Dale Virginia H, Biddinger Gregory R, Newman Michael C, Oris James T, Suter Glenn W, Thompson Timothy, Armitage Thomas M, Meyer Judith L, Allen-King Richelle M, Burton G Allen, Chapman Peter M, Conquest Loveday L, Fernandez Ivan J, Landis Wayne G, Master Lawrence L, Mitsch William J, Mueller Thomas C, Rabeni Charles F, Rodewald Amanda D, Sanders James G, van Heerden Ivor L
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036, USA.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2008 Jul;4(3):306-13. doi: 10.1897/IEAM_2007-066.1.
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board conducted a self-initiated study and convened a public workshop to characterize the state of the ecological risk assessment (ERA), with a view toward advancing the science and application of the process. That survey and analysis of ERA in decision making shows that such assessments have been most effective when clear management goals were included in the problem formulation; translated into information needs; and developed in collaboration with decision makers, assessors, scientists, and stakeholders. This process is best facilitated when risk managers, risk assessors, and stakeholders are engaged in an ongoing dialogue about problem formulation. Identification and acknowledgment of uncertainties that have the potential to profoundly affect the results and outcome of risk assessments also improves assessment effectiveness. Thus we suggest 1) through peer review of ERAs be conducted at the problem formulation stage and 2) the predictive power of risk-based decision making be expanded to reduce uncertainties through analytical and methodological approaches like life cycle analysis. Risk assessment and monitoring programs need better integration to reduce uncertainty and to evaluate risk management decision outcomes. Postdecision audit programs should be initiated to evaluate the environmental outcomes of risk-based decisions. In addition, a process should be developed to demonstrate how monitoring data can be used to reduce uncertainties. Ecological risk assessments should include the effects of chemical and nonchemical stressors at multiple levels of biological organization and spatial scale, and the extent and resolution of the pertinent scales and levels of organization should be explicitly considered during problem formulation. An approach to interpreting lines of evidence and weight of evidence is critically needed for complex assessments, and it would be useful to develop case studies and/or standards of practice for interpreting lines of evidence. In addition, tools for cumulative risk assessment should be developed because contaminants are often released into stressed environments.
美国环境保护局科学顾问委员会的生态过程与影响委员会开展了一项自主研究，并召开了一次公开研讨会，以描述生态风险评估（ERA）的现状，旨在推动该过程的科学发展与应用。对决策过程中ERA的调查与分析表明，当在问题设定中纳入明确的管理目标、将其转化为信息需求，并与决策者、评估人员、科学家及利益相关者合作开展评估时，此类评估最为有效。当风险管理者、风险评估人员及利益相关者就问题设定进行持续对话时，这一过程能得到最佳推动。识别并承认可能对风险评估结果产生深远影响的不确定性，也能提高评估效果。因此，我们建议：1）在问题设定阶段通过同行评审进行ERA；2）通过生命周期分析等分析和方法途径扩大基于风险的决策的预测能力，以减少不确定性。风险评估和监测计划需要更好地整合，以减少不确定性并评估风险管理决策结果。应启动决策后审计计划，以评估基于风险的决策的环境结果。此外，应制定一个流程，以展示如何利用监测数据减少不确定性。生态风险评估应包括化学和非化学压力源在生物组织和空间尺度多个层面的影响，在问题设定过程中应明确考虑相关尺度和组织层面的范围及分辨率。对于复杂评估，迫切需要一种解释证据线索和证据权重的方法，制定案例研究和/或解释证据线索的实践标准会很有用。此外，由于污染物经常排放到受压力的环境中，应开发累积风险评估工具。
