IF ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT IS THE ANSWER, WHAT IS THE QUESTION

Ecological risk assessment has become a commonly used tool in policy a nalysis, but its use is controversial. Opinions are diverse; they rang e from enthusiastic support to caustic dismissal. Much of the controve rsy with using risk assessment in ecological policy analysis revolves around defining the initial policy question or problem to be assessed. In formulating the ''question'' in ecological risk assessment, the na ture of the analytical technique forces analysts to make assumptions o f values and priorities; these assumptions may not be the same as thos e of the public or their elected or appointed representatives. Specifi cally, much of the difficulty with applying risk assessment is that, b y definition, risk is adverse. Deciding which ecological changes are a dverse (undesired) and which are beneficial (desired) is likely to be the primary political debate. Ecological conditions and changes are cl assified by the values and priorities of the person or administrative body doing the classification; ecological condition or change in itsel f is neither good nor bad, beneficial nor adverse, healthy nor degrade d. One method often used to determine which ecological conditions or c hanges are adverse is to apply the human ''health'' metaphor to ecosys tems or ecological components. However, application of the concept of ecosystem health is fraught with value-based requirements which are di fficult and probably impossible to attain. Formulating the question is , or at least should be, driven by societal values, preferences, and p riorities, but this is difficult to do in a pluralistic society. Bette r ways to evaluate and measure public values, preferences, and priorit ies in framing ecological questions are needed to enhance the utility of ecological risk assessment.