IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1279-d209819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are We Objective? A Study into the Effectiveness of Risk Measurement in the Water Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Kosovac

    (Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne; Melbourne 3052, Australia)

  • Brian Davidson

    (Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne; Melbourne 3052, Australia)

  • Hector Malano

    (Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne; Melbourne 3052, Australia)

Abstract

A survey of 77 water practitioners within Melbourne, Australia, highlighted the lack of objectiveness within current risk scoring processes. Each water authority adopted similar processes, all of which adhere to the ISO31000 standard on Risk Management, and these were tested within this study to determine the “objective” nature of technical risk assessments such as these. The outcome of the study indicated that current risk measurement approaches cannot be seen as objective. This is due to the high variation in risk scores between individuals, which indicates a level of subjectivity. The study confirms previous research that has been undertaken in assessing the effectiveness of risk matrices. This research is novel in its testing of the water sector’s risk measuring practices and may be of value to other industries that utilize similar risk approaches. This research posits whether this subjectivity is due to inherent bias of either a psychological or cultural risk nature that could produce the varied scores.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Kosovac & Brian Davidson & Hector Malano, 2019. "Are We Objective? A Study into the Effectiveness of Risk Measurement in the Water Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1279-:d:209819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1279/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1279/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xin Ruan & Zhiyi Yin & Dan M. Frangopol, 2015. "Risk Matrix Integrating Risk Attitudes Based on Utility Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1437-1447, August.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2017. "Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 42-48.
    3. 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.
    4. David J. Ball & John Watt, 2013. "Further Thoughts on the Utility of Risk Matrices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2068-2078, November.
    5. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in Government Safety Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 633-646, 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. Rocío Rodríguez-Rivero & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Luis Ballesteros-Sánchez & Xabier Martínez-Beneitez, 2020. "Identifying Risks for Better Project Management between Two Different Cultures: The Chinese and the Spanish," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Gianpaolo Di Bona & Antonio Forcina & Domenico Falcone & Luca Silvestri, 2020. "Critical Risks Method (CRM): A New Safety Allocation Approach for a Critical Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Meho Saša Kovačević & Lovorka Librić & Gordana Ivoš & Anita Cerić, 2020. "Application of Reliability Analysis for Risk Ranking in a Levee Reconstruction Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(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. Roger C. Jensen & Royce L. Bird & Blake W. Nichols, 2022. "Risk Assessment Matrices for Workplace Hazards: Design for Usability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-23, February.
    2. 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).
    3. Terje Aven & Louis Anthony Cox, 2016. "National and Global Risk Studies: How Can the Field of Risk Analysis Contribute?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 186-190, February.
    4. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Jianping Li & Chunbing Bao & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "How to Design Rating Schemes of Risk Matrices: A Sequential Updating Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 99-117, January.
    6. Alex de Lima Teodoro da Penha & Samuel Vinícius Bonato & Joana Baleeiro Passos & Eduardo da Silva Fernandes & Cínthia Kulpa & Carla Schwengber ten Caten, 2024. "Navigating the Urgency: An Open Innovation Project of Protective Equipment Development from a Quadruple Helix Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-32, February.
    7. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    8. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2019. "The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: A threat to proper developments of these fields?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 279-286.
    9. Roger C. Jensen & Haley Hansen, 2020. "Selecting Appropriate Words for Naming the Rows and Columns of Risk Assessment Matrices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-17, July.
    10. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    11. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    12. Xingyuan Chen & Yong Deng, 2022. "An Evidential Software Risk Evaluation Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-19, July.
    13. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    14. 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.
    15. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    16. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Hou, Tianfeng & Nuyens, Dirk & Roels, Staf & Janssen, Hans, 2019. "Quasi-Monte Carlo based uncertainty analysis: Sampling efficiency and error estimation in engineering applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    18. Tim Bedford, 2013. "Decision Making for Group Risk Reduction: Dealing with Epistemic Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1884-1898, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Seth Guikema, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence for Natural Hazards Risk Analysis: Potential, Challenges, and Research Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1117-1123, 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:5:p:1279-:d:209819. 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.