Development and evaluation of RAMP I – a practitioner’s tool for screening of musculoskeletal disorder risk factors in manual handling

RAMP I is a screening tool developed to support practitioners in screening for work-related musculoskeletal disorder risk factors related to manual handling. RAMP I, which is part of the RAMP tool, is based on research-based studies combined with expert group judgments. More than 80 practitioners participated in the development of RAMP I. The tool consists of dichotomous assessment items grouped into seven categories. Acceptable reliability was found for a majority of the assessment items for 15 practitioners who were given 1?h of training. The usability evaluation points to RAMP I being usable for screening for musculoskeletal disorder risk factors, i.e., usable for assessing risks, being usable as a decision base, having clear results and that the time needed for an assessment is acceptable. It is concluded that RAMP I is a usable tool for practitioners.     

Quantifying the impact of vegetation-based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Developers are often required by law to offset environmental impacts through targeted conservation actions. Most offset policies specify metrics for calculating offset requirements, usually by assessing vegetation condition. Despite widespread use, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation-based metrics for ensuring biodiversity persistence. We compared long-term impacts of biodiversity offsetting based on area only; vegetation condition only; area × habitat suitability; and condition × habitat suitability in development and restoration simulations for the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia. We simulated development and subsequent offsetting through restoration within a virtual landscape, linking simulations to population viability models for 3 species. Habitat gains did not ensure species persistence. No net loss was achieved when performance of offsetting was assessed in terms of amount of habitat restored, but not when outcomes were assessed in terms of persistence. Maintenance of persistence occurred more often when impacts were avoided, giving further support to better enforce the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. When development affected areas of high habitat quality for species, persistence could not be guaranteed. Therefore, species must be more explicitly accounted for in offsets, rather than just vegetation or habitat alone. Declines due to a failure to account directly for species population dynamics and connectivity overshadowed the benefits delivered by producing large areas of high-quality habitat. Our modeling framework showed that the benefits delivered by offsets are species specific and that simple vegetation-based metrics can give misguided impressions on how well biodiversity offsets achieve no net loss.     

A Watershed-based Cumulative Risk Impact Analysis: Environmental Vulnerability and Impact Criteria

Swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) have received much attention in recent years. As a result, a watershed-based screening tool, the Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA), was developed to assess the cumulative impacts of multiple CAFO facilities in a watershedsubunit. The CRIA formula calculates an index number based on: 1) the area of one or more facilities compared to the area of the watershed subunit, 2) the average of the environmental vulnerability criteria, and 3) the average of the industry-specific impact criteria. Each vulnerability or impact criterion is ranked on a 1 to 5 scale, with a low rank indicating low environmental vulnerability or impact and a high rank indicating high environmental vulnerability or impact. The individual criterion ranks, as well as the total CRIA score, can be used to focus the environmental analysis and facilitate discussions with industry, public, and other stakeholders in the Agency decision-making process.     

普通车床工件工具飞出伤人事故树分析

针对普通车床常见、多发的工件、工具飞出伤人事故,采用事故树分析事故原因,并提出安全对策措施.     

Pesticide Impact Rating Index – A Pesticide Risk Indicator for Water Quality

Pesticide users, natural resource managers, regulators, government agencies and many others are concerned about the off-site impact of pesticides on the environment. Systematic methods of the assessment of potential risk of pesticides to environmental components can serve as valuable tools in decision making and policy formulation. Simple risk indicators have been developed which cover a range of scenarios such as toxicity to organisms, health of farm workers, consumer health, and residues in harvested produce. The authors have developed a software package named Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI) that outputs an improved pesticide risk indicator for water quality. PIRI is a standalone, user-friendly, platform-independent program. It can be used to (i) rank pesticides in terms of their relative pollution potential to groundwater or surface water, and (ii) to compare different land uses in a catchment or at a regional scale in terms of their relative impact on water quality. It is based on pesticides use; the pathway through which the pesticides are released to the water resources (drift, runoff, erosion, leaching) and the value of the water resources threatened. Each component is quantified using pesticide characteristics (including toxicity to organisms at different trophic levels, i.e. fish, daphnia, algae, etc.), environmental and site conditions (e.g. organic carbon content of soil, water input, slope of land, soil loss, recharge rate, depth of water table, etc.). This paper describes two case studies of the application of PIRI in Australia. The comparison of the risk assessment by PIRI on these revealed that PIRI correctly estimated the pollution potential of pesticides in greater than 80% of cases. A GIS version of PIRI is described in a companion paper in this volume. An erratum to this article is available at .     

A multi-objective optimisation approach to water management

The management of river basins is complex especially when decisions about environmental flows are considered in addition to those concerning urban and agricultural water demand. The solution to these complex decision problems requires the use of mathematical techniques that are formulated to take into account conflicting objectives. Many optimization models exist for water management systems but there is a knowledge gap in linking bio-economic objectives with the optimum use of all water resources under conflicting demands. The efficient operation and management of a network of nodes comprising storages, canals, river reaches and irrigation districts under environmental flow constraints is challenging. Minimization of risks associated with agricultural production requires accounting for uncertainty involved with climate, environmental policy and markets. Markets and economic criteria determine what crops farmers would like to grow with subsequent effect on water resources and the environment. Due to conflicts between multiple goal requirements and the competing water demands of different sectors, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework was developed to analyze production targets under physical, biological, economic and environmental constraints. This approach is described by analyzing the conflicts that may arise between profitability, variable costs of production and pumping of groundwater for a hypothetical irrigation area.     

Multi-criteria decision-making considering risk and uncertainty in physical asset management

In this work we present a method for risk-informed decision-making in the physical asset management context whereby risk evaluation and cost-benefit analysis are considered in a common framework. The methodology uses quantitative risk measures to prioritize projects based on a combination of risk tolerance criteria, cost-benefit analysis and uncertainty reduction metrics. There is a need in the risk and asset management literature for a unified framework through which quantitative risk can be evaluated against tolerability criteria and trade-off decisions can be made between risk treatment options. The methodology uses quantitative risk measures for loss of life, loss of production and loss of property. A risk matrix is used to classify risk as intolerable, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) or broadly tolerable. Risks in the intolerable and ALARP region require risk treatment, and risk treatment options are generated. Risk reduction benefit of the treatment options is quantified, and cost-benefit analysis is performed using discounted cashflow analysis. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to derive weights for prioritization criteria based on decision-maker preferences. The weights, along with prioritization criteria for risk reduction, tolerance criteria and project cost, are used to prioritize projects using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. The usefulness of the methodology for improved decision-making is illustrated using a numerical example.     

Catchment-Wide Wetland Assessment and Prioritization Using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method TOPSIS

It is widely accepted that wetland ecosystems are under threat worldwide. Many communities are now trying to establish wetland rehabilitation programs, but are confounded by a lack of objective information on wetland condition or significance. In this study, a multi-criteria decision-making method, TOPSIS (the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), was adapted to assist in the role of assessing wetland condition and rehabilitation priority in the Clarence River Catchment (New South Wales, Australia). Using 13 GIS data layers that described wetland character, wetland protection, and wetland threats, the wetlands were ranked in terms of condition. Through manipulation of the original model, the wetlands were prioritized for rehabilitation. The method offered a screening tool for the managers in choosing potential candidate wetlands for rehabilitation in a region.     

TUGAI: An Integrated Simulation Tool for Ecological Assessment of Alternative Water Management Strategies in a Degraded River Delta

The development of ecologically sound water allocation strategies that account for the needs of riverine ecosystems is a pressing issue, especially in semiarid river basins. In the Aral Sea Basin, a search for strategies to mitigate ecological and socioeconomic deterioration has been in process since the early 1990s. The Geographic Information System–based simulation tool TUGAI has been developed to support the policy determination process by providing a simple, problem-oriented method to assess ecological effects of alternative water management strategies for the Amudarya River. It combines a multiobjective water allocation model with simple, spatially explicit statistical and rule-based models of landscape dynamics. Changes in environmental conditions are evaluated by a fuzzy habitat suitability index for Populus euphratica, which is the dominant species of the characteristic riverine Tugai forests. Water management scenarios can be developed by altering spatiotemporal water distribution in the delta area or the amount of water inflow into the delta. Outcomes of scenario analysis are qualitative comparisons of the ecological effects of different options for a time period of up to 28 years. The given approach utilizes different types of knowledge, from quantitative hydrological data to qualitative local expert knowledge. The main purpose of the tool is to integrate the knowledge in a comprehensive way to make it available for discussions on alternative policies in moderated workshops with stakeholders. In this article, the modules of the tool, their integration, and three hypothetical scenarios are presented. Based on the experience gained when developing the TUGAI tool, we propose that the general framework can be transferred to other areas where tradeoffs in water allocation between the environment and other water users are of major concern. The potential for a simulation tool to structure and inform a complex resource management situation by involving local experts and stakeholders in the development of possible future scenarios will become increasingly valuable for transparent and participatory resource management.     

Footprints for Sustainability: The Next Steps

The concept of an ecological footprint is based on the understanding that every individual human appropriates a share of the productive and assimilative capacity of the biosphere. An ecological footprint corresponds to this exclusive biologically productive area that a defined population uses for all its resource requirements and wastes, and is expressed in terms of bioproductive space, with world-average productivity. Humanity's footprint or its aggregate ecological demand can only temporarily exceed the productive and assimilative capacity of the biosphere without liquidating and weakening the natural capital on which humanity depends fundamentally. Therefore, accounting tools for quantifying humanity's use of nature are essential for overall assessments of human impact as well as for planning specific steps towards a sustainable future.This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the ecological footprint as an ecological accounting method, points out research needs for improvement of the analysis, and suggests potential new applications. The paper identifies ten new applications of the tool to make it applicable at various geographic scales and for a number of analytical and didactic purposes. Then nine methodological improvements are suggested that could refine the currently applied method, making assessments more sensitive to a larger number of ecological impacts. It concludes that many crucial questions pertinent to building a sustainable society can be addressed by current ecological footprint research. By making the method more complete, this tool could evolve from being largely of pedagogical use to become a strategic tool for policy analysis.