the role of risk assessment and risk management in environmental assessment

THE ROLE OF RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK

MANAGEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ROY E. KWIATKOWSKI*

Chief, O�ce of Environmental Health Assessment, Health Canada, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OL2

SUMMARY

There is an increasing awareness among environmental professionals and public that a totally risk freeenvironment is an unattainable goal, and that the development of e�ective risk management strategies,involving a wide variety of scienti®c and societal considerations, is needed. The Department of HealthCanada (HC; formally Health and Welfare Canada, HWC) has considerable experience with riskassessment and risk management with regards to human health protection. This expertise and knowledge isusefully transferrable to environmental assessment. This paper proposes using a modi®ed version of HealthCanada's model for human health risk assessment and risk management to provide a framework for riskassessment/risk management in the broader context of environmental assessment and brie¯y indicates therole Retrospective Exposure Assessment can play in environmental assessment. In describing theframework, details on the following will be provided: the identi®cation of environmental hazard (spatiallyas well as temporally); estimation of severity of risk; development of alternative management options;public perception of risk and risk communication; strategies for risk management; and risk monitoring andevaluation. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS environmental assessment; risk assessment and risk management; public perception; riskcommunication

1. INTRODUCTION

It is now understood that projects carried out by government, industry, or the citizenry can haverepercussions not only at the local level but regionally, nationally and globally as well. In Canadathe public has increased its awareness of the dynamics surrounding the environment, theeconomy and human health, and are demanding more information and a much moresophisticated level of involvement in the decision-making process of a project.

In response to this demand, the Canadian Government has introduced the Canadian Environ-mental Assessment Act (CEAA) which came into force January, 1995. CEAA lays out aframework for mandatory environmental assessments of all federal government projects. Theobjectives of the environmental assessment are: to identify the environmental impacts caused bythe project; to rate the impacts as signi®cant or insigni®cant; to establish remedial action forthose negative impacts identi®ed as signi®cant; and, to provide for public participation.

Since the late 1960s, there has been a growing environmental awareness on the interactionsbetween development actions and their long term environmental consequences. In developed and

CCC 1180±4009/98/050587±12$17.50 Received July 1997# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted March 1998

ENVIRONMETRICS

Environmetrics, 9, 587±598 (1998)

*Correspondence to: R. E. Kwiatkowski, Chief, O�ce of Environmental Health Assessment, Room 136, EHC, 0801D1,Health Canada, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OL2.

developing countries, there is an increasing demand that environmental factors be explicitlyconsidered in the decision-making process (Turnbull, 1992). The World Commission onEnvironment and Development (Brundtland Commission) and the Canadian National TaskForce on Environment and Economy have challenged the outmoded concept of `balancing'environmental and economic goals with the concept of ìntegrating' these complementaryobjectives. Both the Commission's concept of `sustainable development' and the CanadianNational Task Force's more detailed concept of ènvironmentally sustainable economic develop-ment' advocate practices which ensure that today's use of Canadian resources and the environ-ment does not unduly damage prospects for their continued use by future generations. TheBrundtland Commission's report, Our Common Future, expressed optimism that the world couldsolve its environmental and economic development problems ìn a more open, fair, and justmanner'. Environmental Assessment (EA) is a planning tool designed to meet this objective. EAis a systematic method of identifying potential environmental consequences (spatially andtemporarily) of a particular action and should, like economic, ®nancial, institutional andengineering analyses, be an integral part of project design and planning. While environmentalconcerns need to be addressed at all stages of any project, it is especially crucial that they beconsidered in the very early stages, before detailed engineering work begins, or ®nancial com-mitments are made. The main objective of EA is to prevent, or mitigate for, negativeenvironmental e�ects resulting from the project.

1.1. Environmental Assessment within Canada

`Canadians are increasingly worried about the quality of the environment in which theylive. Much of this concern stems from anxiety about the possible danger to humanhealth posed by pollution. People are concerned about the water they drink, the air theybreathe and the food they eat.' Excerpt from Canada's Green Plan (1990)

Canada clearly needs economic development to ensure a secure future. Indeed, the health ofCanadians is viewed as being dependent upon a level of economic activity that is adequatelyprosperous, so that not only are the basic prerequisites for health provided, but so too is agenerally high standard of living, since health is clearly related to wealth (HWC, 1992). TheCanadian federal government also believes that the concept of environmentally sustainableeconomic development is central to continued long term economic prosperity both withinCanada and throughout the world. EA is recognized within Canada as a primary decision-making tool for maintaining and enhancing environmental quality while carrying out economicdevelopment.

In 1995 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), came into force. Under CEAAall projects (physical works or regulated activities):

± initiated by the federal government; or,± using federal funds; or± that are located on lands administered by the federal government; or± that require a federal permit, licence or approval;

must undergo an environmental assessment to determine potential adverse environmental e�ects(including cumulative and long term e�ects), and potential public concern, before any irrevocable

# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Environmetrics, 9, 587±598 (1998)

588 R. E. KWIATKOWSKI

decisions to proceed are made. All federal departments must consider the environmental impli-cations of their projects in three respects:

± potential environmental e�ects (spatially and temporally) caused by the project and thehuman health, social and economic e�ects directly related to those environmental e�ects,including any e�ects that may be observed external to Canadian territory;

± potential e�ects of the environment on the project; and,± public concerns (real or perceived) regarding the project and the potential environmental

e�ects.

The environmental assessment process for projects described in CEAA, provides a formalmechanism (process) for identifying:

± what would be the impacts of the project on the environment and what are their potentialmagnitude;

± what mitigative measures are needed to reduce any signi®cant negative environmentalimpacts caused by the project;

± which experts (government or non-government) were contacted to verify impactpredictions, and what their comments were;

± the concerns of the a�ected public, local government and non-government organizations,and how great these concerns were;

± what terms and conditions should be followed; and,± how the ®nal decision to proceed, abandon, delay, modify or refer the project to public

review was made.

Decision-makers using CEAA have always recognized the need to weigh the risks and bene®tsposed by each new project. Canada is rapidly developing and re®ning the EA process in such away that project submission data requirements, and the intensity of assessment, are moreconsistent with the risks and bene®ts inherent in the project. Thus, for example, a low risk project(paving of a parking lot) will have information requirements and a depth of review far lessonerous than a project of unknown or high risk (building a nuclear facility).

There are many advantages in having a risk assessment and risk management frameworkincorporated within an EA carried out under CEAA. Presently no such framework exists. Eachproject manager carrying out an EA is required to meet the legislative requirements of CEAA butis free to develop their own EA framework. The EA framework proposed in this paper has beenadopted from HC's risk assessment/risk management approach presently being used to assesstoxic chemicals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

2. HEALTH CANADA'S RISK ASSESSMENT/RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL

Put simply, risk assessment is the scienti®c identi®cation and essentially quantitative assessmentof environmental hazards and the relative risks of various options. Risk management is theprocess by which decision-makers integrate the results of the risk assessment with economic andsocio-political considerations.

To increase consistency in decision making, the Health Protection Branch of Health Canadahas recently developed a risk assessment/risk management model which provides a commonbasis on which the di�erent managers within the department may evaluate human health risk ofproducts or chemicals. The risk assessment/risk management model presented in Figure 1 has


RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT 589

been modi®ed from Health Canada's human health risk assessment/risk management framework(HWC, 1990) so as to be applicable to the context of an EA (project vs products/chemicals) doneby project managers in the federal government. Examples of human health and environmentalhealth EA are included under this model as often the scienti®c personnel carrying out the humanhealth assessment di�er from those carrying out the environmental health assessment. The riskassessment/risk management model proposed is valid for both assessments. Human healthassessment in EA may include biophysical, as well as sociocultural issues. Environmental healthassessments almost always deal with biophysical hazards. To simplify the environmental health/human health analogy, only biophysical hazards will be discussed in this paper.

3. RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1. Hazard identi®cation

The ®rst step in the risk assessment component of the risk assessment/risk management processproposed, would be the identi®cation of project caused hazards, which may result in a threat to

Figure 1. A framework for risk assessment and risk management within an environmental assessment. Modi®ed fromHWC (1990)



environmental health or human health. Biophysical health hazards identi®ed by Health Canada,as part of the department's commitment under CEAA, have included: methylmercury release as aresult of hydroelectric development, anthropogenically released chemicals (heavy metals,pesticides, toxic organics, etc.) into the water (surface or ground), soil or air; electromagnetic®elds (EMF) associated with high voltage transmission lines; noise contamination aroundairports, and ionizing radiation from uranium mines, low-level radioactive waste, and spentnuclear fuel. Within environmental health, issues such as: loss of habitat; changes in air or waterquality; contaminant (lethal or sublethal) e�ects at the individual, population or communitylevel; bioaccumulation or bioconcentration through the food chain; and, changes in energy ¯owthrough the ecosystem would be considered.

Once a speci®c hazard is identi®ed, the next step is to obtain an estimate of the risk presented,taking into account both the severity (characterization and exposure) of the adverse e�ectsinduced and the likelihood (probability) of their occurrence. In carrying out human healthassessments, epidemiological studies of human populations or toxicological studies conducted onlaboratory animals are the cornerstones of hazard identi®cation and risk estimation (HWC,1990).

3.2. Risk estimation

In an environmental health assessment, as with human health assessment, a clear description ofpotential risk associated with each speci®c hazard is of paramount importance. When the hazardis identi®ed as a toxic substance in either a human health assessment or an environmental healthassessment, toxicological investigations play a major role in the risk assessment of the substance.Bioassays are tests in which the toxicity of a substance is determined by the reaction of a livingorganism to its presence.

Within human health assessment, epidemiological data is used in combination with thetoxicological data to complete the risk assessment. The main federal agency responsible forhealth statistics in Canada is Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada maintains complete records ondeaths which occur in Canada including age, location and cause. Hospital statistics are alsoavailable, providing information on speci®c illnesses and disabilities. As a result estimates ofhuman health risks, in relation to speci®c risk factors, can be derived from epidemiologicalinvestigations for both project site and `background' and the values can be compared. Thedevelopment of an information system for Canadian environmental statistics by StatisticsCanada allows the integration of other environmental data with health information, thus o�eringthe potential for analyses of spatial relationships between aspects of health and environmentalconditions (Mitchell, 1992). Temporal relationships are presently being assessed through HC'sEnvironmental Quality DataBase (EQBD), which was developed to serve as an exposureassessment tool for cases identi®ed and collected in the Case-Control study of Canada'sEnhanced Cancer Surveillance Initiative. The questionnaire for the Case-Control study isdesigned to obtain a very complete residential and occupational history (so that more than onedomain of exposure can be analyzed). Residential information begins in 1950 and covers theentire country, while industrial source activity has been traced back to about 1960 for manysectors. Every area of the country has been included, in order that an individual exposed in one,two or more locations and collected in another location within the country can be assessed as totheir total lifetime exposure.



Bioassays are also a valuable tool for assessing the toxic e�ects of wastes within an environ-mental health assessment. The concept behind bioassays in environmental health assessment isthat e�ects are likely to appear in an individual organism before they appear at the population orcommunity levels. It should be noted that an individual organism's response varies according toboth the concentration and duration of the toxicant. Performing bioassays on key (valued)species, or at a number of trophic levels, provides valuable insight into a chemical's e�ect on theecosystem. Unfortunately, extrapolation of laboratory bioassay results which have little or novariability and are performed on standard organism(s), through the dynamic hierarchies ofbiological organization found within a natural ecosystem is often precarious.

Therefore community structure analysis (the environmental health equivalent to epidemio-logical studies) are also often carried out in an environmental health assessment. Indigenousbiological organisms are integrators of the prevailing and past chemical, physical and biologicalcondition of the ecosystem in which they reside. These organisms can re¯ect the dynamicinteraction of pollutant loading, toxicity and habitat quality. As a result, bioassays and com-munity structure analysis (biological indices) are two approaches used in tandem in environ-mental health assessment to obtain a measure of biological (ecosystem) degradation.

Once the risk assessment is complete, and if adequate data are available, a numerical value or anarrative statement of the risk is useful. If data limitations exist, they should be identi®ed for eachspeci®c hazard.

3.3. Development and analysis of options

Upon completion of the hazard identi®cation and risk estimation, alternative options orstrategies are developed and evaluated. It is at this step that project managers review variousregulatory requirements and non-regulatory solutions of an economic, advisory andtechnological nature. The combination of requirements and solutions which is the mostappropriate for any given project depends on a host of factors. The exception to such a balancingbeing when a zero-risk is the only permissible objective (as in the practice of protectingendangered species and their habitat, or not allowing compounds with carcinogenic potentialinto human food sources). The role of the project manager is to determine strategies which willresult in appropriate management of risks and bene®ts, so that any negative impacts on theenvironment, throughout the life-cycle of the project are minimized. In practice, projectmanagers must also take into account factors other than risks and bene®ts in their ®nal decision.

Consideration throughout the risk assessment/risk management process must always be givento public perception of risk, which does not always correspond to the risk as determined byobjective analysis. Measurement of the public's perception of risk can provide the projectmanager with an important tool to evaluate the signi®cance of the environmental risk and theproposals to mitigate this risk. A common failure in EAs is that of only involving the public afterthe decision has been made to proceed with a project. Project managers often delay going to thepublic until they feel that they have completed their background research and planning. Thisapproach, often referred to as the `DAD' (Decide, Announce and Defend) approach has oftenresulted in public outcry and delays in project implementation. Public interest often revolvesaround the scoping of issues associated with the project and the technical feasibility of carryingout the project in such a manner as to not result in signi®cant environmental/human healthe�ects. Therefore, the public must be actively involved in the risk assessment phase of a project(in particular with hazard identi®cation and in the development of alternative options).



Risk communication is essential in an e�ective EA. The project manager must facilitateinformation exchange between the scienti®c/technical experts and the general public. Concernsabout Global Warming, Ozone Depletion, Toxic Chemicals, etc. have heightened public anxietyabout the e�ectiveness of government to deal with and control risk. Also all segments of thepublic do not respond to risks in the same way. A recently conducted survey of Canadians(Decision Research, 1993) has shown that women, the elderly and people without post-secondaryeducation consistently reported greater concerns about a given list of health and environmentalrisks than did men, younger people and people with university education. Finally, the public doesnot perceive all risks in the same light. A number of risk characteristics which tend to increase ordecrease an individual's perception of a particular health or environmental risk have beendeveloped by Health Canada (HWC, 1990) and are given in Table 1.

Public participation in the EA (Figure 2), before any irrevocable decisions are made, ensuresthat the views of the general public are known and considered when important decisionsregarding the project are taken. An important aspect to e�ective public participation is the extentto which participants are able to exercise power in decision making (Whitmore and Kerans,1988). Participation and power must be part of the same process.

`The fundamental point [is] that participation without redistribution of power is anempty and frustrating process for the powerless' Arnstein (1969)

4. RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk management is the process of selecting and implementing a strategy for control of a risk,followed by monitoring and evaluation of the e�ectiveness of that strategy. In essence, thisapproach recognizes that risks are inherent in everything and that no physical work (project) canbe considered to be absolutely safe. The goal of the project manager is to take actions which willminimize the probabilities of the occurrence of adverse outcomes in those areas where risk isgreatest. These actions take many forms, but are increasingly moving away from blanketregulation, which imposes broad restrictions on development in an attempt to prohibit exposure

Table I. Factors in¯uencing risk perception. Modi®ed from HWC (1990)

Factors tending to increase risks as perceived Factors tending to reduce risks as perceived

Immediate Latent or delayedDirect IndirectDread hazards Common hazardsLarge number of fatalities per event Small number of fatalities per eventFatalities grouped in space and time Fatalities scattered or random in space/timeMechanisms or process not understood Mechanism or process understoodUncontrollable ControllableInvoluntary VoluntaryChildren at risk Children not at riskIdenti®able victims Statistical victimsLack of knowledge KnowledgeLack of belief in authority of source of information Belief in authority of source of informationMuch media attention Little media attentionUnfamiliar FamiliarMajor accident No major accident



to risk, to information campaigns which enable voluntary, informed decision making regardingrisks. As previously stated, unfortunately in environmental issues, those exposed to the risk areusually not the ones deriving the bene®ts. Before the project manager makes a decision on behalfof the population in general by approving or denying approval for the project, based on the risksand bene®ts outlined by the EA, the impacted public (stakeholders) must be informed andconsulted. Thus clearly there is a need for readily accessible, accurate and current information atthis decision point. And clearly, if the project manager is serious about managing risk with thegoal of promoting sustainable development, there is an obligation to make such informationavailable before any irrevocable decisions are taken.

In essence, those responsible for decision making under an environmental assessment processcannot and should not make unilateral decisions on behalf of individuals. The impactedindividuals have a right, and increasingly the desire and ability to participate in decision making.

4.1. Risk strategy

The most critical aspect of risk management is the choice of the risk management strategy to beused (HWC, 1990). Several options are available.

± A zero risk strategy is one in which no level of risk is deemed acceptable. As we do not livein a totally risk-free environment, this strategy is applicable only for special cases (such asprotection of habitat for endangered species).

Figure 2. Ladder of citizen participation, modi®ed from Arnstein (1969)



± A de minimis strategy is based on the idea that a minimum acceptable risk can be identi®edfor the hazard. Although conceptually attractive, problems in identifying a minimumthreshold which is acceptable to all sectors of society has proven di�cult.

± A risk analysis strategy is one where the risk associated with the hazard is compared to:± the risks of naturally occurring background levels (i.e. concentrations in a mine e�uent

versus background (naturally occurring) heavy metal concentrations); or± the risks associated with other unrelated hazards (i.e. risk of getting cancer from a toxic

chemical in the e�uent compared to the risk of driving one's car or being struck bylightning); or

± the risks associated with alternatives to the project (i.e. environmental risks of variousenergy forms ± nuclear vs coal vs hydroelectric).

± A risk mitigation strategy is based on the idea that technology (Best Available Technology,BAT) can reduce risk. However, strict application of this strategy can result in unreason-ably expensive abatement costs. The concepts of `Best Available Technology Practical(BATP)' and `As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)' reduce the chance ofdisproportionate expenditures inherent in BAT.

It should be noted that the risk strategies outlined above are not exhaustive nor are theymutually exclusive. Often more than one strategy is needed to communicate to the public anddecision-makers the e�ects of the project on human health and the health of the environment, themagnitude of the e�ects, and, what or how mitigation can be used to minimize any signi®cantnegative e�ects caused by the project.

Cost E�ectiveness Analysis, Cost/Bene®t Analysis and Risk/Bene®t Analysis are all techniquesdesigned to achieve the best combination of cost, bene®ts and risk, often as de®ned by theproponent of the project, as well as, interested stakeholders. Social values, assessed throughpublic participation meetings, must also be combined with estimates of cost, bene®ts and thescienti®cally determined estimates of risk.

4.2. Monitoring and evaluation

As prediction is a cornerstone of EA, monitoring and evaluation of predictions is an importantcomponent of risk assessment/risk management. Until recently, the project approval process inCanada was essentially complete at the completion of the screening form or Panel Review.Further action was only taken in the face of some unexpected event, such as a serious accident,or when a signi®cant adverse environment e�ect had been observed. We now recognize that thisapproach has signi®cant limitations and the CEAA requires project managers to consider theneed for further follow-up monitoring in all project approval decisions. The true nature, extent,and manageability of risks and bene®ts are often realized only after the construction componentof the project is complete and the operational phase, or decommissioning phase hascommenced. Development of the monitoring program must be accompanied by discussionswith a�ected parties, to improve understanding of the changes in the environment/health whichwill occur.

Thus, EA must be viewed as a continuous process through the entire life cycle of the project.One of the major advantages of carrying out an EA is that government departments, projectmanagers and the general public can learn from each other's experiences (both positive and



negative). Well de®ned, stated objectives for a follow-up monitoring program are of paramountimportance to the design and successful implementation of any project evaluation.

Though by no means de®nitive, the following objectives (Kwiatkowski, 1991) are common tomany monitoring programs associated with large projects:

± to provide information on the location, severity, areal or volumetric extent, frequency andduration of non-compliance of hazards or concerns;

± to provide information for measuring site speci®c or whole ecosystem responses toincreased anthropogenic inputs or control measures (using trend analyses or cause ande�ect relationships);

± to determine the presence of new or hitherto undetected problems (leading to proactive,rather than reactive pollution control measures);

± to provide information for development and application of predictive models for assessingthe impact of the project, singly or in combination with other projects, and assessingvarious mitigative strategies; and,

± to identify signi®cant changes from normal succession or expected sequential changeswhich occur naturally in either ecosystem health or the health of the human population.

4.3. Decision

The risk assessment/risk management information and the information on public concerns,outlined above, is then given to the project manager for a ®nal decision on whether the projectshould proceed, be modi®ed and reassessed, abandoned, or sent to public review. Which decisionto make is not always clear cut, many factors must be taken into account during the decision-making process, including the nature of the health/environmental problem and the likelihoodthat it will occur, uncertainties in risk estimation, health bene®ts, public perception of risk,economic impacts, social, political and cultural implication, and the technical feasibility of theoptions being considered.

However, the ®nal decision and the reasons for the decision, must be clearly articulated to thepublic that have participated in the EA. Issues that seem obvious to the project manager, or thescientists involved in the EA, might not be obvious to the impacted public. If an EA is perceivedto be incomplete or biased towards the interests of the project manager, it will not be trusted oraccepted by the public. The EA report should be a comprehensive and balanced summary of thescienti®c, public, economic and social concerns, and be available to all interested parties. Finally,the project manager must monitor and evaluate the impact of the decision made, in order todetermine its appropriateness. Constant review of decision impacts may lead to a reconsiderationof any step in the risk assessment/risk management process.

5. CONCLUSIONS

All economic activity depends on a healthy environment. In both material and environmentalterms, Canadians are enormously wealthy by comparison with much of the world (nine percentof the world's fresh water, ten percent of the world's forest resources, third-largest producer ofminerals, Environment Canada, 1990). Canada's environmental resource wealth has driven theevolution of its economy. One in every three working Canadians are employed in ®ve mainresource-based industries: agriculture, forestry, ®shing, mining and energy (Environment



Canada, 1990). Concerns within Canada over degradation of the environment have lead tostrengthened environmental assessment legislation in the form of the new Canadian Environ-mental Assessment Act.

As previously stated, it is clear that human health depends in a fundamental way on theenvironment as both a source of resources and a sink for wastes; but it is also true that environ-mental quality is more likely to be properly respected if the economy is healthy. Health,environment and the economy are inextricably linked. For many decades the primary concern fordeveloped and developing countries has been to develop natural resources by increasing pro-duction as rapidly as possible so that production growth has been practically the sole objective ofa wholly economic aim. Success has been measured in terms of percentage increase in the grossnational product and/or export earnings.

The risk assessment/risk management model proposed in this paper can help project managersto identify: the environmental/human health impacts (spatially and temporally) associated withtheir project; the signi®cance of the impacts; and mitigative strategies. If adopted and utilized, theproposed model provides a consistent framework to explain the basis on which decisions weremade. It should be noted that risk assessment/risk management should not become too rigid. Itspurpose is to summarize and communicate applicable science to meet the needs of projectmanagers. A task which, by its very nature, requires ¯exibility and creativity, not reliance onformulas or cookbook recipes (Cooper and North, 1993).

In some circles there is a belief that EA studies are largely pseudo-scienti®c, done solely toappease the general public. As the knowledge base on how to carry out sound environmentalassessments improves, all stakeholders in a project will realize the importance of EA in decision-making. As our experience in EA improves so should the interactions among resource experts,economists, policy experts and environmental, social and human health scientists. The ultimategoal of these interactions is to truly integrate economic, environment and health considerationsin decisions regarding projects, so as to ensure that the basic concepts of Sustainable Develop-ment are adhered to.

REFERENCES

Arnstein, S. (1969). À Ladder of Citizen Participation'. AIP Journal, 35, 216±224.Cooker, W. and North, D. W. (1993). `Risk Assessment and the Regulatory Process'. In Issues in RiskAssessment. Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology, National Research Council, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC. pp. 331±336.

Decision Research (1993). `Health Risk Perception in Canada'. Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa,Ontario, Canada, K1A 0L2.

Environment Canada (1990). À Framework for Discussion on the Environment'. Minister of Supply andService Canada 1990. ISBN 0-662-57411-7.

Health and Welfare Canada (1990). `Risk Management in the Health Protection Branch'. Health ProtectionBranch, Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0L2.

Health and Welfare Canada (1992). À Vital Link: Health and the Environment in Canada'. CanadaCommunication Group ± Publishing, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0S9. ISBN 0-660-14350-X.

Kwiatkowski, R. E. (1991). `Statistical Needs in National Water Quality Monitoring Programs'. Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment, 17, 253±271.

Mitchell, B. (1992). `The Development of an Information System for Canadian Environmental Statistics'.InDevelopment of Environmental Health Status Indicators, McColl, R. S. (ed.) Institute for Risk Research,University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, ISBN 0-9692870-9-7. pp. 37±51.



Turnbull, R. G. H. ed. (1992). `Environmental and Health Impact Assessment of Development Projects:A Handbook for Practitioners'. Elsevier Applied Science, London, England. ISBN 1851665978.pp. 131±158.

Whitmore, E. and Kerans, P. (1988). `Participation, Empowerment and Welfare'. Canadian Review of SocialPolicy. Issue 22, pp. 51±60.



the role of risk assessment and risk management in environmental assessment

Documents