Using integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to guide risk-based environmental clean-up decisions
- PMID: 15876215
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00600.x
Using integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to guide risk-based environmental clean-up decisions
Erratum in
- Risk Anal. 2005 Jun;25(3):767. Burger, Joanna [added]; Gochfeld, Michael [added]; Powers, Charles [added]; Kosson, David [added]; Keren, Roger [added]; Danis, Christine [added]; Vyas, Vikram [added]
Abstract
Government and private sector organizations are increasingly turning to the use of maps and other visual models to provide a depiction of environmental hazards and the potential risks they represent to humans and ecosystems. Frequently, the graphic presentation is tailored to address a specific contaminant, its location and possible exposure pathways, and potential receptors. Its format is usually driven by the data available, choice of graphics technology, and the audience being served. A format that is effective for displaying one contaminant at one scale at one site, however, may be ineffective in accurately portraying the circumstances surrounding a different contaminant at the same site, or the same contaminant at a different site, because of limitations in available data or the graphics technology being used. This is the daunting challenge facing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is responsible for the nation's legacy wastes from nuclear weapons research, testing, and production at over 100 sites in the United States. In this article, we discuss the development and use of integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to identify hazards and evaluate alternative long-term environmental clean-up strategies at DOE sites located across the United States. While the DOE probably has the greatest need for such information, the Department of Defense and other public and private responsible parties for many large and controversial National Priority List or Superfund sites would benefit from a similar approach.
Similar articles
-
The role of risk and future land use in cleanup decisions at the Department Of Energy.Risk Anal. 2004 Dec;24(6):1539-49. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00548.x. Risk Anal. 2004. PMID: 15660610
-
Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: protecting human and ecological health.Environ Manage. 2003 Feb;31(2):157-67. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2778-4. Environ Manage. 2003. PMID: 12520373
-
Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: the case of the Department of Energy's Amchitka Island nuclear test site.J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006 Jul;69(13):1217-38. doi: 10.1080/15287390500360232. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006. PMID: 16754537
-
An integrated biomarker-based strategy for ecotoxicological evaluation of risk in environmental management.Mutat Res. 2004 Aug 18;552(1-2):247-68. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.06.028. Mutat Res. 2004. PMID: 15288556 Review.
-
Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the Department of Energy.J Environ Manage. 2007 Jan;82(2):189-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.12.012. Epub 2006 Mar 22. J Environ Manage. 2007. PMID: 16554118 Review.
Cited by
-
Costs and Benefits of Delaying Remediation on Ecological Resources at Contaminated Sites.Ecohealth. 2019 Sep;16(3):454-475. doi: 10.1007/s10393-019-01437-z. Epub 2019 Aug 3. Ecohealth. 2019. PMID: 31377906
-
Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate and transport, and human health.Environ Monit Assess. 2011 Jan;172(1-4):121-34. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1321-y. Epub 2010 Feb 6. Environ Monit Assess. 2011. PMID: 20140506
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources