量化土壤安全评价框架的连通性维度

Julio C. Pachón Maldonado , Emma C. Leonard , Damien J. Field , Katie McRobert , Richard Heath , Alex B. McBratney
{"title":"量化土壤安全评价框架的连通性维度","authors":"Julio C. Pachón Maldonado ,&nbsp;Emma C. Leonard ,&nbsp;Damien J. Field ,&nbsp;Katie McRobert ,&nbsp;Richard Heath ,&nbsp;Alex B. McBratney","doi":"10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Connectivity is one of the five dimensions within the Soil Security Assessment Framework, designed to measure the cognitive and experiential bonds that stakeholders have with soils. However, a quantifiable framework integrating soil connectivity with the broader assessment framework has been lacking. This study addresses this gap by introducing a novel framework that assesses soil connectivity through knowledge, action, and attitude indicators. Using an online self-evaluation tool, the framework was applied to Australian land managers, focusing on the connectivity of two soil functions and six soil threats. The framework includes: utility graphs for each indicator; a method for nuanced interpretation of each soil role and connectivity indicators; spatial components; and automatic feedback to stakeholders. Our results indicate that knowledge indicators are consistently high across the country, while attitude utilities vary most and are often lowest; education had no effect, and younger stakeholders stood out for significantly lower, though still high, utility values. The study also identifies specific soil roles which require strengthening in different geographic regions. Despite the generally high levels of connectivity, the threat to soils by salinisation emerges as the soil role with the lowest connectivity utility. However, no significant correlation was found between the threat to soils by salinisation utility values and stakeholders' age or educational level, suggesting that other factors, possibly spatial or environmental, are more important. This study displays the importance of assessing knowledge, action, and attitude indicators when assessing connectivity and obtaining spatial information for spatial analysis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74839,"journal":{"name":"Soil security","volume":"17 ","pages":"Article 100175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying the connectivity dimension of the soil security assessment framework\",\"authors\":\"Julio C. Pachón Maldonado ,&nbsp;Emma C. Leonard ,&nbsp;Damien J. Field ,&nbsp;Katie McRobert ,&nbsp;Richard Heath ,&nbsp;Alex B. McBratney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Connectivity is one of the five dimensions within the Soil Security Assessment Framework, designed to measure the cognitive and experiential bonds that stakeholders have with soils. However, a quantifiable framework integrating soil connectivity with the broader assessment framework has been lacking. This study addresses this gap by introducing a novel framework that assesses soil connectivity through knowledge, action, and attitude indicators. Using an online self-evaluation tool, the framework was applied to Australian land managers, focusing on the connectivity of two soil functions and six soil threats. The framework includes: utility graphs for each indicator; a method for nuanced interpretation of each soil role and connectivity indicators; spatial components; and automatic feedback to stakeholders. Our results indicate that knowledge indicators are consistently high across the country, while attitude utilities vary most and are often lowest; education had no effect, and younger stakeholders stood out for significantly lower, though still high, utility values. The study also identifies specific soil roles which require strengthening in different geographic regions. Despite the generally high levels of connectivity, the threat to soils by salinisation emerges as the soil role with the lowest connectivity utility. However, no significant correlation was found between the threat to soils by salinisation utility values and stakeholders' age or educational level, suggesting that other factors, possibly spatial or environmental, are more important. This study displays the importance of assessing knowledge, action, and attitude indicators when assessing connectivity and obtaining spatial information for spatial analysis.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil security\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006224000492\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006224000492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

连通性是土壤安全评估框架的五个维度之一,旨在衡量利益攸关方与土壤之间的认知和经验联系。然而,一直缺乏将土壤连通性与更广泛的评估框架相结合的可量化框架。本研究通过引入一个通过知识、行动和态度指标评估土壤连通性的新框架来解决这一差距。使用在线自我评估工具,该框架应用于澳大利亚土地管理者,重点关注两种土壤功能和六种土壤威胁的连通性。该框架包括:每个指标的效用图;对每个土壤作用和连通性指标进行细致解释的方法;空间组件;自动反馈给利益相关者。我们的研究结果表明,全国各地的知识指标一直很高,而态度效用变化最大,往往最低;教育没有影响,年轻的利益相关者的效用价值虽然仍然很高,但明显较低。该研究还确定了在不同地理区域需要加强的特定土壤作用。尽管连通性普遍较高,但盐碱化对土壤的威胁是连通性效用最低的土壤角色。然而,盐碱化效用值对土壤的威胁与利益相关者的年龄或教育水平之间没有发现显著的相关性,这表明其他因素,可能是空间或环境因素,更为重要。本研究显示了在评估连通性和获取空间信息进行空间分析时,评估知识、行动和态度指标的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying the connectivity dimension of the soil security assessment framework
Connectivity is one of the five dimensions within the Soil Security Assessment Framework, designed to measure the cognitive and experiential bonds that stakeholders have with soils. However, a quantifiable framework integrating soil connectivity with the broader assessment framework has been lacking. This study addresses this gap by introducing a novel framework that assesses soil connectivity through knowledge, action, and attitude indicators. Using an online self-evaluation tool, the framework was applied to Australian land managers, focusing on the connectivity of two soil functions and six soil threats. The framework includes: utility graphs for each indicator; a method for nuanced interpretation of each soil role and connectivity indicators; spatial components; and automatic feedback to stakeholders. Our results indicate that knowledge indicators are consistently high across the country, while attitude utilities vary most and are often lowest; education had no effect, and younger stakeholders stood out for significantly lower, though still high, utility values. The study also identifies specific soil roles which require strengthening in different geographic regions. Despite the generally high levels of connectivity, the threat to soils by salinisation emerges as the soil role with the lowest connectivity utility. However, no significant correlation was found between the threat to soils by salinisation utility values and stakeholders' age or educational level, suggesting that other factors, possibly spatial or environmental, are more important. This study displays the importance of assessing knowledge, action, and attitude indicators when assessing connectivity and obtaining spatial information for spatial analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Soil security
Soil security Soil Science
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
90 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信