Search

Roskilde University (Denmark) hosted a November 2015 workshop, Environmental Risk—Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World. This Focus article presents the consensus recommendations of 30 attendees from 9 countries regarding implementation of a common currency (ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a 2-stage process; dealing with societal issues; risk-management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. The authors encourage both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to address their 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and nonchemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and communities of interest into the risk-assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk-management process; 5) consider socioeconomics and increased transparency in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and the ecosystem and consider unintended consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible underprotection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk-management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty. © 2016 SETAC, Funding: Roskilde University and their Environmental Risk Research Initiative. S. Loureiro acknowledges the financial support of CESAM (UID/AMB/50017), to FCT/MEC through national funds, and the cofunding by FEDER (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007638), within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020.

Fish full life cycle (FFLC) tests are increasingly required in the ecotoxicological assessment of endocrine active substances. However, FFLC tests have not been internationally standardized or validated, and it is currently unclear how such tests should best be designed to provide statistically sound and ecologically relevant results. This study describes how the technique of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to elicit the views of fish ecologists, aquatic ecotoxicologists and statisticians on optimal experimental designs for assessing the effects of endocrine active chemicals on fish. In MCDA qualitative criteria (that can be valued, but not quantified) and quantitative criteria can be used in a structured decision-making process. The aim of the present application of MCDA is to present a logical means of collating both data and expert opinions on the best way to focus FFLC tests on endocrine active substances. The analyses are presented to demonstrate how MCDA can be used in this context. Each of 3 workgroups focused on 1 of 3 species: fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), and zebrafish (Danio rerio). Test endpoints (e.g., fecundity, growth, gonadal histopathology) were scored for each species for various desirable features such as statistical power and ecological relevance, with the importance of these features determined by assigning weights to them, using a swing weighting procedure. The endpoint F1 fertilization success consistently emerged as a preferred option for all species. In addition, some endpoints scored highly in particular species, such as development of secondary sexual characteristics (fathead minnow) and sex ratio (zebrafish). Other endpoints such as hatching success ranked relatively highly and should be considered as useful endpoints to measure in tests with any of the fish species. MCDA also indicated relatively less preferred endpoints in fish life cycle tests. For example, intensive histopath