spatial pattern of korean major 38 estuaries and …...spatial pattern of korean major 38 estuaries...
TRANSCRIPT
Spatial Pattern of Korean Major 38 Estuaries and their Relationship with
Land‐based Activities
CHANG, Won Keun and Jungho NAM
Korea Maritime Institute, KOREA
The ninth EMCES International Conference
27-31, Aug. 2011 Baltimore, MD USA
I. Backgrounds
II. Current Policy and Science for Coastal
Environment Protection
III. Why enclosed sea area ?
Contents
I. Backgrounds
History of Coastal and Marine Environment Protection
Source : modified from Nam and Kang(2003)
• MOE• Agenda 21 Ch. 17• Survey & Research• Red tides, Oil spills• Wetlands loss
• MOMAF• Introduction of ICM• New laws & Policies• Investment expansion• Int’l cooperation
1996
Emergence of
New Concepts
Formulation of
Institutions
Watershed-based
approach
1992 2001
Episodic
Management
BAT(End-of-Pipe Control)
Precautionary(Front-of-Pipe Control)
• TPLMS introduction in 3 River basins
• Coastal & Marine Protected AreaS(COMPAS)
• Coastal Environment Management Areas(CEMAs, SMAs, etc.)
Ecosystem-based
approach
2006
• HABs, Oil spills• Reclamations
• TPLMS introduction in Han River basin
• NPA (2006)• TPLMS in Masan Bay(2008)
• Global Cooperation• Global Warming• Marine Spatial Planning
2010
[ Water quality (COD) standard in Korea]
COD CharacteristicsNote
(Use of Waters)
Grade I
(<1mg/L)
No artificial facilities
Low utilization & development density Swimmable
&
FishableGrade II
(1~2mg/L)
Developed area
No Heavy metals or POPs in
environments
Grade III
(2~4mg/L)
Highly developed estuaries
Heavy metals or POPs in several
area
Only for industrial
and navigational
activities
Guideline of Water Quality
Status of Overall Coastal Water Quality
67 Mgmt. Area
Sea
Watershed
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
전국연안 서해안 남해안 동해안 제주도연안
TN (‘05~’09)
Unit : mg/L
II
III
I
SouthWest East Jeju Is.Overall
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
전국연안 서해안 남해안 동해안 제주도연안
TP(‘05~’09)
단위 : mg/L
II
III
I
SouthWest East Jeju Is.Overall
II. Current Policies and Scientific Knowledge
for Coastal Environmental Protection
Coastal Water Quality Targets(‘07.10)
Public Notice (’07.10)- 66 Coastal Units
- W/Q Targets (COD-based)
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
Emission
Response
(Evrn., Ecosystem, Human)
Fate & Transport
Human Activities Natural Processes
Exposure
Mgmt.
&
Action
Plan
Economic Impacts
COD, N, P,
Trace Metal, POPs,
Reclamation, etc.
Land
Marine
Ecosystem
Emission
Human Activities Natural Processes
Concept of Environmental Mgmt. of Coastal Waters
National Assessment
(every 5 year)
Water QualityItems : COD, TN, TP, HABs, SS, Chlo-a, etc.
Criteria : Achieve Water Quality Target or Not ?
Sediment Quality
Polluted ?
Area of Concern
Urban
Yes
Source
determined ?
Pressure from Land-
based Activities
RuralIndustrial
Unknown
Re-
Assessm
et
Yes
No
Items : 7 Heavy Metals(Cu, Ni, As, Pb, etc)
Criteria : ERL, ERL, etc.
Item : 8(Pop., Ag., Capacity of Sewage Treatment, Imperviousness,
etc.)
Tool : Non-parametric Stats.
Classification of Mgmt. Type
of Area of Concern
General AreaNo
Flow Chart of Environmental Mgmt. of Coastal Waters
Unit No. COD TN TP Sum Rank Name of Unit
3 0.933 0.761 0.907 2.601 1 시화호
10 0.829 0.836 0.861 2.526 2 군산연안
13 0.556 0.926 0.948 2.430 3 함평만
37 0.914 0.674 0.761 2.348 4 마산만
12 0.803 0.663 0.868 2.335 5 고창연안
38 0.917 0.588 0.801 2.305 6 행암만
2 0.587 0.809 0.890 2.286 7 인천연안
23 0.772 0.799 0.692 2.264 8 여자만
20 0.415 0.908 0.937 2.259 9 도암만
11 0.714 0.750 0.783 2.246 10 전주포 연안
………………………………………………………
45 0.272 0.219 0.341 0.832 55 감포연안
58 0.436 0.119 0.239 0.794 56 속초연안
55 0.444 0.121 0.224 0.789 57 강릉연안
47 0.337 0.219 0.220 0.776 58 영일만
46 0.185 0.227 0.307 0.719 59 구룡포 연안
59 0.274 0.140 0.203 0.617 60 거진연안
51 0.164 0.107 0.239 0.510 61 후포연안
50 0.187 0.109 0.185 0.481 62 축산연안
49 0.160 0.079 0.207 0.446 63 강구연안
48 0.191 0.069 0.131 0.391 64 원포연안
Organic Contaminations (as of 2007)
Kwang-Yang(26), Ulsan(32), Busan(41), Nakdong River Estuary(42),
Kamak(31), Deokryang(24), Wando-Doam(20)
KCWQA
(mg/L)
% of
‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ’07
C
O
D
92.83 81.6 104.6 96.3 82.5 74.5 73.3
Achievement
(%)67.7 87.1 79.7 62.5 53.1 48.4
TN 14.567 185.8 184.0 173.5 214.7 192.4 229.7
TP 1.313 240.6 207.6 223.0 224.1 224.3 215.5
Results of Assessment
TP
- Grade I (<0.03mg/L), Grade II (<0.05mg/L), Grade III ( <0.09mg/L)
Grade I II III
’06 26.91% 28.4% 44.8%
T P( 2 0 0 6 )
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
가
로
림
연
안
가
막
만
감
포
연
안
강
구
연
안
강
릉
연
안
거
제
도
남
안
거
제
도
동
안
거
진
연
안
고
성
.
자
란
만
고
창
연
안
고
흥
연
안
광
양
만
구
룡
포
연
안
군
산
연
안
기
장
연
안
낙
동
강
하
구
남
해
도
남
안
대
산
연
안
대
정
연
안
도
암
만
동
해
연
안
득
량
만
마
산
만
목
포
연
안
무
안
연
안
보
령
연
안
부
산
연
안
사
천
연
안
삼
척
연
안
서
귀
포
연
안
섬
진
강
하
구
성
산
연
안
성
산
포
연
안
속
초
연
안
시
화
호
신
안
연
안
신
항
신
항
연
안
아
산
연
안
양
양
연
안
여
수
연
안
여
자
만
영
일
만
온
산
연
안
완
도
연
안
울
산
연
안
월
포
연
안
인
천
연
안
전
주
포
연
안
제
주
연
안
조
천
연
안
주
문
진
연
안
죽
변
연
안
진
도
연
안
진
주
만
진
해
만
천
수
만
축
산
연
안
태
안
연
안
통
영
연
안
통
영
외
안
표
선
연
안
한
림
연
안
함
평
연
안
해
남
만
행
암
만
후
포
연
안
III
II
I
67 bays in Korea
Results of Assessment
Assessment of Water Quality
Organic pollutants Heavy metals
Priority Category 1
Priority Category II
Priority Category III
Priority Category IV
Priority Category V
Priority Category 1
Priority Category II
Priority Category III
Priority Category IV
Priority Category V
MOMAF, 2002
Multi Criteria Assessment
(Ulsan SMA)
30
50
70
COD
TN
TP
N/ P Ratio
Multi-Criteria Assessment
(Duk-Ryang Bay CRMA)
30
50
70
COD
TN
TP
N/ P Ratio
Results of Assessment
Masan Bay HangAm Bay GunSan InCheon
Ulsan OnSan Shiwha GwangYang
Results of Assessment
Water Volume
Area Volume(×108m3)
Shiwha 7.0459
Masan 7.7075
Busan 25.1677
KwngYang 11.3524
Ulsan 9.8561
Results of Assessment
Results of Assessment
Monitoring the Rivers, Streams, and Discharging Facilities
Results of Assessment
25 Areas of Concern as of 2006
Urban
Rural
Unknown
Industrial
Results of Assessment
한강하구연안
인천연안
시화호
가막만
여수연안
통영연안
거제도남안
마산만
행암만
낙동강하구
부산연안
온산연안
울산연안
제주연안
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65
(%)
Impervious of Watershed
: Han River Estuary, Inchon, Shiwha, Gamak, Yeosoo, Tongyoung, Gaejae, Masan,
Hangam, Nakdong River Estuary, Busan, Onsan, Ulsan, Jaeju Is. Etc.
Pressure of Land-based Activities
Highly Impervious Areas
- Busan (33.18%), Hang-am (30.71%), Masan (28.76%), Inchon (26.71%)
Busan SMA
Masan Hangam
Inchon
Pressure of Land-based Activities
LivestockPopulation
Pressure of Land-based Activities
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
한
강
하
구
연
안
인
천
연
안
시
화
호
아
산
연
안
대
산
연
안
가
로
림
연
안
태
안
연
안
천
수
만
보
령
연
안
군
산
연
안
전
주
포
연
안
고
창
연
안
함
평
연
안
무
안
연
안
신
안
연
안
목
포
연
안
해
남
만
진
도
연
안
완
도
연
안
도
암
만
득
량
만
고
흥
연
안
여
자
만
가
막
만
여
수
연
안
광
양
만
섬
진
강
하
구
진
주
만
남
해
도
남
안
사
천
연
안
고
성·
자
란
만
통
영
외
안
통
영
연
안
거
제
도
남
안
거
제
도
동
안
진
해
만
마
산
만
행
암
만
신
항
낙
동
강
하
구
부
산
연
안
기
장
연
안
온
산
연
안
울
산
연
안
감
포
연
안
구
룡
포
연
안
영
일
만
월
포
연
안
강
구
연
안
축
산
연
안
후
포
연
안
죽
변
연
안
삼
척
연
안
동
해
연
안
강
릉
연
안
주
문
진
연
안
양
양
연
안
속
초
연
안
거
진
연
안
제
주
연
안
조
천
연
안
한
림
연
안
성
산
연
안
표
선
연
안
서
귀
포
연
안
대
정
연
안
개소
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
천㎥
/ 일
업소수
폐수방류량
Pressure of Land-based Activities
Nb. of Plant
Amount of Discharge
Number of Plant that discharges waste water
Nb. of WWTP
Pressure of Land-based Activities
Amount of Landfill
TN TP COD a1 a2 a4 a5 a7 a8 a9
TN 1.00 0.82 0.63 0.30 0.17 0.36 0.14 -0.63 0.45 0.40
<.0001 <.0001 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.27 <.0001 0.00 0.00
TP 0.82 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.14 -0.59 0.51 0.32
<.0001 <.0001 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.27 <.0001 <.0001 0.01
COD 0.63 0.85 1.00 0.49 0.43 0.16 0.22 -0.66 0.63 0.38
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.00 0.21 0.08 <.0001 <.0001 0.00
a1 0.30 0.36 0.49 1.00 0.60 -0.12 0.13 -0.83 0.93 0.70
Pop. density 0.01 0.00 <.0001 <.0001 0.35 0.29 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
a2 0.17 0.26 0.43 0.60 1.00 -0.14 0.29 -0.51 0.64 0.50
Sewage Coverage 0.19 0.04 0.00 <.0001 0.26 0.02 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
a4 0.36 0.36 0.16 -0.12 -0.14 1.00 -0.11 -0.09 -0.06 0.04
Density of Live stock 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.35 0.26 0.37 0.46 0.63 0.76
a5 0.14 0.14 0.22 0.13 0.29 -0.11 1.00 -0.29 0.25 0.24
Discharges from Ind.
Plants(BOD)
0.27 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.02 0.37 0.02 0.05 0.06
A7 -0.63 -0.59 -0.66 -0.83 -0.51 -0.09 -0.29 1.00 -0.91 -0.72
Nonpoint source
Discharge
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.46 0.02 <.0001 <.0001
a8 0.45 0.51 0.63 0.93 0.64 -0.06 0.25 -0.91 1.00 0.69
Imperviousness 0.00 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.63 0.05 <.0001 <.0001
a9 0.40 0.32 0.38 0.70 0.50 0.04 0.24 -0.72 0.69 1.00
Discharges from
IWWTPs( BOD)
0.00 0.01 0.00 <.0001 <.0001 0.76 0.06 <.0001 <.0001
Pearson Index
Pressure of Land-based Activities
Eigenvalues of the Correlation Matrix: Total
= 9 Average = 1
factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative
1 4.1358 2.5355 0.4595 0.4595
2 1.6003 0.6373 0.1778 0.6373
3 0.963 0.0537 0.107 0.7443
4 0.9093 0.2762 0.101 0.8454
5 0.633 0.2282 0.0703 0.9157
6 0.4048 0.202 0.045 0.9607
7 0.2028 0.0879 0.0225 0.9832
8 0.1149 0.0788 0.0128 0.996
9 0.0361 0.004 1
Standardized Scoring Coefficients
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
Impervious 0.25514 -0.05681 0.03855 -0.09308
Pop. Density 0.28076 -0.10876 0.00772 -0.21466
Sewage Effluent 0.28086 0.12665 -0.34579 0.03153
Sewage Coverage 0.12728 -0.03194 0.06232 0.20934
Non-Point Sources -0.23766 -0.04702 -0.01537 0.04672
# of Livestock 0.02795 0.54399 -0.18325 0.12892
Density of Farming -0.06555 0.55157 0.2856 -0.12173
Industrial Area -0.10524 0.05197 0.89053 0.02462
Industrial Sewage -0.11873 0.01469 0.01634 0.93505
Factor Analysis
Source : Chang et al.(2008)
Pressure of Land-based Activities
해역
번호해역명
인구
밀도
하수
인구
하수
방류축산
공단
면적폐수 토지
불투
수층COD TN TP DO
40낙동강
하구5 1 5 4 2 4 1 4 2 2 2 5
3 시화호 5 1 5 3 4 5 1 4 5 5 5 5
37 마산만 5 1 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 4 5 5
41 부산연안 5 1 5 1 1 4 1 5 1 2 3 4
2 인천연안 5 1 5 1 4 3 1 5 1 5 4 1
11 전주포연안 3 1 5 4 2 4 2 3 2 4 4 1
4 아산연안 4 1 4 4 3 4 2 3 1 4 3 1
38 행암만 5 1 3 1 1 3 1 5 5 2 4 1
24 가막만 5 1 1 4 5 2 1 4 3 3 3 1
10 군산연안 2 4 4 5 4 3 2 3 2 4 4 1
12 고창연안 1 4 2 5 1 2 3 2 4 1 4 1
13 함평연안 2 4 1 5 1 1 2 2 4 5 4 4
14 무안연안 1 5 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 5 4 3
16 목포연안 2 2 4 5 3 4 2 3 2 5 2 2
26 광양만 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 5 4 2
44 울산연안 4 1 4 2 3 5 2 4 1 2 3 5
43 온산연안 3 1 4 1 4 5 2 4 1 2 2 4
23 여자만 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 4 5 4 1
27 섬진강하구 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 3 4 4 4
20 도암만 1 4 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 5 4 3
18 진도연안 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 5 3
19 완도연안 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 5 4
Classification of Types of Area of Concern
TypeCOD TP DIP TN Ammonia Nitrite Nitrate DIN
Urban
(A/B)2.01
(2.32/1.40)
0.073
(0.086/0.048)
0.040
(0.049/0.022)
0.699
(0.804/0.488)
0.118
(0.156/0.044)
0.015
(0.018/0.010)
0.210
(0.243/0.144)
0.326
(0.391/0.197)
Industrial 1.55 0.050 0.029 0.485 0.110 0.012 0.131 0.241
Rural 1.32 0.064 0.017 0.570 0.020 0.013 0.140 0.163
Unknown
(A/B)1.29
(1.23/1.34)
0.049
(0.052/0.046)
0.019
(0.017/0.021)
0.490
(0.568/0.426)
0.031
(0.022/0.040)
0.010
(0.011/0.008)
0.098
(0.125/0.077)
0.132
(0.148/0.118)
Nation
(S.D.)1.28
(0.50)
0.047
(0.020)
0.020
(0.012)
0.459
(0.163)
0.047
(0.048)
0.009
(0.004)
0.123
(0.128)
0.156
(0.099)
Coastal W/Q and Environmental Issues of Management type
- Urban Type: Impairment of W/Q and trace metal
- Industrial Type: Trace Metal conc. in sediment, and Ammonia
- Rural Type : DOP and DON
- Unknown Type : coastal water and sediment pollution
Classification of Types of Area of Concern
Pop. Density
(#/km2)
Sewage
Coverage
(%)
Density of
Livestock
farming
(#/km2)
Industrial Sewage
(Kg/day)
Industrial Area
(%)
General
Land Use
Impervious
(%)
Urban
(A/B)
3,265
(3,954/1,885)
85
(84/87)
2,004
(1,387/3,240)
10.8
(12.6/7.3)
60.2
(42.7/89.4)
74.9
(70.6/83.4)
21.1
(25/13.3)
Industrial 1,397 87 287 54.4 45.8 87.4 10.8
Rural 174 24 10,359 0.1 0 86.7 4.3
Unknown
(A/B)
432
(198/627)
56
(45/66)
1,108
(637/1,501)
7.0
(12.9/2.1)
4.7
(6.5/2.1)
90.6
(91/90.2)
6.3
(3.7/8.4)
Nation
(S.D.)
817
(1,330)
53
(29)
1,516
(2,196)
6.7
(17)
24
(49.8)
89.5
(7.8)
7.6
(7.1)
Watershed Characteristics of Mgmt. Type(Environment Pressure)
- Urban Type : Population(A), Impervious(A), Industrial Area(B) / Sewage Coverage,
Non-Point Sources (especially, CSO)
- Industrial Type : Industrial Sewage / Sewage Coverage, Density of Livestock
Farming
- Rural Type : Density of Livestock Farming / Population, Sewage Coverage,
Industrial Sewage and Area
- Unknown Type : Unknown
Classification of Types of Area of Concern
flow Diagram
Management framework– Step 1 : Initial preparations
– Step 2 : Identification of problems, constrains & opportunities
– Step 3 : Formulating of realistic strategies and action plans
– Step 4 : Implementation of national measures and on-ground activities
– Step 5 : Monitoring, evaluation and revision
Sources : UNEP/GPA
cyclical approach
Management of Land-based activities
1. Analysis
(Preliminary Survey)
3. Policy
Enforcement
2. Planning
(Developing NPA)
Developing
Realistic Action
Towards successful implementation
Refinement of Policy
Phase I (2008) Phase II (2010) Phase III (2010 ~)
Status Survey Boundary Assessment of land-based pollutants (Identification of management issues ?) Classification of Coastal Type & Suggestion of Policy Direction Establishment of Survey Planning &Design
Establishment of the
“comprehensive
national management
plan”
Development of
management strategies
In-depth Surveys
Capacity-Building for
supporting scientific
Decision Makings
Implementation of
management action plans
Case Study (Projects)
Assessment of marine
capacity
Detail Survey
Development of the “National Management Framework for Land-based
Activities” to protect marine & coastal environment as well as to
achieve sustainable development
Refinement of Policy
III. Why Enclosed Sea ?
Why focusing on 37 enclosed coastal areas ?
Area of Concern = Enclosed Sea Area
피어슨상관계수,N=37
tot_pop_den bsn_nb wwd_nb tt_da_den tt_lnd_den area_kmt_wsa lng_km_wsa elv_wsa slope_wsa mjr_axis_wsamnr_axis_ws
a
tot_pop_den
1 0.39651 -0.14302 -0.09238 -0.09829 -0.09274 -0.10613 -0.13688 -0.11809 -0.12317 -0.14907
0.0151 0.3984 0.5866 0.5628 0.5851 0.5319 0.4192 0.4864 0.4677 0.3786
bsn_nb
0.39651 1 -0.05114 -0.05652 -0.28715 0.65653 0.52466 -0.16983 -0.23995 0.56524 0.60197
0.0151 0.7637 0.7397 0.0848 <.0001 0.0009 0.3149 0.1526 0.0003 <.0001
wwd_nb
-0.14302 -0.05114 1 -0.14748 -0.24786 0.04735 -0.11635 0.2054 0.14296 0.11947 0.09937
0.3984 0.7637 0.3837 0.1391 0.7808 0.4929 0.2226 0.3986 0.4813 0.5585
tt_da_den
-0.09238 -0.05652 -0.14748 1 0.79718 -0.06417 -0.08365 -0.24683 -0.36638 -0.16294 -0.15347
0.5866 0.7397 0.3837 <.0001 0.7059 0.6226 0.1408 0.0257 0.3353 0.3645
tt_lnd_den
-0.09829 -0.28715 -0.24786 0.79718 1 -0.28685 -0.26087 -0.19334 -0.2907 -0.39406 -0.41745
0.5628 0.0848 0.1391 <.0001 0.0852 0.1189 0.2516 0.0809 0.0158 0.0102
area_kmt_wsa
-0.09274 0.65653 0.04735 -0.06417 -0.28685 1 0.77066 0.03092 -0.03185 0.91638 0.94485
0.5851 <.0001 0.7808 0.7059 0.0852 <.0001 0.8558 0.8516 <.0001 <.0001
lng_km_wsa
-0.10613 0.52466 -0.11635 -0.08365 -0.26087 0.77066 1 -0.15098 -0.1085 0.81255 0.79813
0.5319 0.0009 0.4929 0.6226 0.1189 <.0001 0.3724 0.5227 <.0001 <.0001
elv_wsa
-0.13688 -0.16983 0.2054 -0.24683 -0.19334 0.03092 -0.15098 1 0.90571 0.16555 0.10615
0.4192 0.3149 0.2226 0.1408 0.2516 0.8558 0.3724 <.0001 0.3275 0.5318
slope_wsa
-0.11809 -0.23995 0.14296 -0.36638 -0.2907 -0.03185 -0.1085 0.90571 1 0.10601 0.04168
0.4864 0.1526 0.3986 0.0257 0.0809 0.8516 0.5227 <.0001 0.5323 0.8065
mjr_axis_wsa
-0.12317 0.56524 0.11947 -0.16294 -0.39406 0.91638 0.81255 0.16555 0.10601 1 0.95423
0.4677 0.0003 0.4813 0.3353 0.0158 <.0001 <.0001 0.3275 0.5323 <.0001
mnr_axis_wsa
-0.14907 0.60197 0.09937 -0.15347 -0.41745 0.94485 0.79813 0.10615 0.04168 0.95423 1
0.3786 <.0001 0.5585 0.3645 0.0102 <.0001 <.0001 0.5318 0.8065 <.0001
Why focusing on 37 enclosed coastal areas ?
Why focusing on 37 enclosed coastal areas ?
Cluster Analysis
Cluster Analysis
Why focusing on 37 enclosed coastal areas ?
CLUSTER Nb. Of Obs. Variable Mean Median SD Min Max
1 21
COD 0.91 0.95 0.21 0.51 1.36
TN 0.33 0.31 0.12 0.13 0.5
tt_da_den 1127.77 572.31 1307.63 0.27 5260.15
tt_lnd_den 1048671.52 1054319.34 191924.02 604181.93 1445429.69
impm 8.65 6.08 7.37 1.2 32.59
elevation 158.05 122.99 128.19 33.61 489.9
area_sea 62.51 46.42 57.22 1.27 183.8
wwd_bsn 140.82 46.79 220.95 2 810.7
area_kmt_wsa 414.61 328.59 326.85 49.8 1303.87
cs_ht 128609.44 83486.49 152187.24 0 686962.04
2 11
COD 1.08 1.12 0.18 0.75 1.38
TN 0.72 0.73 0.1 0.58 0.92
tt_da_den 7361.67 744.11 16046.36 116.15 54781.18
tt_lnd_den 1208949.88 1082586.48 404902.63 904575.26 2350692.93
impm 7.99 5.46 8.27 3.1 31.94
elevation 99.36 72.23 90.89 26.55 329.83
area_sea 136.95 88.83 148.07 14.49 423.38
wwd_bsn 95.3 15.1 166.54 0 447.4
area_kmt_wsa 822.02 450.83 1171.34 46.1 4154.01
cs_ht 92694.69 54403.68 104572.36 682.73 284788.21
3 5
COD 1.96 1.8 0.37 1.66 2.57
TN 0.52 0.59 0.24 0.27 0.77
tt_da_den 1501.86 491.17 2303.15 6.29 5481.72
tt_lnd_den 1084617.62 1069769.78 38881.29 1054763.89 1152451.17
impm 15.7 9.09 12.94 4.73 30.7elevation 110.31 131.23 46.22 41.28 157.35
area_sea 161.06 210.16 143.73 9.35 339.94
wwd_bsn 53.73 38.53 43.81 14 126.79
area_kmt_wsa 439.95 386.98 345.55 25.11 798.32
cs_ht 79860.88 81269.07 71692.41 0 182164.29
Why focusing on 37 enclosed coastal areas ?
Imperviousness: Stormwater mgmt.
Coastal and Marine Pollution… do not manage it directly,
but do Socio-economic Activities of Humans.