Based on our current state of knowledge, the significance and importance of hormesis is likely to be greater for ecotoxicology, a component of ecological risk assessment (ERA), than for the overall process of ERA. Appropriately determining the role of hormesis in ERA will require extension of hormesis beyond chemical stressors to abiotic (e.g. habitat) and biotic stressors (e.g. species introductions, organism interactions). It will also require determining for all stressors whether at both individual and higher levels of organization, hormesis has positive, neutral or adverse effects. This determination must be made for model organisms, populations and communities. Adverse effects are the least likely, however, neutral effects cannot be ruled out. Presently, consideration of hormetic effects in ERA is most appropriate in a detailed level ecological risk assessment (DLERA), the most complex form of ERA. It is not appropriate in either problem formulation or a screening level ERA (SLERA). Further, for hormetic effects to be recognized and accepted fully into ERA may require a paradigm shift. Three on-going paradigm shifts to which hormesis could be linked are: recognition of the low utility of no-observed effects concentrations (NOECs); recognition of the need for special treatment of essential element dose/concentration-responses, which are similar to hormetic responses; and, the replacement of environmental toxicology with ecological toxicology (ecotoxicology).