A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: II. Defining assessment end points, indicators, and functional subregions

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the US Department of Energy and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, has been evaluating the feasibility of an effects-based (critical loads) approach to atmospheric pollutant regulation and abatement. The rat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental management (New York) 1993-05, Vol.17 (3), p.335-341
Main Authors: Hunsaker, Carolyn, Graham, Robin, Turner, Robert S., Ringold, Paul L., Holdren, George R., Strickland, Timothy C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
290300 - Energy Planning & Policy- Environment, Health, & Safety
540120 - Environment, Atmospheric- Chemicals Monitoring & Transport- (1990-)
560300 - Chemicals Metabolism & Toxicology
AIR POLLUTION
DEPOSITION
DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS
ECOSYSTEMS
ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
EVALUATION
EXPERIMENT PLANNING
INDICATORS
PLANNING
POLLUTANTS
POLLUTION
RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTANT EFFECTS ON LIVING ORGS. AND BIOL. MAT
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The United States Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the US Department of Energy and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, has been evaluating the feasibility of an effects-based (critical loads) approach to atmospheric pollutant regulation and abatement. The rationale used to develop three of the six steps in a flexible assessment framework (Strickland and others, 1992) is presented along with a discussion of a variety of implementation approaches and their ramifications. The rationale proposes that it is necessary to provide an explicit statement of the condition of the resource that is considered valuable (assessment end point) because: (1) individual ecosystem components may be more or less sensitive to deposition, (2) it is necessary to select indicators of ecosystem condition that can be objectively measured and that reflect changes in the quality of the assessment end point, and (3) acceptable status (i.e., value of indicator and quality of assessment end point at critical load) must be defined. The rationale also stresses the importance of defining the assessment regions and subregions to improve the analysis and understanding of the indicator response to deposition.
ISSN:0364-152X
1432-1009
DOI:10.1007/BF02394676