Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 391–405 | Cite as

A risk index methodology for potentially polluting marine sites



Attempting to assess the risk of a release from a potentially polluting marine site (PPMS) can be a very subjective process. The Marine Site Risk Index (MaSiRI) is designed to provide a more objective approach to this process by adopting a table-based evaluation scheme, while still allowing for the inevitable unknown conditions by including a subjective ‘expert correction’ in a suitably controlled manner. Building on a geographic database of PPMS records, the MaSiRI algorithm applies data filters to remove PPMS records for which it is not applicable and then estimates a basic risk index based on core data that almost all sites would contain. It can then refine the results for those sites that have auxiliary data, varying the assessed risk as appropriate, according to standard rule-sets. A risk level of confidence is computed and adjusted to express dynamic confidence in the risk value (e.g., due to reliance on estimates rather than measured values), and where appropriate an upper and lower bound of risk can be used to assess the range of values associated with an estimated parameter. This information can be visualized by a composite quality symbol proposed here. MaSiRI is demonstrated on three illustrative shipwrecks and then compared against the DEvelopment of European guidelines for Potentially Polluting (DEEPP) project database from the Pelagos Sanctuary in the western Mediterranean. The aggregate results of the comparison are broadly similar to DEEPP, within the limits of the comparison, but provide a more detailed analysis in the case of estimated pollutant volume and ubiquitous assessment of levels of confidence.


Potentially polluting marine site Risk assessment Risk index Quality symbol 


  1. Alcaro L, Amato E, Cabioch Fh, Farchi C, Gouriou V (2007) DEEPP Project DEvelopment of European guidelines for Potentially Polluting shipwrecks. EU D.G. Environment—Civil Protection Unit, Rome (Italy)/Brest (France)Google Scholar
  2. Amato E (2003) An environmental restoration programme 12 year after: the Haven Wreck. In: 9th Information day of CEDRE—the treatment of potentially polluting wrecks, Paris (France), October 6th, 2003, p 17Google Scholar
  3. Archer CL, Jacobson MZ (2005) Evaluation of global wind power. J Geophys Res 110(D12110):20Google Scholar
  4. Barrett MJ (2011) Potentially polluting shipwrecks. Master Project, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Basta DJ, Kennedy DM (2004) The need for a proactive approach to underwater threats. Mar Technol Soc J 28(3):9–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertolini L, Gastaldi M, Pedeferri M, Redaelli E (2002) Prevention of steel corrosion in concrete exposed to seawater with submerged sacrificial anodes. Corros Sci 44(7):1497–1513. doi:10.1016/S0010-938X(01)00168-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castanedo S, Abascal AJ, Medina R, Fernandez F, Liste M, Olabarrieta M (2009) Development of a GIS-based oil spill risk assessment system. In: OCEANS 2009—EUROPE, Bremen (Germany), pp 1–9Google Scholar
  8. Cavaleri L (2007) The MEDATLAS wind and wave atlas in the Mediterranean Sea—a combined use of buoy, model and satellite data (abstract only). In: Queffeullou P, Quentel ML (eds) Globwave project workshop, Brest (France), 20–21 Sep 2007, Plouzane (France), 2007. IFREMER, pp 14–15. Google Scholar
  9. Etkin DS (2002) Analysis of past marine oil spill rates and trends for future contingency planning. In: 25th Arctic & Marine Oilspill Programme (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Environment Canada, pp 227–252Google Scholar
  10. Fedra K (1998) Integrated risk assessment and management: overview and state of the art. J Hazard Mater 61(1–3):5–22. doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00102-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galt AJ, Payton LD (1999) Development of quantitative methods for spill response planning: a trajectory analysis planner. Spill Sci Technol Bull 5(1):17–28. doi:10.1016/s1353-2561(98)00017-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodchild MF (2010) Whose hand on the tiller? Revisiting “Spatial Statistical Analysis and GIS”. In: Anselin L, Rey SJ (eds) Perspectives on spatial data analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamblin JD (2008) Poison in the well: radioactive waste in the oceans at the dawn of the nuclear age. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  14. Helton D, Symons L (2012) NOAA’s remediation of underwater legacy environmental threats (RULET) database & wreck oil removal program (WORP). In: Interspill 2012, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill FS, Kelley SM (2007) Computer graphics: using OpenGL, 3rd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ICRAMM-CEDRE (2007) DEvelopment of European guidelines for Potentially Polluting shipwrecks—Proposal. D.G. Environment, Civil Protection UnitGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO (2009) 31000: 2009 risk management–principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Kassomenos PA (2004) Risk analysis for environmental hazards: the case of oil spills, in Crete. Glob Nest Int J 6(1):39–51Google Scholar
  20. Landquist H, Hassellöv IM, Rosén L, Lindgren JF, Dahllöf I (2013) Evaluating the needs of risk assessment methods of potentially polluting shipwrecks. J Environ Manage 119:85–92. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehr W, Jones R, Evans M, Simecek-Beatty D, Overstreet R (2002) Revisions of the ADIOS oil spill model. Environ Model Softw 17(2):189–197. doi:10.1016/s1364-8152(01)00064-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lentz S (2004) The response of buoyant coastal plumes to upwelling-favorable winds*. J Phys Oceanogr 34(11):2458–2469. doi:10.1175/JPO2647.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liguria (2008) Caratterizzatione e Progettatione Preliminare e Definitiva della Bonifica del Relitto della VLCC Haven. Liguria RegionGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindgren JF, Hassellöv I-M, Dahllöf I (2012) Meiofaunal and bacterial community response to diesel additions in a microcosm study. Mar Pollut Bull 64(3):595–601. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindström P (2006) Vrak i Skagerrak. Paper presented at the Forum Skagerrak IIGoogle Scholar
  26. Linkov I, Sahay S, Kiker G, Bridges T, Seager TP (2005) Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for managing contaminated sediments. In: Levner E, Linkov I, Proth J-M (eds) Strategic management of marine ecosystems, vol 50. NATO science series IV: earth and environmental series. Springer, Netherlands, pp 271–297. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3198-x_15
  27. Linkov I, Anklam E, Collier Z, DiMase D, Renn O (2014) Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches. Environ Syst Decis 34(1):134–137. doi:10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masetti G (2012) A geo-database for potentially polluting marine sites and associated risk index. Thesis, Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping—University of New Hampshire, Durham, NHGoogle Scholar
  29. Masetti G, Calder B (2013) Design of a standardized geo-database for risk monitoring of potentially polluting marine sites. Environ Syst Decis: 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10669-013-9486-x
  30. Masetti G, Sacile R, Trucco A (2010) Caratterizzazione remota del fondale marino tramite analisi e mosaicatura del backscatter. In: Atti della 14a Conferenza Nazionale ASITA (9–12 November 2010), Brescia (Italy)Google Scholar
  31. Masetti G, Sacile R, Trucco A (2011) Remote characterization of seafloor adjacent to shipwrecks using mosaicking and analysis of backscatter response. Ital J Remote Sens 43(2):77–92. doi:10.5721/ItJRS20114326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Masetti G, Calder B, Alexander L (2012a) Developing a GIS-database and risk index for potentially polluting marine sites. Paper presented at the Canadian Hydrographic Conference 2012, Niagara Falls, Ontario (Canada), May 15–May 17, 2012Google Scholar
  33. Masetti G, Calder B, Alexander L (2012b) Potentially polluting marine sites GeoDB: an S-100 geospatial database as an effective contribution to the protection of the marine environment. Int Hydrogr Rev 8:27–40Google Scholar
  34. Masetti G, Calder B, Alexander L (2012b) Potentially polluting marine sites GeoDB. Product Specification Proposal Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping—Joint Hydrographic Center, Durham, NH (USA)Google Scholar
  35. Melchers RE (2005) The effect of corrosion on the structural reliability of steel offshore structures. Corros Sci 47(10):2391–2410. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2005.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merkhofer M (1986) Comparative analysis of formal decision-making approaches. In: Covello V, Menkes J, Mumpower J (eds) Risk evaluation and management, vol 1. Contemporary issues in risk analysis. Springer, US, pp 183–219. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_7
  37. Michel J, Gilbert T, Etkin DS, Urban R (2005) Potentially polluting wrecks in marine waters. Paper presented at the International Oil Spill Conference, Miami (USA)Google Scholar
  38. Morton A, Airoldi M, Phillips LD (2009) Nuclear risk management on stage: a decision analysis perspective on the UK’s committee on radioactive waste management. Risk Anal 29(5):764–779. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01192.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NOAA (2012) General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME) Technical DocumentationGoogle Scholar
  40. Overfield ML, Symons LC (2009) The use of the RUST database to inventory, monitor, and assess risk from undersea threats. Mar Technol Soc J 43(4):33–40. doi:10.4031/MTSJ.43.4.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Papadimitrakis J, Psaltaki M, Christolis M, Markatos NC (2006) Simulating the fate of an oil spill near coastal zones: the case of a spill (from a power plant) at the Greek Island of Lesvos. Environ Model Softw 21(2):170–177. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.04.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petersen J, Michel J, Zengel S, White M, Lord C, Plank C (2002) Environmental sensitivity index guidelines. Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Pincinato FL, Riedel PS, Milanelli JCC (2009) Modelling an expert GIS system based on knowledge to evaluate oil spill environmental sensitivity. Ocean Coast Manag 52(9):479–486. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poinssot C, Gin S (2012) Long-term behavior science: the cornerstone approach for reliably assessing the long-term performance of nuclear waste. J Nucl Mater 420(1–3):182–192. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schumacher M (1979) Seawater corrosion handbook. Noyes Data Corp, Park RidgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Sofotassios D, Tzimas G, Tsakalidis A (1997) A GIS-based Framework for oil-spill emergency management in the Mediterranean Sea. In: JEC-GI ‘97, Vienna (Austria), pp 412–422Google Scholar
  47. Stolzenbach KD, Madsen OS, Adams EE, Pollack AM, Copper CK (1977) Review and evaluation of basic techniques for predicting the behavior of surface oil slicks. Related Information: Sea Grant Program Report No. MITSG-77-9Google Scholar
  48. Symons L (2010) Identification of data gaps and development of research priorities. In: International Corrosion Workshop, Newport News (USA)Google Scholar
  49. Tammi I, Kalliola R (2014) Spatial MCDA in marine planning: experiences from the mediterranean and Baltic Seas. Mar Policy 48:73–83. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tittensor DP, Mora C, Jetz W, Lotze HK, Ricard D, Berghe EV, Worm B (2010) Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466:1098–1103. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/abs/nature09329.html#supplementary-information
  51. Tkalich P, Xiaobo C (2001) Accurate simulation of oil slicks. In: International oil spill conference, Tampa, FL (USA), March 26–29, 2001, pp 1133–1137Google Scholar
  52. USEPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping and Joint Hydrographic CenterUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations