Sophie A. Rocks

A comparison of disinfection by-products found in chlorinated and chloraminated drinking waters in Scotland.

Seven water treatment works were selected to compare disinfection by-products (DBPs) formed when using chlorination and chloramination. DBPs measured included trihalomethanes (THMs), haloacetic acids (HAAs), haloacetonitriles (HANs), trihalonitromethane, iodinated THMs and nitrosamines. Generally treatment works that used chloramination were able to meet the European THM regulatory limit of 100 microg L(-1) whereas the chlorinated works found it significantly more difficult. There were no significant differences in the levels of nitrogenous DBPs between the treatment works using chlorination or chloramination with the exception of the nitrosamine N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) which was present at one treatment works in one season.

Identifying Uncertainty in Environmental Risk Assessments: The Development of a Novel Typology and Its Implications for Risk Characterization

ABSTRACT Environmental risk analysts need to draw from a clear typology of uncertainties when qualifying risk estimates and/or significance statements about risk. However, categorizations of uncertainty within existing typologies are largely overlapping, contradictory, and subjective, and many typologies are not designed with environmental risk assessments (ERAs) in mind. In an attempt to rectify these issues, this research provides a new categorization of uncertainties based, for the first time, on the appraisal of a large subset of ERAs, namely 171 peer-reviewed environmental weight-of-evidence assessments. Using this dataset, a defensible typology consisting of seven types of uncertainty (data, language, system, extrapolation, variability, model, and decision) and 20 related sub-types is developed. Relationships between uncertainties and the techniques used to manage them are also identified and statistically evaluated. A highly preferred uncertainty management option is to take no action when faced with uncertainty, although where techniques are applied they are commensurate with the uncertainty in question. Key observations are applied in the form of guidance for dealing with uncertainty, demonstrated through ERAs of genetically modified higher plants in the European Union. The presented typology and accompanying guidance will have positive implications for the identification, prioritization, and management of uncertainty during risk characterization.

A review of uncertainty in environmental risk: characterising potential natures, locations and levels

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.

Character of environmental harms: overcoming implementation challenges with policy makers and regulators.

Policy makers and regulators are charged with the daunting task of comparing incommensurate environmental risks to inform strategic decisions on interventions. Here we present a policy-level framework intended to support strategic decision processes concerning environmental risks within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The framework provides the structure by which risk-based evidence may be collated and by assessing the value of harm expressed by different environmental policy areas against a consistent objective (e.g., sustainable development), we begin to form a basis for relative comparison. This research integrates the prior art, examples of best practice, and intimate end-user input to build a qualitative assessment informed by expert judgment. Supported by contextual narratives, the framework has proven successful in securing organizational support and stimulating debate about proportionate mitigation activity, resource allocation, and shifts in current risk thinking.

Better by design: rethinking interventions for better environmental regulation.

Better regulation seeks to extend existing policy and regulatory outcomes at less burden for the actors involved. No single intervention will deliver all environmental outcomes. There is a paucity of evidence on what works why, when and with whom. We examine how a sample (n=33) of policy makers select policy and regulatory instruments, through a case study of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK. Policy makers have a wide range of instruments at their disposal and are seeking ways to harness the influence of non-governmental resources to encourage good environmental behaviour. The relevance of each influence varies as risk and industry characteristics vary between policy areas. A recent typology of policy and regulatory instruments has been refined. Direct regulation is considered necessary in many areas, to reduce environmental risks with confidence and to tackle poor environmental performance. Co-regulatory approaches may provide important advantages to help accommodate uncertainty for emerging policy problems, providing a mechanism to develop trusted evidence and to refine objectives as problems are better understood.

Identifying the science and technology dimensions of emerging public policy issues through horizon scanning.

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.

Scientific commentary: Strategic analysis of environmental policy risks--heat maps, risk futures and the character of environmental harm.

We summarise our recent efforts on the policy-level risk appraisal of environmental risks. These have necessitated working closely with policy teams and a requirement to maintain crisp and accessible messages for policy audiences. Our comparative analysis uses heat maps, supplemented with risk narratives, and employs the multidimensional character of risks to inform debates on the management of current residual risk and future threats. The policy research and ensuing analysis raises core issues about how comparative risk analyses are used by policy audiences, their validation and future developments that are discussed in the commentary below.

Integrating horizon scanning and strategic risk prioritisation using a weight of evidence framework to inform policy decisions.

Poor connection between data on emerging issues and credible policy decisions continues to challenge governments, and is only likely to grow as demands on time and resources increase. Here we summarise recent efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation approaches to better connect emerging issues to the political discourse on environmental and food-related issues. Our categorisation of insights including potential future risks and opportunities to inform policy discussions has emerged from a structured three-year programme of horizon scanning for a UK pan-governmental futures partnership led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Our efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation, utilising a qualitative weight of evidence framework, has created a systematic process for identifying all signals of potential future change with significant impact for the strategic mission and underlying values of policy actors. Our approach encourages an exploration of factors out of the control of organisations, recognising that resilience depends on the flexibility of management strategies and the preparedness to deal with a variety of unexpected outcomes. We discuss how this approach addresses key cultural and evaluative challenges that policy actors have had in embedding horizon scanning in evidence-based policy processes, and suggest further developments to build confidence in the use of horizon scanning for strategic planning.

Where do uncertainties reside within environmental risk assessments? Expert opinion on uncertainty distributions for pesticide risks to surface water organisms

A reliable characterisation of uncertainties can aid uncertainty identification during environmental risk assessments (ERAs). However, typologies can be implemented inconsistently, causing uncertainties to go unidentified. We present an approach based on nine structured elicitations, in which subject-matter experts, for pesticide risks to surface water organisms, validate and assess three dimensions of uncertainty: its level (the severity of uncertainty, ranging from determinism to ignorance); nature (whether the uncertainty is epistemic or aleatory); and location (the data source or area in which the uncertainty arises). Risk characterisation contains the highest median levels of uncertainty, associated with estimating, aggregating and evaluating the magnitude of risks. Regarding the locations in which uncertainty is manifest, data uncertainty is dominant in problem formulation, exposure assessment and effects assessment. The comprehensive description of uncertainty described will enable risk analysts to prioritise the required phases, groups of tasks, or individual tasks within a risk analysis according to the highest levels of uncertainty, the potential for uncertainty to be reduced or quantified, or the types of location-based uncertainty, thus aiding uncertainty prioritisation during environmental risk assessments. In turn, it is expected to inform investment in uncertainty reduction or targeted risk management action.

Better by design: business preferences for environmental regulatory reform.

We present the preferences for environmental regulatory reform expressed by 30 UK businesses and industry bodies from 5 sectors. While five strongly preferred voluntary regulation, seven expressed doubts about its effectiveness, and 18 expressed no general preference between instrument types. Voluntary approaches were valued for flexibility and lower burdens, but direct regulation offered stability and a level playing field. Respondents sought regulatory frameworks that: are coherent; balance clarity, prescription and flexibility; are enabled by positive regulatory relationships; administratively efficient; targeted according to risk magnitude and character; evidence-based and that deliver long-term market stability for regulatees. Anticipated differences in performance between types of instrument can be undermined by poor implementation. Results underline the need for policy makers and regulators to tailor an effective mix of instruments for a given sector, and to overcome analytical, institutional and political barriers to greater coherence, to better coordinate existing instruments and tackle new environmental challenges as they emerge.