The Experts below are selected from a list of 22230 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Monique G. Dubé - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects an analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments in the south saskatchewan river watershed canada
2013Co-Authors: Murray Ball, Bram F. Noble, Monique G. DubéAbstract:The accumulating effects of human development are threatening water quality and availability. In recognition of the constraints to cumulative effects assessment (CEA) under traditional Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), there is an emerging body of research dedicated to watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA). To advance the science of WCEA, however, a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators is required that can be used at the watershed scale, to inform effects-based understanding of cumulative change, and at the project scale, to inform regulatory-based project based Impact assessment and mitigation. A major challenge, however, is that it is not clear how such ecosystem components and indicators for WCEA can or should be developed. This study examined the use of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators in EIA practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada, to determine whether current practice at the project scale could be “scaled up” to support ecosystem component and indicator development for WCEA. The hierarchy of assessment components and indicators used in a sample of 35 Environmental Impact Assessments was examined and the factors affecting aquatic ecosystem component selection and indicator use were identified. Results showed that public Environmental Impact statements are not necessarily publically accessible, thus limiting opportunities for data and information sharing from the project to the watershed scale. We also found no consistent terminology across the sample of Impact statements, thus making comparison of assessment processes and results difficult. Regulatory compliance was found to be the dominant factor influencing the selection of ecosystem components and indicators for use in project assessment, rather than scientific reasoning, followed by the mandate of the responsible government agency for the assessment, public input to the assessment process, and preexisting water licensing arrangements external to the assessment process. The current approach to project-based assessment offered little support for WCEA initiatives. It did not provide a standard set of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators or allow the sharing of information across projects and from the project to the watershed scale. We suggest that determining priority assessment parameters for WCEA requires adoption of a standardized framework of component and indicator terminology, which can then be populated for the watershed of concern based on both watershed-based priorities and project-specific regulatory requirements. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:469–479. © 2012 SETAC
-
valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects an analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments in the south saskatchewan river watershed canada
2013Co-Authors: Murray Ball, Bram F. Noble, Monique G. DubéAbstract:The accumulating effects of human development are threatening water quality and availability. In recognition of the constraints to cumulative effects assessment (CEA) under traditional Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), there is an emerging body of research dedicated to watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA). To advance the science of WCEA, however, a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators is required that can be used at the watershed scale, to inform effects-based understanding of cumulative change, and at the project scale, to inform regulatory-based project based Impact assessment and mitigation. A major challenge, however, is that it is not clear how such ecosystem components and indicators for WCEA can or should be developed. This study examined the use of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators in EIA practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada, to determine whether current practice at the project scale could be "scaled up" to support ecosystem component and indicator development for WCEA. The hierarchy of assessment components and indicators used in a sample of 35 Environmental Impact Assessments was examined and the factors affecting aquatic ecosystem component selection and indicator use were identified. Results showed that public Environmental Impact statements are not necessarily publically accessible, thus limiting opportunities for data and information sharing from the project to the watershed scale. We also found no consistent terminology across the sample of Impact statements, thus making comparison of assessment processes and results difficult. Regulatory compliance was found to be the dominant factor influencing the selection of ecosystem components and indicators for use in project assessment, rather than scientific reasoning, followed by the mandate of the responsible government agency for the assessment, public input to the assessment process, and preexisting water licensing arrangements external to the assessment process. The current approach to project-based assessment offered little support for WCEA initiatives. It did not provide a standard set of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators or allow the sharing of information across projects and from the project to the watershed scale. We suggest that determining priority assessment parameters for WCEA requires adoption of a standardized framework of component and indicator terminology, which can then be populated for the watershed of concern based on both watershed-based priorities and project-specific regulatory requirements.
Murray Ball - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects an analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments in the south saskatchewan river watershed canada
2013Co-Authors: Murray Ball, Bram F. Noble, Monique G. DubéAbstract:The accumulating effects of human development are threatening water quality and availability. In recognition of the constraints to cumulative effects assessment (CEA) under traditional Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), there is an emerging body of research dedicated to watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA). To advance the science of WCEA, however, a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators is required that can be used at the watershed scale, to inform effects-based understanding of cumulative change, and at the project scale, to inform regulatory-based project based Impact assessment and mitigation. A major challenge, however, is that it is not clear how such ecosystem components and indicators for WCEA can or should be developed. This study examined the use of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators in EIA practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada, to determine whether current practice at the project scale could be “scaled up” to support ecosystem component and indicator development for WCEA. The hierarchy of assessment components and indicators used in a sample of 35 Environmental Impact Assessments was examined and the factors affecting aquatic ecosystem component selection and indicator use were identified. Results showed that public Environmental Impact statements are not necessarily publically accessible, thus limiting opportunities for data and information sharing from the project to the watershed scale. We also found no consistent terminology across the sample of Impact statements, thus making comparison of assessment processes and results difficult. Regulatory compliance was found to be the dominant factor influencing the selection of ecosystem components and indicators for use in project assessment, rather than scientific reasoning, followed by the mandate of the responsible government agency for the assessment, public input to the assessment process, and preexisting water licensing arrangements external to the assessment process. The current approach to project-based assessment offered little support for WCEA initiatives. It did not provide a standard set of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators or allow the sharing of information across projects and from the project to the watershed scale. We suggest that determining priority assessment parameters for WCEA requires adoption of a standardized framework of component and indicator terminology, which can then be populated for the watershed of concern based on both watershed-based priorities and project-specific regulatory requirements. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:469–479. © 2012 SETAC
-
valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects an analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments in the south saskatchewan river watershed canada
2013Co-Authors: Murray Ball, Bram F. Noble, Monique G. DubéAbstract:The accumulating effects of human development are threatening water quality and availability. In recognition of the constraints to cumulative effects assessment (CEA) under traditional Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), there is an emerging body of research dedicated to watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA). To advance the science of WCEA, however, a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators is required that can be used at the watershed scale, to inform effects-based understanding of cumulative change, and at the project scale, to inform regulatory-based project based Impact assessment and mitigation. A major challenge, however, is that it is not clear how such ecosystem components and indicators for WCEA can or should be developed. This study examined the use of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators in EIA practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada, to determine whether current practice at the project scale could be "scaled up" to support ecosystem component and indicator development for WCEA. The hierarchy of assessment components and indicators used in a sample of 35 Environmental Impact Assessments was examined and the factors affecting aquatic ecosystem component selection and indicator use were identified. Results showed that public Environmental Impact statements are not necessarily publically accessible, thus limiting opportunities for data and information sharing from the project to the watershed scale. We also found no consistent terminology across the sample of Impact statements, thus making comparison of assessment processes and results difficult. Regulatory compliance was found to be the dominant factor influencing the selection of ecosystem components and indicators for use in project assessment, rather than scientific reasoning, followed by the mandate of the responsible government agency for the assessment, public input to the assessment process, and preexisting water licensing arrangements external to the assessment process. The current approach to project-based assessment offered little support for WCEA initiatives. It did not provide a standard set of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators or allow the sharing of information across projects and from the project to the watershed scale. We suggest that determining priority assessment parameters for WCEA requires adoption of a standardized framework of component and indicator terminology, which can then be populated for the watershed of concern based on both watershed-based priorities and project-specific regulatory requirements.
Ibrahim Dincer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparative efficiency and Environmental Impact Assessments of a solar assisted combined cycle with various fuels
2020Co-Authors: Aras Karapekmez, Ibrahim DincerAbstract:Abstract Due to resources depletion, fossil fuels are not capable of compensating the growing energy needs. However, still most of the power plants driven by fossil based fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil. The underlying motivation of this study is to reveal what types of biomass can be a better choice to replace fossil fuels by comparing both Environmental Impacts and systems performance. In order to achieve this target, a solar-assisted combined cycle is modeled thermodynamically for seven different fuels. Also, a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) is carried out by using CML 2001 method for evaluation of the Environmental Impacts of the considered fuels to produce electricity through a combined cycle. Although natural gas fired solar-assisted combined cycle emits the least amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, global warming potential (GWP) and ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) of natural gas are determined as the highest among the considered fuels. According to the results, sawdust and wet wood would be the rewarding alternatives of natural gas with relatively lower amounts of CO2 emissions (11.37 kg/s for the sawdust and 11.78 kg/s for the wet wood) as well as having the lowest Environmental Impacts.
-
Life cycle Environmental Impact Assessments and comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles
2018Co-Authors: Yusuf Bicer, Ibrahim DincerAbstract:Abstract In this study, a comparative life cycle assessment of internal combustion engine-based vehicles fueled by various fuels, ranging from hydrogen to gasoline, is conducted in addition to electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Three types of vehicles are considered, namely; internal combustion engine vehicles using gasoline, diesel, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, compressed natural gas, hydrogen and ammonia; hybrid electric vehicles using 50% gasoline and 50% electricity; and electric only vehicles for comprehensive comparison and Environmental Impact assessment. The processes are analyzed from raw material extraction to vehicle disposal using process-based life cycle assessment methodology. In order to reflect the sustainability of the vehicles, seven different Environmental Impact categories are considered: abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, global warming, human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and terrestrial ecotoxicity. The primary energy resources are selected based on currently utilized options to indicate the actual performances of the vehicles. The results show that electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles result in higher human toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity and acidification values because of manufacturing and maintenance phases. In contrast, hydrogen vehicles yield the most Environmentally benign option because of high energy density and low fuel consumption during operation.
-
development of a four step cu cl cycle for hydrogen production part i exergoeconomic and exergoEnvironmental analyses
2016Co-Authors: Ahmet Ozbilen, Ibrahim Dincer, Marc A RosenAbstract:Abstract Thermodynamic, economic and Environmental Impact Assessments of a four-step Cu–Cl cycle developed for hydrogen production are performed using exergy, cost, exergoEnvironmental and exergoeconomic analyses, and life cycle assessment. For the system considered under the baseline conditions, the total cost rate and Environmental Impact rate are determined to be 165 $/s and 37.6 Pt/s, respectively. The following Part II of this two companion papers leverages this paper's results to optimize the four-step Cu–Cl with respect to overall exergy efficiency, total cost rate and total Environmental Impact rate.
-
comparative efficiency and Environmental Impact Assessments of a hydrogen assisted hybrid locomotive
2016Co-Authors: Janette Hogerwaard, Ibrahim DincerAbstract:Abstract The integration of more Environmentally benign fuel options for mass transportation applications is a critical research initiative, particularly those that support and further development toward a hydrogen economy, a key target for future sustainability. The thermodynamic and Environmental performances of a hydrogen assisted hybrid locomotive with ammonia-diesel co-fueling are comprehensively assessed through energy and exergy analyses, and Impact assessment. Onboard hydrogen production via thermal ammonia decomposition (cracking) utilizes exhaust gases as a heat source, reducing the total diesel fuel consumption and increasing energy utilization of the fuel burned in the locomotive prime mover engine. The hybrid system performance is compared against a conventional diesel-electric locomotive through energy and exergy efficiencies, fuel consumption, and Environmental Impact to evaluate the viability of the hybrid locomotive as a clean rail transportation option.
-
Environmental Impact Assessments of integrated multigeneration energy systems
2013Co-Authors: Pouria Ahmadi, Ibrahim Dincer, Marc A RosenAbstract:Multigeneration refers to an energy process which produces several useful outputs from one or more kinds of primary energy inputs. The main aims, when using multigeneration, are to increase efficiency and sustainability while reducing Environmental Impact and cost. In this chapter, thermodynamic modeling is performed of a multigeneration system consisting of a micro gas turbine, a double-pressure heat recovery steam generator, an absorption chiller, a domestic water heater that produces hot water at 60 °C, and a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer. In order to determine the irreversibilities in each component and the system performance, an exergy analysis is conducted. In addition, an Environmental Impact assessment of the multigeneration system is performed, and the potential reductions in CO2 and CO emissions when the system shifts from power generation to multigeneration are investigated. To understand system performance more comprehensively, a parametric study is performed to study the effects of several important design parameters on the system energy and exergy efficiencies.
Bram F. Noble - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects an analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments in the south saskatchewan river watershed canada
2013Co-Authors: Murray Ball, Bram F. Noble, Monique G. DubéAbstract:The accumulating effects of human development are threatening water quality and availability. In recognition of the constraints to cumulative effects assessment (CEA) under traditional Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), there is an emerging body of research dedicated to watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA). To advance the science of WCEA, however, a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators is required that can be used at the watershed scale, to inform effects-based understanding of cumulative change, and at the project scale, to inform regulatory-based project based Impact assessment and mitigation. A major challenge, however, is that it is not clear how such ecosystem components and indicators for WCEA can or should be developed. This study examined the use of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators in EIA practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada, to determine whether current practice at the project scale could be “scaled up” to support ecosystem component and indicator development for WCEA. The hierarchy of assessment components and indicators used in a sample of 35 Environmental Impact Assessments was examined and the factors affecting aquatic ecosystem component selection and indicator use were identified. Results showed that public Environmental Impact statements are not necessarily publically accessible, thus limiting opportunities for data and information sharing from the project to the watershed scale. We also found no consistent terminology across the sample of Impact statements, thus making comparison of assessment processes and results difficult. Regulatory compliance was found to be the dominant factor influencing the selection of ecosystem components and indicators for use in project assessment, rather than scientific reasoning, followed by the mandate of the responsible government agency for the assessment, public input to the assessment process, and preexisting water licensing arrangements external to the assessment process. The current approach to project-based assessment offered little support for WCEA initiatives. It did not provide a standard set of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators or allow the sharing of information across projects and from the project to the watershed scale. We suggest that determining priority assessment parameters for WCEA requires adoption of a standardized framework of component and indicator terminology, which can then be populated for the watershed of concern based on both watershed-based priorities and project-specific regulatory requirements. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:469–479. © 2012 SETAC
-
valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects an analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments in the south saskatchewan river watershed canada
2013Co-Authors: Murray Ball, Bram F. Noble, Monique G. DubéAbstract:The accumulating effects of human development are threatening water quality and availability. In recognition of the constraints to cumulative effects assessment (CEA) under traditional Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), there is an emerging body of research dedicated to watershed-based cumulative effects assessment (WCEA). To advance the science of WCEA, however, a standard set of ecosystem components and indicators is required that can be used at the watershed scale, to inform effects-based understanding of cumulative change, and at the project scale, to inform regulatory-based project based Impact assessment and mitigation. A major challenge, however, is that it is not clear how such ecosystem components and indicators for WCEA can or should be developed. This study examined the use of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators in EIA practice in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada, to determine whether current practice at the project scale could be "scaled up" to support ecosystem component and indicator development for WCEA. The hierarchy of assessment components and indicators used in a sample of 35 Environmental Impact Assessments was examined and the factors affecting aquatic ecosystem component selection and indicator use were identified. Results showed that public Environmental Impact statements are not necessarily publically accessible, thus limiting opportunities for data and information sharing from the project to the watershed scale. We also found no consistent terminology across the sample of Impact statements, thus making comparison of assessment processes and results difficult. Regulatory compliance was found to be the dominant factor influencing the selection of ecosystem components and indicators for use in project assessment, rather than scientific reasoning, followed by the mandate of the responsible government agency for the assessment, public input to the assessment process, and preexisting water licensing arrangements external to the assessment process. The current approach to project-based assessment offered little support for WCEA initiatives. It did not provide a standard set of aquatic ecosystem components and indicators or allow the sharing of information across projects and from the project to the watershed scale. We suggest that determining priority assessment parameters for WCEA requires adoption of a standardized framework of component and indicator terminology, which can then be populated for the watershed of concern based on both watershed-based priorities and project-specific regulatory requirements.
Ryan A Mcmanamay - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence based indicator approach to guide preliminary Environmental Impact Assessments of hydropower development
2020Co-Authors: Ryan A Mcmanamay, Esther S Parish, Christopher R Derolph, Adam M Witt, William L Graf, Alicia BurtnerAbstract:Global expansion of hydropower resources has increased in recent years to meet growing energy demands and fill worldwide gaps in electricity supply. However, hydropower induces significant Environmental Impacts on river ecosystems - Impacts that are addressed through Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) processes. The need for effective EIA processes is increasing as Environmental regulations are either stressed in developing countries undertaking rapid expansion of hydropower capacity or time- and resource-intensive in developed countries. Part of the challenge in implementing EIAs lies in reaching a consensus among stakeholders regarding the most important Environmental factors as the focus of Impact studies. To help address this gap, we developed a weight-of-evidence approach (and toolkit) as a preliminary and coarse assessment of the most relevant Impacts of hydropower on primary components of the river ecosystem, as identified using river function indicators. Through a science-based questionnaire and predictive model, users identify which Environmental indicators may be Impacted during hydropower development as well as those indicators that have the highest levels of uncertainty and require further investigation. Furthermore, an assessment tool visualizes inter-dependent indicator relationships, which help formulate hypotheses about causal relationships explored through Environmental studies. We apply these tools to four existing hydropower projects and one hypothetical new hydropower project of varying sizes and Environmental contexts. We observed consistencies between the output of our tools and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process (inclusive of EIAs) but also important differences arising from holistic scientific evaluations (our toolkit) versus regulatory policies. The tools presented herein are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the EIA processes that engender Environmental studies without loss of rigor or transparency of rationale necessary for understanding, considering, and mitigating the Environmental consequences of hydropower.
-
a dataset of eco evidence tools to inform early stage Environmental Impact Assessments of hydropower development
2020Co-Authors: Ryan A Mcmanamay, Esther S Parish, Christopher R DerolphAbstract:The datasets described herein provide the foundation for a decision support prototype (DSP) toolkit aimed at assisting stakeholders in determining evidence of which aspects of river ecosystems have been Impacted by hydropower. The DSP toolkit and its application are presented and described in the article "Evidence-based indicator approach to guide preliminary Environmental Impact Assessments of hydropower development" [1]. Development of the DSP and the output for decision support centralize around 42 river function indicators describing the dimensionality of river ecosystems through six main categories: biota and biodiversity, water quality, hydrology, geomorphology, land cover, and river connectivity. Three main tools are represented in the DSP: A science-based questionnaire (SBQ), an Environmental envelope model (EEM), and a river function linkage assessment tool (RFLAT). The SBQ is a structured survey-style questionnaire whose objective is to provide evidence of which indicators have been Impacted by hydropower. Based on a global literature review, 140 questions were developed from general hypotheses regarding the Impacts of dams on rivers. The EEM is a model to predict the likelihood of hydropower Impacting indicators based on a several variables. The intended use of the EEM is for situations of new hydropower development where results of the SBQ are incomplete or highly uncertain. The EEM was developed through the compilation of a dataset containing attributes of dams, reservoirs, and geospatial information on Environmental concerns, which was combined with data on ecological indicators documented at those sites through literature review. The model operates through 247 "envelopes" and weighting factors, representing the individual effect of each variable on each indicator, all available through spreadsheets. Finally, the RFLAT is a tool to examine causal relationships amongst indicators. Inter-indicator relationships were hypothesized based on literature review and summarized into node and edge datasets to represent the structure of a graphical network. Bayes theorem was used estimate conditional probabilities of inter-indicator relationships based on the output of the SBQ. Nodes and edges were imported into R programming environment to visualize ecological indicator networks. The datasets can be expanded upon and enriched with more detailed questions for the SBQ, building upon the EEM with to develop more sophisticated models, and identifying new relationships for the RFALT. Additionally, once the tools are applied to numerous hydropower developments, the output of the tools (e.g. evidence of Impacted indicators) becomes a very useful dataset for meta-analyses of hydropower Impacts.
-
withdrawn evidence based indicator approach to guide Environmental Impact Assessments of hydropower development
2019Co-Authors: Ryan A Mcmanamay, Esther S Parish, Christopher R Derolph, Adam M Witt, William L Graf, Alicia BurtnerAbstract:Abstract Global expansion of renewables, especially hydropower resources, has increased in recent years to meet the growing energy demands and fill worldwide gaps in the supply of electricity. Although expansion of hydropower has slowed in the US within the past four decades, existing hydropower capacity has an increasingly important role in electric power system reliability and resilience. However, hydropower induces significant Environmental effects on river ecosystems – effects that are addressed through Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) processes that vary internationally. The need for effective EIA processes is increasing as Environmental regulations are either stressed in developing countries undertaking rapid expansion of hydropower capacity or time- and resource-intensive in developed countries, like the United States. In response, many have suggested using basin-scale Assessments or sustainability protocols (indicator approaches) to improve decision-making and ensure that best practices are employed during hydropower planning. However, EIAs still serve an important role in understanding the complex, local Environmental effects of hydropower, which are the basis for designing mitigation strategies. To help address this gap, we developed an assemblage of tools that rely on a weight-of-evidence approach to determine the most relevant Impacts of hydropower on primary components of the river ecosystem, as identified using river function indicators. A science-based questionnaire (SBQ) helps users identify which Environmental indicators may be Impacted during hydropower development as well as those indicators that have the highest levels of uncertainty. In situations where questions cannot be answered reliably, we also provide an Environmental-envelope model (EEM) that predicts the likelihood of Impacts to river functions based on attributes of hydropower facilities. The questionnaire, predictive model, and their outputs can assist stakeholders in identifying knowledge gaps and river functions that might require further investigation. Furthermore, we provide a river function linkage assessment tool (RFLAT), which translates the SBQ results into a network visualization of inter-dependent indicator relationships that may help formulate hypotheses about causal relationships that can be explored through Environmental studies. We apply these spreadsheet-based tools to four existing hydropower projects and one hypothetical new hydropower project of varying sizes and Environmental contexts. The prototype tools and visualizations described in this paper will be refined through stakeholder feedback and developed into a decision-support toolkit aimed at increasing the efficiency of the EIA processes that engender Environmental studies but doing so without loss of rigor or transparency of rationale necessary for understanding, considering, and mitigating the Environmental consequences of hydropower.