Similarities and Differences between Cumulative Impact Assessment and Cumulative Risk Assessment
On this page:
Background: Cumulative impact assessment (CIA) and cumulative risk assessment (CRA) link stressors with health outcomes. Cumulative impacts is the totality of exposures to combinations of chemical and non-chemical stressors and their effects on health, well-being, and quality of life outcomes. CRA embodies traditional risk assessment approaches where selected non-chemical stressors act as confounders to chemical stressors. Our objectives are to identify distinctive features of CIA versus CRA.
Methods: We conducted a literature review and analysis to determine similarities and differences between CIA and CRA. Our analysis focused on definitions and supporting terminology, incorporation of non-chemical stressors, use of quantitative and qualitative data, example assessment methodologies, and health and well-being outcomes.
Results/Findings: Decision context, scope, and health and well-being outcomes influence the method considered. Risk assessment, as it is currently practiced, is used to inform risk management decisions, is a specific analytical approach, and addresses limited health and well-being outcomes. CIA, on the other hand, is intended to characterize community conditions, incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data, considers pathogenic and salutogenic factors, and includes multiple community-scale health and well-being outcomes.
Conclusions/Implications: CIA is distinctive compared to CRA. Determining which approach to use depends on factors such as statutory requirements, scope, data needs and availability, applicability for the evaluation, and needs of the decision-maker and community. More than one approach may be used in combination depending on the decision context.