Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (Integrated Environ Assess Manag)

Publisher: SETAC (Society), Wiley

Journal description

The second, peer-reviewed, international journal from SETAC. IEAM will be available online and in print and is devoted to bringing together scientifc research and the use of science in decision-making, regulation, and environmental management.

Current impact factor: 1.38

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management website
Other titles Integrated environmental assessment and management, IEAM
ISSN 1551-3793
OCLC 55964374
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Wiley

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • On author's personal website, institutional repositories, arXiv, AgEcon, PhilPapers, PubMed Central, RePEc or Social Science Research Network
    • Author's pre-print may not be updated with Publisher's Version/PDF
    • Author's pre-print must acknowledge acceptance for publication
    • Non-Commercial
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Publisher source must be acknowledged with citation
    • Must link to publisher version with set statement (see policy)
    • If OnlineOpen is available, BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC authors, may self-archive after 12 months
    • If OnlineOpen is available, AHRC and ESRC authors, may self-archive after 24 months
    • Publisher last contacted on 07/08/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Wiley'
  • Classification
    yellow

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ecosystems provide the conditions for producing food, regulating water and providing wildlife habitats; these, amongst others, are known as ecosystem services (ESs). Food production is both economically and culturally important to Southern European farmers, particularly in Italy where farmers grow flavoursome tomatoes with passion and pride. Growers rely on pesticides for crop protection, the potential environmental impact of which is often questioned by regulators and other stakeholders. The European regulatory system for the approval of pesticides includes a thorough evaluation of risks to the environment and is designed to be protective of ecosystems. There is a growing trend for the consideration of ESs in environmental decision making and this case study provides an example of how ESs evaluation could be used to enhance agricultural practices and regulatory policy for crop protection. By attacking plant roots, nematodes may affect the growth and yield of fruit and vegetable crops, and the income earned by farmers at harvest time. Available solutions include chemical treatments such as 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), physical treatments (solarisation) and biological treatments (biofumigation). In order to characterise the risks and benefits associated with the use of 1,3-D in crop protection, ecosystem services (ESs) and socio-economic analyses were applied to its use in the control of nematodes in tomato cultivation in southern Italy. The study confirmed the benefits of 1,3-D to tomato production in Italy, with significant positive effects on production yields and farm income when compared to limited and transient potential impacts on services such as soil function. It was confirmed that 1,3-D allows farm income to be maintained and secures tomato production in these regions for the future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An increasing number of hazard assessment tools/approaches are being used in the marketplace as a means to differentiate products and ingredients with lower versus higher hazards or to certify what some call 'greener' chemical ingredients in consumer products. Some leading retailers have established policies for product manufacturers and their suppliers to disclose chemical ingredients and their related hazard characteristics often specifying what tools to use. To date, no data exists that show a tool's reliability to provide consistent, credible screening level hazard scores that can inform 'greener' product selection. We conducted a small pilot study to understand and compare the hazard scoring of several hazard screening tools to determine if hazard/toxicity profiles for chemicals differ. Seven chemicals were selected that represent both natural and man-made chemistries as well as a range of toxicological activity. We conducted the assessments according to each tool provider's guidelines, which included factors such as endpoints, weighting preferences, sources of information, and treatment of data gaps. The results indicate the tools varied in the level of discrimination seen in the scores for these seven chemicals and that tool classifications of the same chemical varied widely between the tools-ranging from little or no hazard/toxicity to very high hazard/toxicity. The results also highlight the need for transparency in describing the basis for the tool's hazard scores and suggest possible enhancements. Based upon this pilot study, tools should not be generalized to fit all situations because their evaluations are context-specific. Before choosing a tool or approach, it is critical that the assessment rationale be clearly defined and matches the selected tool or approach. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The widely recognized increase in greenhouse gas emissions is necessitating adaptation to a changing climate, and policies are being developed and implemented worldwide, across sectors, and between government scales globally. The aim of this paper is to reflect on 1 of the major challenges: facilitating and sharing information on the next adaptation practices. Web portals (i.e., websites) for disseminating information are important tools in meeting this challenge, and therefore, we assessed the characteristics of select major portals across multiple scales. We found that there is a rather limited number of case studies available in the portals—between 900 and 1000 in total, with 95 that include cost information and 195 that include the participation of stakeholders globally. Portals are rarely cited by researchers, suggesting a suboptimal connection between the practical, policy-related, and scientific development of adaptation. The government portals often lack links on search results between US and EU websites, for example. With significant investments and policy development emerging in both the US and EU, there is great potential to share information via portals. Moreover, there is the possibility of better connecting the practical adaptation experience from bottom-up projects to the science of adaptation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
    No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

  • No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

  • No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The EU chemicals regulation REACH requires a hazardous substance registration to identify the uses of a substance and the corresponding conditions of safe use. This includes a human and an environmental safety assessment. Exposure scenarios are developed and employed for estimating emissions resulting from the uses of hazardous substances. To support the environmental assessments, the REACH guidance documents define 22 Environmental Release Categories (ERCs) with conservative release factors to water, air and soil. Several industry associations target the ERCs to more specific uses and respective emission scenarios to enable more realistic emission estimations. They have developed more than 190 specific ERCs (SPERCs) as standardized descriptions of operational conditions and risk management measures. SPERCs reflect the current good practice and are documented in factsheets. These contain the information necessary for environmental emission modelling. Key parameters are the substance use rate, the efficiency of the risk management measures (if applicable), and the release factors. These can be based on literature, measured company data or are justified by qualitative arguments. The majority of SPERCs have been implemented as realistic worst case emission values in screening level chemical safety assessment tools. Three regulatory reviews in Europe have established requirements for documenting the SPERCs and for justifying the release factors. In addition, each of the reviews included recommendations for improving the SPERCs. The latest review proposed a condensed factsheet which focusses on the essentials for exposure assessment and subsequent communication in safety data sheets. It is complemented with a background document for providing details on the emission scenarios and justifications. In the EU the SPERCs will be further progressed in a consensus process using the multi-stakeholder expert network on exposure scenarios. The SPERCs have the potential for being used for emission estimations within other regulatory frameworks or in other geographical regions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the first step of the earthworm risk assessment for plant protection products the risk is assessed by comparing the no-observed effect levels (NOEL) from the laboratory reproduction tests with the predicted exposure of the plant protection product in soil while applying a trigger value (assessment factor; AF) to cover uncertainties. If this indicates a potential risk, field studies are conducted. However, the predicted environmental concentration in soil which can be calculated e.g. for different soil layers (ranging from 0-1 cm to 0-20 cm) and the AF determine the conservatism which is applied in this first step. In this review paper the tier 1 earthworm risk assessment for plant protection products is calibrated by comparing the NOEL in earthworm reproduction tests with effect levels on earthworm populations under realistic field conditions. A dataset of 54 pairs of studies conducted in the laboratory and in the field with the same plant protection product was compiled, allowing a direct comparison of relevant endpoints. The results indicate that a tier 1 AF of 5 combined with a regulatory relevant soil layer of 0-5 cm provides a conservative tier 1 risk assessment. A risk was identified by the tier 1 risk assessment in the majority of the cases at application rates which were of low risk for natural earthworm populations under field conditions. Increasing the conservatism in the tier 1 risk assessment by reducing the depth of the regulatory relevant soil layer or by increasing the tier 1 AF would increase the number of false positives and trigger a large number of additional field studies. This would however not increase the margin of safety for earthworm populations. The analysis revealed that the risk assessment is conservative if an AF of 5 and a regulatory relevant soil layer of 0-5 cm is used. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The mining industry is a common source of environmental metal emissions, which cause long-lasting effects in aquatic ecosystems. Metal risk assessment is challenging due to variations in metal distribution, speciation, and bioavailability. Therefore, seasonal effects must be better understood, especially in boreal regions in which seasonal changes are large. We sampled four lakes and sediments affected by mining in Finland for metals and geochemical characteristics in autumn and late winter, to evaluate seasonal changes in metal behavior, the importance of seasonality in risk assessment, and the sensitivity and suitability of different risk assessment methods. We compared metal concentrations in sediment, overlying water and pore water against environmental quality guidelines. We also evaluated the toxicity of metal mixtures using simultaneously extracted metals and an acid volatile sulfides approach (SEM-AVS) together with water quality criteria (USEPA, equilibrium partitioning benchmarks). Finally, site-specific risks for three metals (Cu, Ni, Zn) were assessed using two biotic ligand models (BLM). The metal concentrations in the impacted lakes were elevated. During winter stratification, the hypolimnetic oxygen saturation levels were low (< 6%) and the pH was acidic (3.5-6.5); however, abundant oxygen (> 89%) and neutral pH (6.1-7.5) were found after the autumnal water overturn. Guidelines were the most conservative benchmark for showing an increased risk of toxicity in the all of the lakes. The situation remained stable between seasons. On the other hand, SEM/AVS, ESB and BLMs provided a clearer distinction between lakes and revealed a seasonal variation in risk among some of the lakes, which evidenced a higher risk during late winter. If a sediment risk assessment is based on the situation in the autumn, the overall risk may be underestimated. It is advisable to carry out sampling and risk assessment during periods in which metals are assumed to be the most environmentally harmful. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management