansee, R.B., 1996. The report of the ecological society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications. 6(3), 665—691. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.2307/2269460/pdf (accessed 4.13.2016).

Clark, A.M., Friedman, E., and Hochstetler, K. 1998. The sovereign limits of global civil society: acomparison of NGO participation in UN world conferences on the environment, human rights, and women. World Politics 51(1),1—35.

Clark, T., Gill, A., and Hartmann, R. (Eds.), 2006. Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Clark, T. 2006. Paradise’s closing door: dynamics of residential exclusion in mountain resort regions. In: Clark, T., Gill, A.and Hartmann, R. (Eds.). Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 148-184.

Compas, E.D., 2007. ‘The next best place’: private land planning at Yellowstone’s periphery (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Conservation Science Partners and the Center for American Progress, 2016. Disappearing West. Multiple locations. Available at https://www.disappearingwest.org/

Craighead, J.J., 1977. A Delineation of Critical Grizzly Bear Habitat in the Yellowstone Region. Missoula, Montana: Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana. Davis, C.R. and Hansen, A.J., 2011. Trajectories in landuse change around US National Parks and their challenges and opportunities for management. Ecological Applications 21(8), 3299-3316.

Debarbieux, B., and Rudaz, G., 2015. The Mountain: A Political History from the Enlightenment to the Present. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Debarbieux, B., 2004. The symbolic order of objects and the frame of geographical action: an analysis of the modes and the effects of categorization of the geographical world as applied to the mountains in the West. GeoJournal 60(4), 397-405.

Debarbieux, B., 2009. Mountain Areas: a Framework and Referent for Collective Action. Journal of Alpine Research 97(2), 11—18.

Debarbieux, B., and Price, M.F., 2008. Representing mountains: from local and national to global common good? Geopolitics 13, 148—168.

DeFries, R., Hansen, A.J., Turner, B.L., Reid, R.S., and Liu, J., 2007. Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding protected areas. Ecological Applications 17(4), 1031-1038.

Draper, D., 2000. Toward sustainable mountain communities: balancing tourism development and environmental protection in Banff and Banff National Park, Canada. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(7), 408-415.

Farrell, J., 2015. The Battle for Yellowstone: Morality and the Sacred Roots of Environmental Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ford, L., 2003. Challenging global environmental governance: social movement agency and global civil society. Global Environmental Politics 3(2), 120—134.

Foresta, R.A., 1984. America’s National Parks and Their Keepers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Forsyth, T., 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. London: Routledge.

Freemuth, J., 1997. Ecosystem management and its place in the National Park Service. FDenver University Law Review 697-727.

Gill, A. and Williams, P., 2006. Corporate responsibility and place: the case of Whistler, British Columbia. In: Clark, T., Gill, A., and Hartmann, R. (Eds.),Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 26-40.

Gimmi, U., Schmidt, S.L., Hawbaker, T.J., Alcántara, C., Gafvert, U., Radeloff, V., 2011. Increasing development in the surroundings of US National Park Service holdings jeopardizes park effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 229—239.

Gosnell, H., Haggerty, J.H., and Travis, W.R., 2006. Ranchland ownership change in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990—2001: implications for conservation. Society and Natural Resources 19(8),743—758.

Graumlich, L., and Francis, W.L., 2010. Moving Toward Climate Change Adaptation: The Promise of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative for Addressing the Region’s Vulnerabilities. Canmore, Alberta, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.

Great Divide Graphics. Map of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/images/gyedev. jpg (Accessed April 13, 2016).

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 2016. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

Available at www.greateryellowstonecoalition.org

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 2008. A Toolkit to Protect the Integrity of Greater Yellowstone Area. http://www.fedgycc.org/about/priorities/protectthe-integrity-of-greater-yellowstone-area-landscapes/ (accessed 4.13.2016)

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 1991. Vision for the Future: A Framework for Coordination of National Parks and Forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area. September, 1991. Final version of the 1990 draft.

Gude, P.H., Hansen, A.J., Rasker, R., Maxwell, B., 2006. Rate and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape and Urban Planning 77, 131-151.

Hansen, A.J., 2009. Speciesand habitats most at risk at Yellowstone. Yellowstone Science 17(3), 27—36.

Hansen, A.J. and DeFries, R., 2007. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecological Applications. 17(4), 974-988.

Hansen, A.J., Ireland, K., Legg, K., Keane, R., Barge, E., Jenkins, M., Pillet, M., 2016. Complex challenges of maintaining whitebark pine in Greater Yellowstone under climate change: a call for innovative research, management, and policy approaches. Forests 7, 54; doi:10.3390/f7030054.

Haroldson, M.A., Schwartz, C.C., Kendall, K.C., Gunther, K.A., Moody, D.S., Frey, K.D., Paetkau, D., 2010. Genetic analysis of individual origins supports isolation of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus 21(1), 1—13.

Hartmann, R., 2006. Downstream and down-valley: essential components and directions of growth and change in the sprawling resort landscapes of the Rocky Mountain West. In: Clark, T., Gill, A., and Hartmann, R. (Eds.), Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 278-293.

Hodsoll, F., Galvin, D., Glendening, P., 2010. Strengthening America’s Best Idea: An Independent Review of the National Park Service’s Natural

Resource and Stewardship Directorate. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC.http://www. napawash.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/09-05.pdf (accessed, 4.13.2016).

Holway, J., with Elliott, D., and Trentadue, A., 2014. Arrested

Developments: Combating Zombie Subdivisions and Other Excess Entitlements. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Idaho Statutes, 2016. IS Title 67, Ch.65.

Ingram, G.L., Carbonell, A., Hong, Y-H, and Flint, A. (Eds.), 2009. Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes. (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).

Inman, M., Bergen, S., Beckman, J., 2013. Wolverine Connectivity in Greater Yellowstone: A Circuit-scape Analysis at the Meta-population Scale. A Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, General Technical Report. Ennis, Montana, Wildlife Conservation Society, North America.

Institute for Business and Home Safety, 2007. Summary of State Land Use Planning Laws. Available now only as DVD. Prepared with the American Planning Association. Cited in Ingram et al., 2009.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2016. Protected Areas: Category 2. Available at:

http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/ gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_pacategory2/

Johnson, J., Maxwell, B., Brelsford, M., and Dougher, F., 2006. Transportation and rural sprawl in amenity communities. In: Clark, T.,

Gill, A., and Hartmann, R. (Eds.). Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 294-320.

Keiter, R.B., 1994. Beyond the boundary line: constructing a law of ecosystem management 65 Colorado Law Review 293-333.

Knott, T.R., Branney. M.J., Reichow, M.K., Finn, D.R., Coe, R.S., Storey, M., Barford, D., and McCurry, M., 2016. Mid-Miocene record of large-scale Snake River-type explosive volcanism and associated subsidence on the Yellowstone hotspot track: the Cassia Formation of Idaho, USA. Geological Society of American Bulletin. Available online doi:10.1130/B31324 1. February 10.

Kohler, T., Pratt, J., Balsiger, J., Debarbieux, B., Rudaz, G., Maselli, D., 2012. Sustainable Mountain Development, Green Economy and Institutions. From Rio 1992 to Rio 2012 and Beyond. Final Draft for Rio 2012. Bern, Center for Development and Environment.

Kostyack, J., Lawler, J.L., Goble, E.E., Olden, J.D., and Scott, J.M., 2011. Beyond reserves and corridors: policy solutions to facilitate the movement of plants and animals in a changing climate. BioScience 61(9), 713-719.

Locke, H., Francis, W.L., 2012. Strategic acquisition and management of small parcels of private lands in key areas to address habitat fragmentation at the scale of the Yellowstone to Yukon region. Ecological Restoration. 30(4), 293—295.

Lynch, H.J., Hodge, S., Albert, C., and Dunham, M., 2008. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: challenges for regional ecosystem management. Environmental Management 41(6), 820-833.

Lynch, O., and Maggio, G., 2000. Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving Towards Sustainable Development and Recognition of Community-based Property Rights. Washington, DC: Center for International Environmental Law.

MacArthur, R.J., and Wilson, E.O., 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mattson, D.J., Clark, S.G., Byrd, K.L., Brown, S.R., Robinson, B., 2011. Leaders’ perspectives in the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. Policy Science 44, 103—133.

McKinney, M., Scarlett, L., Kemmis, D., 2010. Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1808_Large-Landscape-Conservation (accessed 4.13.2016)

Messerli, B., and Ives, J. (Eds.), 1997. Mountains of the World: A Global Priority, New York: Parthenon.

Minger, T. and Miller, M., 2006, The evolving movement toward global stewardship of mountain places. In: Clark, T., Gill, A. and Hartmann, R. (Eds.). Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 189-201.

Montana Statutes, 2016. MCA Title 76, Chapters 1-2; NS Chapters 14,15,19, and 25 (Municipal).

Mora, C., Tittensor, D.P., Adl, S., Simpson, A.G.B., and Worm, B., 2011. How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology 9 (8), Article ID e1001127.

Moss, L.A.G., 2006. The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures, Cambridge, MA, CABI Publishing.

Moulton, G., 1983-1999, The Definitive Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, University of Nebraska Center for Great Plains Study. Muller, B., Schulte, S. and Bhandary, U., 2006. Resort development and wildfire: managing the accumulation of risks. In: Clark, T., Gill, A., and Hartmann, R., Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 234-247.

Quammen, D., 2016. Yellowstone: America’s wild idea. National Geographic 29(5).

National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2016a. Foundation Document Overview Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at: https://www.nps. gov/yell/learn/management/upload/YELL_OV_FINAL_ SP.pdf. (see map of Yellowstone).

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 2016b. Beyond Boundaries. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/yell/ learn/nature/beyondboundaries.htm (Accessed April 2016). National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. 2016c. Scaling Up: Collaborative Approaches to Large Landscape Conservation. Available at: http://www. largelandscapenetwork.org/ scaling_up/ (Accessed April, 2016).

Odum, E. P., 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development: an understanding of ecological succession provides a basis for resolving man's conflict with nature. Science 164 (3877), 262-270.

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third edition. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Paasi, A., 2010. Regions are social constructs, but who or what ‘constructs’ them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning A. 42(10), 2296—2301.

PALMS, Park Analysis of Landscapes and Monitoring Support, 2011. NASA Applied Sciences Program and the National Park Service.

Piekielek, N.B., Hansen, A.J., 2012. Extent of fragmentation of coarse-scale habitats in and around US National Parks. Biological Conservation 155, 13—22.

Price, M., and Messerli, B., 2002. Fostering sustainable mountain development: from Rio to the International Year of Mountains, and beyond. Unasylva 208. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization.

Public Land Law Review Commission, 1970. One Third of the Nation’s Land: A Report to the President and to the Congress by the Public Land Law Review Commission. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office.

Rasker, R., and Hansen, A., 2000. Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Human Ecology Review. Ecology Review 7(2), 30—40.

Reed, M.S., (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417—2431.

Reese, R., 1984. Greater Yellowstone: the national park and adjacent wild lands. Helena, MT: Montana Magazine.

Rhoades, R., 2000. Integrating local voices and visions into the global mountain agenda. Mountain Research and Development 20(1), 4—9.

Rudaz, G., 2011. The cause of mountains: the politics of promoting a global agenda. Global Environmental Politics 11(4) 43—65.

Sawyer, M., 1998. Human threats in the Yellowstone to Yukon. In: Harvey, A. (Ed.), A Sense of Place: Issues, Attitudes and Resources in the Yellowstone to Yukon Ecoregion. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Canmore, Alberta, 57-60.

Shafer, C.L., 2010. The unspoken option to help safeguard America’s national parks: an examination of expanding US National Park boundaries by annexing adjacent federal lands. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 35(1), 57—125.

Shafer, C.L., 2012. Chronology of awareness about U.S. national park external threats. Environmental Management 50(6), 1098—1110.

Shafer, C.L., 2014. From non-static vignettes to unprecedented change: the US National Park System, climate change and animal dispersal. Environmental Science and Policy 40, 26—35.

Shafer, C. L. 2015. Land use planning: a potential force for retaining habitat connectivity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Beyond. Global Ecology and Conservation 3, 256-278.

Simkin, S.M., et al., (2016), Conditional vulnerability of plant diversity to atmospheric nitrogen deposition across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, online in advance of print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515241113.

Smithsonian Institution. 2015. Yellowstone Super Vulcano. You Tube. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yello wstone+vulcanism&&view=detail&mid=49404227F1C8 5837CC8749404227F1C85837CC87&rvsmid=2670898 E2D9204C6ECFF2670898E2D9204C6ECFF&FORM=V DQVAP&fsscr=0 (accessed 4.13.2016)

Szaro, R., Sexton, W.T., and Malone, C.R., (1998). The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool for meeting people's needs and sustaining ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 40, 1—7.

Tansley, A.G., (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational terms and concepts. Ecology 16(3), 284—307.

Theobald, D.M., 2010. Estimating natural landscape changes from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous US. Landscape Ecology 25, 999—1011.

Thomas,D., Wilhelmi, O.V., and Hayes, M.J., 2006. Disaster Reduction, Drought, and the Mountain Resort Community. In: Clark, T., Gill, A., and Hartmann, R. (Eds.),Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. 221-233.

Travis, W.R., 2007. New Geographies of the American West: Land Use and Changing Patterns of Place. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Turner, M. G., Gardner, R.H., and O’Neill, R.V., 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. New York: Springer-Verlag.

United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 2012. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 20—22 June 2012. A/CONF.216/16. New York. Available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/ documents/814UNCSD%20REPORT%20final%20revs.pdf United Nations General Assembly, 1998. Resolution A/ RES/53/24 International Year of Mountains, November 10. United States Code, 1872. The Organic Act of 1872. Title 16, Chapter 1, Subchapter V. March 1.

United States Department of the Interior, 1963.Wildlife Management in the National Parks, Special Advisory Board on Wildlife Management. Otherwise the “Leopold Report”. United States Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).

United States Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88—577).

Vava, H., Kadresengan, A., and Badai, 2014. Voices from the Mountain: Taiwanese Aboriginal Literature. English Translation Series. Taiwan: Serenity International.

Willis, A. J., (1997). The ecosystem: an evolving concept viewed historically, Functional Ecology. 11(2), 268-271.

Wilderness.net, 2016. Overview of Key Wilderness Laws. Helena, University of Montana. (Available at www. Wilderness.net).

Wilson, E.O., 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, E.O., 2002. The Future of Life, 1st ed.New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, M.A., 1997. The wolf in Yellowstone: science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Society and Natural Resources 10(5), 453—468.

Wright, G. M and Thompson, B. H., 1935. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. United States Department of the Interior, Fauna Series 2, Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office.

Wyoming Statutes, 2016. WS 9-8 (Land Use Planning Act); 15-1 (Municipal); and 18-5 (County).

Zimmermann, Friedrich M., 2006. Cross-border cooperation in tourism planning in the Alps: problems and progress. In: Clark, T., Gill, A., and Hartmann, R. (Eds.),Mountain Resort Planning and Development in an Era of Globalization. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 13-25.

THE URGENCY OF MOUNTAINS LANDSCAPE PLANNING IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM, USA

Text: Thomas A. Clark
Translator: HE Wei
Proofreading: TANG Yu-wei and LI Zheng

Mountainous regions over the world represent one primary opportunity not only for the maintenance of biotic habitat, but also for the preservation of places humans appreciate and wherein they recreate. Management of such complex and expansive places and the ecosystems they harbor however confronts multiple contemporary challenges for which fully satisfactory answers have yet to emerge. Once the global dimensions of mountainous terrain have been characterized, the paper turns to the one place having the longest history as a national park—Yellowstone National Park—and to its wider ecosystem, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, in order to trace the evolution of park and ecosystem management practices from the earliest years. Four distinct dimensions of the contemporary management challenge are addressed: intra-park and federal inter-agency concerns, short-term visitation, private land management and planning on the non-federal lands within the larger ecosystem, and interactions occurring at the regional scale including global warming. Such analysis is set within a conceptualization of the ecologic processes at work within this ecosystem, and the medium of environmental exchanges flowing to and from such natural reserves. The urgency of mountains arises from the simple fact that the time span for rapid environmental erosion may be shorter than the span of time required for efficacious action. Proposals are offered for hastening such action for all such places across the world, acknowledging at the same time that Yellowstone, indeed no such place, can represent all.

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem；Integrated Ecosystem Management；National Parks；Regional Environmental Governance；Biodiversity；Regional Landscape Planning；Mountain Habitat Conservation；Wildlife Corridors

TU986

A

1673-1530（2016）07-0016-34

10.14085/j.fjyl.2016.07.0016.34

2016-04-18

作者简介：

托马斯·A·克拉克博士，生于1944年，美国人，是一位科罗拉多大学丹佛分校，建筑与规划学院城市规划和政策发展专业名誉退休教授。他的研究方向是城市/区域增长管理；城市/区域经济发展；能源政策；山地景观；城市形态和乡镇规划。

Dr. Thomas A. Clark, who was born in 1944 in United States of America, is the emeritus Professor of Urban Planning and Policy Development, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado Denver. His research focuses on Urban/Regional Growth Management, Urban/Regional Economic Development, Energy Policy, Mountain Landscapes, Urban Form, and Rural and Small Town Planning.

修回日期：2016-05-23