10.6084/m9.figshare.3520673.v1
Sigrid D. P. Smith
Sigrid D. P.
Smith
Peter B. McIntyre
Peter
B. McIntyre
Benjamin S. Halpern
Benjamin
S. Halpern
Roger M. Cooke
Roger M.
Cooke
Adrienne L. Marino
Adrienne L.
Marino
Gregory L. Boyer
Gregory L.
Boyer
Andy Buchsbaum
Andy
Buchsbaum
G. A. Burton Jr.
G. A.
Burton
Linda M. Campbell
Linda M.
Campbell
Jan J. H. Ciborowski
Jan
J. H. Ciborowski
Patrick J. Doran
Patrick
J. Doran
Dana M. Infante
Dana M.
Infante
Lucinda B. Johnson
Lucinda
B. Johnson
Jennifer G. Read
Jennifer G.
Read
Joan B. Rose
Joan B.
Rose
Edward S. Rutherford
Edward
S. Rutherford
Alan D. Steinman
Alan D.
Steinman
J. David Allan
J. David
Allan
Supplement 1. The relative potential impact of 50 stressors in 30 habitats in the Laurentian Great Lakes based on expert elicitation.
Wiley
2016
environmental threats
aquatic
expert judgment
expert elicitation
cumulative impact mapping
weight of evidence
questionnaire
ecological risk assessment
Environmental Science
Ecology
2016-08-04 21:28:20
Dataset
https://wiley.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Supplement_1_The_relative_potential_impact_of_50_stressors_in_30_habitats_in_the_Laurentian_Great_Lakes_based_on_expert_elicitation_/3520673
<h2>File List</h2><div>
<p><a href="gleam_survey_ms_supp1_score_matrix.csv">gleam_survey_ms_supp1_score_matrix.csv</a> (MD5: fa3b7c9cbf4efb2dd00d27b78e65a138) Impact ratings (50 stressors x 30 habitats)</p>
</div><h2>Description</h2><div>
<p>This file contains the potential impact of each of 50 environmental stressors on ecosystem condition in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Data were derived from two parts of an online survey completed by scientific researchers, natural resource managers, and non-governmental organization representatives. In one part (Part III of the survey; Appendix A), respondents ranked 20 hypothetical scenarios to derive weights for 5 components of ecosystem impact (spatial extent, temporal frequency, ecological scope, magnitude of change, and recovery time). In the other part (Part IV; Appendix A), respondents rated the 5 components for each stressor in their chosen focal lake(s) and ecosystem zone(s). A weighted sum was used to derive these 0 (no impact) - 5 (highest impact)range relative ratings.</p>
<p>In the data file, columns are environmental stressors (2 capital letters for category, and 3–4 lower case letters for stressor name); rows are habitats (lake–zone combinations). Abbreviations for lakes, zones, and stressors follow.</p>
-- TABLE: Please see in attached file. --
</div>