Integrating human and ecological risk assessment: application to the cyanobacterial harmful algal bloom problem

  • Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta
  • Wayne R MunnsJr
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 619)


Environmental and public health policy continues to evolve in response to new and complex social, economic and environmental drivers. Globalization and centralization of commerce, evolving patterns of land use (e.g., urbanization, deforestation), and technological advances in such areas as manufacturing and development of genetically modified foods have created new and complex classes of stressors and risks (e.g., climate change, emergent and opportunist disease, sprawl, genomic change). In recognition of these changes, environmental risk assessment and its use are changing from stressor-endpoint specific assessments used in command and control types of decisions to an integrated approach for application in community-based decisions. As a result, the process of risk assessment and supporting risk analyses are evolving to characterize the human-environment relationship. Integrating risk paradigms combine the process of risk estimation for humans, biota, and natural resources into one assessment to improve the information used in environmental decisions (Suter et al. 2003b). A benefit to this approach includes a broader, system-wide evaluation that considers the interacting effects of stressors on humans and the environment, as well the interactions between these entities. To improve our understanding of the linkages within complex systems, risk assessors will need to rely on a suite of techniques for conducting rigorous analyses characterizing the exposure and effects relationships between stressors and biological receptors. Many of the analytical techniques routinely employed are narrowly focused and unable to address the complexities of an integrated assessment. In this paper, we describe an approach to integrated risk assessment, and discuss qualitative community modeling and Probabilistic Relational Modeling techniques that address these limitations and evaluate their potential for use in an integrated risk assessment of cyanobacteria.


Risk Assessment Bayesian Network West Nile Virus Cyanobacterial Bloom Crater Lake 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bodini A (1998) Representing ecosystem structure through signed digraphs; model reconstruction, qualitative predictions and management: The case of freshwater ecosystem. Oikos 83:93-106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bontje D, Hermens J, Vermeire T, Damstra T (2004) Integrated Risk Assessment: Nonylphenol Case Study. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). WHO/IPCS/IRA/12/04 Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Bridges JW, Bridges O (2004) Integrated risks assessment and endocrine disrupters. Toxicol 205:11-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bro-Rasmussen F, Løkke H (1984) Ecoepidemiology – A casuistic discipline describing ecological disturbances and damages in relation to their specific causes: Exemplified by chlorinated phenols and chlorophenoxy acids. Regulatory Tox and Pharm 4:391-399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruins RJF, Heberling MT (2005) Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Buntine W (1991) Theory refinement on Bayesian networks. IN: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann (eds). San Fransisco pp 52-60Google Scholar
  7. Castillo GC, Li HW, Rossignol PA (2000) Absence of overall feedback in a benthic estuarine community: A system potentially buffered from impacts of biological invasions. Estuaries 23:275-291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Codd GA, Lindsay J, Yound FM, Morrison LF, Metcalf JS (2005) Chapter 1. Harmful Cyanobacteria. From mass mortalities to management measures. In: Huisman J, Matthijs HCP, Visser PM (eds) Harmful Cyanobacteria. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1-23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crome FHJ, Thomas MR, Moore LA (1996) A novel Bayesian approach to assess the impacts of rain forest logging. Ecological Applications 6:1104-1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dambacher JM, Li HW, Wolff JO, Rossignol PA (1999) Parsimonious interpretation of the impact of vegetation, food, and predation on the snowshoe hare. Oikos 84: 530-532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein PR (1994) Framework for an integrated assessment of climate change and ecosystem vulnerability. In: Wilson ME, Levins R, Spielman A (eds) Disease in Evolution: Global Changes and Emergence of Infectious Diseases. New York Academy of Science, New York, pp 423-435Google Scholar
  12. Forget G, Lebel J (2001) An ecosystem approach to human health. International J of Occup and Env Health Supplement to 7:3-36Google Scholar
  13. Gurjar BR, Mohan M (2003) Integrated risk analysis for acute and chronic exposure to toxic chemicals. J Haz Mat A 102:25-40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammond TR, Ellis JR (2002) A meta-assessment for elasmobranches based on dietary data and Bayesian networks. Ecological Indicators 1:197-211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen L, Hedtke SF, Munns WR Jr (2003) Integrated human and ecological risk assessment: A case study of ultraviolet radiation effects on amphibians, coral, humans, and oceanic primary productivity. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9: 359-377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey T, Mahaffey KR, Velazquez S, Dourson M (1995) Holistic risk assessment: An emerging process for environmental decisions. Reg Tox and Pharm 22:110-117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hulot FD, Lacroix G, Lescher-Moutoue F, Loreau M (2000) Functional diversity governs ecosystem response to nutrient enrichment. Nature 405:340-344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jorgensen J, D’Ambrosio B, Rossignol PA (2003) Data-driven construction of community models of Crater Lake. NSF Biocomplexity Workshop -The vertical organization of energy, carbon, and nutrient cycles in an ultraoligotrophic ecosystem: A workshop on Crater Lake, Oregon February 16 -18Google Scholar
  19. Lackey R (1997) If ecological risk assessment is the answer, what is the question? Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 3:921-928Google Scholar
  20. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Nat 54:421-431Google Scholar
  21. Levins R (1973) Fundamental and applied research in agriculture. Science 181:523-524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levins R (1998) Chapter 11 Qualitative mathematics for understanding, prediction, and intervention in complex ecosystems. IN: Approaches to Assessing Ecosystem Health. Rapport D, Costanza R, Epstein P, Gaudet C, Levins R (eds). Blackwell MA, pp 178-204Google Scholar
  23. Li HW, Rossignol PA, Castillo G (1999) Chapter 30: Risk analysis of species introductions: Insights from qualitative modeling. In Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms. Vectors, Biology, and Impacts. Claudi R, Leach JH (eds). Lewsi Publ, Boca Raton pp 431-447Google Scholar
  24. Loiselle S, Carpenato GM, Hull V, Waller T, Rossi C (2000) Feedback analysis in reserve management: studying local myths using qualitative models. Ecol Modelling 129:25-37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loiselle S, Hull V, Permengeat E, Falcucci M, Rossi C (2002) Qualitative models to predict impacts of human interventions in a wetland ecosystem. Web Ecology 3:56-69Google Scholar
  26. MacArthur RH, Levins R (1965) Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc National Academy Science 51:1207-1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marcot BG, Holthausen RS, Raphael MG, Rowland MM, Wisdom MJ (2001) Using Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. For Ecol and Management 153:29-42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martens P (1998) Health and Climate Change. Earthscan Publs Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Munns WR Jr, Kroes R, Veith G, Suter II GW, Damstra T, Waters M (2003) Approaches for integrated risk assessment. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9: 267-272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC), National Academy of Sciences (1983_ Risk Assessment in the Federal Government. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council (NRC), National Academy of Sciences (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington DC pp 249Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Orme Zavaleta J, Rossignol PA (2004) Community-Level Analysis of Risk of Vector-Borne Disease. Trans Royal Soc Trop Med & Hyg 98(10): 610-618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orme Zavaleta J, Jorgensen J, D’Ambrosio B, Altendorf E, Rossignol PA (in press) Discovering Spatio-Temporal Models of the Spread of West Nile Virus. Risk AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  35. Ortiz M, Wolff M (2002) Application of loop analysis to benthic systems in northern Chile for the elaboration of sustainable management strategies. Marine Ecol Progress Series 242:15-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterman RM, Anderson J (1999) Decision analysis: A method for taking uncertainties into account in risk-based decision making. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:231-244Google Scholar
  37. Puccia CJ, Levins R (1991) Chapter 6. Qualitative modeling in ecology: Loop analysis, signed digraphs, and time averaging. IN: Qualitative Simulation Modeling and Analysis. Fishwick PA, Luker PA (eds). Springer-Verlag Publ, New York pp 119-143Google Scholar
  38. Reckhow KH (2003) Bayesian approaches in ecological analysis and modeling. IN:The Role of Models in Ecosystem Science. Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds). Princeton Univ Press, In pressGoogle Scholar
  39. Ross P, Birnbaum L (2003) Integrated human and ecological risk assessment: A case study of persistent organic pollutant (POPs) risk to humans and wildlife. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9: 303-324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sekizawa J, Suter GW, Birnbaum L (2003) Integrated human and ecological risk assessment: A case study of tributyltin and triphenyltin compounds. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9: 325-342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stahl RG Jr, Kapustka L, Bruins RJF, Munns, WR Jr (eds) (in press) Valuation of Ecological Resources: Integration of Ecological Risk Assessment and Socio-economics to Support Environmental Decisions. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FLGoogle Scholar
  42. Suter GW II, Norton SB, Barnthouse LW (2003a) The evolution of frameworks for ecological risk assessment from the Red Book ancestor. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9: 1349-1360Google Scholar
  43. Suter GW II, Vermeire T, Munns W Jr, Sekizawa J (2003b) Framework for the integration of health and ecological risk assessment. IPCS Workshop summary. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9: 281-301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1995) Guidance for Risk Characterization. Office of Science Policy. FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  45. Varis O, Kuikka S, Kettunen J (1993) Belief networks in fish stock assessment – The Baltic salmon case. ICES Statutory Meeting Ref M Statistics Committee Ref Anacat Committee pp 1-18Google Scholar
  46. Vermeire T, MacPhail R, Waters M (2003) Integrated human and ecological risk assessment: A case study of organophospherous pesticides in the environment. Human and Ecol Risk Assessment 9:343-357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Mellilo LM (1997) Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 277:494-499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson EO (1998) Integrated science and the coming century of the environment. Science 279:2048-2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. World Health Organization (2001) Integrated Risk Assessment. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). WHO/IPCS/IRA/01/12 Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta
    • 1
  • Wayne R MunnsJr
    • 1
  1. 1.USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryOffice of Research and DevelopmentUSA

Personalised recommendations