Risk assessment method for the organization of environmental safety in the sphere of residential and industrial construction

Introduction. The risk assessment method for the justification of environmental safety in construction is considered. The development of this topic is dictated by the need for sustainable development of the construction sector, prevention of environmental pollution, and improvement of the quality of life of the population. Despite the fact that the legal system has accumulated a sufficient volume of documents regulating the goals and objectives of preventing the negative impact of economic activity on the environment, as well as increasing the environmental efficiency of companies, methods for assessing environmental risk in construction are poorly developed.

Materials and methods. The authors studied approaches for environmental risk assessment under conditions of uncertainty. The authors faced the task to find the optimal distribution of funds aimed at reducing the probability of occurrence of environmental risk, and funds for preventing possible environmental damage, as well as to analyze and compare methods for determining the amount of risk during the design and construction of facilities. The main goal was to conduct research on the formation of a complete algorithm and methodology for using risk scenarios to ensure environmental safety in construction. The object of the study was risk-oriented approaches to ensuring the environmental safety of construction projects. The subject was the application of risk assessment methods in the field of environmental safety. The concept of the need to use methods for reducing the environmental risk of construction projects is proposed.

Results. A new method is developed that combines quantitative assessment of environmental risk based on probability theory, semi-quantitative approach with risk matrices, and qualitative assessment based on the assessment of the probability of occurrence and the size of damage for each scenario. The developed method for assessing environmental risk can improve the efficiency of environmental safety management in the construction industry.

Conclusions. The significance of the scenario approach as one of the most effective methods for assessing environmental risk is emphasized, which allows taking into account possible scenarios of events and assess their consequences. It is necessary to develop a more accurate definition of environmental risk in construction when formulating environmental measures and assessing their compliance (it is possible to improve an analogue of the Japanese CASBEE ecological assessment system in construction).

1. Vinogradova N., Kravchenko D., Kurochkina V.V. Impact of construction activities on the environment of cities. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021; 937(4):042019. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042019

2. Yamagami M., Ikemori F., Nakashima H., Hisatsune K., Ueda K., Wakamatsu S. et al. Trends in PM2.5 concentration in Nagoya, Japan, from 2003 to 2018 and impacts of PM2.5 countermeasures. Atmosphere. 2021; 12(5):590. DOI: 10.3390/atmos12050590

3. Desouza C.D., Marsh D.J., Beevers S.D., Molden N., Green D.C. A spatial and fleet disaggregated approach to calculating the NOX emissions inventory for non-road mobile machinery in London. Atmospheric Environment: X. 2021; 12:100125. DOI: 10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100125

4. Kravtsova M., Vasilyev A., Nagaytseva M., Kravtsov A. Nomenclatural analysis of volumes of waste construction and dismantling. Izvestia of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2015; 17(4-4):810-816. EDN WTPZXZ. (rus.).

5. Kostyuchenko E. Norilsk Nickel is right now dumping toxic waste into Lake Pyasino. Special correspondents from Novaya and Greenpeace report from the scene. New newspaper dated of 28.06.2020.

6. Yakovenko D., Lyalikova A. “We are sick and dying”: What Norilsk Nickel achieved by spending tens of billions of rubles on the environment. Forbes dated of 04.08.2020. URL: https://www.forbes.ru/milliardery/405047-my-boleem-i-umiraem-chego-dobilsya-nornikel-potrativ-desyatki-milliardrov-rubley?ysclid=lq7q54qva3309658738

7. Kurochkina V.V. Formation of depressive areas in the area of quarries and mines on the example of the city of Bakal. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2023; 575:1-12. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21219-2_1

8. Ryzhanushkina Yu.A., Gabrin K.E. Environmentally oriented approach to management of innovative development of regional construction complex. Bulletin of SUSU. Series “Economics and Management”. 2018; 12(1):133-141. DOI: 10.14529/em180116. EDN YTMJPW. (rus.).

9. Shubina Ye.V., Zhuk P.M., Potapov A.D. Methods for assessing environmental risks in construction. Vestnik MGSU [Proceedings of Moscow State University of Civil Engineering]. 2009; 2:143-147. EDN KYKZKP. (rus.).

10. Smirnova O.P., Vavilova M.A. Methodological approaches to risk management in the implementation of an environmental management system at an industrial enterprise. Bulletin of the Academy of Knowledge. 2023; 1(54):409-415. EDN TPKIRS. (rus.).

11. Vernadskiy V.I. Biosphere and noosphere. Moscow, Iris-press, 2012. (rus.).

12. Meadows D.H., Randers J., Meadows D.L. Limits to Growth. The 30-Year Update. London, Earthscan, 2006.

13. Balsalobre-Lorente D., Nur T., Topaloglu E.E., Evcimen C. The dampening effect of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty in the linkage between economic complexity and environmental degradation in the G-20. Journal of Environmental Management. 2024; 351:119679. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119679

14. Smirnova E. Environmental risk analysis in construction under uncertainty. Reconstruction and Restoration of Architectural Heritage. 2020; 222-227. DOI: 10.1201/9781003129097-47

15. Nezhnikova E., Larionov A., Smirnova E. Ecological risk assessment to substantiate the efficiency of the economy and the organization of construction. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2021; 27(8):2069-2079. DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2021.1949262

16. Moazeni M., Ebrahimpour K., Mohammadi F., Heidari Z., Ebrahimi A. Human health risk assessment of Triclosan in water: Spatial analysis of a drinking water system. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2023; 195(10). DOI: 10.1007/s10661-023-11789-3

17. Nguyen H.D., Macchion L. Risk management in green building : а review of the current state of research and future directions. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022; 25(3):2136-2172. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02168-y

18. Smirnova E. The use of the Monte Carlo met-hod for predicting environmental risk in construction zones. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2020; 1614(1):012083. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1614/1/012083

19. Kalia A., Gill S. Corporate governance and risk management : а systematic review and synthesis for future research. Journal of Advances in Management Research. 2023; 20(3):409-461. DOI: 10.1108/JAMR-07-2022-0151

20. Jamalnia A., Gong Y., Govindan K., Bourlakis M., Mangla S.K. A decision support system for selection and risk management of sustainability governance approaches in multi-tier supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics. 2023; 264:108960. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108960

21. Wang X., Bouzembrak Y., Oude Lansink A.G.J.M., van der Fels-Klerx H.J. Weighted Bayesian network for the classification of unbalanced food safety data: Case study of risk-based monitoring of heavy metals. Risk Analysis. 2023; 43(12):2549-2561. DOI: 10.1111/risa.14120

22. Proto R., Recchia G., Dryhurst S., Freeman A.L.J. Do colored cells in risk matrices affect decision-making and risk perception? Insights from randomized controlled studies. Risk Analysis. 2023; 43(10):2114-2128. DOI: 10.1111/risa.14091

23. Smirnova E.E. Risk assessment in Russian and international safety and sustainable development standards. Modern Problems of Civil Protection. 2023; 1(46):57-71. EDN OFRJSZ. (rus.).

24. Telichenko V.I., Slesarev M.Yu. System of assessment of ecological safety of construction processes in the megalopolis: problem and solution. Ecology of Urban Areas. 2013; 1:13-17. EDN PZTSLL. (rus.).

25. Slesarev M., Kovrigin A., Kafanova J. Mathematical and mental modeling for ecological reconstruction of the environment of construction objects. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020; 869(6):062017. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/869/6/062017

26. Slesarev M. Modeling and formation of environmental safety management systems of construction technologies. E3S Web of Conferences. 2021; 258:09084. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202125809084

27. Smirnova E., Larionov A., Shkarovskiy A. Risk management model in ISO-standards as the implementation of environmental safety for housing construction. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska. 2023; 25:282-288. DOI: 10.54740/ros.2023.030

28. Larionov A., Nezhnikova E., Smirnova E. Risk assessment models to improve environmental safety in the field of the economy and organization of construction: A case study of Russia. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24):13539. DOI: 10.3390/su132413539

29. Zhang Z., Gong J., Plaza A., Yang J., Li J., Tao X. et al. Long-term assessment of ecological risk dynamics in Wuhan, China: Multi-perspective spatiotemporal variation analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2024; 105:107372. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107372

30. Aven T., Renn O. Risk Management and Governance. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0

31. Kaplan S., Garrick B.J. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis. 1981; 1(1):11-27. DOI: 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1981.TB01350.X

32. Smirnova E.E. Environmental standards for environmental quality management. St. Petersburg, SPbGASU, 2023. (rus.).

33. Moiseyenkova T.A., Khaskin V.V. Methodology for calculating the environmental technical intensity of a territory (to project 2.5.6.). Moscow, Russian Economic Academy named after G.V. Plekhanov, 1992. (rus.).

34. Telichenko V.I., Lapidus A.A., Slesarev M.Yu. Analysis and synthesis of images of environmentally oriented innovative technologies of construction production. Vestnik MGSU [Monthly Journal on Construction and Architecture]. 2023; 18(8):1298-1305. DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2023.8.1298-1305. EDN RNDOCL. (rus.).

35. Reymers N.F. Nature Management: Dictionary-reference Book. Moscow, Mysl, 1990; 637. (rus.).

36. Nikulina N.L. Problems of the estimation of ecological safety of region. Economy of Regions. 2008; S4:62-67. EDN JWVWPZ. (rus.).