Using Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) to Assess and Manage Environmental Risks of Pipelines in GIS Environment: A Case Study ofa Near Coastline and Fragile Ecosystem Located Pipeline
Having a very many number of pipelines all over the
country, Iran is one of the countries consists of various ecosystems
with variable degrees of fragility and robusticity as well as
geographical conditions. This study presents a state-of-the-art method
to estimate environmental risks of pipelines by recommending
rational equations including FES, URAS, SRS, RRS, DRS, LURS
and IRS as well as FRS to calculate the risks. This study was carried
out by a relative semi-quantitative approach based on land uses and
HVAs (High-Value Areas). GIS as a tool was used to create proper
maps regarding the environmental risks, land uses and distances. The
main logic for using the formulas was the distance-based approaches
and ESI as well as intersections. Summarizing the results of the
study, a risk geographical map based on the ESIs and final risk score
(FRS) was created. The study results showed that the most sensitive
and so of high risk area would be an area comprising of mangrove
forests located in the pipeline neighborhood. Also, salty lands were
the most robust land use units in the case of pipeline failure
circumstances. Besides, using a state-of-the-art method, it showed
that mapping the risks of pipelines out with the applied method is of
more reliability and convenience as well as relative
comprehensiveness in comparison to present non-holistic methods for
assessing the environmental risks of pipelines. The focus of the
present study is “assessment" than that of “management". It is
suggested that new policies are to be implemented to reduce the
negative effects of the pipeline that has not yet been constructed
completely
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents.
[2] 1. Anonymous. Pollution Probe, Clean Air, Clean Water,
Environmental Risk Assessment, Environmental Concepts and Tools.
Five Winds International. 2004. Page 1. Available online at:
http://www.fivewinds.com/uploadedfiles_shared/EnvironmentalRiskAss
essment040127.pdf. (Last accessed Jan. 2010).
[3] Schiller Helmut, Carlo Van Bernem, Hansjörg L. Krasemann.
Automated Classification Of An Environmental Sensitivity Index.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 110: 291-299. 2005. DOI:
10.1007/s10661-005-8041-8
[4] Mok Kang Sang. A sensitivity analysis of the Korean composite
environmental index. Ecological Economics 43: 159-174. 2002.
[5] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response
and Restoration. Anonymous Report on Environmental Sensitivity
Index. 2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
[6] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response
and Restoration. Environmental Sensitivity Index Mapping. October
2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
[7] Muhlbauer, W. Kent. Pipeline Risk Management Manual: Ideas,
Techniques, and Resources. 422pp. Burlington: Elsevier Inc. 2004.
[8] Stansbeny, R. R. Usually Sensitive Areas: A Definition for Pipeline
Operators. Presented at API Pipeline Conference, Environmental
Session, Dallas, TX, 1995.
[9] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Guidance for Facility and
Vessel Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments.
59(60). March 29, 1994.
[10] Morgan, B. The Importance of Realistic Representation of Design
Features in the Risk Assessment of High- Pressure Gas Pipelines.
Presented at Pipeline Reliability Conference, Houston, TX, September,
1995.
[11] Hadid M., H. Afra. Sensitivity analysis of site effects on response
spectra of Pipelines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 20:
249-260. 2000.
[12] Brazier, A.M. & R.L. Greenwood. Geographic information systems: a
consistent approach to land use planning decisions around hazardous
installations. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 61: 355-361. 1998.
[13] A. Belluck David and L. Benjamin Sally (Eds.). A Practical Guide to
Understanding, Managing, and Reviewing Environmental Risk
Assessment Reports. Florida: Lewis Publishers. 2001.
[14] Ramesh Babu J., Subramanian R. Chetan Birajdar. Risk associated with
cross country Natural Gas pipeline- IORS. 2009.
http://www.cholarisk.com/
[15] Huges, D., Assessing the Future: Water Utility Infrastructure
Management, American Water Works Association, Chap. 13. 2002.
[16] King, K.F.S. Agroforestry And The Utilisation Of Fragile Ecosystems.
Forest Ecology and Management, 2: 161-168. 1979.
[17] Francis, Andrew, Alan Edwards, Richard Espinera, Jane Haswell, Mike
Bilo, David Carter. Weighted expectation: a new risk-based method for
assessing land use development proposals in the vicinity of major
hazards. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 12: 379-
390. 1999.
[18] Nansingh Permanand & Shari Jurawan. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin, Environmental Sensitivity of a Tropical Coastline (Trinidad,
West Indies) to Oil Spills. 5(2): 161-172.1999.
[19] Wieczorek Arthur, Dimas Dias-Brito, Joao CarlosMapping oil spill
environmental sensitivity in Cardoso Island State Park and surroundings
areas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 872-886.
2007.
[20] M. Rey Benayas Jose, Enrique de la Monta├▒a. Identifying areas of highvalue
vertebrate diversity for strengthening conservation. Biological
Conservation 114: 357-370. 2003.
[21] Datta. T.K. Seismic response of buried pipelines: a state-of-the-art
review. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 192: 271-284. 1999.
[22] Svoray Tal, Pua Bar (Kutiel), Tsafra Bannet .Urban land-use allocation
in a Mediterranean ecotone: Habitat Heterogeneity Model incorporated
in a GIS using a multi-criteria mechanism. Landscape and Urban
Planning 72: 337-351. 2005.
[23] Fontaine F., B. Debray, O. Salvi.; I. Linkov Et Al. (Eds.). Managing
Critical Infrastructure Risks. Chapter 4: Protection Of Hazardous
Installations And Critical Infrastructures - Complementarity Of Safety
And Security Approaches, Application Of The Aramis Methodology.
65-78. Springer. 2007.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents.
[2] 1. Anonymous. Pollution Probe, Clean Air, Clean Water,
Environmental Risk Assessment, Environmental Concepts and Tools.
Five Winds International. 2004. Page 1. Available online at:
http://www.fivewinds.com/uploadedfiles_shared/EnvironmentalRiskAss
essment040127.pdf. (Last accessed Jan. 2010).
[3] Schiller Helmut, Carlo Van Bernem, Hansjörg L. Krasemann.
Automated Classification Of An Environmental Sensitivity Index.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 110: 291-299. 2005. DOI:
10.1007/s10661-005-8041-8
[4] Mok Kang Sang. A sensitivity analysis of the Korean composite
environmental index. Ecological Economics 43: 159-174. 2002.
[5] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response
and Restoration. Anonymous Report on Environmental Sensitivity
Index. 2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
[6] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA-s National Ocean Service) Office of Response
and Restoration. Environmental Sensitivity Index Mapping. October
2008: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
[7] Muhlbauer, W. Kent. Pipeline Risk Management Manual: Ideas,
Techniques, and Resources. 422pp. Burlington: Elsevier Inc. 2004.
[8] Stansbeny, R. R. Usually Sensitive Areas: A Definition for Pipeline
Operators. Presented at API Pipeline Conference, Environmental
Session, Dallas, TX, 1995.
[9] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Guidance for Facility and
Vessel Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments.
59(60). March 29, 1994.
[10] Morgan, B. The Importance of Realistic Representation of Design
Features in the Risk Assessment of High- Pressure Gas Pipelines.
Presented at Pipeline Reliability Conference, Houston, TX, September,
1995.
[11] Hadid M., H. Afra. Sensitivity analysis of site effects on response
spectra of Pipelines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 20:
249-260. 2000.
[12] Brazier, A.M. & R.L. Greenwood. Geographic information systems: a
consistent approach to land use planning decisions around hazardous
installations. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 61: 355-361. 1998.
[13] A. Belluck David and L. Benjamin Sally (Eds.). A Practical Guide to
Understanding, Managing, and Reviewing Environmental Risk
Assessment Reports. Florida: Lewis Publishers. 2001.
[14] Ramesh Babu J., Subramanian R. Chetan Birajdar. Risk associated with
cross country Natural Gas pipeline- IORS. 2009.
http://www.cholarisk.com/
[15] Huges, D., Assessing the Future: Water Utility Infrastructure
Management, American Water Works Association, Chap. 13. 2002.
[16] King, K.F.S. Agroforestry And The Utilisation Of Fragile Ecosystems.
Forest Ecology and Management, 2: 161-168. 1979.
[17] Francis, Andrew, Alan Edwards, Richard Espinera, Jane Haswell, Mike
Bilo, David Carter. Weighted expectation: a new risk-based method for
assessing land use development proposals in the vicinity of major
hazards. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 12: 379-
390. 1999.
[18] Nansingh Permanand & Shari Jurawan. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin, Environmental Sensitivity of a Tropical Coastline (Trinidad,
West Indies) to Oil Spills. 5(2): 161-172.1999.
[19] Wieczorek Arthur, Dimas Dias-Brito, Joao CarlosMapping oil spill
environmental sensitivity in Cardoso Island State Park and surroundings
areas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 872-886.
2007.
[20] M. Rey Benayas Jose, Enrique de la Monta├▒a. Identifying areas of highvalue
vertebrate diversity for strengthening conservation. Biological
Conservation 114: 357-370. 2003.
[21] Datta. T.K. Seismic response of buried pipelines: a state-of-the-art
review. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 192: 271-284. 1999.
[22] Svoray Tal, Pua Bar (Kutiel), Tsafra Bannet .Urban land-use allocation
in a Mediterranean ecotone: Habitat Heterogeneity Model incorporated
in a GIS using a multi-criteria mechanism. Landscape and Urban
Planning 72: 337-351. 2005.
[23] Fontaine F., B. Debray, O. Salvi.; I. Linkov Et Al. (Eds.). Managing
Critical Infrastructure Risks. Chapter 4: Protection Of Hazardous
Installations And Critical Infrastructures - Complementarity Of Safety
And Security Approaches, Application Of The Aramis Methodology.
65-78. Springer. 2007.
@article{"International Journal of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences:51319", author = "Jahangir Jafari and Nematollah Khorasani and Afshin Danehkar", title = "Using Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) to Assess and Manage Environmental Risks of Pipelines in GIS Environment: A Case Study ofa Near Coastline and Fragile Ecosystem Located Pipeline", abstract = "Having a very many number of pipelines all over the
country, Iran is one of the countries consists of various ecosystems
with variable degrees of fragility and robusticity as well as
geographical conditions. This study presents a state-of-the-art method
to estimate environmental risks of pipelines by recommending
rational equations including FES, URAS, SRS, RRS, DRS, LURS
and IRS as well as FRS to calculate the risks. This study was carried
out by a relative semi-quantitative approach based on land uses and
HVAs (High-Value Areas). GIS as a tool was used to create proper
maps regarding the environmental risks, land uses and distances. The
main logic for using the formulas was the distance-based approaches
and ESI as well as intersections. Summarizing the results of the
study, a risk geographical map based on the ESIs and final risk score
(FRS) was created. The study results showed that the most sensitive
and so of high risk area would be an area comprising of mangrove
forests located in the pipeline neighborhood. Also, salty lands were
the most robust land use units in the case of pipeline failure
circumstances. Besides, using a state-of-the-art method, it showed
that mapping the risks of pipelines out with the applied method is of
more reliability and convenience as well as relative
comprehensiveness in comparison to present non-holistic methods for
assessing the environmental risks of pipelines. The focus of the
present study is “assessment" than that of “management". It is
suggested that new policies are to be implemented to reduce the
negative effects of the pipeline that has not yet been constructed
completely", keywords = "ERM, ESI, ERA, Pipeline, Assalouyeh", volume = "4", number = "8", pages = "322-10", }
