Abstract-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 riskmanagement 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 In This Issue: ET&C FOCUSFocus articles are part of a regular series intended to sharpen understanding of current and emerging topics of interest to the scientific community.

No abstract

The article closely examines the role of mechanistic effect models (e.g., population models) in the European environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides. We studied perspectives of three stakeholder groups on population modeling in ERA of pesticides. Forty-three in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders from regulatory authorities, industry, and academia all over Europe. The key informant approach was employed in recruiting our participants. They were first identified as key stakeholders in the field and then sampled by means of a purposive sampling, where each stakeholder identified as important by others was interviewed and asked to suggest another potential participant for our study. Our results show that participants, although having different institutional backgrounds often presented similar perspectives and concerns about modeling. Analysis of repeating ideas and keywords revealed that all stakeholders had very high and often contradicting expectations from models. Still, all three groups expected effect models to become integrated in future ERA of pesticides. Main hopes associated with effect models were to reduce the amount of expensive and complex testing and field monitoring, both at the product development stage, and as an aid to develop mitigation measures. Our analysis suggests that, although the needs of stakeholders often overlapped, subtle differences and lack of trust hinder the process of introducing mechanistic effect models into ERA.

No abstract

Understanding product circularity as "three-dimensional" could anchor the Circular Economy to common principles while affording its followers flexibility about how to measure it in their specific sectors and disciplines and within their organization's means. Inspired by a heuristic developed for the urban planning profession to cope with the inherent conflicts of Sustainable Development, this article argues that measuring product-level circularity should consider ways to achieve (1) high material recirculation, (2) high utilization, and (3) high endurance in products and service offerings.Achieving all three dimensions ensures that material flowing through the economy is recovered from prior use phases, that it is used intensely, and that it retains its value in spite of exogenous changes. The article argues further that these three dimensions ought to be measured and reported separately rather than as a composite metric and that certain applications will have opportunities to improve circularity through certain dimensions better than others. The article also explains how researchers at RISE (Research Institutes of Sweden AB) are working with industry and government partners to measure the three dimensions and how diverse actors interested in the Circular Economy can use the three dimensions to take the first steps in their transition to circularity.