Risk Assessment and Communication Application and Potential for Development

8/7/2019 Risk Assessment and Communication Application and Potential for Development

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/risk-assessment-and-communication-application-and-potential-for-development 1/20

RISK ASSESSMENT AND COMMUNICATION

APPLICATION AND POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT

CIVD357 200 555 706 05/01/10



Contents

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Risk communication and perception 5

A tiered approach to the risk assessment model 7

Dealing with uncertainty 10

Parallels between ERA and EIA 12

The cost-risk relationship 14

Conclusion 16

Case Study 18

References 19

Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

200 555 706 2



Executive Summary

This paper aims to investigate the still relatively developing field of environmental risk

assessments as a strategic tool. Although the scope of the investigation goes far beyond

what can be managed in this brief outline, a number of areas are discussed with the intent

to inform and where possible highlight areas for further development:

• The form of the environmental institution and how calculated and perceived risks are

communicated between specialist institutions and stakeholders;

• the potential in the tiered risk assessment approach and its merits in application;

• the ability to effectively manage the component of uncertainty in natural systems;

• the potential synergy between the established environmental impact assessment tool

and more specialist risk assessment strategy

• the relationship shared between increased costs as a result of increased investigation

into a more complex model resulting in a more resource intensive process.

The points mentioned above reflect the course of the paper. Diagrams and tables are used

throughout to better illustrate ideas raised. The paper concludes with a comprehensive

summary of the risk assessment model so far; its’ application, and points for further

investigation.


200 555 706 3



Introduction

In recent years a great deal of attention has been paid to the upkeep of environmental

sustainability, a growth in legislation has been pushed through in order to support this

remit (Glasson et. al. 2005). National and international influence in the form of the

European Commission for example have aimed to influence the changing relationship

between the environment and development strategies. EIA are an example of this growing

conscience, originating in the USA in 1985 and adopted in the UK in 1988, the EIA has

become a primary area for planning development due to itsʻ acceleration in application

(Glasson et. al. 2005).

The UK DoE (1989) operational definition of the term EIA: ʻThe term ʻenvironmental

assessmentʻ describes a technique and a process by which information about the

environmental effects of a project is collected, both by the developer and from other

sources, and taken into account by the planning authority in forming their judgements on

whether the development should go ahead.ʻ The UNECE (1991) however have a far more

succinct definition:ʼan assessment of the impact of a planned activity on the environment.ʼ

• Risk: a combination of the probability, or frequency of the occurrence of a particular

hazard and the magnitude of the adverse effects of harm arising to the quality of the

human health of the environment.

• Risk Management: the process of implementing decisions about accepting or altering

risks.

(Royal Society 2002)

Investigation into risk can potentially answer a trio of questions: what can go wrong, how

likely is it and what are the consequences? (Kaplan and Garrick 1981). Risk conscious

decision making is is constantly being adopted by government agencies, now requiring

those responsible for implementing the EIA process to become increasingly familiar with

the process and its importance in governing the direction of environmental analysis (Petts& Eduljee 1994, Carpenter 1995).


200 555 706 4



The DoE 1995 and DETR 2000 consider risk management to involve a systematic

gathering of information based on apparent environmental risks thus allowing sound

judgement to be made in the best interests of balancing potential risk with a cost benefit

analysis, with specific focus on environmental costs and benefits.

Risk communication and perception

ʻHuman capacity for self reflection is the seed for institutional changeʼ.

(Hukkinen 1999)

Institutional reform is encouraged through reinforcing feedback between institutions and

creative thought processes. Furthering this it is necessary to, where possible, separate

environmental and economic faculties with the intention of applying a more intense focus

on environmental matters absent from the influence of market persuasion. This however

goes against the current methods of thinking with regards to an integrated environmental

and economic institutional merger as a result global environmental policy meetings such

as, the Brundtland commission and the Rio conference (Robinson 1993; world commissionon environment and development 1990)

Institutional stability and progress has been observed to emerge form the exchange of

knowledge and feedback between institutions and the influence of expert thinking and the

subsequent mental models produced (Scott 1987)

The termʻinstitutions

ʼis used in the sense of the word that has been defined since the

early 1900ʼs. Institutions are the governing rules or accepted patterns of conduct that

members of a defined group have established. (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Rutherford

1996).

Often hypersensitive consideration for perceived risks or the suggestion of a zero risk

option results in a disruption or skewing of the overall output of a decision making strategy

(Morris & Therivel 2001). Joined up thinking between each level of operation in the ERA

process is essential in order to work from a solid foundation of common understanding.


200 555 706 5



The ERA process is becoming more apparent in public realms much like the public realm

consultations of the ERA process. Dialogue however, must be create between public and

professional bodies prior to forming a strategic plan. The process should essentially be

made as transparent as possible with public involvement running synergistically with the

ERA process. It is imperative that we acknowledge the uncertainties within scientific

process and therefore that professional decision should not be accepted as finite.

If the ERA procedure is kept transparent throughout then the assumption of the ERA as a

over complex quantitative tool is dispelled through the inclusion of simple matrices and

checklists. Although more complex requirements may be deemed necessary this should

not effect the perceived view of the initial ground cost of the process, which, if carried out

correctly from the outset potentially proves far less financially intensive.

The DEFRA publication exclaims how environmental risk communication serves a variety

of purposes. The risk assessment strategy can be employed with the aim to inform,

explain, warn or encourage collective partnership through increase public participation.

The extent to which the process may be applied is detailed below:

• ensure compliance with statutory requirements to warn or inform individuals about

certain risks - this may include requirements to inform the public of the correct

behaviour to adopt in the event of a major industrial accident under the 'Seveso

II' (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Directive, and requirements to inform the

public of an intention to carry out a deliberate release of genetically modified

organisms under the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

• encourage desired changes in knowledge, attitudes, opinions and/or behaviours;• ensure that information aimed at encouraging desired risk reducing behaviour is

available - this may include, for example, the provision of information about air

quality and measures which may be taken to reduce certain polluting activities;

• create trust and confidence in risk decision-making processes and in risk

management institutions;

• ensure that experts and regulators discuss all issues relevant to the decision-

making process for a particular risk to the environment; and

• engage stakeholders in two-way communication, thereby ensuring that decision-

making reflects broad social values.


200 555 706 6



(DEFRA 2000)

A tiered approach to the risk assessment model

The DEFRA publication Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management

2000 recognises the impact that human activity has on the environment and quality of life

as a whole. Replicating those views stated in the Brundtland commission in terms of

provision without sacrifice, the report recognises the need to establish a balance between

economic growth and environmental pressures. Despite measures of environmental strain

not being easily quantifiable, the Risk Assessment strategy will go some way to reaching

transparency through the application of regulatory frameworks.

The RA tool as part of the environmental toolkit represents a shift toward prevention and

minimisation as opposed to remediation or reactive management.

At present the majority of applied risk assessments occurs within the context of defined

statutory requirements as established by central government and associated regulatory

bodies. When statute fails to inform the given situation DEFRA comment that:

In situations not covered by legislation, or where policy is to seek environmental

improvements beyond those aspired to by statute, targets should be set through socio-

economic analysis and expert judgement, taking account of the societal pressures which

lead to policy or political decisions

A pragmatic approach can lessen the potential for a resource intensive process. The

diagram below illustrates the tiered approach taken toward risk assessment where each

level of assessment is ranked proportionate to the level of risk demonstrated, and the

complexity of each given risk.

The screening process aims to establish which hazards and risks to investigated in greater

detail; thus, requiring greater attention of capital as a result of an increased resource

intensive project. The subsequent ranking of potential risks then forms a priority list on

which to guide the RA process.1


200 555 706 7

1/ 2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/index.htm: 5.2 Why screen and prioritise?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/index.htm





The process of screening all possible risks resists the tendency to overlook or omit areas

that prove more difficult to consider in a quantitative form (Tier 1 of the framework for

environmental risk assessment).

When engaging in the RA process an effective dialogue must be shared between

stakeholders and those commissioned to carry out the assessment. This therefore

provides another reason for the clearly tiered, transparent structure of the strategy.

“...the perception of risk is multi-dimensional, with particular hazards meaning different

things to different people depending on underlying values and the context of the risk.” 2

A framework for environmental risk assessment 3


200 555 706 8

3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/index.htm






Risk estimation:

Risk estimation is achieved by compiling the results of a hazard assessment, the most

transparent way of delivering the findings is via a decision matrix.

A decision strategy for accidental spillages (Morris & Therivel 2001)

The complexity of such strategies can be heightened with the us of multi criteria analysis

(MCA) where stages within the matrix are weighted to deliver an overall empirical risk

score.

Risk Evaluation/options appraisal:

The options appraisal segment of the ERA communicates the associated risks for each

option along with costs and benefits of each choice. A transparency in communication at

this point can lead to a wider understanding forming a solid basis from which to make

decisions.


200 555 706 9



Risk Management:

The ERA process systematically highlights the roots of causes and establishes

consequences and points for potential failure. These same points can therefore be

planned for and result in a mitigation of unacceptable levels of risk.

Type of Option Examples of risk management

Policy level Developing a multi-modal approach to transport, e.g.

consideration of investment in forms of transport other

than roads

Programme Consideration of the roads programme for the whole

country: rejecting schemes at an early stage with the

potential for significant environmental impact

Plan Integrating land use and transport plans, e.g. to consider

options for reducing traffic congestion in urban areas

Project level Improved road design for minimising environmental

impact: noisereduction using newer types of road

surface; improved safety

Technology New technology fitted to cars to reduce emissions; using

techniques for the secondary treatment of road runoff to

remove sediments and other pollutants

Economic Mechanisms for charging for road use (e.g. in selected

city areas; increased taxation on fuel, etc.)

Education Improved driver training to minimise accidents nbut also

to instruct the relevant services of what to do in an

emergency situation to minimise pollution to the

environment

Potential risk management options that consider road transport impacts on the environment (Morris & Therivel 2001)

Dealing with uncertainty

Uncertainty is an unavoidable aspect of the EIA process, where the ability to make a

definitive prediction is challenged in any naturally occurring system (Holling 1978). The


200 555 706

10



ERA process is therefore a tool which can be used to establish the likelihood of a

predicted outcome given set input data.

As a result of real world uncertainty proves the only solid foundation on which policy

makers can rely exists in the form of mental models - of perceived outcomes (Roe 1994).

Together with empirical scientific assessment, the wider scope of the identified risk need

be considered in order to engage in a fundamentally sound decision making process

including political, social and economic aspects.4 The product of the Risk Assessment

process should appropriately bolster the final structuring of decisions reached and in turn

implemented. To ensure such a pragmatic process the following questions need be

assessed prior to reaching a final decision:

• What impacts to the environment may occur?

• How harmful are these impacts to the environment?

• How likely is it that these impacts will occur?

• How frequently and where will these impacts occur?

• How much confidence can be placed in the results of the risk assessment?

• What are the critical data gaps and can these gaps be filled?

• Are further iterations to the risk assessment needed?

(DEFRA 2000)

Only when the above questions have been considered in combination with sound scientific

backing can an accurate decision be reached.

It is essential to realise that some degree of risk and/or uncertainty is inevitable (Smith K.& Petley N. D. 2009). However, with the introduction of innovative strategic tools such as

the iterative Risk Assessment procedure means the degree of uncertainty can be lessened

and adverse impacts mitigated to a far greater degree. The combination of qualitative and

quantitative assessment techniques goes toward building a holistic image of the are of

concern. Baring this in mind the concept of risk is increasingly defined as:


200 555 706

11

4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/index.htm: Evaluating the significance of a risk:7.1 Introduction






RISK = Hazard x Elements at Risk x Vulnerability

(Smith K. & Petley N. D. 2009)

Irrespective of what conclusions are reached there is always going to be a grey area over

what constitutes success and failure with respect to all member parties. When considering

the unrefined area of risk perception and communication immeasurable factors must be

taken into consideration.

Risk can either be perceived in an objective (empirical) manner or alternatively be viewed

through a personal (subjective) paradigm. Where one relies on scientific validation and a

complete emission of empathy the other is formed solely around personal judgement(Smith K. & Petley N. D. 2009).

Crozier (2005) the key drivers for the successful management of risk must be an

awareness of a threat, a sense of responsibility plus a belief that the threat can be

managed or at least reduced.

Parallels between ERA and EIA

EIA and ERA processes are essentially similar tools that help to predict the outcome of

and associated environmental impacts. The two processes in many senses overlap in their

application with the outcome of both applications aiming to develop policy and protect and

where possible enhance the state of the environment. However, an additional benefit of

the ERA process is that it is able to deliver probabilities to predicted impacts (Suter 1993).

Both EIA and ERA have been developed primarily for implementation at the project level

however they may be developed to be made applicable to a wider strategic remit. The

following details where the ERA process and risk assessment and communication parallels

the public consultation process present in EIA strategies.


200 555 706

12



With regards to the EIA process the ERA tool plays a potentially integral part of the more

widely applied EIA process, offering a flexible, supportive and complementary role to

impact assessment (Morris & Therivel 2001).

Although there is doubt in the use of the ERA tool as an independent technique used in

isolation there is no doubt that it is able to deliver a more accurate prediction of certainty;

timing and magnitude of impacts the the EIA process (Morris & Therivel 2001).

Framework for EIA Framework for ERA

screening of the project or proposal and preliminary

assessment of the existing environment to decide

whether to carry out a full blown EIA followed by a

scoping of the key environmental issues likely to beaffected by the project or proposal

screening to determine the range of risks, and the

factors that control whether they are likely to result

in damage to the environment. When all risks have

been identified prioritisation or ranking is conductedto ensure that resources for further work are

targeted at the highest priority risks. Defining the

problem is also know as hazard identification.

baseline studies - collection of existing information

impact prediction - determining the magnitude,

spatial extent and probability of impacts, including

direct and indirect effects.

Hazard analysis involves identification of the routes

by which hazardous events could occur and

estimation of the probability or chance of

occurrence. Consequence analysis involves

determining the potential consequences of a

hazard. Risk determination combines the results of

hazard and consequence analysis.

Assessment of the relative importance of predicted

effects, taking into account the present condition and

the future condition that would result, as well as any

measures of mitigation.

Evaluation of the overall acceptability of the proposal

or project and each of its alternatives, leading to

selection of one or more preferred options.

Judging the significance of the estimated risk is

known as Risk Evaluation, i.e. whether the

environment is likely to withstand the effects. It may

well be right for decisions to be taken partly in in

response to pressures generated by risk

perceptions. Risk management options may be

concerned with tolerating or altering risks.

monitoring and audit, e.g. leading to confirmation or

rejection of predicted effects

Monitoring and audit. Confirmation or rejection of

predicted effects.

(Morris & Therivel 2001)

The current EIA and ERA processes have largely developed in isolation in parallel

therefore there is a definite opportunity for cross fertilisation of policies ultimately resulting

in a more joined-up holistic approach (Morris & Therivel 2001).


200 555 706

13



Below are several issues currently faced when considering the merger of the two similar

strategies.

Issue EIA ERA

Objective process development need: EIS reviews often

give a high score to grammatical and

procedural elements of a report

rather than objectively assessing the

technical credibility

considerable experience: although

not professing to be a very objective

process, scientific information is

considered systematically

Recognition of uncertainties development need: many EISs

profess that ʻall will be wellʼ. May

contain unqualified statements about

the the effectiveness of newtechnologies for mitigation

considerable experience:

consideration of uncertainty is

fundamental to risk assessment.

Consideration of alternatives considerable experience: implicit that

development alternatives are

considered early in the process

development need: more

consideration could be given to

consideration of alternatives early on

in the process.

Public involvement development need: calls for public

participation in the EIA process

considerable experience: enormous

literature on the values of, and

procedures for, evaluating risk

perception and communicating risk

Strategic levels of appraisal considerable experience: theory and

some practical examples of the EIA

process at policy, programme and

plan levels.

development need: considerable

potential to translate what has been

learned in strategic EIA to strategic

ERA

(Morris & Therivel 2001)

The cost-risk relationship

The risk assessment format has long been utilised in the business and finance sector as a

method of dealing with uncertainty. However the techniques used to establish the level and

complexity of uncertainty has now been extended to the environmental management

sector (Morris & Therivel 2001).

Risk assessment has previously been considered as a financial burden by EIA

practitioners, due to the perceived financial burden the tool has often been omitted (Morris


200 555 706

14



& Therivel 2001). Up to now the application of the risk assessment procedure has been

confined to waste disposal techniques (Harrop & Pollard 1998).

If applied at the correct time as a tool for best practice the ERA process may prove far less

costly than initially predicted, while providing an all round more detailed over view of the

risks associated with the development process concerned.

The below diagram details the cost-risk relationship describing how a rise in complexity

inevitably leads to a rise in cost needed to fund the ERA process.

Levels of complexity and the relationship between increased risk and costing (Morris & Therivel 2001)

Levels of risk analysis:

The appropriate course of action should be taken with each ERA with regards to the

sensitivity of the assessment. Often a thorough initial assessment, proves sufficient prior to

engaging in any tailored risk assessment strategies; lengthening the time of delivery and

increasing overall procedural costs (Pollard et al 1995). The level of analysis applied to

each situation should reflect the depth and complexity of the perceived risk (Pollard et al

1995).


200 555 706

15



The different levels of risk assessment include (as seen by EA 1997a):

Risk Screening and Prioritisation

process used to 1) determine range of risks and related controlling factors that impact the

state of the surrounding environment 2) Use professional judgement in light of all available

supporting data to establish a hierarchy of importance with regards to the potential risks.

Depending on the outcome of the consultation appropriate funding streams may be

directed toward those areas marked as priority concern.

Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment

Using a bank of readily established quantitative RA strategies that can instantly be applied

to a range of second level ERAs.

Tailored Quantitative Risk Assessment

A specially crafted assessment procedure, requiring a greater degree of funding due to thecomplexity of the process and specificity of the area of study.

Conclusion

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process is a legal requirement when

investigating projects that may have a significant impact on the surrounding environment.

However under the EIA umbrella the Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) strategy is not

so widely implemented as monetary reviews of environmental conditions and subsequent

risks are not mandatory.

There are several factors within the contributory ERA tool that could further contribute to

the robust nature of a completed EIA strategy and with this areas which could further be

improved.


200 555 706

16



The quantitative valuation of established risks provides one way of forming a strategy for

prevention. However, care must be taken throughout the process to reserve an

appreciation for natural resources that cannot be fairly represented through quantified

analysis.

The feedback mechanism throughout the process is therefore questioned as to how

qualitative issues are dealt with, in turn challenging the effectiveness, inclusivity and

transparency of the consultation period(s).

Case Study

A Model for Environmental Risk Assessment for the Construction of Oil/Gas

Processing Facilities in Coastal Areas: adopted from a study in the developing of

tourist facilities along the Red Sea coast of Egypt - BP Global, Society of Petroleum

Engineers 2008.

The study essentially adopts an Environmental Risk Assessment Model to evaluate the

adverse effects associated with the development of oil/gas processing facilities within

coastal regions. Originally designed by El Sherbiny and company, the model is based on a

purpose designed network diagram (navigable through a series of spreadsheets) that

makes intermediate links between the process of construction and the impact on the given

construction on surrounding environmental, ecological/marine receptors.

The assessment model claims to amalgamate the EIA and RA models resulting in a single

comprehensive review strategy. The purpose of the model is not to arrive at definitive

quantitative answers, more-over to arrive at a series of factors that aid in informed

decision making and forming of alternatives and mitigation measures.


200 555 706

17



Although the model does not quantify outcomes a deeper understanding of potential

impacts, better informs future management of costal areas and associated marine

environment.


200 555 706

18



References

Glasson, J., Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A., Introduction to Environmental Impact

Assessment 3rd Ed. Routledge, London, 2005.

• DoE (Department of the Environment) 1989. Environmental Assessment: a guide to the

procedures. London: HMSO

• UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), Policies and systems of

environmental impact assessment. Geneva: United Nations. 1991

Hukkinen, J., Institutions of Environmental Management: Constructing mental models and

sustainability Routledge, London 1999

• Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T., The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Double Day, 1967

• Robinson, N.A. (ed.) Agenda 21: Earths Action Plan, IUCN Environmental Policy & Law

Paper No. 27, New York: Oceana 1993

• Rutherford, M., Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996

• Scott, W.R., Organisations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems 2nd Ed., Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987

• World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford,

Oxford University Press 1990

Morris, P. and Therivel, R., Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment 2nd Ed. Spon

Press, London

• Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B., On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1, 1-27, 1981

• Carpenter, R. A., Vanclay, F. & Bronstein, D. A., (eds) Risk assessment in environmental

and social impact assessment , 193-219. Chichester: Wiley 1995


200 555 706

19



• Harrop, D.O. & Pollard, S.J.T., Quantitative risk assessment for incineration: is it

appropriate for the UK? Journal of the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental

Management 12(1), 48-53

• Petts, J. & Eduljee, G., Environmental impacts assessment for waste treatment and

disposal facilities. Chichister: WIiley 1994

• DETR 2000. Guidelines for environmental risk assessment and management. London:

TSO.

• DoE 1995. A guide to risk assessment and risk managemen t for environmental

protection , London: HMSO.

• Pollard, S.J., Harrop D.O., Crowcroft, P., Mallett, L.H., Jeffries, S.R. & Young, P.J., Risk

assessment for environmental management: approaches and applications. Journal of the

chartered institute of water and environmental management 9: 621-628, 1995

Smith, K., Petley, N. D., Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing disaster

fifth ed. Routledge London 2009

• Crozier, M., 2005 Multiple-occurance regional landslide events in New Zealand; Hazard

Management Issues. Landslides 2: 247- 256


Page published 2 August 2000;

Page last modified 26 August, 2009

Accessed: 12/11/09 - 22:31

http://www.onepetro.org/

Elsherbiny A.H., & Adly T.a., BPA Model for Environmental Risk Assessment for the

Construction of Oil/Gas Processing Facilities in Coastal Areas Society of Petroleum

Engineers 2008

Accessed: 12/01/10 - 22:52


200 555 706

20












Risk Assessment and Communication Application and Potential for Development

Documents

Transcript of Risk Assessment and Communication Application and Potential for Development