Pub Date : 2004-07-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490505585
T. Bedford, J. Quigley
The ALARP principle is applied in many areas to regulate the tolerable level of risk. Usually the principle is operationalized by assigning a value per fatality. A cost-benefit analysis is used to trade the expected value of lives saved with the costs of technical measures required to reduce risks. In sectors in which risks have been reduced over a period of years, it is difficult to pinpoint those areas in which further risk reduction might be sought. In this article we show that many different risk reduction mechanisms can be considered simultaneously in a decision analysis framework. Using influence diagrams it is straightforward to build mini-decision analysis models in which competing alternatives addressing the same risk can be compared. The mini-model decision alternatives are assembled into decision strategies representing the best possible combination of alternatives at different cost/benefit ratios. Disynergies between the different alternatives are highlighted through the model. The overall aim is to build a high-level model to explore the sensitivity of risk reduction measures to the value per fatality parameter. This enables decision makers to gain a better understanding of the cost of measures required to obtain a global reduction in risk.
{"title":"Risk reduction prioritization using decision analysis","authors":"T. Bedford, J. Quigley","doi":"10.1080/14664530490505585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490505585","url":null,"abstract":"The ALARP principle is applied in many areas to regulate the tolerable level of risk. Usually the principle is operationalized by assigning a value per fatality. A cost-benefit analysis is used to trade the expected value of lives saved with the costs of technical measures required to reduce risks. In sectors in which risks have been reduced over a period of years, it is difficult to pinpoint those areas in which further risk reduction might be sought. In this article we show that many different risk reduction mechanisms can be considered simultaneously in a decision analysis framework. Using influence diagrams it is straightforward to build mini-decision analysis models in which competing alternatives addressing the same risk can be compared. The mini-model decision alternatives are assembled into decision strategies representing the best possible combination of alternatives at different cost/benefit ratios. Disynergies between the different alternatives are highlighted through the model. The overall aim is to build a high-level model to explore the sensitivity of risk reduction measures to the value per fatality parameter. This enables decision makers to gain a better understanding of the cost of measures required to obtain a global reduction in risk.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122956715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-07-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490505576
A. Roelen, R. Wever, A. Hale, L. Goossens, R. Cooke, R. Lopuhaä, M. Simons, P. Valk
A study funded by the Federal Aviation Administration via the Dutch Ministry of Transport has explored the possible structure of a causal model for aviation safety. The study is initiated by the regulator and the parties concerned at the airport to improve the modeling of risk in order to better understand the effects on the level of risk of different influencing factors. Existing modeling gives no insight into how the many factors under control of air traffic control, the airport or the airlines, play their part in the control of risk. The objective of the new modeling approach is to allow such assessment. This article describes the overall approach proposed for the modeling and discusses the requirements and problems for full implementation. It is illustrated with two case studies considering the aspect of missed approach and the effect of flight-crew fatigue on performance.
{"title":"Causal modeling using Bayesian belief nets for integrated safety at airports","authors":"A. Roelen, R. Wever, A. Hale, L. Goossens, R. Cooke, R. Lopuhaä, M. Simons, P. Valk","doi":"10.1080/14664530490505576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490505576","url":null,"abstract":"A study funded by the Federal Aviation Administration via the Dutch Ministry of Transport has explored the possible structure of a causal model for aviation safety. The study is initiated by the regulator and the parties concerned at the airport to improve the modeling of risk in order to better understand the effects on the level of risk of different influencing factors. Existing modeling gives no insight into how the many factors under control of air traffic control, the airport or the airlines, play their part in the control of risk. The objective of the new modeling approach is to allow such assessment. This article describes the overall approach proposed for the modeling and discusses the requirements and problems for full implementation. It is illustrated with two case studies considering the aspect of missed approach and the effect of flight-crew fatigue on performance.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"335 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115395292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-07-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490505602
F. Asche, T. Aven
In this article we discuss the hypothesis that safety and accident risk is in general not adequately incorporated into the economic planning and decision processes. Our starting point is a discussion of the business incentives for investing into safety. A simple economic model is used as a basis for the discussion. This model does not reflect all the factors being considered when making decisions affecting safety, but points at and reveals a way of thinking that strongly influence decision-makers. In particular, the official language used when decision-makers communicate about safety is not necessarily the same as the underlying driving forces, shown by the economic model. A key issue discussed in the article is the need for demonstrating that safety measures have a value in an economic sense. To what extent is it true that businesses would not invest in higher safety if such values cannot be demonstrated?
{"title":"On the economic value of safety","authors":"F. Asche, T. Aven","doi":"10.1080/14664530490505602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490505602","url":null,"abstract":"In this article we discuss the hypothesis that safety and accident risk is in general not adequately incorporated into the economic planning and decision processes. Our starting point is a discussion of the business incentives for investing into safety. A simple economic model is used as a basis for the discussion. This model does not reflect all the factors being considered when making decisions affecting safety, but points at and reveals a way of thinking that strongly influence decision-makers. In particular, the official language used when decision-makers communicate about safety is not necessarily the same as the underlying driving forces, shown by the economic model. A key issue discussed in the article is the need for demonstrating that safety measures have a value in an economic sense. To what extent is it true that businesses would not invest in higher safety if such values cannot be demonstrated?","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131770687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490464914
J. Cooper
Organizations have various neural characteristics in that organizational subsystems interact with each other through communication, influences, and direct actions, each of which can have positive or negative weight, and where architecture and weights can be reconfigured based on subsystem and system output metrics that are compared to overall goals. In a Markov chain model of these interrelations, actions depend on the individual behaviors of particular subsystems, the time at which the subsystem is responding, and the history of occurrences leading up to the response time. Aggregation of effects leading to a result is rarely linear, so a nonlinear weighted sum called “chained soft aggregation” is proposed as an appropriate model. The method is readily combined with any available objective information in a hybrid analysis.
{"title":"Soft Markov chain relations for modeling organizational behavior","authors":"J. Cooper","doi":"10.1080/14664530490464914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490464914","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations have various neural characteristics in that organizational subsystems interact with each other through communication, influences, and direct actions, each of which can have positive or negative weight, and where architecture and weights can be reconfigured based on subsystem and system output metrics that are compared to overall goals. In a Markov chain model of these interrelations, actions depend on the individual behaviors of particular subsystems, the time at which the subsystem is responding, and the history of occurrences leading up to the response time. Aggregation of effects leading to a result is rarely linear, so a nonlinear weighted sum called “chained soft aggregation” is proposed as an appropriate model. The method is readily combined with any available objective information in a hybrid analysis.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123207592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490464761
J. Wesseler, Jock R. Anderson
Risk in agriculture and natural resource management, as in life, is everywhere. But dealing with it systematically, whether for farmers, other natural resource managers, researchers, or anyone, can be challenging. A conference on Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental and Resource Economics was held in June 2002 in Wageningen. The problems covered included perceptions of, and attitudes to risk; approaches to risk management; precautionary approaches; and approaches taken to address irreversibilities under uncertainty and learning. The predominant empirical concern was with risks surrounding climate change, while there was considerable emphasis on natural resource management topics including agriculture. The overwhelming geographic perspectives taken were European or global. There is clearly yet no grand harmonization of approaches to dealing with the lack of certainty in environmental and resource management matters of contemporary and future concern. But some structure of approaches emerged out of the conference presentations, and the key elements of this structure, related to recognizing irreversibility when it prevails and dealing with risk aversion when it is relevant, are highlighted.
{"title":"Risk and uncertainty in environmental and resource economics: insights from an international conference at Wageningen, June 2002","authors":"J. Wesseler, Jock R. Anderson","doi":"10.1080/14664530490464761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490464761","url":null,"abstract":"Risk in agriculture and natural resource management, as in life, is everywhere. But dealing with it systematically, whether for farmers, other natural resource managers, researchers, or anyone, can be challenging. A conference on Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental and Resource Economics was held in June 2002 in Wageningen. The problems covered included perceptions of, and attitudes to risk; approaches to risk management; precautionary approaches; and approaches taken to address irreversibilities under uncertainty and learning. The predominant empirical concern was with risks surrounding climate change, while there was considerable emphasis on natural resource management topics including agriculture. The overwhelming geographic perspectives taken were European or global. There is clearly yet no grand harmonization of approaches to dealing with the lack of certainty in environmental and resource management matters of contemporary and future concern. But some structure of approaches emerged out of the conference presentations, and the key elements of this structure, related to recognizing irreversibility when it prevails and dealing with risk aversion when it is relevant, are highlighted.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126385901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490464879
J. Zajac
One agent, the buyer, takes an observable action that determines his own utility of later consumption. If the investment decision is unobservable and the seller makes repeated offers, then as the time between offers becomes arbitrarily small, the equilibrium investment decision of the buyer converges to the efficient level. In any setting in which efficient trade is guaranteed, unobservable investment implies that the buyer is the residual claimant on the investment and leads to the first best outcome. Agents often have superior information about both their ability and their wealth, it is important to determine the relationships among wealth, ability, economic opportunity, and financial performance persist in setting with more pronounced information asymmetries. It is important to understand how private knowledge of wealth affects the properties of a planner and an agent who has the skills.
{"title":"Risk investment, asset returns, and information","authors":"J. Zajac","doi":"10.1080/14664530490464879","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490464879","url":null,"abstract":"One agent, the buyer, takes an observable action that determines his own utility of later consumption. If the investment decision is unobservable and the seller makes repeated offers, then as the time between offers becomes arbitrarily small, the equilibrium investment decision of the buyer converges to the efficient level. In any setting in which efficient trade is guaranteed, unobservable investment implies that the buyer is the residual claimant on the investment and leads to the first best outcome. Agents often have superior information about both their ability and their wealth, it is important to determine the relationships among wealth, ability, economic opportunity, and financial performance persist in setting with more pronounced information asymmetries. It is important to understand how private knowledge of wealth affects the properties of a planner and an agent who has the skills.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122649020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490464752
George Wright, G. Rowe, A. McColl
It has become almost an accepted fact that experts perceive or judge risks in a different manner to laypersons. This apparent finding has stemmed from the pioneering work of Slovic and colleagues (e.g., Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein, 1985), who have suggested that experts perceive risks in terms of statistical fatalities, whereas laypersons interpret the term in a more complex manner. Subsequent research has also suggested that experts tend to judge risks as lesser than comparative lay samples. However, Rowe and Wright (2001) critiqued this research and came to the conclusion that there is little evidence of expert-lay differences in risk perception or judgment. Among their main contentions were that important demographic factors that have been shown to be associated with perception or judgment of risk have generally not been controlled for across expert and lay samples, and that the “experts” sampled have generally not been studied in a manner liable to make their expertise meaningful. They also qu...
专家以不同于外行的方式感知或判断风险，这几乎已成为一个公认的事实。这一明显的发现源于Slovic及其同事的开创性工作(例如，Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein, 1985)，他们认为专家根据统计死亡人数来感知风险，而外行人则以更复杂的方式解释这一术语。随后的研究也表明，专家们对风险的判断往往比比较的外行样本要小。然而，Rowe和Wright(2001)对这项研究提出了批评，并得出结论，几乎没有证据表明专家与非专业人员在风险感知或判断方面存在差异。他们的主要论点是，已被证明与风险感知或判断相关的重要人口因素通常没有在专家和非专业样本中得到控制，而且抽样的“专家”通常没有以一种容易使他们的专业知识有意义的方式进行研究。他们还…
{"title":"A framework for future study of expert and lay differences in the judgment of risk","authors":"George Wright, G. Rowe, A. McColl","doi":"10.1080/14664530490464752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490464752","url":null,"abstract":"It has become almost an accepted fact that experts perceive or judge risks in a different manner to laypersons. This apparent finding has stemmed from the pioneering work of Slovic and colleagues (e.g., Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein, 1985), who have suggested that experts perceive risks in terms of statistical fatalities, whereas laypersons interpret the term in a more complex manner. Subsequent research has also suggested that experts tend to judge risks as lesser than comparative lay samples. However, Rowe and Wright (2001) critiqued this research and came to the conclusion that there is little evidence of expert-lay differences in risk perception or judgment. Among their main contentions were that important demographic factors that have been shown to be associated with perception or judgment of risk have generally not been controlled for across expert and lay samples, and that the “experts” sampled have generally not been studied in a manner liable to make their expertise meaningful. They also qu...","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"305 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121700231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-04-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490464806
Thomas Flüeler, R. Scholz
The long-term governance of radioactive waste (RWG) is a complex socio-technical issue. This empirically based contribution provides a novel approach on how to complement technical expertise with stakeholder involvement and knowledge. It proposes an integrated overall system and procedure that provide robustness in a sustainable RWG: It is a combination of (1) technical design issues, (2) a variety of analysis methods and (3) institutional backup within a (4) dynamic procedure allowing for reasonable participation. The findings suggest that controllability, retrievability, and procedural issues such as transparency, traceability of arguments, and inclusive participation, are key elements in an integrative evaluation. Sustained and safety-oriented compromise can only, if at all, be achieved if collective learning and capacity building takes place. This requires that all relevant stakeholder views be considered. As a complement to the knowledge frameworks of all participants and to linking their relations, ...
{"title":"Socio-technical knowledge for robust decision making in radioactive waste governance","authors":"Thomas Flüeler, R. Scholz","doi":"10.1080/14664530490464806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490464806","url":null,"abstract":"The long-term governance of radioactive waste (RWG) is a complex socio-technical issue. This empirically based contribution provides a novel approach on how to complement technical expertise with stakeholder involvement and knowledge. It proposes an integrated overall system and procedure that provide robustness in a sustainable RWG: It is a combination of (1) technical design issues, (2) a variety of analysis methods and (3) institutional backup within a (4) dynamic procedure allowing for reasonable participation. The findings suggest that controllability, retrievability, and procedural issues such as transparency, traceability of arguments, and inclusive participation, are key elements in an integrative evaluation. Sustained and safety-oriented compromise can only, if at all, be achieved if collective learning and capacity building takes place. This requires that all relevant stakeholder views be considered. As a complement to the knowledge frameworks of all participants and to linking their relations, ...","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125063877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The construction and implementation of a navigational system of ship pilotage support in restricted areas will enhance the effectiveness and safety of ships and ports operations. The guidelines for the system have been developed with the use of the optimization of the information a ship needs to maneuver safely.
{"title":"Information system of ship pilotage support in restricted areas","authors":"S. Gucma","doi":"10.1080/713926646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/713926646","url":null,"abstract":"The construction and implementation of a navigational system of ship pilotage support in restricted areas will enhance the effectiveness and safety of ships and ports operations. The guidelines for the system have been developed with the use of the optimization of the information a ship needs to maneuver safely.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114350885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nowadays, safety and reliability are very important aspects in computer systems field. This paper is a proposition of considering using programmable devices technology in improving security of these systems. Results of an example implementation of block cipher in programmable devices is presented. Especially underlined is reconfigurability of programmable devices, as the main reason for using this technology to satisfy safety and reliability requirements.
{"title":"Reconfigurable hardware and safety and reliability of computer systems","authors":"W. Laskowski, I. Józwiak","doi":"10.1080/713926643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/713926643","url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays, safety and reliability are very important aspects in computer systems field. This paper is a proposition of considering using programmable devices technology in improving security of these systems. Results of an example implementation of block cipher in programmable devices is presented. Especially underlined is reconfigurability of programmable devices, as the main reason for using this technology to satisfy safety and reliability requirements.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114893663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：