Determining conservation priorities

One important component in achieving an optimal compromise between mineral development and environmental conservation is to rank different geographical areas according to their priorities for development and conservation respectively. The latter is considered here.There are three main steps in assigning conservation priorities: (i) acquisition and assessment of information on the existing baseline environment and on potential impacts; (ii) assignment of values to the environmental components concerned and integration of these to yield overall values for alternative possible conservation targets; and (iii) incorporation of logistic considerations to determine the practical priorities for conservation.One particularly critical aspect of this process is the relative significance of different conservation criteria, specifically including the presence of rare species, high diversity, pristine condition and representativeness. These criteria all reflect the same underlying conservation values, but their relative significance varies from case to case. Their integration is based on professional judgement rather than any formal algorithm and explicit guidelines for such judgement are needed to promote consensus in the determination of conservation priorities.     

A simple and cheap apparatus for the controlled feeding of suspension feeders

A simple and cheap device, which allows a controlled and continuous food supply of suspension feeding animals in long term experiments, has been developed and is described.     

Determination of polyfluoroalkyl compounds in water and suspended particulate matter in the river Elbe and North Sea, Germany

The distribution of polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFCs) in the dissolved and particulate phase and their discharge from the river Elbe into the North Sea were studied. The PFCs quantified included C₄-C₈ perfluorinated sulfonates (PFSAs), 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS), C₆ and C₈ perfluorinated sulfinates (PFSiAs), C₄-C₁₂ perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs), perfluoro-3,7-dimethyl-octanoic acid (3,7m₂-PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA), and n-ethyl perfluroctane sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE). PFCs were mostly distributed in the dissolved phase, where perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) dominated with 2.9–12.5 ng/L. In the suspended particulate matter FOSA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) showed the highest concentrations (4.0 ng/L and 2.3 ng/L, respectively). The total flux of ΣPFCs from the river Elbe was estimated to be 802 kg/year for the dissolved phase and 152 kg/year for the particulate phase. This indicates that the river Elbe acts as a source of PFCs into the North Sea. However, the concentrations of perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) in the North Sea were higher than that in the river Elbe, thus an alternative source must exist for these compounds.     

Influence of permeability on nanoscale zero-valent iron particle transport in saturated homogeneous and heterogeneous porous media

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - Nanoscale zero-valent iron (NZVI) particles can be used for in situ groundwater remediation. The spatial particle distribution plays a very important...     

How Can We Make Progress with Decision Support Systems in Landscape and River Basin Management? Lessons Learned from a Comparative Analysis of Four Different Decision Support Systems

This article analyses the benefits and shortcomings of the recently developed decision support systems (DSS) FLUMAGIS, Elbe-DSS, CatchMODS, and MedAction. The analysis elaborates on the following aspects: (i) application area/decision problem, (ii) stakeholder interaction/users involved, (iii) structure of DSS/model structure, (iv) usage of the DSS, and finally (v) most important shortcomings. On the basis of this analysis, we formulate four criteria that we consider essential for the successful use of DSS in landscape and river basin management. The criteria relate to (i) system quality, (ii) user support and user training, (iii) perceived usefulness and (iv) user satisfaction. We can show that the availability of tools and technologies for DSS in landscape and river basin management is good to excellent. However, our investigations indicate that several problems have to be tackled. First of all, data availability and homogenisation, uncertainty analysis and uncertainty propagation and problems with model integration require further attention. Furthermore, the appropriate and methodological stakeholder interaction and the definition of ‘what end-users really need and want’ have been documented as general shortcomings of all four examples of DSS. Thus, we propose an iterative development process that enables social learning of the different groups involved in the development process, because it is easier to design a DSS for a group of stakeholders who actively participate in an iterative process. We also identify two important lines of further development in DSS: the use of interactive visualization tools and the methodology of optimization to inform scenario elaboration and evaluate trade-offs among environmental measures and management alternatives.     

Collaborative use of geodesign tools to support decision-making on adaptation to climate change

Spatial planners around the world need to make climate change adaptation plans. Climate adaptation planning requires combining spatial information with stakeholder values. This study demonstrates the potential of geodesign tools as a mean to integrate spatial analysis with stakeholder participation in adaptation planning. The tools are interactive and provide dynamic feedback on stakeholder objectives in response to the application of spatial measures. Different rationalities formed by underlying internalized values influence the reasoning of decision-making. Four tools were developed, each tailored to different rationalities varying between a collective or individual viewpoint and analytical or political arguments. The tools were evaluated in an experiment with four groups of participants that were set around an interactive mapping device: the touch table. To study how local decision-making on adaptation can be supported, this study focuses on a specific case study in the Netherlands. In this case study, multiple different stakeholders need to make spatial decisions on land use and water management planning in response to climate change. The collaborative use of four geodesign tools was evaluated in an interactive experiment. The results show that the geodesign tools were able to integrate the engagement of stakeholders and assessment of measures. The experiment showed that decision-making on adaptation to climate change can benefit from the use of geodesign tools as long as the tool is carefully matched to the rationality that applies to the adaptation issue. Although the tools were tested to support the design of adaptation plans in a Dutch setting, the tools could be used for regional adaptation planning in other countries such as the development of regional adaptation strategies (RAS) as required by the European Union or on a national scale to support developing national adaptation plans of action (NAPAs) as initiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for least developed countries.