This research develops an adaptive management framework for estuary conservation, balancing biodiversity and human activities in the Yangtze River Estuary.
Estuaries represent quintessential coupled human–natural systems (CHNS) where the dynamic interplay between ecological processes and anthropogenic pressures (e.g., shipping, water use exploitation) challenges conventional static spatial planning approaches. Focusing on the Yangtze River Estuary—a globally significant yet intensely utilized ecosystem—this study develops an adaptive management (AM)-oriented spatial planning framework for estuarine protected areas. Our methodology integrates systematic identification of optimal zones using multi-criteria assessments of biodiversity indicators (e.g., flagship species habitats), ecological metrics (e.g., ecosystem services), and management considerations; delineation of a three-tier adaptive zoning system (Control–Functional–Seasonal) to address spatiotemporal pressures; and dynamic management strategies to mitigate human-environment conflicts. The proposed phased conservation boundary (Phase I: 664.38 km2; Phase II: 1721.94 km2) effectively balances ecological integrity with socio-economic constraints. Spatial–temporal analysis of shipping activities over five years demonstrates minimal operational interference, confirming the framework’s efficacy in reconciling conservation and development priorities. By incorporating ecological feedback mechanisms into spatial planning, this work advances a transferable model for governing contested seascapes, contributing to CHNS theory through practical tools for adaptive, conflict-sensitive conservation. The framework’s implementation in the Yangtze context provides empirical evidence that science-driven, flexible spatial planning can reduce sectoral conflicts while maintaining ecosystem functionality, offering a replicable pathway for sustainable water management of similarly complex human–natural systems worldwide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: