Geodata‐based probabilistic risk assessment and management of pesticides in germany: a conceptual framework

Abstract

The procedure for the risk assessment of pesticides in Germany is currently further developed from a deterministic to a geodata-based probabilistic risk assessment (GeoPRA) approach. As the initial step, the exposure assessment for spray drift in permanent crops, such as vineyards, fruit orchards, and hops, is considered. In our concept, geoinformation tools are used to predict distribution functions for exposure concentrations based mainly on spatial information regarding the neighbourhood of crops and surface waters. A total number of 23 factors affecting the drift into surface waters were assessed and suggestions for their inclusion into the approach developed. The main objectives are to base the exposure estimation on a realistic representation of local landscape characteristics and on empirical results for the impact of each feature on the drift deposition. A framework for the identification of high-risk sites (active management areas [AMAs]) based on protection goals and ecological considerations was developed in order to implement suitable risk mitigation measures. The inclusion of active mitigation measures at sites with identified and verified risk is considered a central and important part of the overall assessment strategy. The suggested GeoPRA procedure itself is comprised of the following 4 steps, including elements of the extensive preliminary work conducted so far: 1) nationwide risk assessment, preferably based only on geodata-based factors; 2) identification of AMAs, including the spatial extension of contamination, the level of contamination, and the tolerable effect levels; 3) refined exposure assessment, using aerial photographs and field surveys; and 4) mitigation measures, with a focus on landscape-level active mitigation measures leading to effective risk reductions. The suggested GeoPRA procedure offers the possibility to actively involve the farming community in the process of pesticide management. Overall, the new procedure will aim at increased flexibility of pesticide application regulations and a high level of protection of surface waters.

An indispensable asset at risk: merits and needs of chemicals-related environmental sciences

“…The scientists within UFoH see a strong need to strengthen basic environmental research by developing novel methods (Ahlers et al 2008;Schwarzenbach et al 2006;Schaffer et al 2008), extending the environmental data base in the various fields, and by developing probabilistic risk assessment models (Schulz et al 2009) to predict the fate and the effect of environmental pollutants at the ecosystem level. The analysis presented here is in high accordance to a recent initiative supported by over 40 Swedish scientists (Albin 2006).…”

A Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making Model for Strategic Risk Assessment

“…Wang et al 12 proposed an integrated AHP-DEA (data envelopment analysis) methodology for bridge risk assessment. Schulz et al 13 suggested the use of geodata-based probabilistic method to assess risks. Aven 17 proposed matrix method to risk management for culvert rehabilitation.…”

Xplicit, a novel approach in probabilistic spatiotemporally explicit exposure and risk assessment for plant protection products

“…The general need for an improved quantification of risk has been recognized on various occasions, e.g., in working groups of FOCUS Landscape and Mitigation (FOCUS 2007a(FOCUS , 2007b, the EUFRAM project (Hart 2006), projects of the German Environmental Protection Agency (UBA PRA and GeoRISK; Schulz et al 2009), and a project of the German Crop Protection Association (IVA; Schad et al 2007), as well as in specific risk assessments Hendley et al 2001;Travis and Hendley 2001;Wang and Rautmann 2008). With respect to the introduction of probabilistic approaches, the focus of recent projects was to some extent on ''the effect side'' of the risk equation, i.e., addressing variability and uncertainty in the toxicity of a substance, for example, due to experimental design or intra-and interspecies variability (EUFRAM; Hart 2006).…”

“…Because the variability of risk to different species is largely driven by spatial and temporal variability of environmental and agronomic conditions that affect the spatiotemporal distribution of exposure and susceptible populations (Verdonck 2003), the use of geoinformation has become a prominent tool in recently refined risk assessment approaches Padovani et al 2004;Schad et al 2007;Schulz et al 2009). With the work of the FOCUS Landscape and Mitigation group (FOCUS 2007a(FOCUS , 2007b, basic aspects of landscape-level study designs have been evaluated and recommendations have been made.…”

“…In recent years, different spatially explicit studies aiming to refine exposure assessment have been conducted using geodata to refine factors such as the crop-to-water body distance or the possibility of different wind directions: Early studies were more focused on the quantification of the crop-to-water body co-occurrence in order to put the occurrence of standard scenario assumptions in the context of real-world conditions. In more recent approaches, calculations on local spray-drift deposition were done in order to derive a ''landscape-level'' realistic worst-case predicted environmental concentration (PEC; Padovani et al 2004;Schad et al 2007;Schulz et al 2009); however, in only a few studies have steps been taken toward probabilistic analysis in a narrower sense (Wang and Rautmann 2008). In the past decade, progress in spatially explicit studies has mainly been due to the increased availability and affordability of data (such as high-resolution satellite imagery and topographic data), the technology for processing geodata (geographic information system [GIS] tools), and increased computing power.…”