IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i10p1889-1899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples

Author

Listed:
  • Terje Aven

Abstract

This article aims to demonstrate that risk science is important for society, industry and all of us. Rather few people today, including scientists and managers, are familiar with what this science is about—its foundation and main features—and how it is used to gain knowledge and improve communication and decision making in real‐life situations. The article seeks to meet this challenge, by presenting three examples, showing how risk science works to gain new generic, fundamental knowledge on risk concepts, principles, and methods, as well as supporting the practical tackling of actual risk problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:10:p:1889-1899
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13549
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13549?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. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    2. Per Sandin & Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson & Christina Rudén & André Juthe, 2002. "Five charges against the precautionary principle," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 287-299, October.
    3. Kumanan Wilson & Blair Leonard & Robert Wright & Ian Graham & John Moffet & Michael Pluscauskas & Michael Wilson, 2006. "Application of the Precautionary Principle by Senior Policy Officials: Results of a Canadian Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 981-988, August.
    4. Andrew Stirling, 1998. "Risk at a turning point?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 97-109, April.
    5. Jonathan B. Wiener & Michael D. Rogers, 2002. "Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 317-349, October.
    6. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    7. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    8. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    9. Charles Vlek, 2011. "Straightening Out the Grounds for Precaution: A Commentary and Some Suggestions About Terje Aven's “On Different Types of Uncertainties”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1534-1537, October.
    10. Louis Anthony Cox Jr. & Douglas A. Popken & Richard X. Sun, 2018. "Causal Analytics and Risk Analytics," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis, chapter 0, pages 3-95, Springer.
    11. E. Borgonovo & C. L. Smith, 2011. "A Study of Interactions in the Risk Assessment of Complex Engineering Systems: An Application to Space PSA," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1461-1476, December.
    12. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2016. "On the use of conservatism in risk assessments," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 33-38.
    14. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Martin Peterson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 595-601, June.
    17. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2006. "Measuring Uncertainty Importance: Investigation and Comparison of Alternative Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1349-1361, October.
    18. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    19. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    20. Martin Peterson, 2017. "Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2035-2038, November.
    21. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    22. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2039-2040, November.
    23. D. Warner North, 2011. "Uncertainties, Precaution, and Science: Focus on the State of Knowledge and How It May Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1526-1529, October.
    24. Shiyi Cao & Chen Yang & Yong Gan & Zuxun Lu, 2015. "The Health Effects of Passive Smoking: An Overview of Systematic Reviews Based on Observational Epidemiological Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.
    25. Louis Anthony Cox Jr. & Douglas A. Popken & Richard X. Sun, 2018. "Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-319-78242-3, September.
    26. Andrea Saltelli, 2002. "Sensitivity Analysis for Importance Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 579-590, June.
    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. Derbyshire, James & Morgan, Jamie, 2022. "Is seeking certainty in climate sensitivity measures counterproductive in the context of climate emergency? The case for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(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. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    8. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    10. Emanuele Borgonovo & William Castaings & Stefano Tarantola, 2011. "Moment Independent Importance Measures: New Results and Analytical Test Cases," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 404-428, March.
    11. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    12. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo & Curtis L. Smith, 2018. "On the Relationship between Safety and Decision Significance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1541-1558, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Pengfei Wei & Zhenzhou Lu & Jingwen Song, 2014. "Moment‐Independent Sensitivity Analysis Using Copula," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 210-222, February.
    15. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2008. "Epistemic Uncertainty in the Ranking and Categorization of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Model Elements: Issues and Findings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 983-1001, August.
    16. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    17. Torbjørn Bjerga & Terje Aven, 2016. "Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(5), pages 512-520, October.
    18. Barry Anderson & Emanuele Borgonovo & Marzio Galeotti & Roberto Roson, 2014. "Uncertainty in Climate Change Modeling: Can Global Sensitivity Analysis Be of Help?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 271-293, February.
    19. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2008. "Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output with Input Constraints: A Generalized Rationale for Local Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 667-680, June.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.

    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:40:y:2020:i:10:p:1889-1899. 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.