Development and test of a Microwave Ice Accretion Measurement Instrument (MIAMI)

The development of an ice accretion measurement instrument that is a highly sensitive, accurate, rugged and reliable microprocessor controlled device using low level microwave energy for non-instrusive real time measurement and recording of ice growth history, including ice thickness and accretion rate is discussed. Data is displayed and recorded digitally. New experimental data is presented, obtained with the instrument, which demonstrates its ability to measure ice growth on a two-dimensional airfoil. The device is suitable for aircraft icing protection. It may be mounted flush, non-intrusively, on any part of an aircraft skin including rotor blades and engine inlets

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

Confluence and contours: reflexive management of environmental risk

Government institutions have responsibilities to distribute risk management funds meaningfully and to be accountable for their choices. We took a macro-level sociological approach to understanding the role of government in managing environmental risks, and insights from micro-level psychology to examine individual-level risk-related perceptions and beliefs. Survey data from 2,068 U.K. citizens showed that lay people's funding preferences were associated positively with beliefs about responsibility and trust, yet associations with perception varied depending on risk type. Moreover, there were risk-specific differences in the funding preferences of the lay sample and 29 policymakers. A laboratory-based study of 109 participants examined funding allocation in more detail through iterative presentation of expert information. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed a meso-level framework comprising three types of decisionmakers who varied in their willingness to change funding allocation preferences following expert information: adaptors, responders, and resistors. This research highlights the relevance of integrated theoretical approaches to understanding the policy process, and the benefits of reflexive dialogue to managing environmental risks.Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, EPSRC, NERC, ESR

Effective risk governance for environmental policy making: a knowledge management perspective

Effective risk management within environmental policy making requires knowledge on natural, economic and social systems to be integrated; knowledge characterised by complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. We describe a case study in a (UK) central government department exploring how risk governance supports and hinders this challenging integration of knowledge. Forty-five semi-structured interviews were completed over a two year period. We found that lateral knowledge transfer between teams working on different policy areas was widely viewed as a key source of knowledge. However, the process of lateral knowledge transfer was predominantly informal and unsupported by risk governance structures. We argue this made decision quality vulnerable to a loss of knowledge through staff turnover, and time and resource pressures. Our conclusion is that the predominant form of risk governance framework, with its focus on centralised decision-making and vertical knowledge transfer is insufficient to support risk-based, environmental policy making. We discuss how risk governance can better support environmental policy makers through systematic knowledge management practices

Where do uncertainties reside within environmental risk assessments? Testing UnISERA, a guide for uncertainty assessment

A means for identifying and prioritising the treatment of uncertainty (UnISERA) in environmental risk assessments (ERAs) is tested, using three risk domains where ERA is an established requirement and one in which ERA practice is emerging. UnISERA's development draws on 19 expert elicitations across genetically modified higher plants, particulate matter, and agricultural pesticide release and is stress tested here for engineered nanomaterials (ENM). We are concerned with the severity of uncertainty; its nature; and its location across four accepted stages of ERAs. Using an established uncertainty scale, the risk characterisation stage of ERA harbours the highest severity level of uncertainty, associated with estimating, aggregating and evaluating expressions of risk. Combined epistemic and aleatory uncertainty is the dominant nature of uncertainty. The dominant location of uncertainty is associated with data in problem formulation, exposure assessment and effects assessment. Testing UnISERA produced agreements of 55%, 90%, and 80% for the severity level, nature and location dimensions of uncertainty between the combined case studies and the ENM stress test. UnISERA enables environmental risk analysts to prioritise risk assessment phases, groups of tasks, or individual ERA tasks and it can direct them towards established methods for uncertainty treatment