Skip to main content

A Scientific and Technological Framework for Evaluating Comparative Risk in Ecological Risk Assessments

  • Chapter
Modelling of Environmental Chemical Exposure and Risk

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NAIV,volume 2))

Abstract

There are significant scientific and technological challenges to managing natural resources. Data needs are cited as an obvious limitation, but there exist more fundamental scientific issues. What is still needed is a method of comparing management strategies based on projected impacts to ecosystem health. Ecological risk assessment is a field in its infancy, and its focus has been primarily toxic hazards (i.e. pesticides) to aquatic endpoints. Expanding on these achievements with the expression of sustainable, edible fisheries in an entire estuary as an assessment endpoint, and with greater complexity than a single species or species-by-species approach, is a first challenge. The extension of the scope of a risk assessment to include non-chemical stresses, such as land use change and nitrogen enrichment, is requisite to managing resources given the significance of how these disturbances alter hydrologic balances, habitat characteristics, and even the structure of ecological communities. The separation of intrinsic variability in the status of the fisheries from those variations that result from anthropogenic sources of disturbance is also a challenge that is not trivial. Management alternatives are thus evaluated based on the costs of remediation and related economic and societal issues and the projected changes in resource quality. Ultimately, terrestrial endpoints require attention as well. As an interdisciplinary application of such fields as ecology, biology, environmental management, toxicology, hydrology, and economics, ecological risk assessment requires a much broader, more comprehensive scope and a conceptual framework that synthesises the contributions of the supporting science and management.

These challenges combine with the practical, technological challenges of how to conduct a risk assessment. Central to the goal of performing analyses of various resource management scenarios is the need for a computer-based problem solving environment that automates many of the associated tasks: data gathering and manipulation, integration of statistical, empirical, and mathematical simulation modelling and analysis techniques, and the accommodation of model inter-comparisons within a common framework. Because there are no rules as such for performing an ecological risk assessment, the guidelines that exist as expert knowledge could also be codified and made available within such a framework. It is important to understand that such a framework is much more than simply a collection of assorted tools in a software toolkit. It is the implementation of the science for performing comparative ecological risk. Advances in ecological risk assessment are of a scientific as well as technological nature, and any hoped for state-of-the-art applications of the field must eventually give attention to both areas of need. I present the ongoing development of both a scientific conceptual model for performing comparative risk and a software framework to meet these needs.

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

Access this chapter

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 EPUB and 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acock, B. and Reynolds, J.F. (1997). Introduction: modularity in plant models. Ecol. Model. 94, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barber, M.C. (1994a). Approaches to modelling. Pages 145–148, In: R.J. Kendall and T.E. Lacher, Jr. (Editors), Wildlife Toxicology and Population Modelling: Integrated Studies of Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 576 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barber, M.C. (1994b). Modellin gecological impact of pesticides on avian populations: Synthesis. Pages 201–204, In: R.J. Kendall and T.E. Lacher, Jr. (Editors), Wildlife Toxicology and Population Modelling: Integrated Studies of Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 576 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barber, M.C., Suarez, L.A., and Lassiter, R.R. (1988). Kinetic exchange of nonpolar organic pollutants by fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7, 545–558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Benz, J., and Knorrenschild, M. (1997). Call for a common model documentation etiquette Ecol. Model. 97, 141–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bird, S.L. (1994). Field and exposure modelling in terrestrial ecosystems: A process approach. Pages 149–159, In: R.J. Kendall and T.E. Lacher, Jr. (Editors), Wildlife Toxicology and Population Modelling: Integrated Studies of Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 576 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burns, L.A., and Cline, D.M. (1985). Exposure Analysis Modelling System (EXAMS): Reference manual for EXAMS II, EPA/600/3-85/038, U.S. EPA, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burns, L.A. (Editor) (1992). PIRANHA: Pesticide and Industrial Chemical Risk Analysis and Hazard Assessment, Version 2.0, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carsel, R.F., Smith, C.N., Mulkey, L.A., Dean, J.D., and Jowise, P. (1984). User’ s manual for the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM), EPA/600/3-84/109, U.S. EPA, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hoch, R., Gabele, T., and Benz, J. (1998). Towards a standard for documentation of mathematical models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 113, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnston, J.M., Novak, J.H., and Kraemer, S.R. (1999). Multimedia integrated modelling for environmental protection: Introduction to a collaborative framework. Env. Mon. Assess. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Science Advisory Board. (1999). Integrated Risk Project Report.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Suter, G. W., II (Ed.). (1993). Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. (1997). Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making. Final Report Vol. 2. (http://www.riskworld.com).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., and Dyke, P.T. (1983). A model for assessing the effects of erosion on soil productivity. In: W.K. Lauenroth, G.V. Skogerbee and M. Flug (Editors), Analysis of ecological systems: State-of-the-art in ecological modelling. Elsevier, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Johnston, J.M. (2001). A Scientific and Technological Framework for Evaluating Comparative Risk in Ecological Risk Assessments. In: Linders, J.B.H.J. (eds) Modelling of Environmental Chemical Exposure and Risk. NATO ASI Series, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0884-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0884-6_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-6776-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0884-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics