| Title |
A Methodology to Evaluate Ecological Resources and Risk Using Two Case Studies at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-016-0798-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Amoret Bunn, Janelle Downs, Christian Jeitner, Taryn Pittfield, Jennifer Salisbury, David Kosson |
| Abstract |
An assessment of the potential risks to ecological resources from remediation activities or other perturbations should involve a quantitative evaluation of resources on the remediation site and in the surrounding environment. We developed a risk methodology to rapidly evaluate potential impact on ecological resources for the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford Site in southcentral Washington State. We describe the application of the risk evaluation for two case studies to illustrate its applicability. The ecological assessment involves examining previous sources of information for the site, defining different resource levels from 0 to 5. We also developed a risk rating scale from non-discernable to very high. Field assessment is the critical step to determine resource levels or to determine if current conditions are the same as previously evaluated. We provide a rapid assessment method for current ecological conditions that can be compared to previous site-specific data, or that can be used to assess resource value on other sites where ecological information is not generally available. The method is applicable to other Department of Energy's sites, where its development may involve a range of state regulators, resource trustees, Tribes and other stakeholders. Achieving consistency across Department of Energy's sites for valuation of ecological resources on remediation sites will assure Congress and the public that funds and personnel are being deployed appropriately. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Estonia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 16% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,578,616
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,448
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,659
of 415,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.