Characterizing Environmental Harm: Developments in an Approach to Strategic Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Environmental policymakers and regulators are often in the position of having to prioritize their actions across a diverse range of environmental pressures to secure environmental protection and improvements. Information on environmental issues to inform this type of strategic analysis can be disparate; it may be too voluminous or even absent. Data on a range of issues are rarely presented in a common format that allows easy analysis and comparison. Nevertheless, judgments are required on the significance of various environmental pressures and on the inherent uncertainties to inform strategic assessments such as “state of the environment” reports. How can decisionmakers go about this type of strategic and comparative risk analysis? In an attempt to provide practical tools for the analysis of environmental risks at a strategic level, the Environment Agency of England and Wales has conducted a program of developmental research on strategic risk assessment since 1996. The tools developed under this program use the concept of “environmental harm” as a common metric, viewed from technical, social, and economic perspectives, to analyze impacts from a range of environmental pressures. Critical to an informed debate on the relative importance of these perspectives is an understanding and analysis of the various characteristics of harm (spatial and temporal extent, reversibility, latency, etc.) and of the social response to actual or potential environmental harm from a range of hazards. Recent developments in our approach, described herein, allow a presentation of the analysis in a structured fashion so as to better inform risk‐management decisions.     

An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment1

Comparative risk assessment is an evaluation process designed to rank environmental problems based on the severity of potential hazards. The purpose of this paper is to provide an effective statistical approach to analyze perceived environmental risks. Environmental problems, evaluative criteria, and other potential moderator variables need to be determined first, and then the risk perception data collected. Repeated measures analysis is used to first test for interactions between environmental problems and potential moderator variables. If there are no significant interactions, then the risk difference among environmental problems is tested unconditionally; otherwise the risk difference is tested conditionally. Cluster analysis for environmental problems is performed only when the risk difference is significant. The clustering results can be objectively determined by using the simultaneous T² confidence intervals. Risk-based priority setting is made according to the clusters obtained. To illustrate this approach, an empirical study of comparative socioeconomic risks in Taiwan was conducted. Socioeconomic impacts areas including social security, quality of life, production cost, investment willingness, and economic resources are used as evaluative criteria. Results indicate that selected impact areas do affect relative risk differences among 24 environmental problems, and the difference is significant for each area. Therefore, cluster analysis is conducted separately for each impact area. Risk-based priority settings for clusters of environmental problems are reported.     

Consumption of Fish and Shrimp from Southeast Louisiana Poses No Unacceptable Lifetime Cancer Risks Attributable to High‐Priority Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Following oil spills such as the Deepwater Horizon accident (DWH), contamination of seafood resources and possible increased health risks attributable to consumption of seafood in spill areas are major concerns. In this study, locally harvested finfish and shrimp were collected from research participants in southeast Louisiana and analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are some of the most important chemicals of concern regarding oil‐spill‐contaminated seafood resources during and following oil spills. Some PAHs are considered carcinogens for risk assessment purposes, and currently, seven of these can be combined in lifetime cancer risk assessments using EPA approaches. Most PAHs were not detected in these samples (minimum detection limits ranged from 1.2 to 2.1 PPB) and of those that were detected, they were generally below 10 PPB. The pattern of detected PAHs suggested that the source of these chemicals in these seafood samples was not a result of direct contact with crude oil. Lifetime cancer risks were assessed using conservative assumptions and models in a probabilistic framework for the seven carcinogenic PAHs. Lifetime health risks modeled using this framework did not exceed a 1/10,000 cancer risk threshold. Conservative, health‐protective deterministic estimates of the levels of concern for PAH chemical concentration and seafood intake rates were above the concentrations and intake rates modeled under this probabilistic framework. Taken together, consumption of finfish and shrimp harvested from southeast Louisiana following the DWH does not pose unacceptable lifetime cancer risks from these seven carcinogenic PAHs even for the heaviest possible consumers.     

Prioritizing Environmental Health Risks in the UAE

This article presents the results of a comparative environmental risk‐ranking exercise that was conducted in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to inform a strategic planning process led by the Environment Agency‐Abu Dhabi (EAD). It represents the first national‐level application of a deliberative method for comparative risk ranking first published in this journal. The deliberative method involves a five‐stage process that includes quantitative risk assessment by experts and deliberations by groups of stakeholders. The project reported in this article considered 14 categories of environmental risks to health identified through discussions with EAD staff: ambient and indoor air pollution; drinking water contamination; coastal water pollution; soil and groundwater contamination; contamination of fruits, vegetables, and seafood; ambient noise; stratospheric ozone depletion; electromagnetic fields from power lines; health impacts from climate change; and exposure to hazardous substances in industrial, construction, and agricultural work environments. Results from workshops involving 73 stakeholders who met in five separate groups to rank these risks individually and collaboratively indicated strong consensus that outdoor and indoor air pollution are the highest priorities in the UAE. Each of the five groups rated these as being among the highest risks. All groups rated soil and groundwater contamination as being among the lowest risks. In surveys administered after the ranking exercises, participants indicated that the results of the process represented their concerns and approved of using the ranking results to inform policy decisions. The results ultimately shaped a strategic plan that is now being implemented.     

Engaging with Comparative Risk Appraisals: Public Views on Policy Priorities for Environmental Risk Governance

Communicating the rationale for allocating resources to manage policy priorities and their risks is challenging. Here, we demonstrate that environmental risks have diverse attributes and locales in their effects that may drive disproportionate responses among citizens. When 2,065 survey participants deployed summary information and their own understanding to assess 12 policy‐level environmental risks singularly, their assessment differed from a prior expert assessment. However, participants provided rankings similar to those of experts when these same 12 risks were considered as a group, allowing comparison between the different risks. Following this, when individuals were shown the prior expert assessment of this portfolio, they expressed a moderate level of confidence with the combined expert analysis. These are important findings for the comprehension of policy risks that may be subject to augmentation by climate change, their representation alongside other threats within national risk assessments, and interpretations of agency for public risk management by citizens and others.     

Life-Cycle Assessment in Relation to Risk Assessment: An Evolving Perspective

A life-cycle approach takes a cradle-to-grave perspective of a product's numerous activities from the raw material extraction to final disposal. There have been recent efforts to develop life-cycle assessment (LCA) to assess both environmental and human health issues. The question then arises: what are the capabilities of LCA, especially in relation to risk assessment? To address this question, this paper first describes the LCA mass-based accounting system and then analyzes the use of this approach for environmental and human health assessment. The key LCA limitations in this respect are loss of spatial, temporal, dose-response, and threshold information. These limitations affect LCA's capability to assess several environmental issues, and human health in particular. This leads to the conclusion that LCA impact assessment does not predict or measure actual effects, quantitate risks, or address safety. Instead, LCA uses mass loadings with simplifying assumptions and subjective judgments to add independent effects and exposures into an overall score. As a result, LCA identifies possible human health issues on a systemwide basis from a worst case, hypothetical hazard perspective. Ideally, the identified issues would then be addressed by more detailed assessment methods, such as risk assessment.     

Explainable deep learning powered building risk assessment model for proactive hurricane response

Climate change and rapid urban development have intensified the impact of hurricanes, especially on the Southeastern Coasts of the United States. Localized and timely risk assessments can facilitate coastal communities’ preparedness and response to imminent hurricanes. Existing assessment methods focused on hurricane risks at large spatial scales, which were not specific or could not provide actionable knowledge for residents or property owners. Fragility functions and other widely utilized assessment methods cannot model the complex relationships between building features and hurricane risk levels effectively. Therefore, we develop and test a building-level hurricane risk assessment with deep feedforward neural network (DFNN) models. The input features of DFNN models cover the meta building characteristics, fine-grained meteorological, and hydrological environmental parameters. The assessment outcomes, that is, risk levels, include the probability and intensity of building/property damages induced by wind and surge hazards. We interpret the DFNN models with local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME). We apply the DFNN models to a case building in Cameron County, Louisiana in response to a hypothetical imminent hurricane to illustrate how the building's risk levels can be timely assessed with the updating weather forecast. This research shows the potential of deep-learning models in integrating multi-sourced features and accurately predicting buildings’ risks of weather extremes for property owners and households. The AI-powered risk assessment model can help coastal populations form appropriate and updating perceptions of imminent hurricanes and inform actionable knowledge for proactive risk mitigation and long-term climate adaptation.     

Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment: The CRAM Perspective

In 1989, a Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology (CRAM) was convened by the National Research Council (NRC) to identify and investigate important scientific issues in risk assessment. One of the first issues considered by the committee was the development of a conceptual framework for ecological risk assessment, defined as "the characterization of the adverse ecological effects of environmental exposures to hazards imposed by human activities." Adverse ecological effects include all biological and nonbiological environmental changes that society perceives as undesirable. The committee's opinion was that a general framework is needed to define the relationship of ecological risk assessment to environmental management and to facilitate the development of uniform technical guidelines. The framework for human health risk assessment proposed by the NRC in 1983 was adopted as a starting point for discussion. CRAM concluded that, although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the underlying decision process is the same for both. Therefore, CRAM recommended that the 1983 risk assessment framework be modified to accommodate both human health and ecological risk assessment. CRAM defined an integrated health/ ecological risk assessment framework consisting of the four components: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Exposure-Response Assessment, and Risk Characterization. CRAM further provided recommendations on the scope of issues to be addressed in ecological risk assessment, critical research needs, and mechanisms for providing more detailed guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.     

Risk Analysis in Developing Countries1

In summary, risk analysis is not yet well practiced in developing countries, although there are numerous, diverse environmental and other risk-related issues and concerns that need attention. A few initiatives have been taken, but, so far, they have created only relatively small impact in a few areas. Many risk issues may not be addressed, partly as a result of lack of resources and inadequate knowledge by policy makers. Risk analysis is an essential tool for the planning and implementation of development projects. To enhance its use, however, risk analysis approaches and methods must be adapted to developing countries, and this requires research. Unfortunately, funds for research, in general, are hard to find. There are other problems in the implementation of risk analysis. Trained professionals on risk analysis are few. Existing institutions that are tasked with resolving environmental and other risk issues are overburdened. Risk-related data are sorely lacking. Resources are very limited for addressing numerous natural and technological hazards. In most developing countries, political and economic stability is still threatened by both internal and external forces, hence, that is what receives priority attention. Activities like risk analysis, which generally lead to long-term results and benefits, do not get enough interest. In addition, there is still little public awareness of risks even among those who have passed the stage of survival; thus, there is little public concern about them. We cannot afford this lack of concern for long. In the Philippines, the government was the first to recognize after our peaceful revolution in 1986 that “the environmental issues can add fuel to the insurgency; they can also hamper efforts towards national recovery”.⁽⁴⁾ To this point, I have added that risk management (including risk assessment and risk communication), like attainment of peace and freedom, is a social imperative because risk issues affect our health, safety, and both our physical and economic well-being.⁽⁷⁾ Many of such issues in developing countries have not only local, but also global origin and impacts. They thus deserve the interest of each of us.     

Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?

A third generation of environmental policy making and risk management will increasingly impose environmental measures, which may give rise to analyzing countervailing risks. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all risks associated with the decision alternatives will aid decision-makers in prioritizing alternatives that effectively reduce both target and countervailing risks. Starting with the metaphor of the ripples caused by a stone that is thrown into a pond, we identify 10 types of ripples that symbolize, in our case, risks that deserve closer examination: direct, upstream, downstream, accidental risks, occupational risks, risks due to offsetting behavior, change in disposable income, macro-economic changes, depletion of natural resources, and risks to the manmade environment. Tools to analyze these risks were developed independently and recently have been applied to overlapping fields of application. This suggests that either the tools should be linked in a unified framework for comparative analysis or that the appropriate field of application for single tools should be better understood. The goals of this article are to create a better foundation for the understanding of the nature and coverage of available tools and to identify the remaining gaps. None of the tools is designed to deal with all 10 types of risk. Provided data suggest that, of the 10 types of identified risks, those associated with changes in disposable income may be particularly significant when decision alternatives differ with respect to their effects on disposable income. Finally, the present analysis was limited to analytical questions and did not capture the important role of the decision-making process itself.     

A Look at State‐Level Risk Assessment in the United States: Making Decisions in the Absence of Federal Risk Values

State environmental agencies in the United States are charged with making risk management decisions that protect public health and the environment while managing limited technical, financial, and human resources. Meanwhile, the federal risk assessment community that provides risk assessment guidance to state agencies is challenged by the rapid growth of the global chemical inventory. When chemical toxicity profiles are unavailable on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System or other federal resources, each state agency must act independently to identify and select appropriate chemical risk values for application in human health risk assessment. This practice can lead to broad interstate variation in the toxicity values selected for any one chemical. Within this context, this article describes the decision‐making process and resources used by the federal government and individual U.S. states. The risk management of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the United States is presented as a case study to demonstrate the need for a collaborative approach among U.S. states toward identification and selection of chemical risk values while awaiting federal risk values to be set. The regulatory experience with TCE is contrasted with collaborative risk science models, such as the European Union's efforts in risk assessment harmonization. Finally, we introduce State Environmental Agency Risk Collaboration for Harmonization, a free online interactive tool designed to help to create a collaborative network among state agencies to provide a vehicle for efficiently sharing information and resources, and for the advancement of harmonization in risk values used among U.S. states when federal guidance is unavailable.     

企业IT项目风险评估与规避策略研究

结合企业竞争性战略思想构建了一个企业IT项目风险评估与规避模型,建立了企业IT项目风险评估的指标体系,在对湖北省128家企业信息化项目与风险现状调查研究的基础上对风险因素进行了分类、测度和评估,得出了战略与风险的内在关系,并根据风险评估结果分析了企业战略执行的效果。最后,对高风险的企业IT项目提出了一套风险规避策略并进行应用。结果表明,计划与控制风险对各种企业IT项目执行的竞争性战略均有显著影响,采取不同战略的企业,影响其IT项目开发的风险各不相同,选择风险规避的策略与时机也存在差异。     

A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks

This study reviewed coverage of nanotechnology risks in 20 U.S. and 9 U.K. newspapers and 2 wire services from 2000 to 2009. It focused on information that citizens could come across in daily newspaper reading that could highlight the salience of these issues and alert readers to potential risks. Few articles about nanotechnology health, environmental, and societal risks were found in these publications during this period, averaging only 36.7 per year for both countries. The coverage emphasized three main narratives over time: runaway technology, science-based studies, and regulation. Health risks were covered most frequently, followed by environmental and societal risk issues. Regulation coverage was not as frequent but increased over time. The majority of the coverage focused on news events and 10 events drew modest media attention. Scientific uncertainty discussions appeared in about half of the articles, and scientists and engineers were the dominant information sources in both countries. Some significant differences between U.S. and U.K. coverage were found: U.K. coverage emphasized more societal concerns, while U.S. coverage paid more attention to environmental risks. Because the volume of coverage was not extensive and was counterbalanced by many more articles extolling nanotechnology's benefits, it is questionable whether this coverage alerted readers about potential nanotechnology risks. Coupled with citizens' minimal knowledge about nanotechnology, this type of coverage could create public distrust of nanotechnology applications should a dangerous risk event occur.     

The Power of Perception: Health Risk Attributed to Air Pollution in an Urban Industrial Neighbourhood

This paper describes a multi-stakeholder process designed to assess the potential health risks associated with adverse air quality in an urban industrial neighborhood. The paper briefly describes the quantitative health risk assessment conducted by scientific experts, with input by a grassroots community group concerned about the impacts of adverse air quality on their health and quality of life. In this case, rather than accept the views of the scientific experts, the community used their powers of perception to advantage by successfully advocating for a professionally conducted community health survey. This survey was designed to document, systematically and rigorously, the health risk perceptions community members associated with exposure to adverse air quality in their neighborhood. This paper describes the institutional and community contexts within which the research is situated as well as the design, administration, analysis, and results of the community health survey administered to 402 households living in an urban industrial neighborhood in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. These survey results served to legitimate the community's concerns about air quality and to help broaden operational definitions of health. In addition, the results of both health risk assessment exercises served to keep issues of air quality on the local political agenda. Implications of these findings for our understanding of the environmental justice process as well as the ability of communities to influence environmental health policy are discussed.     

What Risks Do People Perceive in Everyday Life? A Perspective Gained from the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)

The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to collect data from 74 part-time students who described and assessed the risks involved in their current activities when interrupted at random moments by text messages. The major categories of perceived risk were short term in nature and involved "loss of time or materials" related to work and "physical damage" (e.g., from transportation). Using techniques of multilevel analysis, we demonstrate effects of gender, emotional state, and types of risk on assessments of risk. Specifically, females do not differ from males in assessing the potential severity of risks but they see these as more likely to occur. Also, participants assessed risks to be lower when in more positive self-reported emotional states. We further demonstrate the potential of ESM by showing that risk assessments associated with current actions exceed those made retrospectively. We conclude by noting advantages and disadvantages of ESM for collecting data about risk perceptions.     

A Suggested Approach to Overcome California''s Inability to Permit Urban Resource Recovery Facilities

The premature political termination of the permit reviews of five urban resource recovery projects in California may indicate a deficiency in the process under which project health risk assessments are performed and policy biases of the public agencies that control the contents of the assessments. This article examines the permitting process that separates project health risk assessments from environmental impact reports and the anti-resource-recovery goals and policies of the state and local agencies that guide the preparation of project health risk assessments. Also examined are two independent studies made of the informational adequacy of the LANCER project documents. The article concludes that it is only by merging the risk assessment process with the environmental review process that control of the agencies can be loosened and project proponents be able to prepare project risk assessments for urban California resource recovery projects that will offer the projects any likelihood of being able to complete the permitting process.     

Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication

In the past decade, the use of probabilistic risk analysis techniques to quantitatively address variability and uncertainty in risks increased in popularity as recommended by the 1994 National Research Council that wrote Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, for example, the U.S. EPA supported the development of tools that produce distributions of risk demonstrating the variability and/or uncertainty in the results. This paradigm shift away from the use of point estimates creates new challenges for risk managers, who now struggle with decisions about how to use distributions in decision making. The challenges for risk communication, however, have only been minimally explored. This presentation uses the case studies of variability in the risks of dying on the ground from a crashing airplane and from the deployment of motor vehicle airbags to demonstrate how better characterization of variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment lead to better risk communication. Analogies to food safety and environmental risks are also discussed. This presentation demonstrates that probabilistic risk assessment has an impact on both risk management and risk communication, and highlights remaining research issues associated with using improved sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in risk assessment.     

A Scale of Risk

This article proposes a conceptual framework for ranking the relative gravity of diverse risks. This framework identifies the moral considerations that should inform the evaluation and comparison of diverse risks. A common definition of risk includes two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the associated consequences of a set of hazardous scenarios. This article first expands this definition to include a third dimension: the source of a risk. The source of a risk refers to the agents involved in the creation or maintenance of a risk and captures a central moral concern about risks. Then, a scale of risk is proposed to categorize risks along a multidimensional ranking, based on a comparative evaluation of the consequences, probability, and source of a given risk. A risk is ranked higher on the scale the larger the consequences, the greater the probability, and the more morally culpable the source. The information from the proposed comparative evaluation of risks can inform the selection of priorities for risk mitigation.