Ecological Risk Identification Research Articles

Ecological Risk Identification and Ecological Security Pattern Construction of Productive Wetland Landscape

Ecological Risk Identification and Ecological Security Pattern Construction of Productive Wetland Landscape

Contamination, Source Identification, Ecological and Human Health Risks Assessment of Potentially Toxic-Elements in Soils of Typical Rare-Earth Mining Areas.

The mining and leaching processes of rare-earth mines can include the entry of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) into the environment, causing ecological risks and endangering human health. However, the identification of ecological risks and sources of PTEs in rare-earth mining areas is less comprehensive. Hence, we determine the PTE (Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn, V) content in soils around rare-earth mining areas in the south and analyze the ecological health risks, distribution characteristics, and sources of PTEs in the study area using various indices and models. The results showed that the average concentrations of Co, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn were higher than the soil background values, with a maximum of 1.62 times. The spatial distribution of PTEs was not homogeneous and the hot spots were mostly located near roads and mining areas. The ecological risk index and the non-carcinogenic index showed that the contribution was mainly from Co, Pb, and Cr, which accounted for more than 90%. Correlation analysis and PMF models indicated that eight PTEs were positively correlated, and rare-earth mining operations (concentration of 22.85%) may have caused Pb and Cu enrichment in soils in the area, while other anthropogenic sources of pollution were industrial emissions and agricultural pollution. The results of the study can provide a scientific basis for environmental-pollution assessment and prevention in rare-earth mining cities.

Applying the China’s marine resource-environment carrying capacity and spatial development suitability approach to the Bay of Biscay (North-East Atlantic)

The EMOD-PACE project, funded by the European Commission, aimed to promote international ocean governance between EU and China. One of the objectives of EMOD-PACE is to compare European and Chinese modelling approaches for ecosystem vulnerability assessment. In particular, our objective was to test the applicability of the Chinese evaluation approach of resource-environment carrying capacity (MRECC) and spatial development suitability (abbreviated as “double evaluation”) to a European sea (the Bay of Biscay), in the context of marine spatial planning. The methodology involves three different steps: (i) an evaluation of areas of ecological importance, which includes species and habitats (i.e., biodiversity protection) and coastal characteristics; (ii) assessment of current marine development and utilization; and (iii) an ecological risk identification and the evaluation of the MRECC, by intersecting results from (i) and (ii). After collating information for 31 species of interest (fish, reptiles, mammals and birds), seven habitats (seagrass, seaweeds, saltmarshes, fish spawning areas, tidal flats, estuaries and unique habitats), marine protected areas and eight current human activities performed at sea (aquaculture, ports, ocean energy facilities, shipping, aggregate extraction and dredging, fisheries, military areas and tourism and recreation), they were aggregated and intersected (ecological data vs. human activities), and the ecological risk was determined. Since the total area covered by Marine Protected Areas and areas of high ecological importance is 135,372 km2, the available carrying capacity for development of marine activities within the Bay of Biscay is 229,266 km2. When we apply weighting to the calculation of the ecological importance and human activities, the high importance areas increase and the available carrying capacity decreases by 0.2%, to 228,637 km2. In this work we demonstrate that the Chinese double evaluation approach can be adapted and applied to a European sea, but to obtain more accurate results, and more extensive application to different areas are needed. Also, we have identified essential improvements, including better information for a number of species and habitats; more robust methods to identify biodiversity priorities; additional fish life-story traits; include future human activities; risks posed by multiple activities; and use appropriate weights through a stakeholder consultation.

高潜水位煤矿区生态风险识别与评价

PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒 高潜水位煤矿区生态风险识别与评价 DOI: 10.5846/stxb201503050430 作者: 作者单位: 中国矿业大学北京,中国矿业大学北京土地复垦与生态重建研究所,中国矿业大学北京土地复垦与生态重建研究所,北京大学经济学院;北京大学经济学院,中国矿业大学北京土地复垦与生态重建研究所 作者简介: 通讯作者: 中图分类号: TD88 基金项目: 国家自然科学基金项目资助（41401609）；中国矿业大学煤炭资源与安全开采国家重点实验室开放基金项目（SKLCRSM13KFB07） Ecological risk identification and assessment for a coal mine with a high groundwater table Author: Affiliation: State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining,China University of Mining Technology Beijing;China;Institute of Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration,China University of Mining and Technology Beijing;China;School of economics,Peking university,;China,Institute of Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration,China University of Mining and Technology Beijing,Institute of Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration,China University of Mining and Technology Beijing,School of economics,Peking university,Institute of Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration,China University of Mining and Technology Beijing Fund Project: 摘要 | 图/表 | 访问统计 | 参考文献 | 相似文献 | 引证文献 | 资源附件 | 文章评论 摘要:生态风险评价是生态环境保护与管理的重要研究内容，并广泛运用于流域与较大范围的区域尺度的研究。以区域生态风险评价理论为基础，结合高潜水位煤矿区生态环境以及煤炭开采对生态系统造成的危害的特点，通过分析风险源、风险受体、生态终点以及暴露-响应过程，对高潜水位煤矿区生态风险的识别与评价方法进行了研究，构建了典型高潜水位煤矿区的生态风险识别与评价概念模型与空间分析框架，分析了煤矿区生态风险识别的主要技术手段与方法，并构建了以缓冲为主要手段的综合生态风险评价方法。选择山东东滩煤矿作为研究对象，针对研究区内存在的采煤塌陷、洪涝、污染、景观及社会等生态风险类型，定量评价其空间差异，并提出相应的风险防范措施。案例分析结果表明，研究区综合生态风险重度、中度、一般、轻度分别占到研究区的4.70%，64.00%，24.09%，7.20%。生态风险较高的区域主要位于矿区中西部，为煤矸石山、裸露煤炭堆积与发电厂分布区域；中度风险是研究区主要的风险类型。从降低生态风险保障矿区生态安全角度，在未来矿区规划与生态治理过程中，提出了具体的应对措施，包括：（1）注重源头控制；（2）建立高生态风险区域阻隔带；（3）加强污染的监测与控制；（4）采用边开采边治理技术。建议加强生态风险高区域的阻隔，建立生态缓冲带，减缓对整个矿区的综合影响，构建东滩煤矿生态风险防范的空间结构。 Abstract:Ecological risk assessment is one of the most important subdivisions in eco-environmental protection and management, and it is widely used to evaluate ecological risks on both watershed and regional scales. In this study, we conducted identification and ecological assessment by analyzing risk sources, bearer, ecological endpoints, and the exposure-response process on the basis of regional ecological risk assessment coupled with the unique characteristics of mining ecosystems in high groundwater table areas. The identification and evaluation method for ecological risk was studied, and an ecological assessment conceptual model and spatial analysis framework for a coal mine with high ground water were proposed. Furthermore, a comprehensive ecological risk assessment method was proposed on the basis of the spatial buffering theory. The proposed model identifies and assesses mining-induced ecological risks. The Dongtan coal mine in Shandong Province was selected to test this model and framework. The major ecological risks in this mine include land subsidence, floods, water pollution, landscape, and social issues. The degrees of single and comprehensive ecological risk were evaluated. On the basis of the analysis, ecological risk was quantitatively analyzed and spatial strategies for ecological planning in the coal mine were broached. Severe, moderate, general, and mild comprehensive ecological risks were 4.7%, 64%, 24.09%, and 7.2%, respectively. The high ecological risk was located mid-west of the coal mine with sites for coal waste piles, exposed coal, and power plants. Despite the small area occupied, enough attention should be paid to high ecological-risk areas because of their high potential of air, water, and soil pollution. The moderate ecological risk was the dominant risk-type and was present in 64% of the whole region, where most of the mining subsidence is distributed. Mining subsidence triggers flood, farmland loss, and related social issues. The general and low ecological risks were located in the mining industry square area and coal mine edges (where coal pillars protect the ground infrastructure), and were kept at a distance from pollution sources. On the basis of quantitative and spatial ecological risk assessment, specific recommendations were proposed after considering reduced ecological risk and protection from an ecological security perspective for the mine. The countermeasures and suggestions include:(1) Source control. Coal waste piles, exposed coal, and power plants are the main causes of pollution and are considered as point-source pollution; therefore, we recommend that the coal company should focus on source control, improve the comprehensive utilization of coal waste, eliminate exposed coal, and implement monitoring of water and air emissions in power plants. (2) Establishment of barriers for high ecological-risk areas. High ecological-risk areas were established over a long period and cannot be eliminated immediately; therefore, establishment of ecological buffer zones and barriers for mitigating the effects of high ecological risks is strongly recommended. Specific measures include shelterbelt construction and utilization of geotextiles. (3) Improved monitoring and pollution control. Field sampling was not conducted in this study; the coal company should build a monitoring system to assess high pollution levels and spatial distribution of ecological risk areas and consider the dominant wind direction. (4) Concurrent mining and reclamation, filling materials in high groundwater and plain coal mines, and concurrent mining and reclamation technology are recommended to protect the topsoil and improve land reclamation efficiency. 参考文献 相似文献 引证文献

Ecological risk management in coal mining and processing

The article describes the analysis of theoretical and applied aspects of ecological risk management in terms of coal mining and processing companies, as well as assigns and solves tasks on identification of ecological risks, assessment of probability of undesired events, determination of structure of probable damage, assessment of risk, estimation of technological and organizational methods and measures of influence on ecological risk to reduce and avoid it, and decision-making on practical introduction of particular risk management and control measures. The groups of technological and organizational measures aimed to minimize or neutralize risks are considered. The key result of the research is the package of measures of ecological risk reduction, in particular: technologies of ultradeep purification of dielectric liquids; introduction of processing equipment for used-up tyres of heavy open pit dump trucks; formation and updating of quality management system; improvement of efficiency of reclamation of disturbed lands; treatment of hydraulic mining and coal processing waste.

A method for assessing environmental risk: A case study of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, USA

The Science Advisory Board of the US Environmental Protection Agency has recommended that risk reduction strategies become the centerpiece of environmental protection. The goal in developing such strategies is to identify opportunities for greatest reduction of ecological risks. This is a perspective that is significantly more comprehensive than the traditional focus on human health risks arising from environmental degradation. The identification of ecological risks upon which environmental protection efforts should be focused requires an ecological risk assessment methodology that is based on anthropogenic stressors affecting an ecosystem and a set of impaired use criteria. A methodology based on this concept is developed and discussed in this article. The methodology requires that risk values be assigned to each ecosystem stressor-impaired use pair that reflect the degree to which the given stressor contributes to ecosystem risk as measured by the given impaired use criterion. Once these data are available, mathematical analyses based on concepts from fuzzy set theory are performed to obtain a ranking of ecosystem stressors. The methodology has been tested by applying it to a case study involving Green Bay of Lake Michigan. A workshop was held in which 11 persons with extensive knowledge of the Green Bay ecosystem determined risk values through a group-consensus process. The analytical portion of the methodology was then used to rank the ecosystem risks (stressors) from several perspectives, including prevention management and remediation management. The overall conclusion of the workshop participants was that the fuzzy set decision model is a useful and effective methodology for differentiating environmental risk.