Environmental Risk Management - Assignment Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: Environmental Risk Management Date: xxxxxxxxxxx @ 2010 Question 1: Risks Introduction There exist various definitions of risks that are inherently different depending on the particular situation of application or context. The term risk is widely used, ambiguous and inconsistent such that there are a number of criticisms directed towards the use and application of the word risk. Some set of definitions portray risks as a term that simply revolves around future issues that can be mitigated or averted rather than issues experienced presently that can be addressed immediately. For instance, Cornelius Keating defines risks as the “unwanted subset of a series of uncertain outcomes”. This paper will highlight the various definitions of risks in regard to the point of view of Helm P. (1996), Sandman P, (1993) and Glade, T (2005). Moreover, this paper will discuss the strengths & weaknesses of the different definitions of risk. It will also propose ways in which the current risk definitions can be improved. Risk = Probability/Consequence More quantitatively and formally risks are essentially proportional to the probability of events or end results expected from these events. Risks can be regarded as the combinations of the likelihood of a particular occurrence that is hazardous in nature or an exposure that results from exposure or a specific event. Risks are therefore evaluated as functions of three main variables namely, the likelihood of the existence of a threat, the likelihood of the existence of any vulnerabilities and the potential effect of a particular event. A combination of these like hoods is regarded as probability. Risk = Hazard + Outrage Sandman (1993) depicts risks as hazard+ outrage, according to Sandman risk professionals view risk as magnitude x probability, probability x magnitude result to hazard. However, for many people risk is regarded as an outrage. Risk can therefore be coupled with the comprehensive concept of hazard and outrage. Sandman further suggests that hazard and outrage come in different forms (Sandman 1993). Risk = Threat + Vulnerability Risk can also be regarded as a function vulnerability and threat. Units that operate against terrorist attacks operate on the basis of Risk= Vulnerability x Threat x Consequence. The application of this criterion is based on a particular project or risk evaluation that embodies threat, vulnerabilities and consequences. Glade(2005) notes that measuring risk is a difficult duty often the threat and vulnerability of a particular element or event act as great pointers towards the assessments of risks(Glade 2005). Strengths & weaknesses of the different definitions of risk The current ways of defining risks are in most cases geared towards particular situational context or specific applications. As a result these illustrations of the various risk dimensions are quite functional in risk evaluation and management. For instance, Units that operate against terrorist attacks evaluate and manage risks on the basis of Risk= Vulnerability x Threat x Consequence. According to recent statistics, risks are in most cases related to the probability of a particular event often times harm is expected combined with an unbelievable scenario or a regret outcome. This definition limits a holistic outlook on risks. Furthermore, the depiction of risks as risk = threat + vulnerability brings out certain limitations. This definition undermines the agility of efficiently optimizing resource allocation and risk reductions. As a way of improving the current risk definitions it is recommendable that extensive research should be conducted. These research studies should be geared towards establishing a holistic and comprehensive outlook on risks. Conclusion Definitions of risks are ambiguous and inconsistent. There are various definitions of risks that are inherently different depending on the particular situation of application or context. Risk can be defined as probability, hazard + outrage and threat + vulnerability among many other definitions. The current definitions of risks epitomize certain strengths and strengths. Nonetheless extensive research on risks is bound to bring about a holistic and comprehensive outlook on risks. Question 2: Scientific Advice for Environmental Risk Policy & Decision-Making Introduction The frame work of risk policy and decision making is essentially designed to enhance risk assessment to stake holders and policy makers in environmental protection agencies. Typically, environment risk policies and decision making are considered as key tools for environmental management since they provide to decision makers a frame work of implementing planned interventions. There exist a number of risk assessment frameworks or tools that are inherently geared towards collecting and evaluating evidence in regard to environmental risk management interfaces. Key among these tools includes the 4 step procedure and the logic tree analysis. This paper seeks to illustrate scientific advice for environmental risk policy and decision-making in reference to risk assessment frameworks such as the 4-step procedure and risk estimation tools for risk policy and decision making such as the logic tree analysis. Moreover, this paper will demonstrate the strengths and limitations of environmental risk policy and decision making tools. The four step procedure Scientifically, the four step procedure is a recommended tool in the framework of risk assessment. In the four step procedure the first step entails hazard identification. In most cases an environmental screening tool can be used to identify the areas that pose as risks to the environment. The initial assessment may involve the collection of samples and the identification of the suspected sources of risks or the potential causes of the risks. Thereafter, the samples are scrutinized so as to identify the level of risks posed to the environment. If the samples warrant extensive study they are then subjected to a risk study that is formal in nature. The second step of in the four step procedure of risk assessment entails exposure assessment. This step is conducted to the hazardous elements identified in the environment. For instance, this procedure scientifically measures the impact made to the environment by certain risks by gauging the level of human exposure. The third step in the four step procedure entails an assessment of dose response which is conducted by selecting a specific risk factor in the environment that is compatible to the parameters of study. Lastly, in the four step procedure, subsequent to the exposure assessment environmental protective assumptions are implemented and communicated to the general public (Slovic, Baruch & Lichtenstein 1982). Logic tree analysis The incorporation of a logic tree analysis as a risk estimation tool in environmental risk policy and decision making is overly recommended in a number of scientific studies. This procedure proposes a quantitative assessment especially for tsunami risk for vital coastal facilities. In the course of this procedure a hazard curve is attained through the integration of the various hazard curves and uncertainties. Logic tree analysis comprises of a source model and an environmental estimation tool that evaluates the frequency and size of particular environmental risk factors. Furthermore logic trees analysis enable both numerical and empirical simulation of environmental risk policy and decision making (Wildavsky& Karl 1990). Strengths and limitations of scientific advice for Environmental Policy and Decision Making Generally, scientific mechanisms for environmental policy and decision making are very useful in assessing environmental risks. This mechanism for instance the four step procedure and the logic tree analysis give concise and accurate results that can be used for decision making in regard to the protection and maintenance of the environment. Scientific mechanisms of environmental policy and decision making also enables both empirical and numerical simulation thus enhancing the accuracy of the retrieved information in regard to the environmental risk factors (Hubbard 2009). Nonetheless, these scientific mechanisms of environmental policy and decision making have some weaknesses that essentially inhibit their effectiveness in the implementation of quality environmental policies and decisions. A key limitation of these scientific mechanisms lies in the fact that these mechanisms are intricate in nature thus they require a high level of professionalism so as to attain accurate results. Secondly, these mechanisms take up large amounts of resources that can be alternatively directed towards the protection and maintenance of the environment. Conclusion Scientific mechanisms of environment risk policies and decision making are considered as key tools for environmental management since they provide to decision makers a frame work of implementing planned interventions. Key among these tools includes the 4 step procedure and the logic tree analysis. This mechanism for instance the four step procedure and the logic tree analysis give concise and accurate results that can be used for decision making in regard to the protection and maintenance of the environment. On the other hand, these scientific mechanisms of environmental policy and decision making have some weaknesses that essentially inhibit their effectiveness in the implementation of quality environmental policies and decisions (Drake 1985). Question 3: Socio-Cultural Dimension of Risk Decision-Making Introduction Perceptions of risks differ from one person to the other. In most cases the perceptions held by experts scientists differs with those held by the general public. There exist a wide range of social theories that illustrate and explain why there are different perceptions of risks. Risks can be termed as conceptual packages indispensable to modern thought. Commonly social and cultural issues are conceptualized in regard to the populations at risk. This paper seeks to give social-cultural dimension of risk decision making. It will highlight the different perspectives held by the general public in regard to risk decision making. It will also establish the root cause of the varied knowledge of risk decision making amongst the experts and the general public. A number of social theories of risks will be incorporated in the explanation of certain concepts of people’s perceptions of risks. Additionally, this paper will highlight other dimensions of risk decision making such as economic and institutional perspectives (Douglas & Wildavsky 1982). Perceptions of risks The perceptions of risks are the subjective judgments made by people in regard to the severity of the posed risk factors. Risk perceptions revolve around threats posed to the environment and natural hazards. A number of theories have been formulated over the years to illustrate why different individuals estimate risks differently. Evidently, the perception of risks amongst expert scientists varies with that one held by the general public. This is mainly because expert scientist poses a wider base of knowledge of that is in-depth in nature. Moreover, their knowledge of risk is in most cases based on extensive research and scientific experiments. On the other hand, perceptions held by the general public in regard to risk are in most cases based on cultural, environmental and distinctive elements. Knowledge on risks held by the general public is in most cases acquired through word of mouth from one generation to another rather than extensive research. Furthermore, the perceptions of risks held by the general public are largely dependant on distinctive cultural and social elements (Kasperson 2005). Social theories of risk The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is an elaborate example of a social theory on risks. This theory combines aspects of sociology, psychology, communication and anthropology. This theory illustrates how the various levels of communication in regard to risk events is transmitted from the sender to the receiver through a number of intermediate stations. In the course of these processes various perceptions of risks are attenuated. The various links of communication chains amongst individuals, the media and particular groups comprise of filters through which information on risks are sorted and comprehended. This theory attempts to illustrate the procedures through which risk information is dispensed such that it receives the attention of the general public. It is established in this theory that events of risks interact with the social, cultural and psychological factors of people. As a result, the public perceptions of risks are increased or decreased. Group and individual behaviors generate both secondary economic and social impacts at the same time adding to or minimizing the risks (Douglas & Wildavsky 1982). Economic perspective on risks and decision making revolves around the probability that a particular investment will bring different returns than that which is expected. Economic perspective of risks and decision making may also be determined by a number of market or operational factors. If given $50 million dollars to spend on any life saving intervention I would invest in chemical risk reduction in the environment. Since this intervention promotes clinical and public health. For instance, in cases of cancer prevention a lot of focus has over the course of time been directed towards factors such as lack of exercise, diet and obesity. This has in turn turned the attention of the general public from other factors such as carcinogens in the environment and tobacco use among many other factors which account for over 2% of cases of cancer world wide (Hubbard 2009). Conclusion The perceptions of risks are the subjective judgments made by people in regard to the severity of the posed risk factors. Perceptions of risks differ from one person to the other. In most cases the perceptions held by experts scientists differs with those held by the general public. There exist a wide range of social theories that illustrate and explain why there are different perceptions of risks. The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is an elaborate example of a social theory on risks. This theory incorporates aspects of sociology, psychology, communication and anthropology. If given $50 million dollars to spend on any life saving intervention I would spend on chemical risk reduction program in the environment. This is mainly because this intervention promotes clinical and public health (Kasperson & Robert 1988). Question 4: Environmental Risk Management Strategies Introduction The increasing pressure on the environment’s natural resources has brought about hazardous effects to the life of living things and the natural environment itself. Risk factors such as the ongoing global climate change can be termed as great environmental risk factors. In an effort to curb or counter these risk factors, a number of environmental risk management strategies have been developed. These strategies are geared toward reducing and averting risk factors in the environment. This paper seeks to highlight various risk management strategies. It will critically assess the contemporary issues which can aid the prioritization of suitable management approaches in regard to environmental risks. Risk management strategies Evidently, risks require different risk management approaches due to their inherent nature characterized by irreversibility, probability, social conflict and detrimental effects. The existing risk management strategies include, educating the public on environmental risks. Risk management strategies also involve the identification, evaluation and prioritization of risks. Subsequent to these procedures a coordinated practical application is carried out to monitor, minimize and control these environmental risk factors (Drake 1985). A number of environment risks issues can be used to prioritize the suitable management strategies. Key among these issues includes legal impediments, scientific developments and social –conflicts among many other issues. Conclusion Pressure on the environment’s natural resources calls for interventions that pertain to environmental risk management strategies. These strategies risks require different risk management approaches due to their inherent nature characterized by irreversibility, probability, social conflict and detrimental effects. Risk management strategies involve the identification, evaluation and prioritization of risks thereafter procedures a coordinated practical application are carried out to monitor, minimize and control these environmental risk factors. Question 5: Risk Communication Introduction Risk communication is essentially an interactive procedure that involves the exchange of opinions and information amongst risk managers, assessors and other involved parties. The process of risk communication is a continuous and integral part in the process of risk analysis. Therefore, all stake holders should actively take part in the process of risk communication. This paper will try to illuminate a clear understanding on the model and theory of risk communication. By using elaborate examples this paper will seek to explain the role and nature of risk communication. Moreover, this paper will give an example of risk context and depict factors that are important in communicating the particular risk (Covello & McCallum 2003). Model and theory of risk communication The communication of risks is most effective when the processes are undertaken in a manner that is systematic. Generally, the processes of risk communications start with the gathering of essential information in regard to the risk factors at hand. It is therefore essential that the risk assessors and risk manager involved should be in a position to briefly and clearly summarize the issues or the aspects that revolve around the risk factors at the initial stages. This should be actualized in order to solicit stakeholder input and interest. Subsequently, communication should continue through the overall process of risk communication. In the event that the available information has been incorporated to comprehensively identify the existing hazards and make decisions and evaluate the particular risks factors risks, then the preparation and propagation of this attained information is necessary. Thereafter, further discussion amongst stakeholders is conducted. The further discussions amongst stakeholders provide a platform whereby stakeholder can amend, correct and add appropriate information. This results to the final Risk assessment and analysis reports (Covello & McCallum 2003). The role and nature of risk communication The role of risk communication is one that is imperative to a great extent. This process helps to ensure that that the significance, logic, outcomes and limitations of risk assessments are clearly comprehended by the stakeholders involved. The nature of risk communication is one that is intricate, multidimensional, and multidisciplinary and an evolving procedure that is geared towards protecting the health of the general public. Officials in public health incorporate risk communications to offer to the public appropriate and necessary information so as to involve them in the decision making process that are bound to affect them(Covello & McCallum 2003). For instance the public can be consulted on where to build a particular facility for waste disposal. Usually, risk communications involve dialogue in regard to environmental decisions such as lead deposits, air pollution, drinking water and pesticides among many other factors. The process of risk communication can aid individuals to change unsuitable behaviors. For example, informing homeowners to check on lead paints or indoor radon. Risk communication context may include, what is the risk? How it came about? Who or what will be affected? and who or whom should be involved? For instance, risk communication on world food standards issues was conducted in Geneva in 1995. The context of the information disseminated included what risk factors affect food production, a key risk factors of food production was identified as the ongoing climate changes. Agencies such as the World Food Organization (WHO) were identified as the key stakeholders in the risk assessment process (Covello & McCallum 2003). Conclusion Risk communication is inherently an interactive process that incorporates the exchange of opinions and information amongst involved parties in risk assessment and management. This process is a continuous and integral faction of risk analysis. The communication of risks is most effective when the processes are undertaken in a manner that is systematic. This process helps to ensure that that the significance, logic, outcomes and limitations of risk assessments are clearly comprehended by the stakeholders involved. Risk communication context may include, what is the risk? How it came about? Who or what will be affected? and who or whom should be involved? Question 6: Future developments of Environmental Risk Management Introduction The current methods of environmental risk management have increasingly modified the perceptions of people in regard to risks. These methods have as well enhanced the process of risk assessment and decision making. Nevertheless, the advancement of these methods is necessary so as to ensure that the process of environmental risk management is effective. This paper will evaluate the proposition that it is necessary to redefine risk management in regard to the management of people‘s knowledge about risks. Redefining environmental risk management It is necessary to redefine environmental risk management. The perception of most people is that risk management in the environment involves only scientific procedures. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the involvement of people in decision making in reference to the environment is a key element in environmental risk management. It is therefore necessary to redefine environmental risk management in such a way that it involves the management of people’s knowledge in regard to risk (Douglas 1985). For example, in the coastal facilities risk factors such as the occurrence of Tsunami can be managed by informing people of the impeding risks. In this scenario stakeholders involved in risk assessment may inform the public such that this risk is handled by managing people’s knowledge in reference to the Tsunami risk factors. Redefining environment risk management to reflect the management of people’s knowledge on risk is somewhat limiting. This is mainly because environmental risk management is a holistic venture that not only involves people. It also involves intricate scientific procedures of identification, assessment, monitoring and prioritization of risks. It is therefore necessary that extensive research should be conducted so as to establish a comprehensive outlook on environmental risk management (Douglas 1985). Conclusion Most people perceive that risk management in the environment essentially, involves intricate scientific procedures. It is important to note that the involvement of people in decision making in reference to the environment is a key element in environmental risk management. On the other hand, it is worth noting that environmental risk management is holistic. Bibliography Covello, V& McCallum, D, 2003, Effective Risk communication, Plenum Press, New York. . Douglas, M & Wildavsky, A, 1982, Risk and Culture, University of California Press, California Douglas, M, 1985, Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Drake, R, 1985, Lateral asymmetry of risky recommendations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 409-417. Hubbard, D, 2009, The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Kasperson, E, & Robert G, 1988, The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework, Risk Analysis 8(2): 177–187. Kasperson, E, 2005, The Social Contours of Risk, Volume I, Earthscan Press, Virginia. Kruger, D, Wang, T, & Wilke, A, 2007, Towards the development of an evolutionarily valid domain-specific risk-taking scale" Journal of Evolutionary Psychology Sandman, P, 1993, Risk = Hazard + Outrage, Retrieved on January 4, 2010, Slovic, P, Baruch F & Lichtenstein, S, 1982, Why Study Risk Perception, Journal of Risk Analysis 2(2): 83–93 Wildavsky, A& Karl D, 1990, Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 119(4): 41–60. Read More