RISK ASSESSMENT AND

COMMUNICATION
APPLICATION AND POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT

CIVD357 200 555 706 05/01/10

 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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

200 555 706 2

 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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

 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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

 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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 commission
on 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 term ʻinstitutionsʼ is 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

 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

(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

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

200 555 706 7
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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

3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/index.htm
200 555 706 8
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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 Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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:

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

7.1 Introduction
200 555 706
11
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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 be
affected 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 conducted
to 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 Monitoring and audit. Confirmation or rejection of
rejection of predicted effects 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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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 considerable experience:

profess that ʻall will be wellʼ. May consideration of uncertainty is
contain unqualified statements about fundamental to risk assessment.
the the effectiveness of new
technologies for mitigation

Consideration of alternatives considerable experience: implicit that development need: more

development alternatives are consideration could be given to
considered early in the process consideration of alternatives early on
in the process.

Public involvement development need: calls for public considerable experience: enormous
participation in the EIA process literature on the values of, and
procedures for, evaluating risk
perception and communicating risk

Strategic levels of appraisal considerable experience: theory and development need: considerable
some practical examples of the EIA potential to translate what has been
process at policy, programme and learned in strategic EIA to strategic
plan levels. 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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

& 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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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 the
complexity 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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

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
 Risk Assessment and Communication application and potential for development

• 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 management 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

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