Skip to main content

Role of Risk Assessment in Environmental Security Planning and Decision-Making

  • Conference paper
Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas

Part of the book series: NATO Security through Science Series ((NASTC))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dalby, S. 2002. Environmental Security. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gleditsch, N.P. 1998. Armed conflict and the environment: a critique of literature. Journal of Peace Research, 35/3 May: 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gleditsch, N.P. 1997. Conflict and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J., Perelet, R. 1998. Defining Environmental Security: Implications for the U.S. Army. Editor: Molly Landholm. AEPI-IFP-1298

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hedden, K.F. 1984. Multimedia fate and transport models: an overview. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 21(l–2):65–95.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hendrickson, R.G. 2005. Terrorist chemical releases: assessment of medical risk and implications for emergency preparadness. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:487–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heurgren-Carlstrom, G., Malmberg, E. 2003. Online information resources of toxicology in Sweden. Toxicology. 21;190(l–2):63–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hopper, L.D., Oehme, F.W. 1989. Chemical risk assessment: a review. Vet Hum Toxicol. 31 (6):543–554.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, B.B., Chess, C. 2003. How reassuring are risk comparisons to pollution standards and emission limits? Risk Anal. 23(5):999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karam, P.A. 2005. Radiological terrorism. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:501–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Google Scholar 

  24. Monosson, E. 2005. Chemical mixtures: considering the evolution of toxicology and chemical assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 113(4):383–390.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pavlin, J.A. 2005 Medical surveillance for biological terrorism agents. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 11:525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rowe, W.D. 1988. An Anatomy of Risk. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Russom, C.L. 2002. Mining environmental toxicology information: web resources. Toxicology. 173(1–2):75–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwela, D. and Häkkinen, P.J. 2004. Human exposure assessment resources on the World Wide Web. Toxicology. 198(1–3):169–176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  31. United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). 2003. Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Report. Phase I Final Report. Office for Domestic Preparedness, Washington, D.C. July.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wexler, P. 2004. The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology and Environmental Health Information Program. Toxicology. 20:198(1–3):161–168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  36. American Shipping Bureau (ABS). 2000. Guidance Notes on Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Oil and Gas Industries. Houston, TX: ABS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics