Integrating environmental monitoring with cumulative effects management and decision making
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Cumulative effects (CE) monitoring is foundational to emerging regional and watershed CE management frameworks, yet monitoring is often poorly integrated with CE management and decision-making processes. The challenges are largely institutional and organizational, more so than scientific or technical. Calls for improved integration of monitoring with CE management and decision making are not new, but there has been limited research on how best to integrate environmental monitoring programs to ensure credible CE science and to deliver results that respond to the more immediate questions and needs of regulatory decision makers. This paper examines options for the integration of environmental monitoring with CE frameworks. Based on semistructured interviews with practitioners, regulators, and other experts in the Lower Athabasca, Alberta, Canada, 3 approaches to monitoring system design are presented. First, a distributed monitoring system, reflecting the current approach in the Lower Athabasca, where monitoring is delegated to different external programs and organizations; second, a 1-window system in which monitoring is undertaken by a single, in-house agency for the purpose of informing management and regulatory decision making; third, an independent system driven primarily by CE science and understanding causal relationships, with knowledge adopted for decision support where relevant to specific management questions. The strengths and limitations of each approach are presented. A hybrid approach may be optimal—an independent, nongovernment, 1-window model for CE science, monitoring, and information delivery—capitalizing on the strengths of distributed, 1-window, and independent monitoring systems while mitigating their weaknesses. If governments are committed to solving CE problems, they must invest in the long-term science needed to do so; at the same time, if science-based monitoring programs are to be sustainable over the long term, they must be responsive to the more immediate, often shorter term needs and CE information requirements of decision makers. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:407–417. © 2018 SETAC Key Points The integration of environmental monitoring with emerging cumulative effects management and decision-making frameworks faces organizational and institutional challenges more so than scientific or technical ones. Three basic options or approaches to integration exist—distributed monitoring, 1-window approach, and independent cause–effect science—each with its own strengths and limitations regarding advancing cumulative effects science versus supporting regulatory decision-making needs. The most appropriate design for monitoring integration requires agreement on the types of questions and confidence for determining causal relationships in cumulative effects science and understanding what is required to support regulatory decision making. Successful cumulative effects management frameworks require both a long-term commitment to monitoring to understand and advance cumulative effects science and monitoring programs that can respond to emergent problems and the day-to-day needs of regulatory decision makers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».