Ecological Regions of North America
NORTH AMERICA FROM
AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
North America is a continent rich in diversity. Climatic types
range from the polar arctic to tropical forests. Topographically,
the continent contains a valley with the lowest elevation on
earth and also extensive chains of tall mountains. It is blessed
with rich natural resources as well as an unmatched variety of
scenic natural beauty. Possessed of great variety among its
populations of native animals and plants, since before recorded
history it has also seen the development of a rich diversity
in human cultures.
Ecologically, North America is a mosaic. Many of its ecosystems
possess unique natural features of worldwide significance
and of great individuality. Traditionally, humans in
Western society have viewed themselves and their activities as
separate and isolated from these ecosystems but it is ever more
apparent that human activities and the environment are highly interrelated
and will always be, no matter how far technological
advancement proceeds, and that without healthy ecosystems,
a high quality of human life and economic prosperity
cannot be sustained. This view is central to what has become
known as the “ecological perspective,” which recognizes the importance
of viewing ourselves as part of, rather than separate
from, the world’s ecosystems.
Besides its ecological richness, North America also possesses
many of the environmental problems characteristic of this
century. In 1994, the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC) was established by Canada, Mexico, and
the United States to address environmental concerns common
to the three countries. The CEC derives its formal mandate
from the North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation (NAAEC), the environmental side accord to the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This accord
represents a cornerstone of the overall agreement, and is a
statement of the signatory countries’ intent to examine more
closely mutual environmental-economic relationships. That
approach will necessitate purposeful actions to think, plan,
and act in terms of ecosystems. But ecosystems know no political
boundries.
The migration of birds, the ranging of animals,
the distribution of flora, and defining geographical features
transcend state or provincial, territorial, even national borders.
Recognizing that environmental issues are complex and not
restricted by such jurisdictional boundaries but are shared
among nations, the three countries have thus accepted the
need to move away from an emphasis on individual environmental
and socio-economic concerns, and shift towards a
more comprehensive, continental scale approach—one that
includes not only assessments of trade, but also strives to foster
cooperative work to protect the environment, to insure the
sustainability of resources, and to study the effect of human
activities on ecosystems.
Why is an ecological perspective important?
The ecosystems of North America are diverse and highly productive,
containing valuable natural resources. The range of
environmental conditions and of our social and economic
activities attest to this fact, as our livelihood across the continent
has been very much linked, historically and at present, to
this inherent wealth. Ecosystems are dynamic, constantly
changing over time. Humans, however, are now one of
nature’s foremost agents of change.
Interventions by humans have impacted the continent in different ways, over local and
large areas, and through different time periods. Recent signs
of the widespread degradation of ecosystems, better knowledge
of “cause and effect” relationships—especially those
wrought by humans, concerns about sustaining basic life-support
systems, and possible direct impacts on human health
from ecosystem changes are among many factors that have
forced nations to re-examine policies and programs. Many
questions arise:
Will forestry as we know it remain sustainable?
Will agricultural areas remain productive?
Will wildlife species and habitats survive? Will aquatic ecosystems recover
from pollution? Understanding the linkages and connections
among human activities and the environment requires nations
to “think, plan and act” strategically in terms of ecosystems.
It is essential that ecosystems do not become stressed beyond
the threshold at which undesirable and irreversible changes
will set in. We need to understand the diversity of ecosystems,
their importance to a variety of human and non-human needs,
and their condition and health over the long term. Failure to do
so undermines our ability to assess their integrity and eventually
could result in environmental degradation, impoverishing
the economic wealth of nations.
The present volume and its accompanying maps represent a
first attempt at holistically classifying and mapping ecological
regions across all three countries of the North American continent.
The study has been built upon efforts that had begun
individually in all three countries.
In 1993, a North American
Workshop on Environmental Information was convened
between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Over eighty
specialists from the three countries concurred that having a
sound ecological perspective was essential for improved
understanding and effective environmental management and
planning. Work was supported by federal departments, universities,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and institutes
in all three countries, and proceeded through a process of consultation,
collaboration and compromise. Core support and
funding were offered by the CEC, as the project goals were in
keeping with its overall mission.
Concepts
Viewing people as parts of ecosystems
Like other organisms, human beings rely on specific geographical
areas or spaces for our ability to provide basic needs
like food, clothing and shelter. It is vital, therefore, that we
have a geographic perspective as we plan and conduct our
activities, and that we consider what impacts these may have
on environmental resources.
Ecological regions define spaces in an ecologically meaningful
way. They are effective for national and regional state of
the environment reports, environmental resource inventories and
assessments, setting regional resource management goals,
determining carrying capacity, as well as developing biological
criteria and water quality standards. The development of a
clear understanding of regional and large continental ecosystems
is critical for evaluating ecological risk, sustainability
and health.
If the concepts of holistic ecosystem classifications are now
well documented, though, the data required for its application
across Canada, Mexico, and United States are still of variable
quality—ranging from good to poor. The experience in applying
broader-based ecosystem classification has been more
extensive in Canada and the United States; however, these
principles had not yet been applied to Mexico in a thorough
fashion and the importance of undertaking that research in this
study cannot be overstated.
For this study, a common analytical
methodology was required for viewing in proper perspective
the continental ecosystems shared by the three countries.
This methodology examines North American ecology at multiple
scales, from large continental ecosystems to subdivisions
of these that correlate more detailed physical and biological
settings with human activities on two levels of successively
smaller units.
The attached maps and following report represent
the working group’s best consensus on the distribution
and characteristics of major ecosystems on all three levels
throughout the three North American countries.
The ecological perspective adopted for this study is predicated on:
• accepting that interactions between the environment (air,
water, land and biota), and human activities
(social, cultural and economic systems) are inseparable;
• realizing that humans are now the major driving force
behind most ecological changes;
• recognizing environmental thresholds and their importance
and linkage to human activities;
• incorporating the needs of current and future
generations; and
• implementing a long-term perspective that is
anticipatory, preventative and sustainable.
As an approach for information-gathering and reporting, an
ecological perspective can improve our understanding of the
conditions and trends that are shaping vital aspects of North
American society and our environment. As a planning tool, an
ecological perspective can ensure that a comprehensive, holistic
approach is taken on environmental issues, rather than an isolated or sector-by-sector analysis. It can assist in setting
priorities for action that consider the unique and critical environmental
assets found in North America.
Ecological Regions of North America, as presented here, is a
view of continental ecological regions that has been developed
to enhance the capability of both NGOs and governmental
organizations to assess the nature, condition and trends of the
major ecosystems in North America. It is offered for use to a
wide range of professionals and the general public. The
authors also hope that it will be seen as having educational
utility, focusing on the sustainability and conservation of
resources. By necessity, the notion of resources is broadly
interpreted, embracing the traditional ideas of resources (i.e.,
timber, arable soils, water) but also including the ecosystems
of which they are a part.
As resource inventories, species and environmental assessments,
and general scientific knowledge have improved over
the past decade, so too has the capability to see ecological perspectives
on continental, national and regional levels. The
growing interest in applying an ecological approach to environmental
assessments, risk analysis and resource management
has made these continuing improvements very timely.
As examples intended to illustrate the value of this methodology
in environmental description, case studies are included in
Section IV. Although these analyses are founded on the broadest
level of ecological regionalization, they provide valuable
information that could be used in making policy decisions
related to the environment, and are intended as examples of
the kind of analysis that could also be applied on more
detailed levels of ecological regionalization.
Ecological Characterization—Our Window
on the Future
Widespread attention to environmental issues is, without any
doubt, one of the most distinctive characteristics of the last
two decades. The perception of impending environmental crisis
held by many scientists and members of the public has led
to a reconsideration of long-held tenets of biological ecology
and related environmental studies. Chief among these is the
realization that very close-range studies, while still important,
no longer suffice because they so easily yield a picture that is
too fragmented for analysis, description, and decison-making
on a region-wide, continental or global level. This wider perspective
is often lacking because our knowledge of ecosystems
on a regional and global level is inadequate, and because the development of a common language for a coherent classification
system is still in its infancy.
In addition, the relation between human societies and nature,
the practice of sustainable resource management, the environmental
effects of different economic and trading systems, and
the basic human need for a healthy environment are all concepts
newly incorporated into the public consciousness. An
orientation strictly based around the family, or on local or even
national issues, important as they are, simply no longer suffices.
We must see and understand local events and issues in
terms of their wider impact.
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is in the privileged
position of being one of the very few environmental organizations
whose mandate was initiated with a supra-national,
region-wide purpose. It is concerned with the whole of North
America, a continent notable for its great ecosystem, species
and genetic richness, spanning political borders. The CEC recognizes
that it must maintain a region-wide ecological perspective
in order to contribute to the development of a healthier relationship
between our societies and the natural world of which
we are a part and upon which we closely depend.
This project of region-wide ecosystem characterization was
intended to help address these issues. The sessions involved
intense research and discussion between many experts of the
three countries who, in attempting to balance the great
significance political frontiers have had on the history of
environmental change in North America, recognized fully the
importance of transboundary effects that are derived from the
inherent continuity of natural ecosystems. They also recognized
the importance of evolving a common language in the
classification systems in order to be able to treat ecological
regions in a coherent, holistic fashion. The participating
experts and organizations all had a deep commitment to the
development of environmentally sound strategies, based on
solid knowledge of natural processes.
The workshops, meetings and discussions held during this
process were an achievement on their own. The maps and the
report that have resulted attempt to describe the diversity and
continuity of the ecosystems of this region, and it is hoped that
they will bear fruit in facilitating communication between
scientists, decision makers, environmentalists and anyone
interested in the enormous ecological richness of this wide
continent. However, a process so complex never really ends,
and the CEC and the project working group recognize that the
maps will be refined by further knowledge. To the extent that
the project continues to yield improvements in knowledge,
communication, and the development of better environmental
policies guaranteeing our environmental legacy for future generations,
we will have succeeded.
II. ECOLOGICAL REGIONALIZATION
IN NORTH AMERICA
Concepts of Ecological Classification
While the need for broad ecological regionalization has long
been recognized, attempts at developing a North American
ecological classification based on a holistic interpretation of
ecosystems are relatively recent. Some of the earliest such
studies between Canada and the United States were in
response to such issues as acid rain and protected areas. The
focus of the initial work lay along the 49th parallel, later
moving north to the Yukon and Alaska. Ultimately, the entire
area of each country was the focus. These studies arose from
the need to have a common basis for state of the environment
reporting, particularly one that would encourage the application
and use of an ecological approach to sustainable
resource use.
Ecological classifications have evolved considerably over
the past thirty years. Early pioneering works in North
America evolved from forest and climate classifications
and were often climate driven (Hills 1961; Flores et al.
1971; CETENAL (now INEGI) 1976; Bailey 1976). The
use of more holistic classifications is more recent. Several
more broadly based regional ecological classifications
emerged during this period (Oswald and Senyk, 1977;
Lopoukhine et al. 1979; Strong and Leggart 1980;
Hirvonen 1984). The first national compilations of ecological
classifications emerged in the mid-1980s (Wiken,
comp. 1986; Omernik 1987). These were holistic
approaches that recognized the importance of considering
a full range of physical and biotic characteristics to
explain ecosystem regionality. Equally, they recognized
that ecosystems of any size or level are not always dominated
by one particular factor.
In describing ecoregionalization
in Canada, Wiken (1986) stated:
Ecological land classification is a process of delineating
and classifying ecologically distinctive areas of the Earth’s
surface. Each area can be viewed as a discrete system
which has resulted from the mesh and interplay of the geologic,
landform, soil, vegetative, climatic, wildlife, water
and human factors which may be present. The dominance
of any one or a number of these factors varies with the
given ecological land unit. This holistic approach to land
classification can be applied incrementally on a scalerelated
basis from very site-specific ecosystems to very
broad ecosystems.
The classification can be produced following various
approaches. The two used for this project were:
1. opinions were sought from ecologists and other scientists
on the relevant features for each region; and
2. a data matrix was produced that could be used to build
each ecological level.
Because the underlying dynamics of the ecosystems produce
complex, multiple patterns of correlation among the biotic,
abiotic, and human factors, these two approaches tended to
produce a converging depiction of regions.
The focus for this project was to develop ecological land classifications
suitable for use in continental, national and regional/
local environmental reporting and assessment. A similar
hierarchical ecological classification of oceanic areas in
Canada has been published (Hirvonen et al. 1994; CCEA
1995); however, integration of these with oceanic areas in the
United States and Mexico has not yet taken place.
How Mapped Areas are Derived
Diagnostic criteria for individual mapped areas are based on
“enduring” components of the ecosystems contained therein.
These components are relatively stable, such as soil, landform,
or major vegetation types: that is, features that do not change
appreciably over ecological time. Climate is also considered
but, unlike the other stable components, it needs to be assessed
by looking at long-term records. Enduring components are
attributes that can be determined, either visually (e.g., from
aerial photographs or satellite imagery) or from pertinent field
studies or resource sector maps. For any level of ecological
generalization, the mosaic of components may vary from one
ecological area to the next. Ecological classification is science-
based, but, in a way, it is also an art because ecological
cycles, characteristics and interactions are not readily apparent
and need to be interpreted from soil, vegetation and landform
characteristics or other factors.
Thus a mapped area must be
considered a partial abstraction of real ecosystems. Maps
depict where major ecological areas exist as a result of major
ecological interactions but they do not readily illustrate the
more dynamic aspects of ecosystems. More intangible characteristics,
like changing weather patterns, species dynamics and
soil chemical processes, are all vital in understanding ecosystems.
Which parameter is initially used to define an area often
depends on the background of the scientist doing the analysis and on those indicators that person finds contribute most incisively
to understanding the nature of the ecosystem. If vegetation
serves this function, then vegetation types, forms and/or
composition might initially be used.
Ultimately, through the
interpretive process, the broad range of ecological characteristics,
including climate, soils, physiography and water bodies
would be considered. Boundaries bisect transition areas, distinguishing
one ecological area from another. When these
transition areas are abrupt, delineation is relatively straightforward.
At other times, the transition zone may be diffuse and
extend for hundreds of kilometers. In these situations, boundary
delineation becomes more subjective.
Current land use and other human influences are characteristics
that have not been commonly accepted as useful for delineating
ecological areas. However, in this study these attributes
were found to be relevant and sometimes even essential to the
description. In situations where human use has historically
been pervasive, it may significantly and irreversibly influence
the ecological processes and attributes of that area. Examples
could be the Great Plains and the Temperate Sierras, where
land use and human activities serve as an important interpretive
parameter because they have largely transformed the
regions. On the other hand, some of the larger ecosystems, like
the Arctic, have not been significantly transformed by humans
over long periods of time.
Key Points in Mapping Ecological Regions
• Ecological classification incorporates all major components
of ecosystems: air, water, land, and biota, including humans.
• It is holistic (“the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts”).
• The number and relative importance of factors that are helpful
in the delineation process vary from one area to another,
regardless of the level of generalization.
• Ecological classification is based on hierarchy—ecosystems
are nested within ecosystems.
• Such classification integrates knowledge; it is not an overlay
process.
• It recognizes that ecosystems are interactive—characteristics
of one ecosystem blend with those of another.
• Map lines depicting ecological classification boundaries
generally coincide with the location of zones of transition.
The Ecological Regions of North America
“Ecological region” refers to any one of the ecological areas
that were mapped and described in this project. In a technical
sense, they represent many things: a concept, a mapped and
classified area, and an area of land with distinctive biological,
physical and human characteristics. Determining ecological
regions at a continental level is a challenging task. It is difficult,
in part, because North America is ecologically diverse
and because a nation’s territorial boundaries are a strong hindrance
to seeing and appreciating the perspectives across the
land-mass of three countries.
Ecosystems vary in composition. The interactions that occur
within and among them are many and complex. Mapped areas
must reflect this complexity in a “workable” and understandable
manner for planning and communication purposes.
Delineating an ecological area serves to “capture” its general
ecological composition as well as the links between the
ecosystems it contains.
What the Maps Depict
For planning and reporting purposes, maps are essential. The
level of generalization of delineated ecosystems respects different
levels of planning and reporting needs. In the context of
North America, ecological regions are depicted at three levels
of mapping. All three levels depict the spatial distribution of
ecosystems. In some cases these are simple and fairly homogeneous,
but often they are heterogeneous aggregations. The
actual processes underlying ecosystems are not easily reflected
on maps, and nor are the specific characteristics themselves.
The intent is to illustrate the net product of many interacting
ecological processes and functions of living organisms.
Accompanying descriptions and other supplementary information,
as provided in this report, are required to depict more
fully the dynamism and complexity, both spatial and temporal,
of real-world ecosystems.
As an example, the Great Plains ecological region has characteristics
that are easily defined in a geographic sense. They
include expanses of prairie soils, plains, areas of cereal grain
production and grassland communities. In contrast, other
characteristics that have a major influence on prairie ecology
may not readily be seen. For example, although weather
and hydrological patterns may be reflected in the types of and on those indicators that person finds contribute most incisively
to understanding the nature of the ecosystem. If vegetation
serves this function, then vegetation types, forms and/or
composition might initially be used. Ultimately, through the
interpretive process, the broad range of ecological characteristics,
including climate, soils, physiography and water bodies
would be considered. Boundaries bisect transition areas, distinguishing
one ecological area from another. When these
transition areas are abrupt, delineation is relatively straightforward.
At other times, the transition zone may be diffuse and
extend for hundreds of kilometers. In these situations, boundary
delineation becomes more subjective.
Current land use and other human influences are characteristics
that have not been commonly accepted as useful for delineating
ecological areas. However, in this study these attributes
were found to be relevant and sometimes even essential to the
description. In situations where human use has historically
been pervasive, it may significantly and irreversibly influence
the ecological processes and attributes of that area. Examples
could be the Great Plains and the Temperate Sierras, where
land use and human activities serve as an important interpretive
parameter because they have largely transformed the
regions. On the other hand, some of the larger ecosystems, like
the Arctic, have not been significantly transformed by humans
over long periods of time.
Key Points in Mapping Ecological Regions
• Ecological classification incorporates all major components
of ecosystems: air, water, land, and biota, including humans.
• It is holistic (“the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts”).
• The number and relative importance of factors that are helpful
in the delineation process vary from one area to another,
regardless of the level of generalization.
• Ecological classification is based on hierarchy—ecosystems
are nested within ecosystems.
• Such classification integrates knowledge; it is not an overlay
process.
• It recognizes that ecosystems are interactive—characteristics
of one ecosystem blend with those of another.
• Map lines depicting ecological classification boundaries
generally coincide with the location of zones of transition.
The Ecological Regions of North America
“Ecological region” refers to any one of the ecological areas
that were mapped and described in this project. In a technical
sense, they represent many things: a concept, a mapped and
classified area, and an area of land with distinctive biological,
physical and human characteristics. Determining ecological
regions at a continental level is a challenging task. It is difficult,
in part, because North America is ecologically diverse
and because a nation’s territorial boundaries are a strong hindrance
to seeing and appreciating the perspectives across the
land-mass of three countries.
Ecosystems vary in composition. The interactions that occur
within and among them are many and complex. Mapped areas
must reflect this complexity in a “workable” and understandable
manner for planning and communication purposes.
Delineating an ecological area serves to “capture” its general
ecological composition as well as the links between the
ecosystems it contains.
What the Maps Depict
For planning and reporting purposes, maps are essential. The
level of generalization of delineated ecosystems respects different
levels of planning and reporting needs. In the context of
North America, ecological regions are depicted at three levels
of mapping. All three levels depict the spatial distribution of
ecosystems. In some cases these are simple and fairly homogeneous,
but often they are heterogeneous aggregations. The
actual processes underlying ecosystems are not easily reflected
on maps, and nor are the specific characteristics themselves.
The intent is to illustrate the net product of many interacting
ecological processes and functions of living organisms.
Accompanying descriptions and other supplementary information,
as provided in this report, are required to depict more
fully the dynamism and complexity, both spatial and temporal,
of real-world ecosystems.
As an example, the Great Plains ecological region has characteristics
that are easily defined in a geographic sense. They
include expanses of prairie soils, plains, areas of cereal grain
production and grassland communities. In contrast, other
characteristics that have a major influence on prairie ecology
may not readily be seen. For example, although weather
and hydrological patterns may be reflected in the types of
One of the key features of ecosystems is their interaction
with other ecosystems. Ecosystems can be viewed as part of
a “nested hierarchy” in which smaller ecosystems are
amalgamated into successively larger ones.
The names used for the level I and II ecological regions are
generally those in standard use in the individual countries. This
was done to maintain as much continuity in nomenclature as
possible. However, the names of some of the transboundary
regions were adapted to respect the broader geographical coverage
of this study. Names were generally intended to describe
the overall character of the regions but, in other cases, they
reflect prominent biophysical features such as mountain ranges
or forest types. Each region is identified by a unique color and
numerical code on the accompanying maps.
LEVEL I
North America has been broken down into 15 broad, level I ecological
regions. These highlight major ecological areas and provide
the broad backdrop to the ecological mosaic of the continent,
putting it in context at global or intercontinental scales.
Viewing the ecological hierarchy at this scale provides a context
for seeing global or intercontinental patterns. Level I ecological
regions are: Arctic Cordillera, Tundra, Taiga, Hudson
Plains, Northern Forests, Northwestern Forested Mountains,
Marine West Coast Forests, Eastern Temperate Forests, Great
Plains, North American Deserts, Mediterranean California,
Southern Semi-Arid Highlands, Temperate Sierras, Tropical
Dry Forests and Tropical Humid Forests.
Brief narrative descriptions of each level I region can be found
in Section III. These descriptions—each of which is divided
into sections describing the physical setting, biological setting
and human activities therein—provide an overview of the
principal attributes of each region. The intent is to provide a
sense of the ecological diversity, the human interactions
taking place and how each region differs from adjacent ones.
Level I can be characterized as follows:
• number of ecological regions: 15
• scale of presentation: approximately 1:50 million
• continental perspectives
• determination of the areas composing the regions through
satellite imagery and appropriate natural resource source
maps at broad scales (approximately 1:40 million –
1:50 million)
LEVEL II
The 52 level II ecological regions that have been delineated
are intended to provide a more detailed description of the large
ecological areas nested within the level I regions. For example,
the Tropical Humid Forests of level I is the region covering
coastal portions of the United States and Mexico, and is
composed of six level II regions. Level II ecological regions
are useful for national and subcontinental overviews of physiography,
wildlife, and land use
Three level I regions (Hudson Plains, Marine West Coast
Forests and Mediterranean California) have no level II delineations.
The Great Plains, Tropical Dry Forests and Tropical
Humid Forests level I regions, on the other hand, each have six
level II subdivisions. The table on the reverse of the level II
map provides a synopsis of the major physical and biological
attributes along with human activities associated with each of
the level II ecological regions.
Level II can be characterized as follows:
• number of ecological regions: 52
• scale of presentation: 1:30 million
• nested within level I regions
• national/regional perspectives
• determination of the areas composing the regions through
satellite imagery and appropriate natural resource source
maps at broad scales (approximately 1:20 million –
1:30 million)
LEVEL III
Level III mapping, which is now in process, describes smaller
ecological areas nested within level II regions. These smaller
divisions will enhance regional environmental monitoring,
assessment and reporting, as well as decision-making.
Because level III regions are smaller, they allow locally defining
characteristics to be identified, and more specifically oriented
management strategies to be formulated.
Level III can be characterized as follows:
• number of ecological regions: approximately 200
• scale of presentation: approximately 1:5 – 1:10 million
• nested within level II regions
• regional perspective
• determination of the areas composing the regions through
remote sensing techniques and appropriate regional natural
resource source maps (at scales of approximately 1:2 –
1:4 million)
Level IV, which, like level III, will not be addressed in this
report or its accompanying maps, would be nested in level III
regions and should allow very localized monitoring, reporting,
and decision making. In working on this level, of course, it is very important that the larger, region-wide perspective
be kept in mind.
The Next Steps
We have much to learn about ecosystems. While an ecosystem
perspective is a logical and practical route for achieving sustainability
goals, it has not been a working principle in most
organizations and departments. This perspective has not been
reflected in basic inventories, research, databases or assessments
and thus, this ecological portrayal of North America
had to be built initially from a variety of information sources
and advice from different professionals. Many of the agencies
that have traditionally looked at individual component parts of
ecosystems (i.e., soils, water, wildlife, land use) are expanding
their efforts to collect a broader range of information or to work
more cooperatively with other resource agencies. The extension
of these initiatives are strategic for environmental management
and planning. For instance, region-wide cooperation, as is
needed for the conservation and protection of migratory species
and for the solution of transboundary environmental issues such
as pollutant dispersion, should be based on the ecosystem/ecological
region perspective.
The next step should be to engage specialists from the three
nations to refine further what we know of these ecological
regions. The construction of an ecosystem information base
could be followed by projects that will enhance the analytical
capabilities of researchers and decision-makers. The CEC is
already involved in the creation of such a tool, the North
American Integrated Information System, which functions on
both a broad, regional scale and a much smaller municipalityoriented
one to produce maps of the continent or selected
regions within it. The user can overlay data that combine
physical features, such as land and water, with such other ecological
elements as forests and wildlife, and information on
economic and social issues, to analyze the environmental
impacts of selected physical, socioeconomic, and ecological
variables. The maps (levels I, II, and III), as well as the North
American Integrated Information System, will be made available
on the Internet.
Such tools will allow questions of local to continental significance
to be examined. This kind of analytical process requires
integrating skills from different professionals and organizations,
including many that do not normally work together.
Such a multi-disciplinary integration process is complex, but
it is the only way to approach the very involved environmental
issues confronting North America today.
This publication was prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission
for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The views contained herein do
not necessarily reflect the views of the CEC, or the governments of
Canada, Mexico or the United States of America.
For more maps and figures from this report please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm
For more information about this or other publications
from the CEC, contact:
COMMISSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION
3 9 3 , r u e S t – J a c q u e s O u e s t , b u r e a u 2 0 0
M o n t r é a l ( Q u é b e c ) C a n a d a H 2 Y 1 N 9
Te l : ( 5 1 4 ) 3 5 0 – 4 3 0 0 • F a x : ( 5 1 4 ) 3 5 0 – 4 3 1 4
===========================================
Open Source Directory Project — sites that maybe of interest to you: