IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i10p1638-1646.html

Why Risk Analysis is Difficult, and Some Thoughts on How to Proceed

Author

Listed:
  • Yakov Ben‐Haim

Abstract

Risk analysis is challenged in three ways by uncertainty. Our understanding of the world and its uncertainties is evolving; indeterminism is an inherent part of the open universe in which we live; and learning from experience involves untestable assumptions. We discuss several concepts of robustness as tools for responding to these epistemological challenges. The use of models is justified, even though they are known to err. A concept of robustness is illustrated in choosing between a conventional technology and an innovative, promising, but more uncertain technology. We explain that nonprobabilistic robust decisions are sometimes good probabilistic bets. Info‐gap and worst‐case concepts of robustness are compared. Finally, we examine the exploitation of favorable but uncertain opportunities and its relation to robust decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Yakov Ben‐Haim, 2012. "Why Risk Analysis is Difficult, and Some Thoughts on How to Proceed," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1638-1646, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:10:p:1638-1646
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01859.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01859.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01859.x?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. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-211, Spring.
    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. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    2. Ahmad, Nasir & Derrible, Sybil, 2018. "An information theory based robustness analysis of energy mix in US States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 167-174.
    3. Payuna Uday & Karen Marais, 2015. "Designing Resilient Systems‐of‐Systems: A Survey of Metrics, Methods, and Challenges," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 491-510, October.
    4. Ludovic Gaudard & Franco Romerio, 2020. "A Conceptual Framework to Classify and Manage Risk, Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Application to Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Ben-Haim, Yakov, 2021. "Feedback for energy conservation: An info-gap approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).

    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. Stephan Schulmeister, 2000. "Technical Analysis and Exchange Rate Dynamics," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 25857.
    2. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Erratum to: Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 457-457, November.
    3. Julien Milanesi, 2011. "Une histoire de la méthode d'évaluation contingente," Post-Print hal-01531153, HAL.
    4. Ashok Chakravarti, 2012. "Institutions, Economic Performance and the Visible Hand," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14751.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    6. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    7. Ding, David K. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Seetoh, Raymond, 2004. "Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4-5), pages 425-442.
    8. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2021. "Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 679-697, July.
    9. Kim, Deok-Hwan & Kim, Kwang-Jae & Sam Park, K., 2010. "Compromising prioritization from pairwise comparisons considering type I and II errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(2), pages 285-293, July.
    10. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    11. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2015. "Expected utility without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 707-722, December.
    12. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    13. Kassas, Bachir & Palma, Marco A. & Zhang, Yvette, 2016. "The role of incentives on preference revelations in auctions versus rankings," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 73-85.
    14. Ian Krajbich & Todd Hare & Björn Bartling & Yosuke Morishima & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "A Common Mechanism Underlying Food Choice and Social Decisions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 2002. "How Much Is Investor Autonomy Worth?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(4), pages 1593-1616, August.
    16. Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "An investigation into procedure (in)variance in the valuation of mortality risk reductions," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:4, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    17. Jessica Howell & Flagler College & Nikolai G. Wenzel, 2019. "Rationality in a fatalistic world: explaining revolutionary apathy in pre-Soviet peasants," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 18(1), pages 125-137, June.
    18. Wang, Mei & Fischbeck, Paul, 2004. "Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk mitigation programs : a comparison of China and the United States," Papers 04-13, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    19. Contini, Bruno & Morini, Matteo, 2007. "Testing Bounded Rationality against Full Rationality in Job Changing Behavior," IZA Discussion Papers 3148, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. Selda (Ying Fang) Kao & K. Vela Velupillai, 2011. "Behavioural Economics: Classical and Modern," ASSRU Discussion Papers 1126, ASSRU - Algorithmic Social Science Research Unit.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:10:p:1638-1646. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.