Limitations of the Current Practices Used to Perform Ecological Risk Assessment (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
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 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.
Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment — A review and perspectives
Science of The Total Environment, 2010
This paper reviews the application of ecological vulnerability analysis in risk assessment and describes new developments in methodology. For generic non-site-specific assessments (e.g. for the requirements of most European directives on dangerous chemicals) risk is characterised just on the basis of the ratio between an effect indicator and an exposure indicator. However, when the actual risk for a specific ecosystem is desired, the concept of ecological vulnerability may be more appropriate. This calls for a change in thinking, from sensitivity at the organism level to vulnerability at higher organization levels, and thus forms the link from laboratory toxicology to field effects at population, community or ecosystem level. To do so, biological and ecological characteristics of the ecosystems under concern are needed to estimate the ecological vulnerability. In this review we describe different vulnerability analysis methods developed for populations (of a single species), communities (consisting of different populations of species) and ecosystems (community and habitat combined). We also give some examples of methods developed for socio-ecological systems. Aspects that all methods share are the use of expert judgment, the input of stakeholders, ranking and mapping of the results, and the qualitative nature of the results. A new general framework is presented to guide future ecological vulnerability analysis. This framework can be used as part of ecological risk assessment, but also in risk management. We conclude that the further quantification of ecological vulnerability is a valuable contribution to vulnerability assessment.
Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process
2008
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.
New approaches to the ecological risk assessment of multiple stressors
Marine and Freshwater Research, 2016
So as to assess how emerging science and new tools can be applied to study multiple stressors at a large (ecosystem) scale and to facilitate greater integration of approaches among different scientific disciplines, a workshop was organised on 10–12 September 2014 at the Sydney Institute of Marine Sciences, Sydney, Australia. The present paper discusses the limitations of the current risk-assessment approaches and how multiple stressors at large scales can be better evaluated in ecological risk assessments to inform the development of more efficient and preventive management policies based on adaptive management in the future. A future risk-assessment paradigm that overcomes these limitations is presented. This paradigm includes cultural and ecological protection goals, the development of ecological scenarios, the establishment of the relevant interactions among species, potential sources of stressors, their interactions and the development of cause–effect models. It is envisaged tha...
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.