IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i3p348-358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foundational issues in relation to national risk assessment methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Henning Veland
  • Øystein Amundrud
  • Terje Aven

Abstract

This article presents a study of key foundational issues in relation to two methodologies developed and used for assessing national risk events in Norway and the Netherlands. Both these methodologies are, to a large extent, probability based, but there are considerable differences in the approaches adopted. The main aim of the article is to point to these differences and relate the methodologies to existing theories for risk conceptualisation and description. Neither of the two methodologies are able to create a strong conceptual platform for the risk assessment, largely because they fail to clearly define and relate the core concepts of risk, probability and uncertainty. The treatment of uncertainty is another problematic issue, and we argue that both methodologies, but especially the Norwegian one, suffer from a severe weakness: key aspects of uncertainty are not adequately reflected. Finally, we question the way the Dutch methodology has integrated value aspects into the risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Henning Veland & Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven, 2013. "Foundational issues in relation to national risk assessment methodologies," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(3), pages 348-358, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:3:p:348-358
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X12472870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X12472870
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X12472870?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    2. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    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. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    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. 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.
    6. Inger Lise Johansen & Marvin Rausand, 2014. "Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(3), pages 272-290, June.
    7. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    8. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo & Curtis L. Smith, 2018. "On the Relationship between Safety and Decision Significance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1541-1558, August.
    9. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo, 2017. "Deciding with Thresholds: Importance Measures and Value of Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1828-1848, October.
    10. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    11. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Torbjørn Bjerga & Terje Aven, 2016. "Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(5), pages 512-520, October.
    15. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    16. Terje Aven, 2013. "On How to Deal with Deep Uncertainties in a Risk Assessment and Management Context," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2082-2091, December.
    17. Konstantinos Kazaras & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "Challenges for current quantitative risk assessment (QRA) models to describe explicitly the road tunnel safety level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 953-968, September.
    18. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1647-1654, December.
    19. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    20. Lin, Lexin & Nilsson, Anders & Sjölin, Johan & Abrahamsson, Marcus & Tehler, Henrik, 2015. "On the perceived usefulness of risk descriptions for decision-making in disaster risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 48-55.

    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:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:3:p:348-358. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.