IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13539-d697060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment Models to Improve Environmental Safety in the Field of the Economy and Organization of Construction: A Case Study of Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Arkadiy Larionov

    (Department of Economics and Management in Construction, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, 129337 Moscow, Russia)

  • Ekaterina Nezhnikova

    (Department of National Economy, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Elena Smirnova

    (Department of Technosphere Safety, Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 190005 Saint Petersburg, Russia)

Abstract

This article assesses risks in order to substantiate the economic and organizational efficiency of housing and industrial construction. This topic is relevant because it is necessary for sustainable development. In Russia, environmental safety in construction and housing, as well as communal services, is poorly developed and not regulated by the legal system. As building construction, housing, and communal services should be based on environmental safety, this topic requires rapid development. Methods related to quantifying environmental risk and making decisions under conditions of uncertainty were studied. A quantitative risk assessment was performed using the Monte Carlo method for pessimistic and optimistic options to prevent environmental damage. The model reproduced the distribution derived from the evidence-based fit. The results of sensitivity analysis are also presented to prove the hypothesis. The selection of the most appropriate probability density functions for each of the input quantities was implemented through settings in a computer program. The simulation modeling results clearly illustrate the choice of the general principle of assessment and the adoption of the optimal decision. In conditions of uncertainty, the decision to choose the optimistic options with high cost (to maintain the reliability of the technical system) but less risk plays a decisive role in the future environmental safety strategies of construction projects. The Monte Carlo method is preferable for environmental impact assessments. In the future, the amended methodology can be applied to raise environmental safety in the field of construction.

Suggested Citation

  • Arkadiy Larionov & Ekaterina Nezhnikova & Elena Smirnova, 2021. "Risk Assessment Models to Improve Environmental Safety in the Field of the Economy and Organization of Construction: A Case Study of Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-37, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13539-:d:697060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13539/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13539/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stoica, George, 2006. "Relevant coherent measures of risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 794-806, September.
    2. Semenoglou, Artemios-Anargyros & Spiliotis, Evangelos & Makridakis, Spyros & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios, 2021. "Investigating the accuracy of cross-learning time series forecasting methods," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1072-1084.
    3. Guoyu Chen & Yong Wan & Huanhuan Lin & Houlin Hu & Guixiong Liu & Yanhua Peng, 2021. "Vertical tank capacity measurement based on Monte Carlo method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    5. Eugene A. Rosa, 1998. "Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 15-44, January.
    6. Roy L. Smith, 1994. "Use of Monte Carlo Simulation for Human Exposure Assessment at a Superfund Site," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 433-439, August.
    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. Sabriye Topal & Emine Atasoylu, 2022. "A Fuzzy Risk Assessment Model for Small Scale Construction Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Nasanjargal Erdenekhuu & Balázs Kocsi & Domicián Máté, 2022. "A Risk-Based Analysis Approach to Sustainable Construction by Environmental Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Andrea Senova & Alica Tobisova & Robert Rozenberg, 2023. "New Approaches to Project Risk Assessment Utilizing the Monte Carlo Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Zygimantas Meskauskas & Egidijus Kazanavicius, 2022. "About the New Methodology and XAI-Based Software Toolkit for Risk Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Tom McLeod Logan & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema & Roger Flage, 2022. "Risk science offers an integrated approach to resilience," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 741-748, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Ruipeng Tong & Cunli Zhai & Qingli Jia & Chunlin Wu & Yan Liu & Surui Xue, 2018. "An Interactive Model among Potential Human Risk Factors: 331 Cases of Coal Mine Roof Accidents in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    7. Ozgur Satici & Esra Satici, 2024. "Theoretical semi-quantitative risk assessment methodology for tunnel design and construction processes," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(7), pages 3385-3405, July.
    8. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    9. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    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. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    13. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    14. Fei Sun & Jingchao Li & Jieming Zhou, 2018. "Dynamic risk measures with fluctuation of market volatility under Bochne-Lebesgue space," Papers 1806.01166, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    15. Spiliotis, Evangelos & Petropoulos, Fotios, 2024. "On the update frequency of univariate forecasting models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(1), pages 111-121.
    16. Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    17. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    18. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    19. Songjiao Chen & William Wilson & Ryan Larsen & Bruce Dahl, 2016. "Risk Management for Grain Processors and “Copulas”," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 365-382, June.
    20. Karina Landeros-Mugica & Javier Urbina-Soria & Irasema Alcántara-Ayala, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1515-1537, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13539-:d:697060. 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.