• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Water Resources Journal >To fish or cut bait? A response to comments from Rosenfeld and Ptolemy
【24h】

To fish or cut bait? A response to comments from Rosenfeld and Ptolemy

机译：钓鱼还是切饵？回应罗森菲尔德和托勒密的评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Hatfield and Paul (2015) compared predicted performance of six desktop hydrological methods for determining environmental flows and presented three main conclusions: (1) divergent performance among the desktop methods, (2) divergent performance among streams, and (3) a fundamental trade-off between instream and out-of-stream benefits. The results indicated that it is vital for users of these tools to be aware of performance differences when selecting one desktop method over another, but also to be transparent when making water use decisions by clearly stating the environmental and water use objectives and to measure performance against those objectives. Rosenfeld and Ptolemy (2016) provide a critique of the assessment and our response focuses on two key aspects of the critique, selection of performance measures (PMs) and consideration of value-based trade-offs. The PMs we used were developed to compare the desktop methods, not to undertake a stream-specific assessment and were adequate to expose trade-offs and prioritize information needs. We reiterate the need to consider the context of each water use decision and to adjust the PMs for any new context, where necessary; we also emphasize that more refined PMs may not be required to answer a specific resource management problem. With respect to evaluating trade-offs and making decisions, we insist that science cannot produce a right answer' to water use or any other resource management problem; decision-makers reviewing a water use application must make value-based judgments about how precautionary to be. Science provides relevant information to the resource management question being considered. A call for better predictive models needs to be carefully evaluated, since we are likely to learn more by monitoring biological outcomes of flow regime changes, and such monitoring work continues to be insufficiently supported in many jurisdictions.
机译：Hatfield和Paul（2015）比较了用于确定环境流量的六种台式水文方法的预测性能，并提出了三个主要结论：（1）台式方法之间的性能差异，（2）溪流之间的性能差异，（3）基本交易-在流内和流外收益之间切换。结果表明，对于这些工具的用户而言，至关重要的是，在选择一种桌面方法而不是另一种桌面方法时，要意识到性能差异，而且在通过明确说明环境和用水目标并根据性能来衡量性能时做出用水决策时要透明这些目标。 Rosenfeld和Ptolemy（2016）对评估进行了评论，我们的回应侧重于批评的两个关键方面，即绩效指标的选择和基于价值的取舍。我们使用的PM是为了比较台式机方法而开发的，不进行特定于数据流的评估，并且足以暴露各种取舍和优先考虑信息需求。我们重申有必要考虑每个用水决策的背景，并在必要时针对任何新背景调整PM。我们还强调，可能不需要更完善的PM来解决特定的资源管理问题。关于权衡取舍和做出决策，我们坚持认为科学不能为用水或任何其他资源管理问题提供正确的答案。审查用水申请的决策者必须对基于预防措施的价值做出基于价值的判断。科学为正在考虑的资源管理问题提供了相关信息。需要更好地评估更好的预测模型的呼吁，因为我们可能会通过监测流动状态变化的生物学结果来学到更多，而且在许多司法管辖区，这种监测工作仍然没有得到足够的支持。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Canadian Water Resources Journal》 |2017年第1期|97-100|共4页
  • 作者

    Hatfield T.; Paul A. J.;

  • 作者单位

    Ecofish Res Ltd, Victoria, BC, Canada;

    Alberta Environm & Pk, Fish & Wildlife, Cochrane, AB, Canada;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号