BACI design

Eric P. Smith
Volume 1, pp 141–148

in

Encyclopedia of Environmetrics
(ISBN 0471 899976)

Edited by

Abdel H. El-Shaarawi and Walter W. Piegorsch

 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2002

BACI design
The purposes of impact assessment are to evaluate
whether or not a stress has changed the environ-
ment, to determine which components are adversely
affected, and to estimate the magnitude of the effects.
Evaluating change in environmental conditions is
often difficult, due to several factors. It is often
not clear which environmental component will be
affected by the stressor, what type of change will
occur and what the exposure will be. Choices must
be made about where and when the potential effect
will occur (i.e. define the spatial and temporal extent),
what organisms will be affected (fish, plants, etc.),
what the exposure will be (magnitude, duration), what
any mitigating factors could be (what affects distri-
bution of exposure) and how may these factors alter
exposure and effect. Change in the environment is
natural and variation due to natural effects may be
great. For example, suppose an industrial plant wishes
to discharge treated effluent into a river. The spa-
tial extent of the effluent is not constant and will
depend on the flow. The measurement of the effect
may be difficult. Decisions need to be made about
which organisms to measure and how the organisms
will be affected. If fish are selected, their abundance
may be limited by reductions in survival or avoidance
of the affected area. Fish abundance may be increased
due to compositional changes in predators and com-
peting fish or increased prey (tolerant species might
increase while intolerants decrease). Thus the defini-
tion of impact may be difficult. The view in impact
assessment has become ‘any change in means that is
correlatable to the start of some new human activity
must be considered an environmental impact’ [24].
The evaluation of impact involves comparative
methods. Early approaches to impact assessment
involved the use of computer simulation models to
predict the impact [22]. Decisions were then made
based on the soundness of those predictions [12].
Much of the work involved the effect of nuclear
power plants on fish and other organisms. As part of
plant operation, a large amount of water is removed
from rivers or other water bodies to cool the plant.
Fish may be harmed when passing through the cool-
ing system and the warm water that is released
from the plant may affect the area near where
it is released. In the late 1970s, emphasis also
focused on more empirical approaches for evaluating
impact [23]. Since 1970, studies of potential impacts
have increased beyond nuclear power plants and
include spills, and effluent studies as well as recov-
ery of systems. Although the data used to interpret
effects are quite varied, the methods for analysis are
often quite similar and involve comparison of impact
areas with control areas. When information is avail-
able prior to the potential impact, the design is often
referred to as a Before–After Control-Impact (BACI)
design. Several variations on the basic design have
been proposed and are discussed below.
Before–After Design
Green [8] described several types of designs that
might be useful for detecting changes in means asso-
ciated with human activity. The simplest approach
involves collection of data prior to the activity and
compares it with data after the activity. This corre-
sponds to a before-after design (BA) (Figure 1a). In
some instances, there may be no or little data prior
to the activity. For example, in the case of a chem-
ical spill, there may only be data on areas near the
spill and most information is collected subsequent to
the spill. In some instances, the data that are col-
lected are over a brief period (such as 12 monthly
observations before and after). The typical approach
to analysis is to treat the data as independent samples
and to compare the samples using a two-sample test.
In other instances, there may be considerable data.
For example, with air pollution studies there may
be daily measurements for several years. The analyst
may choose a more sophisticated methodology such
as intervention analysis.
Any difference found in the analysis is attributed
to the activity. However, causal inference is diffi-
cult for this type of study since the data collected
are observational and rely on a number of assump-
tions. For the analysis to be valid, the change in
the measurements must be due to the activity. How-
ever, trends in environmental data are common and
may or may not be due to human activity. Trends
may be the result of changes due to dry conditions,
floods or other natural events (see Natural disas-
ters). The BA design is without controls with which
to compare the site, and the measured changes may
actually be widespread and due to causes other than
the activity. Indeed, lack of a statistical effect may
actually indicate an impact since natural trends may
2 BACI design

35 35

30 30

Environmental variable
Environmental variable

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) Time (b) Time

40 40
Environmental variable

Environmental variable

30 30

20 20

10 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(c) Time (d) Time

Figure 1 Plots of patterns at site(s) describing different situations for impact assessment. (a) Example data profile for
before–after analysis. Dashed line indicates time of activity. (b) Example data profile for BACI analysis, assuming no
impact. (c) Example data profile for BACI analysis given an impact. (d) Example data profile for BACIP assuming impact.
Lines indicate pairs of samples

be interrupted by the activity or the activity may cre- Table 1 ANOVA table for BA model. Mean squares are
ate changes in the variance structure rather than the denoted by MS and defined as the SS/df
mean structure. Source SS df F
A statistical model for the analysis of data, Xik , is
Period: SSBA 1 MSBA /MStimes
Before–After
Xik D  C ˛i C ki 1 Sampling times SStimes tB C tA  2
Total SSTotal tB C tA  1
where  is the overall mean, ˛i is the effect of
period (i D before or after), and ki represents ANOVA table is presented in Table 1 and provides
times within period (k D 1, 2, . . . , tA , for i D after for useful extensions of the model and approach.
and k D 1, 2, . . . , tB for i D before). Ideally, the times should be selected at random;
The analysis may be based on either a two-sample however, the intervals of sampling are typically
comparison test (e.g. two-sample t-test) or in terms of chosen to be fixed for convenience. Natural cycles
an analysis of variance (ANOVA) table. A skeletal such as seasonality may then confound the analysis.
 BACI design 3

Before–After Design with Multiple Sites ANOVA, given in Table 3. This model has gener-
ally been referred to as the BACI model. Figure 1(b)
A variation on this design is to sample a number illustrates the situation where there is no effect while
of sites rather than a single site before and after the Figure 1(c) illustrates the impact case.
activity. A common approach is to select M sites in
the impact area and sample these in both periods.
Thus, there are MtB C tA  observations. A practical Before–After Control-Impact Design
problem is whether to view the sites as replicates or The above design treats the study as a fully-designed
subsamples. How they are viewed may depend partly experiment. However, impact and control stations are
on the purpose of the experiment and the nature of not randomly assigned to the locations. There is only
the potential impact. If focus is on the extent of the one treatment area. Hurlbert [10] criticized the anal-
impact, then the sites are typically selected according ysis of data from impact studies as being statistically
to a preset scheme and viewed as replicates. If they incorrect because of this problem. An alternative is
are selected purely at random, then they are typically to recognize that the impact site represents a treat-
viewed as subsamples. Table 2 displays the ANOVA ment that the researcher cannot control. One tries
for the assessment, treating the sites as subsamples. to assess changes in the site due to the potential
In this case, they are used to improve estimation of impact. Thus the approach is based on comparing
the effect at the different times and only affect the test before and after. To account for problems of nat-
through the estimate of the mean squares for times. ural change, the impact area is paired to another
Green [8] suggested extending this design to in- area, which is referred to as the control area. This
clude information from a control site. There are two approach was suggested by Eberhart [3] and referred
sites or locations, one designated as the control site to as the control–treatment pairing (CTP) design (see
and the other as the impact site or site where the activ- also [1]). The approach was popularized by Stewart-
ity is thought to have an influence. In addition, data Oaten et al. [21] and became known as the BACI
are collected at both locations before and after the model, although it is better to refer to it as a BACI
activity. Thus, there are a total N observations with paired (BACIP) model to avoid confusion with the
multiple observations over time or space. Green sug- unpaired design.
gested analyzing the resulting data using a two-factor The layout described in [21] follows. It is assumed
known when the potential impact or activity will
Table 2 ANOVA table for the BA design with subsam-
occur. Sampling is carried out on tB occasions before
pling the occurrence of the impact treatment and tA occa-
sions after. Suppose the variable of interest is denoted
Source SS df F by X. The data are Xijk , with i referring to the period,
Period: SSBA 1 MSBA / j the occasion and k the location of the site. The
Before–After MStimes
Sampling times SStimes tB C tA  2 Table 4 Data for the paired BACI design
Replicate sites SSE M  1tB C tA 
Total SSTotal MtB C tA   1 Sampling
Period occasion Control Impact
1 X111 X121
Table 3 ANOVA table for two-factor BACI design 2 X121 X122
Source SS df F Before Ð
Ð
Period: SSBA 1 Ð
Before–After tA X11tA X12tA
Location: Con- SSCI 1 tA C 1 X21tA C1 X22tA C1
trol–Impact tA C 2
Interaction SSBACI 1 MSBACI /MSE Ð
BA ð CI After Ð
Error SSE N4 Ð
Total SSTotal N1 N D tB C tA X21tA CtB  X22tA CtB 
4 BACI design

data table for the study is given in Table 4 with Now form differences between the pairs:
example data in Table 6. Figure 1(d) illustrates the
paired design where the vertical lines indicate the Dik D XiCj  XiIk D  C i C εik 3
pairings.
The structure of the problem is somewhat sim- where  is the mean difference between control and
ilar to one from the analysis of repeated measure- impact, i is the change in difference from before
ments. In a typical repeated measures design, units to after, and εik is the error associated with the
are selected and would be assigned to a treatment differences.
(e.g. control or impact). Measurements are then Here X represents the ecologically relevant vari-
made on each unit before and after the activity. In able, e.g. the abundance of an organism. In many
the case of the BACIP design, there is a single cases the data are first log transformed and the
site with multiple times. Thus each site pair-by- analysis may be thought of as an analysis of ratios of
time combination is treated as a unit. An important abundance in the control area vs. the impact area.
assumption is that there is independence among these The differences, Dik , may then be compared for
combinations [19]. the before period with the after period using a two-
Given the validity of the assumptions, the model sample test. If there is no impact, the differences
that is implied is in the before period should be similar to those in
the after period. If a two-sample t-test is used then
Xijk D  C ˛i C ki C ˇj C ˛ˇij C εijk 2 the result is equivalent to the test of interaction [19,
24]. This approach has been referred to either as the
where  is the overall mean, ˛i is the effect of paired BACI design (BACIP, [4]) or the BACI paired
period (i D before or after), ki represents times
within period k D 1, 2, . . . , tA , for i D after and
Table 6 Data on fish collected to assess a possible
k D 1, 2, . . . , tB for i D before, ˇj is the effect of
impact. The first 12 observations correspond to the
location (j D control or impact), ˛ˇij is the inter- before period while the second 13 are after the plant is
action between period and location, and εijk repre- online
sents the remaining error.
Time Year Control Impact Difference
The ANOVA table for this experiment is given in
Table 5. Stewart-Oaten et al. [21] suggested a simple 1 75 1 1 0
way to view the analysis of this data. Note that the 2 75 0 1 1
test on the interaction may be obtained in a simple 3 75 0 0 0
4 75 2 6 4
manner in some circumstances. Suppose that the data
5 75 47 103 56
are collected based on pairs of observations. For 6 75 63 36 27
example, in a river a site downstream of a potential 7 75 78 6 72
impact is paired with a control site (upstream of the 8 75 16 143 127
potential impact). Then there are N pairs of samples 9 75 143 145 2
with some before the effect and some after the effect. 10 75 28 9 19
11 75 4 15 11
12 75 0 2 2
Table 5 ANOVA table for the BACIP design 13 76 3 1 2
Source SS df F 14 76 28 108 80
15 76 51 117 66
Period: SSBA 1 16 76 17 41 24
Before–After 17 76 19 23 4
Times within SStBA tB C tA  2 18 76 40 44 4
period 19 76 1 4 3
Location: Con- SSCI 1 20 76 2 0 2
trol–Impact 21 77 0 0 0
Interaction SSBACI 1 MSBACI /MSE 22 77 0 0 0
BA ð CI 23 77 2 26 24
Error SSE tB C tA  2 24 77 2 4 2
Total SSTotal 2tB C tA   1 25 77 4 10 6

series (BACIPS) design [7]. An extension of this
design is to take multiple measurements at each time.
These would be viewed as subsamples and would
add another error term to the ANOVA table [26,
Table 1a].
The difference approach is valuable since sev-
eral extensions are possible. Rather than viewing the
study as a design and ANOVA problem, the differ-
encing may be viewed as a covariate model. Mathur
et al. [13] used a covariate model to study the effects
of a nuclear power plant on fish. In addition to using
a control site as a covariate, they also consider tem-
perature and river flow. Thus a model for the analysis
might be
XiIj D ˇ0 C ˇ1 XiCj C Zj 4
The analysis of the data would use methods from
linear regression analysis (see Linear models).
Example Samples of fish were taken for a period
of 12 months before and 13 months after a nuclear
power plant began operations; see Table 6. The power
plant is cooled by water that is drawn from a river.
When the water exits the plant, its temperature is
elevated. The concern is that the warmed water will
adversely affect the abundance and composition of
fish below the plant.
The ANOVA table for this experiment is given
in Table 7. The test on interaction indicates that the
effect is not significant. If the assumptions of the
model are met, this would suggest lack of an impact
or that the impact is small given the variation in the
data. The results of an analysis based on using a t-test
are given in Table 8. The test of equality of variances
indicates the variances are not significantly different
at the 5% level. In Table 8 note that there is little
difference in the test of differences between after and
before regardless of equality of variance. If a rank
sum test [9] is used to analyze the data, then the test is
Table 7 ANOVA for BACIP example
Source df MS F P value
Before–After 1 2565 0.93 0.3438
ErrorA 23 2574
Control–Impact 1 1673 2.28 0.1444
Interaction 1 252 0.34 0.5631
ErrorB 23 733
Total 49
BACI design 5
Table 8 Summary statistics and tests using paired data
approach for example data
Period N Mean SD SE
After 13 16.07 26.82 7.44
Before 12 7.08 47.75 13.78
Variances t df P value
Unequal 0.57 17.0 0.5734
Equal 0.59 23.0 0.5631
also not significant (S D 175, z D 1.01, p D 0.3124).
Hence the results suggest that although there appear
to be differences in the means (of about 9 fish on
the average), there is large variation in the counts
and hence the difference is not great enough to be
significant.
Models with Measurements Over Space
and Time
Models and designs applied in the area of nuclear
power plant assessment often use a paired design
but are more complex as additional factors are often
included in the model. For example, Skalski and
McKenzie [17] describe the design for the assessment
of the Zion nuclear power plant. Sites in the impact
zone were selected and paired with sites outside the
zone. Factors affecting the pairs included: Ai D status
(preoperational or operational), i D 1, 2; Bj D time
of sampling, j D 1, . . . , 12; Ck D site pair depth,
k D 1, 2, 3; Dl D relative position of the pairs (north
or south of the plant), l D 1, 2.
In this case the spatial location of the sites is
relevant and is treated as a factor rather than as
subsampling. The analysis was based on a factorial
ANOVA that included main effects and interactions
of the four factors. The dependent variable was the
log of the ratio of abundances.
In another example, Thomas et al. [23] described
a study on the potential effects of a power plant on
benthic fauna in the Connecticut River near the Had-
dam Neck nuclear power plant. Data were collected
using grab samples at a total of nine locations, before
and after the plant started operating. The data were
collected at irregular intervals (generally on a weekly
basis) with less data collected during the cold months.
The analysis was run separately for each month and
considered the following factors: Ai D status (pre-
operational or operational), i D 1, 2; Bj D time of
6 BACI design
sampling j D 1, . . . , 12, i D 2; Ck D site (upstream
control, downstream control, exposed), k D 1, 2, 3;
Dlk D station within site l D 1, 2 for k D 1, l D
1, . . . , 4 for k D 2, and l D 1, 2, 3 for k D 3; Gm D
substrate type (sand or silt) m D 1, 2.
Another variation on the BACI model that is
commonly applied is the asymmetrical BACI design
suggested by Underwood [24]. The BACIP model
uses temporal variation as the measure of variability
for evaluating change. Measurements in time are used
as the units. For the above methods, model-dependent
analysis is required to separate confounding factors
(time and space) from potential impact effects. An
extension is to use multiple sites for each impact site.
Thus, instead of having a single control site, L  1
control sites and one impact site are used (for a total
of L sites); see Table 9. Note that the sites are chosen
to reflect locations similar to the impact site.
Underwood [26] argues that the locations are
selected at random and should be considered a ran-
dom factor (see Random effects). He further sug-
gests that the test of interaction is a general test
and that alternative tests based on contrasts may be
of greater interest for specific types of disturbance.
For example, one may partition the BA ð CI sum of
squares into components associated with before (B ð
CI) and after (A ð CI). Similarly, the error may be
partitioned as the sum of squares for error and inter-
action associated with times within period by control-
impact [T(BA) ð CI]. Underwood [25] discusses par-
titioning this to test for an impact given interaction
amongst the control sites over time (e.g. abundances
at some control sites go up while others go down).
Underwood focuses on different types of tests
available through this design approach that may be
valuable for different types of impacts. If the impact
Table 9 ANOVA table for asymmetric BACI design
Source SS df F Capture–recapture methods). For example, in the
Period: SSBA 1 fish are marked and sent through the intake. Estimates
Before–After
Times within SStBA tB C tA  2
period
Locations: Con- SSCI L1
trols–Impact
Interaction SSBACI L1 MSBACI /
BA ð CI MSE
Error SSE L  1
ðtB C tA  2
Total SSTotal N1
effect is a pulse, then using a large number of times
is not effective and will wash out the effect. Thus,
testing the early period after the activity starts may be
warranted. Underwood provides examples of various
types of hypotheses about impacts that may be tested.
Stewart-Oaten and Bence [20] have criticized the
additional control sites as being inefficient relative to
the BACIP approach. Because measurements must be
made at additional control sites, this draws resources
away from the impact site. As a result, the test for an
impact also has lower power.
Other Variations
There are numerous variations on the basic model
that deal with different study designs and issues.
Roberts [16] examined the effect of sewage treatment
plants over time using a BACI model. Data were
collected every six days on occurrences of fecal col-
iform bacterial contamination. A factorial approach
was used with an extension of the basic model,
which incorporated a periodic regression. Roberts
also discussed estimates of change using a covari-
ate approach. Various extensions of the basic model
were presented in [5] which discussed variance com-
ponents and ANOVA designs for a variety of possible
models. Power analysis for designs of the type con-
sidered here were presented in [6] and [15].
Another extension of the basic model is to include
additional impact sites. This can be quite useful when
the potential impact is expected to vary over space.
When the focus is primarily on the spatial extent,
the design would involve selecting sites at varying
distance from the source of the impact. This is often
called a gradient design. Discussion and an example
of this design is presented in [4].
Skalski and Robson [18] discuss detection of
impact using data from mark–recapture studies (see
assessment of effects of power plant intakes on fish,
of survival may then be calculated based on recovered
marks. Skalski and Robson describe how the analysis
of mark–recapture information may be evaluated for
a variety of impact assessment designs. They also
discuss power analysis and study design.
Multivariate extensions of the BACI approach
are presented in [11], which describes an approach
based on reducing the multivariate observations via
methods such as canonical correspondence analysis,

and using Monte Carlo tests to evaluate signifi-
cance (see Simulation and Monte Carlo methods).
Faith et al. [6] describe a multivariate analysis based
on a gradient model and discuss design and power
analysis.
Although the BACI approach is typically pre-
sented as a means for testing if an impact occurs,
it is really a model that tests if a change has occurred
(see Change, detecting). As pointed out by [14],
the model may also be used to evaluate restoration
projects and test if sites are improving (see Re-
storation, environmental).
Discussion of impact assessment for accidents is
given in [27], which describes a variety of approaches
for evaluating effects from accidents such as oil spills.
Beyers [2] summarizes much of the concern in using
these studies from a causal perspective. He cautions
against using just a test statistic to infer causation
and suggests a set of rules for combining the test
with other evidence to make a stronger argument for
causation.
References
[1] Bernstein, B.B. & Zalenski, J. (1983). An optimum
sampling design and power tests for environmental
biologists, Journal of Environmental Management 30,
129–133.
[2] Beyers, D.W. (1998). Causal inference in environmental
impact studies, Journal of the North American Bentho-
logical Society 17, 367–373.
[3] Eberhardt, L.L. (1976). Quantitative ecology and impact
assessment, Journal of Environmental Management 4,
27–70.
[4] Ellis, J.I. & Schneider, D.C. (1997). Evaluation of
a gradient sampling design for environmental impact
assessment, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
48, 157–172.
[5] Evans, J.C. & Coote, B.G. (1993). Matching sampling
designs and significance tests in environmental studies,
Environmetrics 4, 413–437.
[6] Faith, D.P., Humphrey, C.L. & Dostine, P.L. (1991).
Statistical power and BACI designs in biological moni-
toring: comparative evaluation of measures of commu-
nity dissimilarity based on benthic macroinvertebrate
communities in Rockhole Mine Creek, Northern Terri-
tory, Australia, Australian Journal of Marine and Fresh-
water Research 42, 589–602.
[7] Glasby, T.M. (1997). Analysing data from post-impact
studies using asymmetrical analyses of variance: a case
study of epibiota on marinas, Australian Journal of
Ecology 22, 448–459.
[8] Green, R.H. (1979). Sampling Design and Statistical
Methods for Environmental Biologists, Wiley, Chich-
ester.
BACI design 7
[9] Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D.A. (1973). Nonparametric
Statistical Methods, Wiley, New York.
[10] Hurlbert, S.J. (1984). Pseudo-replication and the design
of ecological field experiments, Ecological Monographs
54, 187–211.
[11] Kedwards, T.J., Maund, S.J. & Chapman, P.F. (1999).
Community-level analysis of ecotoxicological field
studies: II. Replicated design studies, Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 18, 158–166.
[12] Mapstone, B.D. (1995). Scalable decision rules for
environmental impact studies–effect size, Type I and
Type II errors, Ecological Applications 5, 401–410.
[13] Mathur, D., Robbins, T.W. & Purdy, E.J. (1980).
Assessment of thermal discharges on zooplankton in
Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37, 937–944.
[14] Michener, W.K. (1997). Quantitatively evaluating
restoration experiments: research design, statistical
analysis, and data management considerations, Restora-
tion Ecology 5, 324–337.
[15] Millard, S.P. & Lettenmaier, D.P. (1984). Optimal de-
sign of biological sampling programs using the analysis
of variance, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 22,
637–656.
[16] Roberts, E.A. (1993). Seasonal cycles, environmental
change and BACI designs, Environmetrics 4, 209–231.
[17] Skalski, J.R. & McKenzie, D.H. (1982). A design of
aquatic monitoring systems, Journal of Environmental
Management 14, 237–251.
[18] Skalski, J.R. & Robson, D.S. (1992). Techniques for
Wildlife Investigations: Design and Analysis of Capture
Data, Academic Press, San Diego.
[19] Smith, E.P., Orvos, D.R. & Cairns, J.J. (1993). Impact
assessment using the before-after-control-impact
(BACI): Comments and concerns, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50, 627–637.
[20] Stewart-Oaten, A. & Bence, J.R. (2001). Temporal and
spatial variation in environmental assessment, Ecologi-
cal Monographs 71, 305–339.
[21] Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W.W. & Parker, K.R.
(1986). Environmental impact assessment: pseudorepli-
cation in time? Ecology 67, 929–940.
[22] Swartzman, G., Deriso, R. & Cowan, C. (1977).
Comparison of simulation models used in assess-
ing the effects of power-plant-induced mortality on
fish populations, in Proceedings of the Conference
Assessing Effects of Power-plant-induced Mortality on
Fish Populations, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 3–6,
W. van Winkel, ed., Pergamon Press, London.
[23] Thomas, J.M., Mahaffey, J.A., Gore, K.L. &
Watson, D.G. (1978). Statistical methods used to assess
biological impact at nuclear power plants, Journal of
Environmental Management 7, 260–290.
[24] Underwood, A.J. (1991). Beyond BACI: experimen-
tal designs for detecting human environmental impacts
on temporal variations in natural populations, Aus-
tralian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42,
569–587.
8 BACI design

[25] Underwood, A.J. (1992). Beyond BACI: the detection
of environmental impacts on populations in the real,
but variable, world, Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 161, 145–178.
[26] Underwood, A.J. (1994). On beyond BACI: sampling
designs that might reliably detect environmental distur-
bances, Ecological Applications 4, 3–15.
[27] Wiens, J.A. & Parker, K.R. (1995). Analyzing
the effects of accidental environmental impacts:
Approaches and assumptions, Ecological Applications
5, 1069–1083.
(See also Bioabundance; Ecological statistics;
Ecological study design; Impact, environmental;
Rivers, canals and estuaries)
ERIC P. SMITH