A New Assessment Framework for Transience in Hydrogeological Systems.

The importance of transience in the management of hydrogeologic systems is often uncertain. We propose a clear framework for determining the likely importance of transient behavior in groundwater systems in a management context. The framework incorporates information about aquifer hydraulics, hydrological drivers, and time scale of management. It is widely recognized that aquifers respond on different timescales to hydrological change and that hydrological drivers themselves, such as climate, are not stationary in time. We propose that in order to assess whether transient behavior is likely to be of practical importance, three factors need to be examined simultaneously: (1) aquifer response time, which can be expressed in terms of the response to a step hydrological change (τstep ) or periodic change (τcycle ); (2) temporal variation of the dominant hydrological drivers, such as dominant climatic systems in a region; (3) the management timescale and spatial scale of interest. Graphical tools have been developed to examine these factors in conjunction, and assess how important transient behavior is likely to be in response to particular hydrological drivers, and thus which drivers are most likely to induce transience in a specified management timeframe. The method is demonstrated using two case studies; a local system that responds rapidly and is managed on yearly to decadal timeframes and a regional system that exhibits highly delayed responses and was until recently being assessed as a high level nuclear waste repository site. Any practical groundwater resource problem can easily be examined using the proposed framework.

Interpretation and misinterpretation of warning signage: perceptions of rockfalls in a naturalistic setting.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the factors relating to non-adherence to warning signs about falling rocks from coastal cliff faces. Face-to-face interviews (n = 62) in a naturalistic setting (in the vicinity of a high-risk rockfall area) were conducted to investigate attention to and comprehension of warning signs, as well as beliefs relating to non-adherence of the signage. It was found that, while most participants could correctly identify the danger in the area and had noticed the warning signage, less than half of the participants could correctly interpret the signage. The perception of danger did not differ significantly between the participants who had, or had not, entered the high-risk zone. Differences in knowledge and beliefs between local residents and visitors to the area were identified. It was concluded that the warning signs did not provide enough detail for people to make informed decisions about safe behaviours. Comprehension of the signage may have been hampered by a lack of prior-knowledge of the particular risk, a failure to think carefully about the situation (i.e. low-effort processing), and the pictorial representation on the signs misleading the participants as to the true danger.