Integrated frameworks for assessing and managing health risks in the context of managed aquifer recharge with river water

Abstract

Integrated assessment and management of water resources for the supply of potable water is increasingly important in light of projected water scarcity in many parts of the world. This article develops frameworks for regional-level waterborne human health risk assessment of chemical and microbiological contamination to aid water management, incorporating economic aspects of health risks. Managed aquifer recharge with surface water from a river in Southern Finland is used as an illustrative case. With a starting point in watershed governance, stakeholder concerns, and value-at-risk concepts, we merge common methods for integrative health risk analysis of contaminants to describe risks and impacts dynamically and broadly. This involves structuring analyses along the risk chain: sources-releases-environmental transport and fate-exposures-health effects-socio-economic impacts-management responses. Risks attributed to contaminants are embedded in other risks, such as contaminants from other sources, and related to benefits from improved water quality. A set of models along this risk chain in the case is presented. Fundamental issues in the assessment are identified, including 1) framing of risks, scenarios, and choices; 2) interaction of models and empirical information; 3) time dimension; 4) distributions of risks and benefits; and 5) uncertainties about risks and controls. We find that all these combine objective and subjective aspects, and involve value judgments and policy choices. We conclude with proposals for overcoming conceptual and functional divides and lock-ins to improve modeling, assessment, and management of complex water supply schemes, especially by reflective solution-oriented interdisciplinary and multi-actor deliberation.

Human health in systemic adaptation to climate change: insights from flood risk management in a river basin

“…We frame risks broadly, to include benefits from risk prevention, reduction and compensation (cf. Penning-Rowsell et al 2010;Assmuth et al 2016). In applying these frameworks to links between floods and health in our case, we use case-relevant information on multiple scales.…”

“…The Kokemäenjoki river basin represents a system where procedures have been actively developed and are in place for flood control and for the overall governance of water resources with respect to hydrological, technical and broader environmental and socio-economic impacts (Verta and Triipponen 2011;Dubrovin et al 2017b), but where adaptation to climate change and related health risk issues have surfaced more recently (Assmuth et al 2016;Söderholm et al 2018). The river basin of Kokemäenjoki is the fourth largest in Finland, with a catchment of 27 000 km 2 and mean flow in the delta of 245 m s −1 .…”

Contamination risk of raw drinking water caused by PFOA sources along a river reach in south-western Finland

“…The flow model was parameterized to describe water flow in a river reach and three connected lakes in the Kokemäenjoki area as a part of project CONPAT (Assmuth et al, 2015;Perkola et al, 2015). The flow model was available from the project for this study and it was tested by Happonen (2015), where the model performance was assessed against measured river and lake water levels and river flows.…”

A risk assessment methodology to evaluate the risk failure of managed aquifer recharge in the Mediterranean Basin

“…Basic events that can lead to MAR failure were compiled based on a literature review of the problems encountered by different facilities around the world (Aiken and Kuniansky, 2002;Alazard et al, 2016;Assmuth et al, 2016;Bhusari et al, 2016;Chaoka et al, 2006;Flint and Ellett, 2005;Masetti et al, 2016;Murray and Ravenscroft, 2010;Petersen and Glotzbach, 2005;Schneider et al, 1987;Izbicki et al, 2006;Sultana and Ahmed, 2016;Tredoux et al, 2009;Tredoux and Cain, 2010;Tripathi, 2016). We revised 51 MAR facilities at 47 sites (some sites involved more than one facility) located in different countries and climatic conditions worldwide: Australia, Belgium, Botswana, China, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, and USA.…”

“…Although some approaches to evaluate the risk of a MAR system have been developed (Assmuth et al, 2016;Ayuso-Gabella et al, 2011;Dillon et al, 2016;Lee, 2016, 2017;Juntunen et al, 2017;Page et al, 2010;Toze et al, 2010), comprehensive studies that integrate both nontechnical and technical factors are absent (Nandha et al, 2015). In this study, we (i) precisely present an integrated PRA-FT that is applicable for a general MAR facility and (ii) apply it to six different MAR facilities that were part of the EU FP7 project MARSOL, located in five different Mediterranean countries: Portugal (1), Spain (2), Italy (1), Malta (1), and Israel (1).…”