You are here:
COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS AMONG DIFFERENT SCALED ASSESSMENTS
Citation:
Mehaffey, M H. COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS AMONG DIFFERENT SCALED ASSESSMENTS. Presented at International Association for Landscape Ecology, Las Vegas, NV, March 29-April 3, 2004.
Impact/Purpose:
Provide regional-scale, spatially explicit information on the extent and distribution of both stressors and sensitive resources.
Develop and evaluate techniques to integrate information on exposure and effects so that relative risk can be assessed and management actions can be prioritized.
Predict consequences of potential environmental changes under alternative future scenarios.
Effectively communicate economic and quality of life trade-offs associated with alternative environmental policies.
Develop techniques to prioritize areas for ecological restoration.
Identify information gaps and recommend actions to improve monitoring and focus research.
There are two task objectives that reflect the work done by LCB in support of the ReVA Program objectives:
Provide information management, spatial analysis support, and data and information accessibility for the ReVA Program
Provide program management support, technology transfer, and outreach.
Description:
A comparison of a regional (multi-state) and local (multi-county) scale assessment was done to evaluate similarities and differences in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of landscape data. The study areas included EP A Region 3 a11d a sub-region spanning North and South
Carolina centered around Charlotte and Rockhill. We found that while broad scale data at a watershed unit was useful to regional managers and enabled targeted monitoring and special projects they were of less use at the local level. Local decision makers needed more specific
information in order to address issues such as traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, commuter time, and bringing in new businesses. In order to meet these needs more specialized data and smaller measurement units were required. We found the best unit to use at the local area was aggregated traffic area zones. Additional data needs included a traffic demand model, transit
routes, bike lanes, vehicle miles traveled, and average distance to work In conclusion we found that while larger scale landscape data such as acid deposition, forest fragmentation, urban sprawl, and economic and demographic trends provided information about both regional and local scales a more detailed assessment was required to enable local decision makers to address specific needs.