{"title":"脆弱性社区累积影响评估的多学科视角:采用德尔菲法的专家启发。","authors":"Ann Verwiel, William Rish","doi":"10.1093/inteam/vjae051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prompted by a series of executive orders, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is promoting cumulative impact assessment (CIA) to integrate numerous factors that have the potential to impact community health, which include nonchemical stressors such as socioeconomic conditions, pre-existing health conditions, and many others that historically have not been addressed by USEPA's chemical risk assessment paradigm. Understanding the cumulative impact of all stressors on responses to environmental exposures requires multidisciplinary input from social scientists, economists, and others not traditionally involved in chemical risk assessments. To gather input from these disciplines, a group of 13 independent experts with perspectives on CIA as a social scientist, economist, public health expert, or decision analyst participated in a virtual workshop to obtain their perspectives regarding key aspects of CIA. The independent experts, who have decades of experience studying cumulative impacts in vulnerable population groups and environmental justice (EJ), responded anonymously to charge questions specific to their expertise and then were asked to review and comment on other's responses within and outside their discipline. The questions and responses were organized by the authors into general topics (e.g., screening tools and indexes, role of nonchemical stressors in cumulative impacts, uncertainties), and discussions across and within the four disciplines were summarized by the authors. The expert's opinions were used to frame a set of future research objectives to advance the development of CIA and improve its use in the EJ context. Specifically, the experts' recommendations addressed the need for regulatory impact analysis, the appropriate use of screening tool information and indexes, the role and measurement of nonchemical stressors, relevance of a risk modifier approach to CIA, inclusion of uncertainty and causality, metrics to assess effectiveness of interventions, and methods for community communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":"301-313"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11844341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multidisciplinary perspectives on cumulative impact assessment for vulnerable communities: expert elicitation using a Delphi method.\",\"authors\":\"Ann Verwiel, William Rish\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/inteam/vjae051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Prompted by a series of executive orders, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is promoting cumulative impact assessment (CIA) to integrate numerous factors that have the potential to impact community health, which include nonchemical stressors such as socioeconomic conditions, pre-existing health conditions, and many others that historically have not been addressed by USEPA's chemical risk assessment paradigm. Understanding the cumulative impact of all stressors on responses to environmental exposures requires multidisciplinary input from social scientists, economists, and others not traditionally involved in chemical risk assessments. To gather input from these disciplines, a group of 13 independent experts with perspectives on CIA as a social scientist, economist, public health expert, or decision analyst participated in a virtual workshop to obtain their perspectives regarding key aspects of CIA. The independent experts, who have decades of experience studying cumulative impacts in vulnerable population groups and environmental justice (EJ), responded anonymously to charge questions specific to their expertise and then were asked to review and comment on other's responses within and outside their discipline. The questions and responses were organized by the authors into general topics (e.g., screening tools and indexes, role of nonchemical stressors in cumulative impacts, uncertainties), and discussions across and within the four disciplines were summarized by the authors. The expert's opinions were used to frame a set of future research objectives to advance the development of CIA and improve its use in the EJ context. Specifically, the experts' recommendations addressed the need for regulatory impact analysis, the appropriate use of screening tool information and indexes, the role and measurement of nonchemical stressors, relevance of a risk modifier approach to CIA, inclusion of uncertainty and causality, metrics to assess effectiveness of interventions, and methods for community communication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"301-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11844341/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjae051\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjae051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Multidisciplinary perspectives on cumulative impact assessment for vulnerable communities: expert elicitation using a Delphi method.
Prompted by a series of executive orders, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is promoting cumulative impact assessment (CIA) to integrate numerous factors that have the potential to impact community health, which include nonchemical stressors such as socioeconomic conditions, pre-existing health conditions, and many others that historically have not been addressed by USEPA's chemical risk assessment paradigm. Understanding the cumulative impact of all stressors on responses to environmental exposures requires multidisciplinary input from social scientists, economists, and others not traditionally involved in chemical risk assessments. To gather input from these disciplines, a group of 13 independent experts with perspectives on CIA as a social scientist, economist, public health expert, or decision analyst participated in a virtual workshop to obtain their perspectives regarding key aspects of CIA. The independent experts, who have decades of experience studying cumulative impacts in vulnerable population groups and environmental justice (EJ), responded anonymously to charge questions specific to their expertise and then were asked to review and comment on other's responses within and outside their discipline. The questions and responses were organized by the authors into general topics (e.g., screening tools and indexes, role of nonchemical stressors in cumulative impacts, uncertainties), and discussions across and within the four disciplines were summarized by the authors. The expert's opinions were used to frame a set of future research objectives to advance the development of CIA and improve its use in the EJ context. Specifically, the experts' recommendations addressed the need for regulatory impact analysis, the appropriate use of screening tool information and indexes, the role and measurement of nonchemical stressors, relevance of a risk modifier approach to CIA, inclusion of uncertainty and causality, metrics to assess effectiveness of interventions, and methods for community communication.
期刊介绍:
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas:
Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making
Health and ecological risk and impact assessment
Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems
Sustaining ecosystems
Managing large-scale environmental change
Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society:
Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation
Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability
Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability
Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.