https://www.coastalwiki.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=MaartenDeRijcke&feedformat=atomCoastal Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T09:40:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.31.7https://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Authors&diff=37386Template:Authors2011-08-03T13:54:05Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| style="border:1px solid #abd5f5; background:#f1f5fc; margin:0em 0em 0em 5em;"<br />
|<center>The main authors of this article are [http://www.encora.eu/index.php?option=com_imis&module=person&Itemid=17&persid={{{AuthorID1}}} {{{AuthorFullName1}}}] and [http://www.encora.eu/index.php?option=com_imis&module=person&Itemid=17&persid={{{AuthorID2}}} {{{AuthorFullName2}}}]<br><small>Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article. </small> </center><br />
----<br />
<br />
* For other articles by this author see [[:Category:Articles by {{{AuthorFullName1}}}]]<br />
* For other articles by this author see [[:Category:Articles by {{{AuthorFullName2}}}]]<br />
* For an overview of contributions by this author see [[Special:Contributions/{{{AuthorName1}}}]]<br />
* For an overview of contributions by this author see [[Special:Contributions/{{{AuthorName2}}}]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by {{{AuthorFullName1}}}]]<br />
[[Category:Articles by {{{AuthorFullName2}}}]]<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category:testpages]]<br />
[[Category:Templates]]<br />
</noinclude></div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Values_of_amenities_in_coastal_zones&diff=37384Values of amenities in coastal zones2011-08-03T13:53:32Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>Any policy of [[coastal zone]] protection and land use planning would benefit from a better idea of the benefits and costs associated with different patterns of land use. The pressure on the coasts is coming from individuals who derive benefits from living near the sea. Yet the same actions are causing external costs in the form of reduced visual benefits and reduced access to others who enjoyed these environmental services before.<br />
The aim of this article is to report on research that has valued such benefits and costs. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
There are a few studies available of the value of coastal landscapes. Here we divide them into those that value a landscape for households that own and occupy or households or hotels that rent property with a sea view, and those that relate to the value of a landscape from individuals who are not occupiers of property on the coast. The latter are divided into people that visit the coast or live in coastal areas but not in close proximity to the sea, and people that want to see the coast preserved but do not visit the coast (the so-called non-use values). Often these two sets of values are in conflict: for owners to capture the value of a sea view means detracting from the value those visitors may get from access to a sea view or access to a beach or may wish to see it preserved for its own sake. <br />
<br />
==Values of Coastal Landscapes for Owners or Occupiers of Property==<br />
<br />
===The value of visual amenity===<br />
<br />
The technique most used to value the benefits of visual amenities from property is referred to as the [[Hedonic Evaluation Approach|hedonic method]], where house price data are used as the basis for calculating premiums placed on houses in locations with different landscape attributes. In this section studies that value coastal and lake views are reported.<br />
<br />
Benson et al (1998)<ref> Benson, E.D, J.L Hansen, A.L Schwartz Jr. and G.T Smersh (1998) “Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 16(1) 55-73</ref> conducted a hedonic study of the impact of views on property prices in Bellingham, Washington. They found a significant price premium associated with different types of views. They derived seven different categories of views finding a premium of 58.9 percent for an “unobstructed ocean view” down to 8.2 percent for a “poor partial ocean view”. A lake view adds less (18.1 percent) than an ocean view in most cases, but lake-frontage is found to add 126.7 percent to house prices – capturing aspects of the recreational amenities that are additional to the amenity value provided by the view itself. This study shows the potential for the use of [[Hedonic Evaluation Approach|hedonic analysis]] to further understanding of the valuation of unimpeded views relative to other types of views. <br />
<br />
Fraser and Spencer (1998)<ref>Fraser, R. and G. Spencer (1998) “The Value of an Ocean View: an Example of Hedonic Property Amenity Valuation.” Australian Geographical Studies 36(1) 94-86 </ref> considered the residential land amenity of an ocean view by a scoring system based on three sub-characteristics of the view based on housing data from 114 sites in Western Australia. The three dimensions they used are degree of panorama, potential loss of view and elevation. The potential loss of view dimension introduces both time and uncertainty into people’s valuation. They find that the first two characteristics are dominant over the third, which was therefore not included. They also find diminishing marginal utilities to the purchaser as the level of each of these characteristics increases. A scoring matrix was used to determine the quality of the ocean view for each site. They estimate that for the best views with the lowest likelihood of the view being lost the view adds a premium of an extra 25 percent to the house price. The important point this study makes is that the impact of an ocean view on property will depend on how certain the purchaser is that the view will remain and not be blocked in the future. (See also Abelson and Markandya, 1985).<br />
<br />
Bond et al (2002) <ref>Bond, M.T, V.L Seiler and M.J Seiler (2002) “Residential Real Estate Prices: A Room with a View”. Journal of Real Estate Research 23(1/2) 129-137</ref> investigated the impact of views of Lake Erie on residential property using transaction based house prices. This was an analysis based on building codes, which reflected whether a house had a view or not. Having the desirable view of Lake Erie was shown to add an 89.9 percent premium to the house price.<br />
<br />
Parsons and Wu (1991) <ref>Parsons, G.R. and Y. Wu (1991) "The Opportunity Cost of Coastal Land Use Controls: An Empirical Analysis" Land Economics 67(3) 308-316</ref> used a random draw of 1,435 houses sold in 1983 from one county on the Chesapeake Bay coast, Maryland, USA. They used their findings to estimate the impact of regulations requiring houses to be built further away from the waterfront by estimating housing development over time under various restriction scenarios. Using [[Hedonic Evaluation Approach|hedonic analysis]], they distinguish impacts on three types of properties of different land use regulations: houses with frontage, views and distance from the water. They find that the value of lost frontage, views and distance leads to a loss of between $74,763 and $96,672 (depending on the econometric model). For loss of views and distance alone there is a loss of $6,553 to $7,883, and with distance by itself there is a loss of $233 to $524 per property. Hence the value of frontage alone would be in the range $68,880 to $90,119. As a percentage of the price of a house this amounts to a premium for sea frontage of between 75 and 98 percent.<br />
<br />
In Europe Luttik (2000) <ref>Luttik, J. (2000) “The Value of Trees, Water and Open Space as Reflected By House Prices in the Netherlands” Landscape and Urban Planning 48 161-167.</ref>uses hedonic analysis to identify price premiums for different landscape types in the Netherlands. Using a sample of almost 3000 transactions, Luttik finds a premium for houses in attractive landscape types of 5-12 percent over houses in less attractive landscapes. Houses overlooking water attract a premium of 8-10 percent, whilst those overlooking open space attract a 6-12 percent premium.<br />
<br />
Muriel et al (2006) <ref>Muriel, T., Abdelhak, N., Gildas, A., and F. Bonnieux (2006) “Evaluation des bénéfices environnementaux par la méthode des prix hédonistes: une application au cas du littoral”. Paper presented at Les 1ères Rencontres du Logement de L'IDEP Marseille 19-20 October 2006. Available online at http://www.vcharite.univ-mrs.fr/idep/secteurs/logement/rencontres/document/papier/Travers.pdf</ref> conducted a [[Hedonic Evaluation Approach|hedonic analysis]] for Finestère in France. Using a sample of 185 houses in 2005, they derive a property premium of 78 percent for a house with a good view of the sea compared to one without any view of the sea. They also assess the responsiveness of house prices to distance from the sea, finding an elasticity of -0.087 – i.e. a one percent increase in distance from the sea results in a 0.087 percent decline in property value (at an average distance of 6.5 kilometre). So a house that is 3 kilometres from the sea as opposed to 6 kilometres would have a value that is 4.3 percent higher. One that is two kilometres would have a value that is 6 percent higher. These numbers look rather low but are the only ones we could find that estimated a decay function.<br />
<br />
A study in Israel (CAMP Israel, 2000) estimated increased room rates for hotels along the seashore of the country. It found accommodation within 2km of the coast charged rates that were about 39 percent higher than in similar classes of hotels further away from the sea.<br />
<br />
Although the results do vary by site, there is some agreement across them. As a rough guide, a property with an uninterrupted ocean view will attract a price premium of between 25 and nearly 100 percent. The premium will be less for a partial view – perhaps a low as 8 percent for a ‘poor partial view’. The Israel study estimates hotel premium rates of 39 percent. The ‘decay’ function with respect to distance from the sea implies a decline in values of about 9 percent for households that are up to one kilometre from the sea as opposed to half a kilometre. There is no doubt, however, that more studies are needed to answer questions about the impact of density of housing and access to the beach on the value of such properties.<br />
<br />
==Values of Coastal Views and Access to Non-Property Owners==<br />
<br />
There are a number of different processes that can be used in order to value coastal views to non-property owners. These include:<br />
<br />
* The Value of Enjoyment (VOE) approach <br />
<br />
* Travel costs and CV approaches <br />
<br />
* Other non-valuation approaches <br />
<br />
===''The VOE Approach''===<br />
<br />
The most common in the literature is often used to value the recreational amenity of a [[beach]], and is known as the Value of Enjoyment (VoE) method. This is included in the ‘Yellow Manual’, produced by the Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre (Penning-Rowsell et al 1992) <ref>Penning-Rowsell, E.C, C.H Green, P.M Thompson, A.M Coker, S.M Tunstall, C. Richards and D.J Parker, (1992) The Economics of Coastal Management, Belhaven Press, London, 380pp.</ref> and recommended by the UK government for valuing coastal protection (Whitmarsh et al. 1999)<ref>Whitmarsh, D., J. Northen and S. Jaffry (1999) Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study Marine Policy 23(4) 453-464</ref>. It elicits stated preferences by the use of a direct open question about the value placed on the enjoyment of a visit to the [[beach]], and so does not require any payment vehicle to be expressed and avoids the possible biases that payments vehicles can bring to CVM studies (Marzetti 2003:17) <ref>Marzetti Dell’Aste Brandolini, S. (2003) Economic Valuation of the Recreational Beach Use: The Italian Case-Studies of Lido Di Dante, Trieste, Ostia and Pellestrina Island. Final Report for the DELOS project. Available online at http://www.delos.unibo.it/Docs/Deliverables/D28A.pdf (19/1/06).</ref>. In order to help frame this value, a VoE question should invite a comparison between the [[beach]] in question and alternative recreation sources. This also brings the respondent to consider the trade-off between using the [[beach]] and the alternative sites. As Whitmarsh et al. (1999: 455) <ref>Whitmarsh, D., J. Northen and S. Jaffry (1999) Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study Marine Policy 23(4) 453-464</ref> conclude, “By thus focussing on choice and sacrifice, it attempts to go to the heart of the problem of economic valuation.” However, they also note that VoE results are not limited by people’s income (ibid: 461).<br />
<br />
The best Mediterranean European data for the value of enjoyment from [[beach]] use appear to be those from Marzetti (2003) <ref>Marzetti Dell’Aste Brandolini, S. (2003) Economic Valuation of the Recreational Beach Use: The Italian Case-Studies of Lido Di Dante, Trieste, Ostia and Pellestrina Island. Final Report for the DELOS project. Available online at http://www.delos.unibo.it/Docs/Deliverables/D28A.pdf (19/1/06).</ref> and Camp Israel (2000). The former uses Value of Enjoyment surveys for four [[beach|beaches]], of which only two have usable survey sizes. The [[beach|beaches]] are Lido Di Dante on the North Adriatic Cost near Ravenna and the Barcola Seafront in Trieste. Their mean daily use values are reported in Table 3. The Israel study combines [[Travel cost method|travel cost]] and other revealed expenditure data to estimate the value of [[beach]] visits. Its results are discussed further below.<br />
<br />
The Marzetti study results in Table 3 show that the figures vary considerably between the two sites. The Lido Di Dante has three relatively distinct areas, varying by the levels of development – the least developed end is the most popular. Spring/ Summer values are between € 25 and € 32 and Autumn/ Winter values are between € 4 and € 20 . The standard deviations are large and do not exclude the possibility that the value may be zero for some individuals. Barcola is a crowded [[beach]], and ‘New Beach’ is likely to be primarily used by locals. Values there are much lower – around € 5 to € 8 in Spring/ Summer and € 5 to € 6 in Autumn/Winter. Again the standard deviations are large. <br />
<br />
Both sites have alternative [[beach|beaches]] in the vicinity. We are not told the number of visitors to the Lido Di Dante, but we are told that there are 235,000 inhabitants of Trieste, and the survey found that 63.8 percent of residents visit the beach and that the beach is primarily used by residents, on average 20.9<ref>The average number of days spent on the seafront in Spring and Summer is 23.5 and in Autumn and Winter is 18.3; assuming these are equal numbers visiting in both seasons the average days per resident spent on the beach is 20.9. The report does not give clear indications of how the number of residents visiting the beach per season changes, but it does tell us that 73.5 percent visit the seafront in autumn and winter, suggesting it is if anything higher in winter.</ref> days per resident. This gives an estimate of [[beach]] use of 3.1 million beach visits per year. A greater proportion of the town visits the beach in autumn/winter than spring/summer but spends a shorter time on the [[beach]].<br />
<br />
Table 3: Mean and Std. Deviation of Daily Use Values of Beach Use In Italy (€ 2003)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Urbanization_table3.JPG]]<br />
<br />
Source: Marzetti (2003)<br />
<br />
===''Travel Cost and CV Approaches''===<br />
<br />
The range of values given above is comparable to those found in a wider literature. Whitmarsh et al. (1999) <ref>Whitmarsh, D., J. Northen and S. Jaffry (1999) Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study Marine Policy 23(4) 453-464</ref> provide a summary of their own and other studies of coastal recreation. Their valuations range from € 12.42 to € 15.98 for the UK and € 4.27 to € 52.98 per person per day for the USA (all adjusted to 2001 €). The large figure in the USA was found using the [[Travel cost method]] for out-of-state visitors to Florida. The next highest US study found € 15.17 per person per day. The studies give no indications of the size of the [[beach|beaches]] or the numbers of people visiting. <br />
Landry and McConnell’s 2004 <ref>Landry, C. E. and K. E. McConnell, (2004) "Hedonic Onsite Model of Recreation Demand", Paper presented at the Southern Economics Association 74th Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA 2004.</ref> study used travel costs to estimate the value placed on recreation at two [[beach|beaches]] in Georgia, USA. The survey was carried out over three seasons with over 2000 observations, and found valuations of € 7.72-€ 9.16 for one [[beach]] and € 17.01 - € 18.75 for a nearby alternative.<br />
Sohngen et al. (1999) <ref>Sohngen, B., F.Lichtkoppler and M. Bielen, (1999)"The Value of Lake Erie Beaches", FS-078 Ohio State University</ref> studied visitors to two [[beach|beaches]] in State Parks on the coast of Lake Erie, USA. One of the [[beach|beaches]] is 1 mile (1.61 km) long – the longest [[beach]] in Ohio – and both [[beach|beaches]] have other recreational features nearby, such as hiking trails and fishing<ref>The two beaches are Headlands and Maumee Bay. The Ohio State Parks websites outline the key recreational features for the [http://www.ohiodnr.com/parks/parks/headlnds.htm Headlands] and for the [http://www.ohiodnr.com/parks/parks/maumeebay.htm Maumeebay] beach. </ref>. They find that the beach with more features has a higher valuation (€ 31.53) than a site that is more beach-focussed (€ 19.09).<br />
Polomé et al (2005) <ref>Polomé, P., S. Marzetti and A. van der Veen (2005) “Economic and Social Demands For Coastal Protection” Coastal Engineering 52 819-840.</ref> summarised the literature on [[Coastal protection|coastal defence]], and in doing so, developed a benefit transfer function for [[beach]] recreation. They found shortcomings in the data arising from studies not presenting the total number of visitors to [[beach|beaches]] and numbers of visits per visitor and on-site sample bias. They use 106 observations from 38 different sites in the UK, USA and the Netherlands. The studies were mainly from the 1990s but went as far back as 1975, and were predominantly VoE studies. They find that the average value is around € 16 for UK [[beach|beaches]] and € 22 for US [[beach|beaches]] (p.837, both figures have been converted to 2001 €). There were not enough studies to obtain a value for the Netherlands. However, there is still large uncertainty about these figures. They give the overall average value of informal recreation to be approximately € 20 (2001 €) per visit (p. 839). They also find that the date of the study makes little difference to the valuation, i.e. studies in the 1970s give similar valuations to later studies. On the other hand the concept of value used such as VoE, WTP etc, is highly significant in determining the result. This could mean that the benefit transfer is flawed, since different types of valuation give different results, or it could be that the differences in value are genuine – the USA studies typically used Consumer Surplus measures whilst the UK typically used VoE.<br />
<br />
The CAMP study in Israel provides some useful additional material from another Mediterranean littoral state<ref>Discussions with Israeli researchers revealed considerable doubts about the quality of this study. Nevertheless we include it as one of the very few that provides orders of magnitude estimates from a Mediterranean state.</ref>. Surveys of vacationers were carried out in 1982 and 1994. Based on these the researchers estimated that the 13 million annual beachgoers spent NIS98 million on travel to the sites, 25 million on entry fees and 8 million on parking. In addition another 18 million persons visited areas close to the [[beach|beaches]], spending NIS 79 million. To this total of NIS 210 million they added a consumer surplus of 70 percent, making a total willingness to pay of NIS 357 million<ref>The study also adds local expenditures by the municipalities to provide cleaning services etc. of NIS 145 million a year. In our view, however, this is not appropriate. These outlays are a cost of providing the services that the visitors enjoy, in which case it should be subtracted from their expenditures to arrive at a net willingness to pay. Since other estimates are not net values we have not made such a correction but equally we have not added the municipal expenditures to the visitors WTP.</ref> in 1999 prices. Converting to 2001 prices, and euros we get a figure of € 3.5 per visitor. This is considerably lower than the EU/US values presented previously but then Israel has a lower per capita income than the countries from which the other values were obtained.<br />
The Israel study is also valuable as it is the only one that provides an estimate of the non-use value. A 1999 survey asked households what they would be willing to pay to prevent further construction on the coast. The value that emerged was NIS 31/year, or around € 9.4 in 2001 prices. This is significant as it applies in principle to the whole group from which the sample was drawn – i.e. the 1.6 million households in the country. Thus the gross annual WTP amounts to € 15 million. Some more conjectural is converting this to a value per kilometre of coast. Of the country’s 188 km [[coastline]] 50 kilometres are used for national infrastructures and defence uses and are closed to the public. The remaining [[coastline]] has been designated as follows: 59 kilometres as municipal shores (adjacent to urban settlements), 43 kilometres for preservation as nature reserves and national parks, and 36 for open space (free of all infrastructures and facilities). Thus at present about 79 kilometres are undeveloped. The WTP then amount to € 0.12 per household per kilometre per year.<br />
<br />
===''Other Non-valuation Approaches''===<br />
<br />
Some information on the value of landscapes affected by development can be gleaned from other landscape studies, not related to coastal landscapes. Arriaza et al (2004) <ref>Arriaza, M., J.F Cañas-Ortega, J.A Cañas-Madueño, P. Ruiz-Aviles (2004) “Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 115-125</ref> carried out a survey requiring participants to rank the best and worst pictures in a series. The first few pages summarise the theoretical/ philosophical literature on what landscape is and methods of describing and comparing different landscapes. 226 people were shown 10 panels, each with 16 randomly assigned photographs of the landscape in question (Andalusia, Spain). The photos were chosen to capture the relevant features of that landscape, with and without other features (e.g. olive trees with and without other herbaceous cover, with and without ‘pretty’ buildings, with and without industrial buildings). The best 4 and the worst 4 pictures in each panel were scored from + 4 to - 4. These scores were used as the dependent variable in a regression. A panel of researchers assigned each picture a score based on the pictures contents e.g. amount of water, presence of positive man-made elements, and degree of wilderness according to a strict scoring system. They found that the degree of wilderness and positive man-made features have the biggest impact upon a view’s desirability. The next most influential factors are the area of water and the colour contrast. This seems to suggest that positive building, for example houses in keeping with the area, can increase the attractiveness of a view. <br />
This study uses a methodology and is well grounded in the theoretical side of landscape evaluation. However, it is unlikely that the results will be very transferable to coastal areas, since people value different landscapes for different reasons, e.g. positive manmade elements may be valuable in some agricultural landscapes such as Andalucía or the Cotswolds, but on [[coastline|coastlines]] they would be less welcome.<br />
<br />
Another approach to valuing landscapes is that of Dramstad et al. (2001) <ref>Dramstad, W.E, G. Fry, W.J Fjellstad., B. Skar, W. Hellisksen., M-L.B Sollund, M.S Tveit, A.K Geelmuden and E Framstad (2001) “Integrating Landscape-Based Values – Norwegian Monitoring of Agricultural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 57 257-268</ref>. They used the Norwegian national monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes (the 3Q programme) as a case study, focusing on [[biodiversity]], cultural heritage and human experience of the landscapes. A total of 1474 sample squares of 1 km x 1 km distributed over the country in proportion to the amount of agricultural land. These are taken on a 5 year rotation, so changes are recorded after 5 years. The first round was in 1998. <br />
<br />
Dramstad et al. (2001) looked in particular at heterogeneity in landscapes as a common variable in analyzing [[biodiversity]], cultural heritage and human experience. Heterogeneity of land types is found by dividing the 1km square into 100 sub squares and seeing how many sub squares are different in land type to their neighbours. This forms the heterogeneity index. Preferences for landscapes were found through asking people to rank photographs and text descriptions of the landscape within each square. Photographs were used to represent clearly defined levels of openness. Increasing heterogeneity was found to be a positive change for all aspects of the landscape-based values. This partially supports the Arriaza et al. 2004 <ref>Arriaza, M., J.F Cañas-Ortega, J.A Cañas-Madueño, P. Ruiz-Aviles (2004) “Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 115-125</ref> finding that landscapes with some human construction can be deemed attractive, but it does not provide data directly relevant to [[coastal zone|coastal zones]]. Nor does it indicate which kinds of development are desirable. Nevertheless the results are a useful warning that one should not regard all man-made development as ‘bad’ and that in some cases it can enhance the value of a landscape. More work is needed on the valuation of coastal landscapes using this promising framework.<br />
<br />
As far as coastal landscapes are concerned a couple of studies have been conducted in the UK and one in Turkey using non-economic approaches. Morgan and Williams (1998) <ref>Morgan, R. and A.T. Williams (1998) “Video Panorama Assessment of Beach Landscape Aesthetics on the Coast of Wales”, Journal of Coastal Conservation, 5 (1), 13-22.</ref> asked coastal managers and students to rank 70 [[beach|beaches]] in Wales. They found that the number of people on the [[beach]] did not significantly affect the scores given to different [[beach|beaches]], but undeveloped [[beach|beaches]] scored better than those where [[anthropogenic]] structures were present. [[Beach]] commercialization had an impact only on the rankings of the students. <br />
<br />
The other UK coastal study evaluated beach litter, to see which items were most offensive and which were less so (Tudrof and Williams, 2003) <ref>Tudorf, D.T. and A.T. Williams (2003) “Public perception and Opinion of Visible Beach Aesthetic Pollution: The Utilisation of Photography” Journal of Coastal Research, 19, 1104-1115.</ref>. Not surprisingly people found items that were potentially harmful as the most offensive (syringes, gas canisters), followed by sewage related debris (sanitary towels, condoms). Least offensive were items of natural origin, such as seaweed and [[driftwood]]. <br />
<br />
The Turkish study (Ergin et al., 2006 <ref>Ergin, A., A.T. Williams and A. Metcalf (2006) “Coastal Scenery : Appreciation and Evaluaton” Journal of Coastal Research, 22, 958-964.</ref>) develops measures of coastal scenery based on scores derived from a fuzzy logic analysis. The methodology considers 26 coastal scenic assessment parameters which cover physical and human factors. They find top preferences for beach goers in Croatia and Turkey were absence of sewage, water colour and absence of noise and buildings. Access to the [[beach]] and landscape features appeared fifth and sixth respectively in Croatia.<br />
<br />
These kind of rankings could be linked to values of these different features of a [[beach]] but that has not been done as far as we can see.<br />
<br />
==''Conclusions on Valuation of Coastal Views and Access ''==<br />
<br />
The value of [[beach]] access vary according to the services provides and degree of crowdedness. There appears, however to be range of between € 5 and € 30 per visitor per year for European studies and € 5 to € 15 for US studies, if we exclude some outliers. In Israel, representing a lower income country values are also lower, at about € 3.5. The Israel study also provides the only non-use value of conservation of € 9.4 per household per year.<br />
While the numbers obtained above are useful, they leave a lot or questions unanswered. We do not know the value of an uninterrupted [[beach]] view when simply visiting a [[coastal area]], and how this value is affected by coastal development or other factors relating to the [[beach]]. Some of the non-valuation studies provide useful information but it still remains to link it to monetary values. <br />
We also do not know the impact on [[beach]] visits when access to the nearest [[beach]] is impeded. Do individuals go to another [[beach]] further away (thus losing welfare) or do they go the same [[beach]] but incur a higher cost?<br />
<br />
This article is part of the case study on urbanization in Mediterranean coastal zones.<br />
[[Impacts caused by increasing urbanization|Return to the main article]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13620<br />
|AuthorName1=Anil Markandya<br />
|AuthorFullName1=AnilMarkandya<br />
|AuthorID2=13616<br />
|AuthorName2=Mariaester Cassinelli<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Mariaester Cassinelli}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Mariaester Cassinelli]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[category:Case studies]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_aerial_photographs_for_shoreline_position_and_mapping_applications&diff=37383Use of aerial photographs for shoreline position and mapping applications2011-08-03T13:53:19Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article gives an introduction of monitoring by taking aerial photographs. This observation technique is an example of [[remote sensing]] and can be used to monitor the coastal zone. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Aerial photographs still supply inexhaustible information on details of the Earth surface. Although high resolution satellite images begin to be regarded as a competitive alternative, both their scale and operational conditions have yet to meet the standards of aerial photographs. In addition, traditions of aerial photography dates back to the World War I, and the archived collections of aerial photographs from that time provide excellent, high resolution information on the coastal zone. Historical aerial photographs make it possible to analyse past phenomena and processes, thereby greatly extending the capabilities of present day’s coastal monitoring (see e.g. [[Geomorphological time scales and processes]]).<br />
<br />
==Application of aerial photographs for coastal monitoring purposes==<br />
<br />
===Conditions for use===<br />
To be used in coastal zone monitoring, vertical aerial photographs have to be taken so that the principal point of an image be located within the beach or in the water area (Fig.1a). It is only then that the details of the seaward slope of a dune or a cliff will be sufficiently well resolved. Photographs with the principal points situated landwards beyond the top range of the cliff or the crest line of the dune (Fig.1b) should not be interpreted as the details of the cliff or dune seaward slope may not be discernible. <br />
<br />
The highest accuracy of identification is ensured by photogrammetrically processed pictures.The processing requires knowledge on elements of the interior orientation of the camera used to take the pictures (photograph coordinates of the principal point and the principal distance); elements of the exterior orientation of each picture (location of the objective and of the camera’s principal axis on exposure) have to be known as well.<br />
<br />
[[image:furmanczyk_01a.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Fig. 1a. Principal point above the water]] [[image:furmanczyk_01b.jpg|thumb|none|350px|Fig. 1b. Principal point above the land]]<br />
<br />
===Identification of morphological components===<br />
[[image:furmanczyk_02.jpg|thumb|right|320px|Fig. 2. Scheme illustrating the morphological components water line, dune base line, and dune crest line]]<br />
To monitor coastal changes, identification – on an aerial photograph - of the following morphological components of the shore may prove helpful or important (Fig. 2): <br />
<br />
*water line (a momentary border between the land and the sea); it varies rapidly, depends on the sea level and wave parameter, and is visible on the photograph as a distinct boundary between the light tone of the beach and the dark tone of the water; <br />
*dune base line/cliff food line; it changes after every major storm and is an indicator of annual changes; it is visible on the photograph as a boundary of vegetation cover; <br />
*cliff range line/dune crest line; an indicator of multiyear changes. <br />
<br />
Due to poor legibility of the terrain, the location of the dune base line may be identified in the field to about 1 m. This is the accuracy with which the dune base line can be determined in 1:10 000 – 1:20 000 aerial photographs if these have been taken as described above.<br />
<br />
===Aerial photograph processing and rectification===<br />
Depending on source [[data]] and information on elements of interior and exterior orientation of the aerial photographs at hand, different rectification techniques can be used: <br />
<br />
*3D spatial digitising, involving the use of stereoscopic effect and an image station; the most accurate technique making it possible to produce a 3D map of the area monitored; <br />
<br />
*ortho-rectification, followed by 3D spatial digitising of morphological elements; the technique is somewhat less accurate than 3D spatial digitising; morphological components are identifiable with the assumed accuracy of 1 m; <br />
<br />
*rectification methods using control points (without prior knowledge on elements of interior and exterior orientation); a simplified, least accurate technique, used to process historical photographs; the accuracy depends on the height of dunes or a cliff; the location error does not exceed 2 m if the cliff height is on the order of 10 m. <br />
<br />
===Monitoring the coast===<br />
Short-term coastal changes are reflected in morphological shore components within the beach, while long-term changes can be deciphered from elements of the fore dune and the main dune or cliff. As shown by studies involving aerial photograph interpretation (Stafford et al. 1971<ref>Stafford D.B. Langfelder J. 1971. Air photo survey for coastal erosion. Photogrametric Engineering. No.6. 556-575.</ref>, El-Ashry 1977<ref>El-Ashry M.T. 1977. Air photography and coastal problems. Benchmark Papers in Geology. No.38. 427.</ref>, Leatherman 1983<ref>Leatherman S.P. 1983. Shoreline mapping: A comparison of techniques. Shore and Beach. Vol.51. 28-33.</ref>, 1993<ref>Leatherman S.P. 1993. Remote sensing applied to coastal change analysis. Gurney. Foster. Parkinson [ed]. Global Change Atlas.</ref>, Musielak et al. 1985<ref>Musielak i in. 1985. Fotointerpretacyjna Mapa Strefy Brzegowej. Praca zbiorowa. Odcinek Świnoujście-Dźwirzyno. Stan z lipca 1983. Skala 1:5000. 23 sekcje. OPGK. Szczecin.</ref>, 1991<ref>Musielak S. Furmańczyk K. Osadczuk K. Prajs J. 1991. Fotointerpretacyjny Atlas Dynamiki Strefy Brzegu Morskiego. Lata 1958-1989. Odcinek Świnoujście-Pogorzelica. Skala 1:5000. 21 sekcji. Instytut Nauk o Morzu US, OPGK Szczecin, pod red Musielaka. Wyd. Urząd Morski Szczecin.</ref>, Furmańczyk 1994<ref>Furmańczyk K. 1994. Współczesny rozwój strefy brzegowej morza bezpływowego w świetle badań teledetekcyjnych południowych wybrzeży Bałtyku. Uniwersytet Szczeciński. Rozprawy i Studia. Tom 161. (in Polish)</ref>), the dune/cliff base line is the best indicator of coastal dynamics in non-tidal seas, similarly to the high tide line in tidal seas.<br />
<br />
To monitor coastal changes, it is recommended that multi-temporal aerial photographs be taken at few years intervals; it is only then that the magnitude of changes may be higher than the accuracy of morphological component identification. Historical aerial photographs are a valuable aid and source of information for studies on coastal dynamics. Despite the lack of knowledge on elements of internal and external orientation (which significantly affects the rectification accuracy), historical photographs substantially extend the temporal axis of observations and make it possible to carry out long-term analyses. <br />
<br />
===Identification of coastal dynamics===<br />
Identification of the position of dune/cliff base line, carried out periodically, every few years, allows to determine the following coastal dynamics parameters:<br />
<br />
*net movement, i.e., the distance between points on the dune/cliff base line between the first and the most recent record (the oldest and the youngest series of photographs), as measured perpendicularly with respect to the shore;<br />
<br />
*total movement, i.e., the total distance between the points on the dune/cliff base line on the first and the most recent photographs, the intermittent records being factored in;<br />
<br />
The indicators can be used to extract patterns of coastal development and to produce a dynamics classification of the coast. The two parameters can be presented in the form of a plot of their along-shore variability (Fig. 3).<br />
<br />
[[image:furmanczyk_03.jpg|thumb|centre|500px|Fig. 3. Schematic of net movement and total movement measurements]]<br />
<br />
==A case study==<br />
Coastal changes in the Pomeranian Bay (Baltic Sea) were analysed based on 4 series of aerial photographs: the recent (1996) series of 1:26000 photographs and 3 historical series of 1938, 1951, and 1973, taken at 1:25000, 1:22000, and 1:28000, respectively. The 1996 series pictures were orthorectified and used as a reference to calibrate the historical photographs. At each photograph, the dune base line was interpreted and the magnitude of coastal changes was calculated for the periods of 1938-96, 1938-51, 1951-73, and 1973-96. The changes in 1938-96 represent the net-movement values, the total-movement values being calculated from changes in 1938-51, 1951-73, and 1973-96. The results, in the form of net-movement and total-movement plots, are shown in Fig. 4. <br />
[[image:furmanczyk_04.jpg|thumb|centre|550px|Fig.4. Plot of net-movement and total-movement of the coastal changes.]]<br />
There are visible some sections of the coast with various combination of the net and total movement values. For example section from 353 to 354,5km have the same value of the total and net movement which means that there are permanent accumulation process. On the section from 360,5 to 361,5km total movement have the same value as net movement but with opposite sign which means that there are permanent erosion process. Very interesting section there is from 357,5 to 358,5km because value of the net movement is around zero, but total movement has a pretty big value, which means that in this section coast is oscillating (erosion and accumulation processes are observed here). The most stable points of the coast there are in places where net movement is around zero and total movement has minimum value like in 363,5; 362,0; 359,2; 358,5; 357,8 and 353,0km.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal links===<br />
* [[Argus video monitoring system]]<br />
* [[Hyperspectral seafloor mapping and direct bathymetry calculation in littoral zones]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13628<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Kazimierz Furmanczyk<br />
|AuthorName1=Kazimierz Furmanczyk<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Joanna Dudzinska-Nowak<br />
|AuthorName2=Joanna Dudzinska-Nowak}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Joanna Dudzinska-Nowak]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Shoreline management]]<br />
[[Category:Sediment shorelines]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal erosion]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal erosion management]]<br />
[[Category:Practice, projects and case studies in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Baltic]]<br />
[[Category:Remote Sensing in Coastal and Marine Research]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=US_Sea_Grant_College_Program&diff=37382US Sea Grant College Program2011-08-03T13:53:00Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
The [http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/| US Sea Grant College Program] was established in 1966 as a federal-state partnership designed to apply the capacities of universities to coastal resource use and conservation. It is the premiere US program for integrating across education, research and extension to address coastal and marine issues of local and national concern. Sea Grant, with its national network of 32 universities, serves as a model for how to link national topics of concern into sustained responses to those topics within the localized geographic areas where each university operates. The experiences of each member institution in turn nourish the network as a whole. <br />
<br />
[[Image:The Sea Grant Network.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Figure 1:The Sea Grant Network]]<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 established a partnership between government, academia and business. Before this program, the predominant model at universities was to focus on pure or basic sciences that were often detached from the needs of society and business. The structure and philosophy of the Sea Grant program is based on the time-tested paradigm of American “Land Grant Colleges” — a network of agricultural colleges that pioneered agricultural innovations resulting from applied research that was coupled with its transfer to farmers and other users through education and extension services. The first four universities joined the program in 1971. This coincided with the establishment of the national coastal zone management program, with which Sea Grant has maintained a close partnership over the years. A Sea Grant intern program was initiated in 1979 to bring graduate students to Washington D.C. to build their leadership skills in policy development and research. <br />
<br />
==Goals==<br />
The Sea Grant College Program operates on a simple premise, i.e. apply the intellect of universities and research institutions to the problems and opportunities associated with the use of coastal ecosystems. Sea Grant’s mission is: “to provide integrated research, extension and education activities that increase citizens’ understanding and responsible use of the nation’s ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and support the informed personal, policy and management decisions that are integral to realizing this vision”.<ref name="sea">Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf</ref><br />
The Sea Grant network sustains programs in 32 universities with activities in over 300 affiliated universities that together involve several thousand researchers, educators, extension professionals and students <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org</ref>. In contrast to conventional university-based academic research, Sea Grant institutions are committed to making investments that allow researchers, educators, students and extension agents in the field to work towards collaborative solutions to coastal and marine problems of concern to society. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Framework==<br />
* ''National''<br />
<br />
The National Sea Grant College Program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. It is supported by approximately US$62 million annually in federal funds that are distributed to member universities in coastal states. The National Sea Grant Office in NOAA provides administrative and programmatic support by developing national program initiatives, program monitoring and evaluation, and communicating program activities to other NOAA and federal offices. <br />
<br />
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization comprised of a representative from each Sea Grant institution. The Association provides the mechanism for state and national programs to coordinate their activities, set priorities at both the regional and national level, and provide a unified voice for on issues of importance to oceans and coasts. All state programs have Advisory Boards or Councils that provide programmatic advice and counsel. These advisory structures are composed of a wide variety of stakeholders. They play a pivotal role in identifying priority coastal and marine issues and actions that the Sea Grant programs can take to address those issues. <br />
<br />
* ''State-by-State''<br />
<br />
The Sea Grant structure is designed to allow for significant autonomy at the state level. Most programs are administered by a single university; a few programs are structured as consortiums. Each program maintains an administrative office, which manages the research, education, extension, and communication activities, and distributes funds on an annual or biannual basis to a wide range of institutions (i.e., it is not limited to participants at the host university) through a competitive grants process. Programs provide state university resources as matching funds to those disbursed by NOAA. Sea Grant is required to match every $2 of federal funding with $1 of non-federal funds <ref name="sea"/>.<br />
<br />
Much of the strength of the Sea Grant program lies in its local, grass roots approach. Each of the participating universities or university networks has a staff of extension agents and educators that address the needs of their communities and their associated ecosystems. Sea Grant’s dedication to local service is supported by strong regional and national networks. A successful program that is developed in one community may be shared and modified for use in another community thousands of miles away. The national Sea Grant network has formed 10 national “theme teams” to address issues of national importance that have c manifestations at the state and local levels <ref>http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SG_Themes/sg_theme_areas.html</ref>. Thematic focus areas gather the intellectual resources from throughout the national network, sharing information and ideas, and acting as a well-informed voice for the responsible stewardship of coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
* ''Adaptive Management''<br />
<br />
The National Sea Grant Review Panel is an element of the original legislative structure of the Sea Grant program. The 15 appointed members of the panel advise on overall program policy, comment on strategic directions, and conduct regular four-year assessment reviews of each state Sea Grant Program. Informed by these reviews, each Sea Grant program revises their priorities based on evaluations of past performance and identification of the emerging best management practices.<br />
<br />
The focus of individual Sea Grant College Programs must be both consistent with the overall vision and direction of the NOAA National Sea Grant Program, and attuned to the environmental, social and economic priorities and problems at the state level. State programs are designed to respond in a timely fashion to locally identified education, research and extension needs. This simultaneous “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach provides for focused long-term strategies for impacting national-level marine and coastal priorities, while allowing each program to tackle important local issues.<br />
<br />
==Core Elements of the Sea Grant Program==<br />
*'''Applied Research''' –Sea Grant supports approximately 500 research projects annually <br />
*'''Extension''' – Transferring knowledge and good practices is a crucial component of Sea Grant. Sea Grant’s network of more than 300 outreach experts work with coastal community members and decision makers to provide informal education and transfer new technologies. <br />
*'''Education''' – Sea Grant works with elementary and secondary school teachers to engage students in environmental sciences. Sea Grant also supports undergraduate and graduate students through fellowships and other programs.<br />
*'''Communications''' – Each program within the Sea Grant network has a dedicated communications staff that works to deliver accurate, reliable, science-based information. <br />
<br />
==Priority Activities==<br />
Sea Grants current priority activities include <ref>NOAA Sea Grant website http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/</ref>:<br />
*Improve Public Safety: initiating boating safety and improving seafood handling techniques<br />
*Develop Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture: to rebuild fish and shellfish populations and develop environmentally sustainable techniques to culture fresh and saltwater species <br />
*Work with Coastal Communities to Plan Growth: Sea Grant connects with coastal communities to foster sustainable growth and development.<br />
*Discover Marine-based Pharmaceutical Drugs <br />
*Combat Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) <br />
*Educate Thousands of Students Each Year<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
* US Sea Grant Program http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/<br />
*National Sea Grant Library http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/ <br />
*National Sea Grant Law Center http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/lawcenterhome.htm<br />
*Sea Grant Hazards Theme Team http://www.haznet.org/ <br />
*Sea Grant Education Center http://www.seagranted.net/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013 http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/docs/NSGStrategicPlan.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1=Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal education or research organisation]]<br />
[[Category:Education, awareness and capacity building in integrated coastal zone management]]<br />
[[Category:Location of coastal and marine areas]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=US_National_Wildlife_Refuge_System&diff=37381US National Wildlife Refuge System2011-08-03T13:52:47Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>The [http://www.fws.gov/refuges/| United States National Wildlife Refuge system] (NWRS) was established in 1903 with the mission “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." The system comprises over 540 refuges and 37 wetland management districts. Managed by the [http://www.fws.gov/| US Fish and Wildlife Service] (FWS) within the Department of Interior, these refuges are priority sites for collaborative programs with local partners to restore, protect, and manage habitat for wildlife and recreational purposes.<br />
<br />
==Goals and Priority Issues==<br />
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 brought together the numerous types of lands administered by the Department of the Interior into a single National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act established a unifying mission and a process for determining compatible uses within refuges. It also required comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge. <br />
<br />
In addition to its central task of conserving wildlife, the Refuge System manages six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that range from hunting and fishing to birding and photography.<br />
<br />
==Coastal Element of the NWRS==<br />
There are 177 refuges with coastal or marine conservation responsibilities. These cover an estimated 30,000 coastal miles across 30 million coastal acres, with tidally influenced holdings totaling 7 million acres. Coral reefs within the Refuge System total 2.95 million acres (NWRS). The FWS considers their refuges some of the finest examples of marine conservation in the US dedicated to a ‘wildlife first’ approach (NWRS). The NWRS is also the largest and most ecologically comprehensive series of fully-protected marine areas under unified conservation management in the world.<br />
<br />
Projects include Federal, State, tribal, local, and private partnership efforts. They are directed toward <br />
*[[habitat]] enhancement, restoration, and habitat reclamation; ((see also: [[Conservation and restoration of coastal and estuarine habitats]]))<br />
*conservation area management as natural classrooms and laboratories; <br />
*law enforcement; <br />
*removal and control of [[Non-native species invasions| exotic]] and [[invasive species| invasive]] plant and animal species; <br />
*removal of hazardous wastes; <br />
*listed species reestablishment, reintroduction, and recovery to historic habitats;<br />
*environmental, economic, and public health and safety risk and threat reduction;<br />
*protected species’ monitoring and research; <br />
*education and outreach efforts.<br />
<br />
The refuges are supported by the [http://www.fws.gov/coastal/| FWS Coastal Program], a non-regulatory community-based stewardship effort dedicated to fish and wildlife protection. The Coastal Program provides partners with financial and technical assistance to accomplish stewardship projects that benefit Federal Trust Species.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.fws.gov/refuges/smallwetlands/| Small Wetlands Program] began in 1958 in an effort to halt the loss of wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl. This innovative and highly successful program sells duck stamps (hunting licenses) to fund the protection and restoration of valuable wetland habitat as part of the NWRS. This nationally recognized program focuses on inland wetlands and to date has permanently protected nearly 3 million acres of prairie habitat.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
In 2007, the NWRS was assessed on its effectiveness in achieving 12 strategic goals <ref>Management System International (MSI). 2008. ''An Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System.''</ref>. It was rated as highly effective in facilitating partnerships and cooperative projects. As a result of budget cuts and a decline in purchasing power, it was rated only partially effective in achieving nine of its goals. It was deemed ineffective in achieving two goals—protecting resources and visitors through law enforcement, and strategically growing the system.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Wildlife Refuge System http://www.fws.gov/refuges/ <br />
*FWS Coastal Program http://www.fws.gov/coastal/index.html <br />
*National Fish and Wildlife Foundation http://www.nfwf.org/ <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]<br />
[[Category:National coastal organisation]]<br />
[[Category:Policy and decision making in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=US_National_Marine_Sanctuaries&diff=37380US National Marine Sanctuaries2011-08-03T13:52:36Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>The U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) system is the federal program that designates marine protected areas to protect and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural assets of national significance. There are 13 national marine sanctuaries and one national monument covering a total of 150,000 square miles marine waters. The resources protected by sanctuaries range from coral reef and kelp ecosystems to shipwrecks. Established in 1972, the system has worked to expand its coverage across the country and receive sufficient funding for the program.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Congress established the Stratton Commission in 1966 to recommend a new approach to ocean and coastal resources management. The commission released its recommendations in 1969, including a call for a new federal agency for ocean management. That same year, a major oil spill off the California coast near Santa Barbara attracted the nation’s attention and underscored the need for improved ocean management. <br />
<br />
Guided by the Stratton Commission and motivated by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress passed several environmental laws in the early 1970s including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972. Title III of that Act created the National Marine Sanctuaries Program to protect marine parks—a hundred years after the establishment of the terrestrial National Park System. Title III of the Act permits NOAA to:<br />
<br />
“…designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf…which the Secretary of Commerce determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values <ref name="noa">www.noaa.gov</ref>.”<br />
<br />
The first national marine sanctuary established in 1975 was the USS Monitor, a shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Later that same year, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Florida was designated. The most recent addition came in 2006 with the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (originally called the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument), the largest single conservation area in the country.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and one Marine National Monument in the United States.]]<br />
<br />
==Evolution of the Program==<br />
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act later became the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is reauthorized every four to five years. The first major amendments occurred in 1980 stipulating that the Coast Guard shall provide the enforcement needed to support the sanctuaries. Further amendments came in 1984 to clarify certain issues including public consultations, documenting present and potential uses of the protected areas, and to conduct research and educational programs in sanctuaries. The next round of amendments passed in 1988 gave the NMS authority to permit commercial operations to recover the economic-values in using the resources. Also, vessel groundings or pollution that destroyed sanctuary resources would be liable for response and clean-up costs. Fines collected would be deposited in a specific sanctuary account to be used for conservation. Several changes were made in 1992 including the establishment of citizen advisory councils to assist in planning and management of sanctuaries. The final major amendments occurred in 2000 with the mandate to create a coherent system of sanctuaries. While at the same time, Congress prohibited any further designations until NOAA could demonstrate they could provide adequate resources to manage the existing set of sanctuaries. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the Department of Commerce) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages the NMSP and is required to balance conservation with compatible commercial and recreational activities. <br />
<br />
There are three ways to designate a marine area for protection. Under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and the Congress are authorized to designate discrete areas. The President also has the authority to establish Marine National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. State Governors have the authority to dispute any designations.<br />
<br />
The NMSP is guided by a national strategic plan that sets out seven goals and 19 performance measures. These guide the development of individual sanctuary management plans. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|+ Table 1: Seven goals of the NMS System are divided into Outcome Goals and Activity Goals<ref name="noa"/><br />
! '''Outcome Goals'''<br />
! '''Activity Goals'''<br />
|-<br />
| Protect the sites<br />
| Build a nationwide system of sanctuaries<br />
|- <br />
| Facilitate human uses that are compatible with protection <br />
| Build the operational capability and infrastructure to manage sites effectively<br />
|- <br />
| Enhance nationwide public awareness, understanding, and appreciation <br />
| Work internationally to improve management and protection<br />
|-<br />
| Enhance scientific understanding to support management of the sites and marine ecosystems <br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are supported by sanctuary advisory councils (SACs) that review and update sanctuary management plans and develop issue-specific action plans. SACs are composed of local community groups, industry representatives and government agencies. <br />
<br />
All sanctuaries are required to produce management plans with the SACs. The plans summarize existing programs and regulations, articulate goals and priorities, and guide management planning and decision-making. Most NMS management plans are over 10 years old.<br />
<br />
In 2005, the NMSP decentralized the structure to advance coordination between sanctuaries. Four regional offices were established to link staff with other regional programs and partners. <br />
<br />
[[Image:NMSP Regional Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 2: NMSP Regional Structure]]<br />
<br />
Complementary to the NMSP is the National Park Service (NPS). There are over 40 National Parks that encompass marine areas totaling 3 million acres of ocean and coastal waters and more than 4,000 miles of coastline within their boundaries.<br />
<br />
==Key Tools==<br />
The NMSP relies on an assortment of regulatory and compliance tools to achieve its goals. At the core of each tool is the sanctuaries’ collaborative approach to engaging stakeholders in planning and implementation activities.<br />
<br />
Sanctuary regulations identify specific activities that are allowed as well as zoning boundaries. While the NMSP has some regulatory powers, a major issue is the relationship between a sanctuary and fisheries management. This has been an area of much debate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional Fishery Management Councils and the fishing industry. This issue was central to the revision of the Channel Islands Sanctuary in which a network of no-take marine reserves were established within the sanctuary (see CINMS case study). <br />
<br />
Sanctuaries also use a permit system to allow selective commercial activities that are complementary to the conservation goals. Policies are often developed for specific conservation issues such as invasive species. <br />
<br />
Recognizing their limited budgets and staff resources, the NMSP has developed an extensive public education program to increase understanding, awareness and stewardship of marine resources. The enforcement program also emphasizes stakeholder education.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Several evaluations of the NMSP’s management effectiveness have been conducted over the years. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified many successes in 2000 and encouraged the NMSP to focus on results as opposed to process, and to embrace the value and strength of SACs. NAPA released a second report in 2006 citing significant advances in the system and engaging stakeholders in the management process. NMSP is seen as a model for ecosystem-based management as advocated for by two national ocean commissions.<br />
In 2008, the Office of Inspector General <ref>Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf </ref> concluded that the NMSP is making progress towards long-term protection of marine ecosystems and cultural resources. The program has become more of a national system of protected areas as called for by Congress through consistent performance measures, annual operating plans, system-wide monitoring reports and the regional management structure. Areas in need of improvement include the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. <br />
<br />
The MPA Center <ref>MPA Center. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned.html</ref> produced lessons learned on the MPA designation process. Highlights of their lessons include the need to understand the social and political history of a place before embarking on a collaborative planning process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Program http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov <br />
*National Marine Sanctuaries Act http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf <br />
*National Marine Sanctuary Foundation http://nmsfocean.org/ <br />
*OceansLive http://www.oceanslive.org/<br />
*Marine Protected Areas Center http://mpa.gov/<br />
*National Park Service http://www.nps.gov/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Final Inspection Report by the Office of Inspector General http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2008/IPE-18591.pdf <br />
*National Academy of Public Administration http://www.napawash.org/Marine.Sanctuary.pdf<br />
*Owen, Dave. The Disappointing History of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. NYU Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009269<br />
*Warburg, Philip and Priscilla Brooks. Stellwagen Bank's unmet mission. May 16, 2008. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/stellwagen_banks_unmet_mission/ <br />
*Morin, Tracey. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program.” Coastal Management 29 (2001): 327–339. <br />
*Helvey, Mark. “Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged.” Coastal Management 32 (2004): 173-190. <br />
*Chandler, William J., and Hannah Gillelan. The Makings of the National Marine Sanctuary Act: A Legislative History and Analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 2005. <br />
*Chen, Kathy, Camille Kustin, Joshua Kweller, Carolyn Segalini, and Julia Wondolleck. “Sanctuary Advisory Councils: A Study in Collaborative Resource Management.” University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, 2006.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=US_National_Estuary_Program&diff=37379US National Estuary Program2011-08-03T13:52:29Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>In 1987, Congress established the US National Estuary Program (US NEP), as an element of the [[Clean Water Act]] (CWA), to restore and maintain the integrity of estuaries of national importance. The US NEP was designed to apply an ecosystem-based watershed approach implemented through collaborative partnerships. It complements the Coastal Zone Management Programs led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Twenty eight estuaries participate in the US NEP, which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Participating states must develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for each estuary in the US NEP Program. <br />
<br />
==Objectives==<br />
The Clean Water Act (Section 320) directs EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in estuaries by addressing both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Estuaries included in the U.S. National Estuaries Program are nominated by individual states and use a holistic ecosystem-based approach to address water pollution and related environmental issues of concern to stakeholders. The NEPs are long-term planning and management programs, rather than short term projects. NEPs support rather than replace existing controls on pollution. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The NEP is modeled on the success of the EPA’s Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs. In 1987, in the reauthorization of the CWA, Congress selected an initial six estuaries into the NEP. Each NEP receives annual implementation funding. As of 2008, the Program contained 28 estuaries, including the [[Tampa Bay Estuary Program|Tampa Bay Estuary]].<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
State governors may nominate estuaries for inclusion in the NEP that face significant ecological risks, are of commercial importance, and could benefit from a comprehensive planning and management program. Incentives for nominating an estuary include federal funding, and the option of applying more stringent water quality standards than those provided through the [[Clean Water Act|Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)]] system. <br />
<br />
Once the EPA approves an estuary to be accepted into the NEP, the first step is to establish a governance structure to serve as the forum for bringing stakeholders together to identify issues and develop the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. This governance structure, known as the Management Conference, is composed of the NEP Program Office and several stakeholder committees. The Management Conference acts as the organizational umbrella through which each program is implemented. The Conference defines program goals, identifies the causes of the estuary’s environmental problems, and designs actions to protect and restore habitats and living resources. Developing the CCMP is a three to five year process that involves convening stakeholders and reaching consensus on solutions. Stakeholders on committees typically include local governments, affected businesses and industries, public and private institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the general public, and representatives from EPA, other federal agencies, state governments, and interstate or regional agencies. Its committee structure provides the platform for collaborative decision-making and reflects citizen concerns and the problems and characteristics of the watershed. All Management Conferences establish several core committees to carry out their work. These generally include a Policy Committee, a Management Committee, and advisory committees for technical and citizen input. Some NEPs also have committees dealing with finance and local government.<br />
<br />
Each NEP has a Program Office that facilitates the work of the committees and is accountable to the Management Conference. The Program Office consists of a director and a small staff of usually three to five professionals. The NEP Program Office facilitates development of the Management Plan, supports its implementation, and produces documents such as annual budgets and work plans. Figure 1 represents a typical organizational structure of an NEP Management Conference. The NEP Program Office can be located in a variety of institutions ranging from state or local agencies to universities or nonprofits.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1 Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure]]<br />
<br />
EPA’s role is to provide financial and technical assistance, participate in the Management Conference and review program performance. <br />
<br />
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) serves as the road map for coordinated actions to address priority issues. Since the CCMP is not a regulatory document, NEPs rely upon partners to implement their action plans. The CCMP is based on a scientific characterization of the estuary and is developed and approved by a broad-based coalition of stakeholders. It addresses a wide range of environmental protection issues including water quality, habitat, fish and wildlife, pathogens, land use, and invasive species. <br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
Initially, the Clean Water Act authorized EPA to award grants for 75% of the planning costs for a CCMP. When it came to implementing the CCMP, the States again had insufficient funds. Hence, Congress amended Section 320 of the Clean Water Act in 2000 to provide federal grants of up to 50% for implementation. The Association of National Estuary Programs was established in 1996 as a nonprofit group building support for the NEP at the national level. It serves as a forum for estuary sites to discuss issues and lobby Congress. <br />
<br />
==Progress/Effectiveness==<br />
The strength of the NEP is attributed to four factors. Its collaborative non-regulatory approach to holistic watershed management encourages stakeholder-based visioning and action, leverages partner resources, applies science to emerging issues, the action strategies to address those issues, and develops programs based on local priorities. Second, the NEP model allocates considerable time to reaching consensus through the use of bylaws and memoranda of agreement as a framework for resolving conflicts. Third, the NEPs promote high levels of commitment by involving stakeholders in committees and keeping them informed of goals and progress. Finally NEPs focus on developing long term finance strategies. For example, by forming strategic alliances and developing new funding sources (e.g., stormwater utilities), the NEP raises an average of $15 for every $1 provided by EPA. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*http://www.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm<br />
*EPA Community Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nepprimer/handbook.htm <br />
*EPA Office of Water, National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Congressional Research Service, National Estuary Program: A Collaborative Approach<br />
to Protecting Coastal Water Quality http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Wetlands/wet-9.cfm#_1_4 <br />
*Association of National Estuary Program http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
*Tampa Bay NEP www.tbep.org<br />
*Narragansett Bay NEP www.nbep.org <br />
*Chesapeake Bay Program http://www.chesapeakebay.net/<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=US_National_Estuarine_Research_Reserve_System&diff=37378US National Estuarine Research Reserve System2011-08-03T13:51:49Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>The United States National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was established as an element of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It creates a representative system of locally managed estuarine reserves that conduct long-term research, water quality monitoring and educational programs designed to promote coastal stewardship. As of 2008, this network of protected areas includes 27 reserves. The program oversees more than one million acres (4,000 km²) of estuarine land, wetlands, and water.<br />
<br />
==Goals and Priority Issues==<br />
NERRS is structured as a partnership between individual states and the Federal Government and is the research arm of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Program. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce administers the program. The goal of NERRS is to conduct long-term research and education on, and promote stewardship of, coastal wetlands and estuaries in a range of sites from those that are pristine to those heavily impacted. Strategic goals for 2005-2010 are to “strengthen the protection and management of representative estuarine ecosystems to advance estuarine conservation, research and education; increase the use of reserve science and sites to address priority coastal management issues; and enhance people’s ability and willingness to make informed decisions and take responsible actions that affect coastal communities and ecosystems (NOAA website).”<br />
<br />
A NERRS priority is to communicate research findings to coastal managers. The system’s 2005-2010 Strategic Plan identifies four priority national issues for research: impacts of land use and population growth; habitat loss and alteration; water quality degradation; and changes in biological communities. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The process for designating new NERRs begins when a state governor submits a letter of interest to NOAA requesting funds to identify a site and select the local lead agency. If NOAA approves the request, it provides up to $100,000 (a 50% match from the state is required) to select the site and prepare a basic characterization of the site’s physical, chemical and biological characteristics; an Environmental Impact Statement; and a Management Plan. NOAA requires extensive public participation and collaboration in the designation process.<br />
<br />
Management partners in a NERR may include state agencies, non-profit groups, universities and members of the local community. The NERR may also work with SeaGrant extension and education staff and others in identifying key coastal resource issues to address. <br />
<br />
==Core Programs==<br />
NOAA provides annual core funding and the state must provide matching funds. Combined, these are used to develop management plans, conduct school and public education programs, maintain reserve facilities and acquire new properties. As a national system of protected areas, the NERRS conducts the following core programs at each site:<br />
<br />
*''System-wide Monitoring Program:'' tracks changes over the long-term to understand how human activities and natural events impact coastal ecosystems <br />
*''Graduate Research Fellows Program:'' provides students the opportunity to conduct research at a reserve<br />
*''Coastal Training Program(CTP):'' targets the needs of local decision-maker by offering information, skills building, lectures, and demonstration projects and providing networking opportunities that can foster new collaborative solutions<br />
*''School and Public Education Programs:'' build stewardship for coastal estuaries within the general public. NERRS is mandated "to enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas, and provide suitable opportunities for public education and interpretation." Most reserves provide experiential education programs for elementary and secondary schools. The Estuary Live program enables students to learn over the internet. <br />
*''Stewardship'' through working with the surrounding local communities to participate in such activities as land acquisition, restoration habitat mapping and policy development. <br />
<br />
The NERRS, NOAA and state coastal management programs work together with the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) to produce practical tools for restoring and managing coastal ecosystems.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Map of Reserves in the NERRS.jpg|thumb|350px|center|Figure 1: Map of Reserves in the NERRS.]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*NERRS Homepage http://nerrs.noaa.gov/<br />
*Estuaries.Gov http://www.estuaries.gov<br />
*http://www.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm<br />
*Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation http://erf.org/ <br />
*National Estuarine Research Reserve Association http://nerra.org/<br />
*Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology http://ciceet.unh.edu/<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=US_Coastal_Zone_Management_Program&diff=37377US Coastal Zone Management Program2011-08-03T13:51:29Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>The United States Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) established under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 serves as the centerpiece for coordinated coastal zone planning and management in the US. This unique environmental law encourages states to balance economic development with environmental protection. Thirty-four of 35 eligible states participate in this voluntary program. States with coastal zone management programs (CZMPs) that have been approved by the federal office of Coastal Zone Management as meeting the requirements of the Act receive annual funding for implementation of their program. They also benefit from the CZMA’s “federal consistency” clause, which requires federal agencies to be consistent “to the maximum extent practicable” with the state’s CZM program. CZMPs are comprehensive state wide management plans with authority to regulate coastal development and formulate site and activity specific management plans as needed. While the federal CMZP has been evaluated several times and found to be effective in addressing numerous coastal issues, many areas of US coastline continue to be degraded by population growth, overexploitation of natural resources and climate change . States such as Florida, Maryland and California are taking comprehensive views of climate change as one of the key stressors. A recent Maryland Climate Change Report (http://www.mdclimatechange.us/) shows the impacts of climate change to the shoreline, fisheries, and water quality.<br />
<br />
==Objectives of the CZMP==<br />
The program objectives are derived from the CZMA goal to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone." A central feature of the CZMP is that it is a voluntary program that encourages states to integrate across both conservation and development needs and coordinate the actions of local, state and federal agencies in the coastal zone. <br />
<br />
''Roles of Government''<br />
The primary role of the Federal government in coastal management includes setting national priorities, policies and standards; approving state programs; coordinating national interagency actions; ensuring the national interests are protected; and providing technical assistance and federal funding to state CZM programs that have been approved.<br />
<br />
States play a central role in coastal management. Their primary responsibilities include defining state interests in their coastal zone; developing and implementing comprehensive coastal management programs; coordinating state interagency policies; providing matching state funds; ensuring state and federal governments are consistent with a CZMP’s policies; providing technical assistance to local governments; and ensuring public participation in all phases of management. <br />
<br />
Since local (county and municipal) governments have significant land use powers in the United States, they also play an important role in coastal management. Their responsibilities include developing and enforcing local regulations over land and water uses, coordinating local interagency activities, supporting outreach and education and providing a forum for public participation on relevant issues.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
In the 1960s, concern was mounting over the declining condition of the nation’s estuaries and Great Lakes and the inappropriate development and over-development of the nation’s coastal resources. Congress convened the Stratton Commission (Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources) in 1969 that concluded "there is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone." The Commission recommended the establishment of an independent federal agency and legislation to oversee a national ocean policy that would address the use of marine resources and coastal areas (US OCEANS REPORT).<br />
<br />
==Key Features and Scope==<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management administers the program. Each state’s coastal zone extends three miles seaward, and inland as far as required to regulate the activities and areas that the state finds necessary to meet federal standards. The federal program offers two incentives to states to participate in the program. The first is federal funds to prepare a state CZM program and then long term financial support to implement the program once approved. The second incentive is ‘federal consistency,’ the policy that stipulates that federally sponsored/funded actions must be consistent with the state’s coastal program policies and procedures. Some states that have a CZM program in place have used this clause to limit the offshore development of oil and gas reserves. When first enacted, the CZMP was unusual in that it set stringent requirements for public participation in all phases of planning and decision making and set high standards for intergovernmental coordination. Congress understood that integrated coastal management demands strong partnerships among governmental agencies at all levels and needs constituencies among the public and affected stakeholders who understand and actively support the program’s goals and management approach.<br />
<br />
==Major Statutory Provisions for Designing a Coastal Program==<br />
State programs must meet a number of standards in order to win federal approval. These include: <br />
*Definition and mapping of the coastal zone<br />
*Definition of permissible land and water uses within the zone<br />
*An inventory and designation of areas of particular concern (economic, cultural, historic and ecological)<br />
*Identification of the authorities and methods by which the state will implement its policies and regulate identified land and water uses <br />
*A description of the institutional arrangements and authorities by which the program will be implemented (there are five types of institutional arrangements recognized by NOAA)<br />
*Specification of a planning processes for siting energy facilities and for assessing shoreline erosion and restoration<br />
<br />
A sequence of congressional re-authorizations of the Act have made more specific the topics and issues that must be addressed by state CZM programs. These include:<br />
*Protection of natural and cultural resources <br />
*Protection of people and property from natural hazards <br />
*Providing development priority to coastal-dependent uses <br />
*Revitalizing waterfronts <br />
*Providing public access to ocean and coastal areas <br />
*Improving coastal water quality.<br />
<br />
''Types of State Programs''<br />
Each state structures and implements their CZM program to best suit their needs. There are two major categories of institutional arrangements for CZM. In centralized programs, a single state agency has comprehensive planning and regulatory authority (for example Rhode Island). In a networked program, a “lead” state agency coordinates the regulatory and permitting authorities of several state and local agencies. Twenty-three states have variations of this networked structure. Some state CZM programs delegate to local governments much of the responsibility for administering the program. Nine states have adopted this model.<br />
<br />
''Federal Consistency Requirement''<br />
The federal consistency clause Section 307 states that federal actions that are likely to affect any land or water in a state’s coastal zone must be consistent with the state’s CZM program. The provision extends to include local government and private industry activities that benefit from receiving the federal funding. <br />
<br />
The consistency mechanism encourages federal agencies to coordinate and consult with the states at an early stage in project development. This:<br />
#often reduces conflicts between parties. An important component of federal consistency is the ‘effects test’ whereby states may block a federal project if it is determined that project is reasonably likely to affect the coastal zone. This includes projects outside of the state's designated coastal zone, including for example, federal offshore waters<br />
#increases the prospects for state support of jointly designed actions. While consistency is a powerful tool, it is important to note that state CZMPs concur with 95 to 97% of all federal actions (NOAA Coastal Services Center- referenced below). This suggests that the early communication, and negotiation between the federal agency making the proposal and the state CZM program from the beginning of a planning and decision making process results in agreements in all but a few instances. Confrontation and disagreement would be greater if collaborative planning, information sharing and the like occurred only when a federal initiative had already been detailed. <br />
<br />
''Performance Review''<br />
Section 312 of the CZMA requires there be periodic performance reviews to help ensure states are appropriately implementing and enforcing the approved CZMP. If significant problems are identified, the state must address them or federal approval and associated funding and consistency procedures are withdrawn.<br />
<br />
==Key Management Tools==<br />
Each state selects the management tools it will use to implement its CZM program. Some tools are standardized and/or required.<br />
<br />
''Permitting''<br />
States must identify in their coastal management plan those activities that will be regulated, how they will be regulated and by what standards. The objective is to provide the public with a transparent and predictable decision making process. <br />
<br />
''Nonpoint Pollution'' <br />
The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program that was added to the CZMA in 1990 strives to increase coordination between state coastal programs and local water quality programs and projects. This program is implemented in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency, whose mandate is provided by the Clean Water Act. The program focuses on prevention at the local scale through such measures as land use planning and zoning. <br />
<br />
''Issue-based Management''<br />
The Enhancement Grant Program (EGP) was created to focus implementation efforts on a number of specific issues identified by the original Act and subsequent reauthorizations. A major concern has been for the cumulative impacts of development decisions, water pollution, wetland restoration, public access, aquaculture and coastal hazards.<br />
<br />
''Special Area Management Plans''<br />
The CZMA encourages states to develop Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) that are geographically focused across multiple jurisdictions to address a combination of issues in a comprehensive manner in a specific locale. <br />
<br />
The goal of SAMPs is to fine tune policies to the unique combination of issues and needs in a specific area. SAMPs have been effective in a variety of geographical settings ranging from waterfronts and ports to watersheds and estuaries. Their successes can be attributed to clear boundaries, place specific goals and strategies, strong local participation and effective implementation mechanisms designed to efficiently generate desired results. (http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/issues/special_indepth.html).<br />
<br />
==The Evolution of the Program==<br />
The CZMA has been amended several times. In 1976, grants and loans were provided to states for siting of energy facilities as a response to an energy crisis. In 1980, additional program goals and policies were adopted to encourage the transition from planning to implementation. The 1990 amendments clarified the federal consistency provision in light of new court rulings. <br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*CZMA Legislation http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html <br />
*Joint Ocean Commission http://www.jointoceancommission.org <br />
*NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov <br />
*CZMA Performance Review 2006 http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/success/media/312summaryreport2006.pdf<br />
*CZMA Performance Review System http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/resources/docs/npmsupdate.pdf <br />
*Heinz Center: Coastal Zone Management Act: Developing a Framework for Identifying Performance Indicators. 2003 http://heinzhome.heinzctrinfo.net/publications/index.shtml#majorreports <br />
*SAMPs (http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/issues/special_indepth.html)<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Journal of Coastal Management – CZMA Evaluation Series 1999<br />
*An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Appendix 6 to the Final Report: Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law: The Evolution of Ocean Governance Over Three Decades http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
*An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Appendix 6 to the Final Report: Review of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Law: The Evolution of Ocean Governance Over Three Decades http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html<br />
*CZMA Legislation http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/about/czma.html <br />
*NOAA Coastal Services Center, What is the CZMA? http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cmfp/admin/czma.htm<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Olsen, Stephen Bloye <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Ricci, Glenn}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Turbidity_sensors&diff=37375Turbidity sensors2011-08-03T13:51:07Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
{{revision}}<br />
''The authors below are planning to work on this article''<br />
<br />
See also: <br />
* definition of [[turbidity]].<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
...<br />
<br />
==Measurement and units of turbidity==<br />
...<br />
<br />
==Causes of turbidity==<br />
...<br />
<br />
==Issues related to turbidity==<br />
...<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
...<br />
...<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
...<br />
...<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Wikischro<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Prien, Ralf]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme 9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Tampa_Bay_Estuary_Program&diff=37371Tampa Bay Estuary Program2011-08-03T13:49:58Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
In 1990, Tampa Bay was designated an "estuary of national significance" by the US Congress, and joined the ranks of the [http://www.epa.gov/nep/| National Estuary Program] (which currently contains 28 estuaries) in 1991. As an urban watershed confronted with pollution, habitat loss and increasing development, the [http://www.tbep.org/| Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP)] faced significant challenges. Over fifteen years later, TBEP stands as a model for collaborative partnerships, innovative agreements and approaches for habitat restoration and addressing [[nitrogen| atmospheric nitrogen]] deposition as a contributor to [[eutrophication]]. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Tampa Bay is Florida’s largest open-water estuary, spanning 400 square miles, with a drainage area nearly six times that size. While the Bay contains rich [[biodiversity]], it is impacted by a rapidly growing human population and the second largest metropolitan area in the state. As of 2008, more than 2.3 million people lived in the watershed, and that number is expected to grow by nearly 20 percent by the year 2015. <br />
<br />
In the 1950s, rapid population growth in the Tampa Bay watershed and increased urban development caused a significant deterioration in the bay’s water quality and habitat, and natural resources. Urban development, dredging, canals, and causeways have altered approximately half of the bay’s original shoreline. Forty percent (40%) of the Bay’s seagrass beds have disappeared since 1950, as have 21% of its [[wetlands| emergent wetlands]] (Tampa Bay Estuary Program/TBEP).<br />
<br />
[[Image:The Social Network for Tampa Bay.jpg|thumb|350px|left|Figure 1: The Social Network for Tampa Bay <ref>http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
There have been multiple efforts to improve water quality in Tampa Bay. The first major study of Tampa Bay’s water quality was conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) in 1969. The study’s findings, combined with grass-roots efforts in the early 1970s, led to upgrades in sewage treatment plants and reduced nutrient loadings. Then in 1983, the state established the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission to develop a comprehensive management strategy for the Bay. The regional planning council and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were requested to identify the priority problems and develop recommendations and projects to be conducted as part of a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan for Tampa Bay. This was the first organized effort to address water quality issues in the Bay, and it laid the groundwork for entry to the [http://www.epa.gov/nep/| national estuary program (NEP)].<br />
<br />
==Establishment of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP)==<br />
The [http://www.tbep.org/| Tampa Bay Estuary Program] (TBEP) was established in 1991. The governance arrangement for Tampa Bay is complex, and includes various programs implemented by multiple local, county, regional, state and federal organizations. The key partners include three counties, three cities, the [http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/| Southwest Florida Water Management District], the [http://www.dep.state.fl.us/| Florida Department of Environmental Protection], and the [http://www.epa.gov/| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. TBEP relies upon collaborative action through an integrating governance structure that develops management plans and implements them. TBEP spent its first six years conducting extensive public participation and scientific research to build consensus on program goals and the elements of a comprehensive management plan. <br />
<br />
TBEP’s first Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), titled Charting the Course, was completed in 1996 and approved by the EPA that same year. The CCMP assigns the bay's most pressing problems to eight action plans—water and sediment quality, habitats, wildlife, dredging, oil spills, invasive species, public access and education. The action plans are designed to help contribute to 11 goals, several of which are quantifiable and measurable. The CCMP was updated in 2006 after an assessment and identification of emerging issues.<br />
<br />
==Program Administration==<br />
The TBEP has a small staff that serves as a coordinating body for the management committees and the activities of the partner institutions. The TBEP staff perform a variety of services including: convening groups to discuss bay issues; conducting research, advocating for the protection of the bay; organizing projects to address bay problems; providing mini-grants to community groups; providing technical assistance; coordinating outreach; and serving as a member of other collaborative organizations in the Bay <ref name="imp">Imperial, Mark T., The Tampa Bay Estuary Program: Developing and Implementing an Interlocal Agreement, A technical report prepared to support a final report to the National Academy of Public Administration as part of their Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection Project (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, July 2000)</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two programs stand out as TBEP successes: 1) the Interlocal Agreement, and 2) Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings<br />
<br />
# '''Interlocal Agreement'''<br />
<br />
While the CCMP sets the goals and priorities, it is at its roots a voluntary plan without enforcement capabilities. Concerned that it would be seen as only yet another plan, leaders advocated for a more formal binding agreement between partners. After much negotiation, the partners signed an “Interlocal Agreement” in 1998, which committed local governments to attaining the CCMP’s goals. <br />
<br />
The Interlocal Agreement has served as a model for other programs striving to meet more stringent standards for water quality. Each partner submits action plans that document how they support the CCMP’s goals and objectives. The regulatory partners have agreed to streamline their regulatory programs. Fifteen partners, including the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a port authority and local governments have signed on to the Agreement. The Agreement has detailed rules governing its operations and decision-making procedures. It is important to note that there are no legal means to force partners to implement the Interlocal Agreement. Instead, it uses the power of peer accountability to keep partners engaged in the process <ref name="imp"/>. Long-term stakeholder relationships, based on previous projects and initiatives, have built a tradition of cooperation among scientists and managers. <br />
<br />
# '''Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen Loadings'''<br />
<br />
Advanced wastewater treatment for sewage plant discharges was mandated by law in 1972. With sewage treatment in place, it was clear that stormwater and nutrient loading were going to be the biggest issues in the Bay’s future. While the local governments agreed in the CCMP to reduce the portion of the loadings attributed to municipal storm water runoff and sewage treatment plants, the remaining reductions were to be addressed by a Nitrogen Management Consortium. Established in 1998, the Consortium is comprised of municipal governments and regulatory agencies, local companies, agricultural interests and electric utilities. The Consortium took on the task of creating the action plans necessary to meet the CCMP’s goals for reducing nitrogen from atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling practices, and intensive agriculture. The Consortium’s motto of “hold the line” on nutrient loadings from future growth was central to restoring seagrass habitat. <br />
<br />
Instead of allocating specific reductions to each source of nitrogen, the Consortium worked to identify individual or group projects that would achieve the reductions. This innovative approach helped identify the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects.<br />
<br />
==Achievements==<br />
The progress made toward restoring the Tampa Bay habitats is impressive. TBEP has met or exceeded its goals for nitrogen reduction and habitat restoration. Collaborative mechanisms such as the Interlocal Agreement and the Nitrogen Management Consortium have been critical to establishing successful partnerships. <br />
<br />
From this foundation, TBEP has won stable funding, an effective land acquisition program, creation of effective science and citizen advisory committees, and the development of a collaborative monitoring program that has expanded to become the Florida West Coast Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP). In recognition of these efforts, EPA awarded the TBEP a bronze medal in 1998.<br />
<br />
In spite of these successes, a number of challenges remain. As development increases, there is a pressing need for improved linkages and collaboration with the land use planning regulators. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Estuary]]<br />
*[[Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Tampa Bay NEP http://www.tbep.org/ <br />
*Bay Soundings http://www.baysoundings.com/ <br />
*EPA National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ <br />
*Association of NEPs http://www.nationalestuaries.org/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program Mark Schneider http://www.buzzardsbay.org/download/nep-networks-paper.pdf <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Estuaries and tidal rivers]]<br />
[[Category:Location of coastal and marine areas]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Suspended_load&diff=37370Suspended load2011-08-03T13:49:46Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Definition|title= Suspended load<br />
|definition= Suspended load refers to that part of the total sediment transport which is maintained in suspension by turbulence in the flowing water for considerable periods of time without contact with the stream bed. It moves with practically the same velocity as that of the flowing water. <ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Supply_chain_analysis&diff=37369Supply chain analysis2011-08-03T13:49:34Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{References}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:SPICOSA.jpg|100px|right]]<br />
<br />
'''Supply chain analysis''' consists in a quantitative analysis of inputs and outputs between firms, prices and value added along a supply chain through agent accounts. These inputs and outputs can be expressed in physical flows of material and services needed to manufacture a final product as well as in their monetary equivalents. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The term Supply Chain analysis is used to refer to the overall group of economic agents (a physical person such as a farmer, a trader or a consumer, as well as legal entities such as a business, an authority or a development organisation) that contribute directly to the determination of a final product. Thus the chain encompasses the complete sequence of operations which, starting from the raw material, or an intermediate product, finishes downstream, after several stages of transformation or increases in value, at one or several final products at the level of the consumer ([http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/330/cca_043EN.pdf FAO, 2005a]<ref>'''FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) , 2005a.''' ''Commodity Chain Analysis. Constructing the Commodity Chain Functional Analysis and Flow Charts.'' EASYPol, On-line resource materials for policy marking, Module 043. Available on Internet : http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/330/cca_043EN.pdf</ref>). <br />
<br />
Building a supply chain analysis requires to spend time in the followings tasks (see example figure 2 [[image:Figure 2 bis bis.JPG|thumb|right|Figure 2. Example of a flowshart showing flows of material in physical and monetary terms through a paddy and rice production chain ([http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/330/cca_043EN.pdf FAO, 2005a, p. 15])]]):<br />
<br />
#Mapping the chain (through a flowchart) to obtain an overview of the chain, the product flows, the position of the chain actors and type of interaction between the actors. <br />
<br />
#Developing the economic accounts corresponding to the activities of the agents involved in the chain. This consists in quantifying the activities observed and their flow of material both in physical and in monetary terms. This allows the analyst to assess the relative importance of the different segments or sub-chains of the chain, which in turn will allow an appropriate use of time and resources. For more details on how building economic accounts, read FAO ([http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol//332/CCA_045EN.pdf 2005b]<ref>'''FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2005b'''. ''FEASYPol Module 045. Commodity Chain Analysis: Impact Analysis Using Market Prices.'' Available on Internet: http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol//332/CCA_045EN.pdf</ref> and [http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/333/CCA_046EN.pdf 2005c]<ref>'''FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2005c.''' ''EASYPol Modules 046. Commodity Chain Analysis: Impact Analysis Using Shadow Price.'' Available on Internet: http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/333/CCA_046EN.pdf</ref>).<br />
<br />
==Practical use of supply chain analysis==<br />
<br />
Supply chain analysis is a tool that allows us to assess the impact of an environmental policy through a simple Excel table with data on complete financial accounts of the various agents along the length of the chain. Then the impact of an environmental policy option on financial accounts and material flow of economic agents targeted by this policy is entered in the Excel table. This will automatically induce a change in the financial account of all other agents connected to him and directly or indirectly depending on his production to ensure their own production.<br />
Supply chain analysis offers an economic simulation model, not a model of optimization. This method can be used for assessment of policies targeting a whole sector, a sub-sector or a branch of economic activities (e.g. dairy quota limiting milk production, taxes on chemical nitrogen fertilizers) or for macroeconomic policies (e.g. aiming at unemployment decrease, inflation stabilization, keeping the balance of payment in equilibrium, achieving a higher economic growth…). <br />
<br />
In that sense, supply chain analysis is relevant for the same cases than [[computable general equilibrium]], [[input-output matrix]] and [[accounts environmentally adjusted]], since this methodology is able to capture the impact of a policy scenario that cover a great number of economic activities (at least one sector, a sub-sector or a branch but not few economic agents).<br />
<br />
It could also be used at lower economic level (a small number of economic agents) but in that case, national and regional data would be too aggregated and more detailed and disaggregated data should be found by surveys on field.<br />
<br />
==Limits of the method==<br />
<br />
*Capture fewer indirect impacts on other sectors than I-O. Indeed, supply Chain analysis is in a sense, quite similar to I-O analysis but deals with fewer sectors (only those linked to the analyzed product for which a supply chain is mapped) while I-O table deals with most of economic sectors (available in national or regional statistical offices).<br />
<br />
*Supply chain analysis cover fewer sectors but goes more into details concerning data (on material flows between agents). However, this high level of details achievement is time consuming since most data are not published and require visiting national statistic offices, official institutions, and enterprises for collecting data.<br />
<br />
Several limits are the same as for I-O analysis :<br />
<br />
*The static aspects making difficult any projection possibilities<br />
*Dependence on availability of regional data or data at watershed level (or any other environmental unit of the territory). When not available, need to go to industrial federations etc. for data collecting.<br />
<br />
==Other [[regional economic accounting methods]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
*[[Input-output matrix]]<br />
<br />
*[[Computable general equilibrium]]<br />
<br />
*[[Green accounting]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13756 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Mateo Cordier<br />
|AuthorName1= Mcordier<br />
|AuthorID2=13758<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Walter Hecq<br />
|AuthorName2= Walter Hecq}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Walter Hecq]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:SPICOSA]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stakeholder_analysis&diff=37367Stakeholder analysis2011-08-03T13:49:11Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article looks briefly at the role of stakeholders in the process if coastal zone management. It provides an introduction to a new qualitative approach to developing management strategies through a [[Problem structuring in decision-making processes|structural approach to the participatory process]]. The discussion of the 'practicalities' of adopting such an approach is based on the results of two workshops.<br />
<br />
==What do we mean by stakeholder ?==<br />
<br />
A '''[[stakeholders|stakeholder]]''' is an individual or an institution who can be positively or negatively impacted by, or cause an impact on the success of a project or a planning process. When an [[Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)]] process is launched, this requires the involvement of any relevant institutions that have stakes regarding the issues underlying the ICZM process. This allows concerted actions and participation for the decision-making process in public policies, allowing that the decisions are shared and taken in an interactive manner enhancing their acceptability in a long-term view.<br />
<br />
[[Stakeholders]] can be classified into '''public and private stakeholders'''. Public stakeholders refer to public representatives at the municipal level (mayor, municipal council, etc.), the regional level (environmental department, etc.), the national level (State, ministry, etc.) and the international level (an international body as the FAO, OECD, UNEP, etc.), whereas private stakeholders refer to the sectoral level (tourism, fisheries, etc.) or the citizen level (a local resident organisation, a leisure / sport society, etc.). <br />
<br />
The word '''Actor''' can sometimes be used in the same way as '''Stakeholder'''.<br />
<br />
For other insights in the '''Coastal Wiki''', see also [[stakeholders]].<br />
<br />
==Tools for stakeholder analysis==<br />
<br />
Many (computer) tools exist, aimed at involving [[stakeholders]] in the decision-making process. A rough distinction can be made between qualitative and quantitative tools. Quantitative tools include [[Multicriteria techniques|Multi-Criteria Analysis]] (MCA) tools, which allow [[stakeholders]] to assign weights to certain variables and indicators. These tools are designed for well-defined, structured problems. However, in practice [[stakeholders|stakeholder]] consensus on the problem structure is usually lacking. Then, how to determine an appropriate set of variables and indicators? At this point, qualitative tools can be helpful. <br />
<br />
===The Quasta tool===<br />
Aim of this article is to explore the practical opportunities for the new so-called Quasta approach. The Quasta approach uses a qualitative tool in order to structure complex problems in a group setting. The tool is based on a combination of Cognitive Mapping and Qualitative Probabilistic Networks. For more technical information see the [http://ssrn.com/abstract=987006 full paper]. This paper discusses Quasta as an interactive problem structuring tool, that can be used to involve [[stakeholders]] in [[Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)]]. The Quasta tool comprehends a new type of computer system which is quite simple and flexible as well. Quasta allows ''scenario exploration'' with simple ''cause-and-effect diagrams''. [[Image:CognitiveMap.jpg|thumb|right|Figure 1. An example Cognitive Map. Regular arrows represent positive inluences, an arrow with a circle on its tip represents a negative influence.]]. In Figure 1 a simple Cognitive Map is shown, which captures some of the issues which are typical for the densely populated catchment areas in the Netherlands. [[Climate change]] may result in [[sea level rise]] and extreme rainfall. Both may lead to high peak water levels in rivers, which may harm the safety in the catchment areas (because of risk of flooding). To prevent this, the government may propose some commissioned areas which, in case of high water levels, are designated to flood. This may reduce the peak levels of the rivers and may therefore improve the safety of the catchment area as a whole. However, this measure would imply that inhabitants of these areas should move out; the spatial pressure, which is already very high in the Netherlands, would increase. Quasta allows such scenario analyses; directions can be given for the concepts in the diagrams (for instance: more safety in the catchment areas), and then Quasta explores scenarios which are ''consistent'' with these directions. By asking [[stakeholders]] for concepts, relationships and directions of change, Quasta can be used as a deliberation tool.<br />
<br />
===Testing Quasta===<br />
The tool is tested in two workshops in which various [[coastal management]] issues were discussed. The first workshop took place in September 2006 in Concepción, Chile. The symposium was organised by the [http://www.censor.name/pagev2/news/news-single-view/article/1/censor-pasarelas-symposium-workshop.html?cHash=f7ab6f69bb CENSOR INCO-project] ('Climate variability and El Niño Southern Oscillation: Implications for Natural Coastal Resources and Management') in combination with the Pasarelas project, which is about 'Interface Tools for Multi-stakeholder Knowledge Partnerships for the Sustainable Management of Marine Resources and Coastal Zones'. In the workshop 11 persons participated, from various backgrounds (scientists, executives from governmental departments in Peru and Chile, people from local fishing communities, etc.). The language was Spanish and the topic of discussion was restricted management areas for fisheries. The second workshop was part of the project 'Sustainable living in the Dutch coastal zone', which was an exploratory project about the Dutch [[coastal zone]] in 2080. Eight persons participated in this workshop, which was held in October 2006, in Delft, The Netherlands. The group of participants included researchers, consultants and policymakers. The language was Dutch and the topic of discussion was living in the Dutch coastal zone in 2080. This scenario was discussed with respect to the themes 'land use', 'economy', 'safety', 'energy', 'technology & innovation' and 'institutional aspects'.<br />
<br />
==Conclusions==<br />
Evaluations of these workshops show that (1) this system helps [[stakeholders]] to make them aware of causal relationships, (2) it is useful for a qualitative exploration of scenarios, (3) it identifies the quantitative knowledge gaps of the problem being discussed and (4) the treshold for non-technicians to use this tool is quite low. As such, these first results seem promising. In order to make Quasta most useful, it is recommended to do further research on the methodology and last but not least to have more practical applications.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Deliberation support tools]]<br />
*[[Knowledge support tools]]<br />
*[[Decision support tools]]<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=14680<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Roussel, Sébastien<br />
|AuthorName1=Roussel<br />
|AuthorID2=14626 <br />
|AuthorFullName2=van Kouwen, Frank<br />
|AuthorName2=Fakouwen}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by van Kouwen, Frank]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Ships_of_opportunity_and_ferries_as_instrument_carriers&diff=37366Ships of opportunity and ferries as instrument carriers2011-08-03T13:49:04Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{revision}}<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Operational monitoring of coastal areas and shelf seas is mainly carried out by manual sampling and analysis during ship cruises. In addition, automatic operating measuring systems on buoys allow routine measurement of standard oceanographic parameters (temperature, salinity, currents) and in some cases other parameters, e.g., turbidity, oxygen and chlorophyll fluorescence. These systems are much affected by biofouling and the maintenance/operation costs are quite high mainly due to ship costs.<br />
<br />
Based on all these problems and limitations, it seems logical to investigate which role ships of opportunity could play (Fleming et al. 2002). There are many routes for ferryboats and "ships-of-opportunity" which run quite frequently. Already 60 years ago [[The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR)]] [Reid et al. 1998] followed the idea of using scientific equipment on such ships for continuous recording of environmental data. This method is now improved and shows an impressive data set of semi-quantitative phytoplankton data over the world oceans.<br />
<br />
Applying such measuring systems on ferry boats or ships-of-opportunity has several advantages:<br />
<br />
* the system is protected against harsh environment, e.g. waves & currents,<br />
<br />
* bio-fouling can be more easily prevented (inline sensors),<br />
<br />
* no energy restrictions (in contrast to buoys),<br />
<br />
* easier maintenance when ferry comes back "to our doorstep"<br />
<br />
* lower running costs since the operation costs of the ship do not need to be calculated<br />
<br />
* instead of point measurements (buoys) transects yield much more information.<br />
<br />
==Technical Description==<br />
<br />
The [http://www.ferrybox.org/ Ferrybox] on board of a ship of opportunity consists of a water loop that gets its water from the outside, a data management system for control, data acquisition and storage and a telemetry unit for transmitting the data to shore.<br />
[[Image:FerryBox_Scheme.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Figure 1: FerryBox Scheme]]<br />
The figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of the German FerryBox system.<br />
Water is pumped into the ship from an inlet in front of the ships cooling system. A debubbling unit removes air bubbles, which may enter the system during heavy seas. At the same time coarse sand particles which may be introduced in shallow harbours and which settle and tend to block the tubes are removed as well. Coupled to the debubbler is an internal water loop in which the seawater is circulated with a constant velocity of about 1 m/s. This already decreases the tendency for building bacterial slimes on sensors and tube surfaces. A small part of the water is filtered by a hollow-fibre cross-flow filter module for automatic nutrient analysis (this type of filter keeps the walls of the small hollow-fibres free of suspended seiments of bacterial films by applying high flow velocities, therefore avoiding bacterial contamination that could change the measured nutrient concentrations by microbial processes, e.g., nitrification, re-mineralisation).<br />
For a reliable unmanned operation the system is supervised by an industrial programmable logic control which can shut-off the system in case of very severe errors and operates automatic cleaning cycles, e.g., in harbour.<br />
Biofouling is prevented by cleaning of the sensors with tap water and rinsing with acidified water. Sometimes clogging of the water inlet in the ship interface causes problems by debris or fish. Since all flow rates are supervised by the system in such cases an automatic pressure back-flushing cycle is initiated which clears the inlet.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
* [[Coastal observatories]]<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
* [[ALGADEC - Detection of toxic algae with a semi-automated nucleic acid biosensor]]<br />
* [[The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR)]]<br />
* [[General principles of optical and acoustical instruments]]<br />
* [[Light fields and optics in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Optical remote sensing]]<br />
* [[Optical measurements in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Real-time algae monitoring]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ferrybox.org/ Ferrybox]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Wikischro<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=5069<br />
|AuthorName2=WikiPeters<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Petersen, Wilhelm}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Petersen, Wilhelm]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal processes, interactions and resources]]<br />
[[Category:Research, science and innovation in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_economic_accounting_methods&diff=37364Regional economic accounting methods2011-08-03T13:48:21Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Incomplete}}<br />
{{Revision}}<br />
Requires additional information from the author<br />
<br />
[[Image:SPICOSA.jpg|100px|right]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Regional economic accounting methodologies may be useful and complementary tools to cost benefit analysis (CBA) for assessing socioeconomic impact of environmental measures or environmental degradations when their indirect impacts may be of such significance and magnitude that important regional income multiplier effects may be generated.<br />
<br />
==When to use regional economic accounting methodologies?==<br />
Assessing the economic impact of environmental measures or environmental degradations may be done through cost benefit analysis (CBA). However, indirect impacts on other sectors (sectors not directly targeted by the measure or not directly impacted by the degradation) often should be excluded from the analysis. When such indirect impacts are important enough to affect the economy of a region (i.e. direct economic benefits or costs result in additional or reduced economic activities in the region), regional accounting methods may be suitable and complementary to CBA. They might be applied for instance for the estimation of the indirect benefits resulting from the restoration of fish yield by reducing suspended sediment concentration in waters of a given coastal area. <br />
<br />
The resulting regional income/employment effects may be quantified through the use of [[input-output matrix]] (I-O), [[supply chain analysis]], [[computable general equilibrium]] (CGE) or [[accounts environmentally adjusted]]. It is important to mention the fact that none of these four accounting methodologies mentioned above is perfect since each present advantages and disadvantages as presented further. For instance, supply chain analysis has the disadvantage of taking into account fewer indirect impacts than I-O tables. I-O tables assume linear relations between inputs and outputs from different sectors as well as linear relations between outputs and final demand, which does not always correspond to reality. However, some have validated their input-output model with historical data and obtained some simulated results quite close to historical data (see [http://www.iioa.org/pdf/13th%20conf/Idenburg&Wilting_DMITRI.pdf Idenburg and Wilting, 2000]<ref>'''Idenburg A. M., Wilting H.C., 2000.''' ''DIMITRI : a dynamic Input-output Model to study the Impacts of technology Related Innovations.'' Paper to be presented at the WIII International Conference on Input-Output techniques, University of Macerata, Italy, August 21-25th 2000. Available on Internet : http://www.iioa.org/pdf/13th%20conf/Idenburg&Wilting_DMITRI.pdf</ref>). CGE models are complex to implement and their results are highly dependents on key economic parameters on which remain uncertainties. In addition, those models are expensive and time consuming (it takes months to years to build a CGE model).<br />
<br />
For more details on regional accounting, follow these links :<br />
<br />
*[[Input-output matrix]]<br />
<br />
*[[Supply chain analysis]]<br />
<br />
*[[Computable general equilibrium]]<br />
<br />
*[[Green accounting]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13756 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Mateo Cordier<br />
|AuthorName1= Mcordier<br />
|AuthorID2=13758<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Walter Hecq<br />
|AuthorName2= Walter Hecq}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Walter Hecq]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:SPICOSA]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Reduction_of_uncertainties_through_Data_Model_Integration_(DMI)&diff=37363Reduction of uncertainties through Data Model Integration (DMI)2011-08-03T13:48:08Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
This article describes how [[data]] and models can be combined in a structured way, in order to reduce uncertainties. This process is also called [[Data Model Integration (DMI)]]. This article describes the criteria which can be used to evaluate models, how to reduce uncertainties, and two DMI-approaches: [[model calibration]] and data assimilation. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Application of techniques for data model integration (DMI) are increasingly used in many fields of science, finance, economics, etc. Every day examples are improvement of geophysical model descriptions (flows, water levels, waves), improvements and optimization of daily weather forecasts, detection of errors in data series, on-line identification of stolen credit card use, detection of malfunctioning components in manufacturing processes. How DMI can be used to support monitoring and assessment of marine systems is also schematized in Figure 1. <br />
<br />
The one common element is the prior knowledge of the behaviour of a process in the form of an explicit model description, or a set of characteristic data. The second common element is a set of independent or new data. Neither the description of the behaviour and the data are 100% certain – they have uncertainties associated with them. If one has information on the (statistical) nature of the uncertainties, smart mathematical techniques can be used to combine these two information sources and generate new or improved information. Two possible DMI-approaches are: <br />
# '''[[Model calibration]]''' and calibration or parameter estimation techniques: This approach aims to improve the model and may result in an improved model description (less uncertain). <br />
# (Sequential) '''data assimilation''' and data assimilation techniques: This may results in an improved forecast, detection of significant deviation from established patterns (faulty component, credit card use,…).<br />
<br />
[[Image:DMI.jpg|thumb|750px|centre|Figure 1: Data Model Integration approach to support the monitoring and assessment of marine systems]]<br />
<br />
==Error criteria and Goodness of Fit==<br />
In geophysical science, DMI is commonly used for model improvement ([[model calibration]]) and optimization of operational forecasts (data assimilation). Application of DMI essentially starts with choosing the model quantities of interest that need to be evaluated and compared with data. A quantitative measure needs to be chosen or defined that expresses the agreement between these quantities and the field data. Instead of agreement, we often also use the words “difference”, “disagreement”, “mismatch”, “misfit” or “error”. Least squares criteria are commonly used measures for this, since they are symmetric and have favourable properties from a theoretical point of view. Another name for a least squares criterion is ''"Cost Function (CF)"''. This should be minimal to have the best agreement. Another formulation is a ''"Goodness-of-Fit (GoF)"'' criterion (most commonly also defined as a quadratic term). The GoF needs to be maximized to obtain maximum agreement. The relation is: GoF = - log (CF). The key issue of using such quantitative measures is that they are compact, quantitative, objective, reproducible, transferable, and are easy to use in automated evaluation procedures and software.<br />
<br />
==Role and reduction of uncertainties==<br />
<br />
===Uncertainties in models and data===<br />
Models are never “true”. Even the very best models provide schematised representations of the real world. Examples are flow models, models for transport and spreading, models for wave propagation, rainfall run-off models and morphological models. They are limited to the representation of those real world phenomena that are of specific practical interest, characterised by associated temporal and spatial scales of interest. In the derivation of these models all kind of simplifications and approximations have been applied. These are often formulated as “errors” or “uncertainties” in the model. These uncertainties occur in: <br />
# the model concept as such,<br />
# in the various model parameters, <br />
# the driving forces, <br />
# in the modelling result. <br />
# Moreover, a model uncertainty of general nature is associated with the representativity of model results for observed entities.<br />
<br />
Equally, field measurements or observations also suffer from errors or uncertainties. These may be the result of:<br />
# equipment accuracy, <br />
# instrument drift, <br />
# equipment fouling or malfunctioning, <br />
# temporal and spatial sampling frequency, <br />
# data processing and interpretation, <br />
# spatial and temporal representativeness, and other.<br />
<br />
As a result of all this, mismatches of model results and observations are virtually unavoidable. Moreover, both sources of information involve errors in their estimate for the true state of the system. The errors in the model at one hand, and measurements on the other, can be of very different type, origin, and magnitude.<br />
<br />
===Stochastic models===<br />
By adding terms for the model uncertainties on the deterministic equations for the model the model is converted into a so-called "stochastic model". Similarly, terms for the observation uncertainties are added to the equation that can formally be written for the measurements. The data assimilation procedures use these new stochastic equations in order to derive the desired optimal result by suitable combination.<br />
<br />
===Formulation of uncertainty===<br />
An important first step to reduce uncertainty is prescribing known (or assumed) uncertainties in the models and data. When dealing with dynamic and spatially distributed models the temporal and spatial (statistical) properties must be considered carefully. In fact, the time and length scales of the uncertainties should be consistent with the process(es) being modelled. Therefore, as for the actual (deterministic) numerical model, process and system knowledge should be used as much as possible in the formulation of the so-called “uncertainty model”. The better the uncertainty characteristics of the model and its various parameters, and data series, etc. are known, the more accurate and effective the DMI-technique can be in estimating the desired result and optimising the estimate of a system state and reduction of the uncertainty in that estimate.<br />
<br />
===Reduction of uncertainty through DMI===<br />
Depending on the DMI algorithms that are used, and/or correctness of assumptions, a combination of data and model with known uncertainty (in statistical sense) can lead to (statistically) optimal estimate for the system’s state. Such optimal estimates are achieved when the weights in the combination of model outcomes and measurements are based on the uncertainties in both. This is illustrated by a simple example, in which <math>\xi\,</math><sub>M</sub> is a model result for some system state variable at some spatial position and time, and the spread <math>\sigma\,</math><sub>M</sub> is its uncertainty. Similarly, <math>\xi\,</math><sub>0</sub> and <math>\sigma \,</math><sub>0</sub> are the corresponding measured value and the uncertainty in the measurement. A (statistically) optimal combination of these two estimates leads to the estimate [[Image:image5.png]] <br />
<br />
with a spread <sub>[[Image:image6.png]]</sub> that satisfies <sub><sub><sub>[[Image:image7.png]]</sub></sub></sub>.<br />
<br />
Clearly the uncertainty in the combined estimate is less that the uncertainty in the individual estimates.<br />
This example reflects the essence of DMI and in applications of structured DMI techniques to real life numerical models (dealing with many grid points and state variables, complex and non-linear dynamics, high model computation times, etc.) the above principle is ‘merely’ generalised in an appropriate way.<br />
<br />
==Calibration of models==<br />
<br />
===Objective===<br />
The main goal of a [[model calibration]] is the identification of uncertain model parameters. The model is assumed to be perfect, except for a number of not well known parameters or “control variables”. These control variables may originate from parameterisations of uncertain coefficients in the model, initial or boundary conditions, and/or the external forcing. Measurements are used to obtain estimates for these parameters. These estimates are the values of these parameters for which, in some sense, the model outcomes agree best with the measurements. Therefore calibration is often also called “model fitting” or “parameter estimation”. Uncertainties in the measurements can be taken into account, and be used in the definition of the calibration criterion (see below) and the assessment of the uncertainties in the identified model parameters. [[Model calibration]] should not be confused with [[model validation]], for which a set of independent data is used and model forcing and parameters are fixed.<br />
<br />
===Approach===<br />
Calibration is usually translated into an optimisation problem where some Goodness of Fit (GOF) or Cost Function (CF) must be maximised or minimised. A GOF or CF provides a formalised and quantitative description of the agreement between measurements and the corresponding model outcomes. In this way the (main) features or targets that the model must reproduce can be specified. In the formulation of the GOF or CF the uncertainties in the data can explicitly be taken into account. For example, data points with the highest accuracy will have the largest “weight” in – or contribution to - the CF, and thus have the largest impact on the final estimate for the model parameters.<br />
<br />
===Statistical interpretation===<br />
Although calibration is often formulated and carried out in a deterministic sense, a close relation to statistics can be recognised. In fact, a statistical interpretation can be assigned to the comparison of the model outcomes on one hand, and the measurements and (the statistical description of) their uncertainties on the other. On this basis a GOF or CF can be derived, rather than “independently” prescribed. For example, when the estimation is based on Maximum Likelihood (MLH), cost functions of type least squares will be found. The MLH formalism will then automatically also provide a recipe for computing the uncertainties in the parameters’ estimates.<br />
<br />
===Calibration Techniques===<br />
When a model calibration is formulated as an optimisation of a GOF or CF, the parameter estimation is virtually a minimisation problem. For special cases, as for example linear models, this minimisation can be done analytically. In the other case it must be relied on numerical techniques. Because of their efficiency (in the sense of the number of model evaluations that is required to find the minimum) gradient descent techniques as for example conjugate gradient or quasi-Newton methods are by far most efficient. A main problem is often the evaluation of the derivatives of the CF, however. For many data driven models (analytical regression models, empirical formulae, Neural Networks, etc.) the derivatives can usually straightforwardly and analytically be computed. For large scale dynamical numerical (flow, wave, transport, morphological, meteorological) models, with often a large number of uncertain parameters, this is certainly not the case and for the computation of gradients the so called adjoint model can be used. The adjoint model is derived from the original model by means of a variational analysis. For descriptions and applications of adjoint modelling see e.g. Chavent (1980<ref>Chavent, G. 1980.Identification of distributed parameter systems: about the output least square method, its implementation, and identifiability. In Iserman R. (ed), ''Proc. 5th IFAC Symposium on Identification and System Parameter Estimation''. I: 85-97. New York: Pergamon Press.</ref>), Panchang and O’Brien (1990<ref>Panchang, V.G., O’Brien, J.J. 1990. On the determination of hydraulic model parameters using the adjoint state formulation. In Davies A.M. (ed.), ''Modelling Marine Systems'', Volume I, Chapter 2: 5-18. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, Inc. </ref>), Van den Boogaard et al. (1993<ref><br />
Van den Boogaard, H.F.P., Hoogkamer, M.J.J. Heemink, A.W. 1993. Parameter identification in particle models. ''Stochastic Hydrology and Hydraulics'' 9(2): 109-130.</ref>), Lardner et al. (1993<ref>Lardner, R.W., Al-Rabeh, A.H., Gunay, N. 1993. Optimal estimation of parameters for a two-dimensional model of the Arabian Gulf. ''Journal of Geophysical Research''. 98(C10): 229-242.</ref>), Mouthaan et al. (1994<ref>Mouthaan, E.E.A., A.W. Heemink and K.B. Robaczeswka, 1994.Assimilation of ERS-1 altimeter data in a tidal model of the Continental Shelf, ''Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift'', 285-329.</ref>). A main practical disadvantage of the adjoint is the time and cost of its implementation, however. For computationally less demanding models gradient free (local or global search) minimisation techniques may serve as a reasonable alternative for gradient based methods as long as the number of uncertain parameters is sufficiently low (less than 10, say). An example is the DUD (Doesn’t Use Derivatives) technique (Ralston and Jennrich, 1978<ref>Ralston, M.L. and R.I. Jennrich, 1978. Dud, a derivative-free algorithm for nonlinear least squares. ''Technometrics'', 20, 7-14. </ref>).<br />
<br />
==Sequential data assimilation in dynamic (time-stepping) models==<br />
<br />
===Objective===<br />
Even a well calibrated model may not perform perfectly in forecast mode. Prediction errors can be due to several sources of uncertainties as for example unresolved inaccuracies in the model and/or its parameters, non-stationarities, uncertainties in the elements forming the model’s external forcing, etc. To improve a model’s skill for operational and/or real time predictions, on-line or sequential DMI or data assimilation techniques are often used. <br />
<br />
===Approach===<br />
The usual approach is to construct a statistical description for all model and measurement uncertainties. In this way the uncertainties are modelled in a statistical way rather than strictly physical. The original deterministic model is thus embedded in a stochastic environment. The actual data assimilation then involves a consistent (spatial and temporal) integration of all sources of information, i.e. the model and all observations so far available. Within this combination of model and data the statistics of their uncertainties must carefully be taken into account. After this integration for the period that measurements are available, an optimal initialisation of the model is obtained for a subsequent forecast simulation (in prediction mode). This integration of data and model can be repeated every time when new observations become available – the time window of assimilation and forecasts proceeds stepwise forward in time. In this way the model can adapt to changing system conditions. <br />
<br />
===Simple techniques===<br />
The simplest technique for this is “data insertion”. The model is propagated forward in time until a time is reached at which measurements are available. The model values are simply overwritten with measurement values. This overwriting leaves the model unbalanced and typically injects bursts of gravity noise (spurious modes propagating with the speed of gravity) into the model solution. This therefore is generally not a satisfactory method. <br />
A further method is Optimal Interpolation. This method modifies model results whenever observations are encountered by adding some fraction of the difference between modelled and measured quantities to the modelled fields, the fraction being determined by the presumably known error covariance structure of the model solution. To the extent that the error covariances are correctly modelled, this method is statistically optimal. It still results in some gravity wave insertion, and extensive efforts have been made to develop so-called “non-linear normal mode initialisation” procedures to remove the effect of this inserted noise from the subsequent analysis. <br />
<br />
===Kalman filtering===<br />
Kalman filtering (Kalman, 1960<ref>Kalman R. E. (1960).“A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,” ''Basic Engineering'', pp. 35-45.</ref>; Kalman and Bucy, 1961<ref>Kalman R. E. and Bucy R. S. (1961). “New Results in linear filtering and prediction theory,” ''Basic Engineering'', 83D, pp. 95-108.<br />
</ref>) is nowadays a commonly applied procedure for this form of sequential data assimilation, see e.g. Jazwinsky (1970<ref>Jazwinsky A. H. (1970).''Stochastic Processes and Filtering Theory''. Academic Press.</ref>), Gelb (1974<ref>Gelb, A. 1974. Applied Optimal Estimation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.</ref>) or Maybeck (1979<ref name="mayb">Maybeck, P.S. 1979.Stochastic Models, Estimation, and Control. Volume 141-1 of ''Mathematics in Science and Engineering''. London: Academic Press, Inc. Ltd.<br />
</ref>) for the theoretical background. This approach resembles optimal interpolation, except that it explicitly treats uncertainties in the numerical model dynamics, as well as in the observations and computes the solution error covariances as the model propagates forward in time, rather than assuming that they are known a priori. Originally the Kalman Filter was designed for linear systems. For non-linear systems the algorithm must appropriately be adapted or approximated, e.g. by a repeated linearisation of the model at its current state leading to the Extended Kalman Filter (see e.g. Maybeck, 1979<ref name="mayb"/>). For applications in tidal flow models with emphasis on storm surge forecasting, see Heemink and Kloosterhuis (1990<ref>Heemink, A.W., Kloosterhuis, H. 1990. Data assimilation for non-linear tidal models. ''International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids'' 11(12): 1097-1112.</ref>) or Heemink et al. (1997<ref name="heem">Heemink, A.W., Bolding, K., Verlaan, M. 1997. Storm surge forecasting using Kalman Filtering. ''Journal Meteorological Society Japn'', 75(1B): 305-318.</ref>). Recently new algorithms have been developed that do not require or use a model dependent implementation in the form of a tangent linear model. Important examples include the Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) introduced by Evensen (1994<ref>Evensen, G. (1994), Sequential data assimilation with a non-linear quasi-geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics, ''J. Geophys. Res.'', 97(17), 905-924.</ref>; 1997<ref>Evensen G. (1997). “Advanced Data Assimilation for strongly non-linear dynamics,” ''Monthly weather review'', 125(6), pp. 1342-1345.</ref>; 2003<ref>Evensen, G. (2003).The Ensemble Kalman Filter: theoretical formulation and practical implementation. ''Ocean Dynamics'', 53, 343 – 367.</ref>), and so called reduced-rank approaches (Heemink et al., 1997<ref name="heem"/>; Verlaan and Heemink, 1997<ref>Verlaan, M., Heemink, A.W., 1997. Tidal flow forecasting using reduced-rank square root filters. ''Stochastic Hydrology and Hydraulics'', 11(5): 349-368.</ref>). Heemink et al. (2001<ref>Heemink, A.W., Verlaan, M., Segers, A.J. 2001. Variance Reduced Ensemble Kalman Filtering. ''Monthly Weather Review'', 129: 1718-1728.</ref>) propose to combine such algorithms. Numerically these generic filter algorithms tend to be more robust for non-linearities in the model than the conventional model dependent approaches such as EKF. Therefore EnKF and reduced rank algorithms may in particular be suited for data assimilation in highly non-linear models. Recent examples of applications in surface hydrology and coastal hydrodynamics are given by El Serafy et al., 2005<ref>El Serafy, G.Y., Gerritsen H., Mynett, A.E. and Tanaka M.(2005), “Improvement of stratified flow forecasts in the Osaka Bay using the steady state Kalman filter”, ''Proc. 31st IAHR Congress'', Seoul, Eds. Byong-Ho Jun, Sang-Il Lee, Il Won Seo, Gye-Woon Choi, 795-804. </ref>; El Serafy and Mynett, 2004<ref>El Serafy, G.Y. and Mynett, A.E. (2004). Comparison of EKF and EnKF in SOBEK RIVER:Case study Maxau – IJssel, Proc. ''6th Int. Conf. on HydroInformatics'', Eds. Liong, Phoon & Babovic. World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 981-238-787-0,513-520.</ref>; Weerts and El Serafy, 2006<ref name="weer">Weerts, A. and G. Y. El Serafy, 2006. Particle Filtering and Ensemble Kalman Filtering for runoff nowcasting using conceptual rainfall runoff models, ''Water Resources Research'', Vol. 42, No. 9, W09403, doi:10.1029/2005WR004093.</ref>. Other simplified or related methods are the so-called particle filters, e.g. the Residual Resampling Filter (Isard and Blake, 1998<ref>Isard M. and Blake A. (1998), CONDENSATION -- conditional density propagation for visual tracking, ''Int. J. Computer Vision'', 29, 1, 5-28.</ref>; El Serafy and Weerts, 2006<ref name="weer"/>).<br />
<br />
===Combination with data driven modelling techniques===<br />
While filtering techniques have so far been practically applied for conceptual dynamic models, they also provide important new opportunities for combination with data driven models. Given the computational efficiency of data driven models, their combination with on-line sequential data assimilation facilities has a promising potential for operational and real time modelling and forecasting. For hydrology, real time flood forecasting, prediction of water loads in drainage systems, forecasting and control of hydraulic structures such as sluices, weirs or barriers, can be mentioned as relevant applications. For a further discussion on data assimilation in dynamic neural networks, see (Van den Boogaard et al., 2000<ref>Van den Boogaard, H.F.P., Ten Brummelhuis, P.G.J. Mynett, A.E. 2000. On-Line Data Assimilation in Auto-Regressive Neural Networks. ''Hydroinformatics 2000 Conference'', The University of Engineering, IOWA City, USA, July 23-27, 2000.</ref>; Van den Boogaard and Mynett, 2004<ref>Van den Boogaard, H.F.P. and A.E. Mynett, 2004. Dynamic neural networks with data assimilation. ''Hydrological Processes'', 18, 1959-1966.</ref>).<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
Good examples of the application of data assimilation techniques can be found in:<br />
* [http://www.ecmwf.int/ Weather forecasts]<br />
* [http://www.rws.nl/themas/water/meetsystemen_watergegevens/index.aspx Water level forecasts (in Dutch)]<br />
* [http://www.hmc-noordzee.nl/ Hydro Meteo Centre North Sea (in Dutch)]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=16024<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Gerritsen, Herman<br />
|AuthorName1=Gerritsen, Herman<br />
|AuthorID2=16023 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Boogaard, Henk van den<br />
|AuthorName2=Boogaard, Henk van den}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Boogaard, Henk van den]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine information and knowledge management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Public_participation_legislation&diff=37362Public participation legislation2011-08-03T13:47:54Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
This article gives a brief overview of the main conventions and international legislation concerning [[public participation]]. This overview is presented in chronological order, therefore it also presents an historical perspective of public participation. The introduction also gives an historical overview of the period before the 1992 Rio convention. <br />
<br />
==Before the Rio Convention==<br />
When learning about public participation in an environmental context it is easy to assume that it is an issue of only the past decades. Although there is a recent increase in interest in public participation, countries like The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have had provisions concerning public participation and the freedom of information in their legal systems since before the Middle Ages. These countries “have continually faced the eternal struggle against the threats of the sea” and are well-known for dike-construction, polderization and the reclamation of land. These measures have been a necessity for living in these areas for centuries. Managing such activities calls for public involvement and the oldest regulations known are the Rüstinger Rules of Law (1100 A.D), which facilitated such participation. Democracy and public participation are closely connected and democratic nations like the US have included elements for it centuries ago. The right to petition, for example, has been part of the first Amendment of the US constitution since 1791. <br />
<br />
Even in contemporary society, there are still relatively few binding provisions on access to information and public participation in plans and projects dealing with environmental matters. Most legislation is “soft law” which means that the nation state is not obliged to abide by this law and that they can set their own provisions. The handbook Human Rights in Natural Resources (Zillman, 2002) <ref name="Zillman"> Zillman, D.N., Lucas, A., Pring, A. (ed.)(2002). ''Human Rights in Natural Resources ''. Oxford University Press</ref> provides a good overview of the sources of international law concerning public participation in environmental matters. <br />
After World War II, public participation began to gain some international ground; the [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/|1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights] included several provisions on public participation. Ideally, people should have the right and the opportunity to interfere in all administrative processes and that they have a full right of standing in procedures under civil law. “Public Participation laws serve to inject `new players'-citizens, NGOs, indigenous peoples' interests, local communities, etc.-and therefore new challenges into one or more stages of the developmental decision-making that were previously the province only of the project developer, landowner, financier, and government officialdom.” <br />
<br />
Before 1970, there was very little international law concerning the environment and this was the case mostly because of “the Seventeenth-Century principle of the sovereignty of nation-states, and its corollary, that states have exclusive sovereignty in particular over their natural resources”, meaning that states were solely responsible for their own environment. In the 1960's, global attitudes started to change, even though Principle 21 of the 1972 [Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment|Stockholm Declaration] still declares that states have sovereignty over their own natural resources when in agreement with the Charter of the United Nations. Around this time, in the 1970's it started to become more evident that environmental exploitation of one's own state does not just stay within boundaries and also affects other states. Therefore, another provision in the Stockholm Declaration defines that states also have the “responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.<br />
<br />
==The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development==<br />
The [[United Nations Conference on Environment and Development]] in Rio de Janeiro, also called the Rio Earth Summit was a major step towards public participation as a human right and therefore a major step towards [[the Århus Convention]]. Principle 10 of the declaration deals with public participation and states that “environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level”. The Rio Declaration then emphasizes the important role of states in facilitating public participation by taking care of adequate and effective access to information. Principle 20 deals with women's participation, Principle 21 deals with youth participation, Principle 22 promotes the participation of “indigenous people, their communities and other local communities” and Principle 23 calls for the protection of “the environment and natural resources of people under oppression”. By including all these different groups, the Rio Declaration sets the stage for a common vision on public participation in which everyone is allowed to participate. Declarations are, like “principles”, and “agendas” sources of non-binding or “soft” law. <br />
<br />
The Rio Declaration adopted Agenda 21 which sums up what the important points are on which the [http://www.unep.org/|UNEP] (United Nations Environment Programme) should concentrate. These issues are for example, “the further development of international law” (of course also including participation as a human right) and the promotion of sustainable development. Agenda 21 calls for more efficiency in the implementation of international environmental law. <br />
<br />
The EU Directive 90/313 of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment is one of the first binding pieces of European legislation that had to do with public participation. This is however not included in the General Fundamental Rights Framework of the European Union and only concerns “information on the environment held by public authorities” so anything that does not concern the environment is not included. The freedom of access to information has to do with creating “awareness”, a level of public participation which will be discussed in chapter 4. This directive is now amended by Directive 2003/4/EC which also constitutes the first pillar of the the Århus Convention.<br />
<br />
==After the Rio Earth Summit==<br />
Pring and Noé mention some of the first provisions on public participation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment ([[EIA]]) laws, as a tool for public participation. These laws, that have their origin in the United States, are there to guarantee that the impact on the environment of decisions is clear before the decisions are made. In this way, the EIA laws combine development planning with environmental policy and also public participation. There is not a direct provision on public participation but because the impact on the environment needs to be known, consultation and access to information is obviously essential. Since such an interactive process is necessary to guarantee the success of EIA laws, public participation plays a role in almost all “EIA schemes” and that is why these EIA laws are worth mentioning. It was not until 1985, with the EC Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment, that international law really started to require EIAs, since directives are a form of “hard” law. Since EIAs are still required today and seem to be implemented throughout in Europe, they are an important drive behind public participation.<br />
<br />
With the emergence of the concept of sustainable development in the 1970's a new era for public participation came about. Especially in the mid-1980's, after the Chernobyl disaster occurred, public concern for environmental issues increased tremendously. The report Our Common Future,<ref>Bruntland, G. (ed.), (1987), "Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development", Oxford, Oxford University Press.<br />
</ref> by the Brundtland Commission played a role of great significance with its new approach towards environmental problems, highlighting sustainable development. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 with Agenda 21 resulted in a plan of action for sustainable development which also included clauses on public participation. <br />
<br />
A major recent development in the field of public participation in environmental issues in the EU is [[the Århus Convention]] or the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Kofi A. Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations said in reaction to the Århus Convention: <br />
<br />
"Although regional in scope, the significance of the Aarhus Convention is global. It is by far the most impressive elaboration of principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which stresses the need for citizen's participation in environmental issues and for access to information on the environment held by public authorities. As such it is the most ambitious venture in the area of environmental democracy so far undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations."<br />
<br />
Pring and Noé <ref> Pring, G., Noe, Susan Y., International law of public participation in Zillman et al., Human Rights in natural resource development, (2002), Oxford University Press.</ref> call this Convention the “crucible” of international law on public participation. This is the first piece of European legislation that combines environmental rights and human rights and it is also the first document completely about public participation in environmental matters. The Convention is based on the premise that greater public awareness of and involvement in environmental matters will improve environmental protection. It is designed to help protect the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being. The idea of the Århus Convention is that greater public awareness and public participation in environmental matters will help to ensure the successful application of environmental law. The Århus Convention has three pillars. All EU member states are party to the Convention and Council Decision 2005/370/EC approves the Convention as a whole. <br />
<br />
The Århus Convention was adopted on the 25th of June 1998 in the Danish city of Århus at the fourth Ministerial Conference in the “Environment for Europe” process. It entered into force in October, 2001 and the process of ratification still continues. The Convention is also open to accession for non-ECE (East-Central European) countries and therefore countries like Kazakhstan and the Republic of Moldova have ratified it. This is a big step in these countries towards more democracy and a better environment.<br />
<br />
==The 3 pillars of the Århus Convention==<br />
'' See also [[the Aarhus convention]]''<br />
<br />
The Access to Information pillar has a passive and an active aspect. The passive or reactive aspect deals with “the obligation on public authorities to respond to public requests for information” so this is basically the right of the public to information they want on environmental issues. The active aspect is mainly about the right to accurate information and therefore the obligation of providing accurate environmental information by for example “collection, updating, public dissemination” etc. One important definition relating to this pillar is the one on “environmental information” which is defined by the UNECE to include the following: “a non-exhaustive list of elements of the environment (air, water, soil etc.); factors, activities or measures affecting those elements; and human health and safety, conditions of life, cultural sites and built structures, to the extent that these are or may be affected by the aforementioned elements, factors, activities or measures”. There are some exemptions relating to access to environmental information and they usually involve matters like national defence, public security, justice and personal privacy. Before they are imposed, these exemptions are reviewed very well and often face many restrictions. <br />
The Convention gives people the right to public participation by setting some minimum participation standards in environmental decision-making. These requirements are similar to the ones for an Environmental Impact Assessment. The public participation requirements are:<br />
<br />
* The “[[public|public concerned]]” should be notified timely and effectively<br />
* Time should allow for public participation <br />
* Acquiring information should not cost the public any money <br />
* The decision-makers should take into account the public's opinion <br />
* The decision should be made public timely, with full text and reasons to back it up <br />
<br />
Access to Justice is the pillar that guarantees the right to justice in the following contexts: “review procedures with respect to information requests, review procedures with respect to specific (project-type) decisions which are subject to public participation requirements and challenges to breaches of environmental law in general”. This pillar supports the other two pillars and “also points the way to empowering citizens and NGOs to assist in the enforcement of the law”. Besides guaranteeing the right to justice in those three contexts, the pillar also requires that all of the procedures in the three contexts are carried out “fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive”. <br />
<br />
A recent and very important development concerning public participation is the recognition of it as a basic human right. This is the central theme of the Århus Convention (1998). This Convention guarantees people the right of access to information, public participation and the right to justice. Besides being a human right, public participation is also one prerequisite for democracy. According to the Regional Environmental Centre for Europe, “openness should be a rule in a democracy, and secrecy and exemption”. A knowledgeable, well-informed and interested public can be a great asset in the decision making process. Therefore, it is often in a governments interest to make sure that the public is well-informed and able to participate.<br />
<br />
==The SEA Protocol==<br />
Besides the Århus Convention, there is yet another international instrument that aims to incorporate public participation in decision making. The [[Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment]] (SEA Protocol) supplements [[EIA|Environmental Impact Assessment]] and it is a “process of evaluation of environmental effects (including health) during the preparation of policies, plans, programmes and legislation”. The SEA protocol basically aims to keep in mind health factors, social, economic and other issues in strategic decisions. In order to achieve this, SEA should be conducted with public participation; in this way, strategic decisions are made more transparent and should limit harm to environment and health. One of the problems with this protocol is that even though it was adopted in 2003 (after the Århus Convention) it is not stronger at all. The main difference between the two instruments is that the Convention includes all policies that have to do with the environment and that “no requirement for a significant effect is included”. The SEA Protocol on the other hand, “covers only policies likely to have a significant effect on the environment, including health, and it applies only to the extent appropriate”. So the SEA Protocol puts a greater emphasis on what is happening and what the effects are of a decision, while the Convention has a much broader scope, and focuses on public participation in specific situations. <br />
<br />
As stated above, all citizens of the EU now have the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Especially considering the recent enlargements of the EU with former communist states, public participation levels throughout Europe can differ immensely. For example, a country with a strong central government will probably have a very different participation tradition from a country with a weaker central and stronger regional government. First of all, regional governments logically exist of people from the region and secondly, regional government and regional issues are much closer to the people which makes citizens and citizen groups more prone to participate. It is important to acknowledge these differences and similarities in Europe's participation practices for the context of this paper.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
[http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]<br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights|Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Wikipedia]<br />
<br />
[http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503|Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment]<br />
<br />
[http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28091.htm|EU Directive 90/313]<br />
<br />
[http://www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.htm|Official site of the SEA protocol]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=6369<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Pickaver, Alan<br />
|AuthorName1=Alan Pickaver<br />
|AuthorID2=14358 <br />
|AuthorFullName2=Kreiken, Wouter<br />
|AuthorName2=Wouter Kreiken}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Kreiken, Wouter]]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Participation and governance in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category: Theme 2]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=PH_sensors&diff=37361PH sensors2011-08-03T13:47:44Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==General Description==<br />
pH measurements are predominantly conducted with pH-sensitive glass electrodes, which have, in general, proven satisfactory in measurements of pH. However, the behaviour of pH-sensitive glass electrodes often falls short of what precision is required. <br />
<br />
Even with the most careful treatment, the potential of cells containing glass electrodes often drifts slowly with time after such cells were placed in a new solution. Drift of cell potentials is an especially severe problem in investigations dependent on precise observation of small pH differences.<br />
Measurements involving cells with liquid junctions are subject to further uncertainties due to the dependence of liquid junction potentials upon medium concentration and composition and due to pressure changes in the system.<br />
<br />
[[Image:pHfig1.jpg|thumb|250px|left|Fig. 1: pH electrode (Endress & Hauser) and electronic unit (Liquisys)]]<br />
<br />
Ideally, the change in liquid junction potential (residual liquid junction potential) between test solution and standardizing buffer should be small or at least highly reproducible. In practice, systematic errors between many measurements suggest that the reproducibility of the residual liquid junction potential is often poor and that residual liquid junction potentials are dependent on the construction and/or history of the liquid junctions used in various investigations.<br />
Since pH fluctuations in marine waters are very small, an absolute accuracy of less than 0.1 pH units and a resolution of at least 0.01 pH units is required. For an assessment of the CO<sub>2</sub>/CO<sub>3</sub> systems even a higher accuracy is necessary.<br />
<br />
==Description of the Sensor==<br />
<br />
One example is a standard pH Glass Electrode, Endress & Hauser Orbisint CPS 11 together with an electronic unit Liquisys M CPM 223. The electrode is fitted with a PTFE diaphragm, is filled with gel and contains an integrated Pt100 temperature sensor for temperature compensation. It is relatively stable against pressure fluctuations within the system. A photo of the system is shown in Fig. 1.<br />
<br />
==Calibration==<br />
For calibration, the standard procedure is applied, using two buffer solutions with pH=7±0.02 and pH=9±0.02 (Titrisol from Merck) which can be traced to SRM (NIST) and PTB (Germany). Temperature corrections of the buffer solution as given by the manufacturer have to be applied.<br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
* [[Ships of opportunity and ferries as instrument carriers]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Prien, Ralf]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme 9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=PCO2_sensors&diff=37360PCO2 sensors2011-08-03T13:47:35Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{incomplete}}<br />
{{revision}}<br />
''The authors below are planning to work on this article''<br />
<br />
Back to: [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
==Measurement of CO2==<br />
<br />
The main principle of pCO2 measurement is based on the equilibration of a carrier gas phase with a seawater sample and subsequent determination of the CO2 in the carrier gas by an infrared analyser. As the pCO2 in seawater strongly varies with temperature a correction is necessary to compensate for the difference between equilibration temperature and the in-situ seawater temperature. The equilibrated surface water values should be accurate within 2 µatm. This will necessitate pressure measurements within 0.2 mBar and water temperature measurements with an accuracy of 0.01 C.<br />
Different underway-measuring systems have been developed and applied for regional and global studies (e.g., in Feely et al. 1998, Cooper et al. 1998, Wanninkhof & Thoning 1993. Another overview on different systems was given at the “Underway pCO2 System Workshop” October 2-3 2002 at NOAA/AOML in Miami, Fl, (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/pco2/descriptions.html). <br />
<br />
A great variety of pCO2 systems and equilibrators have been described in the literature. Essentially three different design principles can be distinguished (from Körtzinger et al 1996):<br />
* The “shower type” equilibrator (e.g., Keeling et al. 1965; Kelley 1970; Weiss1981; Inoue et al. 1987; Robertson et al, 1993; Goyet and Peltzer, 1994,<br />
* The “bubble type” equilibrator (e.g., Takahashi 1961; Goyet et al. 1991; Schneider et al. 1992; Kimoto and Harashima 1993; Ohtaki et al. 1993), and <br />
* The “laminary flow type” equilibrator (Poisson et al., 1993). <br />
A design described by Copin-Montegut (1985) combines aspects of the shower and bubble type.<br />
<br />
A typical example for two underway pCO2 systems of the “bubble type”, that were developed independently at the Institute for Marine Sciences, Kiel (IFM-Geomar) and at the Baltic Sea Research Institute, Warnemünde (IOW) are described in: Körtzinger et al. (1996):<br />
A continuous flow of seawater passes through an open system equilibration cell, which is vented to the atmosphere. This allows the equilibrium process to take place at ambient pressure at any time. A fixed volume of air is re-circulated continuously through the system so as to be in almost continuous equilibrium with the constantly renewed seawater phase. In a “bubble type” equilibrator this airflow is bubbled through the water phase. After passage through the equilibration cell the air stream is pumped to a non-dispersive infrared gas analyzer, where the mole fraction of CO2 is measured relative to a dry and CO2-free reference gas (absolute mode). Both systems feature a LI-COR” LI-6262 CO2/H2O gas analyser, which is a dual-channel instrument that simultaneously, measures the CO2, and H2O mole fractions. The gas stream needs no drying prior to infrared gas detection as the biasing effect of water vapour on the measurement of CO2 is eliminated based on the H2O measurement. <br />
<br />
These systems were successfully applied in the assessment of regional and global carbon budgets and for the detection of biological processes (see 4.9. “Applications of new emerging technologies”).<br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
...<br />
...<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Wikischro<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Prien, Ralf]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme 9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Oxygen_sensors&diff=37359Oxygen sensors2011-08-03T13:47:01Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
In this article two different types of sensors are described, the electrochemical and the optical type of oxygen sensor.<br />
<br />
==Oxygen Sensor: Electrochemical (Clark Electrode)==<br />
===Physical Relationships in seawater===<br />
Oxygen exists in a dissolved state in seawater. A state of equilibrium is reached when the partial pressure of oxygen, i.e. the part of the total pressure that is due to oxygen, is equal in air and in seawater. The seawater is then saturated with oxygen. In dry, atmospheric air, the oxygen partial pressure (20.95% of the air pressure) is reduced over a water surface because water vapour has its own vapour pressure and a corresponding partial pressure.<br />
<br />
When air is saturated the partial pressure of oxygen pO2 is <br />
PO2 =0.2095 (Pair –Pvapour) Equ. 1<br />
with Pair= air pressure and Pvapour=water vapour pressure <br />
PO2 and Pvapour are temperature-dependent<br />
<br />
The vapour pressure of water calculated from an empirical equation derived from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Chemical Rubber Company, (Cleveland, Ohio, 1964) is<br />
log Pvapour = 8.10765 (1750.286/235+t)) (3)<br />
where t is temperature in degrees C.<br />
<br />
The oxygen concentration cO2 in water is<br />
cO2=(aO2 PO2 MO2) / VM<br />
with aO2 = Bunsen coefficient, MO2= molar mass of oxygen and VM= molar volume.<br />
cO2, PO2 and aO2 are temperature-dependent<br />
(Remark: The Bunsen coefficient (aO2) is defined as the volume of oxygen, reduced to 0°C and 1 atm (101.325 kPA), which is absorbed by the unit volume of seawater at the temperature of measurement when the partial pressure of oxygen is equal to one standard atmosphere).<br />
<br />
Due to the different temperature-dependences an exact knowledge of the temperature is important. Since water vapour pressure increases as temperature rises, the partial pressure of oxygen decreases. The salt content of seawater decreases the solubility of oxygen in comparison to fresh water. Therefore, the oxygen concentration depends on salinity. <br />
<br />
For the assessment of biological processes under varying salinity (estuary, coastal waters) and temperature very often the saturation index is used: The oxygen saturation is calculated as the percent of dissolved oxygen relative to a theoretical maximum concentration given the temperature, pressure, and salinity of the water. The oxygen saturation index shows the over- or under-saturation of a water body due to biological processes -independent of salinity or temperature.<br />
For a calculation of the oxygen saturation at a specific temperature and salinity corrections from the US Geological survey can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/QW/qw81.11.html<br />
<br />
The calculations are based on an equation by Weiss (1970, Deep-Sea Res. 17:721-735) which fits the data by Carpenter (1966, Limnol. Oceanogr. 11:264-277) with a maximum difference of -0.04 mg/L. Carpenter's values are, at the present time, widely accepted as the most accurate determinations of saturation DO available. <br />
Tables for salinity correction can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/6.2.4.pdf<br />
<br />
===Description of the Sensor===<br />
The basic principle underlying the electrochemical determination of oxygen concentration is the use of membrane-covered polarographic sensors. The main components of the sensors are the oxygen-permeable membrane (mainly Teflon), the working electrode, the counter electrode, the electrolyte solution and a reference electrode.<br />
A voltage is applied between the gold cathode and the silver anode and causes the oxygen to react electrochemically. The higher the oxygen concentration, the higher the resulting electric current will be. The current in the sensor is measured and, after calibration, converted into the concentration of dissolved oxygen.<br />
<br />
During this process the cathode provides electrons and the oxygen that diffuses through the membrane reacts with water to form hydroxide ions. The metal of the electrode is oxidized at the anode, a process that releases the electrons required for the cathode reaction. The components of the electrolyte solution bind the metal ions generated by the anode reaction.<br />
<br />
With the addition of another silver/silver bromide electrode, the polarographic sensors can be connected to form a three-electrode cell. They no longer have an anode in the classical sense. One of the silver/silver bromide electrodes acts as a counter electrode (to provide the current) and the other one acts as an independent reference electrode. Current does not flow through this electrode and, thus, it can maintain a much more constant potential than a conventional electrode could.<br />
<br />
In the preceding chapter the significance of the sample temperature for oxygen measurements was already outlined (dependency of the various variables on temperature).<br />
Furthermore, the oxygen permeability of the membrane is temperature-dependents. Therefore, in addition to the external temperature probe (sample temperature!), another probe is required and is built into the sensor head. With these two temperature values, the instrument can compensate for the influence of temperature on the oxygen permeability of the membrane.<br />
<br />
Another important factor for in situ oxygen probes is the flow of water across the membrane that has to be ensured during measurement in order to prevent an oxygen-depletion near the membrane. <br />
<br />
The membrane properties mainly determine the stability of the sensor: Since inside the sensor chamber oxygen is consumed by the polarographic process there is a steep gradient of the oxygen concentration over the membrane. This gradient is dependent on the thickness and permeability of the membrane. Any changes, e.g., an increased permeability due to a biofilm formation on the membrane (biofouling), directly changes the reading of the sensor. Another critical factor for these sensors is the mechanical behaviour of the membrane: If the tension changes due to handling or stress there is a direct influence on the measured value.<br />
An example is an Endreß & Hauser oxygen sensor COS 4 with electronic unit LiquiSys COM 223 (Fig. 1) The measuring range of the sensor is 0.05- 20 mg/L; the time constant is 3 min (90%).<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:oxfig1.jpg|thumb|250px|left|Fig. 1: Endress & Hauser oxygen sensor with electronic unit (Source: E&H)]]<br />
<br />
===Calibration of the Sensor===<br />
Because the measuring process consumes the electrolyte solution in the sensor head calibration must also be carried out for dissolved oxygen measurements at regular intervals. The ions of the electrolyte solution bind the released metal ions, thereby changing the composition of the solution. The recommended calibration interval depends on the oxygen sensor used and ranges from two weeks to one month.<br />
In principle, each linear calibration function is defined by two points: Zero and near 100% saturation. However, with modern sensors such as the Endress & Hauser sensor, the sensor signal obtained in the absence of oxygen (“zero point”) lies below the resolution of the sensor. Therefore, only a one-point calibration has to be carried out.<br />
<br />
There are three possibilities for calibration of oxygen sensors<br />
:#Comparison with water samples and measurement by Winkler titration.<br />
This is the most exact method, however the whole process is complex and requires experienced personal.<br />
:#Calibration in air-saturated water. <br />
This method is prone to errors concerning over-saturation of the water under certain circumstances. Care has to be taken to provide enough water movement (stirring, bubbling of air) during the calibration.<br />
:#Calibration in water-saturated air.<br />
When using this method care has to be taken to avoid temperature fluctuations by evaporation etc. in the closed calibration chamber.<br />
The calibration is carried out by placing the sensor into a small semi-closed container with a wet sponge at the bottom (free pressure exchange with the atmosphere is necessary). It is important to ensure that there are no water droplets on the membrane. Otherwise, the calibration would partially take place in water! It is particularly important to take precautions after the sensor has been stored in the calibration vessel for an extended period of time and condensation droplets may have formed on the membrane. <br />
<br />
Modern instruments such as the one by Endress & Hauser (Fig. 1) totally automate the calibration process: After having the sensor equilibrated in the enclosed container just the appropriate method (“water in air”) is chosen. All necessary constants are stored in the instrument and the slope is determined automatically.<br />
<br />
===Reliability and Applicability===<br />
The Endress & Hauser oxygen electrode is a robust sensor. It is very stable due to its large membrane-covered area and relatively thick membrane (which increases the time constant to about 3 min).<br />
<br />
Under normal conditions, a membrane lasts for more than a year before it has to be replaced (together with an replacement of the internal electrolyte). At this occasion a cleaning/regeneration of the silver anode should be carried out.<br />
Cleaning can be automated, as for example in a FerryBox system with acidified water. Then, a calibration only had to be carried out in intervals of 1-2 months. However, this not necessarily can be applied on other systems with different cleaning procedures.<br />
<br />
==Oxygen Sensor: Fluorescence quenching ("Optode")==<br />
<br />
[[Image:oxfig2.jpg|thumb|250px|left|Fig. 2: Photographs of the Aanderaa optode removed from its housing for cleaning]] <br />
<br />
[[Image:oxfig3.jpg|thumb|250px|left|Fig. 3: Diagram of the optical design of the Aanderaa oxygen optode (taken from Tenberg et al., Submitted).]]<br />
<br />
===Description of the Sensor===<br />
Tenberg et al (submitted) have produced a paper, which describes in detail the development of the idea of the oxygen optode and its application in a number of environments including long-term deployments on mooring. The reference point for all oxygen measurements is the “Winkler Method”. The standard method to determine concentrations of oxygen in water is a two-step wet chemistry precipitation of the dissolved oxygen followed by a titration. The method was first described by Winkler (1888) and has since become the standard method. Winkler titration is always performed on collected water samples. The collection and handling of water samples can induce errors and the analytical work is time consuming and demands meticulous care. It is therefore not a suitable method to obtain in-situ data with high spatial and temporal resolution.<br />
<br />
Tenberg et al (submitted) have shown that the oxygen optode provides a more suitable method than electrochemical sensors for direct measurement of dissolved oxygen. Optode technology has been known for years but it is relatively new to the aquatic research. The fundamental principle is based on the ability of selected substances to act as dynamic fluorescence quenchers. In the case of oxygen, if a ruthenium complex is illuminated with a blue light it will be excited and emits a red luminescence with an intensity and lifetime that depends on the ambient oxygen concentration. It is important to distinguish between three different principles in detecting the red luminescence: Intensity (how strong the return is), life-time (how quickly the return dies out) and phase shift (in principle also a life time based measurement, see below Measurement Principle). Intensity based measurements are technically easier to do, but they can drift over time. The different signal detection techniques are summarized by Wolfbeis (1991), Demas et al. (1999) and Glud et al. (2000) along with a wide range of applications. The function and use of lifetime-based optodes was described by Holst et al. (1995) and Klimant et al. (1996). <br />
<br />
===Measurement principle===<br />
The “Oxygen Optode” from Aanderaa Instruments is based on oxygen luminescence quenching of a platinum porphyries complex. The lifetime and hence the oxygen measurement is made by a so-called phase shift detection of the returning, oxygen quenched red luminescence. The relationship between oxygen concentration and the luminescent decay time can be described by the Stern- Volmer equation: <br />
<br />
Where: τ = decay time, τ0 = decay time in the absence of oxygen and KSV = Stern-Volmer constant (the quenching efficiency). The foil is excited with a blue-green light modulated at 5 kHz. The decay time is a direct function of the phase of the received red light, which is used, directly for oxygen detection, without calculating the decay time. The basic working principles of dynamic fluorescence quenching, lifetime-based optodes and phase shift detection can be found in e.g. Klimant et al. (1996); Demas et al. (1999); Glud et al. (2000). The sensor housing is made of Titanium, rated to 6000 dbar pressure, with a diameter of 36 mm and a total length of 86 mm. This housing includes an optical part (Fig. 1 a temperature sensor and the necessary electronics (a microprocessor with digital signal processing capacity) to process signals and output absolute temperature compensated oxygen readings (in M or % saturation). The sensing foil is composed of the oxygen sensitive fluorescent substance (luminophore) that is embedded in a polymer layer, which is coated onto a thin film of polyester support. The most commonly used oxygen luminophores have been ruthenium complexes (e.g. Klimant et al.) but for this sensor an oxygen sensitive luminophore based on a platinum porphyrine complex, commercial available from PreSens GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) was used due to its higher dynamics. Two types of foils, with and without, a gas permeable protective black silicon layer is available (Fig. 2). The silicon layer also acted as an optical isolation layer to avoid potential influence from fluorescent material in the surrounding water and/or direct incoming sunlight, when measuring in the photic zone. The disadvantage of this layer is that the sensor response time becomes longer. <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal links===<br />
*[[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
*[[Ships of opportunity and ferries as instrument carriers]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.aanderaa.com Producer of data-instruments]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_test_for_dissolved_oxygen Winkler test for dissolved oxigen]<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolved_Oxygen Dissolved oxigen]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Wikischro<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Prien, Ralf]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme 9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Overview_of_Coastal_Habitat_Protection_and_Restoration_in_the_United_States&diff=37358Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States2011-08-03T13:46:52Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>Coastal habitat protection and restoration in the United States has developed incrementally in response to the concerns of various interest groups and shifts in government priorities. A series of articles have been produced for the European Union’s Coastal Wiki to highlight the key legislation, programs and approaches that together constitute the US response to the need to protect and restore coastal habitats. Case studies were selected to provide greater depth on how these programs operate at state and regional scales. These articles represent a fraction of the larger framework of government programs related to the governance of coasts. There are numerous housing, taxation and agricultural laws and policies that are part of the mosaic that determines how coastal planning and decision making unfolds in the U.S . <br />
<br />
==ToC==<br />
Understanding the Political Context <br />
*Issue of State's Rights <br />
*Individual Property Rights<br />
*Reliance on incentives from federal programs<br />
*Emphasis on Stakeholder Participation <br />
*Learning-based management through the re-authorization process<br />
Birth of Modern US Coastal Management<br />
*Stratton Commission <br />
*Coastal Governance Framework Established<br />
*Protected Areas Programs<br />
*Coordination between Programs<br />
*Linking Science to Management <br />
Future of Coastal Management: US Commission on Ocean Policy <br />
<br />
==Understanding the Political Context==<br />
There are several political, cultural and governance traditions in the United States that influence the policies, principles and strategies that shape coastal habitat protection and restoration. Some have their roots in the founding of the country and others are the product of the environmental and social justice movements of the 1960s and ‘70s. <br />
<br />
===State's Rights=== <br />
As a federation of states, much policymaking, planning and decision-making is the prerogative of each state. Federal law is reserved for issues considered to be in the national interest - such as defense and interstate commerce. But other issues and resources in which there is a national interest must be approached in a manner that respects the powers and responsibilities that reside with the states. At the state level the chief executive officer is the Governor and lawmaking is the responsibility of state legislatures. State and local governments raise taxes, provide for police and schools, build roads and bridges, underwrite and support water supply and wastewater treatment facilities that all have major impacts on coastal qualities and the intensity and distribution of suburban and urban development. States vary in how much authority for land use planning is delegated to local governments or larger regional bodies called counties. Where they exist, zoning laws determine the density and types of development permitted in a specific locale and set construction standards. Tidal waters are under state jurisdiction out three miles from the coast. The differences in state and local authorities and traditions of governance influence the design of frameworks for coastal planning and management.<br />
<br />
===Property Rights===<br />
Much of the US Constitution is concerned with the individual rights of citizens, particularly their property rights. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."<ref>Roberts, Thomas. 2002. Taking Sides on Takings Issue. American Bar Association.</ref> The “taking issue” has been a priority concern, and a major limitation, on the actions that can be taken by government to regulate coastal development and protect habitats. A general principle is that government can constrain the uses made of a coastal property but cannot prevent its development unless compensation at full market value is paid. In many states the municipal zoning maps that determine what densities and types of development are permitted were adopted long before environmental issues were a concern. Shorefront property is especially valuable and was often zoned for dense development. In these situations the limitations on development that can be required by coastal management agencies to provide for construction setbacks, public access and onsite water treatment are severely limited. Federal courts arbitrate when conflicts over individual rights cannot be satisfactorily resolved at the state level. A recent example is Palazzolla vs. Rhode Island in which state regulations to protect wetlands prohibited development of property located within a wetland. In this case the Supreme Court found an over-riding public interest in the state regulations, but in many other cases the outcome has been different. Coastal management policies and regulations are very careful to not invoke the Takings Clause in fear of incurring major costs and lengthy legal battles.<br />
<br />
===A Reliance on Incentives=== <br />
The limitations on federal authority over states have led the federal government to rely upon a combination of incentives and dis-incentives to encourage cooperation between the federal government and counterpart agencies and programs at the state level. The provision of state funds for both the planning of state coastal zone management programs and then sustained grants for the implementation of programs that meet federal standards is but one example. In the case of the federal coastal zone management program, the additional incentive that federal actions would be consistent with a state’s CZM policies and procedures has been in some cases a major additional reason for states to join this federal program and comply with its policies. <br />
<br />
===An Emphasis on Stakeholder Participation=== <br />
The country has a strong foundation of citizen participation in government. This grew stronger in the 1960’s and 70’s during the environmental and social justice movements. Federal procedures, and in many cases state legislation, call for ample opportunity for public review and comment on proposed governmental policies, plans and actions. Pending coastal development or conservation decisions must be made known and the record of the decision making process is typically available for public review. The identification of stakeholders and the solicitation of their views can be a lengthy, at times cumbersome process, but it is an essential feature of coastal governance in the U.S. When it works well the result is a high level of voluntary compliance with the procedures and programs that result.<br />
<br />
===Adaptive Management===<br />
Many federal programs are enacted for a specified time period and must be re-authorized if they are to continue. The re-authorization process triggers reviews of performance, the identification of lessons learned and often prompts significant amends to the legislation and the manner in which it is implemented. The federal programs concerned with coastal management and with the protection and restoration of habitats proceed through this re-authorization process and have benefited from this expression of adaptive management.<br />
<br />
===Birth of Contemporary Coastal Management===<br />
Twice in the past four decades the federal government has conducted an across the board assessment of the condition and use of coastal and marine areas and resources and the efficiency and effectiveness of their governance. The first was conducted by the 1969 Stratton Commission and the second in 2004 by the US Commission on Ocean Policy.<br />
<br />
===The Stratton Commission=== <br />
This landmark report set forth the arguments and built the political will for a new ocean and coastal governance system. The Commission concluded that local governments were not capable of planning orderly development and resolving the multiple conflicts along coastlines. It called for a new tiered system of governance and called for major investments in science and technology. The Commission’s findings led to the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce, to a new approach to the management of fisheries, to major investments in the restoration and protection of coastal and marine habitats and to a federal coastal zone management program. <br />
<br />
===A Coastal Governance Framework is Established===<br />
A flurry of environmental laws was passed in the early 1970’s including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. These acts also extended the role and authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in permitting wetlands development and sediment management on beaches and in navigable waters . <br />
<br />
===Protected Areas Programs===<br />
There are significant portions of the nation’s coastal resources within federal or state protected areas. They provide varying degrees of protection due to the balance of goals between conservation and development which is predominate in the United States. The primary federal programs that provide protected area status are the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, National Refuge System, National Estuarine Research Reserves System, and the National Park Service. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is another program of limited authority that prohibits federal funding for vulnerable barrier islands. Each was established with different goals and priorities. Overall, these programs can only protect small representative areas for recreation and conservation. A case study of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary highlights the coordination required between federal and state governments to provide protection to marine habitat and species.<br />
<br />
===Coordination Among Programs===<br />
The federal government has numerous programs and initiatives with overlapping goals and habitat coverage. Coastal America is an example of a partnership between the government and private business. They have focused on removal of old damns to restore fish spawning areas. The Coral Reef Task Force has brought together federal agencies and the states to coordinate funding and action plans. Congress passed the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 with the goal of restoring one million acres by 2010. The Act required federal agencies to establish a coordinating council to build partnerships, develop a monitoring protocol and a database of restoration work. Restore America’s Estuaries is the non-governmental partnership program that is championing this work. <br />
<br />
===Science Based to Management===<br />
A hidden strength of the US coastal management framework is the long-term programs to support science that can be applied to management issues. The National Sea Grant Program is a pioneer in the extension field for coastal issues. Established in 1966 by Congress, the Program established state Sea Grant Programs at universities specializing in applying their science to the needs of local industries and communities. The program’s three key elements are science, extension and communication. Another science focused program is the National Estuarine Research Reserves System that again protects coastal habitats with the purpose of conducting applied research and education. <br />
<br />
==The Future of Coastal Management in the US== <br />
In 2004, the US Commission on Ocean Policy released a report that documents the continuing degradation of coastal resources and the fragmentation of responsibility and of programs designed to address coastal and marine issues of national concern. This was the first major national analysis of coastal management since the 1969 Stratton Commission. <br />
<br />
The US The Commission’s report finds that by 2001, 23 percent of the nation’s estuarine areas were considered impaired for swimming, fishing, or supporting marine species. Harmful algal blooms appear to be occurring more frequently in coastal waters and non-native species are increasingly invading marine ecosystems. The report concludes that while progress has been made in reducing point sources of pollution, nonpoint source pollution has increased and is the primary cause of nutrient enrichment, hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, toxic contamination, and other problems that plague coastal waters. <br />
<br />
The Commission’s assessment of US’s governance system is summarized as follows <ref>US Commission on Ocean Policy Final Report: An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html</ref>:<br />
*Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are in trouble and major changes are urgently needed in the way we manage them. <br />
*Without question, management of the nation’s coastal zone has made great strides, but further improvements are urgently needed, with an emphasis on ecosystem-based, watershed approaches that consider environmental, economic, and social concerns. The Commission recommends that federal area-based coastal programs be consolidated and federal laws be modified to improve coastal resource protection and sustainable use.<br />
*Currently the many entities that administer conservation and restoration activities operate largely independently of one another, with no framework for assessing overall benefits in an ecosystem-based context. The multitude of disjointed programs prohibits a comprehensive assessment of the progress of conservation and restoration efforts and makes it difficult to ensure the most effective use of limited resources.<br />
*Our management approaches have not been updated to reflect the complexity of natural systems, with responsibilities remaining dispersed among a confusing array of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.<br />
*One pervasive problem for state and local managers is lack of sufficient, reliable information on which to base decisions.<br />
*A steady theme heard around the country was the plea for additional federal support, citing decades of underinvestment in the study, exploration, protection, and management of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. <br />
*Congress should reauthorize and boost support for the Coastal Zone Management Act, strengthening the management capabilities of coastal states and enabling them to incorporate a watershed focus. The Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, and other federal laws should be amended to provide financial, technical, and institutional support for watershed initiatives.<br />
<br />
The Commission has proposed a National Ocean Council. Linked to the President’s Office, the Council would work to improve communication and coordination at the federal level. The Council would encourage states to establish regional ocean councils to improve cross jurisdictional research, planning and decision making. These regional ocean councils would serve as focal points for discussion, cooperation, and coordination. The Commission has called for all parties to adopt an ecosystem-based management framework. <br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Joint Ocean Commission http://www.jointoceancommission.org<br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*US Commission on Ocean Policy Final Report: An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Optical_measurements_in_coastal_waters&diff=37357Optical measurements in coastal waters2011-08-03T13:46:32Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
This article gives an introduction of the instruments available (and the application of these instruments) to measure optical properties in coastal waters. Attention is paid to optical measurements in general, regional characteristics and implications for [[remote sensing]]. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Optical measuments using satellite and airborne sensors is a powerful, operational tool for monitoring [[coastal zone]]s. This technology can provide accurate, large-scale, synoptic environmental information essential for understanding and managing marine [[ecosystems]]. <br />
Optical sensor data allows the assessment of in-water properties, such as suspended matter or [[phytoplankton]] concentration, [[benthic]] substrate type, vegetation composition, and [[bathymetry]]. Optical sampling methods enable for example the continuous and contactless measurement of sediment concentrations, which is an important advantage compared to the mechanical sampling methods.<br />
<br />
==Theoretical background and terminology==<br />
Optical characteristics of a light-transmitting medium can be specified in terms of its inherent optical properties (IOPs). The main IOPs are:<br />
* the absorption coefficient (a) (m<sup>-1</sup>)<br />
* the scattering coefficient (b) (m<sup>-1</sup>)<br />
* the attenuation coefficient (c), with c = a + b (m<sup>-1</sup>)<br />
* the scattering phase function (&beta;) (sr<sup>-1</sup>)<br />
<br />
The total IOPs of a body of seawater can be considered as the sum of the partial contributions from water itself and a number of optically significant constituents. Four classes of constituents can be distinguished: <br />
#[[Phytoplankton]] cells and colonies (Phyt)<br />
#Mineral suspended solids (MSS)<br />
#Coloured dissolved organic matter (CDOM)<br />
#Organic suspended solids or [[detritus]] (OSS)<br />
<br />
For more information, see [[Light fields and optics in coastal waters]].<br />
<br />
==Sensor deployment issues==<br />
===Instruments===<br />
Submersible instruments are available from several specialist manufacturers, generally small companies established by researchers who have themselves made significant contributions to the field. Examples include WET Labs, HobiLabs and Bioshperical Instruments in the US, Satlantic in Canada and Trios in Germany. See also the articles: [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]], [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]] and [[Use of Lidar for coastal habitat mapping]]. <br />
<br />
===Autonomous operation===<br />
Many [[oceanographic instrument|instruments]] can be configured for autonomous operation with a data logger or for direct readout through a connecting cable. Autonomous operation usually makes deployment from ships more convenient and is obviously required on moorings. On the other hand, a connecting cable provides real-time monitoring and control of measurements and can also be used to provide electrical power.<br />
<br />
===Profiling measurements===<br />
[[Sensor|Sensors]] mounted in an open protective frame can be lowered on a cable from a research vessel, but it can be difficult to maintain depth and orientation with sufficient precision when the ship moves in a [[waves|swell]]. For radiometric measurements, it is particularly important to avoid the perturbing effects of the shadow of the ship or mooring structure on the underwater light field. These effects can be minimised by positioning the vessel so that the lowering location is facing into the sun, and by using an extended boom where possible. Free-fall packages connected to the ship by a loose cable have a number of advantages: they can be adjusted to fall at a predetermined velocity, are decoupled from ship motions, and can usually be moved some distance from the ship by relative motion imparted by tide or wind. <br />
<br />
===Moorings===<br />
Optical sensors generally have low power requirements and can be deployed for long periods from fixed moorings. However in coastal waters problems with fouling of optical windows and light paths are frequently encountered. Some manufacturers supply sensors fitted with copper shields or intake tubes, and occasionally with mechanical wipers for windows, but a fully reliable solution has yet to be demonstrated.<br />
<br />
==Radiometric measurements==<br />
Submersible sensors are available for planar and scalar irradiance measurements, using flat and spherical diffusers, and for radiance measurements with typical acceptance angles of 5-10°. It is useful to distinguish between different classes of radiance and irradiance meters based on their spectral resolution. PAR sensors have a single detector and a filter whose absorption characteristics are adjusted to provide the required quantum response from 400-700 nm. Multi-waveband sensors use individual photodiode and filter combinations for each channel, and typically have bandwidths of the order of 10 nm. High resolution (sometimes called hyperspectral) sensors employ miniature spectrographs and silicon detector arrays, and can have spectral resolutions of the order of a few nanometers. The sensitivity of a radiometric sensor is largely determined by size of the detecting element, typically square millimetres for a multi-waveband sensor and square microns for a high resolution sensor. Consequently high resolution sensors generally have limited sensitivity, which can limit their use as profiling instruments in coastal conditions.<br />
<br />
Figures 1 and 2 show typical measurements of light field profiles in the Bristol Channel and Irish Sea. The most obvious feature of both plots is the rapid loss with depth of blue wavelengths due to absorption by CDOM and MSS and of red wavelengths due to absorption by water. The increased attenuation in the Bristol Channel is due mainly to mineral particles in suspension. <br />
<br />
The constituent concentrations were: <br />
: Figure 1: Chl = 0.86 mg m<sup>-3</sup>, CDOM = 0.16 m<sup>-1</sup>, MSS = 0.33 g m<sup>-3</sup> <br />
: Figure 2: Chl = 0.2 mg m<sup>-3</sup>, CDOM = 0. 11 m<sup>-1</sup>, MSS = 9.2 g m<sup>-3</sup><br />
<br />
[[image:uw_optics04.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Figure 1: Downward irradiance spectra measured using a TRIOS Ramses sensor in a shelf sea (Irish Sea, 6th July 2005, 16:07 GMT, 54° 08.115 N, 4° 27.814 W )]]<br />
[[image:uw_optics05.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Figure 2: Downward irradiance spectra measured using a TRIOS Ramses sensor in a turbid estuary (Bristol Channel, 1st May 2005, 14:14 GMT, 51° 20.393 N, 4° 01.822 W)]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
==Inherent Optical Property (IOP) measurements==<br />
<br />
===Instrumentation===<br />
The total coefficients of absorption (a) and attenuation (c) can be obtained using dual tube spectrophotometers which come in 9-waveband and continuous spectral versions (Wetlabs). Total scattering coefficients are then calculated from the difference of the two measured variables. Several instruments for measuring backscattering coefficients are available, including the Hydroscat series from Hobilabs and the ECO BB and VSF series from WET Labs. Backscattering measurements are made at one or more fixed angles and extrapolated using an assumed phase function to give a value for the entire backward hemisphere. The effect of attenuation on the signals measured by backscattering meters has to be explicitly taken into account. Nearly all instruments have limitations in their range of linear response, and this can pose problems in turbid coastal waters. <br />
<br />
===IOP Partitioning===<br />
Partitioning of [[in situ]] measurements of total IOPs into the contributions of different classes of optically significant material usually requires ancillary measurements. The proportion of the total absorption coefficient due to dissolved material can be determined by filtering water samples through a 0.2 &mu;m membrane filter. [[Phytoplankton]] pigment absorption can be separated from detrital absorption by collecting suspended material on a glass fibre filter and bleaching or extracting the pigments. The greatest difficulty is the partitioning of the scattering and backscattering coefficients between phytoplankton and mineral particles. Since the two constituents cannot be physically separated, their contribution to scattering is usually estimated using statistical regression techniques. The calculation of absorption coefficients for materials collected on glass fibre filters requires the determination of a ‘path length amplification factor’. There are several published approaches to determining this factor, and the most widely adopted is probably that of Bricaud and Stramski (1990<ref>Bricaud A and Stramski D 1990 Spectral absorption coefficients of living phytoplankton and nonalgal biogenous matter: A comparison between the Peru upwelling area and the Sargasso Sea. Limnol. Oceanogr., 35(3), 1990, 562-582</ref>). It is also possible to determine the conversion factors empirically by direct comparison with ac-9 measurements carried out at the position from which the sample was taken. Figures 3 and 4 show the results obtained using these procedures for an extensive data set from the Irish Sea, British Channel and coastal waters of SW Scotland. The data points show average values in ac-9 wavebands, and the error bars indicate standard deviations.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background: rgb(245, 245, 245); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);padding: 1em;"><br />
{| <br />
|-<br />
| width=200px| [[image:uw_optics06a.jpg|200px]]<br />
| width=200px| [[image:uw_optics06b.jpg|200px]]<br />
| width=200px| [[image:uw_optics06c.jpg|200px]]<br />
|-<br />
|+ align="bottom" style="caption-side: bottom; text-align: left;" | Figure 3: Specific absorption cross sections for the three main classes of optically significant materials.<br />
|}<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background: rgb(245, 245, 245); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);padding: 1em;"><br />
{| <br />
|-<br />
|width=300px|[[image:uw_optics07a.jpg|300px]]<br />
|width=300px|[[image:uw_optics07b.jpg|300px]]<br />
|-<br />
|+ align="bottom" style="caption-side: bottom; text-align: left;" | Figure 4: Specific scattering cross sections for Phyt and MSS solids.<br />
|}<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==Regional characteristics==<br />
There are strong regional variations in the light fields of coastal waters, and also temporal patterns which may arise from enhanced mixing during the winter months or seasonal changes in freshwater run-off. [[Estuaries and tidal rivers|Estuaries and shallow tidal areas]] often have optical properties dominated by suspended [[sediment]], with shallow euphotic depths and high blue light attenuation. Areas with high freshwater inputs, including [[fjords]] and the [[Baltic Sea]], generally have high CDOM levels. This has interesting consequences for [[phytoplankton]] growth, since the reduced [[salinity]] creates a buoyant layer which promotes surface bloom development while the loss of light due to CDOM absorption inhibits growth deeper in the water column. In spite of relatively high turbidity levels, eutrophicated areas with sufficient tidal stirring such as the Dutch coast may support intense [[phytoplankton]] [[Algal bloom|blooms]] for most of the spring and summer seasons.<br />
<br />
==Implications for remote sensing==<br />
In <u>Case 1</u> waters, which are usually deep and free of terrestrial influence, variations in optical properties are linked to chlorophyll concentration. In <u>Case 2</u> waters, which include most coastal regions, the concentrations of the optically significant constituents can vary independently of each other. Interpreting optical [[remote sensing]] signals from Case 2 waters is particularly challenging (see for example IOCCG Report No 3<ref>IOCCG 2000 Remote sensing of ocean colour in coastal, and other optically complex waters. Sathyendranath, S (ed) Reports of the International Ocean-Colour Coordinating Group No. 3, IOCCG, Dartmouth, Canada.</ref> and Miller et al, 2005<ref>Miller R, Del-Castillo C and McKee B (eds) 2005 Remote sensing of coastal aquatic environments. Springer, Dordrecht 347p</ref>) and standard band ratio algorithms frequently produce erroneous results. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the atmospheric correction algorithms used for marine [[remote sensing]] often assume zero reflectance in the near infra-red, and this may not be valid for turbid waters. <br />
<br />
In optically shallow coastal areas (where the physical depth is less than 1/Kd), the reflectance of the sea bed can be detected by radiometers or lidar systems mounted on aircraft (see also [[Use of Lidar for coastal habitat mapping]]). This opens up possibilities of optical bathymetric mapping in regions which are not easily accessible to surface craft, and of habitat classification by [[optical remote sensing]]. In general, however, both shallow-water surveying and deep-water remote sensing in the coastal region require a more sophisticated approach than is employed in standard band-ratio algorithms. This is currently a very active research area. One promising approach is the development of spectral matching techniques, in which an observed water-leaving radiance spectrum is compared to a library of spectra calculated for different constituent concentrations and bottom reflectivity using radiative transfer modelling. The success of this approach depends on more extensive studies of the variability of specific IOPs in coastal waters.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal links===<br />
* [[Light fields and optics in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Optical remote sensing]]<br />
* [[General principles of optical and acoustical instruments]]<br />
* [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]<br />
* [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]]<br />
* [[Use of Lidar for coastal habitat mapping]]<br />
* [[Ships of opportunity and ferries as instrument carriers]]<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
* Babin M and Stramski D 2002 Light absorption by aquatic particles in the near-infrared spectral region. Limnology and Oceanography 47:911-915<br />
* Babin, M, Morel A, Fournier-Sicre V, Fell F and Stramski D 2003. Light scattering properties of marine particles in coastal and oceanic waters as related to the particle mass concentration. Limnology and Oceanography, 48, 843-859<br />
* [[Differentiation of major algal groups by optical absorption signatures]]<br />
*[[Hyperspectral seafloor mapping and direct bathymetry calculation in littoral zones]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=14356<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Alex Cunningham<br />
|AuthorName1=Alex.cunningham<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Leanne Ramage<br />
|AuthorName2=Leanne Ramage}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Leanne Ramage]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine information and knowledge management]]<br />
[[Category:Biological processes and organisms]]<br />
[[Category:Ecological processes and ecosystems]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Nutrient_analysers&diff=37355Nutrient analysers2011-08-03T13:46:03Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
This article discusses two types of analysers to measure nutrients: a wet chemical analyser and an optical nitrate analyser. A nutrient analyser is an example of an [[oceanographic instrument]] to measure the concentration of certain [[nutrient]]s (e.g. nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphate and silicate) [[in situ]]. <br />
<br />
Back to [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Nutrient analyzers are [[oceanographic instruments]], which measure the concentration of certain [[nutrient]]s [[in situ]]. While most measurements of nutrients are still made by taking water samples for later analysis in the lab, a variety of [[in situ]] instruments have become available that automatically measure nutrient concentrations at pre-programmed intervals. These instruments allow a much higher temporal resolution of measurements than what can be achieved by taking samples.<br />
<br />
Most of the nutrient analyzers are based on proven wet-chemical laboratory analysis methods. In recent years, nitrate analyzers, based on the absorbance of ultraviolet light by nitrate in water, have been introduced. <br />
<br />
==Wet chemical analyzers==<br />
A variety of wet chemical nutrient analyzers exist on the market. These analyzers draw in sample water, which is then mixed with a reagent (or reagents). The resulting solution develops an attributive property (e.g. color complex or fluorescence) depending on the concentration of the target analyte, which is then measured either in an absorption cell (color complex) or by a light source and photodetector (fluorescence). In some cases, heating of the solution is required to speed up the development.<br />
<br />
Depending on the chemical protocols followed (i.e. if heating and/or pre-concentration steps are needed), the time response (time between independent measurements) is on the order of a few seconds to minutes. <br />
<br />
Parameters limiting the deployment time of wet-chemical analyzers are reagent consumption, reagent degradation time, available electrical energy (batteries) and [[biofouling]].<br />
<br />
A distinct advantage of wet-chemical analyzers is their capability to conduct [[in situ]] calibrations by piping a blank or standard solution of known concentration into the analyzer instead of the sample. Any instrument drift can be detected and the measurements can be corrected for the drift. <br />
<br />
[[Nutrient]]s that can be measured [[in situ]] include dissolved nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphate, and silicate (see "external links" to companies below for details).<br />
<br />
==Optical nitrate analyzers==<br />
Optical nitrate analyzers use the property of dissolved nitrate to absorb ultraviolet light. The instrument consists of a light source (deuterium lamp of flash lamp), collimating optics, a light path through the sample water, and a spectrometer with a photo detector. The resulting absorption spectra have to be analyzed (either by an on-board computer or after data recovery) as other constituents in the seawater also absorb ultraviolet light. (For details see Johnson & Colleti (2002<ref>Johnson, K.S., Coletti, L.J., 2002. In situ ultraviolet spectrophotometry for high resolution and long-term monitoring of nitrate, bromide and bisulfide in the ocean. Deep-Sea Research I 49, 1291-1305.</ref>))<br />
<br />
Optical nitrate analyzers do not require any chemical reagents and have a very fast response time (on the order of 1 s) making them very suitable for measurements conducted during profiling work, or those done on towed vehicles and AUV's. The detection limitations depend on the length of the optical absorption path Generally, these instruments are not well suited for low nitrate concentrations (< 1 umol). <br />
<br />
The deployment time of the optical instruments is limited by the availability of electrical energy (batteries) and [[biofouling]] (though for some instruments anti-biofouling measures can be added). <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal links===<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
* [[Light fields and optics in coastal waters]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
*[http://www.satlantic.com/default.asp?mn=1.15.25.34 Satlantic] Optical nitrate analysers, water quality monitor. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
*[http://www.trios.de/__science/uk/index.html TriOS Optical Sensors] Optical nitrate analysers. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
*[http://www.systea.it/systea/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=16&Itemid=28 Systea S.p.a.], wet chemical nutrient analysers. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
*[http://www.subchem.com/ SubChem Systems Inc.], submersible chemical analysers for nutrients, trace metals. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
*[http://www.ysi.com/ YSI Inc.], nutrient analysers. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
*[http://www.n-virotech.com/ EnviroTech LLC], nutrient analysers. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
*[http://www.act-us.info/ Alliance for Coastal Technologies], database of instruments for studying and monitoring of the coastal environment, technology evaluations, needs & use assessments. Accessed 14.5.2007<br />
<br />
===Further reading===<br />
* Grasshoff, K., Kremling, K., Erhardt, M. (eds.) (1999), Methods of Seawater Analysis, Wiley-VCH, 600 pp., ISBN: 978-3527295890<br />
* Hanson, A.K., Donaghay, P.L., 1998. Micro- to fine-scale chemical gradients and layers in stratified coastal waters. Oceanography, 11(1), 10-17.<br />
* Johnson, K.S., J.A. Needoba, S.C. Riser, W.J. Showers, 2007. Chemical Sensor Networks for the Aquatic Environment, Chem. Rev., 107, 623-640.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Wikischro<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Prien, Ralf]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme 9]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Measuring_instruments_for_sediment_transport&diff=37354Measuring instruments for sediment transport2011-08-03T13:45:53Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article is a summary of chapter 5 of the [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>. This article describes different measurement instruments available to measure sediment transport in rivers, coastal seas and estuaries. Many of these instruments are also described in separate articles (see text for links to these articles). <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Various instruments for measuring the sediment transport rate are described. Usually the sediment transport is represented as the summation of the [[bed load]] and [[suspended load]] transport. <br />
<br />
To measure the [[bed load]] transport, two measuring methods are available: simple mechanical trap-type samplers (collecting the sediment particles transported close to the bed) and the recording of the bed profile as a function of time ([[bed form tracking]]).<br />
<br />
To measure the [[suspended load]] transport, a wide range of instruments is available from simple mechanical samplers to sophisticated optical and acoustical (electronic) sensors. Most instruments are used as point-integrating instruments which means the measurement of the relevant parameters in a specific point above the bed as a function of time. Some instruments are used as depth-integrating samplers, which means continuous sampling over the water depth by lowering and raising the instrument at a constant transit rate.<br />
<br />
All instruments are described in terms of their measuring principle, ractical operation, inaccuracy and technical specifications. To get a better understanding of the accuracy of the various instruments, special attention is given to comparative measurements.<br />
<br />
==Selection of sediment transport samplers==<br />
===Guidelines for selection of sediment transport samplers===<br />
Guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate sampling technique for a certain environment are given, based on the following criteria:<br />
# type of process/parameters to be measured,<br />
# type of sampling environment,<br />
# type of sampling,<br />
# type of project and required accuracy,<br />
# available instruments and available budget.<br />
<br />
For more information on guidelines, see [[Guidelines for selection of sediment transport samplers]].<br />
<br />
===Sediment transport measurements in rivers===<br />
[[Image:Pumpsampler.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Figure 1: Pump sampler for rivers]]<br />
Simple mechanical instruments such as the bottle-type, the trap-type and the pump-type samplers are still very attractive because of their robustness and easy handling, particularly when used at isolated field sites. The accuracy of the measured parameters involved can be increased by increasing the number of samples collected. Analysis costs of all samples involved may be critical with respect to the available budget. Optical and acoustic instruments are attractive when large numbers of data have to be collected. Since calibration is involved, the accuracy strongly depends on the quality/reliability of the calibration curves. Hence, many calibration samples are required using a pump sampler with the nozzle as close as possible to the optical/acoustic sensor.<br />
<br />
A major technological advance for measuring suspended load transport is the [[in situ]] [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)|Laser diffraction instrument (LISST)]]. This instrument can measure the particle size distribution and sediment concentration simultaneously. For more information on instruments for measurements in rivers, see [[Measuring instruments for rivers]].<br />
<br />
===Sediment transport measurements in estuaries===<br />
Simple mechanical instruments such as the bottle-type and the trap-type samplers are not attractive because of the very short sampling times involved. Accuracy cannot be improved by increasing number of samples due to time-variation of sediment concentrations within the tidal cycle.<br />
<br />
Point-samples should be taken over the entire water column in strong tidal flows as the sediments will be mixed over the water column by turbulent eddies. Data sampling can be confined to the bottom region in weak tidal flows. Flocculation often is a dominant process in muddy estuaries. The LISST-ST which is an in-situ Laser diffraction instrument in combination with a settling tube offers a powerful solution to measure particle sizes, concentrations and densities of the individual particles as well as the flocculated aggregates (see also [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]). For more information on instruments for measurements in estuaries, see: [[Measuring instruments for estuaries]].<br />
<br />
===Sediment transport measurements in coastal seas===<br />
[[Image:Wesptripod.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Figure 2: Wesp placing tripod in coastal zone]]<br />
Instruments available for measuring suspended sediment concentrations and transport in coastal environments are: mechanical traps (streamer traps in shallow surf zone <1 m), pump samplers, optical samplers and acoustic samplers. Many samples at the same location are required to eliminate the random fluctuations.<br />
<br />
Pump samplers have been used by many researchers to measure time-averaged sediment concentrations. These types of samplers can only be used from a pier or platform. The intake nozzles should be directed downwards.<br />
<br />
Optical and acoustic probes are available to measure instantaneous sediment concentrations from a pier or platform or from a stand-alone tripod. Data transmission can take place by [[telemetry]] or on-line to a computer or data logger (see e.g. [[application of data loggers to seabirds]]. Optical probes cannot be used in conditions with both sand and silt particles in suspension. The optical instruments are relatively sensitive to fine mud particles. Hence, the mud background concentration must be small (<50 mg/1). Otherwise, the sand concentrations cannot be measured accurately. Acoustic probes cannot be used in plunging breaking wave conditions due to the presence of air bubbles.<br />
<br />
Nuclear probes which have been used in Russia and in China, cannot be used in low-energy conditions where the concentrations are relatively small. The threshold concentration is of the order of 500 mg/1.<br />
<br />
Suspended sediment transport measurements in conditions with combined current and wave conditions cannot be performed from moored or sailing survey ships. Two options are possible:<br />
# On-line sampling from piers connected to shore, platforms resting on seabed or sledges/trailers towed by vehicles (only in shallow surf zone) <br />
# Stand-alone sampling (see Figure 2) from frames/tripods/poles on/in the seabed or from drift buoys (profiling mode from surface to bed) using a package of sophisticated electronic [[sensor|sensors]] (electromagnetic and acoustic flow-meters, [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)|optical]] and [[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)|acoustic]] backscattering sediment concentration meters). For more information on instruments for measurements in coastal seas, see [[Measuring instruments for coasts]].<br />
<br />
==Description of bed load samplers==<br />
The basic principle of mechanical trap-type [[bed-load]] samplers is the interception of the sediment particles which are in transport close to the bed over a small incremental width of the channel bed. Most of the particles close to the bed are transported as [[bed load]] but the sampler will inherently collect a small part of the [[suspended load]] (related to vertical size of intake mouth).<br />
<br />
Popular instruments to sample [[bed load]] transport are: [[Bed load transportmeter Arnhem (BTMA)]], [[Helley-Smith sampler (HS)]] and [[Delft Nile bed load and suspended load sampler (DNS)]].<br />
<br />
The [[bed-load]] transport measured by a mechanical sampler is dependent on its efficiency (instrumental errors), on its location with respect to the bed form geometry (spatial variability) and on the near-bed turbulence structure (temporal variability).<br />
<br />
The efficiency of the [[bed-load]] sampler depends on the hydraulic coefficient, the percentage of width of the sampler nozzle in contact with the bed during sampling and on sampling disturbances generated at the beginning and the end of the sampling period.<br />
<br />
Typical instrumental problems of a (bag-type) bed-load sampler are:<br />
* the initial effect; sand particles of the bed may be stirred up and trapped when the instrument is placed on the bed (oversampling),<br />
* the gap effect; a gap between the bed and the sampler mouth may be present initially or generated at a later stage under the mouth of the sampler due to migrating ripples or erosion processes (undersampling),<br />
* the blocking effect; blocking of the bag material by sand, silt, clay particles and organic materials will reduce the hydraulic coefficient and thus the sampling efficiency (undersampling),<br />
* the scooping effect; the instrument may drift downstream from the survey boat during lowering to the bed and it may be pulled forward (scoop) over the bed when it is raised again so that it acts as a grab sampler (oversampling).<br />
<br />
[[Bed load]] transport can also be determined by [[bed form tracking]].<br />
<br />
==Description of suspended load samplers==<br />
This section describes different samplers to measure the [[suspended load]]. For a comparison of different [[suspended load]] samplers, see [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-4_Comparison_of_suspended_load_samplers.pdf section 5.4 of the manual], which compares trap, bottle and pump samplers as well as optical and acoustical instruments. [[Suspended load]] samplers can be classified as a <u>direct method</u> (Delft Bottle sampler and acoustic samplers) or and <u>indirect method</u>. Indirect methods may be <u>point-integrating</u> (trap/bottle samplers, pump samplers, optical samplers, impact samplers) or <u>depth-integrating</u> (USD-49 and collapsible bag sampler). The most important characteristics of the point-integrating samplers (sampling period, minimum cycle period and overall accuracy) are summarized in the article [[Instrument Characteristics of point-integrating suspended load samplers]].<br />
<br />
===Bottle and Trap samplers===<br />
The basic principle of all mechanical [[bottle and trap samplers]] is the collection of a water-sediment sample to determine the local sediment concentration, transport and/or particle size by physical laboratory analysis.<br />
<br />
Optimal sampling of a water-sediment volume by means of a mechanical instrument requires an intake velocity equal to the local flow velocity (iso-kinetic sampling) or a hydraulic coefficient, defined as the ratio of the intake velocity and local flow velocity, equal to unity. Differences between the intake velocity and local flow velocity result in sampling errors.<br />
<br />
'''USP-61 point-integrating sampler'''<br><br />
The [[USP-61 suspended load sampler]] consists of a streamlined bronze casting (= 50 kg), which encloses a small bottle (= 500 ml). The sampler head is hinged to provide access to the bottle. The intake nozzle, which can be opened or closed by means of an electrically operated valve, points directly into the approaching flow.<br><br />
<br />
'''Delft Bottle sampler'''<br><br />
The [[Delft Bottle suspended load sampler]] is based on the flow-through principle, which means that the water entering the intake nozzle leaves the bottle at the backside. As a result of a strong reduction of the flow velocity due to the bottle geometry, the sand particles larger than about 100 um settle inside the bottle. Using this instrument, the local average sand transport is measured directly.<br><br />
<br />
'''USD-49 depth-integrating sampler'''<br><br />
The [[USD-49 depth-integrating sampler]] is a depth integrating sampler. The sampler is lowered at a uniform rate from the water surface to the streambed, instantly reversed, and then raised again to the water surface. The sampler continues to take its sample throughout the time of submergence. At least one sample should be taken at each vertical selected in the cross-section of the stream. A clean bottle is used for each sample. The USD-49 sampler has a cast bronze streamlined body in which a round or square bottle sample container is enclosed. The head of the sampler is hinged to permit access to the sample container.<br><br />
<br />
'''Collapsible-Bag depth-integrating sampler'''<br><br />
The [[Collapsible-Bag depth-integrating sampler]] is based on the principle that the static pressure acting on the outside surface of the flexible bag (devoid of air) creates at the nozzle exit a pressure equal to the hydrostatic pressure at the nozzle entrance. Using this method, samples can be collected throughout any depth. The sampler consists of a wide-mouth, perforated, rigid plastic container enclosed in a cage-like metal frame. The head of the frame supports a plastic intake nozzle (6 or 13 mm) and swings open to permit the plastic container to be removed. When the head is closed, the end of the nozzle extends slightly into the mouth of the container. Perforations in the container allows the air in the container to escape during submergence. For sampling, a collapsed flexible plastic bag is placed inside the rigid container.<br />
<br />
===Pump sampler===<br />
Usually a pump sampler consists of a sub-mergible carrier (with intake nozzle, current meter and echo-sounder; see example 2), a deck-mounted pump and a flexible hose connecting the intake nozzle and the pump. The hose diameter should be as small as possible to reduce the stream drag on the hose. Using a hose diameter (bore) in the range of 3 to 16 mm, the pump discharge will be in the range of 1 to 30 litres per minute. In case a deck-mounted pump is used the maximum suction lift will be about 7 m. Assuming a static lift (= height of pump above water level) of about 2 m, the suction lift available for operation of the pump will be about 5 m resulting in a maximum hose length of about 50 m. In extreme deep waters an underwater pump must be used. Operation of a pump sampler is limited to flow conditions with velocities smaller than 2 m/s because of excessive stream drag on the pumphose and carrier. To obtain a reliable average sediment concentration, the sampling or measuring period should be rather large (about 300 seconds). Furthermore, the collection of a large sediment sample for size-determination by sieving or settling tests requires the sampling of a relatively large water volume (about 25 to 50 litres).<br />
<br />
Pump sampling also is an attractive method for concentration measurements in coastal conditions because a relatively long sampling period can be used which is of essential importance to obtain a reliable time-averaged value. The sampling period should be rather long (15 min) in irregular wave conditions (at least 100 waves).<br />
A problem of sampling in conditions with irregular waves is that the magnitude and direction of the fluid velocity is changing continuously. This complicates the principle of isokinetic sampling in the flow direction. A workable alternative may be the method of normal (or transverse) sampling, which means that the intake nozzle of the sampler is situated normal to the plane of fluid velocity.<br />
<br />
The collection of a large sediment sample for size-determination by sieving or settling tests requires the sampling of a relatively large water volume (about 25 to 50 litres).<br />
Both requirements can be satisfied by collecting water samples by means of a pump in combination with an [[in situ]] separation of water and sediment particles. See also [[pump sampling in unidirectional and oscillatory flow]] and [[pump samplers]].<br />
<br />
'''Pump filter sampler'''<br><br />
The pump-filter sampler takes a water-sediment sample which is pumped through a filter to separate all particles larger than the mesh size of the applied filter material. To separate the sand fraction, nylon filter material with a mesh size of 50 um can be used. The water volume is recorded by means of a (simple) volume meter. After taking a sample, the filter system is opened and the filter material with the sand catch is removed and returned to the laboratory for drying, weighing and size analysis. During removal of the filter, the pumping is continued using a bypass system. The filtration method cannot be used in a silty environment with silt concentrations larger than about 50 mg/1 because of rapid filter blocking by the fine silt particles.<br />
<br />
'''Pump-Sedimentation sampler'''<br><br />
The pump-sedimentation sampler is based on the filling of a large calibrated container (= 50 liters), in which the sand particles can settle. Using a settling height of about 0.75 m, the sand particles larger than 50 a 60 um can be separated in about 5 minutes. A high separation efficiency can be obtained by using a conical container and a vibrator to avoid settlement of the sand particles on the inside of the container. To determine the silt concentration (particles smaller than 50 um), a small water sample can be tapped during emptying of the container. <br />
<br />
'''Pump-Bottle sampler'''<br><br />
The pump-bottle sampler is based on the continuous pumping (propeller type pump) of a water-sediment mixture. On board of the survey vessel a small part of the pump discharge is used to fill a 1 liter-bottle or 2 liter-bottle in 3 to 5 minutes by using a small siphon tube. Using this method, a relatively long sampling period and hence a (statistically) reliable concentration measurement can be obtained.<br />
<br />
When a peristaltic pump is used (discharge of 0.5 to 1 1/min), the bottle can be filled directly. An optical sensor can be used to determine the silt concentration in the bottle after settling of the sand particles.<br />
<br />
===Optical and acoustical sampling methods===<br />
Optical and acoustical sampling methods enable the continuous and contactless measurement of sediment concentrations, which is an important advantage compared to the mechanical sampling methods. Although based on different physical phenomena, optical and acoustical sampling methods are very similar in a macroscopic sense. For both methods the measuring principles can be classified in: transmission, scattering, and transmission-scattering. For more information, see [[general principles of optical and acoustical instruments]].<br />
<br />
'''Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)'''<br><br />
The [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]] is an optical sensor for measuring turbidity and suspended solids concentrations by detecting infra-red light scattered from suspended matter. The response of the OBS sensors strongly depends on the size, composition and shape of the suspended particles. The OBS response to clay of 2 um is 50 times greater than to sand of 100 um of the same concentration. Hence, each sensor has to be calibrated using sediment from the site of interest. The measurement range for sand particles (in water free of silt and mud) is about 1 to 100 kg/m3. See also [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]].<br />
<br />
'''Optical Laser diffraction point sensors (LISST)'''<br><br />
Various [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)|Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]] are commercially available to measure the particle size and concentration of suspended sediments.<br />
* LISST-100: This instrument is the most widely used Laser diffraction instrument, which delivers the size distribution by inversion of the 32-angle scattering measurements. <br />
* LISST-ST: This instrument has been designed to obtain the settling velocity distribution of sediments of different sizes. In this case, a sample of water is trapped and particles are allowed to settle in a 30 cm tall settling column at the end of the instrument-housing.<br />
* LISST-25A and 25X: This instrument is a simpler, less expensive version of the LISST-100.<br />
* LISST-SL: This instrument is a streamlined body that draws a sediment-laden stream into it for Laser measurements. It incorporates a Laser, optics, multi-ring detector identical to the LISST-100 and electronics for signal amplification and data scheduling and transmission. A pump is also built-in to ensure isokinetic withdrawal rates. See also [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]].<br />
<br />
'''Various other Optical point sensors'''<br><br />
Various types of optical samplers were and are commercially available. Herein, the following types of optical instruments are discussed: Eur Control Mex 2, Partech Twin-Gap, Metrawatt GTU 702 and Monitek 230/134.<br />
<br />
'''Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)'''<br><br />
Various [[acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]] are commercially available. Delft Hydraulics has developed acoustic point sensors (ASTM or USTM; Acoustic or Ultrasonic Sand Transport Meter; in Dutch: Acoustische Zand Transport Meter) for measuring the velocity and sand concentration in a point. The USTM or ASTM is an acoustic instrument for measuring the flow velocity in 1 or 2 horizontal dimensions and the sand concentration. <br />
<br />
The Acoustic Sand Transport Monitor (ASTM) is based on the transmission and scattering of ultrasound waves by the suspended sand particles in the measuring volume. Using the amplitude and frequency shift of the scattered signal, the concentration and velocity and hence the transport of the sand particles can be determined simultaneously and continuously. The ASTM consists of a sensor with a pre-amplifier unit mounted on a submersible carrier and a separate converter with panel instruments and switches. The velocity measurement if mounted on a carrier is one-dimensional and related to the carrier orientation, which is measured by means of a magnetic compass. The vertical position is measured by a pressure gauge (height beneath water surface) and an echosounder (height above bed) mounted on the carrier.A transmitting frequency of 4.5 Mhz has been chosen to minimize the particle size dependency and to make the instrument insensitive to silt particles (< 50 um). The influence of temperature and salinity variations is also negligible.<br />
<br />
The UHCM-instrument (only concentration) is a small-sized instrument which has been developed for the high concentration range of 1 to 100 kg/m3 near the bed. This instrument is based on the measurement of the attenuation of ultra-sound by the sediment particles. The transducer heads are close together at a distance of about 10 to 20 mm (depending on application; user-specified). See also [[Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]].<br />
<br />
'''Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS and ADCP)'''<br><br />
[[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)]] are non-intrusive techniques for the monitoring of suspended sediment particles in the water column and changing sea bed characteristics. An acoustic backscatter instrumentation package comprises acoustic sensors, data acquisition, storage and control electronics, and data extraction and reduction software. The basic principle of the acoustic backscatter approach is as follows. A short pulse (10 us) of acoustic energy is emitted by a sonar transducer (1 to 5 MHz). As the sound pulse spreads away from the transducer it insonifies any suspended material in the water column. This scatters the sound energy, reflecting some of it back towards the sonar transducer, which also acts as a sound receptor. With knowledge of the speed of sound in water, the scattering strength of the suspended material and the sound propagation characteristics, a relationship may be developed between the intensity of the received echoes and the characteristics of the suspended material. See also [[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)]].<br />
<br />
'''Impact sensor'''<br><br />
Impact probes are based on the momentum-transfer principle. The high density of sediment particles gives them excess momentum over the surrounding water so that they tend to strike a transducer placed in the stream rather than follow the path of the water particles. This effect discriminates between sand and silt particles. Silt particles do not possess sufficient excess momentum to impact. The sand concentration can be determined from the impact rate and the independently measured water velocity.<br />
<br />
===Nuclear sensor===<br />
Nuclear samplers for suspended sediment concentrations have been used in Russia, Hungary, Poland and China. The principle is based on the absorption of radio-active energy by the sediment particles. The radio-activity is measured by (radiation) counters. Calibration is required. The concentration range is 0.3 to 1000 kg/m3 with an inaccuracy of 20% for low concentrations and 5% for high concentrations.<br />
<br />
===Conductivity sensor===<br />
Delft Hydraulics has developed a small-scale conductivity sensor (CCM) for measuring sand concentrations in the high concentration regime (100 to 2000 kg/m3). The sensor (size of 0.01 m) measures the conductivity of the fluid sediment mixture near the sensor points. The sensor has been used to measure sand concentrations in the sheet flow layer close to the bed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Summaries of the manual===<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* Chapter 1: [[Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements]]<br />
* Chapter 2: [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 4: [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 10: [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
===Other internal links===<br />
Links to other summarizing articles which are part of Chapter 5:<br />
[[Image:Pumpsampler.jpg|thumb|right|Example 2: Pump sampler for rivers]]<br />
* 5.2: [[Instrument Characteristics of point-integrating suspended load samplers]]<br />
* 5.3: Selection of sediment transport samplers<br />
** [[Guidelines for selection of sediment transport samplers]] <br />
** [[Measuring instruments for rivers]] <br />
**[[Measuring instruments for estuaries]] <br />
**[[Measuring instruments for coasts]]<br />
* 5.5: [[Bed load]] samplers: <br />
** [[Bed load transportmeter Arnhem (BTMA)]]<br />
** [[Helley-Smith sampler (HS)]] <br />
** [[Delft Nile bed load and suspended load sampler (DNS)]].<br />
** [[Bed form tracking]]<br />
* 5.6: [[Suspended load]] samplers: <br />
** 5.6.2: [[Bottle and trap samplers]]<br />
*** [[USP-61 suspended load sampler]]<br />
*** [[Delft Bottle suspended load sampler]] <br />
*** [[USD-49 depth-integrating sampler]] <br />
*** [[Collapsible-Bag depth-integrating sampler]]<br />
** 5.6.3: [[Pump samplers]] and [[Pump sampling in unidirectional and oscillatory flow]]<br />
** 5.6.4: [[general principles of optical and acoustical instruments|Optical and acoustical sampling methods]]: <br />
*** [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]]<br />
*** [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]<br />
*** [[Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]] <br />
*** [[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5_Measuring_instruments_sediment_transport.pdf Chapter 5 of the manual]<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-2_Instrument_characteristics.pdf 5.1 General aspects]<br />
*5.2 Instrument characteristics<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-3_Selection_of_sediment_transport_samplers.pdf 5.3 Selection of sediment transport samplers (9.0 Mb)]<br />
**5.3.1 Guidelines for selection of sediment transport samplers<br />
**5.3.2 Sediment transport measurements in rivers<br />
**5.3.3 Sediment transport measurements in estuaries<br />
**5.3.4 Sediment transport measurements in coastal seas <br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-4_Comparison_of_suspended_load_samplers.pdf 5.4 Comparison of suspended load samplers] <br />
**5.4.1 Comparison of USP-61, Delft Bottle and Pump-Filter sampler<br />
**5.4.2 Comparison of Pump-filter sampler and ASTM<br />
**5.4.3 Comparison of Pump-Filter sampler and Pump-Bottle sampler<br />
**5.4.4 Comparison of Pump-Sedimentation sampler and Pump-Filter sampler<br />
**5.4.5 Comparison of Pump-Sedimentation sampler and Bottle sampler<br />
**5.4.6 Comparison of OBS and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.7 Comparison of ASTM and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.8 Comparison of ASTM, OBS and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.9 Comparison of ABS and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.10 Overall conclusions with respect to OBS, ASTM and ABS instruments<br />
*5.5 Descripton of bed load samplers <br />
**5.5.1 Trap sampling <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-1_general_aspects_of_trap_sampling_bed_load.pdf 5.5.1.1 General aspects]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-2_BTMA_sampler.pdf 5.5.1.2 Bed-load transportmeter Arnhem (BTMA)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-3_Helley_Smith_sampler.pdf 5.5.1.3 Helley Smith (HS)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-4_Delft_Nile_sampler.pdf 5.5.1.4 Delft Nile sampler (DNS)]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-2_Bed_form_tracking.pdf 5.5.2 Bed form tracking]<br />
*5.6 Description of suspended load samplers<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-1_Classification_of_suspended_samplers.pdf 5.6.1 Classification of samplers]<br />
**5.6.2 Bottle and Trap samplers <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-1_General_aspects_of_bottle_and_trap_samplers.pdf 5.6.2.1 General aspects]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-2_Bottle_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.2 Bottle sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-3_Trap_samplers.pdf 5.6.2.3 Trap sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-4_USP61_point_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.4 USP-61 point-integrating sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-5_Delft_bottle_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.5 Delft Bottle sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-6_USD49_depth-integrating_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.6 USD-49 depth-integrating sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-7_Collapsible_bag_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.7 Collapsible-Bag depth-integrating sampler] <br />
**5.6.3 Pump sampler <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-1_General_aspects_of_pump_sampling.pdf 5.6.3.1 General aspects for sampling in unidirectional flow]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-2_General_aspects_of_pump_sampling_in_oscillatory.pdf 5.6.3.2 General aspects for sampling in oscillatory flow]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-3_Pump_filter_sampler.pdf 5.6.3.3 Pump-Filter sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-4_Pump_sedimentation_sampler.pdf 5.6.3.4 Pump-Sedimentation sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-5_Pump_bottle_sampler.pdf 5.6.3.5 Pump-Bottle sampler]<br />
**5.6.4 Optical and Acoustical sampling methods <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-1_General_principles_of_optical_and_acoutical_sampl.pdf 5.6.4.1 General principles]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-2_Optical_backscatter_point_sampler_OBS.pdf 5.6.4.2 Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-3_Optical_point_sensors_LISST.pdf 5.6.4.3 Optical Laser diffraction point sensors (LISST)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-4_Various_optical_sensors.pdf 5.6.4.4 Various other Optical point sensors]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-5_Acoustic_point_sensors.pdf 5.6.4.5 Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-6_Acoustic_backscatter_profiling_sensors.pdf 5.6.4.6 Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS and ADCP)] <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-5_Impact_sensor.pdf 5.6.5 Impact sensor] <br />
***5.6.5.1 General aspects<br />
***5.6.5.2 IOS impact sensor <br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-6_Nuclear_sensor.pdf 5.6.6 Nuclear sensor]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-7_Conductivity_sensor.pdf 5.6.7 Conductivity sensor]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Marine_Spatial_Planning_-_the_need_for_a_common_language&diff=37353Marine Spatial Planning - the need for a common language2011-08-03T13:45:40Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{revision}}<br />
<br />
During the past decade, the evolution of marine [[spatial planning]] and ocean zoning has become increasingly important in implementing [[ecosystem]]-based marine management. Originally, marine [[spatial planning]] was used to improve the management of [[Biodiversity and conservation, and role of marine protected areas|marine protected areas]]. One of the best-known examples is Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australia’s approach permits multiple human activities, e.g., fisheries and [[tourism]], while simultaneously providing a high level of protection for specific areas. However, more recent attention has been placed on managing the multiple use of marine space, especially in areas where conflicts among users and the environment are already clear as, for example, in the North Sea. Despite academic discussions and the fact that some countries already have started implementation, the scope of marine [[spatial planning]] has not been clearly defined. One of the main conclusions of UNESCO’s first international workshop on marine spatial planning highlighted the need for some form of common understanding of the scope of marine spatial planning and what added value it can provide in moving toward ecosystem-based management in the marine environment. This article aims to clarify why we need marine [[spatial planning]], how it can be defined appropriately, and what benefits it can offer. It also briefly discusses some international examples of marine spatial planning today.<br />
<br />
==Why do we need Marine Spatial Planning?==<br />
<br />
[[Biodiversity]] in the marine environment continues to decline and human activities are at the centre of this destructive evolution. Ongoing population growth, technological change and shifting consumer demands, especially in richer countries, all have considerably increased the need for more food, more energy, and more trade. An increasingly larger share of goods comes from marine resources. Especially after World War II, existing activities such as fisheries, shipping, dredging and oil exploitation expanded rapidly while new uses including recreation, mineral extraction, and more recently wind energy and offshore marine aquaculture, have started to claim their own spaces in the marine environment. A study done for the Belgian part of the North Sea revealed that the total claim for ocean space was almost three times the available amount (Figure 1)<ref>F Maes, et al. A Flood of Space. Towards a Spatial Structure Plan for Sustainable Management of the North Sea. Belgian Science Policy, 2005, pp. 14-15</ref>. Similar experiences in other countries confirm this trend.<br />
<br />
[[image:encora_figure1.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: Total claims for ocean space exceeding almost three times the available amount in the Belgian Part of the North Sea]]<br />
<br />
With resources being limited both in space and amount, these developments have proven to be devastating for many places and resources, elevating competition among users and interest groups, and resulting in increasingly undesirable effects, loss of marine biodiversity and threats to the health of the oceans as a whole. <br />
<br />
Essentially, increased pressure on the marine environment has led to two important types of conflict. First, not all uses are compatible with one another and are competing for ocean space or have adverse effects on each other (use-use conflicts, e.g., offshore oil exploitation and fisheries). But a much bigger concern, however, is the cumulative effects of these activities on the marine environment, or in other words the conflicts between users and the environment (use-environment conflicts, e.g., fisheries and habitat loss).<br />
Traditional concerns about nature included direct impacts such as declining water quality, pollution or [[habitat]] loss. More recently, environmental concerns shifted to the marine life support system or ‘[[ecosystem]]’ that nurtures and sustains important resources that are in our prior interest for economic reasons (for example, high-value fish). This shift has drawn the attention to the need to approach environmental problems from an [[ecosystem]] perspective. One way to restore or protect marine [[biodiversity]], is through the delineation of protected areas in which human pressure is reduced or excluded. Today not only economic and social incentives, but also ecological objectives (e.g., finding space for nature), are driving and increasing the demand for use (or non-use) of space in the marine environment.<br />
<br />
With human activities and resource use continually developing and nature itself changing in space and time, it is obvious that conflicts are increasingly likely. The only solution to resolve these conflicts is through management of human activities (sea use management) that addresses their impact in space and time. There is an urgent need to organize human activities in certain places, and with certain time constraints that minimizes negative impacts on ecologically valuable areas of the marine ecosystem and among other anthropogenic activities. A comprehensive way to achieve this, is through the use of marine [[spatial planning]].<br />
<br />
==What is Marine Spatial Planning?==<br />
<br />
===A Spatial Vision for the Marine Environment===<br />
<br />
[[Spatial planning]] is an essential tool for managing the development and use of land in many parts of the world. In North America and Europe it is commonly used as a central component of economic development and [[environmental planning]]. The principal purpose of a planning system on land is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest <ref>Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next Steps to Action. Report of a CoastNET Conference, Post-Conference Briefing, University of London, United Kingdom, 1 October 2003, pp 9</ref>. The traditional approach of making permit decisions of a project-by-project, case-by-case basis has been replaced by a planning process that lays out a vision to be developed for the use of certain areas. This approach has become the standard for terrestrial land-use planning and decision-making.<br />
<br />
With only a few exceptions, there is no clearly articulated spatial vision for the use of marine areas, no plan-based approach to management <ref>F., Douvere and C., Ehler. The International Perspective: Lessons from recent European Experience with Marine Spatial Planning. Paper presented at the Symposium on Management for Spatial and Temporal Complexity in Ocean Ecosystems in the 21st Century at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, San Jose, California, 24-28 June 2006</ref>. This does not mean that activities taking place in our seas are unregulated. On the contrary, there are a number of spatial measures already taken to allocate space to different uses.<br />
<br />
At a global scale, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), that came into effect in 1994, provides an over-arching framework for the allocation of marine space to national states, through the codification of concepts such as the Territorial Sea (TS) of 12 nautical miles, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles, Contiguous Zone, and the [[Continental Shelf]]. Most coastal countries already allocate ocean space. Among the most obvious are concession zones for resource exploitation, designations of dumping sites, and shipping routes or traffic separation scheme (see Table 1)<ref>C., Ehler and F., Douvere. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. IOC-IMCAM Dossier 3, UNESCO, Paris, 2007, pp. 26</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:MSP_Common_Language_Table.jpg|thumb|Table 1: Examples of Existing Ocean Space Designations]]<br />
<br />
The problem, however, is that most of these initiatives to allocate space occur on a single-sector basis without any planning that looks at the area as a whole. Despite numerous efforts toward nature conservation, the currently existing laissez-faire - laissez-aller approach to the way ocean space is allocated has, for example, resulted in very little and, most often, no space for nature. The private sector is left to maximize its own interests. Although this might seem a logical consequence, the [[open oceans|oceans]] are a common property resource, and therefore some kind of public process that allocates space in a more efficient, effective and equitable manner is needed. That process is marine spatial planning. <br />
<br />
Currently, there is no framework that facilitates integrated strategic and holistic planning in relation to all activities within most marine areas <ref>Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 'A Marine Bill. A Consultation Document', March 2006, pp 18</ref>. The lack of such a framework, often translates into: <ref>Adapted from: Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next Steps to Action. Report of a CoastNET Conference, Post-Conference Briefing, University of London, United Kingdom, 1 October 2003, pp 19</ref><br />
<br />
* Developments and uses that are considered through different policies and regimes, resulting in single-sector responsibilities for determining development and uses in the marine environment in most countries;<br />
* Lack of connection between the various authorities responsible for individual activities or the protection and management of the environment as a whole; <br />
* Lack of certainty for marine developers and users as well as for environmental managers; and<br />
* Lack of protection and conservation of marine areas with high levels of [[biodiversity]].<br />
<br />
Recent advances in science and technology however are changing the way we view life in the [[open oceans|oceans]]<ref>K Gjerde, Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies, n 178, 2006, pp 58</ref>. Geo-technologies are revolutionizing marine resource management. Through remote sensing, tracking, and global positioning technologies science is making visible what had previously been hidden or inaccessible. Living and mineral resources, marine habitats, environmental conditions, sea bottom [[coastal morphology|morphology]], and [[Species diversity|species ranges]] and interactions are become increasingly documented and mapped <ref>K., St. Martin, The Missing Layer: Geo-technologies, Communities, and the Uneven impacts of Marine Spatial Planning. Proceedings for the UNESCO Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning, 8-10 November 2006, Paris. Available at http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp (last visited 10 December 2006)</ref>. In addition, new technologies are being used to add the “human dimension” to marine areas <ref>K., St. Martin and M., Hall-Arber. The Missing Layer: Geo-technologies, Communities, and Implications for Marine Spatial Planning. In: F., Douvere and C., Ehler (eds.) The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management. Special Issue Marine Policy (submitted)</ref>. As a result, spatial planning of human activities in the marine environment has become possible and increasingly more attractive. In many respects, planning in the marine environment today resembles terrestrial planning in the 1960s. Where land use planning is the spatial planning component of land use management, marine spatial planning is the [[spatial planning]] component of sea use management.<br />
<br />
===Defining Marine Spatial Planning===<br />
<br />
Despite the existence of academic discussions and the fact that some countries already have started to apply the concepts of marine spatial planning in their management practices, no commonly approved operational definition for marine spatial planning has been developed. Descriptions can be found throughout the spatial planning literature, but the terms, e.g., ocean zoning or marine spatial management, maritime spatial planning, are not applied consistently.<br />
<br />
One of the key conclusions of the First International workshop on marine [[spatial planning]], held at UNESCO from 8-10 November 2007 <ref>C., Ehler and F., Douvere. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, n.48, IOCAM Dossier, n.4, Paris, UNESCO, 2007, 83 p. See also: F., Douvere and C., Ehler. Conference report. Marine Policy, 31, 2007, pp. 582-583</ref>, referred to the need to develop a common vocabulary for marine spatial planning. The workshop highlighted the challenge in doing so through several examples, including the Polish language that does not have a word for zoning and the lack of the word governance in the Chinese language <ref>First International Expert Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning and Sea Use Management. UNESCO, 8-10 November 2006, Paris, France. Available at: http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp (last visited 10 October 2007)</ref>. Some form of common language becomes even more important in areas where national boundaries do not coincide with boundaries meaningful from a ecological standpoint and where cooperation between neighboring nations will be a fundamental requirement for the establishment of an integrated management at [[ecosystem]] level.<br />
<br />
The UNESCO marine [[spatial planning]] workshop mentioned above attempted to define<br />
marine spatial planning. Marine [spatial planning] in its broadest sense was defined as <ref>C., Ehler and F., Douvere. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, n.48, IOCAM Dossier, n.4, Paris, UNESCO, 2007, pp. 13</ref>:<br />
<br />
‘A process of analyzing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marine spaces to specific uses, to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through the political process.’<br />
<br />
Marine [[spatial planning]] aims to <ref>Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 'A Marine Bill. A Consultation Document', March 2006, pp 19</ref>:<br />
<br />
‘(…) create and establish a more rational organization of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economic objectives in an open and planned way (…). An agreed plan should provide a firm basis for rational and consistent decisions on license applications, and allow users of the sea to make future decisions with greater knowledge and confidence’.<br />
<br />
Marine [[spatial planning]] has the overall goal of providing a mechanism for a strategic and integrated plan-based approach for marine management that makes it possible to look at the wider picture and to manage (potential and existing) conflicting uses, the cumulative effects of human activities and marine protection. A spatial planning system for the marine environment provides decision makers with a spatial and temporal context for the implementation of policies, developed at the regional, national and international level. It gives an opportunity not only to better manage and understand the marine environment but also allows a long-term planning in a way that processes become more transparent with a greater certainty in permitting, planning and resource allocation for both developers and environmental managers <ref>Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next Steps to Action. Report of a CoastNET Conference, Post-Conference Briefing, University of London, United Kingdom, 1 October 2003, pp 13-14</ref>. In doing so, it can replace the current piecemeal view resulting from single-sector based allocation of ocean space, and make sure that commitments made in a number of important international and national marine policy commitments can be fulfilled <ref>F., Douvere and C., Ehler. The International Perspective: Lessons from recent European Experience with Marine Spatial Planning. Paper presented at the Symposium on Management for Spatial and Temporal Complexity in Ocean Ecosystems in the 21st century at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, San Jose, California, 24-28 June 2006</ref>. Concretely, marine spatial planning has the objective to achieve <ref>Modified from: European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning. Development and planning prospects in European Maritime Regions. The European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter. 6th Session, Torremolinos (Spain), 19-20 May 1983. Available at: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Cooperation/Environment/CEMAT/ (last visited 29 November 2006)</ref>:<br />
<br />
* Responsible management of natural resources and protection of the environment<br />
By promoting strategies to minimize conflicts between the growing demand for natural resources and the need to conserve them, it seeks to ensure responsible management of the environment, the resources of marine areas, with special attention to areas of natural beauty and to the cultural and natural heritage;<br />
* Rational use of space in the marine environment by being concerned in particular with the location, organization and future development of large complexes, major infrastructures, and the protection of the marine environment;<br />
* Coordination between the various sectors by coordinating concerns on the distribution of population, economic activities, [[habitat]], public facilities and energy supplies, transport, supply of resources, water quality, prevention of noise and waste disposal, protection of the marine environment and of natural, historical, cultural assets and resources;<br />
* Facilitation of the coordination and cooperation between the various levels of decision-making (international, national, regional and local);<br />
* Balanced socio-economic development in maritime regions by allocating certain spaces for certain uses through a comprehensive analysis, greater security for business operations in the marine environment can be established. Serious business investments, for example, offshore wind energy, would not risk the failure of their initiatives because of a failure to obtain a permit.<br />
<br />
It is important to keep in mind, however, that marine [[spatial planning]] is not the only instrument with which to manage the [[open oceans|oceans]]. A marine spatial planning process provides measures that influence the spatial and temporal components of human activities and ecological aspects of the marine environment. Other measures and tools will be needed that influence the performance of human activities and ecological processes of the marine environment, e.g., measures that influence the input and output of human activity in the marine environment such as total allowable catches, limits on infrastructure, landing quotas, etc <ref>F., Douvere. The Importance of Marine Spatial Planning in Advancing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management. In: F., Douvere and C., Ehler (eds.) The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management. Special Issue Marine Policy (submitted)</ref>.<br />
<br />
A key problem with various existing definitions on marine [[spatial planning]] is that they refer to planning and management of human activities and protection of the marine environment as if they were synonymous. They are not, however, and the lack of consistency in the use and application of both terms is one of the main reasons why fruitful discussions and interactions on the need of marine spatial planning regularly fail to reach a resolution. In general, management refers to the effective and efficient uses of resources to achieve a specified outcome and has two phases (a) planning and (b) implementation. Due to a rapidly changing world, marine spatial planning, to be effective, needs to be conducted as an adaptive, iterative and continuous process. Finally, the involvement of [[stakeholders]] and continuous financing are essential elements to make the process of marine spatial planning sustainable over time <ref>F., Douvere. The Importance of Marine Spatial Planning in Advancing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management. In: F., Douvere and C., Ehler (eds.) The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management. Special Issue Marine Policy (submitted)</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Marine Spatial Planning: Key process towards integrated maritime policy==<br />
<br />
Various countries around the world have started to implement, or at least experiment with, marine spatial planning. At first, marine spatial planning was primarily used for the management of marine protected areas. Some of the best-known examples are Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA)<ref>J., Day. Zoning: Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean and Coastal Zone Management, 45, 2002, pp. 139-156</ref>, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary <ref>Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Draft Revised Management Plan. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, and National Marine Sanctuary Program, February 2005, 164 p</ref> and the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation Area <ref>Personal communication with Jens Enemark, Secretary of the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, February 2007. See also: www.waddensea-secretariat.org (last visited 9 September 2007)</ref>. In all three of these initiatives, marine spatial planning is applied with the principal objective of nature conservation and in all three cases, marine spatial planning is either a key instrument or seen as a critical requirement to achieve management objectives.<br />
<br />
Recently, however, marine spatial planning has become increasingly more important for the management of entire marine areas where the principal objective is to balance ecological, economic and social interests. This new direction is gaining particular importance in Europe. The European Union (EU) Green paper ‘Toward a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas’ sees marine spatial planning as a key instrument for the management of a growing and increasingly competing maritime economy, while at the same time safeguarding marine biodiversity <ref>Green Paper: Towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas. Commission of the European Communities. COM(2006)275final, Brussels, 7 June 2006</ref>. The EU Marine Strategy <ref>Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. COM(2005)504 final, Brussels, 24 October 2005</ref>, the environmental pillar of the EU Maritime Policy, introduced the principle of ecosystem-based marine spatial planning <ref>Green Paper: Towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas. Commission of the European Communities. COM(2006)275final, Brussels, 7 June 2006, p. 12</ref> and provides a supportive framework for national initiatives toward spatial planning, designed for achieving a good status for the environment. The latest communication from the European Commission confirms that integrated marine spatial planning is a fundamental requirement for sustainable development and for achieving an integrated approach to marine management. Building further on existing EU initiatives with a strong marine spatial planning dimension, the EU Commission has developed a road map and a system for the exchange of best practice to facilitate and encourage the further development of marine spatial planning in the member states <ref>Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, COM(2008) 791 final</ref>.<br />
<br />
Various European countries have started to develop marine spatial planning initiatives. Germany has developed marine spatial plans for the [[Territorial sea|territorial waters]] in the [[Baltic Sea]] <ref>Landesraumentwicklungsprogramm Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Minister für Arbeit, Bau und Landesentwicklung des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2005, pp. 67-71</ref> that are currently been implemented, while a draft marine spatial plan for the entire German EEZ is underway. The latter has been made possible through an amendment of the Federal Spatial Planning Act that extends the spatial planning system to the marine environment <ref>Raumordnungsgesetz (ROG) vom 18 August 1997 (BGB1. IS. 2081, 2102), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 10 des Gesetzes vom 9 Dezember 2006 (BGB1. IS 2833)</ref>. In Germany, marine spatial planning initiatives are to a large extent embedded in concurrent efforts toward [[# the integrated approach to coastal zone management (ICZM)|integrated coastal and ocean management (ICZM)]] <ref>K., Gee, et al. National ICZM Strategies in Germany: A Spatial Planning Approach. In: G., Scherewski, N., Löser (eds.). Managing the Baltic Sea, Coastline Reports, n2, 2004, pp. 23-33</ref>. Belgium is one of the first countries that actually implemented a multiple objective marine spatial plan covering its TS and EEZ. A multiple-objective ‘Master Plan’ for the Belgian part of the North Sea has been implemented incrementally since 2003, and includes the spatial demarcation for the extraction of sand and gravel, zones for offshore wind energy and delimitation of marine protected areas <ref>F., Douvere, et al. The Role of Spatial Planning in Sea Use Management: The Belgian Case. Marine Policy, 31, 2007, pp. 182-191</ref>. In 2005, the Netherlands developed an overarching spatial planning framework for the Dutch part of the North Sea with the primary objective to establish a healthy, safe and profitable sea <ref>Integrated Management Plan for the North Sea 2015. Management Summary. Rijkswaterstaat Noordzee, 2005, 129 p + annexes</ref>. In March 2007, the United Kingdom released its Marine Bill White Paper in which a new system is introduced for marine spatial planning that will allow a strategic, plan-led approach to the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses for the entire UK waters <ref>A Sea Change. A Marine Bill White Paper. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), March 2007, 168 p</ref>. Other countries, including Nordic countries <ref>See for examples: Nordic Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. 6-8 June 2007, Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.nordicmpaforum.org (last visited 13 October 2007)</ref>, Poland, and various Adriatic countries <ref>Current Policy and Practice of Coastal and Marine Planning in the Adriatic Region. Synthesis. Draft prepared in the context of PlanCoast project. September2007</ref> are also moving in the direction of marine spatial planning <ref> </ref>.<br />
<br />
Outside the EU, marine spatial planning initiatives are also moving ahead, in particular in Canada, Australia (beyond the Great Barrier Reef), China, and at a slower pace, the United States.<br />
<br />
==Benefits of marine spatial planning==<br />
<br />
Most evidence of the benefits of marine spatial planning is qualitative rather than quantitative. More quantitative (and measurable) evidence of benefits is likely to appear in the next few years as [[spatial planning]] schemes are further developed, and the consequences currently underway are more systematically documented. Potential benefits of marine spatial planning with regard to economic activity include <ref>Potential Benefits of Marine Spatial Planning to Economic Activity in the UK. Final Report to the RSPB, UK, 2004, pp. 68-69</ref>:<br />
<br />
* Facilitating sector growth: marine spatial planning can provide a framework that facilitates the [[sustainable development]] of different economic activities, therefore helping to enhance income and employment;<br />
* Optimizing the use of the sea: marine spatial planning can help to ensure that maximum benefits are derived from the use of the sea by encouraging activities to take place where they bring most value and do not devalue other activities; and<br />
* Reducing costs: marine spatial planning can reduce costs of information, regulation, planning and decision-making.<br />
<br />
These benefits arise through:<br />
* Strategic planning: marine spatial planning provides a strategic planning framework that helps to facilitate sectoral development by guiding investment decisions. Oil and gas have benefited from strategic planning approaches at a sectoral level. There is reason to believe that other sectors such as ports and fisheries would also benefit from strategic planning. An integrated and cross sectoral approach to marine spatial planning could provide significant further economic benefits by considering the different needs and opportunities of different users of marine areas and helping to resolve potential conflicts;<br />
<br />
* Conflict resolution: The potential for conflicts between different marine sectors is increasing over time, particularly as developing sectors such as aquaculture and renewable energy grow in significance. Marine spatial planning provides a means of avoiding and managing potential conflicts, and ensuring that the needs of different sectors are addressed in a coordinated way;<br />
<br />
* Sustainable resource use: marine spatial planning should facilitate the sustainable exploitation of natural resources, such as fisheries and aggregates, and thereby secure the longterm future of the industries that depend on them; <br />
<br />
* Provision of development of space: marine spatial planning helps to ensure that all marine activities, including developing sectors such as renewable energy and aquaculture as well as more established ones, are fairly allocated space to develop;<br />
<br />
* Promoting appropriate uses: By considering the variety of uses appropriate to the area in question, the value of different activities, the potential conflicts of use, and the suitability of different areas for different uses, marine spatial planning should help to promote a mix of uses that are compatible with each other and the environment, and help to optimize the use of the maritime area;<br />
<br />
* Supporting the environmental economy: By improving the conservation and management of the marine environment, marine spatial planning helps to promote activities that depend on environmental quality, such as [[leisure and recreation|recreation]] and fishing. This is particularly true in areas of high conservation value where activities such as diving and wildlife tourism are significant;<br />
<br />
* Improving stakeholder involvement: marine spatial planning can provide a transparent and structured mechanism in which the interests of different sectors can be represented and reconciled;<br />
<br />
* Information efficiency: By developing common approaches to the acquisition and dissemination of information, marine spatial planning can help to improve information provision and reduce duplication of effort, therefore bringing cost efficiency; and<br />
<br />
* Regulatory efficiency: By improving information exchange and providing a more certain environment in which regulatory decisions are made, marine spatial planning can be expected to reduce regulatory and compliance costs.<br />
<br />
Other benefits of marine spatial planning include:<br />
* Finding space for nature: Marine spatial planning is a practical tool to make marine conservation a reality. In many countries, specific nature conservation legislation that affects the marine area is currently made of regimes that are primarily terrestrial in focus but which have been extended to the marine realm. Marine spatial planning that is coordinated among all sectors and users of the marine area can help achieve marine nature conservation goals and objectives without limiting future economic growth;<br />
<br />
* Transparency in human and environmental impacts: The use of marine spatial planning allows for early identification of potential conflicts, and therefore a chance to resolve them, between industries and between development and important wildlife areas. Marine spatial planning can offer transparency in both human and environmental impacts and enable potential conflicts to be identified and resolved at the planning stage, rather than at a later stage when considerable investment has been made for individual proposals or damage to the environment is irreversible; and <br />
<br />
* Improved understanding: A marine spatial planning system allows a more strategic approach to management that can substantially improve our understanding and consideration of the cumulative and combined effects between different activities and the environment itself. This understanding allows planning pro-actively, rather than just reacting to applications, changes and situations.<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
During the past 10 years, marine [[spatial planning]] has become increasingly recognized as a crucial process in making integrated management in the marine environment a reality, either in the form of integrated coastal and ocean management or more recently ecosystem-based, sea use management. Marine spatial planning is a process that allows the allocation of space in a more effective, efficient and equitable manner.<br />
<br />
The problem with the current practice of allocating space in the marine environment is that it is done on a single-sector basis, mainly without a plan-based approach and with little or no consideration of objectives from other uses or conservation requirements that may be conflicting or compatible. The huge demand for space together with the lack of an integrated approach that pays attention to the heterogenic characteristics of ocean space, leads to conflicts among uses, and between human use and the natural environment.<br />
<br />
As countries are moving ahead with the development and application of [[spatial planning]] systems in the marine environment, there is a need for at least some form of common understanding of the scope, objectives, and added value of marine spatial planning. In particular in marine regions where neighboring, national states are required to cooperate to achieve an integrated management at a broader ecosystem level (e.g. the [[Baltic Sea]], [[Mediterranean Sea and Region, including Adriatic Sea|Adriatic Sea]], [[North Sea]], etc.), a common language – and to some extent also a set of principles that underpin the application of marine spatial planning – is necessary to make marine spatial planning effective and sustainable over time.<br />
<br />
The activities in the framework of UNESCO’s Marine Spatial Planning Initiative are an attempt to deal with these needs. The action program for this Initiative includes the development of a web-based network for the exchange of good practices on marine spatial planning, and more importantly, the development of a manual with guidelines and principles providing a step-by-step approach for the implementation of ecosystem based marine spatial management. The publication of this manual is planned for April 2009.<br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
<br />
F., Douvere & C., Ehler (eds.) The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management. Special Issue Marine Policy (submitted September 2007)<br />
<br />
C., Ehler & F., Douvere. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, n48, IOCAM Dossier n4, Paris, UNESCO, 2007, 83 p.<br />
<br />
O., Young, G., Oshrenko, J., Ekstrom, L., Crowder, J., Ogden, J., Wilson, J., Day, F., Douvere, C., Ehler, K., McLeod, B., Halpern, and R., Peach. Solving the Crisis in Ocean Governance. Place-based Management of Marine Ecosystems. Environment. May 2007, 49, 4, pp. 21-30. <br />
<br />
L., Crowder, G., Oshrenko, O., Young, S., Airame, E., Norse, N., Baron, J., Day, F., Douvere, C., Ehler, B., Halpern, S., Langdon, K., McLeod, J., Ogden, R., Peach, A., Rosenberg, J., Wilson. Resolving Mismatches in U.S. Ocean Governance, Science, vol., 313, 4 August 2006, pp. 617-618.<br />
<br />
F., Douvere, F., Maes, A., Vanhulle, J., Schrijvers. The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Sea Use Management: The Belgian Case. Marine Policy, vol., 31, March 31, 2007, pp. 182-191.<br />
<br />
F., Douvere & C., Ehler. New Perspectives on Ecosystem-based Management: Lessons from European Experience with Marine Spatial Planning. Journal for Environmental Management (submitted)<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Impact of fisheries on coastal systems]]<br />
* [[Conservation and restoration of coastal and estuarine habitats]]<br />
* [[Coastal pollution and impacts]]<br />
* [[Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management]]<br />
* [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0791:FIN:EN:PDF Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, COM(2008) 791 final]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Spatial planning in coastal and marine zones]]<br />
[[Category:Sectoral management in coastal zones]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine human activities]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=3184<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Douvere, Fanny<br />
|AuthorName1=Douvere, Fanny<br />
|AuthorID2=15114<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Ehler, Charles<br />
|AuthorName2=Ehler, Charles}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Ehler, Charles]]<br />
[[Category:Theme 3]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Marine_Functional_Metabolites&diff=37352Marine Functional Metabolites2011-08-03T13:45:28Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Functional metabolites are biological molecules that have key physiological and behavioural functions that ensure the fitness and survival of an organism but that are not involved in primary metabolism such as proteins and nucleic acids that make up the basic machinery of life. The term functional metabolite is new and used as an alternative to the more often-used term “secondary metabolite” that considers these compounds as causing long-term impairment but not immediate death of an organism, or as causing no effect at all. The difference with our definition is that these compounds are not secondary but always serve a function that is necessary for the well-being and survival of an organism. The term functional metabolite differs from “natural product” which generally intends compounds with biomedical potential leading to drug discovery, but is rarely used in the ecological context. Other often-used terms with a more ecological context are “infochemicals” or “semiochemicals” that are defined as compounds that convey information between individuals thereby evoking a physiological or behavioral response in the receiver. <br />
<br />
Whatever term used, metabolites of this nature generally represent only a tiny fraction of the total biomass of an organism compared to primary metabolites, and it is not always clear what the function of these compounds is and what advantages they offer to the producing organism. To date, more than 18,000 of these metabolites have been described from sponges, ascidians, soft corals, seaweeds, marine microbes and many other benthic and pelagic organisms, with more being discovered daily. Many of these compounds play fundamental roles as defences against predators, competitors and pathogens, and for the selection of mates and habitats. Without these compounds many key physiological processes would cease to exist, with catastrophic consequences on ecosystem functionality. For further details see:<br />
<br />
*[[Chemical and physical properties of functional metabolites|Chemical and physical properties]]<br />
<br />
==Ecology of functional metabolites==<br />
<br />
There are many theories as to why marine organisms produce compounds that are not involved in primary metabolism. Early theories suggested that these were chemical waste products or otherwise functionless metabolites of primary metabolism overflow and this is probably why the term secondary metabolites was coined since these compounds were not considered important for the producing organism. However such compounds are now considered of vital importance and a whole new discipline named chemical ecology is now devoted to the study of the biological and ecological function of these compounds. Since marine organisms are under intense competitive pressure for space, light, and nutrients, they have developed numerous and complex chemical defenses to ensure survival. Some examples of the types of chemical interactions that have been best studied so far can be found in the following sections:<br />
<br />
*[[Functional metabolites and macroalgal-herbivore interactions|Macroalgal-herbivore interactions]]<br />
*[[Functional metabolites in benthic invertebrates|Benthic invertebrates]]<br />
*[[Functional metabolites in phytoplankton|Phytoplankton]]<br />
*[[Chemical ecology]]<br />
<br />
==Biotechnological potential of functional metabolites==<br />
<br />
Most people are familiar with functional metabolites whether they know it or not. These are the compounds that give many of our foods wonderful aromas and tastes and many of our household cleaning agents their fresh scents. But these are just some of the obvious ways we have taken advantage of these compounds. Natural products (NPs) have extensively represented a source of biologically active molecules for the treatment of many diseases in their natural form or as a template for synthetic modification.<br />
<br />
Nowadays it is estimated that approximately 61% of the 877 small-molecule new chemical entities introduced as drugs worldwide during 1981-2002 can be traced to or were inspired by natural products. The more convenient sources of drug leads include natural products (6%), natural products derived (27%), synthetic compounds with natural product-derived pharmacophores (5%) and synthetic compounds designed on the basis of knowledge gained from natural products (natural product mimics, 23%). <br />
<br />
Within NPs, those derived by marine organisms (referred to as marine natural products, MNPs) represent a very promising and relatively unexplored family. The biodiversity of the marine environment far exceeds that of its terrestrial counterpart so the oceans represent an enormous resource for new biologically active compounds (biodiversity = chemical diversity). In a recent NCI study, marine animals were 10x more likely to contain selective cytotoxicity activity than terrestrial plants, animals or microorganisms.<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
For further reading please consult the MarBEF ROSEMEB webpage with the reference list of relevant publications in chemical ecology at:<br />
http://www.marbef.org/projects/rosemeb/results.php<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=8294<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Fontana, Angelo <br />
|AuthorName1=Angelo<br />
|AuthorID2=7563<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Ianora, Adriana<br />
|AuthorName2=Adriana}}<br />
[[Category: Chemical ecology]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Manual_Sediment_Transport_Measurements_in_Rivers,_Estuaries_and_Coastal_Seas&diff=37351Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas2011-08-03T13:45:19Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
This article introduces the ''Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estauries and Coastal Seas'' (Van Rijn, 1986<ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>; 2007<ref>Rijn, L.C. van (2007)''Manual sediment transport measurements in rivers,estuaries and coastal seas'', Aquapublications, The Netherlands. 500 p.</ref>). The article contains links to articles with summaries of the manual and to the pdf-files of the manual. See also the '''[[:Category:Manual sediment transport measurements|alphabetic overview of all articles]]''' with summaries of the manual.<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
[[Image:manual.jpg|thumb|right|manual sediment transport measurements]]<br />
The '''Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estauries and Coastal Seas''' is a volume of about 500 pages containing all details of measurement instruments and methods for mud, silt and sand transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas. The manual includes: definitions and measuring principles and errors involved, methods to compute sediment transport from measured data, a wide range of instruments from simple mechanical samplers to sophisticated electronic equipment. [[Bed load]] transport as well as [[suspended load]] transport are addressed. Methods and instruments to measure particle size and particle fall velocity are discussed. Laboratory and [[in-situ]] sample analysis are described. Instrumentation for determining the wet bulk density of bed material (important for dredging studies) is presented. [[Remote sensing]] by video camera recording is also discussed. Regular updates of the methods and instrumentation are made. <br />
<br />
The manual was first published in 1986 and updated in 1993, 2005 and 2007. The manual is written by [http://www.leovanrijn-sediment.com/ L.C. van Rijn] (Delft Hydraulics and University of Utrecht, The Netherlands) issued by [http://rws.nl Rijkswaterstaat] (Public Works Department in The Netherlands) and [http://www.aquapublications.nl Aqua Publications]. L.C. van Rijn is senior research and project engineer of the Delft Hydraulics Laboratory.<br />
<br />
The Coastal Wiki comprises a summary of the manual. All summarizing articles contain links to pdf-files of the manual, which are hosted on a website of [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/manual.html#indexmanual WL|Delft Hydraulics]<br />
<br />
==Summaries at the Coastal Wiki==<br />
[[Image:Wesptripod.jpg|thumb|right|Example 1: Wesp placing tripod in coastal zone]]<br />
Theme 9 of the Coastal Wiki contains over thirty articles with summaries of parts of the manual. The different chapters of the manual are summarized in next articles:<br />
<br />
* Chapter 1: [[Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements]]<br />
* Chapter 2: [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 4: [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* Chapter 5: [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 10: [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pumpsampler.jpg|thumb|right|Example 2: Pump sampler for rivers]]<br />
For [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport|Chapter 5]] most of the sections and sub-sections are also summarized in separate articles:<br />
* 5.2: [[Instrument Characteristics of point-integrating suspended load samplers]]<br />
* 5.3: Selection of sediment transport samplers<br />
** [[Guidelines for selection of sediment transport samplers]] <br />
** [[Measuring instruments for rivers]] <br />
**[[Measuring instruments for estuaries]] <br />
**[[Measuring instruments for coasts]]<br />
* 5.5: [[Bed load]] samplers: <br />
** [[Bed load transportmeter Arnhem (BTMA)]]<br />
** [[Helley-Smith sampler (HS)]] <br />
** [[Delft Nile bed load and suspended load sampler (DNS)]].<br />
** [[Bed form tracking]]<br />
* 5.6: [[Suspended load]] samplers: <br />
** 5.6.2: [[Bottle and trap samplers]]<br />
*** [[USP-61 suspended load sampler]]<br />
*** [[Delft Bottle suspended load sampler]] <br />
*** [[USD-49 depth-integrating sampler]] <br />
*** [[Collapsible-Bag depth-integrating sampler]]<br />
** 5.6.3: [[Pump samplers]] and [[Pump sampling in unidirectional and oscillatory flow]]<br />
** 5.6.4: [[general principles of optical and acoustical instruments|Optical and acoustical sampling methods]]: <br />
*** [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]]<br />
*** [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]<br />
*** [[Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]] <br />
*** [[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
See also the '''[[:Category:Manual sediment transport measurements|alphabetic overview of all articles]]''' with summaries of the manual.<br />
<br />
==Content and pdf-files of the manual==<br />
The manual can be downloaded as one or multiple pdf-files from a website from [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/manual.html#indexmanual WL|Delft Hydraulics]. It is also possible to download separate chapters of the manual. For Chapter 5, it is also possible to download pdf-files of separate sections and sub-sections. Below the Table of contents of the manual and links to pdf-files are given. <br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H1_Introduction.pdf '''1. INTRODUCTION, PROBLEMS AND APPROACHES''' (0,4 Mb)]<br />
<br />
*1.1 Introduction<br />
*1.2 Sedimentation and erosion problems in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas<br />
**1.2.1 Introduction<br />
**1.2.2 Sedimentation and erosion problems<br />
**1.2.3 Approach of sedimentation problems<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H2_Morfological_definitions.pdf '''2. MORPHOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES''' (2,8 Mb)] <br />
<br />
*2.1 General<br />
*2.2 Definitions<br />
*2.3 Fluid flow and sediment properties <br />
**2.3.1 Introduction<br />
**2.3.2 Sediment classification<br />
**2.3.3 Fluid and sediment properties<br />
*2.4 Sediment transport processes <br />
**2.4.1 Introduction<br />
**2.4.2 Sand transport <br />
***2.4.2.1 Sand transport in steady river flow<br />
***2.4.2.2 Sand transport in non-steady (tidal) flow<br />
***2.4.2.3 Sand transport in combined non-steady (tidal) flow and oscillatory flow (waves) <br />
**2.4.3 Mud transport <br />
***2.4.3.1 General characteristics, definitions and modelling approaches<br />
***2.4.3.2 Cohesion<br />
***2.4.3.3 Flocculation<br />
***2.4.3.4 Settling<br />
***2.4.3.5 Deposition<br />
***2.4.3.6 Saturation<br />
***2.4.3.7 Consolidation<br />
***2.4.3.8 Erosion<br />
***2.4.3.9 Transport of mud<br />
*2.5 Sediments and ecological processes in marine environments <br />
**2.5.1 Overview of processes and impacts<br />
**2.5.2 Ecology related to dredging, mining and dumping of sediment<br />
**2.5.3 Results of field studies related to dredging and mining of sediment <br />
*2.6 Sediments and pollution <br />
**2.6.1 Introduction<br />
**2.6.2 Dissolved and solid-associated materials<br />
**2.6.3 Contaminants<br />
**2.6.4 Processes in aquatic systems<br />
**2.6.5 Dredged materials <br />
*2.7 Mathematical models of sediment transport and morphology <br />
**2.7.1 Introduction<br />
**2.7.2 Flow models<br />
**2.7.3 Wave models<br />
**2.7.4 Sediment transport and morphological models <br />
*2.8 Data Model Integration <br />
**2.8.1 Introduction<br />
**2.8.2 Definition of data model integration (DMI)<br />
**2.8.3 Measures of agreement-Least squares norms<br />
**2.8.4 Role of uncertainties in models and data<br />
**2.8.5 Combination using DMI techniques reduces the uncertainty<br />
**2.8.6 Formulation of the uncertainty<br />
**2.8.7 Stochastic models<br />
**2.8.8 Calibration of models<br />
**2.8.9 Sequential data assimilation in dynamic (time-stepping) models<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H3_measuring_principles.pdf '''3. MEASURING PRINCIPLES, STATISTICS AND ERRORS''' (0,5 Mb)]<br />
*3.1 Measuring principles for suspended load transport <br />
**3.1.1 Direct method<br />
**3.1.2 Indirect method <br />
*3.2 Measuring principles for bed load transport <br />
**3.2.1 Direct method<br />
**3.2.2 Indirect method <br />
*3.3 Measuring statistics <br />
**3.3.1 General aspects<br />
**3.3.2 Sampling site<br />
**3.3.3 Number of measurements for suspended load transport <br />
***3.3.3.1 General aspects<br />
***3.3.3.2 Number of points in a vertical<br />
***3.3.3.3 Number of verticals over bed-form length<br />
***3.3.3.4 Number of verticals in cross-section<br />
***3.3.3.5 Number of verticals per tide <br />
**3.3.4 Number of measurements for bed-load transport <br />
***3.3.4.1 General aspects<br />
***3.3.4.2 Number of samples at each location and number of locations along bed form<br />
***3.3.4.3 Number of sampling locations over width of cross-section <br />
**3.3.5 Sampling frequency<br />
**3.3.6 Sampling methods<br />
**3.3.7 Sample preservation and in-situ sampling<br />
**3.3.8 Sampling flexibility <br />
*3.4 Measuring errors and required accuracy<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H4_Computation_of_sediment_transport.pdf '''4. COMPUTATION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS'''] <br />
*4.1 Rivers (4,2 Mb) <br />
**4.1.1 Total load transport per unit width<br />
**4.1.2 Bed-load transport per unit width<br />
**4.1.3 Suspended load transport per unit width <br />
***4.1.3.1 Partial method<br />
***4.1.3.2 Integral method <br />
**4.1.4 Total load transport per cross-section<br />
**4.1.5 Presentation of results <br />
*4.2 Estuaries <br />
**4.2.1 Tide-integrated total load transport<br />
**4.2.2 Presentation of results<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5_Measuring_instruments_sediment_transport.pdf '''5. MEASURING INSTRUMENTS FOR SEDIMENT TRANSPORT''']<br />
<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-2_Instrument_characteristics.pdf 5.1 General aspects]<br />
*5.2 Instrument characteristics<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-3_Selection_of_sediment_transport_samplers.pdf 5.3 Selection of sediment transport samplers (9.0 Mb)]<br />
**5.3.1 Guidelines for selection of sediment transport samplers<br />
**5.3.2 Sediment transport measurements in rivers<br />
**5.3.3 Sediment transport measurements in estuaries<br />
**5.3.4 Sediment transport measurements in coastal seas <br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-4_Comparison_of_suspended_load_samplers.pdf 5.4 Comparison of suspended load samplers] <br />
**5.4.1 Comparison of USP-61, Delft Bottle and Pump-Filter sampler<br />
**5.4.2 Comparison of Pump-filter sampler and ASTM<br />
**5.4.3 Comparison of Pump-Filter sampler and Pump-Bottle sampler<br />
**5.4.4 Comparison of Pump-Sedimentation sampler and Pump-Filter sampler<br />
**5.4.5 Comparison of Pump-Sedimentation sampler and Bottle sampler<br />
**5.4.6 Comparison of OBS and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.7 Comparison of ASTM and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.8 Comparison of ASTM, OBS and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.9 Comparison of ABS and Pump sampler<br />
**5.4.10 Overall conclusions with respect to OBS, ASTM and ABS instruments<br />
*5.5 Description of bed load samplers <br />
**5.5.1 Trap sampling <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-1_general_aspects_of_trap_sampling_bed_load.pdf 5.5.1.1 General aspects]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-2_BTMA_sampler.pdf 5.5.1.2 Bed-load transportmeter Arnhem (BTMA)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-3_Helley_Smith_sampler.pdf 5.5.1.3 Helley Smith (HS)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-1-4_Delft_Nile_sampler.pdf 5.5.1.4 Delft Nile sampler (DNS)]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-5-2_Bed_form_tracking.pdf 5.5.2 Bed form tracking]<br />
<br />
*5.6 Description of suspended load samplers<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-1_Classification_of_suspended_samplers.pdf 5.6.1 Classification of samplers]<br />
**5.6.2 Bottle and Trap samplers <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-1_General_aspects_of_bottle_and_trap_samplers.pdf 5.6.2.1 General aspects]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-2_Bottle_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.2 Bottle sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-3_Trap_samplers.pdf 5.6.2.3 Trap sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-4_USP61_point_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.4 USP-61 point-integrating sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-5_Delft_bottle_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.5 Delft Bottle sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-6_USD49_depth-integrating_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.6 USD-49 depth-integrating sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-2-7_Collapsible_bag_sampler.pdf 5.6.2.7 Collapsible-Bag depth-integrating sampler] <br />
**5.6.3 Pump sampler <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-1_General_aspects_of_pump_sampling.pdf 5.6.3.1 General aspects for sampling in unidirectional flow]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-2_General_aspects_of_pump_sampling_in_oscillatory.pdf 5.6.3.2 General aspects for sampling in oscillatory flow]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-3_Pump_filter_sampler.pdf 5.6.3.3 Pump-Filter sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-4_Pump_sedimentation_sampler.pdf 5.6.3.4 Pump-Sedimentation sampler]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-3-5_Pump_bottle_sampler.pdf 5.6.3.5 Pump-Bottle sampler]<br />
**5.6.4 Optical and Acoustical sampling methods <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-1_General_principles_of_optical_and_acoutical_sampl.pdf 5.6.4.1 General principles]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-2_Optical_backscatter_point_sampler_OBS.pdf 5.6.4.2 Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-3_Optical_point_sensors_LISST.pdf 5.6.4.3 Optical Laser diffraction point sensors (LISST)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-4_Various_optical_sensors.pdf 5.6.4.4 Various other Optical point sensors]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-5_Acoustic_point_sensors.pdf 5.6.4.5 Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-6_Acoustic_backscatter_profiling_sensors.pdf 5.6.4.6 Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS and ADCP)] <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-5_Impact_sensor.pdf 5.6.5 Impact sensor] <br />
***5.6.5.1 General aspects<br />
***5.6.5.2 IOS impact sensor <br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-6_Nuclear_sensor.pdf 5.6.6 Nuclear sensor]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-7_Conductivity_sensor.pdf 5.6.7 Conductivity sensor]<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6_Measuring_instruments_particle_size.pdf '''6. MEASURING INSTRUMENTS FOR PARTICLE SIZE AND FALL VELOCITY'''] <br />
<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-1_General_aspects.pdf 6.1 General aspects (4,1 Mb)] <br />
**6.1.1 In-situ sampling<br />
**6.1.2 Formulae particle fall velocity<br />
**6.1.3 Definitions of sediment sizes <br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-2_and_6-3_Instrument_characteristics_and_selection.pdf 6.2 Instrument characteristics]<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-2_and_6-3_Instrument_characteristics_and_selection.pdf 6.3 Selection of instruments]<br />
*[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-4_Comparison_of_instruments.pdf 6.4 Comparison of instruments] <br />
**6.4.1 BAT and VAT for sand particles<br />
**6.4.2 BAT, PWT,Wet-sieving and Coulter-Counter for fine particles<br />
**6.4.3 PWT, BWT and BAT for fine particles <br />
*6.5 Description of instruments <br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-1_Photographic_instrument.pdf 6.5.1 Photographic instrument]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-2_Sieving_instruments.pdf 6.5.2 Sieving instruments] <br />
***6.5.2.1 General aspects<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-2-2_Dry_sieving.pdf 6.5.2.2 Dry sieving]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-2-3_Wet_sieving.pdf 6.5.2.3 Wet sieving]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-2-4_Airjet_sieving.pdf 6.5.2.4 Air-jet sieving] <br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-3_Sedimentation_instruments.pdf 6.5.3 Sedimentation instruments] <br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-3-1_General_aspects_of_sedimentation_methods_for_part.pdf 6.5.3.1 General aspects]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-3-2_Settling_tubes.pdf 6.5.3.2 Accumulation tube]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-3-3_Bottom_withdrawal_tube.pdf 6.5.3.3 Bottom Withdrawal Tube (BWT)]<br />
***[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-3-4_Pipet_withdrawal_tube.pdf 6.5.3.4 Pipet-Withdrawal Tube (PWT)] <br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-4_Coulter_counter.pdf 6.5.4 Coulter Counter]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-5_Laser_diffraction_instruments.pdf 6.5.5 Particle size and concentration by Laser Diffraction (LISST, COULTER, PARTEC)]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-6_Photo_and_video_camera.pdf 6.5.6 In-situ photo and video camera]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-7_Phase_doppler_anemometry.pdf 6.5.7 Particle size and velocity by Phase Doppler Anemometry (PDA)]<br />
**[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H6-5-8_Laser_reflectance.pdf 6.5.8 Particle size by Laser Reflectance (PARTEC Laser)]<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H7_Measuring_instruments_for_bed_material_sampling.pdf '''7. MEASURING INSTRUMENTS FOR BED MATERIAL SAMPLING''']<br />
<br />
*7.1 General Aspects<br />
*7.2 Bed material samplers: grab, dredge and scoop samplers<br />
*7.3 Bed material samplers: core samplers<br />
*7.4 Particle size of bed materials (6,4 Mb) <br />
**7.4.1 Based on metallic trace elements (MEDUSA)<br />
**7.4.2 Based on acoustic reflection (ROXANN) <br />
*7.5 Movement of bed material particles <br />
**7.5.1 Critical bed-shear stress for initiation of motion<br />
**7.5.2 Tracer studies<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H8_Laboratory_and_in-situ_analysis.pdf '''8. LABORATORY AND IN-SITU ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES''' (2,0 Mb)]<br />
<br />
*8.1 Sediment concentration <br />
**8.1.1 Evaporation method<br />
**8.1.2 Filtration method<br />
**8.1.3 Units <br />
*8.2 Bed material composition <br />
**8.2.1 General aspects<br />
**8.2.2 Detailed method<br />
**8.2.3 Simple method <br />
*8.3 Suspended sediment composition <br />
**8.3.1 General aspects<br />
**8.3.2 Sandy environment<br />
**8.3.3 Silty environment<br />
**8.3.4 Sandy-silty environment <br />
*8.4 Sediment density <br />
**8.4.1 Detailed method<br />
**8.4.2 Simple method <br />
*8.5 Chemical analysis<br />
*8.6 Laboratory equipment<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H9_In-situ_measurement_of_wet_bulk_density.pdf '''9. IN-SITU MEASUREMENT OF WET BULK DENSITY''' (1,1 Mb)]<br />
<br />
*9.1 General aspects<br />
*9.2 Mechanical [[core]] sampler<br />
*9.3 Acoustic sensor<br />
*9.4 Nuclear radiation sensor<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/HH_10_Bed_level_detection.pdf '''10. INSTRUMENTS FOR BED LEVEL DETECTION''' (1,8 Mb)]<br />
<br />
*10.1 Introduction<br />
*10.2 Mechanical bed level detection in combination with DGPS<br />
*10.3 Acoustic bed level detection (Echo-sounding instruments)<br />
*10.4 Optical bed level detection<br />
*10.5 Conclusions<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H11_Argus_video_system.pdf '''11. ARGUS VIDEO SYSTEM''' (1,4 Mb)]<br />
<br />
*11.1 Introduction<br />
*11.2 History of ARGUS<br />
*11.3 ARGUS worldwide<br />
*11.4 ARGUS image types and conventions<br />
*11.5 ARGUS standard image processing<br />
*11.6 ARGUS tools<br />
*11.7 ARGUS applications<br />
<br />
[http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/HHH_Annex_A.pdf '''ANNEX A: MEASURING INSTRUMENTS FOR FLUID VELOCITY, PRESSURE AND WAVE HEIGHT''']<br />
<br />
*A1 Introduction<br />
*A2 Velocity sensors (3,4 Mb) <br />
**A2.1 Velocities and bed-shear stresses, instrument characteristics and accuracies<br />
**A2.2 Electro-Magnetic Velocitymeter (EMV)<br />
**A2.3 Acoustic Doppler Velocitymeter (ADV)<br />
**A2.4 Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP, UVP)<br />
**A2.5 Phased Array Doppler Sonar (PADS)<br />
**A2.6 Coherent Doppler Velocity Profiler (CDVP) and Cross-Correlation Velocity Profiler (CCVP)<br />
*A3 Comparison of measured velocities <br />
**A3.1 Electro-Magnetic Velocitymeter (EMV) and Laser Doppler Velocitymeter (LDV)<br />
**A3.2 Acoustic Doppler Velocitymeter (ASTM) and Electro-Magnetic Velocitymeter (EMV)<br />
**A3.3 Acoustic Doppler Velocitymeters (ADV)<br />
**A3.4 Ultra-sonic Velocity Profiler (UPV) and Particle Image Velocitymeter (PIV) <br />
*A4 Fluid pressure and wave height instruments <br />
**A4.1 General instrument characteristics, accuracies and selection criteria <br />
*A5 Comparison of measured wave heights <br />
**A5.1 Pressure sensor and capacity wire<br />
**A5.2 Pressure sensor and surface following wave gauge<br />
**A5.3 Pressure sensors<br />
**A5.4 Velocity sensor, fluid pressure sensor and capacity wires<br />
**A5.5 Pressure sensor and resistance wave staff<br />
**A5.6 Accelerometer and DGPS on wave rider bouy<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[http://www.leovanrijn-sediment.com/ Website of the author: Leo van Rijn]<br />
*[http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/kennisplein/page_kennisplein.aspx?DossierURI=tcm:195-17870-4&Id=213950 Rijkswaterstaat site: Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas ]<br />
*[http://www.estuary-guide.net/ UK: Estuary guide]<br />
*[http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/wqmonitor/en/index.html WHO: Water quality monitoring: A practical guide to the design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programmes, Edited by J. Bartram and R. Ballance]<br />
*[http://www.whycos.org/IMG/pdf/948_E.pdf WMO: Manual on sediment management and measurement]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Shoreline management]]<br />
[[Category:River-basin management]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]<br />
[[Category:land and ocean interactions]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Light_fields_and_optics_in_coastal_waters&diff=37350Light fields and optics in coastal waters2011-08-03T13:44:43Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
The quantitative study of underwater light fields in coastal waters and shelf seas has important applications in ecology, engineering and [[remote sensing]]. This article introduces the theoretical basis of optical measurements. Attention is paid to descriptors of light fields, optical properties of natural waters and light field modelling. For more information about the measurement of light fields, see also the article [[Optical measurements in coastal waters]].<br />
<br />
==Introduction of underwater light fields==<br />
===Relevance===<br />
The quantitative study of underwater light fields in coastal waters and shelf seas has important applications in ecology, engineering and [[remote sensing]]. Underwater light fields:<br />
<br />
# play an important role in determining rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton and macrophytes, and therefore set limits on the productivity of marine ecosystems.<br />
# influence the range at which objects are visible under water, which is of great significance for diving and engineering operations and also for visual interactions between predators and prey species.<br />
# determine the volume reflectance of seawater which is important for [[optical remote sensing]].<br />
<br />
===Dynamics of underwater light fields===<br />
Variations in underwater light fields originate from changes in both solar illumination and seawater composition, and predicting this variability involves the study of radiative transfer in an optically complex medium. There is an extensive literature on underwater light fields and associated problems in marine optics, but the fundamental concepts are clearly laid out in the books by Kirk (1994<ref name="kirk">Kirk J T O 1994 Light and photosynthesis in aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 410 pp.</ref>), Mobley (1994<ref name="mob">Mobley C D 1994 Light and water; radiative transfer in natural waters. Academic Press, San Diego, 592pp. ISBN 0125027508</ref>) and Bukata et al (1995<ref>Bukata R P, Jerome J H , Kondratyev K Y and Pozdnyakov D V 1995 Optical properties and remote sensing of inland and coastal waters. CRC Press, 384pp</ref>). One of the challenges posed by coastal light fields is the potential for interaction and between physical and biological factors. For example, sediment particles in suspension can limit the illumination of benthic photosynthetic organisms, but the presence of those organisms may stabilise the sediment surface and reduce the probability of sediment re-suspension taking place.<br />
<br />
Underwater light fields are vulnerable to human activities. Anthropogenic disturbances such as eutrophication, dredging operations and accelerated soil erosion due to the de-afforestation of river catchments can modify underwater light climates in coastal regions. Increases in [[turbidity]] produced by these activities can damage important ecosystem components such as coral reefs and sea grass beds.<br />
<br />
The underwater light field depends on:<br />
# <u>the optical characteristics of sea water</u>: The optical characteristics of coastal waters are determined not only by water itself, but also by suspended particulate material (minerals, organic detritus and phytoplankton) and coloured dissolved organic matter. The presence of relatively high concentrations of dissolved organic matter or minerals often distinguishes coastal waters from those of deeper seas, and accounts for their green or brown colouration.<br />
# <u>the conditions of illumination</u>: The conditions of illumination depend on solar angle, the degree and type of cloud cover, and the state of the sea surface. As a result, underwater light fields show strong diurnal and seasonal variability.<br />
<br />
==Light field descriptors==<br />
<br />
===Radiance and irradiance===<br />
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance Radiance]''' is the fundamental quantity in light field measurement. It is usually denoted L(q,f, &lambda;) where the angles q (zenith) and f (azimuth) specify the direction in which the radiance is measured and &lambda; is the wavelength. The units of radiance are W m<sup>-2</sup> nm<sup>-1</sup> sr<sup>-1</sup>. Measurements of the water-leaving radiance L<sub>w</sub> just above the surface at q = 0 (nadir viewing) are particularly important for [[remote sensing]].<br />
<br />
'''Planar and scalar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance irradiances]''' Ex(&lambda;) are generated by integrating radiances over defined intervals of solid angle D<sub>w</sub>. They have units of W m<sup>-2</sup> nm<sup>-1</sup>. For planar irradiances, the radiances are multiplied by the cosine of their angle of incidence on the detecting plane before carrying out the integration. Scalar irradiances omit the cosine weighting. Measurements of planar irradiances are made using a diffusing disc as a collector, while scalar irradiances are measured use a diffusing sphere. Commonly used irradiances are summarized Table 1.<br />
<br />
{| border="1" width="600px" cellspacing="0"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Commonly used irradiances'''<br />
|-<br />
! Quantity <br />
! Name <br />
! Angular limits<br />
|-<br />
| E<sub>0</sub>(&lambda;)<br />
| Scalar irradiance<br />
| whole sphere<br />
|-<br />
| [E<sub>0</sub>(&lambda;)]<sub>u</sub> <br />
| Upward scalar irradiance<br />
| lower hemisphere<br />
|-<br />
| [E<sub>0</sub>(&lambda;)]<sub>d</sub> <br />
| Downward scalar irradiance<br />
| upper hemisphere<br />
|-<br />
| E<sub>u</sub>(&lambda;) <br />
| Upward planar irradiance <br />
| lower hemisphere<br />
|-<br />
| E<sub>d</sub>(&lambda;) <br />
| Downward planar irradiance<br />
| upper hemisphere<br />
|}<br />
<br />
A full description of an underwater light field would involve the specification of the spectral and angular distribution of radiance as a function of depth and geographical location, but this degree of detail is impractically cumbersome. The quantities most frequently specified are upward radiances and upward and downward irradiances.<br />
<br />
===Wavelength ranges===<br />
Studies of underwater light fields are usually contained within a waveband of approximately 300-900 nm: outside these boundaries, absorption by water strongly limits light penetration. Photosynthesis and animal vision mainly utilise the wavelength region of 400-700 nm, but damaging radiation can affect photosynthetic organisms at ultra-violet wavelengths (300-400 nm) while the near infra red region (700-900 nm) is important for [[remote sensing]] applications.<br />
<br />
===Measurement units===<br />
Three systems of units may be encountered in the literature on underwater light fields:<br />
# <u>Radiometric units</u>: In physical radiometry, light energy is measured in joules (J), radiometric power in watts (W or J s<sup>-1</sup>), and the source brightness as power per unit solid angle (W sr<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
# <u>Quantum units</u>: In photochemistry and photobiology, where molecular events are driven by the absorption of individual quanta, it is often useful to measure light fields in terms of numbers of photons rather than energy. A convenient unit is the mol (Avogadro’s Number) of photons. In the photobiology literature, one mol of photons is often referred to as an einstein, but the unit is redundant. The energy associated with a single photon of a given wavelength in vacuo is e = hc/&lambda;, where h is Planck’s constant and c the speed of light. The inverse wavelength dependence means that conversion between radiometric and quantum units (for example from W m<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> to mol photons m<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> in the case of irradiance) requires explicit knowledge of the spectral distribution of the light field. Integration of scalar quantum irradiance across the visible spectrum (400-700 nm) gives a measure of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR: mol photons m<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup>). <br />
# <u>Photometric units</u>: The visual effect of a given source of illumination depends on the spectral sensitivity of the human eye. This leads to a system of photometric units based on the lumen as the measurement of effective power, and is discussed in DeCusatis (1997<ref>DeCusatis C M (ed) 1997 Handbook of Applied Photometry. American Institute of Physics Press, New York, 484 pp.</ref>). Conversion between radiometric and photometric units has to take both the standard eye response curve and the spectral distribution of the light field into account.<br />
<br />
==Optical properties of natural waters==<br />
This section describes the inherent optical properties (IOPs) op natural waters. The total IOP of water is its own contribution and four types of optically significant constituents. <br />
<br />
===Inherent optical properties (IOPs)===<br />
The optical characteristics of a light-transmitting medium can be specified in terms of its inherent optical properties, which represent the effect of an optically thin slab of the medium on the transmission of a collimated light beam. The main IOPs are summarized in table 2:<br />
<br />
{| border="1" width="500px" cellspacing="0"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Main Inherent Optical Properties'''<br />
|-<br />
| a<br />
| absorption coefficient<br />
| m<sup>-1</sup><br />
|-<br />
| b <br />
| scattering coefficient<br />
| m<sup>-1</sup><br />
|-<br />
| c = a + b<br />
| attenuation coefficient<br />
| m<sup>-1</sup><br />
|-<br />
| &beta; <br />
| scattering phase function<br />
| sr<sup>-1</sup><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Formal definitions for these IOPs may be found in Mobley (1994<ref name="mob"/>). The absorption, scattering and attenuation coefficients have fairly obvious meanings, while the phase function is a measure of the relative angular distribution of the scattered light. The scattering coefficient (b) is often partitioned into forward and backwards components, and the <u>backscattering coefficient (bb)</u> is of great importance for determining the [[remote sensing]] reflection of a water body.<br />
<br />
The <u>total IOPs</u> of a body of seawater can be considered as the sum of the partial contributions from water itself and a number of optically significant constituents. These constituents are generally divided into four classes: <br />
<br />
#Phytoplankton cells and colonies (Phyt)<br />
#Mineral suspended solids (MSS)<br />
#Coloured dissolved organic matter (CDOM)<br />
#Organic suspended solids or detritus (OSS)<br />
<br />
The concentration of the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll a (Chl, mg m<sup>-3</sup>) is often used as a proxy variable for phytoplankton biomass. Mineral particle and organic detritus concentrations (g m<sup>-3</sup>) are determined by filtering water samples through a fine glass fibre filter and measuring the dry weight of material retained before and after combusting the filter at 500°C to remove the organic portion. Since there is no standard method for measuring the mass concentration of coloured dissolved organic matter, it is conventionally measured as the absorption coefficient at 440 nm of seawater which has been passed through a membrane filter with a 0.2 &mu;m pore size.<br />
<br />
The total absorption coefficient can be written as the sum of the contributions of the individual constituents:<br />
<br />
<math>a_{total} = a_{water}\, +\, a_{Phyt}\, +\, a_{MSS}\, +\, a_{CDOM}\, +\, a_{OSS} </math><br />
<br />
The scattering coefficient (b), attenuation coefficient (c) and phase function (&beta;) can all be partitioned in a similar manner. In practice, however, the optical contributions of these four classes of material may not be completely distinct: [[algal bloom|blooms]] formed by phytoplankton groups such as coccolithophores and diatoms may generate significant concentrations of mineral particles (calcite and silica respectively), and organic detrital material may form flocs which incorporate suspended minerals.<br />
<br />
===Specific optical properties and characteristics of constituents===<br />
The optical contributions of the main classes of constituents can be calculated by multiplying the concentrations of each constituent by the value of its inherent properties expressed per unit concentration. The latter quantity is often referred to as a specific inherent optical property or specific optical cross section. For example:<br />
<br />
<math>a_{MSS} = MSS \times a*MSS</math><br />
<br />
where MSS is the concentration of suspended minerals and a*MSS is the specific absorption cross section for this constituent, with units of m<sup>2</sup> g<sup>-1</sup>. The convention that seawater contains four classes of optically significant constituents tends to conceal the fact that there can be considerable variability in specific optical properties within each class of constituent. Moreover, optical characterisation of the four main classes of constituent is currently incomplete.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
:<u>''Phytoplankton cells and colonies (Phyt)''</u>: A great deal of effort has been devoted to the study of the absorption and scattering characteristics of phytoplankton cells (see for example Sathyendranath et al 1987<ref>Sathyendranath S, Lazzara L, Prieur L 1987 Variations in the Spectral Values of Specific Absorption of Phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 32: 403-415</ref>, Bricaud et al 1988<ref>Bricaud, A., Bedhomme, A.L. and A. Morel (1988). Optical properties of diverse phytoplanktonic species: Experimental results and theoretical interpretation, Journal of Plankton Research, 10, 851-873</ref> and Johnsen et al 1994<ref>Johnsen G, Samset O, Grauskog L and Sakshaug E 1994 In vivo absorption characteristics in 10 classes of bloom-forming phytoplankton: taxonomic characteristics and responses to photoadaptation by means of discriminant and HPLC analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 105:149-157</ref>). The absorption spectra generally show maxima around the main chlorophyll absorption peaks at 440 nm and 675 nm, with subsidiary features depending on the presence of accessory light harvesting and photoprotective pigments. Phytoplankton scattering poses considerable practical and theoretical challenges because of the wide range of size and structure exhibited by individual cells and colonies. A helpful review of the theoretical problems is given by Quirantes and Bernard (2004<ref>Quirantes A and Bernard S 2004 Light scattering by marine algae: two-layer spherical and nonspherical models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 89: 311–321</ref>) and measurement issues are discussed in Volten et al.(1998<ref>Volten H, de Haan J F , Hovenier J W, Scheurs R, Vassen W, Dekker A G, Hoogenboom H J, Charlton F and Wouts R. 1998 Laboratory measurements of angular distributions of light scattered by phytoplankton and silt. Limnology and Oceanography 43: 1180-1197.</ref>). For all but the smallest species, phytoplankton scattering is strongly peaked in the forward direction. One interesting feature in the total scattering spectra is the presence of minima near the chlorophyll absorption peaks which is due to Kettler-Helmholtz anomalous dispersion. There is some evidence that the specific backscattering coefficients of most phytoplankton species are too low to account for the magnitude of water-leaving radiance signals observed from natural populations, but measurements in this area are imprecise and current theoretical models do not take the full structural complexity of phytoplankton cells into account.<br />
:<u>''Mineral suspended solids (MSS)''</u>: The optics of some types of mineral particles have been systematically explored (Babin and Stramski 2005<ref>Babin M., and Stramski D 2005 Variations in the mass-specific absorption coefficient of mineral particles suspended in water. Limnology and Oceanography, 49, 756-767</ref>). Their absorption spectra are generally high in the blue wavebands and decrease towards the red, and for field samples their shape is often similar to that for CDOM. Scattering characteristics are influenced by size distribution and refractive index (Wozniak and Stramski 2004<ref>Wozniak, Slawomir B.; Stramski, Dariusz 2004 Modeling the Optical Properties of Mineral Particles Suspended in Seawater and their Influence on Ocean Reflectance and Chlorophyll Estimation from Remote Sensing Algorithms Applied Optics IP, vol. 43, Issue 17, pp.3489-3503</ref>). It is not clear whether laboratory samples of mineral dusts are representative of all the materials found in coastal locations.<br />
:<u>''Coloured dissolved organic matter (CDOM)''</u> CDOM absorption has been extensively characterised. It is generally described by an exponential function of the form: <math>a(\lambda\,)_{cdom}=a(\lambda_0)_{cdom}\, e^{-S(\lambda - \lambda_0)}</math>. In which: &lambda;<sub>0</sub> is a reference wavelength (usually 440 nm) and S is a coefficient which has a typical value of 0.01 to 0.02 in UK coastal waters (Bricaud et al 1981<ref>Bricaud A, Morel A and Prieur L 1981 Absorption by dissolved organic matter of the sea (yellow substance) in the UV and visible domains. Limnology and Oceanography 26:43-53.</ref>). Light scattering by CDOM is generally assumed negligible, but it is possible that some of the coloured material passing through 0.2 μm filters is colloidal in nature and therefore capable of contributing to the total scattering coefficient. <br />
:<u>''Organic suspended solids or detritus (OSS)''</u>: The optical properties of organic detritus are not well characterised. This is due to the wide range of material which falls under this classification, ranging from scenescent phytoplankton cells to faecal pellets in offshore waters and including terrestrial vegetable matter in estuaries. There is also the possibility that organic matter may form flocs which include mineral particles in estuaries and in post-bloom shelf-sea conditions.<br />
<br />
===Other relevant parameters===<br />
Changes in light field parameters with depth (z) are often approximately exponential in nature. For example, the attenuation of downward planar irradiance in a uniform water column can be written:<br />
<br />
<math>E_d(\lambda, z) = E_d (lambda, 0)e^{-K_dz}</math><br />
<br />
In which K<sub>d</sub> is the vertical attenuation coefficient. Quantities such as K<sub>d</sub> are relatively insensitive to input conditions at moderate solar angles and are frequently referred to as <u>apparent optical properties (AOPs)</u> (Kirk 1994<ref name="kirk"/>). Some examples of AOPs are:<br />
* The attenuation coefficient for downwards planar irradiance (K<sub>d</sub>) <br />
* The attenuation coefficient for scalar irradiance (K<sub>0</sub>) <br />
* Irradiance reflectance (R) <br />
* [[Remote sensing]] reflectance (measured just above the sea surface) (R<sub>rs</sub>) <br />
* The mean cosine (&mu;)<br />
<br />
[[image:uw_optics01.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Figure 1: Measurements of PAR at three contrasting stations in the Irish Sea in April (station 10) and November (stations 26 and 29)]]<br />
<u>Photosynthetically available radiation (PAR)</u> is the integral of scalar irradiance, expressed in quantum units, over the 400 -700 nm waveband. The term <u>K<sub>PAR</sub></u>, defined by analogy with K<sub>0</sub> and K<sub>d</sub>, is sometimes used to describe the attenuation of PAR. However since the attenuation of light by seawater varies with wavelength, the reduction in PAR with depth can deviate from the exponential approximation in the upper part of the water column. Figure 1 shows the measured variability of PAR with depth for three contrasting stations in the Irish Sea. <br />
<br />
The <u>optical depth z(&lambda;l)</u> is defined as the depth at which Ed is reduced to 1/e (~0.37) of its value immediately below the surface. This quantity is wavelength-dependent, as might be expected from the fact that the spectral distribution of the underwater light field changes with depth. The maximum depth at which significant photosynthesis can occur (the <u>euphotic depth, z<sub>eu</sub></u>) is conventionally taken to be the point at which PAR is reduced to 1% of its surface value (Kirk 1994<ref name="kirk"/>).<br />
<br />
The <u>horizontal range of visibility (y)</u> at which a black target is judged to be visible to a human observer is empirically related to the attenuation coefficient c by the relationship:<br />
<br />
: <math>y\, = {4.8 \over c} </math> <br />
<br />
A theoretical basis for this relationship, based on radiance transfer theory, is given by Zaneveld and Pegau (2003<ref>Zaneveld J R V and Pegau W S 2003 Robust underwater visibility parameter. Optics Express 11:2997-3009</ref>).<br />
<br />
==Radiative transfer theory and light field modelling==<br />
===The radiative transfer equation===<br />
The propagation of light energy through a medium which absorbs, scatters and contains internal sources is determined by the radiative transfer equation, which is widely used in fields such as astronomy and atmospheric science as well as hydrological optics (Goody and Yung 1989<ref>Goody R M and Yung Y L 1989 Atmospheric radiation, theoretical basis. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 519pp.</ref>). In marine light fields, sunlight enters from above and is attenuated with depth (z). In the simple case where bottom reflectance can be neglected and the water is horizontally homogeneous, the change in monochromatic radiance in a given direction (q,f) as a function of depth (z) is given by<br />
<br />
<math>{dL (z,q,f) \over dr} = -cL(z,q,f) + L*(z,q,f)+ S(z,q,f)</math><br />
<br />
In which: L*(z,q,f) represents the gain in radiance due to light scattered from adjacent paths and S(z,q,f) accounts for any internal sources. In coastal waters, the most important internal source terms arise from Raman scattering by water molecules and fluorescence from dissolved organic matter and phytoplankton pigments. For light-field modelling the radiative transfer equation is solved numerically using either Monte Carlo methods or more conceptually sophisticated mathematical techniques (Mobley 1994<ref name="mob"/>, Thomas and Stamnes 1999<ref>Thomas G E.and Stamnes K 1999 Radiative transfer in the atmosphere and ocean, Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press 517 p., ISBN 0521401240.</ref>). The discrete ordinates method is commonly used in optical oceanography and is implemented in the commercially available Hydrolight software package (Sequoia Scientific). In order to construct a light field model, it is necessary to specify the nature of the input illumination, the IOPs of the medium, and any internal source functions (Figure 2). Light field models can generate a complete set of radiance values, but their output is usually summarised as a set of AOPs and reflectances which corresponds to those most frequently measured.<br />
[[image:uw_optics02.jpg|thumb|centre|750px|Figure 2: Input/output relationships for the numerical modelling of radiative transfer in shelf seas.]]<br />
<br />
===Optical closure===<br />
Ideally, it should be possible to construct a light field model of a coastal water column using measured values of the IOPs which would precisely replicate radiometric measurements made at the same time. This is known as <u>‘optical closure’</u>. It is difficult to achieve in practice for two main reasons. First, it places great demands on the appropriate calibration and deployment of the measuring instruments. Second, some key IOPs such as the scattering phase function are difficult to measure [[in situ]], and are usually estimated from the backscattering ratio (bb/b) using analytical functions. Figure 3 shows a typical attempt to achieve optical closure for a shelf sea station in the Irish Sea with constituent concentrations of: Chl 1.6 mg m<sup>-3</sup>, MSS 1.9 mg l<sup>-1</sup>, CDOM a440 0.2m<sup>-1</sup>. In this instance the match between measured and modelled E<sub>d</sub> values is reasonably good, but the L<sub>u</sub> plots diverge significantly below 5 m. The symbols in Figure 3 represent measurements made with a profiling radiometer (Satlantic SPMR) and are spaced at 1 m intervals from the sea surface. The lines indicate the output of Hydrolight calculations of downward irradiance (upper plot) and upward radiance (lower plot) which used [[in-situ]] measurements of IOPs as inputs. Absorption and scattering coefficients were measured using a dual tube photometer (Wet Labs ac-9) and backscattering coefficients measured using a Hydroscat 2 (HobiLabs) backscattering meter. <br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background: rgb(245, 245, 245); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153);padding: 1em;"><br />
{| <br />
|-<br />
| width=300px| [[image:uw_optics03a.jpg|300px]]<br />
| width=300px| [[image:uw_optics03b.jpg|300px]]<br />
|-<br />
|+ align="bottom" style="caption-side: bottom; text-align: left;" | Figure 3: Typical results of an attempt to achieve optical closure for a station in the Irish Sea.<br />
|}<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal links===<br />
* [[Optical measurements in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Optical remote sensing]]<br />
* [[General principles of optical and acoustical instruments]]<br />
* [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]<br />
* [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]]<br />
* [[Use of Lidar for coastal habitat mapping]]<br />
<br />
===Further reading===<br />
* Babin M and Stramski D 2002 Light absorption by aquatic particles in the near-infrared spectral region. Limnology and Oceanography 47:911-915<br />
* Babin, M, Morel A, Fournier-Sicre V, Fell F and Stramski D 2003. Light scattering properties of marine particles in coastal and oceanic waters as related to the particle mass concentration. Limnology and Oceanography, 48, 843-859<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=14356<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Alex Cunningham<br />
|AuthorName1=Alex.cunningham<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Leanne Ramage<br />
|AuthorName2=Leanne Ramage}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Leanne Ramage]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrological processes and water]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Remote Sensing in Coastal and Marine Research]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction,_problems_and_approaches_in_sediment_transport_measurements&diff=37349Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements2011-08-03T13:44:31Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article is a summary of first chapter of the [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>. This article gives an introduction of sediment transport, the contents of the manual, and sediment and erosion problems. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In general the natural [[bathymetry]] (bottom configuration) of a hydraulic system is under the influence of a large number of factors varying from geological processes to the complex interaction of fluid and sediment particles. Most hydraulic systems can be considered to be in a state of dynamic equilibrium between deposition and erosion. The general characteristics only change very slowly with time. Human interference with the governing phenomena in such a delicate equilibrium will have morphological consequences. To predict these consequences for a specific project, it is of essential importance to have detailed knowledge of the local morphological variables such as the bed material size, the settling velocities of the suspended solids and the transport rates. To obtain this information, an extensive field survey should be carried out.<br />
<br />
An important phase prior to the actual field survey is the selection of the most appropriate instruments, which usually is a rather difficult problem because a wide range of instruments has been developed from simple mechanical samplers to sophisticated optical and acoustical samplers. The selection of instruments is largely dependent on the variables to be measured, the available facilities (boat, winch) and the required accuracy. Especially, the required accuracy should be considered carefully. For example, a reconnaissance study requires the use of much less sophisticated instruments than a basic research study. <br />
<br />
===Contents of the manual===<br />
This manual provides information of all relevant aspects related to sediment transport measurements such as:<br />
* measuring principles and statistics,<br />
* type and accuracy of the instruments,<br />
* selection of the instruments,<br />
* analysis of the samples,<br />
* elaboration and presentation of the measuring results.<br />
<br />
Any field worker knows that there is considerable difficulty and expense in sediment transport measurements inherent to the required time and labour in sampling of processes that usually vary greatly in space and time (see Wren et al., 2000<ref>Wren, D.G., Barkdoll, B.D., Kuhnle, R.A. and Derrow, R.W., 2000. Field techniques for suspended<br />
sediment transport measurement. ''Journal of Hydraulic Engineering''. Vol. 126, No. 2, p. 97104</ref>). Traditional forms of sediment transport measurements where samples are taken in the field and transferred to the laboratory for analysis may lead to inaccurate results (particle size). The importance of measuring particle size using sophisticated [[in-situ]] electronic instruments avoiding sample collection and handling which may change the particle size distribution (disturbing solids and/or aggregates), has been stressed by many field workers.<br />
<br />
In this manual the attention is focused on those instruments which have been proven to be reliable and successful in field conditions. Instruments that are in a developing stage are not considered. Typical laboratory instruments are not considered.<br />
<br />
==Sedimentation and erosion problems in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas==<br />
Sedimentation and erosion engineering problems in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas are discussed as well as practical solutions of these problems based on the results of field measurements, laboratory scale models and numerical models. <br />
<br />
===Sedimentation and erosion problems===<br />
Human interference in hydraulic systems often is necessary to maintain and extend economic activities related to ports and associated navigation channels. Often, engineering structures are required: <br />
# to stabilize the [[shoreline]], shoals and inlets, <br />
# to reduce sedimentation, <br />
# to prevent or reduce [[erosion]], or <br />
# to increase the channel depth to allow larger vessels entering the harbour basin. Coastal protection against floods and navigability are the most basic problems in many estuaries in the world.<br />
Sedimentation problems which generally occur at locations where the sediment transporting capacity of the hydraulic system is reduced due to the decrease of the steady (currents) and oscillatory (waves) flow velocities and related turbulent motions, are discussed. See also [[Coastal Hydrodynamics And Transport Processes]].<br />
<br />
===Approach of sedimentation problems===<br />
The general approach to solve sedimentation and erosion problems is discussed. The topics are: <br />
# Identification of the problem and wider context,<br />
# Formulation of general objectives and desired state of knowledge, <br />
# Determination of problem dimensions and analysis of physical system, <br />
# Formulation of hypotheses related to the problem, <br />
# Generation of alternative solutions and cost estimates, <br />
# Selection of optimum solution. <br />
<br />
The tools available for solving problems are discussed: existing databases, measurements and monitoring (field studies), numerical and or physical modelling. The manual focuses on measurements and monitoring.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Summaries of the manual===<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* Chapter 2: [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 4: [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* Chapter 5: [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 10: [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
===Other internal links===<br />
* [[Types and background of coastal erosion]]<br />
* [[Shore protection, coast protection and sea defence methods]]<br />
* [[Greek case studies: Sediment dynamics in the nearshore zone of Gouves (Heraklio, Crete) in relation to erosion (unpublished data 2006)]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H1_Introduction.pdf Manual Chapter 1: Introduction (pdf; 0,4 Mb)]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn <br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal erosion management]]<br />
[[Category:River-basin management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Interpolation_of_measured_grain-size_fractions&diff=37348Interpolation of measured grain-size fractions2011-08-03T13:44:14Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In marine-[[habitat]] and in marine-landscape mapping, information on various physical/[[abiotic]] parameters of the area under consideration is important. Along with information on [[biotic]] parameters, physical/[[abiotic]] parameters are used to define and map habitats or landscapes. One of the most relevant physical parameters used in seabed mapping is the grain size of the sediment. <br />
Until now, the most commonly used grain-size descriptor has been the sand [[median]], also known as the Ds50. The [[median diameter]] of the sand fraction (defined as the fraction between 63 micron and 2 mm), is the midpoint of the grain-size distribution: 50% (by weight) of the sediment is coarser and 50% is finer than the [[median grain size]]. Traditionally, the sand [[median]] known from measured points is used to create a full-coverage map by interpolating the measured values. The [[median]] is the most widely known grain-size descriptor, because it is easily measured or estimated. However, the sand [[median]] is not always the most relevant grain-size descriptor of natural [[sediment]], which usually does not have a log-normal distribution. Bi-modal glacial sediment, for example, cannot be described adequately with only one descriptor. Furthermore, it is statistically not correct to interpolate sand medians, because the sand [[median]] is a non-linear parameter and therefore cannot be interpolated linearly. This has been demonstrated in for example Gruijters et al., 2005 <ref>Gruijters, S.H.L.L., Maljers, D., Veldkamp, J.G. (2005). 3D interpolation of grain size distributions in the upper 5 m of the channel bed of three lower Rhine distributaries. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30: 303-316. </ref>.<br />
Because of these shortcomings, we took a different approach to come to a more reliable set of grain-size maps. After creating a granulometry database with uniform size-class intervals, we interpolated the measured share of each (cumulative) grain-size fraction for all measured samples. <br />
<br />
===Location and site details===<br />
Thus far, this technique has been applied to data from the entire Dutch Continental Shelf (DCS).<br />
<br />
===Goals of the mapping===<br />
We apply this methodology a) to tackle problems associated with interpolation of sand-[[median]] values, and b) to come to more flexible grain-size maps and grids, so that not only the sand [[median]] can be extracted but also the D10, D90, or Dx, depending on which descriptor best explains the variation in the [[biotic]] data. <br />
<br />
===Technical outline===<br />
As input data, full measured grain-size distributions are used. For the DCS there are 6038 measurements available (December 2006); in the near future, several hundred more measurements will become available, primarily from the northern half of the DCS where coverage is poor at the moment. Main problems with the current set of measurements are:<br />
*Not all grain-size distributions are complete. The fraction >2 mm (the gravel fraction, including shells and shell fragments) is often missing because protocols are not always followed when pre-processing samples for analysis. <br />
*Accurate measurement of mud ([[silt]] and [[clay]]) content is difficult because of particle agregation during sample processing and because of flocculation under natural conditions. Measured mud percentages are at best a good estimate.<br />
*Sample collection spans a long period, during which various analytical instruments and techniques have been used to measure grain size: several generations of laser-particle sizers (wet and dry), sieving (wet and dry), and the pipette method.<br />
Because of these shortcomings in the data, we focus on the sand fraction only. However, both the very fine ([[mud]]) and the coarse fraction ([[gravel]]) are important in describing the physical environment, a first approximation is made to include these fractions. Results for the [[mud]] fraction are available as a full coverage map, taking the percentage of all particles <63 micron to be a reliable indication of the mud percentage; the gravel fraction will be included as soon as possible. Theses three components, [[gravel]], [[sand]] and [[mud]], will be used to make an improved Folk [[sediment]] map.<br />
During data processing, the class intervals are made uniform, meaning that all measured grain-size distributions are transformed to fit the following 20 fractions: 63-75, 75-88, 88-105, 105-125, 125-150, 150-177, 177-210, 210-250, 250-300, 300-354, 354-420, 420-500, 500-600, 600-707, 707-850, 850-1000, 1000-1190, 1190-1410, 1410-1680, and 1680-2000 micron, conform laser-diffraction fractions used standard within TNO. Taken together, these fractions add up to 100%. For all samples, cumulative grain-size distributions are made (Figure 1). <br />
<br />
[[Image:Maljersfig1.jpg|center|400px]]<br />
''Figure 1 Example of a cumulative grain-size distribution of the sand fraction.''<br />
<br />
In these graphs the different amounts of throughfall are shown. With a mesh size of 2 mm, 100% of the [[sediment]] is falling through. The opposite holds true for a mesh size of 63 micron; 0% of the sediment falls through. These cumulative grain-size distributions are used in interpolation. For that purpose they are exported to geostatistical interpolation software used at TNO, called [http://www.geovareances.com Isatis] <ref>[http://www.geovareances.com Isatis]</ref>.<br />
All fractions are interpolated with a technique called Kriging with External Drift. Verfaillie et al. (2006)<ref>Verfaillie, E., Lancker, V. van, Meirvenne, M. van (2006). Multivariate geostatistics for the predictive modelling of the surficial sand distribution in shelf seas. Continental Shelf Research. Volume 26. Issue 19: 2454-2468. </ref> describe this technique in detail. Verfaillie et al. illustrate that the bathymetry explains most variation in the sand [[median]]. We therefore assume that this is also valid for the separate fractions on which the sand [[median]] is based, and use this parameter as external-drift variable. Resulting from this interpolation are full-coverage grids for all fractions. In Figure 2 an example of one of these full-coverage maps can be seen. These grids have to be post processed in order to calculate for example D50, D10 or D90. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Maljersfig2.jpg|center|400px]]<br />
''Figure 2 Example of full-coverage map of an interpolated fraction, in this case 210 micron.''<br />
<br />
The post processing again consists of several steps. Owing to the interpolation technique used (Kriging), values for throughfall can become more than 100% or less than 0%, when data density is not sufficient. We have to correct for these artificial results, therefore values less than 0% are corrected to 0% and values over 100% are corrected to 100%. Furthermore, we build in a check to force the interpolated values to exactly follow a cumulative grain-size distribution, meaning that on any location, throughfall for a particular mesh size should be less than for a coarser mesh size.<br />
Further data post processing is performed with a script in Python. We can calculate whichever D is needed, for example the D10 or D50. The outcome of these calculations can be plotted in any [[GIS]] program and can be used afterward in for example marine-landscape mapping or habitat mapping by combining physical and biotic data. In Figure 3 the D50 map for the DCS is showed, calculated with the above explained technique. Clearly recognizable are the large-scale bathymetric features on this map. Also clearly visible is the effect of insufficient data density, which can be seen in the northern part of the DCS. The level of confidence in this area is logically not as high as in areas with sufficient data density.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Maljersfig3.jpg|center|400px]]<br />
''Figure 3 Ds50 map derived after post-processing of interpolation results for all fractions.''<br />
<br />
===Summary of results===<br />
Main results from this study are tailor-made full-coverage sediment maps that are both more accurate and more relevant than existing ones. By using the technique of interpolating grain-size fractions, any D can be calculated, which makes this technique much more flexible than the traditional interpolation of measured D50 values.<br />
<br />
===Key lessons===<br />
Quality of the data used is very important, and so is data density; without a sufficient data density the reliability of the resulting map is uncertain (and most likely limited). One should always keep in mind what kind of natural processes and parameters resulted in the sediment distribution as present in situ. The spatial scales of these processes and parameters should be larger than the distance between data points in order for data points to be correlated. More information on geostatistics is presented by Isaaks et al. (1989)<ref>Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava, R.M. (1989). An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press. </ref>.<br />
<br />
===Conclusions===<br />
The technique presented here is a very flexible tool for the construction of full-coverage sediment maps, and can be applied easily when sufficient grain-size data are available in a uniform format.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Topic:Sedimentology]]<br />
* [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* [[Topic:Measurements]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine information and knowledge management]]<br />
[[Category:Articles by Gunnink, J.]]<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=<br />
|AuthorName1=D. Maljers<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Maljers, D.<br />
|AuthorID2=<br />
|AuthorName2= J. Gunnink<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Gunnink, J.}}</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Integrated_Assessment&diff=37347Integrated Assessment2011-08-03T13:44:06Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>===Integrated Assessment===<br />
This article gives a brief overview on the concept of integrated assessment approaches, describing procedures and working phases to be organized.<br />
<br />
==Introduction and definition==<br />
<br />
Integrated assessment is an interdisciplinary approach to assessment based on combining, interpreting and communicating knowledge from diverse scientific disciplines to policy in such a way that an entire cause–effect chain of a problem can be evaluated from a synoptic perspective. The main task of any assessment is to provide useful information to politicians and policy makers. Integrating a broader set of studies, approaches and points of view coming from different scientific areas interacting among each other provides more and better information on the issue assessed than single disciplinary studies added up. <br />
<br />
Integrated assessment is used in integrated coastal zone management to assess policy issues under an holistic approach. Integration is achieved either in vertical or horizontal sense. Vertical assessment considers all aspects of a single policy issue (for instance coastal defence, or adaptation to climate change), aiming at the assessment of a comprehensive issue policy. Horizontal integration considers all aspects of one sector (a coastal area, an island, a region, or a system consisting of river basin and coastal area) aiming at an assessment of comprehensive sectorial or regional policies. <br />
<br />
==Approaches==<br />
Integrated assessment can be based on mainly two different approaches to problem analysis, which are based on participative methods, or on modelling methods. <br />
According to the approach adopted, two slightly different three-stage procedures can be identified.<br />
<br />
# As a first step, which is common to all approaches, the problem, generally dealing with rather complex systems, needs to be '''identified and structured'''.<br />
# As second step, either participatory methods such as Delphi, or integrated modelling approaches are used for the '''analysis of the problem'''. In practice, stage 2 proposes two opposite ways, pure discussion and pure modelling, which can be combined or used in alternative manner.<br />
# In the third step, again common to all approaches, the findings and insights are '''communicated''' to the relevant audience. This again involves extensive discussion between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders.<br />
<br />
==Procedures==<br />
'''Problem structuring''', the first step of the assessment process, is aimed at defining and framing the problem. This phase, the problem is to be clearly defined and well-structured, especially if its analysis is made by modelling approach. Although the problem in one sense is already known at the beginning of an integrated assessment process – assessment processes are activated by the need for information stemming from policy – the identification and framing of the problem represents an important step and implies considerable efforts from policy makers, scientists and stakeholders in defining and agreeing on what is actually the problem<ref> Tol, Vellinga (1998), The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment, in: Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3(3</ref> and how it can be analysed, either choosing specific lay outs of integrated models or choosing disciplines, scientists and stakeholders to be involved.<br />
<br />
Integrated analysis, as introduced before, can be pursued following two complementary approaches; participatory integrated assessment and integrated assessment modelling. The two approaches can be considered complementary as where one is strong the other is weak and vice versa.<br />
<br />
'''Participatory integrated assessment''' (PIA) can be considered as a form of participatory policy analysis, which aims at supporting the policy process by designing and facilitating policy debate and argumentation. The introduction of participatory methods into the integrated environmental assessment community is of quite recent date, which has contributed to the misconception that participatory methodologies are less developed and matured than integrated assessment modelling<ref>Hisschemöller,Tol, et al. 2001; The Relevance of Participatory Approaches in Integrated Environmental Assessment.in: Integrated Assessment 2(2)</ref>. As for any form of [[Eight levels of public participation|stakeholder participation]], activities can be of different intensity and ask for different grades of involvement:<br />
<br />
# Information/education. The primary function of stakeholder involvement is to make them aware of scientific findings and to explore the usability of the information offered.<br />
# Consultation. Stakeholders are asked what they know about the problem and what should be done about it.<br />
# The anticipation of future developments, often used in IEA. Forecasting and back-casting are methodologies that fit in with this approach.<br />
# Mediation. Here, the question is: What do participants know about mutual values? What level of consensus can they reach?<br />
# Co-ordination adresses questions such as: What interdisciplinary knowledge should participants generate? What is the relation with other policy issues or sectors?<br />
# Co-production, relates to joint problem solving. The main question is: What shared responsibility can participants achieve?<br />
# Learning. This kind of participatory activity enhances a change in core knowledge and attitudes. Participants are asked to explore new styles and strategies for policymaking <ref>Mayer, I. 1997, Debating Technologies. A Methodological Contribution to the Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis (Tilburg University Press, Tilburg</ref><ref>Hisschemöller, Tol, Vellinga, 2001, The Relevance of Participatory Approaches in Integrated Environmental Assessment, Integrated Assessment, 2,2, p. 57–72</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Techniques used in participatory integrated assessment basically reflect two main approaches to [[Introduction of public participation|participation]] that are labelled “cognitive approach” and “argumentative approach”. <br />
The cognitive approach aims in favouring interaction among scientist and between science and policy makers, using specific methods which favour creative thinking and consideration of new options. Methods used are either based on direct interaction (role games, cognitive maps, simulation exercises) or on indirect expert consultation methods like Delphi and backcasting.<br />
The argumentative approach aims at tackling the difficulties in understanding conflicting assumptions and underlying diverging viewpoints. This involves confrontation and integration of diverging viewpoints on the issue under exam, including confrontation on very basic assumptions in order to make underlying argumentative structures evident and improve the quality of debate. <br />
<br />
The choice of [[stakeholders]] to be involved has to be made in relation to the character of the assessment, in order to achieve a representation of eventually conflicting views. Scientists to be involved will provide information, or will work on a critical evaluation of scientific knowledge across disciplines involved in expert panels.<br />
<br />
The use of participative approaches to integrated assessment allows for analysis of different views and can initiate mutual learning processes, creating new insights for policy ad research agendas, and as any stakeholder involvement, is able to increase commitment to policy decisions and implementation.<br />
The mayor weakness of participatory approaches is – beyond obviously the time- and energy demanding organization of the process – the fact that outcomes depend on the points of view of stakeholders involved, and thus cannot be reproduced with a different composition of the stakeholder group, which may open some discussion on the consistency of results.<br />
<br />
<br />
The alternative approach to participated assessment passes by the use of more formalized procedures as numeric modelling. '''Integrated assessment modelling''' (IAM) combines scientific theory and data from different scientific areas in a precise and rigorous way. Most frequently integrated assessment models consist of coupled disciplinary models communicating with each other exchanging input and output data (soft linked models) or use a common shell (hard linked models). Only rarely integrated models are implemented with a single computer code. Integration of models developed in a single disciplinary context encounters similar difficulties as dialogue between scientists, due to different basic assumptions, but also because of different temporal and spatial scales, data availability and quality. <br />
* Policy optimization vs policy evaluation. Integrated models can be classified according to their relationship to policy, either addressing the evaluation of proposed policy outcomes or giving advice on how to optimize proposed policies. In the first case, a precisely designed policy option has to be formulated in order to be evaluated, often from a natural science point of view, in the second case, the assessment gives a contribution to the design of policies, frequently using criteria from economic sciences. <br />
* Uncertainty: A second important distinction between different integrated models refers to the way uncertainty is treated. The first approach used in models is to try to exclude uncertainty representing the system as accurately as possible. This will result in very detailed and huge models. Nevertheless the resulting models are not necessarily as accurate ad needed, particularly not for complex environmental issues on large spatial and temporal scales. The alternative strategy explicitly takes into account uncertainty, trying to consider the range of possible future development in different courses of simulation. Obviously the amount of data increased by the consideration of different alternatives will go on expense of detail in the predictive capacity of the model.<br />
Modelling approaches and participative approaches are no exclusive strategies but can be used in an integrated manner according to the necessities of the issue.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Communication of results''' from integrated assessment, in particular if modelling approaches have been involved, presents a further challenge, as communication between science and policy is often not straightforward, and expectations of politicians in terms of ready-to use solutions are confronted with an often abstract and theoretic nature in which scientific results are presented. If an indirect way of presentation of results is chosen, like for instance in the case the [[Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007)|Intergovernmental<br />
Panel on Climate Change]], dissemination of scientific results is indirect and results are filtered by comparison between scientific publications and framed into the requested policy format<ref> Tol, R. S. J. and P. Vellinga (1998). "The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment." Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3(3)</ref>. This strategy is obviously less suitable to situations where rapid information is required, but has the advantage of providing filtered and ready to use information.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=12523 <br />
|AuthorName1=Margaretha<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Margaretha Breil<br />
|AuthorID2=16772<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Francesca Ciampalini}}<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Principles and concepts in integrated coastal zone management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Instruments_for_bed_level_detection&diff=37346Instruments for bed level detection2011-08-03T13:43:52Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article is a summary of chapter 10 of the [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>. This article describes three types of instruments which can be used to produce bathymetric maps: mechanical, acoustic and optical instruments. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The management of rivers, estuaries and coastal seas always involves the production of bathymetric maps for evaluation of navigationable depths, shoaling and erosion volumes, etc. Hence, accurate measuring instruments for bed level detection are required. Herein, the following methods and accuracy involved are discussed: mechanical bed level detection in combination with DGPS; acoustic bed level detectors (single and multi-beam echo sounders); and optical bed level detection.<br />
<br />
==Mechanical bed level detection in combination with DGPS==<br />
[[image:Wesptripod.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Figure 1: WESP tripod]]<br />
In coastal environments the bed level soundings are often performed by use of a vehicle moving through the surf zone. Rijkwaterstaat (The Netherlands) uses the WESP in combination with DGPS. The CRAB vehicle is in use at the Duck site (USA). The WESP is an approximately 15 m high amphibious 3-wheel vehicle, which can be used for bed level soundings in the surf zone in depths up to -6 m with waves up to 2 m (see Figure 1). It is equipped with a DGPS positioning system. Small vehicles with DGPS can be used on the dry beach.<br />
<br />
==Acoustic bed level detection (echo-sounding instruments)==<br />
The most common system for measuring water depth is the single-beam echo sounder. This sonar instrument uses a transducer that is usually mounted on the bottom of a ship. Sound pulses (usually 210 KHz for surface detection) are sent from the transducer straight down into the water. The sound reflects off the seafloor and returns to the transducer. Acoustic penetration into the bed increases with decreasing frequency (usually 10 to 15 KHz for subsurface detection). The time the sound takes to travel to the bottom and back is used to calculate the distance to the seafloor. Water depth is estimated by using the speed of sound through the water (approximately 1500 meters per second) and a simple calculation: distance = speed x time. The faster the sound pulses return to the transducer from the ocean floor, the shallower the water depth is and the higher the elevation of the sea floor. The sound pulses are sent out regularly as the ship moves along the surface, which produces a line showing the depth of the ocean beneath the ship. This continuous depth data is used to create bathymetry maps of the survey area.<br />
<br />
Multi-beam [[bathymetry]] sonar (Figure 2) is the relatively recent successor to single-beam echo sounding. About 30 years ago, a new technology has been developed that uses many beams of sound at the same time to cover a large fan-shaped area of the ocean floor rather than just the small patch of seafloor that echo sounders cover. These multi-beam systems can have more than 100 transducers, arranged in precise geometrical patterns, sending out a swath of sound that covers a distance on either side of the ship that is equal to about two times the water depth. All of the signals that are sent out reach the seafloor and return at slightly different times. These signals are received and converted to water depths by computers, and then automatically plotted as bathymetric maps.<br />
<br />
One of the best systems for imaging large areas of the ocean floor is side scan sonar (Figure 3A), either ship-mounted or bottom-mounted. The basic concept is much the same as the basic echo sounder; however, side scan sonar instruments are towed behind ships and often called tow fish or tow vehicles. This technology uses a specially shaped acoustic beam, which pulses out 90 degrees from the path that it is towed, and also out to each side. Each pulse provides a detailed image of a narrow strip directly below and to either side of the instrument.<br />
<br />
Seismic reflection uses a stronger sound signal and lower sound frequencies than echo-sounding. The sound pulse is often sent from an airgun towed behind the ship. An airgun uses the sudden release of compressed air to form bubbles. The bubble formation produces a loud sound. The sound from the airgun travels down to the seafloor. Some of the sound reflects off the seafloor but some of the sound penetrates the seafloor. The sound that penetrates the seafloor may also reflect off layers of material within the seafloor. The reflected sounds travel back up to the surface. The ship also tows a number of hydrophones (called a towed array or streamer) which detects the reflected sound signal when it reaches the surface. The time it takes the sound to return to the ship can be used to find the thickness of the layers in the seafloor and their position (sloped, level, etc). It also gives some information about the composition of the layers.<br />
<br />
See also: [[General principles of optical and acoustical instruments]]<br />
<br />
==Optical bed level detection==<br />
This instrument consists of a steel pole (diameter of 32 or 40 mm; lengths of 1.8, 2.4 and 2.9 m), which can be driven into the bed. The pole is supplied with many infra-red light sources/receivers (backscattering [[sensor|sensors]]) at spacings of 10 mm (100 sensors per meter; sampling volume of 0.5 cm3).<br />
<br />
The instrument measures:<br />
* vertical distribution of the [[turbidity]] levels in the water column;<br />
* transition from water column to bed based on the scattering of light from the suspended particles and the bed material particles;<br />
* transition from water column to air (if pole end is above the water surface).<br />
<br />
See also: [[light fields and optics in coastal waters]] and [[optical remote sensing]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Summaries of the manual===<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* Chapter 1: [[Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements]]<br />
* Chapter 2: [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 4: [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* Chapter 5: [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
===Other internal links===<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
* [[Use of aerial photographs for shoreline position and mapping applications]]<br />
* [[Hyperspectral seafloor mapping and direct bathymetry calculation in littoral zones]]<br />
*[[Bathymetry from inverse wave refraction]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/HH_10_Bed_level_detection.pdf Chapter 10 of the manual: Bed level detection (pdf; 1,8 Mb)]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Instruments_and_sensors_to_measure_environmental_parameters&diff=37345Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters2011-08-03T13:43:38Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{references}}<br />
''This article does not contain any cited references''. <br />
<br />
This article explains why instruments are needed to investigate oceanographic processes. It also explains the properties of available [[oceanographic instruments]] and [[sensors]]. <br />
<br />
==Measurement of environmental parameters==<br />
[[Image:Scales.png|550px|thumb|center|'''Figure 1 Temporal and spatial scales of ocean processes''']] The simplest way in which on can measure the environmental parameters of water, is to take samples and then analyze them after returning to the laboratory. It is a powerful approach since specialized laboratory equipment can be used to analyze a multitude of parameters. The main shortcomings of this approach are that only a limited number of measurements (samples) can be processed and the time between samples taken at the same location (to gain information about the temporal variation) usually spans from weeks to months. Processes that occur on time-scales shorter than weeks or episodic and transient events are therefore not captured. As a result, the importance of these processes and events for the distribution of parameters cannot be assessed.<br />
<br />
In oceanography, there is a vast range of processes spanning many orders of time and space (see Figure 1). To allow for the investigation of these processes, a large volume of [[data]] must be gathered on the appropriate time and space scales. To achieve this task, [[oceanographic instrument|instruments]] are needed that measure environmental parameters automatically [[in situ]].<br />
<br />
==Oceanographic instruments==<br />
===Introduction===<br />
An oceanographic instrument generally consists of one or more [[sensors]] as well as a signal processing unit that converts the sensor signal and carries out scaling and conversion to engineering units and to the output data protocol. Figure 2 shows a schematization of an oceanographic instrument. The analyte (property to be measured) interacts with the detector (in some cases after a stimulus has been exerted by the instrument). The detector produces a signal, that is transformed into an electrical signal by the transducer. Detector and transducer together constitute the sensor. The electrical signal is fed to the signal processing (and conditioning) unit that creates the signal output of the instrument.[[Image:Instrument schematic.jpg|thumb|700px|center|'''Figure 2 Schematization of a generalised oceanographic instrument''']]<br />
<br />
Oceanographic instruments can contain data loggers to store measurement data for readout after the deployment. <br />
<br />
===Important properties===<br />
:* '''Accuracy''': deviation of the measured value from the true value<br />
:* '''Precision''': deviation of a measured value from another measured value of the same quantity (but at different environmental conditions (e.g. the two measurements taken at different temperatures))<br />
:* '''Resolution''': smallest change in the measured quantity that can be detected by the instrument<br />
:* '''Measurement rate''': number of measurements that can be carried out per unit time (e.g. measurements/hour)<br />
:* '''Power consumption''': mean of electrical power uptake during deployment (usually measured in Watts [W])<br />
:* '''Deployment time''': time period for which the instrument can be deployed (usually depends on environmental conditions, such as [[biofouling]], or on stored energy and power consumption)<br />
<br />
==Sensors==<br />
===Introduction===<br />
In an [[oceanographic instrument]] the stimulus can interact either directly with the detector (e.g. in a temperature, pressure or light sensor) or a stimulus can be exerted by the instrument. The stimulus is then modified by the property to be measured and then interacts with the detector, such as a [[Fluorescence sensors | fluorometer]] that sends out a light pulse (stimulus), which is transformed by chlorophyll fluorescence in the water (modification of stimulus). The transformed light (modified stimulus) then interacts with the detector.<br />
<br />
If the detector signal is of a property (such as color) it can be converted to an electrical signal by a not an electrical signal (e.g. an optical signal or the change transducer). The sensor is made up of both the detector and the transducer. <br />
<br />
===Types of sensors===<br />
There are numerous sensors in oceanographic work:<br />
<br />
''Some of the most commonly used are''<br />
:* [[Temperature sensors]] (under construction)<br />
:* [[Salinity sensors]] (under construction)<br />
:* [[Turbidity]] sensors such as<br />
:: [[Secchi disk]]<br />
:: [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]]<br />
:: [[Optical transmissiometer]]s (Theme 9 wanted page)<br />
:* [[Oxygen sensors]]<br />
:* [[Fluorescence sensors]]<br />
:* [[Multi-probe sensors]] (Theme 9 wanted page)<br />
<br />
''Less common are''<br />
:* [[pH sensors]]<br />
:* [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]<br />
:* [[Flow cytometer]]s <br />
:* [[pCO2 sensors]]<br />
:* [[Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]]<br />
:* [[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)]]<br />
<br />
''Examples of specialized sensor systems are''<br />
:* [[Nutrient analyzers]]<br />
:* [[Trace metal analyzers]] (Theme 9 wanted page)<br />
:* [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
:* [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
:* [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
:* [[Waverider buoy]]s (under construction)<br />
:* [[Underwater video systems]]<br />
<br />
===Important properties===<br />
:* '''Sensitivity''': The smallest change in the property being measured that leads to a measurable change in the detector signal.<br />
:* '''Selectivity''': How those properties, other than the one being measured, lead to changes in the detector signal. High selectivity sensors exhibit little change in the detector signal from properties other than the one being measured.<br />
:* '''Range''': The span between the extremes of the property being measured, at which no further change in the detector signal occurs.<br />
:* '''Linearity''': A measure of how far equal amounts of change in the property being measured, lead to equal amounts of change in the detector signal.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Wireless sensor networks]]<br />
* [[Coastal observatories]]<br />
* [[Ships of opportunity and ferries as instrument carriers]]<br />
* [[General principles of optical and acoustical instruments]]<br />
* [[Currents and turbulence by acoustic methods]]<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* [[Light fields and optics in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Differentiation of major algal groups by optical absorption signatures]]<br />
* [[Optical remote sensing]]<br />
* [[Optical measurements in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Real-time algae monitoring]]<br />
* [[The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR)]]<br />
* [[ALGADEC - Detection of toxic algae with a semi-automated nucleic acid biosensor]]<br />
* [[Application of data loggers to seabirds]]<br />
* [[Acoustic monitoring of marine mammals]]<br />
* [[Sampling tools for the marine environment]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Wikischro<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Prien, Ralf]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine information and knowledge management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Environmental management in coastal and marine zones]]<br />
[[Category:Biological processes and organisms]]<br />
[[Category:Ecological processes and ecosystems]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Input-output_matrix&diff=37344Input-output matrix2011-08-03T13:43:27Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:SPICOSA.jpg|100px|right]]<br />
<br />
An '''Input-output matrix''' is a representation of national or regional economic accounting that records the ways industries trade with one another as well as produce for consumption and investments. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Input-output matrix is constructed on the simple idea that goods and services produced by economic sectors should be registered in a table simultaneously by origin and by destination [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/34/37349386.pdf (OECD, 2006)]<ref>'''OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2006.''' ''Input-output analysis in an increasingly globalised world: applications of OECD’s harmonized international tables.'' STI/Working paper 2006/7. Statistical analysis of Science, Technology and Industry. 31st August. Available on Internet : http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/34/37349386.pdf</ref>.<br />
Commodities are produced by economic sectors (e.g. cotton produced by agriculture) and they serve as inputs in other sectors in order to produce their final products also called outputs (e.g. manufacturing industry such as textile industry using cotton from agriculture as input to produce its own output, i.e. clothes in cotton). Better said, the purchase of agricultural output by manufacturing is for use as inputs in producing manufacturing output. Such purchases are part of what is known as intermediate demand, which term refers to inter-industry transactions, i.e. goods and services bought by firms from other firms and used up in current production (this corresponds to Domestic intermediate matrix – see '''first quadrant''' in [http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~sameyer/CEESE/documents/Table%201.pdf Table 1]). The outputs are delivered to the final demand sector that comprises purchases by individuals for consumption, by firms for investment (in fixed capital such as machines, buildings, etc.), by government, and by foreigners (exportations) – this corresponds to the '''fourth quadrant''' in [http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~sameyer/CEESE/documents/Table%201.pdf Table 1] called Domestic investment matrix. The use of this terminology “final demand” simply indicates that purchases by this sector are not for the purpose of use in production (Common and Stagl, 2005)<ref>'''Common M., Stagl S., 2005'''. ''Ecological Economic. An Introduction.'' Cambridge University Press, New York, pp.125-136</ref>. In addition to intermediate inputs mentioned above, firms use primary inputs. Those are services which are not bought from other firms but from individuals: these services are known as factors of production. These refer to wages and salaries as payments for labour services, interests paid on borrowing, rent paid for the use of equipment, building and land, profits paid for the entrepreneurship that is the function of organizing and risk-taking (Common and Stagl, 2005). – this corresponds to the '''second quadrant''' in [http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~sameyer/CEESE/documents/Table%201.pdf Table 1], which is called Imported intermediate products matrix. We are not going to detail the '''third''' and the '''fifth quadrant''' here since they are not essential to the global understanding of the methodology. For more details, look at the legend of [http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~sameyer/CEESE/documents/Table%201.pdf Table 1] or go to [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/34/37349386.pdf (OECD, 2006)] and read pp.7-9.<br />
<br />
[[image:Table_1_Version_4.JPG|thumb|right|[http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~sameyer/CEESE/documents/Table%201.pdf Table 1]. Example of an Input-output Matrix for Belgium in the year 2000. Source : OECD (2006a)]]<br />
<br />
[http://dev.ulb.ac.be/~sameyer/CEESE/documents/Table%201.pdf Table 1] shows an example of a real input-output matrix for Belgium in the year 2000. The columns represent the destination of inputs, and the rows sum the output of a sector. <br />
As you can see, only the total outputs (last line called industry output) are shown, not the total inputs. This is because such data is not necessary since the total inputs equal the total outputs. Normally, this total appears in the last column of the table.<br />
<br />
==Practical use of Input-output tables==<br />
<br />
If we want to estimate without Input-output analysis, which additional inputs would be needed if the fishing sector increased its production by one unit, we would need to measure the following: i) first round, direct effects on the industries that supply the fishing sector with nets, boats, fishing rods etc; and ii) a range of secondary (indirect) effects, since these supplier industries themselves require additional inputs for their production, in order to meet the additional demand coming from the fishing sector production system. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, input-output matrices offer a solution to solve such problems immediately taking into account both direct as well as indirect effects. This can be particularly appreciable for assessing economic impact (both ex-ante and ex-post) of policy changes. Environmental impact can even be analyzed if we add environmental data to classical input-output tables in order to build green input-output tables. <br />
<br />
For instance, if a policy option scenario for marine [[pollution]] management (e.g. a tax on plastic industry resulting in higher plastic prices or a governmental subsidies to the production of material of substitution that are [[biodegradable]]) results in technical changes or in changes in final demand for plastics (a valuable material particularly in construction, packaging and fishing gear applications), I-O analysis can help us to deduce the following (adapted from Leontief, 1974, 193-209 pp.)<ref>'''Leontief V., 1974.''' ''Essais d’économiques.'' Ed. Calman Lévy, pp.133-157 and 193-216. Those two chapters are also available in English in : <br />
* Input-output Analysis, Input-output Economics, New York Oxford University Press, 1966;<br />
* Environmental repercussions and the Economic Structure : An Input-Output Approach, published in The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. LII, n°3, August 1970, Copyright by the president and Fellows of Harvard College; published as well in Robert et Nancy DORFMAN, Economics of the Environment, W.W. Norton & Co Inc, 1972.<br />
</ref> :<br />
<br />
*the policy options impact on the total level of [[pollution]] by plastic microparticles in the sea <br />
*the amount of [[pollution]] reduction in a particular sector resulting from the implementation of a policy option <br />
*the total [[pollution]] resulting from the final demand (demand from households, …) for products of each sector. For instance, keeping the example of plastic production, this means that the I-O table can tell us : “from the total amount Y of plastic [[pollutant]] in the sea, X tones are linked to agriculture, industrial and services activities contributing directly or indirectly to the supply of agricultural products to households. This is interesting since it does not only take into account the amount of [[pollutant|pollutants]] from the agriculture sector for the production of agricultural products, but it also encompasses [[pollutant|pollutants]] from other sectors intervening in the production of agricultural products. That is important since the agriculture sector also needs industrial products and services to generate its production. The same can be calculated for the supply of industrial products and services to households. <br />
*the impact of policy options on production level in other sectors (and so on the economy)<br />
*the impact of policy options on total employment in the region or in a particular sector<br />
*the impact of policy options on prices of goods and services<br />
<br />
==Limits of the method==<br />
<br />
The input-output (I-O) analysis is not able to capture environmental measures with a small economic impact (on GDP, on production, on employment…at national or regional level) because of data are too aggregated. Therefore, I-O is only relevant for activities having a wide economic impact such as construction of large infrastructures (railways or motorways infrastructure), modification of port activities, implementation of environmental policies targeting a whole sector, subsector or a branch of economic activities, etc. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, I-O analysis could also be relevant for a package of several policy options, each having a relatively small impact, but whose sum results in a large impact on the regional economy.<br />
<br />
Walter Hecq (2006a)<ref>'''Hecq W., 2006a.''' ''Aspects économiques de l’environnement. Fascicule 4. Economie de l’environnement.'' Université Libre de Bruxelles, 12ème édition, P.U.B.</ref> summarized several other limits of I-O analysis. They are mentioned below.<br />
<br />
First of all, environmental measure might affect output prices. For instance, if a governmental policy make compulsory for oil companies to install an oil de-sulfuration system (that prevents [[acid rains]]), the cost of this de-pollution system will be reflected in oil price. Hence, all products requiring oil in their fabrication process will see their price modified too (e.g.: outputs from agriculture, electricity, ferrous metals, etc.). And due to an increase in their price, the demand for each of these products will probably decrease. The modification of the demand due to price variation must be integrated into I-O models but this makes them heavier to handle because of numerous products and/or diverse response functions. In that case, dynamic model such as CGE might be more suitable.<br />
<br />
Moreover, I-O matrices give a static vision of the economy making difficult projections possibilities. However, it is possible to build dynamic I-O matrices but this is a bit more complicated. <br />
<br />
Another disadvantage is the impossibility of substitution between production factors (labour, technical capital, land) while environmental policies might precisely have a structural effect on the long run on that aspect. Let’s take the example of an environmental policy aiming at decreasing greenhouse gases emissions by promoting research and development in energy efficiency in households. Imagine the instrument of this policy would consist in public subsidies to universities for research in building insulation new technologies. Such a measure might lead to reduction of households energy consumption and so a reduction in natural gas extraction burnt in power plants for electricity generation. In that case, the production factor “land” in the form of a natural resource (natural gas) has been partly substituted by the production factor “labour” (development of human knowledge in new insulation techniques).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I-O tables are published by national and regional authorities with few years delay. For instance in Belgium in 2007, the last I-O table available dates from 2000. Through the delayed publishing of national I-O tables, factor relations within single sectors can be changed to a quite big extend. Such old data on the status of the economy might make I-O analysis for the subsequent years quite inaccurate. However there are techniques enabling to actualize too old I-O matrices.<br />
<br />
The last limit we would like to highlight is the need of regionalization of national I-O tables. It can happen that you find only national I-O tables while you want to work at regional level (i.e. at a smaller spatial scale). In that case you will need to apply regionalization methods which add to the difficulties.<br />
<br />
==Other [[regional economic accounting methods]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
*[[Supply chain analysis]]<br />
<br />
*[[Computable general equilibrium]]<br />
<br />
*[[Green accounting]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13756 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Mateo Cordier<br />
|AuthorName1= Mcordier<br />
|AuthorID2=13758<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Walter Hecq<br />
|AuthorName2= Walter Hecq}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Walter Hecq]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:SPICOSA]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Inline_measurement_techniques&diff=37343Inline measurement techniques2011-08-03T13:43:17Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Definition|title=Inline measurement<br />
|definition= Inline measurement implies that [[sensors]] or [[oceanographic instrument|instruments]] are situated in a flow-through system, e.g., on board a ship, in which water is pumped from the outside. The advantages of "inline" measurements are:<br />
* The sensors are well protected and therefore have a longer lifetime<br />
* The calibration of the sensors is more stable and the calibration procedure is easier<br />
* [[Biofouling|Biofouling]] can easily be prevented by applying chemical methods (cleaning).<br />
<br />
Inline measurement is closely related to [[in situ]] measurement. <br />
}}<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=5068<br />
|AuthorName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorFullName1=Schroeder, Friedhelm<br />
|AuthorID2=12968<br />
|AuthorName2= Ralfprien<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Prien, Ralf}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Prien, Ralf ]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Green_accounting&diff=37342Green accounting2011-08-03T13:42:42Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Revision}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:SPICOSA.jpg|100px|right]]<br />
<br />
'''Page still in construction. Take care to the fact that the information given in this page is not complete at all at the moment. Will be soon actualized'''<br />
<br />
Accounts environmentally adjusted has resulted from the necessity to modify the worldwide System of National Accounts (SNA) for calculating Gross Domestic Product (GDP), economic growth over time and other related aggregate measures in order to better reflect natural resources depletion and environmental degradation (O'Conner et al. 2001<ref>'''O’Connor M., Steurer A., Tamborra M., 2001.''' ''Greening National Accounts.'' Environmental Valuation Europe. Policy Research Brief Number 9. Cambridge Research for the Environment, 24 p. Available on Internet : http://kerbabel.c3ed.uvsq.fr/_Documents/CACT-FIC-DICT-C3ED-MOC-20010301-00001.pdf</ref>). That is why since 1980s, there were attempts to correct SNA to take full account of the depletion of natural resources and the deterioration of environmental functions. This led to accounts environmentally adjusted. This methodology can be complementary to I-O analysis and CGE since it can serve to greening I-O tables with the aim to use them for economic assessment of environmental policy options.<br />
<br />
Accounts environmentally adjusted can be grouped under three main approaches even though these methods are often very closely interlinked and built upon each other ([http://kerbabel.c3ed.uvsq.fr/_Documents/CACT-FIC-DICT-C3ED-MOC-20010301-00001.pdf O’Connor et al., 2001]<ref>'''O’Connor M., Steurer A., Tamborra M., 2001.''' ''Greening National Accounts.'' Environmental Valuation Europe. Policy Research Brief Number 9. Cambridge Research for the Environment, 24 p. Available on Internet : http://kerbabel.c3ed.uvsq.fr/_Documents/CACT-FIC-DICT-C3ED-MOC-20010301-00001.pdf</ref>): <br />
<br />
a) National Accounts Matrix including Environmental Accounts (NAMEA) :<br />
<br />
The basic principle of the NAMEA, also called Directly Expanded National Accounts, is to directly expand national accounts with environmental information in physical or monetary units, or both. This allows us tracing back the origin of the environmental pressures to industrial branches responsible for it as well as allocating pressures to final demand categories (e.g. to household consumption) using input–output analysis. <br />
<br />
In the NAMEA, a link has been established between the national accounts and environmental statistics. By doing so, NAMEA reveals the interrelation between macro-indicators for the economy (net domestic product, net saving, external balance etc.) and the environment. The NAMEA can function as an instrument for all kinds of analysis. For example, the direct and indirect environmental effects of consumption or export of certain products can be demonstrated ([http://www.esri.go.jp/jp/archive/hou/hou020/hou20-2b-1.pdf CBS, 2006, p. 8]<ref>'''CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), 2006.''' ''Present status and future developments of the Dutch NAMEA.'' Paper for the international Workshop for Interactive Analysis on Economy and Environment. March 4th, Tokyo. Available on Internet : http://www.esri.go.jp/jp/archive/hou/hou020/hou20-2b-1.pdf</ref>). An example is shown Tableau 3.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:Table 3.JPG|thumb|right|Table 3. The NAMEA matrix (shaded areas are physical accounts). CBS (2006).]]<br />
<br />
==Other [[regional economic accounting methods]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
*[[Input-output matrix]]<br />
<br />
*[[Computable general equilibrium]]<br />
<br />
*[[Supply chain analysis]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13756 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Mateo Cordier<br />
|AuthorName1= Mcordier<br />
|AuthorID2=13758<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Walter Hecq<br />
|AuthorName2= Walter Hecq}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Walter Hecq]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:SPICOSA]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_case_studies:_Morphological_evolution_of_the_R.Alfios_deltaic_shoreline&diff=37341Greek case studies: Morphological evolution of the R.Alfios deltaic shoreline2011-08-03T13:42:34Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[category:Case studies]]<br />
[[Category:Theme 5]]<br />
<br />
==Examples of Morphological Changes==<br />
<br />
===Case Study 1: Morphological evolution of the R. Alfios deltaic shoreline by G.Ghionis and S. Poulos 2005.===<br />
<br />
The mouth area of the R. Alfios located at the northern part of the Kyparissiakos Gulf, which lies along the west coast of Peloponnese, facing to the NE Ionian Sea. The catchment area of the R. Alfios covers an area of some 3665 km2, being mountainous with elevations exceeding 2200 m. <br />
<br />
[[Image:poulospic3.jpg|thumb|center|500px|Figure 3. The mouth area of R. Alfios (NW Peloponnese, Ionian Sea) Topgraphic map published by the Hellenic Army Geographical Service, in 1972.)]]<br />
<br />
Fluvial water and sediment fluxes are rather high, with mean annual discharge in the order of 67 m3/s (maximum=145 m3/s) (Therianos, 1974) whilst during flood events discharges oftenly exceed the 1000 m3/s. In accordance to high amounts of water discharge, the temperate type of climate, the relatively erodible lithology (Quaternary deposits + flysch ~52%), and the mountainous relief, the amounts of sedimentary material available for transport by the river network are expected also to be significant. Although, no direct measurements exist for the sediment fluxes of the R. Alfios, on the basis of monthly suspended sediment flux data available for other Greek rivers discharging into the Ionian Sea i.e . R. Acheloos (2.5x106 t), R Arachthos (7.3x106 t), R. Kalamas (1.9x106 t) and published information regarding sediment fluxes in the northeastern Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Poulos & Collins, 2002) an amount of some 2.5x106 tonnes per year of suspended sediment (i.e. SSL) and more than 3x106 tonnes of total sediment load are expected to be transported towards its deltaic coast by the R. Alfios, annually(Poulos et al., 2002). <br />
The delta is exposed primarily to wind-induced waves approaching from the S, SW and W and NW involving due to very long (hundreds of km) fetches a wave regime with wave heights >5 m, during storms and a potential longshore northward sediment transport in front of the river mouth in the order of 0.5 106 m3/yr (Ghionis et al., 2005).<br />
Over the last decades the major human interference to the natural deltaic evolution was the construction of the Ladona and Floka dams; the former is a gravity-type of dam producing 750.000 Volt of electric power, whilst the latter is an irrigation dam, that establishes a steady flow of fresh water of approximately 40 m3/hr, throughout the year. The Ladonas dam got in operation in 1955 cutting off an upstream area of some 900 km2, which represents the 25% of the total drainage basin. The second dam (Flokas), put in operation in 1967, being only 6 km away from the coastline and having upstream of it the 97% of the catchment, have reduced drastically the sediment fluxes, at least those related to that transported as bed load and most of the suspended sediment load. <br />
The consequences on the deltaic evolution, as revealed from the comparison of aerial photographs, incorporate a relatively rapid and spatially important shoreline retreat (see Fig. 4), which in the river mouth exceeds 300 m becoming smaller to the north and south but not being insignificant for distances larger than a few km.<br />
<br />
[[Image:poulospic4.jpg|thumb|center|500px|Figure 4. Shoreline retreat of the Mouth area of R. Alfios following the construction of dams (Ghionis et al., 2005)]]<br />
<br />
====Bibliography sited====<br />
<br />
Ghionis G., Poulos S.E., Gialouris P. & Gianopoulos Th., 2005. Recent morphological evolution of the deltaic coast of R. Alfios due to natural processes and human impact. Proceedings of the 7th Panehellenic Geographical Congress, Mytilini, Oct. 2004, v.1, p.302-308 (in Greek)<br />
<br />
Poulos S.E. and Collins M.B., 2002. Fluvatile sediment fluxes to the Mediterranean Sea: a quantitative approach and the influence of dams. In: S.J Jones.and L.E Frostick (eds),. Sediment Flux to Basins: Causes Controls and Consequences. Geological Society of London Special Publications, 191, 227-245.<br />
<br />
Poulos S.E., Voulgaris G., Kapsimalis V., Collins M. and Evans G., 2002. Sediment fluxes and the evolution of a riverine-supplied tectonically-active coastal system: Kyparissiakos Gulf, Ionian Sea (eastern Mediterranean). (In:) Jones S.J. & Frostick L.E. (eds) Sediment Flux to Basins: Causes, Controls and Consequences. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 191, 247-266.<br />
<br />
Therianos A.D., 1974 The geographical distribution of the river water supply in Greece. Bulletin Geological Society, Greece, 11, 28-58 (in Greek).<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13543 <br />
|AuthorName1= Ghionis, George<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Ghionis, George<br />
|AuthorID2=13540<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Poulos, Serafim<br />
|AuthorName2= Poulos, Serafim}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Poulos, Serafim]]<br />
[[Category:Theme 5]]<br />
[[Category:Shoreline management]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=General_principles_of_optical_and_acoustical_instruments&diff=37339General principles of optical and acoustical instruments2011-08-03T13:42:15Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article is a summary of sub-section 5.6.4.1 of the [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]] <ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>. This article describes the principles of three types of optical and acoustic instruments: transmission, scattering and transmission-scattering. Furthermore, the article describes the calibration, measuring range and advantages of [[remote sensing]] with optical and acoustical instruments. <br />
<br />
==Measuring principles==<br />
[[Image:H5641figure1.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Figure 1: Basic principles]]<br />
Optical and acoustical sampling methods enable the continuous and contactless measurement of sediment concentrations, which is an important advantage compared to the mechanical sampling methods. Although based on different physical phenomena, optical and acoustical sampling methods are very similar in a macroscopic sense. For both methods the measuring principles can be classified in (see Figure 1): transmission, scattering,<br />
transmission-scattering.<br />
<br />
===Transmission===<br />
The source and detector are placed in an opposite direction of each other at a distance 1. The sediment particles in the measuring volume reduce the beam intensity resulting in a reduced detector signal. The relationship between the detector signal (I<sub>t</sub>) and the sediment concentration (c) is:<br />
<br />
<math>I_t=k_1\,e^{-k_2\,c}</math><br />
<br />
in which: k<sub>1</sub> = calibration constant depending on instrument characteristics, fluid properties and travel distance (l), k<sub>2</sub> = calibration constant depending on particle properties (size, shape), wave length and travel distance (l).<br />
<br />
===Scattering===<br />
The source and detector are placed at an angle relative to each other (see Figure 1B). The detector receives a part of the radiation scattered by the sediment particles in the measuring volume. The relationship between detector signal (I<sub>s</sub>) and sediment concentration (c) is:<br />
<br />
<math>I_s=k_3\,c\,e^{-k_2\,c}</math><br />
<br />
in which: k<sub>3</sub> = calibration constant depending on instrument characteristics, fluid and particle properties (size, shape), wave length and travel distance (l).<br />
An important disadvantage of the scattering method is the strong non-linearity of the relation between the detector signal and sediment concentration for large concentrations.<br />
<br />
===Transmission-scattering===<br />
This method is based on the combination of transmission and scattering, as shown in Figure 1C. If the travel distance for transmission and scattering is equal, a linear relationship for the ratio of both signals is obtained<br />
<br />
<math>I=I_s\,/I_t\,=k_4\,c</math><br />
<br />
in which: k<sub>4</sub> = calibration constant depending on instrument characteristics and particle properties.<br />
<br />
Important advantages are the absolute linearity between the output signal (I) and the sediment concentration, the independence of water colour and the reduced influence of fouling.<br />
<br />
==Calibration==<br />
For all measuring principles an [[in situ]] calibration for determining the constants is necessary, if possible under representative flow conditions covering the whole range of flow velocities and measuring positions (close to bed and water-surface). Regular calibration is required because the constants may change in time due to variations in temperature, salinity and pollution.<br />
In practice, the optical and acoustical sampling methods can only be used in combination with a mechanical sampling method to collect water-sediment samples for calibration. Usually, about 10% of the measurements should be used for calibration.<br />
The inaccuracy of field measurements may sometimes be rather large because of calibration problems (Kirby et al, 1981<ref name="kirb">Kirby, R. and Parker, W.R., 1981. ''The Behaviour of Cohesive Sediment in the inner Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary''. Institute Oceanographic Sciences, Report No. 117, Taunton, England</ref>), particularly for optical samplers. The main problem is the lack of synchronity between the optical and mechanical sample collection. To minimize synchronity errors, the optical samplers should be calibrated bij measuring the silt concentration on board of the ship using a pre-collected water-silt sample.<br />
<br />
==Measuring range==<br />
For an optimal sampling resolution the wave length and particle size must be of the same order of magnitude. Therefore the optical method is most suitable for silt particles (> 50 um). Laboratory experiments using the optical sampler, have shown that the addition of sand particles with a concentration equal to the silt concentration increased the output signal with about 10% (Der Kinderen, 1981<ref>Der Kinderen, W.J.G.J., 1980. ''Silt Concentration Meters; Evaluation'' (in Dutch).Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Report S453 I, The Netherlands</ref>). The upper concentration limit for optical samplers is about 25000 mg/1 (Kirby et al., 1981<ref name="kirb"/>). The acoustic method is most suitable for sand particles (>50 um). The upper concentration limit is about 10000 mg/1.<br />
<br />
==Advantages==<br />
An important advantage of optical and acoustical samplers is the continuous measurement of the suspended sediment concentration. In combination with a chart recorder for data collection a relatively long period (one month) can be sampled continuously and automatically. When there is very little variation of the silt concentrations in lateral direction of the cross-section, measurements at one point can be considered as representative for the whole cross-section. In that case the sensor can be fixed to a bridge pier or river side installation. The measuring location must be easily accessible for regular cleaning of the sensor and changing of batteries and chart records. Energy consumption and recorder maintenance can be minimized by using a switch system activating the sensor and recorder only for short periods (5 min) at preset intervals (1 hour) as reported by Brabben (1981)<ref>Brabben, T.E., 1981. Use of Turbidity Monitor to assess Sediment Yields in East Java. ''Proc. Symp. Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurements'', Florence, Italy</ref>. Another advantage of the continuous signal is the possibility of determining continuous concentration profiles by raising the optical or acoustical sensor from the bed to the watersurface (rapid profile method, Kirby et al 1981<ref name="kirb"/>). Using this latter method a complete concentration profile can be determined in one minute. To check the representativeness of these profiles, occasionally the concentration profile should also be determined by means of a number of point-integrated measurements. The horizontal variability can be determined by towing the sensor at a (monitored) depth below the water surface.<br />
Finally, it is remarked that both sampling methods can also be used to measure the instantaneous sediment concentration under wave conditions, provided the respons period is small enough.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Summaries of the manual===<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* Chapter 1: [[Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements]]<br />
* Chapter 2: [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 4: [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* Chapter 5: [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 10: [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
===Other internal links===<br />
* [[Acoustic backscatter profiling sensors (ABS)]]<br />
* [[Acoustic point sensors (ASTM, UHCM, ADV)]]<br />
* [[Optical Laser diffraction instruments (LISST)]]<br />
* [[Optical backscatter point sensor (OBS)]]<br />
* [[Optical remote sensing]]<br />
* [[Currents and turbulence by acoustic methods]]<br />
*[[Bathymetry from inverse wave refraction]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H5-6-4-1_General_principles_of_optical_and_acoutical_sampl.pdf Sub-section 5.6.4.1 of the manual: General principles of optical and acoustical instruments (pdf)]<br />
<br />
===Further reading===<br />
<br />
Der Kinderen, W.J.G.J., 1982. ''Silt Concentration Meters'' (in Dutch). Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Report M1799 I, Delft, The Netherlands<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]<br />
[[Category:Theme 9]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_metabolites_in_phytoplankton&diff=37338Functional metabolites in phytoplankton2011-08-03T13:42:03Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Allelopathy and functional metabolites in phytoplankton==<br />
<br />
<br />
Allelopathy is the study of chemical interactions among neighboring plants and the chemicals responsible for such interactions. The word allelopathy derives from two separate words: allelon which means "of each other", and pathos which means "to suffer". In the phytoplankton, the release of chemicals by microalgae that induce negative effects on growth of other microalgae has mainly been studied in toxin-producing species such as cyanobacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates and flagellates, and has been suggested to influence phytoplankton competition, succession, and bloom formation or maintenance. The mode of action of allelochemicals can be quite diverse, and the chemical nature of these compounds is largely unknown. The most common effect is to cause cell lysis, blistering, or growth inhibition. The factors that affect allelochemical production have not been studied much, although nutrient limitation, pH, and temperature appear to have an effect. The evolutionary aspects of allelopathy remain largely unknown, but it has been suggested that the producers of allelochemicals should gain a competitive advantage over other phytoplankton. A recent line of research is highlighting the role of these compounds for cell-to-cell communication. This is the case for diatom unsaturated aldehydes, which are involved in a stress surveillance mechanism based on fluctuations in calcium and nitric oxide levels. When stress conditions during a bloom and cell lysis rates increase, aldehyde concentrations may exceed a certain threshold, and possibly function as a diffusible bloom-termination signal that triggers an active cell death. Diatom-derived aldehydes also have an allelopathic role, since they have been shown to affect growth and physiological performance of diatoms and other phytoplankton species.<br />
<br />
==Phytoplankton-zooplankton chemical interactions==<br />
<br />
Herbivory is very intense in the plankton. Copepods and other planktonic crustaceans are predominantly herbivorous, grazing on large quantities of phytoplankton cells. Herbivory is therefore an important pressure for the evolution of defensive compounds in marine phytoplankton, seaweeds and macroalgae, and for shaping prey- predator relationships in the pelagic environment. However, the organism has to pay a price for this ecological advantage since the chemical pathways that generate these metabolites are often complex and significant amounts of metabolic energy are expended to generate their production. This may be the case of constitutive metabolites that are always present within the cells as opposed to induced defenses that are only produced when the predator is present. In the case of diatoms, for example, some compounds (oxylipins) are not constitutively present in the cells but are only produced when the cell is damaged as would occur during grazing. Thus, the cost for the production of these metabolites is expected to be lower than for other microalgal toxins which are always present in the cell, such as the saxitoxins, gonytoxins and other chemically complex neurotoxic compounds produced by dinoflagellates. Diatom defense relies on primary metabolites such as storage lipids, which are transformed by lipase and lipoxygenase enzymes after wounding or ingestion. The cost of defense would therefore be negligible and the evolution of such defenses could thus be driven by the need for processes involved in primary metabolism together with the need for feeding pressure reduction. <br />
<br />
<br />
Due to the teratogenic nature of diatoms oxylipins, the mechanism of chemical defense in diatoms functions by reducing grazing effects of subsequent generations of copepods. Hence, these compounds differ from those that act as feeding deterrents, the purpose of which is not to intoxicate the predator but discourage further consumption, or those that lead to physical incapacitation such as paralysis and death of the predator. Feeding deterrence would not protect the individual ingested cells but the community as a whole and the defense compounds would not target the predator but its offspring. In the end, grazing pressure would be reduced allowing blooms to persist when grazing pressure would otherwise have caused them to crash.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another activated enzyme-cleavage mechanism of defense in the plankton is found in the bloom-forming coccolithophorid, Emiliana huxleyi, which produces dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) found in several marine phytoplankton species, seaweeds and some species of terrestrial and aquatic vascular plants. DMSP is cleaved by DMSP-lyase enzymes into the gas DMS and the feeding deterrent acrylate by protistan and zooplankton grazers. DMS released into sea water, and eventually into the atmosphere, can have profound effects on global climate processes. Seabirds such as petrels respond behaviorally to DMS and use the gas to track areas where phytoplankton and zooplankton accumulate. DMS and acrylate are also produced in another bloom-forming alga, the prymnesiophyte Phaeocystis globosa, which is thought to be a poor food source for a variety of zooplankton grazers. When copepods feed on P. globosa, this alga suppresses colony formation since individual cells are too small for the copepod to attack. However when ciliates attack this alga, it shifts to the colonial form which is too large to be grazed. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dinoflagellate toxins are also often assumed to act as chemical defenses against herbivory. Effects on predatory copepods range from severe physical incapacitation and death in some species to no apparent physiological effects in others. This variability indicates that some copepods are more resistant to these compounds and may have evolved counter-defenses and detoxification mechanisms. Some copepod species seem capable of concentrating toxins in their body tissues, as occurs in bivalve molluscs, and ingested toxins may then act as defenses to deter predation by fish and other zooplanktivorous consumers.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Chemical ecology]]<br />
*[[Marine Functional Metabolites|Functional Metabolites]]<br />
**[[Chemical and physical properties of functional metabolites|Chemical and physical properties]]<br />
**[[Functional metabolites and macroalgal-herbivore interactions|Macroalgal-herbivore interactions]]<br />
**[[Functional metabolites in benthic invertebrates|Benthic invertebrates]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=8294<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Fontana, Angelo <br />
|AuthorName1=Angelo<br />
|AuthorID2=7563<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Ianora, Adriana<br />
|AuthorName2=Adriana}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Chemical ecology]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_metabolites_in_benthic_invertebrates&diff=37337Functional metabolites in benthic invertebrates2011-08-03T13:41:49Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>There is ample evidence that chemical composition, concentration, flux, and hydrodynamic transport all have profound effects on chemically mediated ecological interactions. An example is the common usage of amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides as food cues. The production of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in certain microenvironments can locally elevate concentrations of compounds relative to surrounding habitats, creating stable chemical gradients. At spatial scales smaller than the tiniest turbulent eddies (roughly less than 1 mm), turbulent mixing is relatively unimportant and chemical transport is dominated by molecular diffusion and advection. It is likely that communication systems began with the evolution of specific meanings for pre-existing molecules. One class of molecules used in specific communication is peptides. Peptides are excellent signals in marine systems given their high solubility, short half lives due to rapid consumption by microbes, and correspondingly high signal to noise ratios. Information is specified by the sequence of amino acids, much as letters provide information within a word. The aproteinaceous barnacle settlement pheromone/kairomone, arthropodin, was the first peptidelike signal molecule reported in crustaceans. Arthropodin induces larval barnacles to temporarily attach to a surface, and then to permanently attach and metamorphose to the juvenile stage. Arthropodin functions as both an aggregation and a settlement pheromone. Small peptides with arginine or lysine at their carboxy termini induce ovigerous mud crabs (Rhithropanopeus harrisii) to release and disperse brooded embryos and induce oyster (Crassostrea virginica) larvae to settle near conspecific adults. Moreover, in contrast to the more typical sigmoidshaped dose/response curve, chemical induction in these marine organisms occurs only within a very narrow range in concentration of a molecule, spanning less than one order of magnitude.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another well-known example of peptide-mediated signaling is found in the escape responses of the sea anemones Stomphia coccinea and S. didemon in reaction to contact with certain species of marine asteroids. Like other sea anemones, these organisms are sessile animals that respond to the presence of the tripeptide imbricatine released from the predator starfish Dermasterias imbricata by detachment and swimming behaviour. Another amazing example is provided by the avoidance reaction in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus nudus induced by a steroid sulfate released from the starfish Plazaster borealis.<br />
<br />
<br />
Chemical signals are known to regulate the trophic relationships of corals. All species of reef-building corals have mutualistic symbioses with unicellular algae, called zooxanthellae, which live within the coral cells and are abundant in tissues exposed to sunlight. Although reef corals are uniquely versatile in their ability to procure nutrients and energy, they principally depend on the translocation of carbon from their algal symbionts to meet their energy demands. The release of translocated materials from the algae is controlled by chemical communication with the coral host. Specifically, the chemical signal that induces carbon release is a mixture of free amino acids unique to the tissues of corals and other cnidarian species.<br />
<br />
<br />
Considerable effort has been expended in identifying environmental signal molecules that induce marine larvae to settle and metamorphose. This research has met limited success because many of these morphogens are unstable, tightly complexed (adsorbed or bound) with other molecules, or present in only trace amounts. Neurotransmitters, such as gammaaminobutyric acid (GABA) and dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA), have been suggested to mimic the function of natural signal molecules, but the peripheral or central neural site (or sites) of action by these mimetics is still unclear. Remarkably few attempts have been made to characterize the structures of pheromones other than sperm attractants. Courtship and mating pheromones can be difficult to identify because breeding seasons are short and materials hard to obtain. Specific courtship behavioral acts are often troublesome to discriminate from other activities, thus making bioassays of active material impossible in some cases. Still, outstanding progress has been made towards elucidating the structures of mating pheromones in brown algae, and fishes. Whereas terpenes and other hydrocarbons appear to be the principal pheromones in worms and brown algae, steroid hormones and their metabolites produced by ovulating female fish are potent attractants to mature males in some species.<br />
<br />
<br />
Additionally, chemical defenses produced by prey organisms (animals, plant, and microbes) render their tissues unpalatable or toxic to consumers. Despite the crucial ecological importance of such molecules, underlying mechanisms are lacking for most processes that structure communities.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Probably the most clear-cut examples of chemicals working as deterrent compounds in marine habitats are represented by molecules isolated in the molluscs of the sub-class Opisthobranchia. The opisthobranchs are marine slugs that are apparently unprotected, because the mechanical protection of their shell is either reduced or completely absent. However, chemical studies on these molluscs have accumulated evidence that they are well protected by chemical metabolites. These chemical weapons are obtained by bioaccumulation or biotransformation of dietary compounds or are synthesized de novo. In particular, current evolutionary theories suggest that opisthobranchs acquired through evolution the ability to produce de novo molecules present in their ancestral diet by horizontal genetic transmission, by a retro-synthetic mode or by a colossal gene loss. Since the first chemical study of the sea hare Aplysia kurodai in 1963, opisthobranchs have become the subjects of numerous studies on the defensive role of chemicals stored in their bodies. It seems that these organisms have elaborated very specialized and differentiated behaviours in order to optimize defense and reduce space competition. So, different genera of dorid nudibranchs are specialized predators of different sponges from which the molluscs obtain different chemicals that are committed to deter potential predators. Many opisthobranchs accumulate and concentrate the deterrent chemicals in outer structures of the body, more exposed to attack. Thus, the round-shaped vesicles displaced along the gills in many molluscs of the genus Hypselodoris contain pure forms of the defensive sesquiterpenes, and the coloured border of the mantle in Chromodoris is the source of deterrent diterpenes. Many other opisthobranchs compensate their physical vulnerability with chemical secretions. Opisthobranchs of the order Sacoglossa are one of the few groups of specialized herbivores in the marine environment. The presence of defense metabolites found in the secretion and mantle of these animals is due to the selective accumulation and in vivo chemical transformation of major metabolites acquired from the algae Caulerpales. A few sacoglossans also have the ability to “steal” and store chloroplasts (kleptoplasty) from algae. These molluscs have the unique ability to assimilate and maintain the photosynthetically active endosymbionts by synthesis of chloroplast proteins in the cytoplasmic ribosomes of the molluscs. These animals also biosythesize a rather uncommon class of polyketides that are suggested to serve as co-specific and intra-specific chemical signals; the same molecules also seem to act as physiological protectants against the deleterious effects of light in highly photophilic habitats.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Chemical ecology]]<br />
*[[Marine Functional Metabolites|Functional Metabolites]]<br />
**[[Chemical and physical properties of functional metabolites|Chemical and physical properties]]<br />
**[[Functional metabolites and macroalgal-herbivore interactions|Macroalgal-herbivore interactions]]<br />
**[[Functional metabolites in phytoplankton|Phytoplankton]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=8294<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Fontana, Angelo <br />
|AuthorName1=Angelo<br />
|AuthorID2=7563<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Ianora, Adriana<br />
|AuthorName2=Adriana}}<br />
[[Category: Chemical ecology]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_metabolites_and_macroalgal-herbivore_interactions&diff=37336Functional metabolites and macroalgal-herbivore interactions2011-08-03T13:41:38Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>Over 2400 secondary metabolites have been described from marine red, brown and green algae, the majority of which are produced by tropical algae. Although these compounds generally occur in low concentrations, some compounds such as the polyphenolics in brown algae can occur at concentrations as high as 15% of algal dry mass. The majority of macroalgal compounds are terpenoids, especially sesqui- and diterpenoids, acetogenins (acetate-derived compounds), amino acid derivates, and polyphenols. Apparent differences in the secondary chemistry of seaweeds and terrestrial plants include the relative scarcity of nitrogen containing algal metabolites and the higher proportion<br />
of halogenated compounds in seaweeds, probably reflecting relative differences in availability of nitrogen and halides such as bromine and chlorine in terrestrial versus marine systems.<br />
<br />
Many defensive functions for algal secondary metabolites have been reported including antimicrobial, antifouling, and antifeeding, the last of which has been most studied. An array of strategies to cope with herbivory have been described, including tolerance through compensatory growth, escape through spatial, temporal, or associational refuges, and structural, morphological, or chemical defenses (see reviews in McClintock and Baker 2001). Several of these strategies may be used simultaneously by seaweeds in order to reduce herbivory. A number of benthic herbivores are trophic specialists that consume one or a few algal species including those that are chemically defended, but in comparison with terrestrial ecosystems feeding specialization among marine herbivores is rare. Metabolites that are toxic for generalist herbivores may be selectively consumed by feeding specialists such as nudibranch molluscs that concentrate these metabolites and use them as defenses against their own enemies. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Chemical ecology]]<br />
*[[Marine Functional Metabolites|Functional Metabolites]]<br />
**[[Chemical and physical properties of functional metabolites|Chemical and physical properties]]<br />
**[[Functional metabolites in benthic invertebrates|Benthic invertebrates]]<br />
**[[Functional metabolites in phytoplankton|Phytoplankton]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=8294<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Fontana, Angelo <br />
|AuthorName1=Angelo<br />
|AuthorID2=7563<br />
|AuthorFullName2=Ianora, Adriana<br />
|AuthorName2=Adriana}}<br />
[[Category: Chemical ecology]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_risk_analysis_study_at_the_German_Bight_Coast&diff=37335Flood risk analysis study at the German Bight Coast2011-08-03T13:41:28Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{featured}}<br />
<br />
This article gives a detailed flood risk analysis of the German Bight Coast. This analysis has been performed within the European [[FLOODsite]] research project. The study comprises a full probabilistic analysis of the [[flood defences]] protecting the [[coastal hinterland|hinterland]] close to the village of St. Peter-Ording on the Eiderstedt peninsula and a micro-scale [[vulnerability]] analysis. The results of calculating the flooding probability are used to derive [[flood|flooding]]/[[breaching]] scenarios, which up to now have been based on experience and expert knowledge. To assess the flood risk and to define specific risk zones, the estimation of the expected damages and its spatial distribution is crucial in addition to the hazard analysis. This done in the multi-criteria [[vulnerability]] assessment.<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The [[Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007) | 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC 2007<ref>IPCC (2007): Climate change 2007: The physical science basis - Summary for policymakers. Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Genf, 21 p.</ref>) made evident that an ongoing global [[climate change]] will cause increased storminess and [[sea level rise]] in coastal zones. There is little doubt that the North Sea will also be affected by an accelerating rise of the sea-level, an increase in extreme weather events and a greater tidal range. In order to be prepared for future conditions, prevention measures have to be improved and methodologies to assess and manage upcoming risks have to be further developed. As there are still deficits in assessing the full range of [[flood]] impacts, new approaches have been developed for hazard analysis, [[vulnerability]] assessment, and flood risk management in the framework of the EU-project [http://www.floodsite.net FLOOD''site''] (Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies). In order to apply some of these new methodologies, a pilot site application was conducted for the community of St. Peter-Ording at the German North Sea Coast combining failure probabilities of the [[coastal defence]] system with micro-scale socio-economic vulnerability analysis.<br />
<br />
==Study area==<br />
<br />
Along the German Bight Coast vast low-lying areas are threatened by recurring storm floods and are thus at risk of being flooded. [[Storm surge]]s with a water level much higher than mean high tide (Mhwl) are a major factor inducing flood risks in coastal areas in Germany. The water level in the North Sea depends primarily on tides and the direction, intensity and duration of winds. The German North Sea Coast is at risk by winds mainly coming from the west and northwest. <br />
[[Image:Study_area.jpg|thumb|550px|left|'''Figure 1: Map and coastal defence structure of the pilot site St. Peter-Ording.''']]<br />
St. Peter-Ording is one of the largest communities at the German Bight Coast with 7,278 inhabitants, whereof 4,022 are permanent residents; the others have a temporary home or summer residence. The local economy relies heavily on [[tourism]] with over 100,000 guests each year. Furthermore, the municipality has an important regional and national function as health centre with various hospitals and other health facilities. The community is located very exposed on the west coast of Eiderstedt peninsula (cp. Figure 1). The coastal landscape of this investigation area is dominated by [[dune]]s, which at least in the north of the town are high enough to serve as a natural [[coastal protection]] structure. The size of the study area is approximately 6000 ha of which about 4000 ha are considered to be flood-prone due to the respective elevation distribution. Hence, a flooding of the municipality could spread far into the hinterland of Schleswig-Holstein.<br />
Strong [[storm surge]]s, which may occur several times a year, pose a serious threat to the community. Severe [[storm surge]]s have occurred in 1962 and 1976, where the former caused heavy damages in the German North Sea Region while during the latter the highest [[storm surge]] water levels ever were recorded with a water level up to 4.8 m above mean sea level. In reaction to the 1962 [[flood]], the protective measures were increased along the North Sea coast and the dikes were significantly heightened in St. Peter-Ording, resulting in only minor damages in 1976. Three other [[storm surge]]s in 1962, 1981, and 1999 did pass the 4.0 m mark and a general increase of [[storm surge]] frequency and severity over the last decades can be recorded.<br />
<br />
The community is protected against storm floods by a complex [[coastal defence]] system (cp. Figure 1). It is divided into a foreland, [[dune]] structures (>2.5 km length, between ~10 and 18 m high), a major dike line and a second dike line. The major dike line is 12.5 km long and about 8.0 m high, although not constant over its length. Furthermore, there is a 2 km long so called overtopping dike. This type of dike is designed to withstand wave overtopping and wave overflow. It is therefore considerably lower than standard dikes and is protected by a very solid asphalt cover layer. Risk management, including [[coastal defence]], has to be steadily adjusted to be prepared for future climate conditions.<br />
<br />
==Concept of flood risk analysis==<br />
[[Image:risk_flow.jpg|thumb|500px|right|'''Figure 2: Risk analysis framework.''']]<br />
<br />
For [[coastal defence]] planning and risk management the knowledge and the spatial distribution of risk are compulsory. Hence, the aim of this investigation is developing new methodologies to better estimate [[flood]] risk on a micro-scale level where risk is defined as (Gouldby and Samuels 2005<ref>Gouldby, B. & Samuels, P. (2005): Language of risk - project definitions. Floodsite project report T32-04-01.</ref>):<br />
<br />
: risk = probability x consequence<br />
<br />
<br />
This definition includes the probability of flooding of the flood prone area and all kinds of consequences of flooding depending on the [[vulnerability]] of the flood prone area. However, the resilience of the coastal system or any management activities is not included. A micro-scale vulnerability analysis together with a full probabilistic approach in determining the flooding of the hinterland is the most efficient way to quantify the magnitude of the flood risk and hence form a sound basis for any risk management activities performed in the area. Hence, the key elements of the analysis are a probabilistic hazard analysis, the determination of flooding scenarios based on the hazard analysis and a micro-scale vulnerability analysis. The vulnerability analysis follows an integrated approach and comprises economic, social, and ecological vulnerability criteria. It is divided into a damage potential analysis for St. Peter-Ording carried out with a standardised methodology and damage estimation for different flooding scenarios (cp. Figure 2). <br />
<br />
Finally, the methodology includes a [[GIS]]-based approach merging the various levels of the economic, social, and ecological [[vulnerability]] with scenario-based probabilities of flooding on a micro-scale level. This was then planned to be used to map different zones of flood risks in the area.<br />
<br />
==Hazard analysis==<br />
This section describes the approach to derive the overall probability of failure for all flood defences in the area. This comprises the development of an algorithm according to which the defence line can be split into different sections, that can be treated independently, and the calculation of the failure probability for each section of the flood defence line.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Fault_tree.jpg|thumb|500px|left|'''Figure 3 Typical simplified fault tree for a dike section at “German Bight Coast”.''']]<br />
<br />
The methodology applied here is following the source-pathway-receptor model as described in Kundzewicz and Samuels (1997)<ref>Kundzewicz, Z.; Samuels, P.G. (1997): Real-time Flood Forecasting and Warning. Conclusions from Workshop and Expert Meeting. Proceedings of Second RIBAMOD Expert Meeting, no. EUR-18853-EN, Published by DG XII, European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the Europ. Communities, Padova, Italy, 277 p.</ref>. Risk sources at the German Bight are resulting from [[storm surge]]s in the North Sea associated with high water levels and storm waves at the flood defences. Typically, [[storm surge]]s last not longer than 12 to 24 hours but may increase the water level considerably (up to 3.5 m in the North Sea). The interaction of normal [[tide]]s (tidal range of 1-2 m is typical in the southern North Sea region), [[storm surge]]s, and [[waves]] is crucial for the determination of the water level at the coast. In addition, the foreshore topography plays a major role when determining the [[waves]] at the flood defence structure. In the case of the German Bight, limited water depths over a high foreland will cause the [[waves]] to break and will therefore limit the maximum wave heights which reach the flood defence structures. However, the probabilistic hazard analysis only considers single probability distributions for each of the governing variables such as water level, [[wave height]] and [[wave period]]. No joint or conditional probability density functions were considered.<br />
As for risk pathways in the German Bight Coast pilot site, flood defences comprise more than 12 km of dikes (grass and asphalt dike) and a dune area of about 2.5 km length. However, the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) has focussed on the dikes as the key flood defence structure since the [[dune]] belt is extraordinary high and wide and is regarded significantly safer than the dike protection. <br />
Laser scan data have been used to determine the exact height of the flood defence line in more detail and to define different ‘homogeneous’ sections of the flood defences. Criteria for distinction of homogeneous dike sections were the type of flood defence, its height (being very different and ranging from 6.22 mNN to 8.43 mNN for the sea dikes), its orientation, the key sea state parameters like water level and [[wave height]] and [[wave period]], respectively, and geotechnical parameters. Thirteen sections have been identified using these criteria. Each of these sections is assumed to be identical over its entire length and hence will result in the same probability of failure (cp. Figure 3).<br />
<br />
The result of this analysis is an annual probability of flooding of the hinterland for each dike section that has been selected. These flooding probabilities were typically found to range from a probability of 10<sup>-4</sup> to 10<sup>-6</sup>, which means a return period of flooding in the range of 10,000 or 1,000,000 years. These results were found reasonably low and comparable to earlier studies of similar flood defences, although those have been based on different fault trees and failure modes. The overall flooding probability using a fault tree approach for all sections results in P<sub>f</sub> = 4 × 10<sup>-3</sup>.<br />
<br />
==Flood scenarios and inundation simulation== <br />
The results of calculating the flooding probability were used to derive flooding/breaching scenarios, which up to now have been based on experience and expert knowledge. The section with the highest probability of failure for breaching of the dike was taken as the section where a breach location was assumed. The detailed location of the breach was defined after visual inspection of the relevant section and consultation with the local authorities. Additional analysis of other sections of the flood defence line has shown that the lowest part of the dikes is overtopped for relatively low [[storm surge]] water levels. Hence, a first flooding scenario was assumed, which includes a water level of 5.30 mNN (design water level for this area), a breach location in the south of the area as described above and initiated by wave overtopping, and wave overtopping at a low asphalt dike near the village of Ording. This scenario was also used as the standard flooding scenario for estimating the consequences. The probability of this flooding scenario is P<sub>flooding</sub> = 9.6 × 10<sup>-8</sup>, which is much lower than the results obtained by the hazard analysis. Preliminary versions of breach models developed under FLOOD''site'' were used to calculate the expected breach dimensions (final breach width and depth). These parameters were used as input boundary conditions for the flood inundation model. <br />
The numerical non-linear shallow water (NLSW) model SOBEK (see [http://delftsoftware.wldelft.nl/ Delft Hydraulics Software]) was used to perform the flood inundation simulation. SOBEK models the details of the flooding process and hence provide inundation depths, velocities, and duration of flooding for any location of interest in the flood prone area. Ditches and channels were simulated using the 1D flow module of SOBEK and were found to be relevant for distributing the flood wave into the area. Boundary conditions were the time series of the [[storm surge]] water level on the one hand and the mean overtopping rates over the lowest part of the defence line on the other hand.<br />
<br />
==Vulnerability analysis== <br />
<br />
To assess the flood risk and to define specific risk zones, the estimation of the expected damages and its spatial distribution is crucial in addition to the hazard analysis. The total flood damage of a specific [flood] event depends on the [[vulnerability]] of the socio-economic and the ecological system. Hence, a detailed [[vulnerability]] analysis was conducted for St. Peter-Ording focussing on two major deficits of former vulnerability assessment studies (see text box).<br />
<br />
{| border="1" style="background:#f5faff"<br />
|| <br />
{| border="0"<br />
|+ <br />
|-<br />
!align="left"|Shortcomings of vulnerability assessment<br />
|-<br />
|1.) The scale of vulnerability assessments is substantial as it is directly linked to the application of the results in practice. At the German Bight Coast, vulnerability assessment studies have been conducted on macro- (IPCC CZMS 1992 and Sterr, 2008<ref>Sterr, H. (2008): Assessment of Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise for the Coastal Zone of Germany. In: Journal of Coastal Research 24 (2): 380-393.</ref>), meso- (Hamann & Klug, 1998<ref>Hamann, M. & Klug, H. (1998): Wertermittlung für die potentiell sturmflutgefährdeten Gebiete an den Küsten Schleswig-Holsteins. Gutachten im Auftrag des Ministeriums für ländliche Räume, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Tourismus des Landes Schleswig-Holstein. Unpublished Final Report.</ref>) and micro-scale (Reese & Markau, 2002<ref>Reese, S. & Markau, H. (2002): Risk Handling and Natural Hazards: New Strategies in Coastal Defence – A Case Study from Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. In: Ewing, L. & Wallendorf, L. (eds.): Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2002, San Diego, pp 498-510.</ref>). In comparison, these studies have shown that the expenditure and accordingly the precision of the macro- and meso-scale vulnerability assessment decreases, since methods are generally based on aggregated data. Micro-scale methods can achieve a high level of precision, as it is possible to identify the actual existing conditions in the areas at risk on an object orientated level. This approach is however costly in terms of time and money. Hence, a simplification of micro-scale approaches towards a quick economic feasible instrument is necessary.<br />
|-<br />
|2.) So far, most methodologies for the assessment of vulnerability were designed according to economic criteria, which can be described in monetary terms, whereas intangible values, social characteristics and ecological values have been widely neglected. However, flood risk is determined by more than economic losses, rather it comprehends all kinds of consequences of flooding. In order to understand the interrelations of socio-economic and ecological dynamics and the impacts of floods on intangible values, the integration of physical, social, and economic processes at the coast is crucial.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Multi-criteria vulnerability assessment for St. Peter-Ording==<br />
According to a multi-criteria risk assessment the spatial distribution of the three main dimensions of flood risk - economic, social, and ecological risk - were investigated at the pilot site in order to identify specific risk zones. <br />
At first, the selection of the [[vulnerability]] criteria is important as the choice of indicators influences the results. As the focus of this vulnerability analysis is on simplifying the assessment methodology, the choice of the [[vulnerability]] criteria was done according to five selection criteria. They should be complete, covering all dimensions of [[vulnerability]], available at a reasonable cost-benefit ratio, comparable in different periods and places, measurable, i.e. statistically sound, and minimal in order to be easily applied. <br />
<br />
To assess the overall [[vulnerability]] the following vulnerability criteria were assessed in St. Peter-Ording:<br />
:* Economic vulnerability criteria (Buildings, private inventory, stock value, gross value added)<br />
:* Social vulnerability criteria (population at risk (& risk to life), vulnerable people, social hotspots)<br />
:* Ecological vulnerability criteria (number of sensitive coastal biotopes ([[dune]]s, forest, [[wetlands]], grassland))<br />
<br />
===Economic vulnerability===<br />
Economic vulnerability relies primarily on the description and quantification of the economic risk potentials. The economic [[vulnerability]] in this investigation is assessed by a damage potential analysis, estimating the sum of existing monetary values, which could suffer damages in case of a [[flood]] event on an object level, and a damage estimation with relative depth damage curves to calculate the damage of the values depending on inundation depth. <br />
On the basis of different flooding scenarios and the calculated damage potential, an economic [[vulnerability]] could be subsequently assessed by means of an estimation of the possible damages based upon depth-damage-functions. <br />
<br />
===Social vulnerability===<br />
To determine the social risk, the social [[vulnerability]] criteria people at risk (& risk to life), vulnerable people, and social hotspots were assessed. Community statistics were used to obtain these data on a micro-scale level. The spatial distribution of people at risk was taken from statistics, including seasonal differences due to [[tourism]]. People with a special [[vulnerability]] include invalid persons, people older than 70 years and children younger than 8 years as they are assumed to be more vulnerable than others in case of a [[flood]] disaster. Social hotspots in St. Peter Ording are schools, kindergartens, a nursing home, a youth recreation home and clinics. These places are assumed to be more affected in case of a flooding than others. <br />
<br />
===Ecological vulnerability===<br />
Ecological [[vulnerability]] describes the susceptibility of ecological values, protected areas, or biotopes towards adverse impacts. Coastal biotopes like [[dune]]s or [[wetlands]] have not only a high ecological value but also a buffer and protection function. At the same time, they are highly sensible to disturbances or changes by e.g. inundation, saltwater intrusion, or wave impact which may lead to a loss of their function. <br />
In this study, ecological [[vulnerability]] criteria were assessed rather simply by mapping the size and extension of coastal biotopes at the pilot site. Land use categories and biotopes were mapped, classified in [[beach]] area (e.g. moor, [[salt marsh]]es, [[dune]]s, cliffs, outlets, [[tidal flat]]s), natural habitats (e.g. reed belts, bog forest), semi-natural habitats (e.g. coniferous forest, mixed forest), grassland and acres, recreational areas, traffic areas and settlement areas. However, in this simple approach only the size of these biotopes was considered but not their susceptibility. [[Image:vulnerability.jpg|thumb|600px|right|'''Figure 4: Spatial distribution of economic (l.), social (m.), ecological (r.) vulnerability in St. Peter Ording.''']]<br />
From the selected classes, grassland covers the largest areas followed by forest, [[dune]]s, and [[wetlands]]. However, the size alone does not describe the degree of ecological [[vulnerability]], as smaller areas like the [[dune]] belt are [[ecosystem]]s that are more sensible. Hence, a weighting of the different coastal biotopes had to be done in a next step.<br />
<br />
===Results of the vulnerability analysis===<br />
<br />
The flooding scenarios together with the related probabilities provided the basis for combining the hazard and the [[vulnerability]] analyses. Different scenarios were calculated taking into consideration the various locations where breaching or severe overtopping may occur. These scenarios were linked to the damage potential in the risk zone to estimate the specific damage. From the inundation depth and the duration, the expected damage could be calculated (cp. Figure 4).<br />
<br />
==Risk estimation and mapping== <br />
[[Image:MAUT.jpg|thumb|300px|left|'''Figure 5: Risk categories according to the MAUT approach.''']]<br />
In order to define risk zones it is necessary to quantify the [[flood]] risk as exactly as possible by weighting the different [[vulnerability]] criteria. This was done by a multi-criteria risk assessment using a comparable risk rating system including economic, social, and ecological damage categories. A [[GIS]] based map output allows a ranking of risk zones. Therefore, the area map of St. Peter-Ording is divided into a raster with a size of 300 x 300 m and all rating is based on a raster cell.<br />
The Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) approach (Meyer et al., 2007<ref>Meyer. V.; Haase, D.; Scheuer, S. (2007): GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis as Decision Support in Flood Risk Management. Floodsite project report 10-07-06, 55 p. [http://www.floodsite.net Flood''site'']</ref>) was used as an [[evaluation]] scheme with which all criteria can be aggregated to a single scalar factor. Two weighting approaches have been tested, a simple ranking and a swing weight approach. The latter was more convincing; it is based on a decision of the importance of each criterion in relation to the others. The considered [[vulnerability]] criteria are all criteria from the vulnerability analysis above (buildings, private inventory, stock value, gross value added, people at risk, vulnerable people, hotspots, [[dune]]s, forest, [[wetlands]], grassland). Each criterion is given a value from 0 to 10, depending on its value in a raster cell. Then, using the swing weight approach, a weighting and normalization within each category is carried out. Thus each category again can have a value from 0 to 10. Depending on the stakeholders’ interest, the different categories can now be weighted differently. In Figure 5, each category is weighted as one third as an example. <br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, the approach results in comparable risk maps for different scenarios of flooding in St. Peter-Ording. The integration of economic, social, and ecological [[vulnerability]] criteria showed that there has been a shift in risk zones, compared to the mere economic risk assessment as for example areas with ecologically vulnerable [[dune]]s became a risk zone although no economic assets are in that region.<br />
<br />
==Conclusions==<br />
A detailed [[flood]] risk analysis at the German Bight Coast has been performed within the European FLOOD''site'' research project. The study comprises a full probabilistic analysis of the [[flood]] defences protecting the hinterland close to the village of St. Peter-Ording on the Eiderstedt peninsula and a micro-scale [[vulnerability]] analysis, including economic, ecological, and social aspects of the [[vulnerability]]. <br />
With respect to the hazard analysis, the results have shown that even though some input parameters were not directly available and had to be estimated the results were believed to be very reliable (P<sub>f</sub> in the range of P<sub>f</sub> = 10<sup>-4</sup> to 10<sup>-6</sup>). [[Sensitivity]] analyses have been performed accounting for the uncertainties of the input parameters. <br />
The results of the [[vulnerability]] analysis have shown that the integration of economic, social, and ecological [[vulnerability]] criteria is feasible as it gives a more complete picture of the overall susceptibility of a coastal site towards [[flood]] risk. Compared to studies focusing only at economic [[vulnerability]] the risk zones shifted in St. Peter-Ording as they include also risk zones dominated by ecological values. <br />
The [[vulnerability]] criteria and the simplified assessment method chosen in this investigation are assumed to be easily transferable to other coastal areas. However, the method has to be tested in other coastal sites to validate the transferability.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Shore protection, coast protection and sea defence methods]]<br />
*[[Statistical description of wave parameters]]<br />
*[[Socio-economic evaluation]]<br />
*[[Policy in the Netherlands]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
:* [http://www.ipcc.ch IPCC] General website<br />
:* [http://www.floodsite.net/ Flood''site'']<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:climate change and global warming]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine human activities]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal defence]]<br />
[[Category:Climate change and global warming]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal flooding]]<br />
[[Category:North Sea]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal flooding management]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal risk management]]<br />
[[Category:Practice, projects and case studies in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Articles by Kaiser, Gunilla]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=14203<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Kortenhaus, Andreas<br />
|AuthorName1=Username<br />
|AuthorID2=18589<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Kaiser, Gunilla<br />
|AuthorName2=Username}}</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Essential_Fish_Habitat&diff=37334Essential Fish Habitat2011-08-03T13:40:45Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law in the United States for managing fisheries in federal waters, was amended in 1996 to require the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to protect habitat that are necessary for the spawning, feeding and growth of fishery species. NMFS works with regional Fishery Management Councils and states to identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for each federally managed fish species and then develop conservation measures to protect and enhance these habitats. The Act requires the NMFS and regional Fishery Management Councils to minimize adverse impacts to EFH caused by fishing activities. <br />
<br />
==History and Goals==<br />
The Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 (Act) marked a new approach to the conservation and management of the country’s offshore fishery. The act granted legislative authority for fisheries regulation to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the United States Department of Commerce. The NMFS jurisdictional area is between three miles to 200 miles offshore. The agency had authority to establish eight regional fishery management councils. These councils produce Fishery Management Plans to determine the proper management and harvest of fish and shellfish resources within federal waters. <br />
<br />
Amidst continued declines in fish stocks, the Act was amended in 1996 to increase protection of habitat essential to the life cycle of fishery species. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” EFH may consist of both the water column and the bottom habitat of a particular area. Several sources of data are used to delineate areas of EFH for federally managed species. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
Responsibilities of the NMFS under the Magnuson-Stevens Act include assessing the status of fish stocks, ensuring compliance with fisheries regulations and reducing wasteful fishing practices. NMFS has six regional offices that work with states, the eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) and three interstate fisheries management commissions to accomplish its goals. <br />
<br />
''Identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)''<br />
The national and state authorities on fishery identify essential fish habitats for each managed species using the best available science. This process engages fishermen and the public in identifying specific areas and the habitat features within them that provide essential functions to a particular species for each of its life stages. Those areas designated as EFH for each species are identified in fishery management plans. <br />
<br />
Once EFH is identified for each species, Councils must assess the fishing practices in their regions to determine if the resulting impacts on habitat are more than minimal. If impacts exist, then the Councils must take steps to minimize these impacts. <br />
<br />
''Reducing Impacts''<br />
Councils can make use of many measures to reduce impacts on EFH. Common tools include restricting the use of certain fishing gears, modifying gear technology, or reducing the time and frequency of fishing in certain habitats. <br />
<br />
Every Federal Agency that plans to fund or conduct an activity in an EFH that could have an impact on the quantity or quality of habitat must work with NMFS to identify impacts. Based on such findings, NMFS provides recommendations for conserving the habitat and reducing the impact of that action.<br />
<br />
The National Fish Habitat Action Plan was established in support of the EFH program. It is a cooperative effort between Federal, state, and private groups to integrate fish habitat conservation efforts through regional fish habitat partnerships. These partnerships provide a strategic framework for community-level programs and match funding to local restoration activities. <br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
In 2000, the US General Accounting Office reported that the NMFS identified essential fish habitat and developed a consultation process for addressing potential adverse impacts. At that time, the resulting EFH maps covered almost the entire US coastline.<br />
<br />
A weakness of the EFH program is that NMFS can only make recommendations to federal agencies on how they can minimize their impacts. Another is that NMFS has no authority over the private sector. <br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Coastal Barrier Resources System]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*Essential Fish Habitat Program http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/index.htm <br />
*NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ <br />
*National Fish Habitat Action Plan http://fishhabitat.org/ <br />
<br />
===Further Reading===<br />
*GAO Report http://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-00-69 <br />
*Solveig Torvik. FISHERIES SERVICE DISPLAYS LARGE FAILURE OF WILL ON FISH HABITAT http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1998/9806290103.asp<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Olsen, Stephen Bloye <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Ricci, Glenn}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Differentiation_of_major_algal_groups_by_optical_absorption_signatures&diff=37333Differentiation of major algal groups by optical absorption signatures2011-08-03T13:40:38Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>===Introduction===<br />
Phytoplanktonic microalgae form the basis of most marine ecosystems. Knowledge of the taxonomic composition of [[phytoplankton]] is important for many ecological and biogeochemical aspects. Identification of the major taxonomic groups can help to identify [[algal bloom]] organisms, to estimate the role of functional groups in the food chain and to tag or forecast [[harmful algal bloom]]s (HABs) (Millie et al., 2002<ref name="B">Millie, D. F., Schofield, O. M. E., Kirkpatrick, G. J., Johnsen, G. & Evens, T.J. (2002). Using absorbance and fluorescence spectra to discriminate microalgae. European Journal of Phycology, 37, 313-322.</ref>). <br />
[[Image:Psicam_1.jpg|thumb|left|'''Figure 1''' <br />
Schematic interior view of the PSICAM block<br />
The block consists of a white material with a reflectivity of ~99.9 %. The inner sphere is filled with the water sample.The photons from the central light source get reflected at the wall multiple times and travel for optical path lengths between 1-3 m until they reach the radiance sensor. Due to the diffuse light field, additional scattering by particles has a negligible effect on the absorption determination so that failures due to adverse scattering effects and self shadowing are minimised.]]<br />
Optical characteristics of [[algae]] are specific for each algal group. To discriminate algal groups in a monitoring system, techniques are needed to measure these specific optical properties. One possibility is to use the chlorophyll fluorescence excitation spectra (AOA, [http://www.bbe-moldaenke.de/ bbe Moldaenke], Germany). Fluorescence techniques are simple, relatively sensitive, and thus can be applied in natural waters. However, only the chlorophyll pigments can be detected. By using the absorption spectrum of a water sample also other pigments (photo-protective and photosynthetic) can be identified. Most major groups can be discriminated by a group-specific pigment combination, e.g. chlorophyll-b occurs only in chlorophytes, prochlorophytes and euglenophytes etc., and phycobili-proteines only in rhodophytes, cryptophytes and cyanobacteria. Groups with the same pigment composition can, however, be discriminated due to group-specific pigment ratios. As these pigments have specific absorption maxima which are visible in a total absorption spectrum of a water sample, they can be measured with the newly developed PSICAM technique. It allows to measure a sample of water in real time and to use this data to differentiate algal groups online.<br />
<br />
===Methods and Techniques===<br />
[[Image:Psicam_2.jpg|thumb|right|'''Figure 2''' <br />
Example for a simulation of a mixture of green algae and diatoms. The x-axis gives the retrieved percentage of diatoms in the composed sample (e.g. 60%, red line). The y-axis shows the percentage of diatoms identified by the program (e.g. 50-80%, pink bar).]]<br />
The absorption meter (point-source integrating-cavity absorption meter, PSICAM) (Fig.1) was developed to measure the low absorption by phytoplankton in natural waters (Kirk, 1995<ref name="K">Kirk, J.T.O. (1995). Modeling the performance of an integrating-cavity absorption meter: theory and calculations for a spherical cavity. Applied Optics, 34, 4397-4408.</ref>, Röttgers et al., 2007<ref name="R">Röttgers, R., Häse, C. & Doerffer, R. (2007). Determination of the particulate absorption of microalgae using a point-source integrating-cavity absorption meter: verification with a photometric technique. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods 5, 1-12.</ref>).<br />
It can 1) measure pure absorption without the error caused by particle scattering, 2) it is sufficiantly sensitive even for very clear water, and 3) it can be used unattended in a flow-trough mode. With a PSICAM the total absorption by all water constituents can be determined, namely [[phytoplankton]], gelbstoff and [[detritus]]. <br />
In seawater samples only phytoplankton pigments show narrow absorption peaks in the range between 350 and 700 nm. The position and the relative amount of these absorption maxima can be extracted using common spectral analysis techniques like the calculation of the fourth derivatives (Fig. 2). A database of absorption and fourth derivative spectra from different cultured algal species of all major taxonomic groups was established. It includes information of species- , class- and group-specific characteristics. The data also includes taxon-specific variations as the individual pigment composition partly depends on the genetic, photo-acclimative and photo-physiological status of the algae. This database and a robust mathematical correlation technique are used to determine the abundance of each algal group in a sample.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
[[Image:Psicam_3.jpg|thumb|right|'''Figure 3''' <br />
Schematic overview showing the analysis of the absorption measured with PSICAM.]]<br />
Tests were performed to assess the reliability of the algal group identification. The absorption spectra of individual cultured species from various groups were combined mathematically. In the combined absorption spectrum the abundance of each group was determined. These tests were performed for each group and for some thousand group combinations. One example of the outcome is shown in Fig. 3. <br />
The implementation of a PSICAM instrument in a [http://www.ferrybox.org/ Ferrybox] system will allow to identify the absolute phytoplankton biomass and its major taxonomic groups online and in real time. In case of an algal bloom, this technique can identify the major group or even some individual species that are known to build HABs.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
* [[Instruments and sensors to measure environmental parameters]]<br />
* [[General principles of optical and acoustical instruments]]<br />
* [[Light fields and optics in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Optical remote sensing]]<br />
* [[Optical measurements in coastal waters]]<br />
* [[Real-time algae monitoring]]<br />
* [[The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR)]]<br />
* [[ALGADEC - Detection of toxic algae with a semi-automated nucleic acid biosensor]]<br />
* [[Ships of opportunity and ferries as instrument carriers]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=16889<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Röttgers, Rüdiger<br />
|AuthorName1=Username<br />
|AuthorID2=16908<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Gehnke, Steffen<br />
|AuthorName2=Username}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Gehnke, Steffen]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Biological processes and organisms]]<br />
[[Category:Ecological processes and ecosystems]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions,_processes_and_models_in_morphology&diff=37332Definitions, processes and models in morphology2011-08-03T13:40:24Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article is a summary of chapter 2 of the [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>. This articles describes a wide variety of topics related to sediment transport and processes. <br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Usually, the transport of particles by rolling, sliding and saltating is called bed-load transport, while the suspended particles are transported as suspended load transport. The suspended load may also include the fine [[silt]] particles brought into suspension from the catchment area rather than from the streambed material (bed material load) and is called the wash load.<br />
<br />
An important characteristic of wash load is that its concentration is approximately uniform for all points of the cross-section of a river. This implies that only a single point measurement is sufficient to determine the cross-section integrated wash-load transport by multiplying with discharge.In estuaries clay and silt concentrations are generally not uniformly distributed.<br />
<br />
Sand and mud transport are both discussed. Definitions of [[bed load]], [[suspended load]] and [[wash load]] are also given.<br />
<br />
==Fluid flow and sediment properties==<br />
The topics presented, are: <br />
# Sediment classification; <br />
# Fluid and sediment properties (bed-shear stress, fluid density and viscosity, sediment density, sediment shape, size and fall velocity, critical bed-shear stress);<br />
<br />
===Sediment classification===<br />
Sediment is fragmented material, primarily formed by the physical and chemical disintegration of rocks from the earth's crust. Such particles range in size from large boulders to colloidal size fragments and vary in shape from rounded to angular. They also vary in specific gravity and mineral composition, the predominant materials being quartz mineral and [[clay]] minerals (kaolinite, illite, montmorillonite and chlorite). The latter have a sheet-like structure, which can easily change (flocculation) under the influence of electrostatic forces (cohesive forces) in a saline environment. Consequently, there is a fundamental difference in sedimentary behaviour between sand and clay materials.<br />
<br />
Sediments can be classified according to their genetic origin: Lithogeneous sediments, (detrital products of disintegration of pre-existing rocks), Biogeneous sediments (remains of organisms mainly carbonate, opal and calcium phosphate, and Hydrogeneous sediments (precipitates from seawater or from interstitial water).<br />
<br />
Descriptive sediment classifications can also be used and are related to characteristics like colour, texture, grain size, organic content, etc. For example, a mixture of sand and [[clay]] is classified as a sandy clay when the percentage of sand is between 25% and 50%. Similarly, clayey sands, gravelly sands, sandy gravels, clayey gravels, and gravelly clays are distinguished.<br />
Sediment particles larger than 63 um and smaller than 2000 um are usually referred to as sand particles.<br />
<br />
Based on mineral and chemical composition, three types of sands can be distinguished: silicate sands, carbonate sands, and gypsum sands.<br />
<br />
===Fluid and sediment properties===<br />
Morphological problems are strongly related to gradients of sediment transport processes as caused by either natural phenomena or by human interference. Often, the sudden changes in morphological patterns can be traced back to the construction of engineering works. <br />
The topics are: sand transport and mud transport, sediments and ecology, sediments and pollution, mathematical models and data model integration.<br />
<br />
==Sediment transport processes==<br />
The following aspects of sediment transport processes are described: sand transport, sand transport in steady river flow, sand transport in non-steady flow, sand transport in combined non-steady flow and oscillatory flow and mud transport. <br />
<br />
===Sand transport===<br />
Sand can be transported by gravity-, wind-, wave-, tide- and density-driven mean currents (current-related transport), by the oscillatory water motion itself (wave-related transport) as caused by the deformation of short waves under the influence of decreasing water depth (wave asymmetry) or by a combination of currents and short waves.<br />
<br />
In rivers the gravity-induced flow generally is steady or quasi-steady generating bed load and suspended load transport of particles in conditions with an alluvial river bed. A typical feature of sediment transport along an alluvial bed is the generation of bed forms from small-scale ripples (order 0.1 m) up to large-scale dunes (order 100 m).<br />
<br />
In the lower reaches of the river (estuary or tidal river) the influence of the tidal motion may become noticeable introducing non-steady effects with varying current velocities and water levels on a [[diurnal]] or [[semi-diurnal]] time scale. Furthermore, density-induced flow may be generated due to the interaction of fresh river water and saline sea water (salt wedge intrusion).<br />
<br />
In coastal waters the sediment transport processes are strongly affected by the high-frequency waves introducing oscillatory motions acting on the particles. The high-frequency (short) waves generally act as sediment stirring agents; the sediments are then transported by the mean current.<br />
<br />
===Mud transport===<br />
Sediment mixtures with a fraction of [[clay]] particles larger than about 10% have cohesive properties because electro-statical forces comparable to or higher than the gravity forces are acting between the particles. Consequently, the sediment particles do not behave as individual particles but tend to stick together forming aggregates known as flocs whose size and settling velocity are much larger than those of the individual particles. Also biological processes can lead to the formation of aggregates, e.g. through colloids. Mud is defined as a fluid-sediment mixture consisting of (salt) water, sands, [[silt]]s, [[clay]]s and organic materials.<br />
<br />
In a natural environment there is a continuous transport cycle of mud material which consists of: erosion, settling, deposition, saturation, consolidation, erosion and so on.<br />
<br />
==Sediments and ecological processes in marine environments==<br />
The following topics are presented in the manual:<br />
# overview of processes and impacts, <br />
# ecology related to dredging, mining and dumping of sediment, <br />
# results of field studies related to dredging and mining of sediment.<br />
<br />
==Sediments and pollution==<br />
Sediment deposits and dredged materials in fluvial, marine and estuarine conditions are becoming increasingly polluted with trace (heavy) metals, phosphorus, nutrients (dissolved chemical components vital to the health of plants and animals; nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon) and other contaminants. Human activities which have intensified the problem of polluted sediments are: channelization of rivers, closing of channels and lagoons, and extension and deepening of navigation channels and harbour basins. The resulting increased maintenance dredging yields enormous quantities of polluted sediments for which safe disposal areas on land or in the aquatic system have to be found. Information of sediments and pollution aspects are presented in the manual. See also [[theme 4]].<br />
<br />
==Mathematical models of sediment transport and morphology==<br />
When the natural system is largely disturbed due to human interference (closure of a channel, construction of a barrage or a harbour or the reclamation of new land), the morphological consequences should be studied on the basis of model predictions. <br />
<br />
Two types of models can be distinguished:<br />
# initial or sediment transport models which compute the sediment transport rates and the initial bed level changes for one time step or for one tidal cycle, resulting in a short-term prediction;<br />
# dynamic morphological models which compute the flow velocities, the wave heights, the sediment transport rates, the bed level changes and again the new flow velocities, etc. in a continuous sequence (loop) resulting in long-term predictions.<br />
<br />
Operational dynamic models are available for one-dimensional (1D), two-dimensional vertical (2DV) and horizontal (2DH) simulations. The application of dynamic models for three-dimensional (3D) situations is not yet feasible because of excessive computer cost.<br />
General background information of flow models, wave-propagation models, sediment transport models and morphological models is presented. See also, e.g. [[Process-based Morphological Models – Applications to longer Time Frame]].<br />
<br />
==Data Model Integration==<br />
Application of techniques for [[Data Model Integration (DMI)]] are increasingly used in many fields of science, finance, economics, etc. Every day examples are improvement of geophysical model descriptions (flows, water levels, waves), improvements and optimization of daily weather forecasts, detection of errors in data series, on-line identification of stolen credit card use, detection of malfunctioning components in manufacturing processes. The one common element is the prior knowledge of the behaviour of a process in the form of an explicit model description, or a set of characteristic data. The second common element is a set of independent or new data. Neither the description of the behaviour nor the data are 100% certain – they have uncertainties associated with them. If one has information on the (statistical) nature of these uncertainties, smart mathematical techniques can be used to combine these two information sources and generate new or improved information. See also <br />
[[Reduction of uncertainties through Data Model Integration (DMI)]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Summaries of the manual===<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* Chapter 1: [[Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 4: [[Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results]]<br />
* Chapter 5: [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 10: [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
===Other internal links===<br />
* [[Geomorphological time scales and processes]]<br />
* [[Long-term modelling -GENESIS and New extensions, developments to 1-line models]]<br />
* [[Process-based Morphological Models – Applications to longer Time Frame]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H2_Morfological_definitions.pdf Manual Chapter 2: Definitions, processes and models in morphology (pdf; 2,8 Mb)]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine information and knowledge management]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine pollution]]<br />
[[Category:Ecological processes and ecosystems]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Data&diff=37330Data2011-08-03T13:39:58Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Definition|title=Data <br />
|definition=Data are observable, raw ‘values’ that result from research or monitoring activities; these values can be numerical (as in temperature or salinity measurements) or nominal (as in species lists for a particular region). ‘Data’ distinguishes from ‘information’. The term ‘information’ is commonly used to mean data that have already been processed and/or interpreted results. In that sense, so-called ‘metadata’, i.e. data about data (e.g. by whom, at what time, where and how the results were collected) can be considered a special kind of ‘information’.<ref>Jan Seys, Jan Mees, Ward Vanden Berghe and Peter Pissiersens: Marine Data Management: we can do more, but can we do better? (IODE, Unesco) [http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=33]</ref>.}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Reduction of uncertainties through Data Model Integration (DMI)]]<br />
* [[Data formats, data management, meta data, quality standards, data portals]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=8091<br />
|AuthorFullName1= Claus, Simon<br />
|AuthorName1=simon<br />
|AuthorID2=12963<br />
|AuthorName2=Carsten.heidmann<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Carsten Heidmann }}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Articles by Carsten Heidmann]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Computation_of_sediment_transport_and_presentation_of_results&diff=37329Computation of sediment transport and presentation of results2011-08-03T13:39:16Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>This article is a summary of chapter 4 of the [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]] <ref>Rijn, L. C. van (1986). ''Manual sediment transport measurements''. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory</ref>. This article introduces how the total load transport can be calculated. <br />
<br />
==Calculation of load transport==<br />
When the suspended sediment samples are collected as point-integrated samples, there are two methods to compute the depth-integrated [[suspended load]] transport. First, there is the so-called partial method which gives the suspended load transport between the bed and the highest sampling point using a linear interpolation between adjacent (measured) values. Second, there is the so-called integral method, which gives the total suspended load transport between the bed and the water surface by fitting a theoretical distribution to the measured flow velocity and concentration profiles. Applying this latter method, the suspended load in the unsampled zone is taken into account. The transport rate of the suspended silt (2 to 63 um) and suspended sand particles (>63 um) should be computed separately. If necessary, more fractions can be used.<br />
<br />
The total load transport can be obtained by summation of [[bed load]] and [[suspended load]] transport.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Summaries of the manual===<br />
* [[Manual Sediment Transport Measurements in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas]]<br />
* Chapter 1: [[Introduction, problems and approaches in sediment transport measurements]]<br />
* Chapter 2: [[Definitions, processes and models in morphology]]<br />
* Chapter 3: [[Principles, statistics and errors of measuring sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 5: [[Measuring instruments for sediment transport]]<br />
* Chapter 6: [[Measuring instruments for particle size and fall velocity]]<br />
* Chapter 7: [[Measuring instruments for bed material sampling]]<br />
* Chapter 8: [[Laboratory and in situ analysis of samples]]<br />
* Chapter 9: [[In situ measurement of wet bulk density]]<br />
* Chapter 10: [[Instruments for bed level detection]]<br />
* Chapter 11: [[Argus video]]<br />
* Chapter 12: [[Measuring instruments for fluid velocity, pressure and wave height]]<br />
<br />
===Other internal links===<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.wldelft.nl/rnd/intro/fields/morphology/pdf/H4_Computation_of_sediment_transport.pdf Manual Chapter 4: Computation of sediment transport (pdf; 4,2 Mb)]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=13226 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Rijn, Leo van<br />
|AuthorName1=Leovanrijn<br />
|AuthorID2=12969 <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Roberti, Hans<br />
|AuthorName2=Robertihans}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Theme_9]]<br />
[[Category:Manual sediment transport measurements]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Geomorphological processes and natural coastal features]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal and marine information and knowledge management]]<br />
[[Category:Articles by Roberti, Hans]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Computable_general_equilibrium&diff=37328Computable general equilibrium2011-08-03T13:39:00Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:SPICOSA.jpg|100px|right]]<br />
<br />
'''Computable general equilibrium''' (CGE) models are a class of economic models that use actual economic data to estimate how an economy might react to changes in policy, technology or other external factors. The word ''equilibrium'' means that values taken by endogenous variables in the model allow the resolution of all equations. CGE models are descended from the input-output models pioneered by Wassily Leontief, but assign a more important role to prices. Thus, where Leontief assumed that, say, a fixed amount of labour was required to produce a ton of iron, a CGE model would normally allow wage levels to (negatively) affect labour demands. One of the main interests of CGE models is their dynamic characteristic enabling to make projections up to 100 years.<br />
<br />
==The CGE model==<br />
A CGE model consists of (a) equations describing model variables and (b) a database (usually very detailed) consistent with the model equations. Data required are the following :<br />
<br />
#Tables of transaction values, showing, for example, the value of coal used by the iron industry (read the section above “[[Regional economic accounting methods]] by [[Input-output matrix]]”). Usually the database is presented as an [[Input-output matrix]] (I-O) or as a social accounting matrix (SAM). In either case, it covers the whole economy of a country (or even the whole world), and distinguishes a number of sectors, commodities, primary factors and perhaps types of household. [http://www.encora.eu/coastalwiki/Input-output_matrix I-O tables]can be taken from [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=2474,54156821,2474_54764840&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#IOT) Eurostat] (consulted in January 2007)<ref>'''EUROSTAT, consulted in January 2007.''' ''ESA 95 Input-Output tables.'' Available on Internet : [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=2474,54156821,2474_54764840&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#IOT)]</ref>, from the national statistic of the studied country or from the governmental (or regional) economic department. For more details on SAM, read Pyatt and Round (1985)<ref>'''Pyatt and Round, 1985.''' ''Social Accounting Matrices: A Basis for Planning.'' The World Bank.</ref>.<br />
#Elasticities: dimensionless parameters that capture behavioural response to policy scenarios. For example, export demand elasticities specify by how much export volumes might fall if export prices went up (e.g. due to a tax on green house gas emitted by merchandise transportation). Data on elasticities are usually taken from literature survey (Böhringer, 2004)<ref>'''Böhringer C., 2004.''' ''Sustainability impact assessment : the use of computable general equilibrium models.'' Economie internationale 2004/3, n° 99, pp. 9-26.</ref>.<br />
<br />
Nowadays, CGE models are made of thousands of equations. They can give simulations up to 100 years time horizon and have regional, national and international spatial dimensions. Hecq (2006a)<ref>'''Hecq W., 2006a.''' ''Aspects économiques de l’environnement. Fascicule 4. Economie de l’environnement.'' Université Libre de Bruxelles, 12ème édition, P.U.B.</ref> categorized those models by economical mechanisms, and identified four categories described below. They can be divided into two families : "bottom-up" and "top-down".<br />
<br />
*Bottom-up models are built on a detailed representation of productive system (supply side) and demand (demand side). Based on data on cost and effectiveness of technologies as well as on basic resources utilization such as energy, they calculate minimum cost strategies. Their weakness stems from the translation of feedback in term of macroeconomic equilibrium.<br />
<br />
::Example of bottom-up model : Technological optimization models (MARKAL, DNE21+, GMM, MESSAGE,…). They are based on technological data for each sector of a country. They model energetic demand taking into account technical constrains. They allow us to highlight optimal technological options (cost-effectiveness) in order to achieve environmental targets at diverse horizons (e.g. CO<sub>2</sub> emissions).<br />
<br />
*Top-down models describe the economic system in a global way through aggregates and their interrelations in the frame of a general equilibrium built on the base of microeconomic theory.<br />
<br />
::Example of top-down model : Macroeconometric models (NEMESIS, E3MG, HERMES, etc.). They are numerous and are more developed and accurate than the previous models mentioned above. However, they are neo-Keynesians. Therefore, they operate according to the demand in the economy, which is not always in equilibrium with the supply (structural unemployment is possible to take into account in those models). In addition, production functions are stemming from econometric techniques based on historical series that affect their structure. <br />
<br />
==Practical use of CGE models==<br />
<br />
Though models are still subject to discussions, they find numerous applications (simulation, prevision, research) among others evaluation of environmental policies impacts such as taxes on CO<sub>2</sub>/energy and [[pollution|polluting]] emissions trading schemes. CGE are relevant when willing to evaluate the economic implications of policy intervention on resource allocation and incomes of agents (for example, a tax on energy and greenhouse gas emissions might affect fuel prices, the consumer price index, and hence perhaps wages and employment). For instance a relevant question to be answered by CGE would be “what is the optimal tax policy to maximize economic performance given minimum constraints on the level of environmental quality or distributional concerns.”<br />
<br />
Since CGE are partly based on I-O tables, what is written above in section “regional accounting by matrix Input-output” applies also to CGE. See there for additional information concerning relevancy of CGE.<br />
<br />
==Limits of the method==<br />
<br />
CGE models are complex to implement and their results are highly dependent on key economic parameters on which uncertainties remain. In addition, those models are expensive and time consuming (it takes months to years to build a CGE model).<br />
<br />
In addition, the model equations tend to be built upon an underlying theory (i.e. traditional economics, as defined by Maréchal and Lazaric, 2007<ref>'''Maréchal K. and Lazaric N., 2007.''' ''What Evolutionary Economics has to say about Climate Policy.'' Submitted to Journal of Evolutionary Economics.</ref>), often assuming cost-minimizing behaviour by producers, average-cost pricing, and household demands based on optimizing behaviour. However, most CGE models conform only loosely to the theoretical general equilibrium paradigm. For example, they may allow for:<br />
<br />
# non-market clearing (general equilibrium is not reached : supply is not equal to demand), especially for labour (unemployment) or for commodities (inventories) <br />
# imperfect competition (e.g. monopoly pricing) <br />
# demands not influenced by price (e.g. government demands) <br />
# a range of taxes <br />
# externalities, such as [[pollution]]<br />
<br />
However, even with these corrections to match more the economic reality, Maréchal and Lazaric (2007) estimate that the use of CGE models is highly disputable because of their inadequate account of the real behaviour of economic agents. Indeed, CGE models are built upon a traditional economics that has been strongly questioned by scholars from different fields. For instance, the Homo Oeconomicus paradigm is completely at odds with empirical evidence contained in studies showing that economic decisions are partly guided by feelings and thus emotionally coloured (providing human beings with "intelligent emotions and emotional intelligence"). An individual is not able to make optimal decisions in order to reach its goals. He can only make satisfactory decisions because he is limited by its capacity, its habits and unconscious reflexes; its values and concepts of the goal to reach (which can even be different from the goal decided by the enterprise); and by its knowledge and the imperfect information he has access to. Not grasping this, is a major drawback of CGE models.<br />
<br />
Lastly, CGE, similar to I-O tables, are not able to take into account issues with small impacts because of their too high aggregation level.<br />
<br />
==Other [[regional economic accounting methods]]==<br />
* [[Input-output matrix]]<br />
* [[Supply chain analysis]]<br />
* [[Green accounting]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors<br />
|AuthorID1=13756 <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Mateo Cordier<br />
|AuthorName1= Mcordier<br />
|AuthorID2=13758<br />
|AuthorFullName2= Walter Hecq<br />
|AuthorName2= Walter Hecq}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Walter Hecq]]<br />
[[Category:Theme_1]]<br />
[[Category:Coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Evaluation and assessment in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:Techniques and methods in coastal management]]<br />
[[Category:SPICOSA]]</div>MaartenDeRijckehttps://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Coastal_Barrier_Resources_System&diff=37326Coastal Barrier Resources System2011-08-03T13:37:55Z<p>MaartenDeRijcke: </p>
<hr />
<div>In 1982, the U.S. Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), to prohibit using federal funds for development on sensitive coastal barrier islands. Undeveloped sensitive areas are mapped and incorporated into the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Areas so designated are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance, funding for infrastructure or federal housing loans. As of 2008, the CBRS includes approximately 800 barriers, an area of almost 1.3 million acres. While the exclusion of federal funds has slowed development on these barriers, it is state and local governments that make the final decision on whether development occurs. Due to the high value of coastal lands and the need to pay compensation if development of private property is prohibited, state and municipal regulators often grant permits for development on barriers within the CBRS system. <br />
<br />
==History==<br />
Heavy federal subsidies poured into U.S. coastal development projects in the 1970s and 1980s helping to create a coastal development boom. Some members of Congress such as Senator John H. Chafee (Senate 1976-1999), of the coastal state of Rhode Island, recognized the vulnerability of coastal barriers to development and declared such subsidies a ‘travesty’. Chafee built bipartisan support for a non-regulatory approach to reducing such federal subsidies, in order to reduce development in high risk areas, and protect fish and wildlife and other natural resources <ref>Salvesen, David. 2005. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Has It Discouraged Coastal Development? Coastal Management, Volume 33, Number 2, April-June 2005, pp. 181-195(15).</ref>. The result was CBRA—a fiscally conservative, free market approach to coastal conservation—underpinned by the principle that taxpayers should not subsidize or bear the risk of development in areas highly vulnerable to coastal hazards.<br />
<br />
==Key Features==<br />
The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) includes undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, Caribbean Territories and Great Lakes coasts. The Act does not include the Pacific Coast which has fewbarrier islands. Coastal barriers are unique land forms that provide protection for distinct aquatic habitats and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against damage from coastal storms and erosion. Coastal barriers are defined in the CBRA to include [[barrier islands]], [[bar|bars]], spits, and [[tombolo|tombolos]], and include the associated aquatic habitats, such as adjacent [[estuaries]] and [[wetlands]].<br />
<br />
The CBRA prohibits federal financial assistance (e.g., loans, grants, insurance payments, rebates, subsidies, or financial guarantees), for roads, bridges, utilities, [[erosion]] control, and post-storm disaster relief for new development on designated “undeveloped” areas on coastal barriers. Existing insurance policies for properties within the CBRS remain in force until such time as that property is expanded or replaced, at which point insurance coverage is cancelled. In cases where newly built property is damaged, federal flood insurance assistance is available only if the cost of rebuilding is less than 50 percent of the value of the property.<br />
<br />
==Evolution==<br />
In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) amended the CBRA to include existing protected areas owned by the government, termed as ‘otherwise protected areas’ (OPA). This included national and state parks, national wildlife refuges and other conservation areas that contain coastal barriers. The inclusion of OPAs tripled the size of the CBRS. In 2000, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act required the development of digital mapping to improve the precision and accessibility of information about those areas in the CBRS. It also provided guidance for determining if an area was undeveloped at the time it was included within the CBRS. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce digital maps for the entire CBRS. <br />
<br />
==Governance Framework of the Program==<br />
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, is authorized to implement the CBIA. FWS is the repository for CBRS maps. FWS also advises federal and state agencies, landowners, and Congress on whether properties are within the CBRS and on the types of Federal expenditures allowed in the system (FWS website). FWS approves exclusions in cases of emergency assistance, national security, navigability, and energy exploration. The CBIA is not implemented through regulations. However, agencies are required to consult with the FWS and secure their review and opinions on proposed actions.<br />
<br />
The CBIA is not intended to prevent or regulate development in high-risk areas. It does not restrict the use of private, local, or state funding within CBRS units, although some coastal states have adopted legislation that limits state funding of certain projects. The intent of the CBIA is to ensure no federal dollars are spent on development in these areas.<br />
<br />
==Effectiveness==<br />
Approximately 3.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat are part of the CBRS and the FWS calculates that CBRA has saved over $1 billion in Federal subsidies. A 2007 study of the CBRA by the U.S. Government Accounting Office estimated that 84 percent of the area within the CBRS remains undeveloped, 29 percent has experienced some development, and approximately 3 percent has undergone significant development. The influence that CBRA has had in limiting development is unclear, however, as federal and state officials have identified other factors that are considered to play an even larger role in deciding development. These include (1) the lack of land suitable for development; (2) the lack of accessibility to the unit; (3) state laws that discourage development within coastal areas; and (4) group ownership of land within the unit (GAO, Salvensen). Reasons for development occurring in certain areas of the CBRS include: (1) strong demand by private and public groups to build, (2) a pro-development local government, and (3) the availability of affordable private flood insurance. In cases where federal funds were issued for areas within the CBRS, inaccurate maps are most frequently cited as the reason for such error. <br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
===Internal Links===<br />
*[[US Coastal Zone Management Program]]<br />
*[[Overview of Coastal Habitat Protection and Restoration in the United States]]<br />
*[[Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – Case Study]]<br />
*[[Essential Fish Habitat]]<br />
*[[Chesepeake Bay Program]] <br />
*[[Clean Water Act]]<br />
*[[US National Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US National Estuarine Research Reserve System]]<br />
*[[US National Marine Sanctuaries]]<br />
*[[US National Wildlife Refuge System]]<br />
*[[Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan – Case Study]]<br />
*[[US Sea Grant College Program]]<br />
*[[Tampa Bay Estuary Program]]<br />
*[[US Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Programs]]<br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
*John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html <br />
*USFWS legislation http://www.fws.gov/laws/ <br />
*CBRS Maps http://projects.dewberry.com/FWS/CBRS%20Maps/Forms/AllItems1.aspx <br />
*CBRS Digital Boundaries http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/cbra_exit.cfm <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
{{2Authors <br />
|AuthorID1=19106<br />
|AuthorName1= Olsen <br />
|AuthorFullName1= Stephen Bloye Olsen <br />
|AuthorID2=19107 <br />
|AuthorName2= Ricci <br />
|AuthorFullName2= Glenn Ricci}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by Glenn Ricci]]</div>MaartenDeRijcke