Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone,Australia

This article is a retrospective analysis of liquefied natural gas development (LNG) in Gladstone, Australia by using the structure of the risk governance framework developed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Since 2010 the port of Gladstone has undergone extensive expansion to facilitate the increasing coal export as well as the new development of three recently completed LNG facilities. Significant environmental and socio‐economic impacts and concerns have occurred as a result of these developments. The overall aim of the article, therefore, is to identify the risk governance deficits that arose and to formulate processes capable of improving similar decision‐making problems in the future. The structure of the IRGC framework is followed because it represents a broad analytical approach for considering risk assessment and risk governance in Gladstone in ways that include, but also go beyond, the risk approach of the ISO 31000:2009 standard that was employed at the time. The IRGC risk framework is argued to be a consistent and comprehensive risk governance framework that integrates scientific, economic, social, and cultural aspects and advocates the notion of inclusive risk governance through stakeholder communication and involvement. Key aspects related to risk preassessment, risk appraisal, risk tolerability and acceptability, risk management, and stakeholder communication and involvement are considered. The results indicate that the risk governance deficits include aspects related to (i) the risk matrix methodology, (ii) reflecting uncertainties, (iii) cumulative risks, (iv) the regulatory process, and (v) stakeholder communication and involvement.     

The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism Risk

The purpose of this article is to discuss the role of quantitative risk assessments for characterizing risk and uncertainty and delineating appropriate risk management options. Our main concern is situations (risk problems) with large potential consequences, large uncertainties, and/or ambiguities (related to the relevance, meaning, and implications of the decision basis; or related to the values to be protected and the priorities to be made), in particular terrorism risk. We look into the scientific basis of the quantitative risk assessments and the boundaries of the assessments in such a context. Based on a risk perspective that defines risk as uncertainty about and severity of the consequences (or outcomes) of an activity with respect to something that humans value we advocate a broad risk assessment approach characterizing uncertainties beyond probabilities and expected values. Key features of this approach are qualitative uncertainty assessment and scenario building instruments.     

Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is a broad term that encompasses materials, structures, or processes that utilize engineered nanomaterials, which can be defined as materials intentionally designed to have one or more dimensions between 1 and 100 nm. Historically, risk characterization has been viewed as the final phase of a risk assessment process that integrates hazard identification, dose‐response assessment, and exposure assessment. The novelty and diversity of materials, structures, and tools that are covered by above‐defined “nanotechnology” raise substantial methodological issues and pose significant challenges for each of these phases of risk assessment. These issues and challenges culminate in the risk characterization phase of the risk assessment process, and this article discusses several of these key issues and approaches to developing risk characterization results and their implications for risk management decision making that are specific to nanotechnology.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In spite of the maturity reached by many of the methods used in risk assessment and risk management, broad consensus has not been established on fundamental concepts and principles. The risk fields still suffer from a lack of clarity on many key scientific pillars. The purpose of this article is to point to this situation and through some illustrating examples discuss the challenges that the fields here face. Moreover, the purpose of the article is to reflect on how to improve the present situation and enhance the risk fields. We argue that the establishment of some common scientific pillars as well as a strong and continuous research focus on foundational issues are critical success factors. The article specifically addresses the role of the peer‐reviewed journals and the international standards in the fields. We hope that the article can contribute to a revitalization of the discussion of foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management.     

The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework

This article focuses on the fluid nature of risk problems and the challenges it presents to establishing acceptability in risk governance. It introduces an actor‐network theory (ANT) perspective as a way to deal with the mutable nature of risk controversies and the configuration of stakeholders. To translate this into a practicable framework, the article proposes a hybrid risk governance framework that combines ANT with integrative risk governance, deliberative democracy, and responsive regulation. This addresses a number of the limitations in existing risk governance models, including: (1) the lack of more substantive public participation throughout the lifecycle of a project; (2) hijacking of deliberative forums by particular groups; and (3) the treatment of risk problems and their associated stakeholders as immutable entities. The framework constitutes a five‐stage process of co‐selection, co‐design, co‐planning, and co‐regulation to facilitate the co‐production of collective interests and knowledge, build capacities, and strengthen accountability in the process. The aims of this article are twofold: conceptually, it introduces a framework of risk governance that accounts for the mutable nature of risk problems and configuration of stakeholders. In practice, this article offers risk managers and practitioners of risk governance a set of procedures with which to operationalize this conceptual approach to risk and stakeholder engagement.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.     

On the Meaning and Use of the Risk Appetite Concept

The risk appetite concept has been given considerable attention recently in enterprise risk management contexts. A number of definitions exist, most with a link to risk acceptability, but also values and goals. The usefulness of the concept is, however, disputed; some authors argue that we can in fact do better without it. In this article, we provide a thorough discussion of what the risk appetite concept is actually trying to express and how it best can be used in the relevant decision making. The main purposes of the article are (i) to argue that the risk appetite concept, suitably interpreted, has a role to play in risk management, (ii) to show that the risk appetite concept is well supported by some types of risk perspectives and not by others, and (iii) to show how the risk appetite concept is linked to other related concepts, such as risk seeking and risk acceptability. The risk perspectives studied range from expected value and probability based definitions of risk to views on risk, that are founded on uncertainties.     

Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth

In 2011, the global human population reached 7 billion and medium variant projections indicate that it will exceed 9 billion before 2045. Theoretical and empirical perspectives suggest that this growth could lead to an increase in the likelihood of adverse events (e.g., food shortages, climate change, etc.) and/or the severity of adverse events (e.g., famines, natural disasters, etc.). Several scholars have posited that the size to which the global population grows and the extent to which this growth increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes will largely be shaped by individuals’ decisions (in households, organizations, governments, etc.). In light of the strong relationship between perceived risk and decision behaviors, it is surprising that there remains a dearth of empirical research that specifically examines the perceived risks of population growth and how these perceptions might influence related decisions. In an attempt to motivate this important strand of research, this article examines the major risks that may be exacerbated by global population growth and draws upon empirical work concerning the perception and communication of risk to identify potential directions for future research. The article also considers how individuals might perceive both the risks and benefits of population growth and be helped to better understand and address the related issues. The answers to these questions could help humanity better manage the emerging consequences of its continuing success in increasing infant survival and adult longevity.     

Trust‐Level Risk Evaluation and Risk Control Guidance in the NHS East of England

In recent years, the healthcare sector has adopted the use of operational risk assessment tools to help understand the systems issues that lead to patient safety incidents. But although these problem‐focused tools have improved the ability of healthcare organizations to identify hazards, they have not translated into measurable improvements in patient safety. One possible reason for this is a lack of support for the solution‐focused process of risk control. This article describes a content analysis of the risk management strategies, policies, and procedures at all acute (i.e., hospital), mental health, and ambulance trusts (health service organizations) in the East of England area of the British National Health Service. The primary goal was to determine what organizational‐level guidance exists to support risk control practice. A secondary goal was to examine the risk evaluation guidance provided by these trusts. With regard to risk control, we found an almost complete lack of useful guidance to promote good practice. With regard to risk evaluation, the trusts relied exclusively on risk matrices. A number of weaknesses were found in the use of this tool, especially related to the guidance for scoring an event's likelihood. We make a number of recommendations to address these concerns. The guidance assessed provides insufficient support for risk control and risk evaluation. This may present a significant barrier to the success of risk management approaches in improving patient safety.     

The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk‐based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano‐specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.     

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.     

Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin,Mexico

Waterborne disease is estimated to cause about 10% of all diseases worldwide. However, related risk perceptions are not well understood, particularly in the developing world where waterborne disease is an enormous problem. We focus on understanding risk perceptions related to these issues in a region within northern Mexico. Our findings show how waterborne disease problems and solutions are understood in eight small communities along a highly contaminated river system. We found major differences in risk perceptions between health professionals, government officials, and lay citizens. Health professionals believed that a high level of human‐waste‐related risk existed within the region. Few officials and lay citizens shared this belief. In addition, few officials and lay citizens were aware of poor wastewater‐management‐related disease outbreaks and water contamination. Finally, aside from health professionals, a few interviewees understood the importance of basic hygiene and water treatment measures that could help to prevent disease. Our results add to the literature on environmentally‐related risk perceptions in the developing world. We discuss recommendations for improving future human‐wastewater‐related risk communication within the region.     

Whither Risk Assessment: New Challenges and Opportunities a Third of a Century After the Red Book

Six multi‐decade‐long members of SRA reflect on the 1983 Red Book in order to examine the evolving relationship between risk assessment and risk management; the diffusion of risk assessment practice to risk areas such as homeland security and transportation; the quality of chemical risk databases; challenges from other groups to elements at the core of risk assessment practice; and our collective efforts to communicate risk assessment to a diverse set of critical groups that do not understand risk, risk assessment, or many other risk‐related issues. The authors reflect on the 10 recommendations in the Red Book and present several pressing challenges for risk assessment practitioners.     

Advancing Environmental Risk Education

This article summarizes views on environmental risk education for youth and identifies some challenges to advancing environmental risk education. It is argued that education--in particular, formal (in-school, structured) education--can play an important role in helping to create an environmental risk-literate society. Recommendations focus on developing a framework of environmental risk education goals and objectives, evaluating environmental risk education efforts, and learning more about how to help youth make informed environmental risk decisions and to prepare them to participate in environmental risk management. It is hoped that this article will encourage greater involvement of risk professionals in environmental risk education efforts and related research.     

Does Concern‐Driven Risk Management Provide a Viable Alternative to QRA?

This article discusses a concept of concern-driven risk management, in which qualitative expert judgments about whether concerns warrant specified risk management interventions are used in preference to quantitative risk assessment (QRA) to guide risk management decisions. Where QRA emphasizes formal quantitative assessment of the probable consequences caused by the recommended actions, and comparison to the probable consequences of alternatives, including the status quo, concern-driven risk management instead emphasizes perceived urgency or severity of the situation motivating recommended interventions. In many instances, especially those involving applications of the precautionary principle, no formal quantification or comparison of probable consequences for alternative decisions is seen as being necessary (or, perhaps, possible or desirable) prior to implementation of risk management measures. Such concern-driven risk management has been recommended by critics of QRA in several areas of applied risk management. Based on case studies and psychological literature on the empirical performance of judgment-based approaches to decision making under risk and uncertainty, we conclude that, although concern-driven risk management has several important potential political and psychological advantages over QRA, it is not clear that it performs better than (or as well as) QRA in identifying risk management interventions that successfully protect human health or achieve other desired consequences. Therefore, those who advocate replacing QRA with concern-driven alternatives, such as expert judgment and consensus decision processes, should assess whether their recommended alternatives truly outperform QRA, by the criterion of producing preferred consequences, before rejecting the QRA paradigm for practical applications.     

Risk Management and the Precautionary Principle: A Fuzzy Logic Model

The aim of this article is to illustrate a procedure for applying the precautionary principle within a strategy for reducing the possibility of underestimating the effective risk caused by a phenomenon, product, or process, and of adopting insufficient risk reduction measures or overlooking their need. We start by simply defining risk as the product between the numerical expression of the adverse consequences of an event and the likelihood of its occurrence or the likelihood that such consequences will occur. Uncertainty in likelihood estimates and several key concepts inherent to the precautionary principle, such as sufficient certainty, prevention, and desired level of protection, are represented as fuzzy sets. The strategy described may be viewed as a simplified example of a precautionary decision process that has been chiefly conceived as a theoretical contribution to the debate concerning the precautionary principle, the quantification of its application, and the formal approach to such problems.     

Guiding Resource Allocations Based on Terrorism Risk

Establishing tolerable levels of risk is one of the most contentious and important risk management decisions. With every regulatory or funding decision for a risk management program, society decides whether or not risk is tolerable. The Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program designed to enhance security and overall preparedness to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism by providing financial assistance for planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of large urban areas. After briefly reviewing definitions of terrorism risk and rationales for risk-based resource allocation, this article compares estimates of terrorism risk in urban areas that received UASI funding in 2004 to other federal risk management decisions. This comparison suggests that UASI allocations are generally consistent with other federal risk management decisions. However, terrorism risk in several cities that received funding is below levels that are often tolerated in other risk management contexts. There are several reasons why the conclusions about terrorism risk being de minimis in specific cities should be challenged. Some of these surround the means used to estimate terrorism risk for this study. Others involve the comparison that is made to other risk management decisions. However, many of the observations reported are valid even if reported terrorism risk estimates are several orders of magnitude too low. Discussion of resource allocation should be extended to address risk tolerance and include explicit comparisons, like those presented here, to other risk management decisions.     

Integrated Analysis: Combining Risk and Economic Assessments While Preserving the Separation of Powers

This article presents a process for an integrated policy analysis that combines risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis. This concept, which explicitly combines the two types of related analyses, seems to contradict the long-accepted risk analysis paradigm of separating risk assessment and risk management since benefit-cost analysis is generally considered to be a part of risk management. Yet that separation has become a problem because benefit-cost analysis uses risk assessment results as a starting point and considerable debate over the last several years focused on the incompatibility of the use of upper bounds or "safe" point estimates in many risk assessments with benefit-cost analysis. The problem with these risk assessments is that they ignore probabilistic information. As advanced probabilistic techniques for risk assessment emerge and economic analysts receive distributions of risks instead of point estimates, the artificial separation between risk analysts and the economic/decision analysts complicates the overall analysis. In addition, recent developments in countervailing risk theory suggest that combining the risk and benefit-cost analyses is required to fully understand the complexity of choices and tradeoffs faced by the decisionmaker. This article also argues that the separation of analysis and management is important, but that benefit-cost analysis has been wrongly classified into the risk management category and that the analytical effort associated with understanding the economic impacts of risk reduction actions need to be part of a broader risk assessment process.