Strategic risk appraisal. Comparing expert- and literature-informed consequence assessments for environmental policy risks receiving national attention

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDagonneau, J.
dc.contributor.authorRocks, Sophie A.
dc.contributor.authorPrpich, George
dc.contributor.authorGarnett, Kenisha
dc.contributor.authorBlack, Edgar
dc.contributor.authorPollard, Simon J. T.
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-04T14:26:47Z
dc.date.available2017-05-04T14:26:47Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-07
dc.description.abstractStrategic 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.en_UK
dc.identifier.citationDagonneau J, Rocks SA, Prpich G, Garnett K, Black E, Pollard SJT, Strategic risk appraisal. Comparing expert- and literature-informed consequence assessments for environmental policy risks receiving national attention, Science of the Total Environment, Volume 595, 2017, Pages 537 - 546.en_UK
dc.identifier.issn0048-9697
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.293
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/11858
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherElsevieren_UK
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. Information: No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
dc.subjectRisken_UK
dc.subjectStrategicen_UK
dc.subjectEnvironmenten_UK
dc.subjectPolicyen_UK
dc.subjectExperten_UK
dc.subjectAppraisalen_UK
dc.titleStrategic risk appraisal. Comparing expert- and literature-informed consequence assessments for environmental policy risks receiving national attentionen_UK
dc.typeArticleen_UK

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Strategic_risk_appraisal_Comparing_expert_and_literature_informed_consequence_assessments-2017.pdf
Size:
1.88 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.79 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Staff publications (SWEE)