IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i7p1208-1227.html

A Scale of Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Gardoni
  • Colleen Murphy

Abstract

This article proposes a conceptual framework for ranking the relative gravity of diverse risks. This framework identifies the moral considerations that should inform the evaluation and comparison of diverse risks. A common definition of risk includes two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the associated consequences of a set of hazardous scenarios. This article first expands this definition to include a third dimension: the source of a risk. The source of a risk refers to the agents involved in the creation or maintenance of a risk and captures a central moral concern about risks. Then, a scale of risk is proposed to categorize risks along a multidimensional ranking, based on a comparative evaluation of the consequences, probability, and source of a given risk. A risk is ranked higher on the scale the larger the consequences, the greater the probability, and the more morally culpable the source. The information from the proposed comparative evaluation of risks can inform the selection of priorities for risk mitigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Gardoni & Colleen Murphy, 2014. "A Scale of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1208-1227, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:7:p:1208-1227
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12150
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12150?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. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, Enero-Abr.
    2. Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni, 2006. "The Role of Society in Engineering Risk Analysis: A Capabilities‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1073-1083, August.
    3. Martha Carreño & Omar Cardona & Alex Barbat, 2007. "A disaster risk management performance index," 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. 41(1), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni, 2010. "Assessing capability instead of achieved functionings in risk analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 137-147, March.
    5. repec:idb:brikps:publication-detail,7101.html?id=68568 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Alon Tal & Igor Linkov, 2004. "Role of Comparative Risk Assessment in Addressing Environmental Security in the Middle East," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1243-1248, October.
    7. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    8. Weber,Elke U. & Baron,Jonathan & Loomes,Graham (ed.), 2001. "Conflict and Tradeoffs in Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521772389, Enero-Abr.
    9. H. Keith Florig & M. Granger Morgan & Kara M. Morgan & Karen E. Jenni & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul S. Fischbeck & Michael L. DeKay, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 913-913, October.
    10. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    11. Wolff, Jonathan, 2006. "Risk, Fear, Blame, Shame And The Regulation Of Public Safety," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 409-427, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. David M. Hassenzahl, 2006. "Implications of Excessive Precision for Risk Comparisons: Lessons from the Past Four Decades," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 265-276, February.
    3. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2011. "On the Complex Quantification of Risk: Systems‐Based Perspective on Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1175-1186, August.
    4. Michael R. Greenberg & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Tayfur Altiok, 2011. "Risk‐Based Decision Support Tools: Protecting Rail‐Centered Transit Corridors from Cascading Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1849-1858, December.
    5. Boakye, Jessica & Guidotti, Roberto & Gardoni, Paolo & Murphy, Colleen, 2022. "The role of transportation infrastructure on the impact of natural hazards on communities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    6. Charles Vlek, 2013. "How Solid Is the Dutch (and the British) National Risk Assessment? Overview and Decision‐Theoretic Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 948-971, June.
    7. Armin Tabandeh & Paolo Gardoni & Colleen Murphy, 2018. "A Reliability‐Based Capability Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 410-424, February.
    8. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Donald Macrae, 2011. "Standards for risk assessment of standards: how the international community is starting to address the risk of the wrong standards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 933-942, September.
    16. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    17. Zhao, Yujia & McLellan, Benjamin Craig & Wang, Chaofan & Shuai, Jing & Xiang, Wanting & Shuai, Chuanmin, 2026. "Risk dynamics and strategies of China's solar PV industry chain under trade frictions: A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:34:y:2014:i:7:p:1208-1227. 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.