Skip to main content

A Synopsis of Immediate and Deliberate Environmental Assessments

  • Conference paper
  • 937 Accesses

Abstract

Environmental assessments can be classified by the urgency of the problem and therefore the amount of time allowed for the assessment before a decision is made to benefit environmental and social objectives. Deliberate (occurring in an unhurried fashion) and immediate (performed without delay) assessments have different constraints; and different value judgments or standards are used to judge their quality. Being aware of the differences and similarities can improve the quality of both deliberate and immediate environmental assessments. In particular, deliberate assessments can eventually provide knowledge or decision tools for future unanticipated emergencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cleveland, C. (2007). Exxon Valdez oil spill. Retrieved June 3, 2007, from Encyclopedia of the earth. Available at:http://www.eoearth.org/article/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill.

  2. Cormier, S. M., & Suter, G. W. II. (2008). A framework for fully integrating environmental assessments. Environmental Management, published “Online First” http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9138-y.

  3. Griffith, M. B., Lazorchak, J. M., & Herlihy, A. T. (2004). Relationships among exceedences of metals criteria, the results of ambient bioassays, and community metrics in mining-impacted streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(7):1786–1795.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hawkins, C. P. (2006). Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecological Applications, 16(4):1277–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Humphries, M. (1996). CRS Report to Congress. New World Gold Mine and Yellowstone National Park — NLE. (CRS Report: 96-669, p. 6).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F. K., Kiker, G., et al. (2006). Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Analysis, 26:61–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. NRC (National Research Council). (2005). Superfund and mining megasites: lessons from the Coeur D’Alene river basin. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Padel, R. (2005). Tigers in Red Weather: a quest for the last wild tigers. London: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Peterson, C. H., Rice, S. D., Short, J. W., et al. (2003). Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science, 302:2082–2086.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Suter, G. W. II, & Cormier, S. M. (2008). A theory of practice for environmental assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Monitoring, 4(4).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Suter, G. W., II. (2007). Ecological risk assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tuckerman, S., & Zawiski, B. (2007). Case study of dam removal and TMDLs: process and results. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 33(2):103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (1994).Water quality standards handbook (2nd ed.). Contains Update #1. EPA/823/B-94/005a. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  14. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2006). Requirements related to the Grand Canyon visibility transport commission. Federal Register 64(126):35769–35773.

    Google Scholar 

  15. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2006). Interim reregistration eligibility decision: carbofuran. US Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (7508P), Washington, DC. EPA-738-R-06-031. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/reregistration/RFDs/carbofuran_ired.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  16. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2007). Causal analysis, diagnosis decision information system. Last updated September 12, 2007. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/caddis.

  17. WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), & USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2006). Final basis of design report: Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site; Brown, Otagami and Winnebago counties. Chicago, IL: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. Available at:http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/foxriver/documents/BODR/Final BODR Volumel.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Suter, G.W. II & Cormier, S.M. (2008) What is meant by risk-based environmental quality criteria. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Moniforing, 4(4).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Cormier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cormier, S.M. (2008). A Synopsis of Immediate and Deliberate Environmental Assessments. In: Linkov, I., Ferguson, E., Magar, V.S. (eds) Real-Time and Deliberative Decision Making. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9026-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics