A weight-of-evidence framework for assessing sediment (or other) contamination: Improving certainty in the decision-making process

被引:70
作者
Burton, GA
Batley, GE
Chapman, PM
Forbes, VE
Smith, EP
Reynoldson, T
Schlekat, CE
den Besten, PJ
Bailer, AJ
Green, AS
Dwyer, RL
机构
[1] Wright State Univ, Inst Environm Qual, Dayton, OH 45435 USA
[2] CSIRO, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] EVS Environm Consultants, N Vancouver, BC, Canada
[4] Roskilde Univ, Roskilde, Denmark
[5] Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA
[6] Environm Canada, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[7] Rio Tinto Borax, Valencia, CA USA
[8] Inst Inland Water Management & Waste Water Treatm, Lelystad, Netherlands
[9] Miami Univ, Oxford, OH 45056 USA
[10] Int Lead Zinc Org, Durham, NC USA
[11] Int Copper Associat, New York, NY USA
来源
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT | 2002年 / 8卷 / 07期
关键词
risk assessment; causality; uncertainty; weight-of-evidence;
D O I
10.1080/20028091056854
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
A basic framework is presented for the ecological weight-of-evidence (WOE) process for sediment assessment that clearly defines its essential elements and will improve the certainty of conclusions about whether or not impairment exists due to sediment contamination, and, if so, which stressors and biological species (or ecological responses) are of greatest concern. The essential "Certainty Elements" are addressed in a transparent best professional judgment (BPJ) process with multiple lines-of-evidence (LOE) ultimately quantitatively integrated (but not necessarily combined into a single value). The WOE Certainty Elements include: (1) Development of a conceptual model (showing linkages of critical receptors and ecosystem quality characteristics); (2) Explanation of linkages. between measurement endpoint responses (direct and indirect with associated spatial/temporal dynamics) and conceptual model components; (3) Identification of possible natural and anthropogenic stressors with associated exposure dynamics; (4) Evaluation of appropriate and quantitatively based reference (background) comparison methods; (5) Consideration of advantages and limitations of quantification methods used to integrate LOE; (6) Consideration of advantages and limitations of each LOE used; (7) Evaluation of causality criteria used for each LOE during output verification and how they were implemented; and (8) Combining the LOE into a WOE matrix for interpretation, showing causality linkages in the conceptual model. The framework identifies several statistical approaches for integrating within LOE, the suitability of which depends on physical characteristics of the system and the scale/nature of impairment. The quantification approaches include: (1) Gradient (regression methods); (2) Paired reference/test (before/after control impact and ANOVA methods); (3) Multiple reference (ANOVA and multivariate methods); and 4) Gradient with reference (regression, ANOVA and multivariate methods). This WOE framework can be used for any environmental assessment and is most effective when incorporated into the initial and final study design stages (e.g., the Problem Formulation and Risk Characterization stages of a risk assessment) with reassessment throughout the project and decision-making process, rather than in a retrospective data analysis approach where key certainty elements cannot be adequately addressed.
引用
收藏
页码:1675 / 1696
页数:22
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [41] BIOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR FRESH-WATER SEDIMENT BASED ON BENTHIC ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT (THE BEAST) USING A MULTIVARIATE APPROACH FOR PREDICTING BIOLOGICAL STATE
    REYNOLDSON, TB
    BAILEY, RC
    DAY, KE
    NORRIS, RH
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1995, 20 (01): : 198 - 219
  • [42] Reynoldson Trefor B., 2000, P293
  • [43] Scheiner Samuel M., 1993, P94
  • [44] Smith E., 2002, BACI design. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, P141, DOI [DOI 10.1002/9780470057339.VAB001.PUB2, DOI 10.1002/9780470057339.VAB001]
  • [45] Weight-of-evidence (WOE): Quantitative estimation of probability of impairment for individual and multiple lines of evidence
    Smith, EP
    Lipkovich, I
    Ye, KY
    [J]. HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2002, 8 (07): : 1585 - 1596
  • [46] Suter G., 1993, ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSE
  • [47] Swanson MB., 1997, CHEM RANKING SCORING
  • [48] *UESPA, 2000, EPA822B00025 OFF WAT
  • [49] USEPA-US Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, 823B01002 USEPA OFF
  • [50] VANENDE CN, 1993, DESIGN ANAL ECOLOGIC, P113