Vulnerability and fragility risk indices for non-renewable resources

Vulnerability and fragility risk indices for non-renewable resources Protected areas are tasked with mitigating impacts to a wide range of invaluable resources. These resources are often subject to a variety of potential natural and anthropogenic impacts that require monitoring efforts and management actions to minimize the degradation of these resources. However, due to insufficient funding and staff, managers often have to prioritize efforts, leaving some resources at higher risk to impact. Attempts to address this issue have resulted in numerous qualitative and semi-quantitative frameworks for prioritization based on resource vulnerability. Here, we add to those methods by modifying an internationally standardized vulnerability framework, quantify both resource vulnerability, susceptibility to human disturbance, and fragility, susceptibility to natural disturbance. This modified framework quantifies impacts through a six-step process: identifying the resource and management objectives, identifying exposure and sensitivity indicators, define scoring criteria for each indicator, collect and compile data, calculate indices, and prioritize sites for mitigations. We applied this methodology to two resource types in Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA): caves and fossil sites. Three hundred sixty-five cave sites and 127 fossil sites in GRCA were used for this analysis. The majority of cave and fossil sites scored moderate to low vulnerability (0–6 out of 10 points) and moderate to low fragility for fossils. The percentage of sites that fell in the high-priority range was 5.5% for fossils and 21.9% for caves. These results are consistent with the known state of these resources and the results present a tool for managers to utilize to prioritize monitoring and management needs. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Springer Journals

Vulnerability and fragility risk indices for non-renewable resources

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/vulnerability-and-fragility-risk-indices-for-non-renewable-resources-HzZtgINyUN
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Environment; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis; Environmental Management; Ecotoxicology; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution; Ecology
ISSN
0167-6369
eISSN
1573-2959
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10661-018-6749-5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Protected areas are tasked with mitigating impacts to a wide range of invaluable resources. These resources are often subject to a variety of potential natural and anthropogenic impacts that require monitoring efforts and management actions to minimize the degradation of these resources. However, due to insufficient funding and staff, managers often have to prioritize efforts, leaving some resources at higher risk to impact. Attempts to address this issue have resulted in numerous qualitative and semi-quantitative frameworks for prioritization based on resource vulnerability. Here, we add to those methods by modifying an internationally standardized vulnerability framework, quantify both resource vulnerability, susceptibility to human disturbance, and fragility, susceptibility to natural disturbance. This modified framework quantifies impacts through a six-step process: identifying the resource and management objectives, identifying exposure and sensitivity indicators, define scoring criteria for each indicator, collect and compile data, calculate indices, and prioritize sites for mitigations. We applied this methodology to two resource types in Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA): caves and fossil sites. Three hundred sixty-five cave sites and 127 fossil sites in GRCA were used for this analysis. The majority of cave and fossil sites scored moderate to low vulnerability (0–6 out of 10 points) and moderate to low fragility for fossils. The percentage of sites that fell in the high-priority range was 5.5% for fossils and 21.9% for caves. These results are consistent with the known state of these resources and the results present a tool for managers to utilize to prioritize monitoring and management needs.

Journal

Environmental Monitoring and AssessmentSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 2, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off