IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i5p854-860.html

What Defines Us as Professionals in the Field of Risk Analysis?

Author

Listed:
  • Terje Aven

Abstract

In a recent issue of Risk Analysis, the then‐President of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), Pamela Williams, has some interesting reflections about the risk analysis field. She states that the ability and desire to tackle difficult problems using a risk analytical approach is what uniquely defines us as professionals in the field of risk analysis. The point of departure for her discussion is interviews with the plenary speakers of the 2014 SRA Annual Meeting, who addressed two divisive topics: hydraulic fracking and marijuana use. She points to several themes that invite contributions from the field of risk analysis, including: Has the full spectrum of potential risks and benefits been identified and weighted, and what are the risk tradeoffs or countervailing risks? Inspired by Williams's reflections, and by analyzing the issues raised in the interviews, this article seeks to clarify what our field is really providing. A main conclusion of the article is that it is essential to acknowledge that professionals in the field of risk analysis merely support the tackling of such problems, and that their genuine competence—that which distinguishes them from other professionals—lies in the risk analytical approach itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Terje Aven, 2017. "What Defines Us as Professionals in the Field of Risk Analysis?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 854-860, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:854-860
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12680
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12680?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. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    2. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 587-600, April.
    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. David J. Yu & Michael L. Schoon & Jason K. Hawes & Seungyoon Lee & Jeryang Park & P. Suresh C. Rao & Laura K. Siebeneck & Satish V. Ukkusuri, 2020. "Toward General Principles for Resilience Engineering," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(8), pages 1509-1537, August.
    2. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    3. Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2020. "Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2128-2136, November.

    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. 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. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    3. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    4. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    5. Abby Muricho Onencan & Lian Ena Liu & Bartel Van de Walle, 2020. "Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Andrew G. Huff & James S. Hodges & Shaun P. Kennedy & Amy Kircher, 2015. "Evaluation of the Food and Agriculture Sector Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT) and the Collected Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1448-1467, August.
    7. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    8. Linn Svegrup & Jonas Johansson & Henrik Hassel, 2019. "Integration of Critical Infrastructure and Societal Consequence Models: Impact on Swedish Power System Mitigation Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 1970-1996, September.
    9. McDermott, T.K.J. & Surminski, S., 2018. "Normative interpretations of climate risk assessment and how it affects local decision making – a study at the city scale in Cork, Ireland," Working Papers 309607, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    10. Igor Linkov & Elke Anklam & Zachary A. Collier & Daniel DiMase & Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 134-137, March.
    11. Michael Greenberg, 2011. "Risk analysis and port security: some contextual observations and considerations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 121-136, July.
    12. Yin Junjia & Aidi Hizami Alias & Nuzul Azam Haron & Nabilah Abu Bakar, 2023. "A Bibliometric Review on Safety Risk Assessment of Construction Based on CiteSpace Software and WoS Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, August.
    13. Beyza, Jesus & Gil, Pablo & Masera, Marcelo & Yusta, Jose M., 2020. "Security assessment of cross-border electricity interconnections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    14. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Bayesian analysis: Critical issues related to its scope and boundaries in a risk context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Victor Cardenas, 2024. "Financial climate risk: a review of recent advances and key challenges," Papers 2404.07331, arXiv.org.
    17. Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Gary A. Sanders & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2013. "High consequence systems phenomenological characterization: A tutorial," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 464-472, December.
    19. Kateryna Horiachko, 2020. "Research of the impact of the terrorism and other factors on the consumers behavior," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 7(1), pages 139-148, May.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2021. "The reliability science: Its foundation and link to risk science and other sciences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).

    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:37:y:2017:i:5:p:854-860. 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.