Integration of Effects-Based and Stressor-Based Approaches into a Holistic Framework for Cumulative Effects Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems

As the density of development increases, there is a growing need to address the cumulative effects of project developments on the environment. In Canada this need has been recognized in legislation whereby new project developments that require an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are required to address the cumulative effects of proposed project activities relative to the existing environmental condition. Unfortunately, existing stressor-based and effects-based approaches to environmental assessment do not adequately address cumulative effects as defined under the Act when used in isolation. However, elements from each approach can be conceptually incorporated into a holistic cumulative effects assessment framework. Key framework components include: (1) an effects-based assessment to determine existing accumulated environmental state, (2) a stressor-based assessment to predict potential impacts of new development relative to the existing environmental state, (3) post-development monitoring to assess the accuracy of impact predictions and to provide an avenue for adaptive management, and (4) decision-making frameworks to link scientific information to public opinion and managerial action. The key advantage of this framework is that it provides a more holistic, systematic approach for incorporation of ecological information into a scientific and management framework for cumulative effects assessment.     

Strategies for Assessing Cumulative Ecological Risks

Assessing and managing the ecological risks from multiple stressors is becoming increasingly important as our environmental and regulatory focus moves from managing point sources to one of managing and trading risks from multiples sources over large geographic areas. There are important corollaries to this shift in focus and scale, one is the increased role and importance of non-chemical stressors in shaping and controlling ecological systems, the fact that these categories of stress are, for the most part, not regulated under the traditional legislative mandates, that we have limited knowledge regarding the interaction of chemical and non-chemical stressors, that at large scales we are faced with the integration of and trading of risks to multiple resource categories. This trend of increased attention to regional-scale environmental issues requires the development of new analysis and interpretive strategies and highlight the need for a systematic framework for addressing the ecological effects of multiple stressors at regional ecological scales. We propose that such a framework have three essential properties: it be risk-based; it be effects driven; and it have the flexibility to be used in both a retrospective and prospective manner. While several approaches have been proposed we believe that an ecological risk assessment framework satisfies these criteria, has been used successfully in regional assessments, and can readily be modified and adapted to serve a wide variety of problem settings.     

Approaches to Ecological Risk Characterization and Management: Selecting the Right Tools for the Job

Chemical-specific hazard quotient (HQ) risk characterization in ecological risk assessment (ERA) can be a value-added tool for risk management decision-making at chemical release sites, when applied appropriately. However, there is little consensus regarding how HQ results can be used for risk management decision-making at the population, community, and ecosystem levels. Furthermore, stakeholders are reluctant to consider alternatives to HQ results for risk management decisions. Chemical-specific HQs risk characterization should be viewed as only one of several approaches (i.e., tools) for addressing ecological issues; and in many situations, other quantitative and qualitative approaches will likely result in superior risk management decisions. The purpose of this paper is to address fundamental issues and limitations associated with chemical-specific HQ risk characterization in ERA, to identify when it may be appropriate, to explore alternatives that are currently available, and to identify areas that could be developed for the future. Several alternatives (i.e., compensatory restoration, performance-based ecological monitoring, ecological significance criteria, net environmental benefit analysis), including their limitations, that can supplement, augment, or substitute for HQs in ERA are presented. In addition, areas of research (i.e., wildlife habitat assessment/landscape ecology/population biology, and field validated risk-based screening levels) that could yield new tools are discussed.     

Integration of Environmental Indicators for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region

The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Project began in 1994 as a partnership between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Region III Office and the Office of Research and Development. This multiyear initiative was envisioned to: (1) improve the quality of environmental science and promote the use of sound science in environmental decision-making; (2) characterize the condition of ecological resources; and (3) report on the progress toward environmental goals through a series of State-of-the-Region reports. These reports are produced using a coordinated, integrated approach that is carried out at four levels of increasing sophistication and complexity. Results indicate that the condition of individual ecological resources can be determined with existing indicators. The results from MAIA are being communicated in a manner that is understood by environmental managers as evidenced by their use in environmental management decision-making. The application of ecological indicators needs to be coupled with an appropriate sampling design to ensure that the measurements made in the environment can be used to address the relevant questions. Multiresource indicators, those that synthesize information on individual ecological resources, are of high priority for research     

A management-oriented framework for selecting metrics used to assess habitat- and path-specific quality in spatially structured populations

Mobile species with complex spatial dynamics can be difficult to manage because their population distributions vary across space and time, and because the consequences of managing particular habitats are uncertain when evaluated at the level of the entire population. Metrics to assess the importance of habitats and pathways connecting habitats in a network are necessary to guide a variety of management decisions. Given the many metrics developed for spatially structured models, it can be challenging to select the most appropriate one for a particular decision. To guide the management of spatially structured populations, we define three classes of metrics describing habitat and pathway quality based on their data requirements (graph-based, occupancy-based, and demographic-based metrics) and synopsize the ecological literature relating to these classes. Applying the first steps of a formal decision-making approach (problem framing, objectives, and management actions), we assess the utility of metrics for particular types of management decisions. Our framework can help managers with problem framing, choosing metrics of habitat and pathway quality, and to elucidate the data needs for a particular metric. Our goal is to help managers to narrow the range of suitable metrics for a management project, and aid in decision-making to make the best use of limited resources.     

Restoring Wild Salmon to the Pacific Northwest: Framing the Risk Question

In the Pacific Northwest of the United States, it is urgent to assess accurately the various options proposed to restore wild salmon. For the past 150 years, a variety of analytic approaches have been employed to assess the ecological consequences of salmon management options. Each approach provided useful information to decision makers, but each also suffered from limitations, some relatively minor, others sufficient to undermine any potential utility. Risk assessment has become the most widely used analytic approach to evaluate environmental policy options. To date its use in ecological policy has been largely constrained to evaluating relatively simple technical questions (e.g., regulatory actions associated with specific chemicals or hazardous waste sites). Recently, however, there has been interest in applying risk assessment to more complex ecological policy problems (e.g., the decline of wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest). Although its use has become commonplace and widely accepted, especially among regulatory and land management agencies, risk assessment remains contentious. The most heated debates revolve around delineating the specific meaning of risk; that is, framing the risk “question” to be answered.     

From Rhetoric to Reality: Using Specific Environmental Concerns to Identify Critical Sustainability Issues

Natural resource managers, environmental interest groups, and public agencies are interested in appropriate, identifiable, and measurable indicators of sustainability. At the same time, public agencies, including natural resource management agencies, are attempting to identify research and management priorities that address major environmental concerns at local and broad scales. The Identify the Specifics approach, described here, uses local (ecodistrict or smaller) ecological/biological “experts' ” knowledge to identify and prioritize the local natural resources of concern (commonly species), associated management practices and ecosystems to form a concern matrix. Local ecological/biological concerns form the environmental base of a broader-scale (ecoregion/ecozone) concern matrix. This matrix identifies similarities and differences among local matrices and appropriate components for promotion to broader scales. Scale-specific matrices identify appropriate local, regional, and broader-scale indicators to monitor and assess, and provide public agencies with direction for documenting effects of management and identifying where research is needed. This approach can provide industries, public agencies, environmental interest groups, and governments with ecosystem-based, prioritized information for balancing social, economic, and ecological concerns on public and private lands. Received 22 July 1997; accepted 7 January 1998.     

How to value biodiversity in environmental management?

Biodiversity is globally recognised as a cornerstone of healthy ecosystems, and biodiversity conservation is increasingly becoming one of the important aims of environmental management. Evaluating the trade-offs of alternative management strategies requires quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of their outcomes, including the value of biodiversity lost or preserved. This paper takes a decision-analytic standpoint, and reviews and discusses the alternative aspects of biodiversity valuation by dividing them into three categories: socio-cultural, economic, and ecological indicator approaches. We discuss the interplay between these three perspectives and suggest integrating them into an ecosystem-based management (EBM) framework, which permits us to acknowledge ecological systems as a rich mixture of interactive elements along with their social and economic aspects. In this holistic framework, socio-cultural preferences can serve as a tool to identify the ecosystem services most relevant to society, whereas monetary valuation offers more globally comparative and understandable values. Biodiversity indicators provide clear quantitative measures and information about the role of biodiversity in the functioning and health of ecosystems. In the multi-objective EBM approach proposed in the paper, biodiversity indicators serve to define threshold values (i.e., the minimum level required to maintain a healthy environment). An appropriate set of decision-making criteria and the best method for conducting the decision analysis depend on the context and the management problem in question. Therefore, we propose a sequence of steps to follow when quantitatively evaluating environmental management against biodiversity.     

基于近海健康评价现有体系的我国普适海洋健康评价“双核”新框架的构建

海洋生态环境保持健康状态是人类可持续开发利用海洋资源环境的基础,而近海海洋生态环境的健康状况综合评价可为海洋生态环境良性发展以及社会经济决策提供科学依据。首先对国际上3种代表性的海洋环境健康综合评价方法的应用特点进行了对比分析,并归纳了我国海洋生态环境健康评价的状况,在此基础上,以指标体系法重构了一个双核结构的综合评价框架,其中内核评价以海洋生态系统的自身状态为主,外核评价则主要反映海洋之于人类经济社会的贡献,以期能够科学、准确、全面的评价我国近海海洋环境健康状况。     

粤港澳大湾区城市群生态系统智能化管理

开展生态系统数字化、信息化、智能化管理,全面提升粤港澳大湾区生态环境质量,是建设国际一流湾区的必然趋势。以城市群生态系统智能化管理为目标,系统整合各类生态环境相关数据资源,形成生态系统管理数据和决策支撑体系,并以此为基础构建生态智能管理平台。研究以生态系统要素和功能管理逻辑为核心,构建了生态系统管理业务流程：（1）精准剖析生态环境问题,确定问题发生的尺度、范围并对其进行分类和定性;（2）确立生态管理目标,制定适宜的管理策略;（3）根据现状与基线进行生态系统服务权衡,通过生态管理恢复工程提升生态系统质量;（4）通过环境物联网监测生态系统变化,及时调整和改进生态系统管理计划。针对城市群生态系统多尺度、多层次、复杂化等特点,在制定管理决策时应充分权衡管理目标和生态服务,兼顾各类生态系统服务效益;需通过示范性生态工程印证管理方案的可行性、适用性和协同性;以趋善化理念为指导思想,不断优化调整生态管理目标;同时在管理活动实施的过程中不断积累、凝练、总结所获得的反馈信息和经验。面向生态管理体制和管理能力的现代化提升需求,融合大数据、地理信息系统（GIS）、全球广域网络（Web）等信息化技术,构建粤港澳大湾区生态管理智能平台,实现多主体信息共享,打破管理决策的"黑箱",为推进生态环境管理现代化提供可靠可行的方案。构建的生态系统管理业务流程和管理策略,将知识充分融入管理决策的制定流程,能服务于粤港澳大湾区的生态文明建设,推动可持续和高质量发展。     

An ecological perspective on environmental decision-making

Current research on environmental decision-makers at the professional and nonprofessional levels is reviewed. The potential utility of this research for achieving more adaptive man-environment relations in modern industrial societies is examined. A broader framework of research is suggested for viewing the antecedents and consequences of environmental decision-making from an ecological perspective. Mechanisms for promoting research on man-environment relations are considered. In particular, issues in the training of scientific man-power in this interdisciplinary field are discussed.This article was prepared while the author served as Senior Postdoctoral Fellow in Environmental Psychology at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1970–1971.     

矿区可持续生态环境管理规划方法研究

矿区生态规划理论与方法研究可为矿区的可持续发展提供具体的理论指导和技术支持．作为矿区生态规划的重要组成部分之一的矿区可持续的生态环境管理规划,贯穿于矿区整个开发生产过程．以可持续的生态环境建设和管理的思想为基础,建立了矿区生态环境管理体系框架,对生态环境管理指标的确定、生态环境因素的识别以及生态环境管理方案的决策提出了具体的方法．     

Multi-scale modeling for sustainable chemical production

With recent advances in metabolic engineering, it is now technically possible to produce a wide portfolio of existing petrochemical products from biomass feedstock. In recent years, a number of modeling approaches have been developed to support the engineering and decision-making processes associated with the development and implementation of a sustainable biochemical industry. The temporal and spatial scales of modeling approaches for sustainable chemical production vary greatly, ranging from metabolic models that aid the design of fermentative microbial strains to material and monetary flow models that explore the ecological impacts of all economic activities. Research efforts that attempt to connect the models at different scales have been limited. Here, we review a number of existing modeling approaches and their applications at the scales of metabolism, bioreactor, overall process, chemical industry, economy, and ecosystem. In addition, we propose a multi-scale approach for integrating the existing models into a cohesive framework. The major benefit of this proposed framework is that the design and decision-making at each scale can be informed, guided, and constrained by simulations and predictions at every other scale. In addition, the development of this multi-scale framework would promote cohesive collaborations across multiple traditionally disconnected modeling disciplines to achieve sustainable chemical production.     

Improving Environmental Sanitation, Health, and Well-Being: A Conceptual Framework for Integral Interventions

We introduce a conceptual framework for improving health and environmental sanitation in urban and peri-urban areas using an approach combining health, ecological, and socioeconomic and cultural assessments. The framework takes into account the three main components: i) health status, ii) physical environment, and iii) socioeconomic and cultural environment. Information on each of these three components can be obtained by using standard disciplinary methods and an innovative combination of these methods. In this way, analyses lead to extended characterization of health, ecological, and social risks while allowing the comprehensive identification of critical control points (CCPs) in relation to biomedical, epidemiological, ecological, and socioeconomic and cultural factors. The proposed concept complements the conventional CCP approach by including an actor perspective that considers vulnerability to risk and patterns of resilience. Interventions deriving from the comprehensive analysis consider biomedical, engineering, and social science perspectives, or a combination of them. By this way, the proposed framework jointly addresses health and environmental sanitation improvements, and recovery and reuse of natural resources. Moreover, interventions encompass not only technical solutions but also behavioral, social, and institutional changes which are derived from the identified resilience patterns. The interventions are assessed with regards to their potential to eliminate or reduce specific risk factors and vulnerability, enhance health status, and assure equity. The framework is conceptualized and validated for the context of urban and peri-urban settings in developing countries focusing on waste, such as excreta, wastewater, and solid waste, their influence on food quality, and their related pathogens, nutrients, and chemical pollutants.     

An aggregation framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evaluation of policy options

In the last decade efforts have been carried out by the scientific community aimed at building integrated frameworks to support the decision-making process when sustainability issues are addressed. This paper proposes a further advancement in integrated assessment procedures by setting up an operational multi-scale and transparent framework, which comprises the assessment of European regions in terms of sustainability, and the identification of the impact that policy options might have on the sustainability of these regions. The framework is designed for use in ex ante sustainability impact assessment of policy scenarios on multifunctionality of land use and integrates economic, environmental and social issues across a variety of sectors (agriculture, forestry, transport, tourism and energy). The proposed method provides a conceptual framework applicable at different scales (European, regional), and takes into account the great variability of European regions. The described methodology is based on linear additive models to weight and aggregate selected indicators to a set of land use functions identified to describe the goods and services provided by the different land uses that summarise the most relevant economic, environmental and social issues of a region. The framework is designed to allow the evaluation of impacts at an international scale (e.g. the European Union), or on selected regions.The aggregation framework can be used to evaluate the impact that policy options have on the sustainability of multifunctional land use systems with competing demands. A conceptual envelope, called the “trade-off evaluation space”, delineates all possible developments in the functions of the land. The sustainability limits identify the subset of ‘acceptable’ policy options within the trade-off evaluation space, so that the distance of each land use function from sustainability limits can be estimated and trade-offs between the different functions of the multifunctional land use system can be identified. The proposed methodology is adaptable to different contexts: if the assumption is taken that all land use functions are equally weighted the framework can be used to analyse policy cases and take decisions on policy options at the European or regional level. However, at the local-scale the framework can also be applied through a participatory approach and the distribution of weights can be rediscussed with local stakeholders. In both cases the proposed system can be used as a tool for discussion among all interested parties.     

A survey of life cycle approaches in waste management

Background, aim, and scope  

Life-cycle thinking and life-cycle approaches are concepts that are getting increased attention worldwide and in particular in EU Policies related to sustainability. The European Commission is launching a number of activities to strengthen life-cycle thinking in policy and business. EU policies aim to decrease waste generation through new waste prevention initiatives, better use of resources and shift to more sustainable consumption patterns. The approach to waste management is based on three principles: waste prevention, recycling and reuse and improving the final disposal and monitoring. In particular, concerning the prevention and recycling of waste, the definition of a waste hierarchy should be the basis for the prioritisation of waste management options. The benefit of using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in analysing waste management systems is the provision of a comprehensive view of the processes and impacts involved. However, it is also clear that the studies will always be open for criticism as they are simplifications of reality. Moreover, in order to become the LCA, a leading tool within businesses and government to understand and manage risks or opportunities related to waste management and treatment technologies, there are methodological choices required and a number of aspects that still need to be worked out. It is therefore important to review open and grey literatures, EU guidelines, relevant environmental indicators and databases for the waste sector and data easily usable in waste policy decision-making, with an agreed approach and methodology based on life-cycle thinking. The following survey gathers and describes the existing guidelines and methodologies based on life-cycle thinking and applicable in waste policy decision-making.     

The ecosystem approach to environmental assessment: moving from theory to practice

The ecosystem approach to environmental management is viewed by many as being fundamental to the development of appropriate management strategies. While this approach represents a major advance in the way researchers view environmental assessment, the approach in itself does not provide practical information as to what questions to ask and what tools to use in assessing and managing ecosystems. Similarly, the concept of ecosystem health, as it is usually defined, has little practical value for ecosystem managers. We suggest the next stage in environmental assessment will be the development of specific frameworks designed to assess individual ecosystems. Of primary importance is the need to consider the basic structure and function of the ecosystem itself. Such consideration, together with explicit identification of anthropogenic stresses particular to the system, serves to identify those components most at risk and those issues most deserving of attention. Researchers should explore critical linkages between environmental stressors and their observable, measurable and predictable effects on ecological parameters and use this understanding to develop a management strategy that incorporates appropriate ecological indicators. The importance of these considerations will be illustrated using examples from the Northern River Basins Study.     

基于GIS的山西省矿产资源规划环境影响评价

基于目前我国矿产资源规划编制过程中的环境评价,提出了一种基于GIS(Geographic Information System)技术,实现矿产资源规划环境影响定量评价方法。在对规划区环境现状进行大尺度综合评价的基础上,利用GIS的空间分析功能,有针对性的实现规划区敏感环境保护目标的筛选、环境影响范围的确定和矿产资源开发对环境保护目标影响程度的定量表达。结合山西省矿产资源规划方案,根据山西省各区域资源开发对敏感保护目标的影响特征,在定量计算各区域环境现状综合评价分级的基础上,分别对其生态环境、水环境、地质环境等方面的影响进行评价和预测,结果显示:山西省矿产资源规划空间布局总体合理,不会对敏感环境保护目标造成严重破坏,但部分矿产资源开采区距离保护目标较近,需要在矿产资源规划实施中加以保护。提出的评价方法较好地兼顾矿产资源开发与区域环境保护,可以有效地提高矿产资源规划环境评价结果的准确性和科学性;该方法可以综合地、定量地评价矿产资源规划对不同环境保护目标的影响程度和范围,为矿产资源规划方案的修订提供有价值的参考。     

Role of Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment

Ecological models are useful tools for evaluating the ecological significance of observed or predicted effects of toxic chemicals on individual organisms. Current risk estimation approaches using hazard quotients for individual-level endpoints have limited utility for assessing risks at the population, ecosystem, and landscape levels, which are the most relevant indicators for environmental management. In this paper, we define different types of ecological models, summarize their input and output variables, and present examples of the role of some recommended models in chemical risk assessments. A variety of population and ecosystem models have been applied successfully to evaluate ecological risks, including population viability of endangered species, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemical issues. In particular, population models are widely available, and their value in predicting dynamics of natural populations has been demonstrated. Although data are often limited on vital rates and doseresponse functions needed for ecological modeling, accurate prediction of ecological effects may not be needed for all assessments. Often, a comparative assessment of risk (e.g., relative to baseline or reference) is of primary interest. Ecological modeling is currently a valuable approach for addressing many chemical risk assessment issues, including screening-level evaluations.