Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32065319›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020

A paradigm for protecting ecological resources following remediation as a function of future land use designations: a case study for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.

Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, David S Kosson, Kevin G Brown, Jennifer Salisbury, Christian Jeitner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ecological information and approaches needed for risk communication dialogs for acute or chronic environmental crises.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joanna BurgerDivision of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA. burger@biology.rutgers.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8877-2966
Michael GochfeldEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA.
David S KossonConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Kevin G BrownConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Jennifer SalisburyConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Christian JeitnerDivision of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

U.S. Department of Energy DE-FC01-06EW07053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the late 1980s, there has been a US federal mandate to clean up contaminated sites remaining from the Second World War, the Cold War, and abandoned industries. One determinant of cleanup standards for remediation is future land use-how will the land be used and by whom? Land use decisions may be consensus documents developed by site owners, state and federal agencies, and local stakeholders. Often there are competing views and/or claims on how remediated sites should be used, including as open or green space. Large sites are likely to have more ecological heterogeneity within similar land use designations because of differences in climate, geology, topography, and history of human use. This paper uses the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site as a case study to examine how and whether future land use designations will protect species, species diversity, heterogeneity, and ecosystems once remediation is complete. The objective of this paper is to describe "future land use designations" on a large, complex site (DOE's Hanford Site) and to examine the following: (1) how future land use designations were made and have changed over time, (2) how land use designations included the value of ecological resources, (3) how risk evaluations of ecological resources from remediation were made, and (4) how future land use may affect the health and well-being of ecological resources on site in the post-remediation period. The paper provides a paradigm for integrating ecological protection into future land use designations such that rare and sensitive resources are protected throughout the process. The paradigm includes the following: (1) developing future land use designations, (2) defining resource levels (values), (3) relating resource levels to land use designations and management, (4) defining risk evaluations, (5) determining the likelihood that valuable resources will occur on each land use type after remediation, and (6) evaluating the potential risk to those resources that results from activities allowed under future land use designations. The paper discusses the importance of each step, the implications for protection of ecological resources, and the importance of land use designations in the assessment of risk to ecological resources from both continued monitoring and maintenance by DOE (or other land owners) and the activities permitted by the established future land use designations.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringEcologyGovernment AgenciesHumansAssessmentEcological resourcesFuture land use designationsHabitat mosaicsLand usePost-remediationResource evaluationsRisk

Identifiers

PMID32065319
OpenAlexW3007247952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.