Ecological Risk Assessment,Prediction, and Assessing Risk Predictions

Ecological risk assessment embodied in an adaptive management framework is becoming the global standard approach for formally assessing and managing the ecological risks of technology and development. Ensuring the continual improvement of ecological risk assessment approaches is partly achieved through the dissemination of not only the types of risk assessment approaches used, but also their efficacy. While there is an increasing body of literature describing the results of general comparisons between alternate risk assessment methods and models, there is a paucity of literature that post hoc assesses the performance of specific predictions based on an assessment of risk and the effectiveness of the particular model used to predict the risk. This is especially the case where risk assessments have been used to grant consent or approval for the construction of major infrastructure projects. While postconstruction environmental monitoring is increasingly commonplace, it is not common for a postconstruction assessment of the accuracy and performance of the ecological risk assessment and underpinning model to be undertaken. Without this “assessment of the assessment,” it is difficult for other practitioners to gain insight into the performance of the approach and models used and therefore, as argued here, this limits the rate of improvement of risk assessment approaches.     

Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment: The CRAM Perspective

In 1989, a Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology (CRAM) was convened by the National Research Council (NRC) to identify and investigate important scientific issues in risk assessment. One of the first issues considered by the committee was the development of a conceptual framework for ecological risk assessment, defined as "the characterization of the adverse ecological effects of environmental exposures to hazards imposed by human activities." Adverse ecological effects include all biological and nonbiological environmental changes that society perceives as undesirable. The committee's opinion was that a general framework is needed to define the relationship of ecological risk assessment to environmental management and to facilitate the development of uniform technical guidelines. The framework for human health risk assessment proposed by the NRC in 1983 was adopted as a starting point for discussion. CRAM concluded that, although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the underlying decision process is the same for both. Therefore, CRAM recommended that the 1983 risk assessment framework be modified to accommodate both human health and ecological risk assessment. CRAM defined an integrated health/ ecological risk assessment framework consisting of the four components: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Exposure-Response Assessment, and Risk Characterization. CRAM further provided recommendations on the scope of issues to be addressed in ecological risk assessment, critical research needs, and mechanisms for providing more detailed guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.     

Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights: II. Estimating Effects on Wildlife

An ecological risk assessment framework for aircraft overflights has been developed, with special emphasis on military applications. This article presents the analysis of effects and risk characterization phases; the problem formulation and exposure analysis phases are presented in a companion article. The framework addresses the effects of sound, visual stressors, and collision on the abundance and production of wildlife populations. Profiles of effects, including thresholds, are highlighted for two groups of endpoint species: ungulates (hoofed mammals) and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses). Several factors complicate the analysis of effects for aircraft overflights. Studies of the effects of aircraft overflights previously have not been associated with a quantitative assessment framework; therefore no consistent relations between exposure and population-level response have been developed. Information on behavioral effects of overflights by military aircraft (or component stressors) on most wildlife species is sparse. Moreover, models that relate behavioral changes to abundance or reproduction, and those that relate behavioral or hearing effects thresholds from one population to another are generally not available. The aggregation of sound frequencies, durations, and the view of the aircraft into the single exposure metric of slant distance is not always the best predictor of effects, but effects associated with more specific exposure metrics (e.g., narrow sound spectra) may not be easily determined or added. The weight of evidence and uncertainty analyses of the risk characterization for overflights are also discussed in this article.     

Generic Assessment Endpoints Are Needed for Ecological Risk Assessment

This article presents arguments for the development of generic assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment. Generic assessment endpoints would be ecological entities and attributes that are assumed to be worthy of protection in most contexts. The existence of generic assessment endpoints would neither create a requirement that they be used in every assessment nor preclude the use of other assessment endpoints. They would simply be a starting point in the process of identifying the assessment endpoints for a particular assessment. They are needed to meet legal mandates, to provide a floor for environmental degradation, to provide some consistency in environmental regulation, as exemplars for site- or project-specific assessment endpoints, to allow development of methods and models, to give risk managers the courage to act, for screening and site-independent assessments, to support environmental monitoring, to facilitate communication, and to avoid paralysis by analysis. Generic assessment endpoints should include not only a list of entities and attributes, but also explanations of each endpoint, guidance on their use and interpretation, and measures and models that could be used to estimate them.     

Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights: I. Planning the Analysis and Estimating Exposure

An ecological risk assessment framework for low-altitude aircraft overflights was developed, with special emphasis on military applications. The problem formulation and exposure analysis phases are presented in this article; an analysis of effects and risk characterization is presented in a companion article. The intent of this article is threefold: (1) to illustrate the development of a generic framework for the ecological risk assessment of an activity, (2) to show how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ecological risk assessment paradigm can be applied to an activity other than the release of a chemical, and (3) to provide guidance for the assessment of ecological risks from low-altitude aircraft overflights. The key stressor for low-altitude aircraft overflights is usually sound, although visual and physical (collision) stressors may also be significant. Susceptible and regulated wildlife populations are the major assessment endpoint entities, although plant communities may be impacted by takeoffs and landings. The exposure analysis utilizes measurements of wildlife locations, measurements of sound levels at the wildlife locations, measurements of slant distances from aircraft to wildlife, models that extrapolate sound from the source aircraft to the ground, and bird-strike probability models. Some of the challenges to conducting a risk assessment for aircraft overflights include prioritizing potential stressors and endpoints, choosing exposure metrics that relate to wildlife responses, obtaining good estimates of sound or distance, and estimating wildlife locations.     

Subsea Release of Oil from a Riser: An Ecological Risk Assessment

This study illustrates a newly developed methodology, as a part of the U.S. EPA ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework, to predict exposure concentrations in a marine environment due to underwater release of oil and gas. It combines the hydrodynamics of underwater blowout, weathering algorithms, and multimedia fate and transport to measure the exposure concentration. Naphthalene and methane are used as surrogate compounds for oil and gas, respectively. Uncertainties are accounted for in multimedia input parameters in the analysis. The 95th percentile of the exposure concentration (EC_95%) is taken as the representative exposure concentration for the risk estimation. A bootstrapping method is utilized to characterize EC_95% and associated uncertainty. The toxicity data of 19 species available in the literature are used to calculate the 5th percentile of the predicted no observed effect concentration (PNEC_5%) by employing the bootstrapping method. The risk is characterized by transforming the risk quotient (RQ), which is the ratio of EC_95% to PNEC_5%, into a cumulative risk distribution. This article describes a probabilistic basis for the ERA, which is essential from risk management and decision‐making viewpoints. Two case studies of underwater oil and gas mixture release, and oil release with no gaseous mixture are used to show the systematic implementation of the methodology, elements of ERA, and the probabilistic method in assessing and characterizing the risk.     

Whither Risk Assessment: New Challenges and Opportunities a Third of a Century After the Red Book

Six multi‐decade‐long members of SRA reflect on the 1983 Red Book in order to examine the evolving relationship between risk assessment and risk management; the diffusion of risk assessment practice to risk areas such as homeland security and transportation; the quality of chemical risk databases; challenges from other groups to elements at the core of risk assessment practice; and our collective efforts to communicate risk assessment to a diverse set of critical groups that do not understand risk, risk assessment, or many other risk‐related issues. The authors reflect on the 10 recommendations in the Red Book and present several pressing challenges for risk assessment practitioners.     

Life-Cycle Assessment in Relation to Risk Assessment: An Evolving Perspective

A life-cycle approach takes a cradle-to-grave perspective of a product's numerous activities from the raw material extraction to final disposal. There have been recent efforts to develop life-cycle assessment (LCA) to assess both environmental and human health issues. The question then arises: what are the capabilities of LCA, especially in relation to risk assessment? To address this question, this paper first describes the LCA mass-based accounting system and then analyzes the use of this approach for environmental and human health assessment. The key LCA limitations in this respect are loss of spatial, temporal, dose-response, and threshold information. These limitations affect LCA's capability to assess several environmental issues, and human health in particular. This leads to the conclusion that LCA impact assessment does not predict or measure actual effects, quantitate risks, or address safety. Instead, LCA uses mass loadings with simplifying assumptions and subjective judgments to add independent effects and exposures into an overall score. As a result, LCA identifies possible human health issues on a systemwide basis from a worst case, hypothetical hazard perspective. Ideally, the identified issues would then be addressed by more detailed assessment methods, such as risk assessment.     

Stakeholder Views on Flood Risk Management in Hungary''s Upper Tisza Basin

With escalating costs of flood mitigation and relief, a challenge for the Hungarian government is to develop a flood mitigation and insurance/relief system that is viewed as efficient and fair by the many stakeholders involved. To aid policymakers in this task, this article reports on a recent study to elicit stakeholder views on flood risk management in the Upper Tisza Basin, including views on appropriate means of reducing losses and for transferring the residual losses from the direct victims to taxpayers or an insurance pool. This study is part of a project to develop an integrated approach to flood risk management coordinated by the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in collaboration with Swedish and Hungarian researchers. The discussion begins by describing the background of flood risk management problems in the Upper Tisza Basin. The results of interviews carried out with selected key stakeholders and the results of a public survey eliciting views on flood risk management are reported. The final section draws conclusions on incorporating stakeholder views into a flood risk management model, which will be used to illustrate policy paths at an upcoming stakeholder workshop. The conclusions are also of direct interest to Hungarian policymakers.     

Chemical and Radiation Environmental Risk Management: Differences, Commonalities, and Challenges

Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a "bottom up approach." Risk between 10(-4) and 10(-6) is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a "top down" approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long-term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.     

Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments

This paper examines lay and expert perceptions of the ecological risks associated with a range of human activities that could adversely affect water resource environments. It employs the psychometric paradigm pioneered in characterizing perceptions of human health risks, which involves surveys to obtain judgments from subjects about risk items in terms of several important characteristics of the risks. The paper builds on a previous study that introduced ecological risk perception. This second study employs a larger, more diverse sample, a more focused topic area, and comparisons between lay and expert judgments. The results confirm that a small set of underlying factors explain a great deal of variability in lay judgments about ecological risks. These have been termed Ecological Impact, Human Benefits, Controllability , and Knowledge. The results are useful in explaining subjects' judgments of the general riskiness of, and need for regulation of, various risk items. The results also indicate several differences and areas of agreement among the lay and expert samples that point to potential key issues in future ecological risk management efforts for water resources.     

An Ecological Model for Quantitative Risk Assessment for Schistosomiasis: The Case of a Patchy Environment in the Coastal Tropical Area of Northeastern Brazil

We developed a stochastic model for quantitative risk assessment for the Schistosoma mansoni (SM) parasite, which causes an endemic disease of public concern. The model provides answers in a useful format for public health decisions, uses data and expert opinion, and can be applied to any landscape where the snail Biomphalaria glabrata is the main intermediate host (South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Africa). It incorporates several realistic and case‐specific features: stage‐structured parasite populations, periodic praziquantel (PZQ) drug treatment for humans, density dependence, extreme events (prolonged rainfall), site‐specific sanitation quality, environmental stochasticity, monthly rainfall variation, uncertainty in parameters, and spatial dynamics. We parameterize the model through a real‐world application in the district of Porto de Galinhas (PG), one of the main touristic destinations in Brazil, where previous studies identified four parasite populations within the metapopulation. The results provide a good approximation of the dynamics of the system and are in agreement with our field observations, i.e., the lack of basic infrastructure (sanitation level and health programs) makes PG a suitable habitat for the persistence and growth of a parasite metapopulation. We quantify the risk of SM metapopulation explosion and quasi‐extinction and the time to metapopulation explosion and quasi‐extinction. We evaluate the sensitivity of the results under varying scenarios of future periodic PZQ treatment (based on the Brazilian Ministry of Health's plan) and sanitation quality. We conclude that the plan might be useful to slow SM metapopulation growth but not to control it. Additional investments in better sanitation are necessary.     

Integrating Uncertainty and Interindividual Variability in Environmental Risk Assessment

An integrated, quantitative approach to incorporating both uncertainty and interindividual variability into risk prediction models is described. Individual risk R is treated as a variable distributed in both an uncertainty dimension and a variability dimension, whereas population risk I (the number of additional cases caused by R) is purely uncertain. I is shown to follow a compound Poisson-binomial distribution, which in low-level risk contexts can often be approximated well by a corresponding compound Poisson distribution. The proposed analytic framework is illustrated with an application to cancer risk assessment for a California population exposed to 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane from ground water.     

Characterizing Environmental Harm: Developments in an Approach to Strategic Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Environmental policymakers and regulators are often in the position of having to prioritize their actions across a diverse range of environmental pressures to secure environmental protection and improvements. Information on environmental issues to inform this type of strategic analysis can be disparate; it may be too voluminous or even absent. Data on a range of issues are rarely presented in a common format that allows easy analysis and comparison. Nevertheless, judgments are required on the significance of various environmental pressures and on the inherent uncertainties to inform strategic assessments such as “state of the environment” reports. How can decisionmakers go about this type of strategic and comparative risk analysis? In an attempt to provide practical tools for the analysis of environmental risks at a strategic level, the Environment Agency of England and Wales has conducted a program of developmental research on strategic risk assessment since 1996. The tools developed under this program use the concept of “environmental harm” as a common metric, viewed from technical, social, and economic perspectives, to analyze impacts from a range of environmental pressures. Critical to an informed debate on the relative importance of these perspectives is an understanding and analysis of the various characteristics of harm (spatial and temporal extent, reversibility, latency, etc.) and of the social response to actual or potential environmental harm from a range of hazards. Recent developments in our approach, described herein, allow a presentation of the analysis in a structured fashion so as to better inform risk‐management decisions.     

Risk Assessment for Aflatoxin: An Evaluation Based on the Multistage Model

Lifetime cancer potency of alfatoxin was assessed based on the Yeh et al. study from China in which both aflatoxin exposure and hepatitis B prevalence were measured. This study provides the best available information for estimating the carcinogenic risk posed by aflatoxin to the U.S. population. Cancer potency of aflatoxin was estimated using a biologically motivated risk assessment model. The best estimate of aflatoxin potency was 9 (mg/kg/day)⁻¹ for individuals negative for hepatitis B and 230 (mg/kg/day)⁻¹ for individuals positive for hepatitis B.     

Risk Assessment and Alternatives Assessment: Comparing Two Methodologies

The selection and use of chemicals and materials with less hazardous profiles reflects a paradigm shift from reliance on risk minimization through exposure controls to hazard avoidance. This article introduces risk assessment and alternatives assessment frameworks in order to clarify a misconception that alternatives assessment is a less effective tool to guide decision making, discusses factors promoting the use of each framework, and also identifies how and when application of each framework is most effective. As part of an assessor's decision process to select one framework over the other, it is critical to recognize that each framework is intended to perform different functions. Although the two frameworks share a number of similarities (such as identifying hazards and assessing exposure), an alternatives assessment provides a more realistic framework with which to select environmentally preferable chemicals because of its primary reliance on assessing hazards and secondary reliance on exposure assessment. Relevant to other life cycle impacts, the hazard of a chemical is inherent, and although it may be possible to minimize exposure (and subsequently reduce risk), it is challenging to assess such exposures through a chemical's life cycle. Through increased use of alternatives assessments at the initial stage of material or product design, there will be less reliance on post facto risk‐based assessment techniques because the potential for harm is significantly reduced, if not avoided, negating the need for assessing risk in the first place.     

Role of Comparative Risk Assessment in Addressing Environmental Security in the Middle East

During the 21st century, environmental challenges are likely to intensify across the world and possibly lead to violent conflicts. Strategies for conflict avoidance will be incomplete unless they recognize, discuss, and mitigate regional environmental stress factors. Comparative risk assessment (CRA) is one of the most critical tools emerging to influence modern environmental policies and is increasingly used to create a common language to help reconcile competing interests in development and environmental disputes around the world. This article considers the environmental challenges facing the Middle East in light of their "transboundary" nature and proposes CRA as a framework for setting environmental priorities and reducing tensions in the region.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.