Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.00



View/Hide Left Panel

or ecosystems are to be protected? must costs be weighed against benefits? is the objective to protect the resource or to optimize exploitation of the resource?). The committee agrees with the consensus from the workshop that the initial phases of an ecological risk assessment involve a consideration of regulatory/legal mandates that goes well beyond the definition of hazard identification presented in the 1983 report.

INTEGRATION OF ECOLOGICAL RISK INTO THE 1983 FRAMEWORK

The committee believes that integration of ecological risks into the 1983 risk assessment framework is preferable to developing a de novo ecological risk assessment framework. Like health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment must be defined in broad terms if it is to be applicable to the full array of environmental problems that regulatory and resource management agencies must address. Moreover, any framework chosen for ecological risk assessment must be simple, flexible, and general, so that it will be understood by both scientists and the risk managers with whom scientists must communicate. The 1983 framework, by any measure, has been extraordinarily successful in communicating the broad features of health risk assessment throughout the scientific and regulatory communities. Although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the committee believes that the underlying decision process is the same for both. The function of risk assessment is to link science to decision-making, and that basic function is essentially the same whether risks to humans or risks to the environment are being considered. Finally, the committee believes that prospects for integration of human and ecological concerns into comprehensive environmental policies protective of both will be enhanced if a common framework and terminology can be found that describes both kinds of risk assessments.

The committee agrees with the consensus at the workshop that the framework defined in the 1983 report is inadequate as written for application to ecological problems because the framework (1) does not account for legal mandates and other policy considerations that substantially influence the initial stages and focus of ecological risk assessments



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 254
REVISION OF 1983 FRAMEWORK TO INCORPORATE ECOLOGICAL RISK 254 ASSESSMENT original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. or ecosystems are to be protected? must costs be weighed against benefits? is the objective to protect the resource or to optimize exploitation of the resource?). The committee agrees with the consensus from the workshop that the initial phases of an ecological risk assessment involve a consideration of regulatory/legal mandates that goes well beyond the definition of hazard identification presented in the 1983 report. INTEGRATION OF ECOLOGICAL RISK INTO THE 1983 FRAMEWORK The committee believes that integration of ecological risks into the 1983 risk assessment framework is preferable to developing a de novo ecological risk assessment framework. Like health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment must be defined in broad terms if it is to be applicable to the full array of environmental problems that regulatory and resource management agencies must address. Moreover, any framework chosen for ecological risk assessment must be simple, flexible, and general, so that it will be understood by both scientists and the risk managers with whom scientists must communicate. The 1983 framework, by any measure, has been extraordinarily successful in communicating the broad features of health risk assessment throughout the scientific and regulatory communities. Although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the committee believes that the underlying decision process is the same for both. The function of risk assessment is to link science to decision-making, and that basic function is essentially the same whether risks to humans or risks to the environment are being considered. Finally, the committee believes that prospects for integration of human and ecological concerns into comprehensive environmental policies protective of both will be enhanced if a common framework and terminology can be found that describes both kinds of risk assessments. The committee agrees with the consensus at the workshop that the framework defined in the 1983 report is inadequate as written for application to ecological problems because the framework (1) does not account for legal mandates and other policy considerations that substantially influence the initial stages and focus of ecological risk assessments