IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v13y2010i3p337-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NUSAP: a method to evaluate the quality of assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Ides Boone
  • Yves Van der Stede
  • Jeroen Dewulf
  • Winy Messens
  • Marc Aerts
  • Georges Daube
  • Koen Mintiens

Abstract

The Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP) system was implemented to evaluate assumptions in a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) model for Salmonella spp. in minced pork meat. This QMRA model allows the testing of mitigation strategies for the reduction of human salmonellosis and aims to serve as a basis for science-based policy making. The NUSAP method was used to assess the subjective component of assumptions in the QMRA model by a set of four pedigree criteria: 'the influence of situational limitations', 'plausibility', 'choice space' and 'the agreement among peers'. After identifying 13 key assumptions relevant for the QMRA model, a workshop was organized to assess the importance of these assumptions on the output of the QMRA. The quality of the assumptions was visualized using diagnostic and kite diagrams. The diagnostic diagram pinpointed assumptions with a high degree of subjectivity and a high 'expected influence on the model results' score. Examples of those assumptions that should be dealt with care are the assumptions regarding the concentration of Salmonella on the pig carcass at the beginning of the slaughter process and the assumptions related to the Salmonella prevalence in the slaughter process. The kite diagrams allowed a clear overview of the pedigree scores for each assumption as well as a representation of expert (dis)agreement. The evaluation of the assumptions using the NUSAP system enhanced the debate on the uncertainty and its communication in the results of a QMRA model. It highlighted the model's strong and weak points and was helpful for redesigning critical modules. Since the evaluation of assumptions allows a more critical approach of the QMRA process, it is useful for policy makers as it aims to increase the transparency and acceptance of management decisions based on a QMRA model.

Suggested Citation

  • Ides Boone & Yves Van der Stede & Jeroen Dewulf & Winy Messens & Marc Aerts & Georges Daube & Koen Mintiens, 2010. "NUSAP: a method to evaluate the quality of assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 337-352, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:3:p:337-352
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870903564574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870903564574
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870903564574?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeroen P. Van Der Sluijs & Matthieu Craye & Silvio Funtowicz & Penny Kloprogge & Jerry Ravetz & James Risbey, 2005. "Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 481-492, April.
    2. Ides Boone & Yves Van der Stede & Kaatje Bollaerts & David Vose & Dominiek Maes & Jeroen Dewulf & Winy Messens & Georges Daube & Marc Aerts & Koen Mintiens, 2009. "NUSAP Method for Evaluating the Data Quality in a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Model for Salmonella in the Pork Production Chain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 502-517, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Stelzenmüller, Vanessa & Vega Fernández, Tomás & Cronin, Katherine & Röckmann, Christine & Pantazi, Maria & Vanaverbeke, Jan & Stamford, Tammy & Hostens, Kris & Pecceu, Ellen & Degraer, Steven & Buhl-, 2015. "Assessing uncertainty associated with the monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 151-162.
    3. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    4. Xavier Romão & Esmeralda Paupério, 2016. "A framework to assess quality and uncertainty in disaster loss data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(2), pages 1077-1102, September.
    5. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    6. Martijn Bouwknegt & Anne B. Knol & Jeroen P. van der Sluijs & Eric G. Evers, 2014. "Uncertainty of Population Risk Estimates for Pathogens Based on QMRA or Epidemiology: A Case Study of Campylobacter in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 847-864, May.
    7. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2016. "Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-194.
    8. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Aven, Terje, 2019. "Risk aggregation: What does it really mean?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kaatje Bollaerts & Winy Messens & Marc Aerts & Jeroen Dewulf & Dominiek Maes & Koen Grijspeerdt & Yves Van der Stede, 2010. "Evaluation of Scenarios for Reducing Human Salmonellosis Through Household Consumption of Fresh Minced Pork Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 853-865, May.
    2. Gregory Hill & Steven Kolmes & Michael Humphreys & Rebecca McLain & Eric T. Jones, 2019. "Using decision support tools in multistakeholder environmental planning: restorative justice and subbasin planning in the Columbia River Basin," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(2), pages 170-186, June.
    3. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    4. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    5. Martijn Bouwknegt & Anne B. Knol & Jeroen P. van der Sluijs & Eric G. Evers, 2014. "Uncertainty of Population Risk Estimates for Pathogens Based on QMRA or Epidemiology: A Case Study of Campylobacter in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 847-864, May.
    6. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    7. Andrea Saltelli & Monica Fiore, 2020. "From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    8. Samuele Lo Piano & Lorenzo Benini, 2022. "A critical perspective on uncertainty appraisal and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 763-781, June.
    9. Kaatje Els Bollaerts & Winy Messens & Laurent Delhalle & Marc Aerts & Yves Van der Stede & Jeroen Dewulf & Sophie Quoilin & Dominiek Maes & Koen Mintiens & Koen Grijspeerdt, 2009. "Development of a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment for Human Salmonellosis Through Household Consumption of Fresh Minced Pork Meat in Belgium," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 820-840, June.
    10. Clive L Spash & Heinz Schandl, 2009. "Growth, the Environment and Keynes: Reflections on Two Heterodox Schools of Thought," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-01, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    11. Daniel Scamman & Baltazar Solano-Rodríguez & Steve Pye & Lai Fong Chiu & Andrew Z. P. Smith & Tiziano Gallo Cassarino & Mark Barrett & Robert Lowe, 2020. "Heat Decarbonisation Modelling Approaches in the UK: An Energy System Architecture Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    12. Samuele Lo Piano, 2020. "Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: cases from the field and possible ways forward," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, December.
    13. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "A New Framework To Idenitfy And Assess Hidden Assumptions In The Background Knowledge Of A Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    14. Anthony G. Patt & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 219-232, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:3:p:337-352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.