Sliding Scales for Assessing and Communicating Human and Ecological Risks and Complexities for Restoration, Remediation Crises, and Decisions

Overview

Journal J Risk Res

Publisher Routledge

Date 2024 Aug 26

PMID 39185022

Authors

Joanna Burger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Many lands were degraded or destroyed by human activities, including contamination from industry and military facilities. The United States and other industrialized counties have legacy wastes remaining from the Second World War, the Cold War, and industrialization. There is increasing need to return degraded land to suitable future land uses, including ecological parks and preserves. This paper proposes a conceptual model of the different levels of information needed to understand the risk to human health, the environment, and ecological resources. I propose a four-part approach: 1) general model for assessing ecological resources, 2) model for assessment needed for remediation or restoration projects, 3) a sliding scale, conceptual model for causes, events, and sources that lead to exposure and risk, and 4) an additional step that includes environmental justice (equity, diversity and inclusion) as a necessary consideration of traditional exposure assessment. While the factors involved in ecological risk assessment are well established, the combination of human health, ecological health, and environmental justice determining risk for remediation or restoration projects is not. Major factors useful for human health, environmental, and ecological evaluation include causes, events (earthquakes, accidents, chemical releases), sources, exposure, and informational challenges, as well as barriers to exposure. I propose that exposure through an environmental justice (diversity, equity, and inclusion) lens should be a key component of risk assessment. Each of these factors involves a sliding scale or continuum that must be considered in evaluating risk and communicating with the regulators, resource trustees, land managers and the public. The conceptual model also serves as a template for obtaining information about the environment that will be useful for communicating the importance of different risk factors. The model was developed for consideration of remediation on Department of Energy lands, it can be applied more broadly to other projects.

References

Krahn S . A structural description of the evolution of stakeholders and risk communication in the Department of Energy's defense nuclear facilities: Historical perspective, major stakeholders, and external events. Risk Anal. 2022; 42(11):2421-2439. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13986. View

Chakraborty J, Collins T, Grineski S . Environmental Justice Research: Contemporary Issues and Emerging Topics. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016; 13(11). PMC: 5129282. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13111072. View

Reichert P, Langhans S, Lienert J, Schuwirth N . The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support. J Environ Manage. 2015; 154:316-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.053. View

Clark R, Brown W, Stechert R, Zamudio K . Roads, interrupted dispersal, and genetic diversity in timber rattlesnakes. Conserv Biol. 2010; 24(4):1059-69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01439.x. View

Goodman M, Thompson V . The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation. Transl Behav Med. 2017; 7(3):486-491. PMC: 5645283. DOI: 10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z. View

Jurgens N, Schmiedel U, Haarmeyer D, Dengler J, Finckh M, Goetze D . The BIOTA Biodiversity Observatories in Africa--a standardized framework for large-scale environmental monitoring. Environ Monit Assess. 2011; 184(2):655-78. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-1993-y. View

Burger J . A framework for increasing sustainability and reducing risk to ecological resources through integration of remediation planning and implementation. Environ Res. 2019; 172:586-595. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.036. View

Vaananen K, Leppanen M, Chen X, Akkanen J . Metal bioavailability in ecological risk assessment of freshwater ecosystems: From science to environmental management. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2017; 147:430-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.08.064. View

Virapongse A, Brooks S, Metcalf E, Zedalis M, Gosz J, Kliskey A . A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. J Environ Manage. 2016; 178:83-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.028. View

10.

Galvani A, Bauch C, Anand M, Singer B, Levin S . Human-environment interactions in population and ecosystem health. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(51):14502-14506. PMC: 5187669. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1618138113. View

11.

Burger J, Gochfeld M, Bunn A, Looney B, Jeitner C . Role of uncertainties in protecting ecological resources during remediation and restoration. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2021; 84(12):485-502. DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2021.1887783. View

12.

Burger J . Ecological information and approaches needed for risk communication dialogs for acute or chronic environmental crises. Risk Anal. 2022; 42(11):2408-2420. PMC: 9945453. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13940. View

13.

Kondo M, Fluehr J, McKeon T, Branas C . Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(3). PMC: 5876990. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15030445. View

14.

Zahran S, McElmurry S, Sadler R . Four phases of the Flint Water Crisis: Evidence from blood lead levels in children. Environ Res. 2017; 157:160-172. PMC: 5538017. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.028. View

15.

Harwell M, Gentile J, McKinney L, Tunnell Jr J, Dennison W, Kelsey R . Conceptual Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Health. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2019; 15(4):544-564. PMC: 6852332. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4152. View

16.

Kasperson R . Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Anal. 1986; 6(3):275-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00219.x. View

17.

Cvitanovic C, McDonald J, Hobday A . From science to action: Principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making. J Environ Manage. 2016; 183(Pt 3):864-874. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038. View

18.

Fox G . Wildlife as sentinels of human health effects in the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence basin. Environ Health Perspect. 2001; 109 Suppl 6:853-61. PMC: 1240620. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.01109s6853. View

19.

Cappuyns V . Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options. J Environ Manage. 2016; 184(Pt 1):45-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.035. View

20.

Burger J . Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. Sci Total Environ. 2008; 400(1-3):6-19. PMC: 4026064. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.041. View