4.7 Article

Quantitative ecological risk assessment of oil spills: The case of the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 189, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114791

Keywords

Quantitative risk assessment; Ecological modeling; Maritime accidents; Oil spill modeling; Bayesian variability analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The increasing maritime oil transport poses a higher risk of oil spills, which can cause significant damage to the marine environment. Therefore, it is necessary to quantitatively assess and communicate these risks. In this research, we enhance a previous assessment by using oil spill simulations and estimating the frequency of accidents through Bayesian-based methods. We quantify ecological risks in terms of probabilities of half loss of a representative species and provide reliable information for decision-makers to address these events.
The upward trend in maritime oil transport increases the risk of oil spills, which have the potential to cause considerable damage to the marine environment. Therefore, a formal approach to quantify such risks is required. In mid-2010, a conservative Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment based on population modeling, was performed in the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago. In this research, we enhance a previous assessment using the following models: (i) a Lagrangian approach to perform oil spill simulations, and (ii) the estimated frequency of accidents aggregating databases and expert opinions through a Bayesian-based method. Then, we quantify ecological risks as probabilities of half loss (i.e., 50 % population size decline) of a representative species of the archipelago's ecosystem. The results are summarized into risk categories to be straightforwardly communicated to the general public and provide reliable information that can aid decision-makers in coping with these events.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available