You are here:
Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation
Citation:
Sample, B., M. Johnson, R. Hull, L. Kapustka, W. Landis, C. Murphy, M. Sorensen, G. Mann, K. Gust, D. Mayfield, J. Ludwigs, AND W. Munns. Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS, 00(00):1-16, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4710
Impact/Purpose:
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is part of the special series from the SETAC workshop “Wildlife Risk Assessment in the 21st Century: Integrating Advancements in Ecology, Toxicology, and Conservation.” The series presents contributions from a multidisciplinary, multistakeholder team providing examples of applications of emerging science focused on improving processes and estimates of risk for assessments of chemical exposures for terrestrial wildlife. Examples are considered relative to applications within an expanding risk assessment paradigm where improvements are suggested in decision-making and bridging various levels of biological organization.
Description:
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).
URLs/Downloads:
DOI: Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36325881/