Applicability of indicator monitoring to ecological risk assessment

Although ecological risk assessment (ERA) and environmental monitoring would seem to be potentially complimentary activities, they have been disjunct in practice. This is because of differences in goals and products. Environmental monitoring determines status and trends in indicators to determine whether the environment is improving. ERA estimates effects of stressors on endpoint attributes to support decision making. Indicators are, by definition, indicative of some unmeasured condition. Assessment endpoints are valued properties of the environment that are susceptible to stressors of concern. Indicators are justified by the logic of the monitoring program, which may be self-referential. Assessment endpoints are justified by their potential susceptibility and by environmental policies and public values. Indicators are often expressed in terms of indices or scores that obscure the actual condition of the environment. Because assessment endpoints must be clear to decision makers and the public, they require real units of actual environmental properties. Monitoring programs are peripherally concerned about causal relationships, while risk assessment is devoted to elucidating causal relationships. As a result, risk assessments may use the results of monitoring studies, but only after disaggregating the indicators to their components and choosing those that are appropriate. Monitoring programs could be more useful if they used a risk-based approach to address important problems rather than simply tracking indicators.