Advertisement

Developments and Trends in Ecological Risk Assessment

  • W. Glenn SuterII
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 4)

Abstract

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) has been defined as “the process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors” [1]. Functionally, risk assessment is technical support for decision making under uncertainty. It is applied to finance, industrial safety, wildfire management, regulation of chemicals, and many other fields. ERAs are simply those risk assessments that support decisions concerning a hazard to nonhuman biological systems. It is distinguished from other types of environmental assessments by the clear definition of a decision which must be made by a decision maker who acknowledges uncertainty. The explicit analysis of uncertainty leads to other properties of risk assessment such as the requirement of clearly defined endpoints and the involvement of a decision maker in formulating the assessment problem.

Keywords

Decision Maker Risk Assessment Environmental Protection Agency Health Risk Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998) Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barton, A., Berish, C., Daniel, B. et al. (1997) Priorities for Ecological Protection: an Initial List and Discussion Document for EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suter, G.W. II. (2000) Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk assessment, Risk Analysis 20, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992) Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. (1996) Ecotox Thresholds,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McVey, M., Hall, K., Trenham, P., Soast, A., Frymier, L., and Hirst, A. (1993) Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Posthuma, L. and Suter, G. (2001) Species Sensitivity Distributions for Ecotoxicology, SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods. (1999a) ECOFRAM Aquatic Report, peer review draft,http://www.ena.gov/oppefedl/ecorisWindex.htm
  9. 9.
    Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods. (1999b) ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report, http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/ecorisk/index.htm
  10. 10.
    Bernstein, P.L. (1996) Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quality Assurance Management Staff. (1994) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barnthouse, L.W. (1996) Guide for Developing Data Quality Objectives for Ecological Risk Assessment at DOE Oak Ridge Operations Facilities, Environmental Restoration Risk Assessment Program, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suter, G.W. II, Efroymson, R.A., Sample, B.E., and Jones, D.S. (2000) Ecological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites, Lewis Pubishers, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Glenn SuterII
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations