Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.00



View/Hide Left Panel
  • Measurability (can we get the data we need to do the assessment?);

  • Correlation (there might be little value in studying an end point that is highly correlated with one already selected);

  • Policy relevance (can the end point be linked to feasible policy options?);

  • Tracking and enforcement (can future efforts tell whether the management actions based on risk assessment have been effective?).

Many ecological risk assessments necessarily deal with complex systems that offer an abundance of possible end points for study, and selection of one or a few of them for the intense effort required in a full-scale risk assessment is likely to be time-consuming and expensive—perhaps as long and expensive as the risk assessment itself.

As a strategy for selecting end points, the group consensus favored starting with a broad focus and then narrowing to the appropriate level of detail to define the design of the assessment. Taking an initially broad approach prevents missing the broader implications of hazard and stress. Institutional forms of risk assessment, such as premanufacture reviews, are so routinized that the level of organization (e.g., population) is predetermined. For noninstitutional applications, the ability to quantify will probably dictate the level of organization.

Consideration of Nonlinearities And Discontinuities

Nonlinearities and discontinuities are likely in the response of ecological systems to stress. The group consensus was that the likelihood of observing a threshold or mean-threshold in the stress-response function increases with system complexity. Because thresholds are common in ecological systems, goals of stress-response analysis should include identification of degrees of stress at which thresholds occur and estimation of the upper ends of the threshold ranges.

The slope of the stress-response curves might be steeper as the scale of organization increases—and might approach a step function for communities and ecosystems. Therefore, the assessor needs to be sensitive to the probabilities of catastrophic changes that have few analogues at lower levels of organization and, consequently, use a greater margin of



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 313
APPENDIX F 313 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. • Measurability (can we get the data we need to do the assessment?); • Correlation (there might be little value in studying an end point that is highly correlated with one already selected); • Policy relevance (can the end point be linked to feasible policy options?); • Tracking and enforcement (can future efforts tell whether the management actions based on risk assessment have been effective?). Many ecological risk assessments necessarily deal with complex systems that offer an abundance of possible end points for study, and selection of one or a few of them for the intense effort required in a full-scale risk assessment is likely to be time-consuming and expensive—perhaps as long and expensive as the risk assessment itself. As a strategy for selecting end points, the group consensus favored starting with a broad focus and then narrowing to the appropriate level of detail to define the design of the assessment. Taking an initially broad approach prevents missing the broader implications of hazard and stress. Institutional forms of risk assessment, such as premanufacture reviews, are so routinized that the level of organization (e.g., population) is predetermined. For noninstitutional applications, the ability to quantify will probably dictate the level of organization. Consideration of Nonlinearities And Discontinuities Nonlinearities and discontinuities are likely in the response of ecological systems to stress. The group consensus was that the likelihood of observing a threshold or mean-threshold in the stress-response function increases with system complexity. Because thresholds are common in ecological systems, goals of stress-response analysis should include identification of degrees of stress at which thresholds occur and estimation of the upper ends of the threshold ranges. The slope of the stress-response curves might be steeper as the scale of organization increases—and might approach a step function for communities and ecosystems. Therefore, the assessor needs to be sensitive to the probabilities of catastrophic changes that have few analogues at lower levels of organization and, consequently, use a greater margin of