IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v91y2006i1p100-111.html

Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Hokstad, Per
  • Steiro, Trygve

Abstract

This paper presents the framework of an approach to support planning and priority setting for risk control. Such an approach could assist government/regulatory authorities in their allocation of resources among different sectors. The term risk will here be used in a very wide sense, and it will include, but not restrict to, the traditional HES (Health, Environment and Safety) concept. An overall classification of risk (‘loss categories’), to be used across sectors and directorates is suggested. The risk evaluation includes a number of factors not accounted for in a standard risk assessment, but should be taken into account when authorities set priorities regarding risk control. Sociological, psychological and ethical perspectives are included, and the need for a discourse during the decision process is pinpointed. The paper also discusses the potential inclusion of cost benefit analyses in such an approach. The indicated approach is denoted Risk Across Sectors (RAS), and suggestions regarding the process to implement it are given. Such an implementation process will by itself increase the knowledge and competence of the involved parties.

Suggested Citation

  • Hokstad, Per & Steiro, Trygve, 2006. "Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 100-111.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:91:y:2006:i:1:p:100-111
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095183200400290X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.014?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    3. Sunstein,Cass R., 2004. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016254, Enero-Abr.
    4. Lynn Frewer & Steve Hunt & Mary Brennan & Sharron Kuznesof & Mitchell Ness & Chris Ritson, 2003. "The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 75-85, January.
    5. Joakim Ramsberg, 2002. "When should expenditure per life saved vary?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 249-263, July.
    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. Kirsti Russell Vastveit & Kerstin Eriksson & Ove Njå, 2014. "Critical reflections on municipal risk and vulnerability analyses as decision support tools: the role of regulation regimes," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 443-455, September.
    2. Junrui Xu & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk‐Cost‐Benefit Analysis for Transportation Corridors with Interval Uncertainties of Heterogeneous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 624-641, April.
    3. Hu, Shenping & Fang, Quangen & Xia, Haibo & Xi, Yongtao, 2007. "Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 369-377.
    4. Feng Guo & Yanan Wang & Jie Peng & Hetian Huang & Xiangting Tu & Hu Zhao & Nan Zhan & Zhu Rao & Gaofeng Zhao & Hongbo Yang, 2022. "Occurrence, Distribution, and Risk Assessment of Antibiotics in the Aquatic Environment of the Karst Plateau Wetland of Yangtze River Basin, Southwestern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Alsultan, Marwan & Jun, Jungwook & Lambert, James H., 2020. "Program evaluation of highway access with innovative risk-cost-benefit analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Pascual, R. & Del Castillo, G. & Louit, D. & Knights, P., 2009. "Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(8), pages 1308-1313.
    7. Lambert, James H. & Farrington, Mark W., 2007. "Cost–benefit functions for the allocation of security sensors for air contaminants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 930-946.

    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. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    2. Kit S. Hagemann & Joachim Scholderer, 2009. "Hot Potato: Expert‐Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second‐Generation Novel Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 1041-1055, July.
    3. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    4. Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    5. Oliver Todt & José Luis Luján, 2014. "Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2163-2173, December.
    6. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.
    9. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    10. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    11. repec:osf:osfxxx:pkeb8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    13. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    14. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    15. Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Richard P. Barke, 2007. "Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 755-773, June.
    16. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    17. Gupta, Prerna & Satterfield, Terre & Kandlikar, Milind & Ramana, M.V., 2026. "Rethinking risk perception: Cultural cognition, gender, and caste in how Indians view nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    18. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    19. Barbara Lucini, 2025. "Crisis Communication and Governance: Lessons Learned from Covid − 19 Pandemic in Italy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 27-42, March.
    20. Yoshitsugu Kanemoto, 2011. "Surplus Theory," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Steve Clarke, 2010. "Cognitive bias and the precautionary principle: what's wrong with the core argument in Sunstein's Laws of Fear and a way to fix it," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 163-174, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:reensy:v:91:y:2006:i:1:p:100-111. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    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.