Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods and Tools for Environmental Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Shipping and the Environment

Abstract

Selecting measures to reduce the overall environmental impact associated with shipping can be a difficult task, and a systematic approach is needed. There is risk of sub-optimisation and counteraction of different measures with one another if decisions are made based on fragmented decision support. An example of a system effect is the long lifetime of ships, which slows the introduction of new technologies. Therefore, design and retrofits must fulfil not only present but also future requirements for environmental sustainability. This chapter describes the basic details of several methods and tools that can be used in environmental assessments within the shipping industry. The methods and tools described are grouped into three categories: (1) procedural tools, (2) analytical tools and (3) aggregated tools. Examples of procedural tools are environmental impact assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis and risk management; life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental risk assessment are examples of analytical tools. Aggregated tools include indicators, indices, and footprints.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The EIA directive was amended in 2014 the changes entered into force on 15 May 2014 [13].

  2. 2.

    External effects of transport include noise and air pollution. The costs associated with these effects are typically not borne by the transport user; therefore, they are considered to be external. External costs can be internalised directly through the regulation or indirectly by providing better incentives to transport users, including taxes, charges and emissions trading.

  3. 3.

    “A quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge” (p. 9) [53].

References

  1. Flood, R. L. & Carson, E. R., Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science. 2nd ed. 1993, New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blanchard, B. S. & Fabrycky, W. J., Systems Engineering and Analysis. 1998, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ingelstam, L., System: att tänka över samhälle och teknik [Systems - how to think about society and technology]. 2002, Eskilstuna: The Swedish Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of ecology. 1953, Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sutton, R., Special issue on marine systems, Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M-Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 2008. 222(M2): p. I-I.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Checkland, P., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. 1999, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Björklund, A., Environmental Systems Analysis – Some Ongoing Research and Ideas About Future Developments, in Systems Approaches and Their Application: Examples from Sweden, M-O Olsson & G Sjostedt, eds. 2004, Kluwer academic publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wageningen UR. Environmental Systems Analysis Group. 2015, http://www.esa.wur.nl/UK, last accessed on 30 August 2015.

  9. Harou, J. J. et al., Hydro-economic models: Concepts, design, applications, and future prospects. Journal of Hydrology, 2009. 375(3–4): p. 627-643.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S. & Olsson, L., Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 2007. 60(3): p. 498-508.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finnveden, G. & Moberg, A., Environmental systems analysis tools - an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005. 13(12): p. 1165-1173.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nilsson, M. et al., Analytical framework and tool kit for SEA follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2009. 29(3): p. 186-199.

    Google Scholar 

  13. EU. Review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. 2015, European Commission: Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/review.htm, 19th of July 2015.

  14. EU Commission. Environmental Assessment. 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm, last accessed 11 August 2011.

  15. Andersson, M. A. Syns det inte, finns det inte, eller? [If you can´t see it, it does not exist, or?]. 2011, Swedish Maritime Administration, Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Miljöbalken [The Swedish Environmental Code] 1998:808, Government Offices of Sweden, Ministry of Environment and Energy 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Alcamo, J. & Henrichs, T., Chapter Two Towards Guidelines for Environmental Scenario Analysis, in Developments in Integrated Environmental Assessment, Alcamo Joseph, ed. 2008, Elsevier. p. 13-35.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Alcamo, J., Environmental Futures. The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Developments in Integrated Environmental Assessment, ed. A.J Jakeman. Vol. 2. 2008, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Corbett, J. J. et al., Arctic shipping emissions inventories and future scenarios. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2010. 10(19): p. 9689-9704.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Paxian, A., Eyring, V., Beer, W., Sausen, R. & Wright, C., Present-Day and Future Global Bottom-Up Ship Emission Inventories Including Polar Routes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010. 44(4): p. 1333-1339.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mattila, T. & Antikainen, R., Backcasting sustainable freight transport systems for Europe in 2050. Energy Policy, 2011. 39(3): p. 1241-1248.

    Google Scholar 

  22. QinetiQ, Lloyd’s Register Group Limited & University of Strathclyde, Global Marine Trends 2030. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Henggeler Antunes, C., Almeida, L. A., Lopes, V. & Clímaco, J. N., A decision support system dedicated to discrete multiple criteria problems. Decision Support Systems, 1994. 12(4-5): p. 327-335.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Browne, D. & Ryan, L., Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2011. 31(3): p. 226-233.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gamper, C. D., Thoni, M. & Weck-Hannemann, H., A conceptual approach to the use of Cost Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis in natural hazard management. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2006. 6(2): p. 293-302.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Linkov, I. & Moberg, E., Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis - Environmental Applications and Case Studies. Environmental Assessment and Management, ed. Glenn W Suter II. 2012, Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Belton, V. & Stewart, T. J., Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach. 2003, Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Burgman, M., Risk and decisions for conservation and environmental management, ed. M Usher, A Dobson, R Peet, & D Saunders. 2005, New York: Cambridge university press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. ISO, Risk management - Principles and guidelines, ISO 31000:2009(E). 2009, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  30. IEC, Dependability Management - Part 3: Application guide - Section 9: Risk analysis of technological systems. 1995, International Electrotechnical Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  31. ISO, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework, ISO 14040:2006. 2006, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  32. ISO, Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and guidelines, ISO 14044:2006. 2006, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Guinée, J. B. et al., Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future†. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010. 45(1): p. 90-96.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Andersson, K. & Winnes, H., Environmental trade-offs in nitrogen oxide removal from ship engine exhausts. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M-Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 2011. 225(M1): p. 33-42.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brunner, P. H., Rechberger, H, Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. 2004, Florida: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yellishetty, M., Ranjith, P. G. & Tharumarajah, A., Iron ore and steel production trends and material flows in the world: Is this really sustainable? Resources Conservation and Recycling. 54(12): p. 1084-1094.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bao, Z. et al. A review of material flow analysis. in International Conference on Management and Service Science 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huang, C. L., Vause, J., Ma, H. W. & Yu, C. P., Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment: A literature review and outlook. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2012. 68: p. 104-116.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yoo, J. M., Tabeta, S., Sato, T. & Jeong, S. M. Risk assessment for the benzene leakage from a sunken ship. in OCEANS’08 MTS/IEEE Kobe-Techno-Ocean’08 - Voyage toward the Future, OTO’08. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hassellöv, I., Lindgren F, Landquist H, Rosén L & I, D., Risk assessment of oil leakage from old ship wrecks, research project in progress. 2011, Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Michel, J. et al. Potentially polluting wrecks in marine waters. in International oil spill conference. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schmidt Etkin, D., van Rooij, H. & McCay French, D. Risk assessment modeling approach for the prioritization of oil removal operations from sunken wrecks. in Effects of oil on wildlife. 2009. Tallin, Estonia.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Landquist, H., Hassellöv, I. M., Rosén, L., Lindgren, J. F. & Dahllöf, I., Evaluating the needs of risk assessment methods of potentially polluting shipwrecks. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013. 119: p. 85-92.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. & Mourato, S., Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Development. 2006, Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD): OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bosch, P. et al. Cost Benefit Analysis to support the impact assessment accompanying the revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels. 2009, AEA: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bickel, P. & Friedrich, R. ExternE - Externalities of Energy - Methodology 2005 Update. 2005, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxemburg.

    Google Scholar 

  47. SIKA. Samhällsekonomiska principer och kalkylvärden för transportsektorn: ASEK 4 [Socio-economic principles and values for the transport sector: ASEK 4]. 2008, Statens institut för kommunikationsanalys (SIKA) [Swedish Institute for Communication Analysis]: Östersund.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Holland, M. P., S, Watkiss, P, Droste-Franke, B, Bickel, P. Damages per tonne emission of PM2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from each EU25 Member State (excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas. 2005, European Commission DG Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G, Mourato, S, Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. 2006, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hunkeler, D. et al., Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC Books, ed. Joseph Gorsuch. 2008, Pensacola, Florida: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Meadows, D. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development - A report to the Balaton Group. 1998, The Sustainability Institute: Hartland.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D. & Woodward, R. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. 1995, World Resources Institute: Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Grennfelt, P. & Nilsson, J. Critical loads for sulphur and nitrogen: report from a workshop held at Skokloster. 1988, Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Niemeijer, D., Developing indicators for environmental policy: data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example. Environmental Science & Policy, 2002. 5(2): p. 91-103.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ebert, U. & Welsch, H., Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2004. 47(2): p. 270-283.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Baumann, H. & Tillman, A.-M., The hitchhiker’s guide to LCA : an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. 2004, Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Environmental Vulnerability Index. The EVI in Summary. 2015, http://www.vulnerabilityindex.net/, last accessed on August 31 2015.

  58. Harger, J. R. E. & Meyer, F. M., Definition of indicators for environmentally sustainable development. Chemosphere, 1996. 33(9): p. 1749-1775.

    Google Scholar 

  59. EMSA. Study on Ships producing reduced quantities of ships generated waste: present situation and future opportunities to encourage the development of cleaner ships.Final Report, EMSA/OP/05/05., prepared by HPTI Hamburg Port Training Institute GmbH. 2007, European Marine Safety Agency (EMSA): Lisaboa.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Svensson, E. & Andersson, K. Inventory and Evaluation of Environmental Performance Indices for Shipping. 2011, Department of Shipping and Marine technology, Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  61. IMO. MEPC.1/Circ.684. Guidelines for voluntary use of the ship energy efficiency operational indicator (EEOI). Ref. T5/1.01, 17 August 2009. 2009, International Maritime Organization: London.

    Google Scholar 

  62. IMO. Description of the Package of Technical and Operational Reduction Measures for Ships Agreed by MEPC 59. 2011, International Maritime Organization: London. http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/documents/technical%20and%20operational%20reduction%20measures.pdf.

  63. BSR. Beyond the Factory Gates: How Brands Improve Supply Chain Sustainability Through Shipping and Logistics: Clean Cargo Working Group Tools for Measuring and Reducing Environmental Impacts. 2011, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR). http://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/report-view/beyond-the-factory-gates.

  64. CSI. Environmental opportunities for shipping. 2015, Clean Shipping Index (CSI): Gothenburg. http://www.cleanshippingindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CleanShippingIndex-brochure-2015.pdf.

  65. CSI. Clean shipping index. Guidance Document. Version 5.1. 2015, Clean Shipping Index: Gothenburg, Sweden. http://www.cleanshippingindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Guidance-doc-CLEAN-SHIPPING-INDEX-5.1-2015-07-01.pdf.

  66. Wackernagel, M. & Yount, J. D., Footprints for sustainability: The next steps. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2000. 2(1): p. 21-42.

    Google Scholar 

  67. ISO, Greenhouse gases - Carbon footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication, ISO/TS 14067:2013. 2013, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Karin Andersson, Selma Brynolf & Hanna Landquist

  2. Gothenburg, Sweden

    Erik Svensson

Authors
  1. Karin Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selma Brynolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanna Landquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erik Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Andersson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    Karin Andersson

  2. Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    Selma Brynolf

  3. Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    J. Fredrik Lindgren

  4. Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    Magda Wilewska-Bien

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andersson, K., Brynolf, S., Landquist, H., Svensson, E. (2016). Methods and Tools for Environmental Assessment. In: Andersson, K., Brynolf, S., Lindgren, J., Wilewska-Bien, M. (eds) Shipping and the Environment . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49045-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation