ISO 19204:2017 土壌品質 — 土壌汚染のサイト固有の生態学的リスク評価の手順（土壌品質TRIADアプローチ） | ページ 6

3.1

stakeholder

person or party with an interest in the soil quality (3.21) of a potentially contaminated site

Note 1 to entry: The composition of the stakeholder group depends on the specific local conditions.

3.2

assessment criteria

criteria set up to decide if a site requires further investigation or other action (e.g. remediation)

Note 2 to entry: Assessment criteria are necessary for every collection of ecological conditions (for example, all species in a generic system, a key species or a protected species).

3.3

competent authority

part of the authorities that is responsible for the implementation of the soil clean-up operation

Note 1 to entry: Depending on the site and the country, the competent authority could be very different. The competent authority assesses investigation results and takes decisions via decrees about the severity and urgency of the soil contamination found. The competent authority also assesses the clean-up plans of the clean-up teams on their own initiative (for example, companies).

3.4

soil management

all the anthropogenic activities that influence the soil system at the site to be assessed

Note 1 to entry: This can include choices in land use (3.5) (e.g. groundwater level management, nature management, park management, loading with soil-contaminated substances).

3.5

land use

using the ecosystem services (3.8) that the soil provides

3.6

land user

person or group of people who uses the ecosystem services (3.8) of the soil, whereby in the role allocation, the larger spatial scales are generally represented by organizations, societal parties and authorities

3.7

ecological effect

change to an aspect of the ecosystem caused by anthropogenic stress factors (3.15)

Note 1 to entry: Changes [see also assessment criteria (3.2) ] to an ecosystem as a result of the presence of contaminants are regarded as negative changes regardless of the direction. In this document, the three lines of evidence (LoE) in accordance with the soil quality TRIAD approach are required for the effect to be determined. In addition, the variation in space, time and parameters is also important. See also type 1 error (3.17) .

3.8

ecosystem service

service that is (directly or indirectly) provided by an ecosystem

Note 1 to entry: The Ecosystem Service Approach is becoming more and more the theoretical basis for the definition of protection goals in the context of the risks of chemicals in the environment (e.g. EFSA 2012), including the risk assessment of contaminated soils (e.g. [2], [41], and [74]).

Note 2 to entry: Examples of ecosystem services that the soil provides to people are agricultural products, clean surface water, groundwater and drinking water, and a healthy environment in which to live. The provision of many of these services depends in many cases on the activity of diverse organism communities, e.g. degradation of contaminants in soil by microbes, meaning that groundwater is kept clean^[75].

Note 3 to entry: Some soil functions (organic substance composition and degradation, natural self-cleaning ability of the soil and soil structure for a good rooting of vegetation and crops) are counted as ecosystem services in this context. In detail, four basic soil services are distinguished, namely, soil fertility, resistance to stress and adaptation, the soil as a buffer and reactor, and biodiversity. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment^[41] distinguishes at ecosystem level regulating services (regulation of ecosystem processes), provisioning services (products), cultural services (non-material benefits) and support services (for the provision of all the other ecosystem services).

3.9

generic assessment

assessment of a site using a general investigation method that is not geared to the properties of the site

3.10

site-specific assessment

assessment of a site using an investigation method that is partially geared to the properties of the site

Note 1 to entry: The assessment consists of a combination of generally applicable and possibly specifically developed (tailor-made) parts. The interpretation of the results of the investigation is site-specific and can be generalized only to a limited extent [see also generic assessment (3.9) ].

3.11

site-specific model

description of the local ecosystem and of the intended land use (3.5) in terms of ecological conditions for this use, and of the nature and spread of the contamination

Note 1 to entry: This model makes it clear which exposure routes are relevant for aspects of the ecosystem that are needed for the land use (3.5) . Suitable parameters can then be selected for the soil quality TRIAD study with optimum weight of evidence (3.20) and support^[70].

3.12

uncertainty

degree of doubt about the assumptions or investigation results, to be broken down in the case of the assessment of the ecological risks of soil contamination into: communications uncertainty, model uncertainty (epistemic uncertainty), uncertainty because of variation and uncertainty in decision-making

Note 1 to entry: For the different types of uncertainty, see also Clause 5.

3.13

reference

part of a site, of a sample or of a group of literature data that acts as a benchmark for the effect scale (the baseline, measure or standard)

Note 1 to entry: It is a description of the condition of the soil in quantitative and qualitative terms that can be used as part of the measure for the soil quality (3.21) to be assessed. The ideal reference is identical to the site (or the sample) to be assessed, the only difference being that the stress factor (3.15) to be assessed is missing. Chemical, physical and biological aspects form partial aspects of the reference. For a site-specific application, site-specific details are needed to obtain an accurate reference. A reference is preferably chosen at the investigation site; measurements are then preferably taken at the same time as the samples/measurements to be assessed. If no comparable clean reference is available, the least contaminated sample can also be chosen (for example, in a gradient), on condition that the sample is regarded as being sufficiently representative to be used as a reference. A reference can also be based on samples of a comparable site elsewhere or on literature data (= virtual reference).

3.14

scaling

process in which measurement or model data are interpreted using a measure intended for this purpose

Note 1 to entry: When applying the soil quality TRIAD (3.16) , assessment data are generated to ascertain an effect on the level of the ecosystem as quantitatively as possible. A practical, standardized scale runs from 0 to 1 or from 0 % to 100 %. 0 or 0 % represents no effect and 1 or 100 % represent the maximum theoretical effect at a high concentration of the contaminating substances. Sometimes, only a low level of quantitative scaling is possible, such as on an ordinary scale or on a 2 or 3 point scale (yes/no or yes/maybe/no). These low quantitative scaling methods can be used in a weight-of-evidence (WOE) (3.20) approach. Examples of scaling are given in, e.g. Reference [40].

3.15

stress factor

outcome of an anthropogenic activity that has a possible negative effect on the ecosystem, such as chemical soil contamination, overfertilization, desiccation or soil compaction

3.16

soil quality TRIAD

Note 1 to entry: The total of these elements is more than the sum of the separate parts because the burden of proof is partly based on consistency between the elements.

Note 2 to entry: Descriptions of the approach of the soil quality TRIAD study applied to soil contamination are given in References [36], [40], [59], [60] and [63], among other places. For the choice of tests, see also ISO 17616.

3.17

type 1 error

judgment that unjustly concludes that there is an unacceptable effect

Note 1 to entry: The term comes from statistics. If there is a type 1 error, the assessment is based not on an actual unacceptable effect but on chance or a model error. The risk of a type 1 error occurring can be reduced by making more observations or by improving the model with the ecological aspects and indicators. This latter option can be achieved by choosing improved conditions and investigation parameters.

3.18

type 2 error

judgment that unjustly concludes that there is no unacceptable effect

Note 1 to entry: The term comes from statistics. If there is a type 2 error, there is actually an unacceptable effect, but this effect has not been demonstrated because of insufficient or incorrect investigation efforts (too few observations, unsuitable reference(s) or model errors).

3.19

weighting

rating various investigation results transparently, with equal or different weight being given to the information concerned

Note 1 to entry: A simple starting position is to give equal weight to the results of the various assessment parameters. This can be deviated from to devote attention to specific ecological conditions [protected species, key species, processes, ecosystem services (3.8) ], to relatively reliable parameters, or to special test results (giving weight to observations that show a great effect or giving extra weight to measurements of bioavailable concentrations).

3.20

weight of evidence

WOE

weight of evidence of the soil quality TRIAD study which can be used as the basis for taking decisions responsibly

Note 1 to entry: In this document, WOE is meant above all in the methodological sense, with all available data obtained from various lines of evidence-taking being involved in the final conclusion, possibly on the basis of quantitative weighting. Background information about scaling (3.14) , weighting (3.19) and WOE can be found in References [12], [16], [40], [53], [67], and [72].

Note 2 to entry: With a set budget for the soil quality TRIAD study, the WOE needs to be optimized across investigation parameters and sample intensity. The assessment criteria (3.2) per parameter and the acceptable statistical error margin [ type 1 error (3.17) ] is chosen such that the WOE and acceptance of possible results of the investigation by the stakeholders (3.1) are maximized.

3.21

soil quality

all current positive or negative properties with regard to soil utilization and soil functions

Note 1 to entry: This definition includes all anthropogenic as well as natural properties, including services provided by organisms.

3.22

screening value

soil value which, if exceeded, indicates an assumed potential effect on soil biological structure and function

3.23

retention function

ability of soils/soil materials to adsorb pollutants in such a way that they cannot be mobilized via the water pathway and translocated into the food chain