dc.contributor.author |
Murray, K
|
en_US |
dc.contributor.author |
Claassen, Marius
|
en_US |
dc.date.accessioned |
2007-03-26T12:14:05Z |
en_US |
dc.date.accessioned |
2007-06-07T10:08:13Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2007-03-26T12:14:05Z |
en_US |
dc.date.available |
2007-06-07T10:08:13Z |
|
dc.date.copyright |
|
en_US |
dc.date.issued |
1999-10 |
en_US |
dc.identifier.citation |
Murray, K. and Claassen, M. 1999. Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines. Water SA, vol. 25(4), pp 513-518 |
en_US |
dc.identifier.issn |
0378-4738 |
en_US |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10204/2064
|
en_US |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10204/2064
|
|
dc.description.abstract |
In order to facilitate a common understanding, on-going debate and increasing application of ecological risk assessment (ERA) in South Africa, the ERA process of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been summarised and evaluated for South African conditions, Many of the individual steps in the process have been interpreted and reworded in order to improve communication of the concepts. The basic process is unchanged though a few minor changes are recommended as improvements. A comparison is also made with integrated environmental management (IEM). It is noted that ERA addresses many of the key principles underpinning IEM, including consultation with interested and affected parties which provides an opportunity for public and specialist input into the decision-making process. However, there are some differences though more in degree than in principle. Of importance is that the ERA framework provides explicitly for quantification of all aspects of an assessment in an IEM procedure. |
en_US |
dc.format.extent |
52054 bytes |
en_US |
dc.format.mimetype |
application/pdf |
en_US |
dc.language.iso |
en |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
Water Research Commission |
en_US |
dc.rights |
Copyright: 1999 Water Research Commission |
en_US |
dc.source |
|
en_US |
dc.subject |
US Environmental protection agency |
en_US |
dc.subject |
EPA |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Ecological risk assessment |
en_US |
dc.subject |
ERA process |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Integrated environmental management |
en_US |
dc.subject |
IEM |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Ecological risks guidelines |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Water resources |
en_US |
dc.title |
Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |
dc.identifier.apacitation |
Murray, K., & Claassen, M. (1999). Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines. http://hdl.handle.net/10204/2064 |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.chicagocitation |
Murray, K, and Marius Claassen "Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines." (1999) http://hdl.handle.net/10204/2064 |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.vancouvercitation |
Murray K, Claassen M. Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines. 1999; http://hdl.handle.net/10204/2064. |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.ris |
TY - Article
AU - Murray, K
AU - Claassen, Marius
AB - In order to facilitate a common understanding, on-going debate and increasing application of ecological risk assessment (ERA) in South Africa, the ERA process of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been summarised and evaluated for South African conditions, Many of the individual steps in the process have been interpreted and reworded in order to improve communication of the concepts. The basic process is unchanged though a few minor changes are recommended as improvements. A comparison is also made with integrated environmental management (IEM). It is noted that ERA addresses many of the key principles underpinning IEM, including consultation with interested and affected parties which provides an opportunity for public and specialist input into the decision-making process. However, there are some differences though more in degree than in principle. Of importance is that the ERA framework provides explicitly for quantification of all aspects of an assessment in an IEM procedure.
DA - 1999-10
DB - ResearchSpace
DP - CSIR
KW - US Environmental protection agency
KW - EPA
KW - Ecological risk assessment
KW - ERA process
KW - Integrated environmental management
KW - IEM
KW - Ecological risks guidelines
KW - Water resources
LK - https://researchspace.csir.co.za
PY - 1999
SM - 0378-4738
T1 - Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines
TI - Interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10204/2064
ER -
|
en_ZA |