Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process
Virginia Dale2008, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board conducted a self‐initiated study and convened a public workshop to characterize the state of the ecological risk assessment (ERA), with a view toward advancing the science and application of the process. That survey and analysis of ERA in decision making shows that such assessments have been most effective when clear management goals were included in the problem formulation; translated into information needs; and developed in collaboration with decision makers, assessors, scientists, and stakeholders. This process is best facilitated when risk managers, risk assessors, and stakeholders are engaged in an ongoing dialogue about problem formulation. Identification and acknowledgment of uncertainties that have the potential to profoundly affect the results and outcome of risk assessments also improves assessment effectiveness. Thus we suggest 1) thorough peer review of ERAs be...
Related papers
Ecological Risk Assessment Issues Identified During the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Examination of Risk Assessment Practices
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2005
Ecological risk assessments to guide decision-making: Methodology matters
Environmental Science & Policy
Ecological risk assessment is often applied to guide the decision-making process that underpins ecosystem-based management and prioritisation of risk factors for management. Several studies have recently used ecological risk assessment approaches to identify risk factors of greatest concern, but rarely are the underlying methodological decisions discussed in terms of the effect that those decisions have on the outcome of the assessment and ultimately, how that affects prioritisation of risk factors for management. This study therefore evaluates the effect of methodological decisions involving (1) the choice and definition of risk factors, and (2) the calculation of risk scores, providing, where possible, recommendations on what should be the most appropriate methodologies. The definition of risk factors is often determined by the policy context and could result in the comparison of one broadly defined risk meta-factor (e.g. Food Production) with corresponding specific risk factors defined more narrowly (i.e. Oil and Gas production or Offshore Wind). Depending on the method to calculate risk this may result in a systematic bias prioritising any risk meta-factor. For the calculation of individual impact chain risk scores we compared weighted scores with ordinal scores, where the former allows more flexibility to represent the qualitative categories that determine risk and provided results better supported by scientific evidence. A consideration of different risk assessment applications in EBM showed there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this as these methodological decisions need to be considered in concert and the preferred methodology may depend on the context in which the risk assessment is applied. The outcome of the risk assessment should always be accompanied by an explicit consideration of these methodological issues and description of the resulting methodological choices.
An interpretation and evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines
Water SA, 1999
In order to facilitate a common understanding, ongoing debate and increasing application of ecological risk assessment (ERA) in South Africa, the ERA process of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been summarised and evaluated for South African conditions. Many of the individual steps in the process have been interpreted and reworded in order to improve communication of the concepts. The basic process is unchanged though a few minor changes are recommended as improvements. A comparison is also made with integrated environmental management (IEM). It is noted that ERA addresses many of the key principles underpinning IEM, including consultation with interested and affected parties which provides an opportunity for public and specialist input into the decision-making process. However, there are some differences though more in degree than in principle. Of importance is that the ERA framework provides explicitly for quantification of all aspects of an assessment in an IEM procedure.
Ecological Risk Assessment Frameworks
2016
The risk assessment framework presented in the National Research Council (NKC) Red Book played a key role in the development of ecological risk assessment (ERA). ERA frameworks have, however, developed along their own pathway and have significantly extended concepts that were introduced in the Red Book. When the U S. Environtnental Protection Agency (EPA) cominissioiled the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (O W L) in 1981 to develop and apply methods for E M , the work focused on probabilistic analysis, since that seemed lo be the essence of risk. When the Red Book appeared, it suggested that the use of a logical framework to guide the process was also an important aspect of' risk assessment. Therefore, the ORNL investigators developed a framework similar to the Red Book framework but more suited to ERA. When EPA initiated a project to develop an ofricial EPAframecvork for ERA, the ORNL framework was presented in a colloquium intended to obtain input [rom scientists outside EPA. Later, the NRC sponsored a workshop on ecological risk assessment that was attended by the leaders of the EPA framework project. The report produced from the workshop endorsed the concept of' an ERA framework and proposed an integrated framework that included both human health and ecological risk assessment. The framework ultimately adopted by EPA extended the NRC and ORNL frameworks by providing a detailed description or the process and showing how the process could be applied to a broad range of situations. Since then, various ERA f'rameworks have been developed for use in other countries and for specilic situations.
Limitations of the Current Practices Used to Perform Ecological Risk Assessment
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2008
The framework for ecological risk assessments has provided a way to analyze stressors in the environment. Despite the power of this tool to inform environmental management decisions, the practice has not reached its full potential. In this paper, limitations of the practice are described under 2 categories, namely inherent and contrived. Inherent limitations are constraints of nature that we need to be aware of as we design and interpret studies. Contrived limitations are impediments that have arisen in the practice through precedent or policy. The closing portion of this paper provides a series of short-term and long-term steps that could remove some of the limitations, especially the contrived ones, and improve the usefulness of risk assessments.
A risk assessment approach to ecological decision-making
The conservation and management of wild populations and ecosystems almost always involves making decisions in the face of uncertainty and risk. The application of science to the ecological decision-making process was something that the late Professor Daniel Goodman thought deeply about. In this paper we outline the three main principles that Dr. Goodman espoused for good practice when conducting analyses for ecological decision-making: 1) the results should be conditioned on all relevant data and information, 2) there must be a full characterization of all uncertainty, and it should be fully propagated into the result, and 3) doing so in the correct way will result in the calculation of an accurate probability distribution (conditioned on our understanding of the state of nature) that should be used directly for ecological decision-making. Dr. Goodman believed that in the context of threatened and endangered species management Population Viability Analysis (PVA), Bayesian statistics...
A framework for ecological risk assessment at the EPA
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1992
Ecological risk assessments evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects caused by stressors related to human activities such as draining of wetlands or release of chemicals. The term stressor is used to describe any chemical, physical, or biological entity that can induce adverse effects on ecological components (i.e., individuals, populations, communities, or ecosystems). In this review article, a historical perspective on ecological risk assessment activities at the U S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is followed by a discussion of the EPA's "Framework Report," which describes the basic elements for conducting an ecological risk assessment. The "Framework Report" is neither a procedural guide nor a regulatory requirement within the EPA. Rather, it is intended to foster a consistent approach to ecological risk assessments within the Agency, identify key issues, and define terminology.
Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2015
Environmental Policy Analysis, Peer Reviewed: Assessing the Environmental Movement's Attitudes Toward Risk Assessment (1997)
Environmental Science & Technology, 1997
Why Has Ecological Risk Assessment Found Such Limited Application?
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2009
Recently I have been asking a fundamental question about a particular part of my research career. It might be that after so many years of research and teaching environmental science I am wondering if it was all worth it. The question is simple. Why is ecological risk assessment not a more fundamental tool in all aspects of environmental management? Is this failing because of its history, a scientific unsoundness, or some other feature? This essay is a partial examination of this question from my particular perspective. Risk assessment in the United States began as a decision-making process for contaminated sites, especially under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Act (CERCLA, also called Superfund) (NRC 1983). Suter (2008) has summarized the history of ecological risk assessment and its derivation from human health risk assessment processes. From its inception risk assessment has been a contaminant-centric process. This emphasis is understandable given the regulatory environment of the principal sponsor of the development of risk assessment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund (CERCLA) and pesticide registration under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The encyclopedic Ecological Risk Assessment by Suter (2007) is a book about the risk assessment of chemicals, reflecting the development of the process. However, the kinds of questions being asked by environmental managers now are much more diverse than mere chemical contamination. Over the last two years the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has been developing the Cherry Point Resource and Management Plan (WADNR 2009). Cherry Point is a region along the most northwest coast of Washington State and is the location of an iconic Pacific herring run, several industrial sites, and is considered an important marine resource. This plan has been conducted with the input of the stakeholders, including state and tribal governments, industries, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and Western Washington University. The list of sources and stressors includes: climate change, noise, shading from the piers, shoreline modification, recreation, invasives from ballast water, invasives from other sources, water quality, oil spills, effluent outfalls, and air quality. Of these items conventional ecological risk assessment has principally dealt with only the last four. A major piece of environmental legislation and regulation has been the national resource damage assessment (NRDA) segment of CERCLA managed by the U.S.
Ecological Risk Assessment in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: A Historical Overview
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2008
Lessons Learned in Ecological Risk Assessment Planning Efforts
International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 2001
There is growing interest in the United States for using the full mix of environmentally appropriate countermeasures during spill response to achieve the highest level of environmental protection and recovery possible. Determining the right mix of technologies, including mechanical recovery, shoreline cleanup, dispersants, and monitoring (no active response), is particularly challenging in sensitive and valuable estuaries through which high volumes of bulk oil shipment transit. This paper summarizes an ecological risk assessment (ERA) project to consider the potential effectiveness and effects of using dispersants, in addition to conventional countermeasures, to mitigate the impacts of oil spilled into the marine and nearshore environments and to facilitate preparedness efforts at the federal, state, local, and industry level. Sponsored by industry and federal and state agencies, the primary goal was to bring technical and resource experts together to use their collective knowledge ...
Ecological risk assessment in the context of global climate change
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2013
Changes to sources, stressors, habitats, and geographic ranges; toxicological effects; end points; and uncertainty estimation require significant changes in the implementation of ecological risk assessment (ERA). Because of the lack of analog systems and circumstances in historically studied sites, there is a likelihood of type III error. As a first step, the authors propose a decision key to aid managers and risk assessors in determining when and to what extent climate change should be incorporated. Next, when global climate change is an important factor, the authors recommend seven critical changes to ERA. First, develop conceptual cause-effect diagrams that consider relevant management decisions as well as appropriate spatial and temporal scales to include both direct and indirect effects of climate change and the stressor of management interest. Second, develop assessment end points that are expressed as ecosystem services. Third, evaluate multiple stressors and nonlinear responses-include the chemicals and the stressors related to climate change. Fourth, estimate how climate change will affect or modify management options as the impacts become manifest. Fifth, consider the direction and rate of change relative to management objectives, recognizing that both positive and negative outcomes can occur. Sixth, determine the major drivers of uncertainty, estimating and bounding stochastic uncertainty spatially, temporally, and progressively. Seventh, plan for adaptive management to account for changing environmental conditions and consequent changes to ecosystem services. Good communication is essential for making risk-related information understandable and useful for managers and stakeholders to implement a successful risk-assessment and decision-making process. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:79-92. # 2012 SETAC
Ecological Risk Assessment: Interpreting the Policy Debate
EarthMatters. The Columbia Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY., 1998
A guideline for ecological risk management procedures
2005
This chapter proposes practical guidelines for ecological risk management. Recommended procedures include screening for potential ecological risks, scoping relevant stakeholders and management areas, defining "undesirable events" as endpoint, identifying risk factors, assessing probabilistic risks, and building a risk management plan. It includes management strategic evaluation methods, planning, consensus building, and review process of the management. At that time, there are a part that can be scientifically advanced and a part that should be socially agreed. Therefore, it is important to reach a social consensus at the stage of agreeing the management purpose and the stage of agreeing the management plan.
Generic Assessment Endpoints Are Needed for Ecological Risk Assessment
Risk Analysis, 2000
This article presents arguments for the development of generic assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment. Generic assessment endpoints would be ecological entities and attributes that are assumed to be worthy of protection in most contexts. The existence of generic assessment endpoints would neither create a requirement that they be used in every assessment nor preclude the use of other assessment endpoints. They would simply be a starting point in the process of identifying the assessment endpoints for a particular assessment. They are needed to meet legal mandates, to provide a floor for environmental degradation, to provide some consistency in environmental regulation, as exemplars for site-or projectspecific assessment endpoints, to allow development of methods and models, to give risk managers the courage to act, for screening and site-independent assessments, to support environmental monitoring, to facilitate communication, and to avoid paralysis by analysis. Generic assessment endpoints should include not only a list of entities and attributes, but also explanations of each endpoint, guidance on their use and interpretation, and measures and models that could be used to estimate them.
Ecological Risk Assessment Framework
Acta Environmentalica Universitatis Comenianae, 2016
Purpose of this paper is to draft shot information about framework for ecological risk assessment compile according Guidelines and short description of phases from which this method consists. During description of particular procedures, the meaning of used terms is introduced and explained. The framework for risk assessment is presented as a useful tool for risk management and selection of available cleanup and remedy technologies, and costs of alternative actions.
Title : Evaluation of ecosystem-based management strategies based on risk assessment 1 2
2015
This study presents a comprehensive and generic framework that provides a typology for the identification and selection of consistently defined ecosystem-based management measures and allows a coherent evaluation of these measures based on their performance to achieve policy objectives. The performance is expressed in terms of their reduction of risk of an adverse impact on the marine ecosystem. This typology consists of two interlinked aspects of a measure, i.e. the "Focus" and the "Type". The "Focus" is determined by the part of the impact chain (Driver-Pressure-State) the measure is supposed to mitigate or counteract. The "Type" represents the physical measure itself in terms of how it affects the impact chain directly; we distinguish Spatio-temporal distribution controls, Input and Output controls, Remediation and Restoration measures. The performance of these measures in terms of their reduction in risk of adverse impacts was assessed based on an explicit consideration of three time horizons: past, present and future. Application of the framework in an integrated management strategy evaluation of a suite of measures, shows that depending on the time horizon, different measures perform best. "Past" points to measures targeting persistent pressures (e.g. marine litter) from past activities. "Present" favours measures targeting a driver (e.g. fisheries) that has a high likelihood of causing adverse impacts. "Future" involves impacts that both have a high likelihood of an adverse impact, as well as a long time to return to pre-impacted condition after the implementation of appropriate management, e.g. those caused by permanent infrastructure or persistent pressures such as marine litter or specific types of pollution.
Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment by Mary O’Brien, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (published with Environmental Research Foundation), 2000. Reviewed by Branden B. Johnson
Journal of Political Ecology, 2001
Dr. O'Brien, a botanist and environmental activist, has written a brief for changing the basis for environmental decisions that is impressively written and argued but still disappointingly flawed. Implementation of her proposed "alternatives analysis" could well improve such decisions, but less than she expects. Despite her refreshing candor about the limits of environmental management, she ignores many political and logical constraints on alternatives analysis (AA) and unduly demonizes risk assessment (RA). Her main point is that we should examine two or more alternatives for a given decision, and choose the option that is least damaging. She believes most current environmental decisions focus only on whether a single option poses an acceptable risk or is "safe," findings that she sees as scientifically impossible, immoral, and damaging to democracy. It is impossible to undertake most business or government without posing some hazard to workers, the community, wildlife, or the environment. . . . Within this necessarily compromised context, moral decision making would appear to require giving priority to least-harm alternatives that are most beneficial for the environment and for the public interest. (p. 80) O'Brien devotes a chapter to reviewing less-than-perfect current examples of AA, ranging from environmental impact statements to Consumer Reports® evaluations of consumer products. A secondary theme of the book is that "risk" or biological outcomes are unduly narrow criteria for environmental decisions; a wider look at the adverse impacts and benefits of alternatives would provide society with a better sense of the tradeoffs entailed in any choice, "[b]ecause the differing benefits of the various alternatives remind us of divergent considerations [and] we will ask a broader range of questions about the alternatives" (p. 135). She ends with barriers to adoption of AA (e.g., fear of "changes in business as usual" and of "a public process"; concern about "having to consider an infinite number of outlandish alternatives"), and proposes solutions. There is quite a bit to be said for these theses, and O'Brien says most of it, eloquently, passionately, and with selective evidence. I agree with her that much environmental decision-making focuses on how much harm can be endured rather than avoided; opportunities for avoiding many harms are plentiful, if at certain costs; "risk" is only one of many attributes of decision alternatives, and only one of their consequences that people care about. While AA might sound potentially chaotic, I believe she is correct that "risk-based decision making is just as socially messy as decision making based on [AA]. It's just that [AA] helps make visible the non-scientific elements that are always behind risk-influenced decisions regarding who will be allowed to do what to the environment" (p. 243). O'Brien also acknowledges that "permitting of hazardous activities is unavoidable to some degree" (p. 79), and that some hazards, such as those from nuclear wastes and persistent chemicals such as PCBs, cannot be removed (pp. 110, 116). For such inevitably damaging, irreparable situations, O'Brien suggests that society analyze options that allow "for the greatest possible cleanup or restoration," even if the action chosen "will finally be based on economic and social costs, ethics, and political will," and identify "related production, technologies, or behaviors that could cause the same problems in the future" (pp. 210-211). Although I endorse O'Brien's call for more AA, I am much less sanguine that it will greatly improve environmental decision-making, based on what I see as undue assumptions or illogic in some of her discussions of AA, RA, and environmental policy. The first half of her book concerns "What Is Wrong with Risk Assessment?" The scope of this term is 3. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Reviews
Ecological Risk-O-Meter: a risk assessor and manager software tool for better decision making in ecosystems
Environmetrics, 2012
Increased awareness of environmental issues and their effects on ecological systems and human health drive an interest in developing computational methods to reduce detrimental consequences. For example, there are concerns regarding chlorofluorocarbons and their impact on stratospheric ozone, radon and its effect on human health, coal mining and effects on habitat loss, as well as numerous other issues. However, these issues do not exist in a vacuum nor occur just one at a time. There is a need to assess social and ecological risks comprehensively and account for numerous, inter-related potential risks. Given limited funds available for addressing these issues, how can spending for purposes of environmental and ecological mitigation be optimized? What is the magnitude of overall ecological risk for a given region? Novel software, the "Ecological Risk-o-Meter", addresses these questions and concerns. The software tool not only assesses the current environmental and ecological risks, but also takes into account potential solutions and provides guidance as to how spending can be optimized to reducing overall environmental risk. We demonstrate this new tool and show how to optimize the costs of risk reduction in recursive cycles based on feedbacks.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.