IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p6024-d281593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Ontological and Semantic Foundation for Safety and Security Science

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Blokland

    (Safety & Security Science Group (S3G), Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Genserik Reniers

    (Safety & Security Science Group (S3G), Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
    Center for Corporate Sustainability (CEDON)—KULeuven—Campus Brussels, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
    Department of Engineering Management, Faculty of Applied Economic Sciences (ENM), University of Antwerp, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

Abstract

When discussing the concepts of risk, safety, and security, people have an intuitive understanding of what these concepts mean, and, to a certain level, this understanding is universal. However, when delving into the real meaning of these concepts, one is likely to fall into semantic debates and ontological discussions. In industrial parks, it is important that (risk) managers from different companies, belonging to one and the same park, have the same understanding of the concepts of risk, safety, and security. It is even important that all companies in all industrial parks share a common understanding regarding these issues. As such, this paper explores the similarities and differences behind the perceptions of these concepts, to come to a fundamental understanding of risk, safety, and security, proposing a semantic and ontological ground for safety and security science, based on an etymological and etiological study of the concepts of risk and safety. The foundation has been induced by the semantics used in the ISO 31000 risk management guidance standard. Hence, this article proposes a coherent, standardized set of concepts and definitions with a focus on the notion “objectives” that can be used as an ontological foundation for safety and security science, linking “objectives” with the concepts of safety, security, risk, performance and also failure and success, theoretically allowing for an increasingly more precise understanding and measurement of (un)safety across the whole range of individuals, sectors and organizations, or even society as a whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Blokland & Genserik Reniers, 2019. "An Ontological and Semantic Foundation for Safety and Security Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-25, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6024-:d:281593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6024/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6024/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    2. Max Boholm & Niklas Möller & Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "The Concepts of Risk, Safety, and Security: Applications in Everyday Language," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 320-338, February.
    3. Kriaa, Siwar & Pietre-Cambacedes, Ludovic & Bouissou, Marc & Halgand, Yoran, 2015. "A survey of approaches combining safety and security for industrial control systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 156-178.
    4. Vincent T. Covello & Jeryl Mumpower, 1985. "Risk Analysis and Risk Management: An Historical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 103-120, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    7. Jeffrey Cohen & Ganesh Krishnamoorthy & Arnold Wright, 2017. "Enterprise Risk Management and the Financial Reporting Process: The Experiences of Audit Committee Members, CFOs, and External Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 1178-1209, 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. Peter Blokland & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "Safety Science, a Systems Thinking Perspective: From Events to Mental Models and Sustainable Safety," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Peter Blokland & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "Achieving Organisational Alignment, Safety and Sustainable Performance in Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-35, September.
    3. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.

    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. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    6. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    7. Dariusz Szmel & Wiesław Zabłocki & Przemysław Ilczuk & Andrzej Kochan, 2019. "Method for Selecting the Safety Integrity Level for the Control-Command and Signaling Functions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Sarah J. Cowell & Robyn Fairman & Ragnar E. Lofstedt, 2002. "Use of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment in Decision Making: A Common Policy Research Agenda," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 879-894, October.
    9. Wan, Chengpeng & Yan, Xinping & Zhang, Di & Qu, Zhuohua & Yang, Zaili, 2019. "An advanced fuzzy Bayesian-based FMEA approach for assessing maritime supply chain risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 222-240.
    10. Garcez, Thalles Vitelli & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2014. "A risk measurement tool for an underground electricity distribution system considering the consequences and uncertainties of manhole events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 68-80.
    11. Max Boholm, 2019. "Risk and Quantification: A Linguistic Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1243-1261, June.
    12. Liu, Quanlong & Peng, Yumeng & Li, Zhiyang & Zhao, Pan & Qiu, Zunxiang, 2021. "Hazard identification methodology for underground coal mine risk management - Root-State Hazard Identification," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    13. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.
    14. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    15. Christoph A Thieme & Børge Rokseth & Ingrid B Utne, 2023. "Risk-informed control systems for improved operational performance and decision-making," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 237(2), pages 332-354, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    18. Merkourios Papanikolaou & Yiannis Xenidis, 2020. "Risk-Informed Performance Assessment of Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-20, July.
    19. Xiao Zhang & Xiaofeng Hu & Yiping Bai & Jiansong Wu, 2020. "Risk Assessment of Gas Leakage from School Laboratories Based on the Bayesian Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    20. Antonín Korauš & Miroslav Gombár & Pavel Kelemen & Jozef Polák, 2019. "Analysis of respondents' opinions and attitudes toward the security of payment systems," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(4), pages 1987-2002, June.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6024-:d:281593. 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.