IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i7p1164-1172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Author

Listed:
  • Terje Aven
  • Enrico Zio

Abstract

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Terje Aven & Enrico Zio, 2014. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1164-1172, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:7:p:1164-1172
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12132
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12132?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerald G. Brown & Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2011. "How Probabilistic Risk Assessment Can Mislead Terrorism Risk Analysts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 196-204, February.
    2. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    3. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    4. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, March.
    5. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2012. "Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1607-1629, October.
    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. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Thai, Vinh V., 2021. "An Operational Risk Analysis Model for Container Shipping Systems considering Uncertainty Quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    2. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    3. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    4. Hoseyni, Seyed Mojtaba & Di Maio, Francesco & Zio, Enrico, 2019. "Condition-based probabilistic safety assessment for maintenance decision making regarding a nuclear power plant steam generator undergoing multiple degradation mechanisms," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Hund, Lauren & Schroeder, Benjamin, 2020. "A causal perspective on reliability assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Mohammad Yazdi, 2019. "A review paper to examine the validity of Bayesian network to build rational consensus in subjective probabilistic failure analysis," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Afraz, Muhammad Fawad & Bhatti, Sabeen Hussain & Ferraris, Alberto & Couturier, Jerome, 2021. "The impact of supply chain innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Svana Helen Björnsdottir & Pall Jensson & Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson & Ioannis M. Dokas & Robert J. de Boer, 2022. "Benchmarking ISO Risk Management Systems to Assess Efficacy and Help Identify Hidden Organizational Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-33, April.
    9. Bożena Babiarz, 2018. "Aspects of Heat Supply Security Management Using Elements of Decision Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    11. P. Pablo Poveda-Orjuela & J. Carlos García-Díaz & Alexander Pulido-Rojano & Germán Cañón-Zabala, 2020. "Parameterization, Analysis, and Risk Management in a Comprehensive Management System with Emphasis on Energy and Performance (ISO 50001: 2018)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-43, October.
    12. Catherine Mei Ling Wong, 2015. "The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 1969-1982, November.
    13. Jonas Steel & Lode Godderis & Jeroen Luyten, 2018. "Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    14. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    15. Tine Bizjak & Marco Capodiferro & Deepika Deepika & Öykü Dinçkol & Vazha Dzhedzheia & Lorena Lopez-Suarez & Ioannis Petridis & Agneta A. Runkel & Dayna R. Schultz & Branko Kontić, 2022. "Human Biomonitoring Data in Health Risk Assessments Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals between 2016 and 2021: Confronting Reality after a Preliminary Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-18, March.
    16. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    17. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    18. Nikolaos Argyris & Valentina Ferretti & Simon French & Seth Guikema & Gilberto Montibeller, 2019. "Advances in Spatial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 1-8, January.
    19. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    20. Martínez-Galán Fernández, Pablo & Guillén López, Antonio J. & Márquez, Adolfo Crespo & Gomez Fernández, Juan Fco. & Marcos, Jose Antonio, 2022. "Dynamic Risk Assessment for CBM-based adaptation of maintenance planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    21. Tine Bizjak & Davor Kontić & Branko Kontić, 2022. "Practical Opportunities to Improve the Impact of Health Risk Assessment on Environmental and Public Health Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    22. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.

    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. Terje Aven, 2013. "On How to Deal with Deep Uncertainties in a Risk Assessment and Management Context," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2082-2091, December.
    2. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    3. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    4. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    5. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.
    6. Jaume Belles‐Sampera & Montserrat Guillén & Miguel Santolino, 2014. "Beyond Value‐at‐Risk: GlueVaR Distortion Risk Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 121-134, January.
    7. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    8. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo, 2017. "Deciding with Thresholds: Importance Measures and Value of Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1828-1848, October.
    9. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    10. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    11. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    12. Chai, Naijie & Zhou, Wenliang & Hu, Xinlei, 2022. "Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation considering uncertainty and risk preference: A case study in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-288.
    13. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    14. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    15. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Wentao Hu & Cuixia Chen & Yufeng Shi & Ze Chen, 2022. "A Tail Measure With Variable Risk Tolerance: Application in Dynamic Portfolio Insurance Strategy," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 831-874, June.
    17. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    18. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    19. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    20. Li, Yapeng & Qiao, Shun & Deng, Ye & Wu, Jun, 2019. "Stackelberg game in critical infrastructures from a network science perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 705-714.

    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:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:7:p:1164-1172. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.