Explore the vast range of titles available.

p strongIntroduces key terms, quantitative and qualitative research, debates, and histories for Environmental and Nature Studies/strong Understandings of \"nature\" have expanded and changed, but the word has not lost importance at any level of discourse: it continues to hold a key place in conversations surrounding thought, ethics, and aesthetics. Nowhere is this more evident than in the interdisciplinary field of environmental studies. em Keywords for Environmental Studies/em analyzes the central terms and debates currently structuring the most exciting research in and across environmental studies, including the environmental humanities, environmental social sciences, sustainability sciences, and the sciences of nature. Sixty essays from humanists, social scientists, and scientists, each written about a single term, reveal the broad range of quantitative and qualitative approaches critical to the state of the field today. From \"ecotourism\" to \"ecoterrorism,\" from \"genome\" to \"species,\" this accessible volume illustrates the ways in which scholars are collaborating across disciplinary boundaries to reach shared understandings of key issues-such as extreme weather events or increasing global environmental inequities-in order to facilitate the pursuit of broad collective goals and actions. This book underscores the crucial realization that every discipline has a stake in the central environmental questions of our time, and that interdisciplinary conversations not only enhance, but are requisite to environmental studies today. Visit emkeywords.nyupress.org/em for online essays, teaching resources, and more./p

Environmental epidemiologists strive to conduct research that will lead to actions that improve public health outcomes. The risk assessment process is the bridge between scientific research and policies that can impact public health. Historically, epidemiologic studies have not frequently been used to inform US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessments outside of the context of air pollution. There are certain practices that the epidemiology community can adopt to facilitate the integration of epidemiologic studies into policy-relevant assessments. The central objective of this commentary is to provide guidance to epidemiologists that will enhance the value of their studies for US EPA assessments. First, we provide an overview of the US EPA dose-response and toxicity value derivation to increase literacy about these processes across the environmental epidemiology community. Second, we provide suggestions for modeling and reporting to facilitate the use of epidemiologic studies in US EPA dose-response assessments that form the basis for decision-making. Epidemiologic research can be used in all aspects of dose-response assessment, which involves identifying a point of departure followed by specific adjustments and extrapolations to identify a toxicity value intended to prevent adverse effects across the population. To facilitate the integration of epidemiologic research into the dose-response assessment process, we provide specific recommendations for additional modeling (e.g., modeling in the low exposure range; exploring nonlinearity) and reporting (e.g., sufficient information to conduct study evaluation; more details on exposure levels in the population) in published epidemiologic research. Many of these suggestions require only additional reporting in the final manuscript or associated appendixes but would have substantial impact on the contribution of the published work to the assessment process. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15203.

The phrase “hot spots and hot moments” first entered the lexicon in 2003, following the publication of the paper “Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems” by McClain and others (Ecosystems 6:301–312, 2003). This paper described the potential for rare places and rare events to exert a disproportionate influence on the movement of elements at the scale of landscapes and ecosystems. Here, we examine how the cleverly named hot spot and hot moment concept (hereafter HSHM) has influenced biogeochemistry and ecosystem science over the last 13 years. We specifically examined the extent to which the HSHM concept has: (1) motivated research aimed at understanding how and why biogeochemical behavior varies across spatiotemporal scales; (2) improved our ability to detect HSHM phenomena; and (3) influenced our approaches to restoration and ecosystem management practices. We found that the HSHM concept has provided a highly fertile framework for a substantial volume of research on the spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrient cycling, and in doing so, has improved our understanding of when and where biogeochemical rates are maximized. Despite the high usage of the term, we found limited examples of rigorous statistical or modeling approaches that would allow ecosystem scientists to not only identify, but scale the aggregate impact of HSHM on ecosystem processes. We propose that the phrase “hot spots and hot moments” includes two implicit assumptions that may actually be limiting progress in applying the concept. First, by differentiating “hot spots” from “hot moments,” the phrase separates the spatial and temporal components of biogeochemical behavior. Instead, we argue that the temporal dynamics of a putative hot spot are a fundamental trait that should be used in their description. Second, the adjective “hot” implicitly suggests that a place or a time must be dichotomously classified as “hot or not.” We suggest instead that each landscape of interest contains a wide range of biogeochemical process rates that respond to critical drivers, and the gradations of this biogeochemical topography are of greater interest than the maximum peaks. For these reasons, we recommend replacing the HSHM terminology with the more nuanced term ecosystem control points. “Ecosystem control” suggests that the rate must be of sufficient magnitude or ubiquity to affect dynamics of the ecosystem, while “points” allows for descriptions that simultaneously incorporate both spatial and temporal dynamics. We further suggest that there are at least four distinct types of ecosystem control points whose influence arises through distinct hydrologic and biogeochemical mechanisms. Our goal is to provide the tools with which researchers can develop testable hypotheses regarding the spatiotemporal dynamics of biogeochemistry that will stimulate advances in more accurately identifying, modeling and scaling biogeochemical heterogeneity to better understand ecosystem processes.

In an era of rapid coastal population expansion and habitat degradation, restoration is becoming an increasingly important strategy for combating coastal habitat loss and maintaining ecosystem services. In particular, techniques that use habitat restoration alone or restoration in combination with built infrastructure to provide coastal protective services are growing in popularity. These novel approaches, often called living shorelines, have the potential to expand the reach and applicability of coastal restoration projects. To understand how living shorelines research has expanded over time, we conducted a scoping review of English-language peer-reviewed articles. We included papers that self-identified as living shorelines research, as well as studies that used other related terminology, to investigate trends in publication rates, geography, site characteristics, and outcomes measured. Using a systematic search protocol, we compiled a database of 46 papers; the earliest study was published in 1981, and the earliest study to use the term living shoreline was published in 2008. Eighty-three percent of studies were conducted in North America, followed by 11% in Asia, and 7% in Europe, but the use of the term living shoreline was almost exclusively restricted to North America. Saltmarshes, oyster reefs, mangroves, and freshwater vegetation were used in living shoreline designs, but 91% of studies also incorporated structural materials like oyster shell and rock. Most living shorelines research was conducted at sites that were less than five years old. The vast majority of studies exclusively reported on ecological outcomes (89%), and of those, ecological processes were measured in 74% of studies. Processes related to coastal protection were measured most frequently (52% of ecological studies), followed by biological interactions, water filtration, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration. All together, our data suggest that living shorelines research is on the rise, but there is a need for more long-term data, socio-economic research, further consensus on the terminology used to describe different types of projects, and research on the types of living shorelines that are most effective in different environmental contexts. Future long-term and interdisciplinary research will help to elucidate the full effects of living shorelines.

In biomonitoring and laboratory studies, it is typical to measure a battery of molecular, biochemical, and cytogenetic biomarkers to evaluate the effects of xenobiotics in biota. However, summarizing the results of several biomarkers to inform laypersons and environmental agencies is still a challenge for researchers and environmental specialists. To address this issue, researchers have developed indexes such as the Integrated Biomarker Responses (IBR) and Integrated Biomarker Response version 2 (IBRv2) to summarize all biomarkers responses into a single value. Unfortunately, these indexes do not preserve the original biological variability, which hampers subsequent statistical analyses. In this study, we created new versions of IBR and IBRv2, which preserve individual data variability and can be used in typical statistical analyses. The new Integrated Biomarker Responses individual (IBRi), Integrated Biomarker Responses version 2 individual (IBRv2i) and Weighted Integrated Biomarker Responses version 2 individual (Weighted IBRv2i) indexes correlated with the original IBR and IBRv2 indexes and were able to detect differences among experimental groups in a simulated and case studies. Using the IBRi, IBRv2i, or Weighted IBRv2i indexes is advantageous because they maintain the data variability of the experimental groups and can be analyzed using hypothesis testing statistics like any other parameter. Additionally, this approach can help translate technical scientific terminology into a more accessible language suitable for environmental governmental agencies and decision-makers.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses non-targeted analysis (NTA) to characterize potential risks associated with environmental pollutants and anthropogenic materials. NTA is used throughout EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to support the needs of states, tribes, EPA regions, EPA program offices, and other outside partners. NTA methods are complex and conducted via myriad instrumental platforms and software products. Comprehensive standards do not yet exist to guide NTA quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. Furthermore, no single software tool meets EPA’s needs for QA/QC review and documentation. Considering these factors, ORD developed “INTERPRET NTA” ( Inter face for P rocessing, Re viewing, and T ranslating NTA data) to support liquid chromatography (LC) high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) NTA experiments. For purposes of NTA QA/QC, INTERPRET NTA (1) calculates data quality statistics related to accuracy, precision, and reproducibility; (2) produces interactive visualizations to facilitate quality threshold optimization; and (3) outputs comprehensive documentation for inclusion in official reports and research publications. INTERPRET NTA has additional functionality to facilitate rapid chemical identification and risk-based prioritization. The current article describes only the QA/QC elements of INTERPRET NTA’s MS 1 workflow, which are demonstrated using published data from a de facto water reuse study. INTERPRET NTA, in its current form, exists primarily to meet the needs of EPA and its partners, but a public release is planned. Workflows, terminology, and outputs of INTERPRET NTA provide a focal point for necessary discussions on the harmonization of NTA QA/QC practices. Graphical abstract

The United States has experienced a boom in natural gas production due to recent technological innovations that have enabled this resource to be produced from shale formations. We reviewed the body of evidence related to exposure pathways in order to evaluate the potential environmental public health impacts of shale gas development. We highlight what is currently known and identify data gaps and research limitations by addressing matters of toxicity, exposure pathways, air quality, and water quality. There is evidence of potential environmental public health risks associated with shale gas development. Several studies suggest that shale gas development contributes to ambient air concentrations of pollutants known to be associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Similarly, an increasing body of studies suggest that water contamination risks exist through a variety of environmental pathways, most notably during wastewater transport and disposal, and via poor zonal isolation of gases and fluids due to structural integrity impairment of cement in gas wells. Despite a growing body of evidence, data gaps persist. Most important, there is a need for more epidemiological studies to assess associations between risk factors, such as air and water pollution, and health outcomes among populations living in close proximity to shale gas operations.

Climate change adaptation is a rapidly evolving field in conservation biology and includes a range of strategies from resisting to actively directing change on the landscape. The term ‘climate change resilience,’ frequently used to characterize adaptation strategies, deserves closer scrutiny because it is ambiguous, often misunderstood, and difficult to apply consistently across disciplines and spatial and temporal scales to support conservation efforts. Current definitions of resilience encompass all aspects of adaptation from resisting and absorbing change to reorganizing and transforming in response to climate change. However, many stakeholders are unfamiliar with this spectrum of definitions and assume the more common meaning of returning to a previous state after a disturbance. Climate change, however, is unrelenting and intensifying, characterized by both directional shifts in baseline conditions and increasing variability in extreme events. This ongoing change means that scientific understanding and management responses must develop concurrently, iteratively, and collaboratively, in a science-management partnership. Divergent concepts of climate change resilience impede cross-jurisdictional adaptation efforts and complicate use of adaptive management frameworks. Climate change adaptation practitioners require clear terminology to articulate management strategies and the inherent tradeoffs involved in adaptation. Language that distinguishes among strategies that seek to resist change, accommodate change, and direct change (i.e., persistence, autonomous change, and directed change) is prerequisite to clear communication about climate change adaptation goals and management intentions in conservation areas.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has evolved as an environmental management and sustainability tool. Despite common principles shared by EIA globally, there are considerable variations in EIA processes across countries. In this paper, we reviewed and compared EIA processes of China, Queensland State of Australia and Nepal considering five key steps (selection of consultants, report preparation, public participation, report review and approval, and monitoring and evaluations) of EIA. Our review indicated that the EIA is well recognised in legal instruments in all state and countries under consideration and there are both similarities and differences in key steps of EIA. Monitoring of EIA recommendations and the integration of feedbacks from the past and current practices are important in improving EIA processes. This study also found that there are elements for possible improvement in existing EIA processes by each state and country introducing the best practices from others’ EIA system. Some of the practices that Nepal can follow from the EIA processes of Queensland and China are licensing and accreditation of individuals and firms to conduct EIA, establishment of separate monitoring unit within regulating department, development of clear guidelines for approvals and monitoring, and the use of independent third-party auditing in EIA monitoring. The findings of this paper are useful in revising and improving EIA policies, practices and processes in the selected state, countries and elsewhere.