Validating the strategic risk appraisals of policy experts

The emergence and evolution of environmental risks increases the need of government organisations to prioritise their resources for efficient risk management in a manner that is transparent and auditable. Many different data sources (including expert opinion and published data) can be used to inform assessments. This work evaluates and compares the use of two different data sources for environmental strategic risk assessment (SRA). Here, a developed SRA framework (Prpich et al., 2012) was applied to 12 environmental risks within the UK to characterise the environmental, economic and social impacts of a risk on semi-qualitative scales and provide a descriptive narrative. A structured literature search of peer-reviewed and grey literature was assessed for relevance and quality and impact values were determined giving equal weighting to evidence. It was not possible to identify likelihood data from the literature evidence, therefore the expert assessment was used for all risks. Individual assessments for the different risks were compared to expert elicitation data (n ≥ 3) where it was found that they provided similar risk assessments and referred to similar evidence. Where the assessments differed, differences in evidence were noted possibly due to publication delays or method rigidity. Knowledge gaps were noted in the assessment of ‘economic services’ and ‘social cohesion’ sub-attributes for both data sources. These results suggest that the expert elicitation validated the use of literature evidence for SRAs impact assessment, but in order to provide a robust SRA, future assessments could combine both evidence sources.