IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i12p6329-d573117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines

Author

Listed:
  • Pieter van Gelder

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Pim Klaassen

    (Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Behnam Taebi

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Bart Walhout

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Ruud van Ommen

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Ibo van de Poel

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Zoe Robaey

    (Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Lotte Asveld

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Ruud Balkenende

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Frank Hollmann

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Erik Jan van Kampen

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Nima Khakzad

    (School of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada)

  • Robbert Krebbers

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Jos de Lange

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Wolter Pieters

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, 6525 XZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Karel Terwel

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Eelco Visser

    (Safety and Security Institute, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Tiny van der Werff

    (Directorate Environmental Safety and Risks, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, 2515 XP The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • Dick Jung

    (Directorate Environmental Safety and Risks, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, 2515 XP The Hague, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In this paper, we provide an overview of how Safe-by-Design is conceived and applied in practice in a large number of engineering disciplines. We discuss the differences, commonalities, and possibilities for mutual learning found in those practices and identify several ways of putting those disciplinary outlooks in perspective. The considered engineering disciplines in the order of historically grown technologies are construction engineering, chemical engineering, aerospace engineering, urban engineering, software engineering, bio-engineering, nano-engineering, and finally cyber space engineering. Each discipline is briefly introduced, the technology at issue is described, the relevant or dominant hazards are examined, the social challenge(s) are observed, and the relevant developments in the field are described. Within each discipline the risk management strategies, the design principles promoting safety or safety awareness, and associated methods or tools are discussed. Possible dilemmas that the designers in the discipline face are highlighted. Each discipline is concluded by discussing the opportunities and bottlenecks in addressing safety. Commonalities and differences between the engineering disciplines are investigated, specifically on the design strategies for which empirical data have been collected. We argue that Safe-by-Design is best considered as a specific elaboration of Responsible Research and Innovation, with an explicit focus on safety in relation to other important values in engineering such as well-being, sustainability, equity, and affordability. Safe-by-Design provides for an intellectual venue where social science and the humanities (SSH) collaborate on technological developments and innovation by helping to proactively incorporate safety considerations into engineering practices, while navigating between the extremes of technological optimism and disproportionate precaution. As such, Safe-by-Design is also a practical tool for policymakers and risk assessors that helps shape governance arrangements for accommodating and incentivizing safety, while fully acknowledging uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Pieter van Gelder & Pim Klaassen & Behnam Taebi & Bart Walhout & Ruud van Ommen & Ibo van de Poel & Zoe Robaey & Lotte Asveld & Ruud Balkenende & Frank Hollmann & Erik Jan van Kampen & Nima Khakzad & , 2021. "Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-28, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:12:p:6329-:d:573117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/12/6329/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/12/6329/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Randall,Alan, 2011. "Risk and Precaution," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521759199.
    2. Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "How to be Cautious but Open to Learning: Time to Update Biotechnology and GMO Legislation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1513-1517, August.
    3. Britte Bouchaut & Lotte Asveld, 2020. "Safe‐by‐Design: Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Expectations of How to Deal with Uncertain Risks of Emerging Biotechnologies in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(8), pages 1632-1644, August.
    4. Malik Aleem Ahmed & Jeroen Hoven, 2010. "Agents of responsibility—freelance web developers in web applications development," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 415-424, September.
    5. Randall,Alan, 2011. "Risk and Precaution," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766159.
    6. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 273-292, March.
    7. Schot, Johan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2018. "Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1554-1567.
    8. Nima Khakzad & Gabriele Landucci & Genserik Reniers, 2017. "Application of Graph Theory to Cost‐Effective Fire Protection of Chemical Plants During Domino Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(9), pages 1652-1667, September.
    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. Svana Helen Björnsdóttir & Pall Jensson & Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson & Ioannis M. Dokas & Helgi Thor Ingason, 2023. "Aligning Stakeholders and Actors: A New Safety and Security-Based Design Approach for Major National Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-44, December.
    2. Jaehyun Lee & Jaewook Jeong & Jayho Soh & Jaemin Jeong, 2021. "Development of Framework for Estimating Fatality-Related Losses in the Korean Construction Industry," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Sam Jan Cees Krouwel & Emma Rianne Dierickx & Sara Heesterbeek & Pim Klaassen, 2022. "Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.

    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. Uwe Beyer & Oliver Ullrich, 2022. "Organizational Complexity as a Contributing Factor to Underperformance," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Gabe Mythen, 2021. "The Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A Retrospective Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 533-543, March.
    3. Alan Randall, 2020. "On Intergenerational Commitment, Weak Sustainability, and Safety," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Alan Randall, 2022. "How Strong Sustainability Became Safety," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Stephen Davies, 2021. "COVID‐19 and complexity: Hayekian economics and the world after the pandemic," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 198-210, June.
    6. Alan Randall, 2021. "Resource Scarcity and Sustainability—The Shapes Have Shifted but the Stakes Keep Rising," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    7. CHITIGA Georgiana, 2013. "The Market Developments of Wind Energy - Accessibility, Availability and Acceptability," Anale. Seria Stiinte Economice. Timisoara, Faculty of Economics, Tibiscus University in Timisoara, vol. 0, pages 108-113, May.
    8. Dobes, Leo, 2012. "Adaptation to Climate Change: Formulating Policy under Uncertainty," Working Papers 249390, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    9. Klepper, Gernot & Dovern, Jonas & Rickels, Wilfried & Barben, Daniel & Goeschl, Timo & Harnisch, Sebastian & Heyen, Daniel & Janich, Nina & Maas, Achim & Matzner, Nils & Scheffran, Jürgen & Uther, Ste, 2016. "Herausforderung Climate Engineering: Bewertung neuer Optionen für den Klimaschutz," Kieler Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspolitik 8, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Alan Randall, 2014. "Weak sustainability, conservation and precaution," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 10, pages 160-172, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Ma, Jinrun & Wu, Yaoyao & Liang, Yongtang, 2023. "Robust investment and hedging policy with limited commitment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    12. Carla Susana A. Assuad, 2020. "Understanding Rationality in Sustainable Development Decision-Making: Unfolding the Motivations for Action," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 1086-1119, September.
    13. Andy Stirling, 2016. "Precaution in the Governance of Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Alan Randall, 2021. "Monitoring Sustainability and Targeting Interventions: Indicators, Planetary Boundaries, Benefits and Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    15. Cornelia Gabriela Piciu & Iuliana Militaru, 2013. "Economic Conceptualization Of Negative Environmental Externalities," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 8(3.1), pages 123-130, September.
    16. Mauerhofer, Volker, 2019. "Legal Institutions and Ecological Economics: Their Common Contribution for Achieving a Sustainable Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 350-359.
    17. Hongyi Mao & Zongjun Wang & Lin Yi, 2021. "Does Entrepreneurial Orientation Lead to Successful Sustainable Innovation? The Evidence from Chinese Environmentally Friendly Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    19. Svana Helen Björnsdóttir & Pall Jensson & Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson & Ioannis M. Dokas & Helgi Thor Ingason, 2023. "Aligning Stakeholders and Actors: A New Safety and Security-Based Design Approach for Major National Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-44, December.
    20. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:12:p:6329-:d:573117. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.