IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i11p2399-2412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen

Abstract

Reliability and higher levels of safety are thought to be achieved by using systematic approaches to managing risks. The assessment of risks has produced a range of different approaches to assessing these uncertainties, presenting models for how risks affect individuals or organizations. Contemporary risk assessment tools based on this approach have proven difficult for practitioners to use as tools for tactical and operational decision making. This article presents an alternative to these assessments by utilizing a resilience perspective, arguing that complex systems are inclined to variety and uncertainty regarding the results they produce and are therefore prone to systemic failures. A continuous improvement approach is a source of reliability when managing complex systems and is necessary to manage varieties and uncertainties. For an organization to understand how risk events occur, it is necessary to define what is believed to be the equilibrium of the system in time and space. By applying a resilience engineering (RE) perspective to risk assessment, it is possible to manage this complexity by assessing the ability to respond, monitor, learn, and anticipate risks, and in so doing to move away from the flawed frequency and consequences approach. Using a research station network in the Arctic as an example illustrates how an RE approach qualifies assessments by bridging risk assessments with value‐creation processes. The article concludes by arguing that a resilience‐based risk assessment can improve on current practice, including for organizations located outside the Arctic region.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2020. "A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2399-2412, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:11:p:2399-2412
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13535
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13535?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. Igor Linkov & Cate Fox‐Lent & Laura Read & Craig R. Allen & James C. Arnott & Emanuele Bellini & Jon Coaffee & Marie‐Valentine Florin & Kirk Hatfield & Iain Hyde & William Hynes & Aleksandar Jovanovic, 2018. "Tiered Approach to Resilience Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1772-1780, September.
    2. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Louis Anthony Cox, 2014. "Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1228-1239, July.
    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, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    5. Richard Stoffle & Jessica Minnis, 2008. "Resilience at risk: epistemological and social construction barriers to risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1-2), pages 55-68, January.
    6. Woods, David D., 2015. "Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 5-9.
    7. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    2. Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.
    3. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje, 2015. "Adaptive risk management using new risk perspectives – an example from the oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 75-82.
    4. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    5. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    9. Steen, Riana & Ferreira, Pedro, 2020. "Resilient flood-risk management at the municipal level through the lens of the Functional Resonance Analysis Model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    10. Shuai Lin & Limin Jia & Hengrun Zhang & Yanhui Wang, 2021. "A method for assessing resilience of high-speed EMUs considering a network-based system topology and performance data," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(5), pages 877-895, October.
    11. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    12. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    13. Terje Aven, 2013. "On the Meaning and Use of the Risk Appetite Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 462-468, March.
    14. Yuan Yang, 2019. "Reforming Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulation for Offshore Operations in China: Risk and Resilience Approaches?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    15. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2019. "Making Sense of Risk—A Sociological Perspective on the Management of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 749-760, April.
    16. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. P. Pablo Poveda-Orjuela & J. Carlos García-Díaz & Alexander Pulido-Rojano & Germán Cañón-Zabala, 2019. "ISO 50001: 2018 and Its Application in a Comprehensive Management System with an Energy-Performance Focus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-33, December.
    18. Divya Choudhary & Ravi Shankar & Alok Choudhary, 2020. "An Integrated Approach for Modeling Sustainability Risks in Freight Transportation Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 858-883, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.

    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:11:p:2399-2412. 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.