An introduction to RIVPACS

RIVPACS (River InVertebrate Prediction And Classification System) is a software package developed by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology (IFE). The primary application is to assess the biological quality of rivers within the UK. RIVPACS offers site-specific predictions of the macroinvertebrate fauna to be expected in the absence of major environmental stress. The expected fauna is derived by RIVPACS using a small suite of environmental characteristics. The biological evaluation is then obtained by comparing the fauna observed at the site with the expected fauna. RIVPACS also includes a site classification based on the macroinvertebrate fauna of the component reference sites. New sites, judged by their fauna to be of high biological quality, may be allocated to classification groups within the fixed RIVPACS classification. This has potential for evaluating sites for conservation. In this chapter, the origins and history of the RIVPACS approach are described, including major scientific and operational developments over the life of the project. RIVPACS III is described in detail and predictions at different taxonomic levels are demonstrated. The value of the reference dataset for river management and conservation is examined, and the chapter concludes with a brief consideration of some future challenges

Voluntary Environmental Agreements in Developing Countries: The Colombian Experience

According to proponents, voluntary agreements (VAs) negotiated with polluters sidestep weak institutions and other barriers to conventional environmental regulation in developing countries. Yet little is known about their effectiveness. We examine VAs in Colombia, a global leader in the use of these policies. We find that the main motive for using VAs has been to build capacity needed for broader environmental regulatory reform. Their additional effect on environmental performance has been questionable. These findings suggest that in developing countries, VAs may be best suited to capacity building, not environmental management per se.voluntary environmental agreement, pollution, Colombia

Sustainability Assessment of indicators for integrated water resources management

The scientific community strongly recommends the adoption of indicators for the evaluation and monitoring of progress towards sustainable development. Furthermore, international organizations consider that indicators are powerful decision-making tools. Nevertheless, the quality and reliability of the indicators depends on the application of adequate and appropriate criteria to assess them. The general objective of this study was to evaluate how indicators related to water use and management perform against a set of sustainability criteria. Our research identified 170 indicators related to water use and management. These indicators were assessed by an international panel of experts that evaluated whether they fulfil the four sustainability criteria: social, economic, environmental, and institutional. We employed an evaluation matrix that classified all indicators according to the DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, States, Impacts and Responses) framework. A pilot study served to test and approve the research methodology before carrying out the full implementation. The findings of the study show that 24 indicators comply with the majority of the sustainability criteria; 59 indicators are bi-dimensional (meaning that they comply with two sustainability criteria); 86 are one-dimensional indicators (fulfilling just one of the four sustainability criteria) and one indicator do not fulfil any of the sustainability criteria.Postprint (author's final draft

A conceptual framework for development of sustainable development indicators

There was a boom in the development of sustainable development indicators (SDIs) after notion of sustainability became popular through Bruntland Commission's report. Since then numerous efforts have been made worldwide in constructing SDIs at global, national and local scales, but in India not a single city has registered any initiative for indicator development . Motivated by this dearth of studies added to the prevailing sustainability risks in million plus cities in India, a research is being undertaken at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development and Research (IGIDR), Mumbai, India, to develop a set of sustainable indicators to study the resource dynamics of the city of Mumbai. As a first step in the process, the ground for development of SDIs is prepared through the development of a framework. A multi-view black box (MVBB) framework has been constructed by eliminating the system component from the extended urban metabolism model (EUMM) and introducing three-dimensional views of economic efficiency (EE), social wellbeing (SW), and ecological acceptability (EA). Domain-based classification was adopted to facilitate a scientifically credible set of indicators. The important domain areas are identified and applying MVBB framework, a model has been developed for each domain.Urban metabolism, Resources transformation, Economic efficiency, Society, Ecology, Monitoring and evaluation, City development, Black box, Productization of process

Reefs at Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the Worlds Coral Reefs

This report presents the first-ever detailed, map-based assessment of potential threats to coral reef ecosystems around the world. "Reefs at Risk" draws on 14 data sets (including maps of land cover, ports, settle-ments, and shipping lanes), information on 800 sites known to be degraded by people, and scientific expertise to model areas where reef degradation is predicted to occur, given existing human pressures on these areas. Results are an indicator of potential threat (risk), not a measure of actual condition. In some places, particularly where good management is practiced, reefs may be at risk but remain relatively healthy. In others, this indicator underestimates the degree to which reefs are threatened and degraded.Our results indicate that:Fifty-eight percent of the world's reefs are poten-tially threatened by human activity -- ranging from coastal development and destructive fishing practices to overexploitation of resources, marine pollution, and runoff from inland deforestation and farming.Coral reefs of Asia (Southeastern); the most species-rich on earth, are the most threatened of any region. More than 80 percent are at risk (undermedium and high potential threat), and over half are at high risk, primarily from coastal development and fishing-related pressures.Overexploitation and coastal development pose the greatest potential threat of the four risk categories considered in this study. Each, individually, affects a third of all reefs.The Pacific, which houses more reef area than any other region, is also the least threatened. About 60 percent of reefs here are at low risk.Outside of the Pacific, 70 percent of all reefs are at risk.At least 11 percent of the world's coral reefs contain high levels of reef fish biodiversity and are under high threat from human activities. These "hot spot" areas include almost all Philippine reefs, and coral communities off the coasts of Asia, the Comoros, and the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean.Almost half a billion people -- 8 percent of the total global population -- live within 100 kilometers of a coral reef.Globally, more than 400 marine parks, sanctuaries, and reserves (marine protected areas) contain coral reefs. Most of these sites are very small -- more than 150 are under one square kilometer in size. At least 40 countries lack any marine protected areas for conserving their coral reef systems

Environmental and Health Disparities in Appalachian Ohio: Perceptions and Realities

Background. Appalachia is a region of the United States that faces significant environmental and health disparities. Understanding these disparities and the social determinants that contribute to them will help public health practitioners make better decisions. The purpose of this research is two-fold. First, through secondary data analysis, we document environmental and health disparities as well as demographic and economic conditions that may contribute to these disparities between Appalachian and non-Appalachian Ohio. Second, we examine perceptions of environmental health practitioners about the differences in environmental conditions between Appalachian and non-Appalachian Ohio. Methods. We gathered secondary data about economics, health, and the environment from the Ohio Department of Health, Healthy Ohio Community Profiles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Census. In addition, we conducted an online survey of 76 environmental health professionals across Ohio. Results. The secondary data indicates that there are significant differences between Appalachian and non-Appalachian Ohio in terms of socioeconomic, health, and environmental indicators. In addition, environmental health professionals perceive worse environmental conditions in the Appalachian region and indicate that there are environmental and health disparities found in this part of the state that do not exist elsewhere. Conclusions. The results contribute to understanding environmental and health conditions that contribute to health disparities in the Appalachian region as well as suggest approaches for public health practitioners to reduce these disparities