A holistic framework for conceptualising and describing risk

• Autorzy: Aven T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A number of definitions and interpretations of the risk concept exist. Many of these are probability-based. In this paper we present and discuss a structure for characterising the definitions, which is founded on a clear distinction between (a) risk as a concept based on events, consequences and uncertainties; (b) risk as a modelled, quantitative concept; and (c) risk descriptions. The discussion leads to a holistic framework for conceptualising and assessing risk, which is based on risk defined by (a), and the probability-based definitions of risk can be viewed as related model parameters and/or risk descriptions. Two ways of detailing the framework are outlined: the relative frequency-based approach and the Bayesian approach. The Framework provides clear guidance on how to think when conceptualising and assessing risk in practice. Such guidance is strongly needed for the risk analysis discipline which is young and characterised by many different risk perspectives and approaches.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

risk; probability; models; Bayesian approach

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Bezpieczeństwa i Niezawodności
• Czasopismo: Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: Vol. 1, No. 1
• Strony: 7--14
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Aven T.

• University of Stavanger, Norway

Bibliografia

• [1] Aven, T. (2003). Foundations of Risk Analysis. Wiley, NJ.
• [2] Aven, T. (2007). A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis and management covering both safety and security. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92, 745-754.
• [3] Aven, T. (2008). Risk Analysis. Wiley, NJ.
• [4] Aven, T. (2009). Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context – Review and discussion. Safety Science, 47, 798-806.
• [5] Aven, T. (2009). Safety is the antonym of risk for some perspectives of risk. Safety Science, 7, 925-930.
• [6] Aven, T. & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 1-11.
• [7] Aven, T. & Renn, O. (2009). The role of quantitative risk assessments for characterizing risk and uncertainty and delineating appropriate risk management options, with special emphasis on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis. 29, 587-600.
• [8] Aven, T. & Vinnem, J.E. (2007). Risk Management, with Applications from the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Springer Verlag. N.Y.
• [9] Bergman, B. (2009). Conceptualistic pragmatism:a framework for Bayesian analysis? IIE Transactions, 41 86-93.
• [10] Cabinet Office (2002). Risk: improving government’s capability to handle risk and uncertainty. Strategy unit report. UK.
• [11] Campbell, S. (2005). Determining overall risk. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 569-581.
• [12] Haimes, Y. Y. (1998). Risk Modelling, Assessment, and Management. Wiley, NY.
• [13] ISO (2002). Risk management vocabulary. ISO/IEC Guide 73.
• [14] ISO (2009). Guide 73:2009 Risk management — Vocabulary.
• [15] Kaplan, S. (1997). Words of risk. Risk Analysis, 17, 407-417.
• [16] Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11-27.
• [17] Lindley, D. (2006). Understanding Uncertainty, Wiley, NJ.
• [18] Lowrance, W. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk – Science and the Determination of Safety. William Kaufmann Inc., Los Altos, CA.
• [19] Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1996). Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54 (2-3), 95-111.
• [20] Reid, S. G. (1992). Acceptable risk. In: D. I. Blockley (ed.): Engineering Safety, McGraw-Hill, New York, 138-166.
• [21] Renn, O. (2005). Risk Governance. White paper no. 1, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.
• [22] Rosa, E. A. (1998). Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-Normal Risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 15-44.
• [23] Rosa, E. A. (2003). The Logical Structure of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF); Metatheoretical Foundations and Policy Implications. In: N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds.): The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 47-79.
• [24] Singpurwalla, N. (2006). Reliability and Risk. A Bayesian Perspective. Wiley, NJ.
• [25] Stirling, A. (2007). Science, Precaution and Risk Assessment: towards more measured and constructive policy debate. European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports, 8, 309-315.
• [26] Verma, M. & Verter, V. (2007). Railroad transportation of dangerous goods: Population exposure to airborne toxins. Computers & Operations Research, 34, 1287-1303.
• [27] Willis, H. H. (2007). Guiding resource allocationsbased on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 27 (3), 597-606.