Suchergebnisse

This paper is a review of the timeliness range ecological in the world, including the Republic of Moldova. The authors present short landmarks of international projects for providing ecological system for Moldova, strategy and Government plan which enhances the timeliness and importance of the field. In text we are presented theoretical elements of typology ecological risks, sustainable management, benefits and risk preventing them.

0. Introduction - Ecologist in Wonderland -- Part 1. Linking Ecotoxicology and Ecology -- Chapter 1. Basic Concepts of Ecological Risk Assessment -- Chapter 2. Population-level assessment -- Chapter 3. Population models of extinction -- Chapter 4. Population level assessment using the canonical model -- Part 2. Models for ecotoxicology -- Chapter 5. Species Sensitivity Distribution in Ecological Risk Assessment -- Chapter 6. BLM: A model for predicting metal toxicities -- Chapter 7.Mathematical models for chemical mixtures -- Chapter 8.Statistics and related topics.

Introduction, L.W. Barnthouse, W.R. Munns, Jr., and M.T. SorensenTHE MANAGEMENT-SCIENCE INTERFACEManaging Risk to Ecologic Populations, G.R. Biddinger, P. Calow, P. Delorme, G. Harris, B. Hope, B.L. Lin, M. Sorensen, and P. van den Brink Population Protection Goals, C. Menzie, N. Bettinger, A. Fritz, L. Kapustka, H. Regan, V. Møller, and H. NoelSCIENTIFIC ISSUES IN POPULATION-LEVEL ECOLOGIC RISK ASSESSMENTDensity Dependence in Ecologic Risk Assessment, S.J. MoeGenetic Variation in Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, D. Nacci and A. HoffmanThe Spatial Structure of Populations and Ecologic Risk Assessment, W.G. Landis, and A. Deines What Conservation Biology and Natural Resource Management Can Offer Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, J.A. Gervais and H.M. ReganAPPROACHES TO POPULATION-LEVEL ECOLOGIC RISK ASSESSMENTEmpiric Approaches to Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, T.M. Carlsen, P.F. Chapman, S. Brassfield, N. Elmegaard, A. Hoffman, W. Landis, S. J. Moe, D. Nacci, H.M. Noel, and J. Spromburg Modeling Approaches to Population-Level Ecologic Risk Assessment, W.R. Munns, Jr., J.A. Gervais, A.A. Hoffman, U. Hommen, D.E. Nacci, M. Nakamaru, R. Sibly, and C.J. Topping A Framework for Population-Level ERA, R. Wentsel, N. Beyer, V. Forbes, S. Maund, and R. Pastorok A PATH FORWARD Issues and Recommendations, W.R. Munns, Jr, L.W. Barnthouse, and M.T. SorensenREFERENCES AND APPENDICESReferencesAppendix 1Decision Context ScenariosAppendix 2Workshop Exercise: Application of 2 Modeling Techniques in a Theoretical Assessment for Agricultural Pesticide RegistrationAppendix 3Supplemental Reading List.

Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of human perception and judgment in ecological risk management. This paper attempts to characterize perceived ecological risk, using the psychometric paradigm developed in the domain of human health risk perception. The research began by eliciting a set of scale characteristics and risk items (e.g., technologies, actions, events, beliefs) from focus group participants. Participants in the main study were 68 university students who completed a survey instrument that elicited ratings for each of 65 items on 30 characteristic scales and one scale regarding general risk to natural environments. The results are presented in terms of mean responses over individuals for each scale and item combination. Factor analyses show that five factors characterize the judgment data. These have been termed: impact on species, human benefits, impact on humans, avoidability, and knowledge of impacts. The factor results correspond with initial expectations and provide a plausible characterization of judgments regarding ecological risk. Some comparisons of mean responses for selected individual items are also presented.

"CERN/5-99/001." ; "May 1999." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Ecological risk assessment embodied in an adaptive management framework is becoming the global standard approach for formally assessing and managing the ecological risks of technology and development. Ensuring the continual improvement of ecological risk assessment approaches is partly achieved through the dissemination of not only the types of risk assessment approaches used, but also their efficacy. While there is an increasing body of literature describing the results of general comparisons between alternate risk assessment methods and models, there is a paucity of literature that post hoc assesses the performance of specific predictions based on an assessment of risk and the effectiveness of the particular model used to predict the risk. This is especially the case where risk assessments have been used to grant consent or approval for the construction of major infrastructure projects. While postconstruction environmental monitoring is increasingly commonplace, it is not common for a postconstruction assessment of the accuracy and performance of the ecological risk assessment and underpinning model to be undertaken. Without this "assessment of the assessment," it is difficult for other practitioners to gain insight into the performance of the approach and models used and therefore, as argued here, this limits the rate of improvement of risk assessment approaches.

In 1989, a Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology (CRAM) was convened by the National Research Council (NRC) to identify and investigate important scientific issues in risk assessment. One of the first issues considered by the committee was the development of a conceptual framework for ecological risk assessment, defined as "the characterization of the adverse ecological effects of environmental exposures to hazards imposed by human activities." Adverse ecological effects include all biological and nonbiological environmental changes that society perceives as undesirable. The committee's opinion was that a general framework is needed to define the relationship of ecological risk assessment to environmental management and to facilitate the development of uniform technical guidelines. The framework for human health risk assessment proposed by the NRC in 1983 was adopted as a starting point for discussion. CRAM concluded that, although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the underlying decision process is the same for both. Therefore, CRAM recommended that the 1983 risk assessment framework be modified to accommodate both human health and ecological risk assessment. CRAM defined an integrated health/ ecological risk assessment framework consisting of the four components: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Exposure‐Response Assessment, and Risk Characterization. CRAM further provided recommendations on the scope of issues to be addressed in ecological risk assessment, critical research needs, and mechanisms for providing more detailed guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.