Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2020.114384
Pablo Mac Clay, Federico Accursi, R. Feeney
{"title":"Risk attitudes between Argentine farmers: what determines willingness to take risks?","authors":"Pablo Mac Clay, Federico Accursi, R. Feeney","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2020.114384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2020.114384","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66701148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037183
Azad Sadeghi, Samira Shirzadi, Saman Galalizadeh, B. Malekmohammadi, H. Karimi
{"title":"Environmental risk assessment and mapping of oil installations to Chamshir Dam water basin using GIS and HAZOP method","authors":"Azad Sadeghi, Samira Shirzadi, Saman Galalizadeh, B. Malekmohammadi, H. Karimi","doi":"10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037183","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66701068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037188
R. Laryea, Catia Cialani, K. Carling
{"title":"A decision support system that incorporates price volatility in risk classifying regional food security","authors":"R. Laryea, Catia Cialani, K. Carling","doi":"10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037188","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66701084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037193
Paul Chipangura
.............................................................................................................................. iii Table of contents ................................................................................................................. vi Lit of Tables ........................................................................................................................ x List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Overview of the study ...................................................................................... 1 1.
{"title":"A constructivist framework for disaster risk policy in Zimbabwe","authors":"Paul Chipangura","doi":"10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2020.10037193","url":null,"abstract":".............................................................................................................................. iii Table of contents ................................................................................................................. vi Lit of Tables ........................................................................................................................ x List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Overview of the study ...................................................................................... 1 1.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66701097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-25DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2019.103340
W. Leiss, D. Krewski
Long lists of issues relevant to carbon capture and storage projects have been provided in a number of sources, encompassing the broad categories of technological risks, health and environmental risks and societal risks. From these long lists a selection of ten major issues, broken down into three broad categories, has been made. The selected issues are: 1) government and industry factors (competent regulatory oversight; adequate risk assessment and risk management frameworks; and supportive public policy architecture); 2) environmental risk factors (adequate site-specific characterisations of geological formations for CCS storage sites worldwide; credible monitoring of storage site performance; and the possibility of leaking from storage); 3) socio-economic factors (tolerable economic costs; public perceptions of risks and benefits; information provision, effective communication and stakeholder engagement; and social and public acceptability, including the use of decision support mechanisms). The paper emphasises that what is unique about carbon capture and storage, considered as a major set of risk issues of global proportions, is how proactively these relevant major risks and risk factors have been identified and characterised by major institutional actors, especially industry and governments.
{"title":"Environmental scan and issue awareness: risk management challenges for CCS","authors":"W. Leiss, D. Krewski","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2019.103340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2019.103340","url":null,"abstract":"Long lists of issues relevant to carbon capture and storage projects have been provided in a number of sources, encompassing the broad categories of technological risks, health and environmental risks and societal risks. From these long lists a selection of ten major issues, broken down into three broad categories, has been made. The selected issues are: 1) government and industry factors (competent regulatory oversight; adequate risk assessment and risk management frameworks; and supportive public policy architecture); 2) environmental risk factors (adequate site-specific characterisations of geological formations for CCS storage sites worldwide; credible monitoring of storage site performance; and the possibility of leaking from storage); 3) socio-economic factors (tolerable economic costs; public perceptions of risks and benefits; information provision, effective communication and stakeholder engagement; and social and public acceptability, including the use of decision support mechanisms). The paper emphasises that what is unique about carbon capture and storage, considered as a major set of risk issues of global proportions, is how proactively these relevant major risks and risk factors have been identified and characterised by major institutional actors, especially industry and governments.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/ijram.2019.103340","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49514291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-25DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2019.103335
Patricia Larkin, R. Gracie, A. Shafiei, M. Dusseault, M. Sarkarfarshi, W. Aspinall, D. Krewski
Carbon capture and geological storage (CCS) is identified within the portfolio of mitigation options for climate change. Each value chain activity of large scale integrated projects (capture, transport, injection and storage) includes uncertainties and hence potential risks with respect to both environmental and human health protection. With a focus on injection and storage, a structured elicitation of international experts provides quantified judgements and uncertainties and understanding of relative risk of CCS activities. In the 0-50 year, 51-499 year and >500 year time periods, the expert panel suggested an almost equal likelihood of storage leakage occurring, with a marked decrease from minor to major to catastrophic leakage (approximately >1 in 30; 1 in 103; 1 in 104, respectively); for the same time periods, the judgement of likelihood for major leakage that would result in measurable negative effects on human health or the environment was the same (approximately 1 in 103). Insights could stimulate further scientific deliberations about the reliable and effective deployment of this complex and interdisciplinary technological process. A companion paper discusses complementary findings for issues in CCS risk management.
{"title":"Uncertainty in risk issues for carbon capture and geological storage: findings from a structured expert elicitation","authors":"Patricia Larkin, R. Gracie, A. Shafiei, M. Dusseault, M. Sarkarfarshi, W. Aspinall, D. Krewski","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2019.103335","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2019.103335","url":null,"abstract":"Carbon capture and geological storage (CCS) is identified within the portfolio of mitigation options for climate change. Each value chain activity of large scale integrated projects (capture, transport, injection and storage) includes uncertainties and hence potential risks with respect to both environmental and human health protection. With a focus on injection and storage, a structured elicitation of international experts provides quantified judgements and uncertainties and understanding of relative risk of CCS activities. In the 0-50 year, 51-499 year and >500 year time periods, the expert panel suggested an almost equal likelihood of storage leakage occurring, with a marked decrease from minor to major to catastrophic leakage (approximately >1 in 30; 1 in 103; 1 in 104, respectively); for the same time periods, the judgement of likelihood for major leakage that would result in measurable negative effects on human health or the environment was the same (approximately 1 in 103). Insights could stimulate further scientific deliberations about the reliable and effective deployment of this complex and interdisciplinary technological process. A companion paper discusses complementary findings for issues in CCS risk management.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/ijram.2019.103335","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41973379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-25DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2019.103341
M. Sarkarfarshi, Chris Ladubec, R. Gracie, M. Dusseault, W. Leiss, D. Krewski
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) risks depend upon the site geology, potential CO2-caprock reactions, anthropogenic pathways (legacy wellbores), and well construction and operation. Herein, we assess the major risks, termed 'georisks', acknowledging that quantitative description must be site-specific, although pathway impact generalisations are possible. We discuss geological and pathway issues to guide general site selection practices to reduce georisks. Events that trigger hazards and the consequences are presented for leakage, low storage capacity/injectivity, the release of hazardous gases and materials, surface uplift, and Induced seismicity. A supplementary literature-sourced hazard tabulation was developed with focus on four large-scale North American CCS projects (Quest Project, Weyburn Project, Project Pioneer and FutureGen). Each hazard is classified based on the project phase and trigger activity. The risks of CO2, brine, or other fluid leakage through wells (injection, monitoring, decommissioned legacy wells) remain uncertain, but legacy well gas leakage is common, rather than exceptional, despite modern cementing and completion practices.
{"title":"Potential technical hazards associated with four North American carbon capture and sequestration projects","authors":"M. Sarkarfarshi, Chris Ladubec, R. Gracie, M. Dusseault, W. Leiss, D. Krewski","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2019.103341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2019.103341","url":null,"abstract":"Carbon capture and storage (CCS) risks depend upon the site geology, potential CO2-caprock reactions, anthropogenic pathways (legacy wellbores), and well construction and operation. Herein, we assess the major risks, termed 'georisks', acknowledging that quantitative description must be site-specific, although pathway impact generalisations are possible. We discuss geological and pathway issues to guide general site selection practices to reduce georisks. Events that trigger hazards and the consequences are presented for leakage, low storage capacity/injectivity, the release of hazardous gases and materials, surface uplift, and Induced seismicity. A supplementary literature-sourced hazard tabulation was developed with focus on four large-scale North American CCS projects (Quest Project, Weyburn Project, Project Pioneer and FutureGen). Each hazard is classified based on the project phase and trigger activity. The risks of CO2, brine, or other fluid leakage through wells (injection, monitoring, decommissioned legacy wells) remain uncertain, but legacy well gas leakage is common, rather than exceptional, despite modern cementing and completion practices.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/ijram.2019.103341","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44069315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-25DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2019.103334
Patricia Larkin, R. Gracie, A. Shafiei, M. Dusseault, M. Sarkarfarshi, W. Aspinall, D. Krewski
With a focus on risk management (RM) in injection and storage for carbon capture and geological sequestration (CCS), an expert elicitation of scientific judgements quantified collective uncertainty ranges for a number of difficult environmental and human health risk challenges. Results suggest similarities and differences in opinions, an outcome that may be reflective of both the newness and the complexity of this technology. A suitable monitoring period was estimated at about a century; however, uncertainty was three orders of magnitude, with an upper (5th percentile) value of almost 1,000 years. For selected low probability high impact georisks, only site selection and monitoring were considered 'very' effective RM options. Monitoring, well integrity studies, emergency response plan, automatic emergency shut down system and training were considered 'very' or 'extremely' effective in managing two risks more directly related to human health. Experts responded with a wide uncertainty spread for a regulated threshold of minor, major and catastrophic leakage. A companion paper discusses elicitation findings for issues related to risk assessment.
{"title":"Risk management in carbon capture and geological storage: insights from a structured expert elicitation","authors":"Patricia Larkin, R. Gracie, A. Shafiei, M. Dusseault, M. Sarkarfarshi, W. Aspinall, D. Krewski","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2019.103334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2019.103334","url":null,"abstract":"With a focus on risk management (RM) in injection and storage for carbon capture and geological sequestration (CCS), an expert elicitation of scientific judgements quantified collective uncertainty ranges for a number of difficult environmental and human health risk challenges. Results suggest similarities and differences in opinions, an outcome that may be reflective of both the newness and the complexity of this technology. A suitable monitoring period was estimated at about a century; however, uncertainty was three orders of magnitude, with an upper (5th percentile) value of almost 1,000 years. For selected low probability high impact georisks, only site selection and monitoring were considered 'very' effective RM options. Monitoring, well integrity studies, emergency response plan, automatic emergency shut down system and training were considered 'very' or 'extremely' effective in managing two risks more directly related to human health. Experts responded with a wide uncertainty spread for a regulated threshold of minor, major and catastrophic leakage. A companion paper discusses elicitation findings for issues related to risk assessment.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/ijram.2019.103334","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41320562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-25DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2019.103338
Victoria Campbell-Arvai, Douglas L. Bessette, L. Kenney, J. Arvai
This paper reviews five challenges faced during decision making about carbon management initiatives. The first of these challenges deals with behavioural and perceptual obstacles, which often leads to the introduction of systematic biases during decision making. The remaining four obstacles deal with the complexity associated with the carbon management problems themselves. These include neglecting the objectives and related measurement criteria, which will guide decisions among competing risk management options; the tendency to look for singular solutions to complex problems, rather than considering a broad array of options; a lack of explicit attention devoted to the full range of tradeoffs that should be considered when choosing among alternatives; and a failure to recognise that preferences, and the decisions that result from them, are fundamentally constructive in nature. We conclude by outlining a decision-aiding approach that has been shown to improve the quality of decisions about carbon management.
{"title":"Improving decision making for carbon management initiatives","authors":"Victoria Campbell-Arvai, Douglas L. Bessette, L. Kenney, J. Arvai","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2019.103338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2019.103338","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews five challenges faced during decision making about carbon management initiatives. The first of these challenges deals with behavioural and perceptual obstacles, which often leads to the introduction of systematic biases during decision making. The remaining four obstacles deal with the complexity associated with the carbon management problems themselves. These include neglecting the objectives and related measurement criteria, which will guide decisions among competing risk management options; the tendency to look for singular solutions to complex problems, rather than considering a broad array of options; a lack of explicit attention devoted to the full range of tradeoffs that should be considered when choosing among alternatives; and a failure to recognise that preferences, and the decisions that result from them, are fundamentally constructive in nature. We conclude by outlining a decision-aiding approach that has been shown to improve the quality of decisions about carbon management.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/ijram.2019.103338","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42818787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-25DOI: 10.1504/ijram.2019.103336
Patricia Larkin, W. Leiss, J. Arvai, M. Dusseault, M. Fall, R. Gracie, A. Heyes, D. Krewski
This concluding paper of the Special Issue on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Canadian context provides a brief overview of the findings from all contributions, followed by a description of the Canadian policy and regulatory backdrop for CCS at both the federal and provincial levels in active jurisdictions. An integrated risk management framework (IRMF) is proposed with reference to environmental and human health risk assessment and risk management frameworks published worldwide as well as risk management demonstrated in large scale Canadian CCS projects to date. Key features of the IRMF are the ten-step rational and transparent process, options to engage with and integrate wide-ranging government and non-government stakeholders on an ongoing basis, and incorporation of independent external review. The next generation of risk-based decision making is then applied to the IRMF for CCS.
{"title":"An integrated risk assessment and management framework for carbon capture and storage: a Canadian perspective","authors":"Patricia Larkin, W. Leiss, J. Arvai, M. Dusseault, M. Fall, R. Gracie, A. Heyes, D. Krewski","doi":"10.1504/ijram.2019.103336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijram.2019.103336","url":null,"abstract":"This concluding paper of the Special Issue on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Canadian context provides a brief overview of the findings from all contributions, followed by a description of the Canadian policy and regulatory backdrop for CCS at both the federal and provincial levels in active jurisdictions. An integrated risk management framework (IRMF) is proposed with reference to environmental and human health risk assessment and risk management frameworks published worldwide as well as risk management demonstrated in large scale Canadian CCS projects to date. Key features of the IRMF are the ten-step rational and transparent process, options to engage with and integrate wide-ranging government and non-government stakeholders on an ongoing basis, and incorporation of independent external review. The next generation of risk-based decision making is then applied to the IRMF for CCS.","PeriodicalId":35420,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/ijram.2019.103336","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47998057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：