IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i9p1830-1846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • R. G. van der Vegt

Abstract

This article is a retrospective analysis of liquefied natural gas development (LNG) in Gladstone, Australia by using the structure of the risk governance framework developed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Since 2010 the port of Gladstone has undergone extensive expansion to facilitate the increasing coal export as well as the new development of three recently completed LNG facilities. Significant environmental and socio‐economic impacts and concerns have occurred as a result of these developments. The overall aim of the article, therefore, is to identify the risk governance deficits that arose and to formulate processes capable of improving similar decision‐making problems in the future. The structure of the IRGC framework is followed because it represents a broad analytical approach for considering risk assessment and risk governance in Gladstone in ways that include, but also go beyond, the risk approach of the ISO 31000:2009 standard that was employed at the time. The IRGC risk framework is argued to be a consistent and comprehensive risk governance framework that integrates scientific, economic, social, and cultural aspects and advocates the notion of inclusive risk governance through stakeholder communication and involvement. Key aspects related to risk preassessment, risk appraisal, risk tolerability and acceptability, risk management, and stakeholder communication and involvement are considered. The results indicate that the risk governance deficits include aspects related to (i) the risk matrix methodology, (ii) reflecting uncertainties, (iii) cumulative risks, (iv) the regulatory process, and (v) stakeholder communication and involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:9:p:1830-1846
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12977
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12977?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Åsa Boholm & Hervé Corvellec & Marianne Karlsson, 2012. "The practice of risk governance: lessons from the field," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Judith Petts, 2004. "Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-133, March.
    3. Eric D. Smith & William T. Siefert & David Drain, 2009. "Risk matrix input data biases," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 344-360, December.
    4. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1561-1575, September.
    5. Jason Chilvers, 2007. "Towards Analytic-deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 197-222, March.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    7. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    8. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    9. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    10. Marie-Valentine Florin, 2013. "IRGC's approach to emerging risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3-4), pages 315-322, April.
    11. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 273-292, March.
    12. Parsons, Richard & Lacey, Justine & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 83-90.
    13. Franks, Daniel M. & Brereton, David & Moran, Chris J., 2013. "The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 640-647.
    14. Claudia F. Benham, 2017. "Understanding local community attitudes toward industrial development in the Great Barrier Reef region World Heritage Area: are environmental impacts perceived to overshadow economic benefits?," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(1), pages 42-54, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wen Li & Yicheng Ye & Nanyan Hu & Xianhua Wang & Qihu Wang, 2019. "Real-Time Warning and Risk Assessment of Tailings Dam Disaster Status Based on Dynamic Hierarchy-Grey Relation Analysis," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-14, April.
    2. Hileman, Jacob D. & Angst, Mario & Scott, Tyler A. & Sundström, Emma, 2021. "Recycled text and risk communication in natural gas pipeline environmental impact assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    2. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    4. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    5. Bing Wu & Huibin Tian & Xinping Yan & C. Guedes Soares, 2020. "A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 422-436, April.
    6. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    7. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    8. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    9. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    10. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    11. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    12. Volker Stein & Arnd Wiedemann, 2016. "Risk governance: conceptualization, tasks, and research agenda," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(8), pages 813-836, November.
    13. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    14. Dingde Xu & Linmei Zhuang & Xin Deng & Cheng Qing & Zhuolin Yong, 2020. "Media Exposure, Disaster Experience, and Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    16. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    17. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    18. Irene Lorenzoni & Nick F. Pidgeon & Robert E. O'Connor, 2005. "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1387-1398, December.
    19. Yuyao Feng & Guowen Li & Xiaolei Sun & Jianping Li, 2022. "Identification of tourists’ dynamic risk perception—the situation in Tibet," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Max Boholm, 2019. "Risk and Quantification: A Linguistic Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1243-1261, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:9:p:1830-1846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.