Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation.

Autor: Sample BE; Ecological Risk Inc., Rancho Murieta, California, USA., Johnson MS; US Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA., Hull RN; Gary D. Williams & Associates Inc., Campbellville, Ontario, Canada., Kapustka L; LK Consultancy, Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada., Landis WG; Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA., Murphy CA; Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA., Sorensen M; Ramboll US Consulting, Atlanta, Georgia, USA., Mann G; Azimuth Consulting Group Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Gust KA; Research Development and Engineering Center, Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA., Mayfield DB; Labcorp, Seattle, Washington, USA., Ludwigs JD; Rifcon, Hirschberg, Germany., Munns WR Jr; USEPA, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Integrated environmental assessment and management [Integr Environ Assess Manag] 2024 May; Vol. 20 (3), pp. 658-673. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Dec 16.
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4710
Abstrakt: Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism-level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population- and systems-level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state-of-the-science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population- and system-level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658-673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
(© 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: