Generic Assessment Endpoints Are Needed for Ecological Risk Assessment
Abstract
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.
Number of times cited: 19
- Yann Devos, Helmut Gaugitsch, Alan J. Gray, Lorraine Maltby, Jock Martin, Jeffery S. Pettis, Jörg Romeis, Agnès Rortais, Reinhilde Schoonjans, Joe Smith, Franz Streissl and Glenn W. Suter, Advancing environmental risk assessment of regulated products under EFSA's remit, EFSA Journal, 14, S1, (2016).
- Christina P. Wong, Bo Jiang, Ann P. Kinzig, Kai N. Lee, Zhiyun Ouyang and Johannes Knops, Linking ecosystem characteristics to final ecosystem services for public policy, Ecology Letters, 18, 1, (108-118), (2014).
- B. Malekmohammadi and L. Rahimi Blouchi, Ecological risk assessment of wetland ecosystems using Multi Criteria Decision Making and Geographic Information System, Ecological Indicators, 41, (133), (2014).
- Shaoqing Chen, Bin Chen and Brian D. Fath, Ecological risk assessment on the system scale: A review of state-of-the-art models and future perspectives, Ecological Modelling, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.10.015, 250, (25-33), (2013).
- , Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified animals, EFSA Journal, 11, 5, (n/a-n/a), (2013).
- Olivier Sanvido, Jörg Romeis, Achim Gathmann, Marco Gielkens, Alan Raybould and Franz Bigler, Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops: ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making, Environmental Science & Policy, 15, 1, (82), (2012).
- A. J. Gallagher, P. M. Kyne and N. Hammerschlag, Ecological risk assessment and its application to elasmobranch conservation and management, Journal of Fish Biology, 80, 5, (1727-1748), (2012).
- Olivier Sanvido, Jörg Romeis and Franz Bigler, Environmental change challenges decision-making during post-market environmental monitoring of transgenic crops, Transgenic Research, 10.1007/s11248-011-9524-8, 20, 6, (1191-1201), (2011).
- , Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants, EFSA Journal, 8, 11, (2010).
- Areti Kontogianni, Gary W. Luck and Michalis Skourtos, Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods, Ecological Economics, 69, 7, (1479), (2010).
- , Scientific Opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non‐target organisms, EFSA Journal, 8, 11, (2010).
- Jeffrey D. Wolt, Paul Keese, Alan Raybould, Julie W. Fitzpatrick, Moisés Burachik, Alan Gray, Stephen S. Olin, Joachim Schiemann, Mark Sears and Felicia Wu, Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants, Transgenic Research, 19, 3, (425), (2010).
- O. Sanvido, J. Romeis and F. Bigler, An approach for post‐market monitoring of potential environmental effects of Bt‐maize expressing Cry1Ab on natural enemies, Journal of Applied Entomology, 133, 4, (236-248), (2008).
- Michael Lewis, Anne Fairbrother and Robert Menzer, Methods in Environmental Toxicology, Principles and Methods of Toxicology, Fifth Edition, 10.1201/b14258-46, (2113-2154), (2013).
- Ulrika Dahl, Elena Gorokhova and Magnus Breitholtz, Application of growth-related sublethal endpoints in ecotoxicological assessments using a harpacticoid copepod, Aquatic Toxicology, 10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.01.014, 77, 4, (433-438), (2006).
- Glenn W. Suter, Donald J. Rodier, Scott Schwenk, Michael E. Troyer, Patricia L. Tyler, Douglas J. Urban, Marjorie C. Wellman and Steven Wharton, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 10, 6, (967), (2004).
- Tahir Husain, Brian Veitch and Neil Bose, An Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology for Screening Discharge Alternatives of Produced Water, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 10.1080/10807030490452179, 10, 3, (505-524), (2004).
- ROB S. E. W. LEUVEN and ISABELLE POUDEVIGNE, Riverine landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment, Freshwater Biology, 47, 4, (845), (2002).
- Patrick Hofstetter, Jane C. Bare, James K. Hammitt, Patricia A. Murphy and Glenn E. Rice, Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?, Risk Analysis, 22, 5, (833-851), (2002).
