Environmental Security, Critical Infrastructure and Risk Assessment: Definitions and Current Trends
Conference paper
Abstract
Population growth, needed economic growth, and social pressures for improved infrastructure coupled to the need for human health and ecological protection and environmental security make systematic and transparent environmental decision-making a complex and often difficult task. Evaluating complex technical data and developing feasible risk management options requires procedural flexibility that may not be part of existing evaluative structures. Experience has demonstrated that direct transposition of risk assessment and risk management frameworks (e.g. those developed in the United States and European Union) may not work in regions whose social, legal, historical, political and economic situations are not suitable or prepared for acceptance of these methodologies. Flexible decision-making, including the use and development of acceptable or unacceptable risk levels based on the critical nature of an infrastructure type, is one potential approach to assist risk managers in their decision-making. Unfortunately, the newness of the discussions on the interrelatedness of environmental security and critical infrastructure has yet to produce a unified and comprehensive treatment of the fields. As a result, this paper will describe and define these terms in order to set the stage for discussions of human health and ecological risk assessment and risk management later in the paper. This paper reviews basic concepts defined in the field of risk assessment and extends its applicability to the areas of environmental security and critical infrastructure protection.
Keywords
Risk Assessment Risk Management Ecological Risk Precautionary Principle Ecological Risk Assessment
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
5 References
- 1.AC/UNU Millennium Project. No Date. Emerging International Definitions, Perceptions, and Policy Considerations. Environmental Security Study. http://www.acunu.org/millennium/es-2def.html.Google Scholar
- 2.Belluck DA, Hull RN, Benjamin SL, Alcorn J and Linkov I. 2005. Are Standard Risk Acceptability Criteria Applicable to Critical Infrastructure Based on Environmental Security Needs? In: Linkov, I., Morel, B., eds. Environmental Security and Risk Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers (this volume).Google Scholar
- 3.Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz und Abrbeitmedizin. 1998. Guidelines on Risk Management of the Hazardous Substances Committee Concerning Decisions with Far Reaching Consequences. November 15 1998. http://www.baua.de//prax/ags/ags_guidelines_rm.pdf.Google Scholar
- 4.Chalecki, E. L. No Date. Environmental Security: A Case Study of Climate Change. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. http://www.pacinst.org/environment_and_security/env_security_and_climate_change.pdf.Google Scholar
- 5.Cheremisinoff, N.P. 2002. Environmental Security: The Need for International Policies. Pollution Engineering. 5/1/2002. http://www.pollutionengineering.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,6649,103962,00.html.Google Scholar
- 6.Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. 1999. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Risk-Based Methods http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063434/html/37.html#page_bottom.Google Scholar
- 7.Commission on Life Sciences. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, National Research Council. http://books.nap.edu/napcgi/chaphits.cgi?term=acceptable+risk&isbn=0309033497.Google Scholar
- 8.Commission on Life Sciences. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, National Research Council.Google Scholar
- 9.Duffus, J.H. 2001. Risk Assessment Terminology. Chemistry International 23(2). March 2001. http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2001/march/risk_assessment.html.Google Scholar
- 10.European Environment Agency. No Date. Environmental Risk Assessment-Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources Environmental issue report No 4. http://reports.eea.eu.int/GH-07-97-595-EN-C2/en/riskindex.html.Google Scholar
- 11.European Environment Agency. 2003. Europe’s Environment: The Third Assessment.Google Scholar
- 12.EXTOXNET. 1993. Toxicology Information Briefs. Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. September 1993. http://extoxnet.orst.edu/tibs/carcino.htm.Google Scholar
- 13.Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J., and R. Perelet. 1998. Defining Environmental Security: Implications for the U.S. Army. Editor: Molly Landholm. AEPI-IFP-1298Google Scholar
- 14.Army Environmental Policy Institute. December 1998. http://www.aepi.army.mil/Publications/Defining%20Environmental%20Security%20-%20Implications%20for%20the%20US%20Army.pdf.Google Scholar
- 15.Haimes, Y.Y., Lambert, J.H., Horowitz, B.M., Kaplan, S., Pikus, I.M., Leung, M.F. and A.D. Mosenthal. 2004. Final Contract Report, Risk Assessment And Management Of Critical Highway Infrastructures: Executive Summary. February 2004. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems. University of Virginia. Virginia Transportation Research Council (A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the University of Virginia) Charlottesville, Virginia. VTRC 04-CR16. http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/04-cr16.pdf.Google Scholar
- 16.Health Canada. 1998. Assessment And Management Of Cancer Risks From Radiological And Chemical Hazards. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/ccrpb/publication/98ehd216/ chapter4.htm.Google Scholar
- 17.Health Canada. 2000. Health Canada Decision-Making Framework for Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Health Risks. August 1, 2000. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/hcrisk_11_e.html.Google Scholar
- 18.Hobbs, R.J. and L.J. Kristjanson. 2003. Triage: How do we prioritize health care for landscapes? Ecological Management & Restoration 4(Suppl): S39–S45.Google Scholar
- 19.Hunter, P.R. and L. Fewtrell. 2001. Acceptable Risk. World Health Organization Water Quality Guidelines, Standards and Health. Chapter 10.Google Scholar
- 20.McNeil, F. 2000. Making Sense of Environmental Security. North-South Agenda. Paper. Thirty-Nine. http://www.miami.edu/nsc/publications/pub-ap-pdf/39AP.pdfGoogle Scholar
- 21.National Infrastructure Institute (NI2) Center for Infrastructure Expertise and the University of New Hampshire. 2004. The Center for Infrastructure Expertise Library. July 22, 2004 (accessed). http://www.ni2ciel.org/Glossary/a_glossary.htm.Google Scholar
- 22.National Intelligence Council. 2000. Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future With Nongovernment Experts. December 2000. http://www.odci.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_global/globaltrend2015.pdf.Google Scholar
- 23.Newman MC, Ownby DR, Me’Zin LCA, Powell DC, Christensen TRL, Lerberg SB, and B-A Anderson. 2000. Applying Species-Sensitivity Distributions in Ecological Risk Assessment: Assumptions of Distribution Type and Sufficient Numbers of Species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 508–515.Google Scholar
- 24.NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 25.Omenn, G.S. 2003. Assessment of the Impact of the 1983 Red Book. W5.1. Socieity for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2003. W5-Symposium: Impacts on Risk Policy and Practice, Red Book, Risk Commission, Understanding Risk. http://www.birenheide.com/sra/2003AM/program/singlesession.php3?sessid=W5.Google Scholar
- 26.Oren, S. 2001. Market Based Risk Mitigation: Risk Management vs. Risk Avoidance. University of California at Berkeley, Presented at a White House OSTP/NSFWorkshop on Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies June 14–15, Washington DC. http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/ecow/get/publicatio/2001public/marketbasdriskmitigation-v2-oren.pdf.Google Scholar
- 27.Owens, R., Broderick, P, Charters, D., Sprenger, M, and T. Bernhard. 1999. Ecological Risk Assessments. Powerpoint. http://enviro.nfesc.navy.mil/erb/erb_a/support/rits/presentations/1999-5-era.pdf.Google Scholar
- 28.Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1997. Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management. Final Report, Washington, DC. Volume 1. http://www.spea.indiana.edu:8000/dhenshel/e311/EPAJAN.pdf.Google Scholar
- 29.Queensland Government. No Date. Securing Queensland’s Critical Infrastructure: Guidelines for owners/operators. Department of the Premier and Cabinet. http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/infopackweb.pdf.Google Scholar
- 30.Secretary of the Navy. 2002. Department of Navy (DON) Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP). Memorandum. June 16, 2002. http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/3501_1.pdf.Google Scholar
- 31.SERO (Southeast Region, Installation Management Agency). 2003. Sustainability 401: Part 1: Houston, we have a problem. Joint Services P2 & HWM Conference (14 August 2003). http://www.envquest.com/library-FORSCOM.asp.Google Scholar
- 32.Schwartz, P. and D. Randall. 2003. Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security (October 2003). GBN: Global Business Network. http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231.Google Scholar
- 33.Scottish Executive. No date. An Overview of Risk Guidance. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/government/riskguidance.pdf.Google Scholar
- 34.Suter, G.W. II, B.W. Cornaby, C.T. Hadden, R.N. Hull, M. Stack and F.A. Zafran. 1995. An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sites. Risk Analysis 15: 221–231.Google Scholar
- 35.The White House. 2003. National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets. February 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/physical.html.Google Scholar
- 36.U.K. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 1999. Review of Technical Guidance on Environmental Appraisal A Report by EFTEC (Economics for the Environment Consultancy). April 30, 1999. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/economics/rtgea/22.htm.Google Scholar
- 37.United States Department of Labor. No Date. Occupation Exposure to 1,3-Buradiene. Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules. Section 7 — VII. Significance of Risk. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=748.Google Scholar
- 38.United States Navy. 2001. U.S. Navy Human Health Risk Assessment Guidance. Chapter 12 — Risk Management. December 2001. http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/HHRA/guidancedocuments/process/pdf/risk_mgmt.pdf.Google Scholar
- 39.Vrijling, J. K., van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., Goossens, L.H.J., Voortman, H.G., and M. D. Pandey. 2004. A Framework for Risk criteria for critical infrastructures: Fundamentals and Case Studies in the Netherlands. Journal of Risk Research 7:569–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Vogel, D. 2003. The Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States. Prepared for publication in The Yearbook of European Environmental Law, Volume 3, 2003.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer 2006