## 7 Discussion  
It has been demonstrated that increased Arctic shipping activity poses potential risk to life and environmental safety. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that Arctic shipping brings positive economic impacts to Arctic communities and nations [8]. A balance must be sought between the mitigation of risk and the realization of benefits [9]. The proposed framework does not aim to apply restrictions that are so stringent that the benefits of Arctic shipping cannot be realized. Under normal circumstances when vessels are transiting areas that do not have protected status and have normal ecological conditions (e.g., no sensitivities) then no changes in operating limits are required. If an area has been identified as having higher sensitivities or the vessel is carrying a large amount of potential contaminant or a large POB, adjustments to operating limits or deviation of route may be required. The current methodology for assessing the operational limits of a vessel in ice (i.e., POLARIS) accounts only for the likelihood of ice damage. The risk assessment framework proposed here links with the current POLARIS methodology and provides operational guidance considering life-safety, environmental, and socio-economic consequences that can result from ice damage. Such an approach promotes Arctic marine safety and the protection of the Arctic environment and its stakeholders. The proposed framework provides a methodology to incorporate varying risk perspectives into an operational decision support tool. It provides an avenue to capture risk profiles for different vessels, input from local communities and stakeholders, input from marine environmental impact assessments, and input from other marine risk assessments. There are existing geographic information system (GIS)-based technologies that could support the calculation and communication of this information on the bridge of a ship, such as the Canadian Arctic Shipping Risk Indexing System (CASRAS), an e-navigation tool combining information on historic ice conditions, marine protected areas, community services, and mariner knowledge [40]. Marine operations, particularly in the Polar regions, are complex socio-technical systems. Risk management should take a holistic, multidisciplinary approach. To move towards a more holistic assessment of risk, stakeholder engagement is necessary to establish the range of risk perspectives from those affected by and involved in Arctic shipping. The severity of consequences resulting from an accident in the Arctic will depend, in part, on availability and capacity of emergency response resources. Methods for incorporating system thinking is an area requiring future research. There are ice class design attributes that contribute to mitigating life-safety and environmental risk (e.g., double hull oil tankers) and not all ice damage results in EER or an oil spill. These factors require consideration in the determination of a vessel's operational exposure level. This framework provides a potential avenue for linking diverse research across a range of fields including engineering, as well as biological, physical, and social sciences, as demonstrated in the benchmark case study. A multidisciplinary approach can help inform decision making at operational and regulatory levels. It is important to note that the specific values and levels of granularity proposed here for the various risk indices are starting points for discussion, to be debated and subjected to robust calibration exercises. This will require input from ongoing scientific research across multiple disciplines. Next steps include further investigation of the proposed life-safety and consequence categories and operational exposure levels, as well as calibration of RIV adjustment factors. The efficacy of operational risk mitigation strategies requires further research and validation. Empirical data should be collected to strengthen the knowledge underlying the calibration of the proposed framework.