Applying Risk Assessment Techniques to Air Pollution Modelling & Abatement Strategies

  • Helen M Ap Simon
  • Rachel F Warren
  • Antonio Mediavilla-Sahagun


It is hoped that the two case studies considered above have illustrated how HAZOP techniques as part of a formal risk assessment, can be useful as a systematic way of examining model functioning and assumptions when used in assessment of air quality problems. These techniques go beyond the traditional methods such as Monte-Carlo analysis, in addressing what is not covered in the models as well as questioning the representation and parameterisation of what is included. They point towards potential hazards for the decision maker in using the results from a model, and to priority areas for further research. They also provide a framework for linking what are inevitably simplified models in looking at a wide range of possible scenarios in assessing abatement strategies, to a hierarchy of more detailed and sophisticated research concerning the aspects identified. It is suggested that the approach illustrated could usefully provide an appendix to many reports on environmental assessment based on numerical models!


Critical Load Integrate Assessment Modelling Urban Background Source Attribution Target Load 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    CIA (1989) A guide to hazard and operability studies. Chemical Industries AssociationGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ApSimon HM, Warren RF and Wilson JJN. The Abatement Strategies Assessment Model-ASAM: applications to abatement of sulphur-dioxide emissions across Europe. Atmospheric Environment 28 (1994) p 649–663Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alcamo J Shaw R and Hordijk L (eds) 1990. The RAINS model of acidification: Science and Strategies in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Warren R F and ApSimon HM (2000). Selection of target loads for acidification in emission abatement policy: the use of gap closure approaches. Water Air and Soil Pollution 121, p229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warren RF and ApSimon HM (1999) Uncertainties in integrated assessment modelling of abatement strategies: illustrations with the ASAM model. Environmental Science and Policy vol 2, p439–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warren Rf and ApSimon HM (2001) Integrated Assessment modelling of abatement strategies: role of uncertainties. Air Pollution Modelling and its Applications XIV,p 35–43Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ApSimon HM and Warren RF (2001) Addressing uncertainty in environmental modelling; a case study of integrated assessment strategies to combat long-range transboundary air pollution. IUAPPA conference, Korea August 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barret K and Seland O (1995) European Transboundary Acidifying Air Pollution. EMEP report 1/95.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kayin S (1993) Wet deposition in convective storms and effects on transboundary air pollution. PhD thesis. University of London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mediavilla-Sahagun A, ApSimon Hm and Warren RF (2001) Integrated Assessment of Abatement Strategies to Improve Air Quality in London, The USIAM Model. Urban Air Quality conference, Loutraki, Greece, March 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W S Atkins (1999) An evaluation of transport measures to meet NAQS objectives. Report to Department of Environment Transport and the Regions.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen M Ap Simon
  • Rachel F Warren
    • 1
  • Antonio Mediavilla-Sahagun
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Measurement, Modelling and Assessment Group, Department of Environmental Science and TechnologyImperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations