Abstract
This chapter explores the role of risk assessment in environmental security planning and decision-making at commercial shipping ports and harbors. Environmental risk assessment is a discipline that has matured over the past nearly 50 years, evolving from assessment of chemical exposures on human health and wildlife to comparative analysis of the net risks and benefits to the environment associated with the implementation of different remedy alternatives at contaminated land and sediment sites. In recent years, partly due to the events of 11 September 2001, escalating tensions in poor and under-developed countries, and increasing scarcity of natural resources, several countries and international organizations have raised concerns about environmental security. For commercial and industrial shipping ports, which are often located in heavily populated urban areas and sensitive coastal environments in both developed and developing countries, the application of risk assessment methods is an important first step towards protecting critical industrial, environmental and utility infrastructure and understanding environmental response and prevention requirements and capabilities. In the context of environmental risk assessment, there are at least three security challenges that must be overcome. First, quantitative prediction is needed, with a high degree of confidence, of the range of possible damages and potential threats posed to both human health and the environment. The nature of this work itself poses a security challenge because of the potential sensitivity of the information that must be compiled and evaluated. Second, the information and risk predictions generated by environmental risk assessment to describe the outcome of different possible disaster events and environmental scenarios must be realistic and plausible. And, third, the results of an environmental risk analysis must inform decision-makers of different disaster prevention/response action plans, their associated capital investments, and net impact on risk. Ultimately, the risk assessment process can provide port authorities and local or national government authorities the appropriate tools to prioritize prevention/response actions must be to minimize or prevent scenarios most likely to adversely impact the environment, cause injuries or fatalities to port workers and residents in surrounding communities, and result in short or long-term economic impacts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Apostolakis, G.E., Lemon, D.M. 2005. A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism. Risk Anal. 25(2):361–376.
Belluck, D.A., Hull, R.N., Benjamin, S.L., Linkov I. 2005a. Environmental security, critical infrastructure and risk assessment: Definitions and current trends. In: Linkov, I., Kiker, G., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).
Belluck, D.A., Hull, R.N., Benjamin, S.L., Alcorn, J., Linkov, I. 2005b. Are Standard Risk Acceptability Criteria Applicable to Critical Infrastructure Based on Environmental Security Needs? In: Linkov, I., Kiker, G., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).
Dalby, S. 2002. Environmental Security. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Efroymson, R.A., Nicolette, J.P., and Suter G.W. 2004. A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of contaminated sites. Environ Manage. 34(3):315–331.
Gleditsch, N.P. 1998. Armed conflict and the environment: a critique of literature. Journal of Peace Research, 35/3 May: 381–400.
Gleditsch, N.P. 1997. Conflict and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J., Perelet, R. 1998. Defining Environmental Security: Implications for the U.S. Army. Editor: Molly Landholm. AEPI-IFP-1298
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 1992. Regulation 4 of the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2885) (SCR) United Kingdom, http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/regulation/-guidance/reg_offshore/appl0.htm. Accessed 25 July 2005.
Hedden, K.F. 1984. Multimedia fate and transport models: an overview. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 21(l–2):65–95.
Hendrickson, R.G. 2005. Terrorist chemical releases: assessment of medical risk and implications for emergency preparadness. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:487–499.
Heurgren-Carlstrom, G., Malmberg, E. 2003. Online information resources of toxicology in Sweden. Toxicology. 21;190(l–2):63–73.
Hopper, L.D., Oehme, F.W. 1989. Chemical risk assessment: a review. Vet Hum Toxicol. 31 (6):543–554.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2004. IMO’s global programme on maritime and port security – the work continues. http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=848&doc_id= 3656. Accessed on 22 July 2005.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2002. International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS). Conference of Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974: 9–13 December 2002. http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp? topic_id=583&doc_id=2689 Accessed 25 July 2005.
Johnson, B.B., Chess, C. 2003. How reassuring are risk comparisons to pollution standards and emission limits? Risk Anal. 23(5):999–1007.
Karam, P.A. 2005. Radiological terrorism. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:501–523.
Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integ Environ Assess Manage. 1(2):95–109.
Knapp, K.C., Weinberg, M., Howitt, R., Posnikoff, J.F. 2003. Water transfers, agriculture, and groundwater management: a dynamic economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 67(4):291–301.
Latora, V., Marchiori, M. 2005. Vulnerability and protection of infrastructure networks. Phys Rev E Stat Noniin Soft Matter Phys. 71(1 Pt 2):015103. Epub – January 20.
Lin, B.L., Tokai, A., Nakanishi, J. 2005. Approaches for establishing predicted-no-effect concentrations for population-level ecological risk assessment in the context of chemical substances management. Environ Sci Technol. 39(13):4833–4840.
Leung, M., Lambert, J.H., Mosenthai, A. 2004. A risk-based approach to setting priorities in protecting bridges against terrorist attacks. Risk Anal. 24(4):963–984.
McNeil, F. 2000. Making Sense of Environmental Security. North-South Agenda. Paper. Thirty-Nine. http://www.miami.edu/nsc/publications/pub-ap-pdf/39AP.pdf
Monosson, E. 2005. Chemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 113(4):383–390.
Paustenbach, D.J. 1989. Important recent advances in the practice of health risk assessment: implications for the 1990s. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 10(3):204–243.
Pavlin, J.A. 2005 Medical surveillance for biological terrorism agents. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:525–537.
Rowe, W.D. 1988. An Anatomy of Risk. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL.
Russom, C.L. 2002. Mining environmental toxicology information: web resources. Toxicology. 173(1–2):75–88.
Schwela, D. and Häkkinen, P.J. 2004. Human exposure assessment resources on the World Wide Web. Toxicology. 198(1–3):169–176.
Swatuk, L.A. 2004. Environmental security in practice: Transboundary natural resources management in Southern Africa. Presentation in Section 31 of the Pan-European Conference on International Relations, The Hague, 9–11 September.
United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). 2003. Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Report. Phase I Final Report. Office for Domestic Preparedness, Washington, D.C. July.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7); List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention, Stay of Effectiveness; and Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act as Amended, Guidelines; Final Rules and Notice. Federal Register 61(120):31667–31720. 20 June.
Wenning, R.J., Sorensen, M., Magar, V. 2005. Importance of implementation and residual risk analyses in sediment remediation. Integ Environ Assess Manage. 2(1):in press.
Wexler, P. 2004. The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology and Environmental Health Information Program. Toxicology. 20:198(1–3):161–168.
Zaidi, M. 2005. Risk assessment in detecting and preventing of terrorist attacks in harbors and coastal areas. In: Linkov, L, Kiker, G., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).
American Shipping Bureau (ABS). 2000. Guidance Notes on Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Oil and Gas Industries. Houston, TX: ABS Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wenning, R.J., Della Sala, S., Magar, V. (2007). Role of Risk Assessment in Environmental Security Planning and Decision-Making. In: Linkov, I., Kiker, G.A., Wenning, R.J. (eds) Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas. NATO Security through Science Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5802-8_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5802-8_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5800-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5802-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)