Search

Strategic risk appraisal (SRA) has been applied to compare diverse policy level risks to and from the environment in England and Wales. Its application has relied on expert-informed assessments of the potential consequences from residual risks that attract policy attention at the national scale. Here we compare consequence assessments, across environmental, economic and social impact categories that draw on ‘expert’- and ‘literature-based’ analyses of the evidence for 12 public risks appraised by Government. For environmental consequences there is reasonable agreement between the two sources of assessment, with expert-informed assessments providing a narrower dispersion of impact severity and with median values similar in scale to those produced by an analysis of the literature. The situation is more complex for economic consequences, with a greater spread in the median values, less consistency between the two assessment types and a shift toward higher severity values across the risk portfolio. For social consequences, the spread of severity values is greater still, with no consistent trend between the severities of impact expressed by the two types of assessment. For the latter, the findings suggest the need for a fuller representation of socioeconomic expertise in SRA and the workshops that inform SRA output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainties, whether due to randomness or human or system errors, are inherent within any decision process. In order to improve the clarity and robustness of risk estimates and risk characterisations, environmental risk assessments (ERAs) should explicitly consider uncertainty. Typologies of uncertainty can help practitioners to understand and identify potential types of uncertainty within ERAs, but these tools are yet to be reviewed in earnest. Here, we have systematically reviewed 30 distinct typologies and the uncertainties they communicate and demonstrate that they: (1) use terminology that is often contradictory; (2) differ in the frequencies and dimensions of uncertainties that they include; (3) do not uniformly use systematic and robust methods to source information; and (4) cannot be applied, on an individual basis, to the domain of ERA. On the basis of these observations, we created a summary typology – consisting of seven locations (areas of occurrence) of uncertainty across five distinct levels (magnitude of uncertainty) – specifically for use with ERAs. This work highlights the potential for confusion, given the many versions of uncertainty typologies which exist for closely related risk domains and, through the summary typology, provides environmental risk analysts with information to form a solid foundation for uncertainty analysis (based on improved understanding) to identify uncertainties within an ERA. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract This study re-analysed 14 semi-structured interviews with policy officials from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to explore the use of a variety of regulatory instruments and different levels of risk across 14 policy domains and 18 separately named risks. Interviews took place within a policy environment of a better regulation agenda and of broader regulatory reform. Of 619 (n) coded references to 5 categories of regulatory instrument, ‘command and control’ regulation (n = 257) and support mechanisms (n = 118) dominated the discussions, with a preference for ‘command and control’ cited in 8 of the policy domains. A framing analysis revealed officials' views on instrument effectiveness, including for sub-categories of the 5 key instruments. Views were mixed, though notably positive for economic instruments including taxation, fiscal instruments and information provision. An overlap analysis explored officials' mapping of public environmental risks to instrument types suited to their management. While officials frequently cite risk concepts generally within discussions, the extent of overlap for risks of specific significance was low across all risks. Only ‘command and control’ was mapped to risks of moderate significance in likelihood and impact severity. These results show that policy makers still prefer ‘command and control’ approaches when a certainty of outcome is sought and that alternative means are sought for lower risk situations. The detailed reasons for selection, including the mapping of certain instruments to specific risk characteristics, is still developing. Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image Highlights • 14 interviews with policy officials re-analysed instrument selection and environmental risk. • Positive, negative and neutral framings illustrated how instruments were perceived. • Low overlap between instrument category and risk significance suggests other influences in play. • Improved knowledge exchange is recommended for risk analysis and policy communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]