Exploring Risk Judgments in a Trade Dispute Using Bayesian Networks

Bayesian networks (BNs) are graphical modeling tools that are generally recommended for exploring what‐if scenarios, visualizing systems and problems, and for communication between stakeholders during decision making. In this article, we investigate their potential for exploring different perspectives in trade disputes. To do so, we draw on a specific case study that was arbitrated by the World Trade Organization (WTO): the Australia‐New Zealand apples dispute. The dispute centered on disagreement about judgments contained within Australia's 2006 import risk analysis (IRA). We built a range of BNs of increasing complexity that modeled various approaches to undertaking IRAs, from the basic qualitative and semi‐quantitative risk analyses routinely performed in government agencies, to the more complex quantitative simulation undertaken by Australia in the apples dispute. We found the BNs useful for exploring disagreements under uncertainty because they are probabilistic and transparently represent steps in the analysis. Different scenarios and evidence can easily be entered. Specifically, we explore the sensitivity of the risk output to different judgments (particularly volume of trade). Thus, we explore how BNs could usefully aid WTO dispute settlement. We conclude that BNs are preferable to basic qualitative and semi‐quantitative risk analyses because they offer an accessible interface and are mathematically sound. However, most current BN modeling tools are limited compared with complex simulations, as was used in the 2006 apples IRA. Although complex simulations may be more accurate, they are a black box for stakeholders. BNs have the potential to be a transparent aid to complex decision making, but they are currently computationally limited. Recent technological software developments are promising.     

On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area

In this article, we discuss issues of risk management and risk governance with respect to petroleum operations in the Barents Sea area. We will focus on the decision problems related to whether or not to open the Barents Sea for petroleum activities in special vulnerable areas. We will explore to what extent the International Risk Governance Council risk governance framework provides valuable insights for and assistance to the decisionmaker and other stakeholders (including the industry and NGOs). The study covers issues related to risk assessment and appraisal, risk acceptance and tolerability, the use of the precautionary principle, risk perception, stakeholder involvement, risk communication, and risk management. The overall aim of the article is to point to areas where the risk governance could have been and can be improved for these and similar decision problems.     

How Probabilistic Risk Assessment Can Mislead Terrorism Risk Analysts

Traditional probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), of the type originally developed for engineered systems, is still proposed for terrorism risk analysis. We show that such PRA applications are unjustified in general. The capacity of terrorists to seek and use information and to actively research different attack options before deciding what to do raises unique features of terrorism risk assessment that are not adequately addressed by conventional PRA for natural and engineered systems—in part because decisions based on such PRA estimates do not adequately hedge against the different probabilities that attackers may eventually act upon. These probabilities may differ from the defender's (even if the defender's experts are thoroughly trained, well calibrated, unbiased probability assessors) because they may be conditioned on different information. We illustrate the fundamental differences between PRA and terrorism risk analysis, and suggest use of robust decision analysis for risk management when attackers may know more about some attack options than we do.     

Multicriteria Decision Framework for Cybersecurity Risk Assessment and Management

Risk assessors and managers face many difficult challenges related to novel cyber systems. Among these challenges are the constantly changing nature of cyber systems caused by technical advances, their distribution across the physical, information, and sociocognitive domains, and the complex network structures often including thousands of nodes. Here, we review probabilistic and risk-based decision-making techniques applied to cyber systems and conclude that existing approaches typically do not address all components of the risk assessment triplet (threat, vulnerability, consequence) and lack the ability to integrate across multiple domains of cyber systems to provide guidance for enhancing cybersecurity. We present a decision-analysis-based approach that quantifies threat, vulnerability, and consequences through a set of criteria designed to assess the overall utility of cybersecurity management alternatives. The proposed framework bridges the gap between risk assessment and risk management, allowing an analyst to ensure a structured and transparent process of selecting risk management alternatives. The use of this technique is illustrated for a hypothetical, but realistic, case study exemplifying the process of evaluating and ranking five cybersecurity enhancement strategies. The approach presented does not necessarily eliminate biases and subjectivity necessary for selecting countermeasures, but provides justifiable methods for selecting risk management actions consistent with stakeholder and decisionmaker values and technical data.     

The Risk of Groundling Fatalities from Unintentional Airplane Crashes

The crashes of four hijacked commercial planes on September 11, 2001, and the repeated televised images of the consequent collapse of the World Trade Center and one side of the Pentagon will inevitably change people's perceptions of the mortality risks to people on the ground from crashing airplanes. Goldstein and colleagues were the first to quantify the risk for Americans of being killed on the ground from a crashing airplane for unintentional events, providing average point estimates of 6 in a hundred million for annual risk and 4.2 in a million for lifetime risk. They noted that the lifetime risk result exceeded the commonly used risk management threshold of 1 in a million, and suggested that the risk to "groundlings" could be a useful risk communication tool because (a) it is a man-made risk (b) arising from economic activities (c) from which the victims derive no benefit and (d) exposure to which the victims cannot control. Their results have been used in risk communication. This analysis provides updated estimates of groundling fatality risks from unintentional crashes using more recent data and a geographical information system approach to modeling the population around airports. The results suggest that the average annual risk is now 1.2 in a hundred million and the lifetime risk is now 9 in ten million (below the risk management threshold). Analysis of the variability and uncertainty of this estimate, however, suggests that the exposure to groundling fatality risk varies by about a factor of approximately 100 in the spatial dimension of distance to an airport, with the risk declining rapidly outside the first 2 miles around an airport. We believe that the risk to groundlings from crashing airplanes is more useful in the context of risk communication when information about variability and uncertainty in the risk estimates is characterized, but we suspect that recent events will alter its utility in risk communication.     

Modeling Insurer‐Homeowner Interactions in Managing Natural Disaster Risk

The current system for managing natural disaster risk in the United States is problematic for both homeowners and insurers. Homeowners are often uninsured or underinsured against natural disaster losses, and typically do not invest in retrofits that can reduce losses. Insurers often do not want to insure against these losses, which are some of their biggest exposures and can cause an undesirably high chance of insolvency. There is a need to design an improved system that acknowledges the different perspectives of the stakeholders. In this article, we introduce a new modeling framework to help understand and manage the insurer's role in catastrophe risk management. The framework includes a new game‐theoretic optimization model of insurer decisions that interacts with a utility‐based homeowner decision model and is integrated with a regional catastrophe loss estimation model. Reinsurer and government roles are represented as bounds on the insurer‐insured interactions. We demonstrate the model for a full‐scale case study for hurricane risk to residential buildings in eastern North Carolina; present the results from the perspectives of all stakeholders—primary insurers, homeowners (insured and uninsured), and reinsurers; and examine the effect of key parameters on the results.     

Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management

Most cultural approaches to risk management deal with the connections between the forms of social relations within groups and the risk concerns of those groups. According to these theories, a certain limited set of different relational forms (usually three, four, or five) lead to specific, different and conflicting, risk concerns. In contrast to these theories, cosmopolitanism is an approach to culture that focuses, not on forms of sociality, but on changes among forms—expansions and contractions in the inclusivity of forms and movement by persons from one form of sociality to another. Relative to other cultural theories, cosmopolitanism thus is much more concerned with the solution of risk management problems than with their origins. Cosmopolitanism can be thought of as a cultural continuum, with cosmopolitanism at one end and pluralism at the other. Cosmopolitan persons are more open to cultural change—and thus the solution of risk management problems. In this article, we outline our new theory of cosmopolitanism, describe a method for measuring it and present an experimental study that tests some implications of the theory. Results from the study support the theory by showing that, compared to pluralistic respondents, cosmopolitan respondents are more inclusive in their risk management judgments—that is, they express equal concern for a local and a national issue, whereas the pluralistic respondents express greater concern in the local case. We discuss the risk management implications of a cosmopolitan approach to culture.     

The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process

Risk communication is being characterized as one way of facilitating more effective, democratic and participatory risk management strategies. An emphasis on formal communication approaches as a means to improve decisions and decrease conflict will highlight the challenge of managing hazards within a culturally heterogeneous society. Communication and participatory strategies will be considered successful only if diverse communities can be engaged as partners in the policy process. Because responses to risks are embedded and evolve within broader social environments, achieving the promise of risk communication across a diverse society may not be possible absent an understanding of how sociocultural variables and past experiences shape the exchange of ideas or information in any particular situation. This paper considers the implications of ethnic and socioeconomic variability for the risk communication process, summarizing theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence on the link between sociocultural features and risk responses. Specifically, the factors that define the context of communication may influence: the initial framing of a risk issue, particularly, the adoption of an environmental justice vs. scientific/economic perspective; the perceived importance of various aspects of the decision problem; and prior beliefs about environmental hazards and agencies involved in risk management. Two examples of situations requiring communications about risk are presented and illustrate how these principles could operate in minority or lower-income communities. A significant challenge for health and regulatory officials will be to engage in an interactive process of information and opinion exchanges that is reasonable and effective within vastly different socioeconomic and cultural contexts.     

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

The 40th Anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis presents an apt time to step back and review the field of risk communication. In this review, we first evaluate recent debates over the field's current state and future directions. Our takeaway is that efforts to settle on a single, generic version of what constitutes risk communication will be less productive than an open-minded exploration of the multiple forms that comprise today's vibrant interdisciplinary field. We then review a selection of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship appearing in the published literature since 2010. Studies on trust in risk communication messengers continued to figure prominently, while new research directions emerged on the opportunities and critical challenges of enhancing transparency and using social media. Research on message attributes explored how conceptual insights particularly relating to framing, affective and emotional responses, and uncertainty might be operationalized to improve message effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrated the importance of evaluation and how varying single attributes alone is unlikely to achieve desired results. Research on risk communication audiences advanced on risk perception and multiway engagement with notable interest in personal factors such as gender, race, age, and political orientation. We conclude by arguing that the field's interdisciplinary tradition should be further nurtured to drive the next evolutionary phase of risk communication research.     

Trust and Risk Communication in High-Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research

This study explored the effects of open communication about occupational risks on workers' trust beliefs and trust intentions toward risk management, and the resilience of these beliefs and intentions to further risk information. An experimental survey of 393 student nurses showed the importance of open communication in the development of worker trust in risk management. Consistent with the trust asymmetry principle, we found that the increase in trust beliefs following open communication was weaker than the reduction in trust following a lack of communication. Further, the level of trust developed through communication (or lack of) influenced the way that subsequent risk information was processed. Negative risk information reduced trust beliefs in nurses with already low levels of trust while positive risk information increased trust beliefs only in those with already high levels. A similar pattern of results emerged for nurses' trust intentions, although the magnitude of these effects was weaker. The implications of these findings for occupational risk management are discussed.     

The NAS Risk Paradigm as a Medium for Communication

Many journalists, public interest groups and other recipients of risk assessment information are familiar with the National Academy of Sciences risk assessment paradigm. From time to time, paradigm concepts appear in news features or community group discussions on environmental issues. With knowledge of the paradigm common to scientists, journalists, and other interested parties, the paradigm is a potentially important medium for communication between risk scientists, journalists, and the public. Specifically, the paradigm offers widely-accepted organizing principles for presenting risk information, a common language for addressing a variety of issues and concepts, and a flexible analytical system that accommodates the diversity of scientific information and policy perspectives that characterize the risk assessment process. In addition, the paradigm outlines important relationships and distinctions between risk assessment and risk management. Informed and creative use of these features of the paradigm can guide and simplify interviews between journalists or community groups and their expert sources, clarify presentation of risk information, and promote collaboration between risk scientists, journalists, and others to assure complete, objective and fair comment on risk issues of interest to the public.     

Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities

Despite the increased interest in risk communication among government agencies, there is evidence that agencies'risk communication practices lag. We conducted a study to explore which risk communication research would be most important to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. Qualitative interviews and a survey of 145 risk communication experts based in academic institutions and government agencies explored how important research on each of 48 topics would be to improving agencies'risk communication efforts. Respondents identified topics within three areas as priorities for further research: 1) involving communities in agency decisionmaking; 2) communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and incomes; and 3) evaluating risk communication. Both practitioners and researchers responded to additional statements about agencies'risk communication practices with reservations about staff and managers'commitment to effective communication about environmental issues. We discuss the implications of these findings.     

Analysis of Affordance,Time, and Adaptation in the Assessment of Industrial Control System Cybersecurity Risk

Industrial control systems increasingly use standard communication protocols and are increasingly connected to public networks—creating substantial cybersecurity risks, especially when used in critical infrastructures such as electricity and water distribution systems. Methods of assessing risk in such systems have recognized for some time the way in which the strategies of potential adversaries and risk managers interact in defining the risk to which such systems are exposed. But it is also important to consider the adaptations of the systems’ operators and other legitimate users to risk controls, adaptations that often appear to undermine these controls, or shift the risk from one part of a system to another. Unlike the case with adversarial risk analysis, the adaptations of system users are typically orthogonal to the objective of minimizing or maximizing risk in the system. We argue that this need to analyze potential adaptations to risk controls is true for risk problems more generally, and we develop a framework for incorporating such adaptations into an assessment process. The method is based on the principle of affordances, and we show how this can be incorporated in an iterative procedure based on raising the minimum period of risk materialization above some threshold. We apply the method in a case study of a small European utility provider and discuss the observations arising from this.     

Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk

This article investigates the role of culture in the social production of risks and risk communication surrounding industrial development in a region located at a rural-urban interface. A case study examined a public consultation that was undertaken to inform local residents about an eco-industrial development proposal being planned near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The research employed the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) to examine the relationships among culture, place, and socially constructed risk. A total of 44 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 33 landowners (farmers, acreage owners), public officials (municipal politicians, administrators), journalists, and industry representatives. Analysis revealed that risk communication occurred in relation to situated experiences of place that were based on conflicting cultural worldviews. The research shows that place is a useful component of the SARF, providing a spatial explanation for why some people amplify, and others attenuate, risks in locally contentious environmental debates.     

Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement

There are many reasons that people, when warned of an impending extreme event, do not take proactive, self-defensive action. We focus on one possible reason, which is that, sometimes, people lack a sense of agency or even experience disempowerment, which can lead to passivity. This article takes up one situation where the possibility of disempowerment is salient, that of Rohingya refugees who were evicted from their homes in Myanmar and forced to cross the border into neighboring Bangladesh. In their plight, we see the twin elements of marginalization and displacement acting jointly to produce heightened vulnerability to the risks from extreme weather. Building on a relational model of risk communication, a consortium of researchers and practitioners designed a risk communication training workshop that featured elements of empowerment-based practice. The program was implemented in two refugee camps. Evaluation suggests that the workshop may have had an appreciable effect in increasing participants' sense of agency and hope, while decreasing their level of fatalism. The outcomes were considerably more positive for female than male participants, which has important implications. This work underscores the potential for participatory modes of risk communication to empower the more marginalized, and thus more vulnerable, members of society.     

Can a Participatory Approach Contribute to Food Chain Risk Analysis?

We consider food chain risks and specifically address stakeholder participation in the risk analysis process. We combine social and natural science perspectives to explore the participation process in relation to food risks and, in particular, to consider how some specific participation processes might be scientifically evaluated and how stakeholder participation in general might be incorporated into food risk decision making. We have built considerations based on three large integrative case studies that examine aspects of participatory processes. Here we use the case studies collectively to illustrate observations and beliefs concerning the nature of the interaction of stakeholders with established quantitative risk methodologies. This account is not supported by any large volume of analysis. The views in the report are expressed in relation to an accepted risk analysis framework and also with respect to probabilistic modeling of risks and are illustrated where possible with anecdotal reports of actual case study events.     

Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice

The three classic pillars of risk analysis are risk assessment (how big is the risk and how sure can we be?), risk management (what shall we do about it?), and risk communication (what shall we say about it, to whom, when, and how?). We propose two complements as important parts of these three bases: risk attribution (who or what addressable conditions actually caused an accident or loss?) and learning from experience about risk reduction (what works, and how well?). Failures in complex systems usually evoke blame, often with insufficient attention to root causes of failure, including some aspects of the situation, design decisions, or social norms and culture. Focusing on blame, however, can inhibit effective learning, instead eliciting excuses to deflect attention and perceived culpability. Productive understanding of what went wrong, and how to do better, thus requires moving past recrimination and excuses. This article identifies common blame‐shifting “lame excuses” for poor risk management. These generally contribute little to effective improvements and may leave real risks and preventable causes unaddressed. We propose principles from risk and decision sciences and organizational design to improve results. These start with organizational leadership. More specifically, they include: deliberate testing and learning—especially from near‐misses and accident precursors; careful causal analysis of accidents; risk quantification; candid expression of uncertainties about costs and benefits of risk‐reduction options; optimization of tradeoffs between gathering additional information and immediate action; promotion of safety culture; and mindful allocation of people, responsibilities, and resources to reduce risks. We propose that these principles provide sound foundations for improving successful risk management.     

Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview

This study integrates cultural theory of risk into the risk information seeking and processing model in the context of particulate air pollution in South Korea. Specifically, it examines how cultural worldviews (hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism, and fatalism) influence the way people interpret risk about an environmental risk, which may in turn promote or deter their information seeking and processing about the risk. An online survey (N = 645) showed that egalitarianism was positively associated with perceptions of societal and personal risks, affective responses toward the risk, and informational subjective norms. Perceived societal risk, in particular, mediated the effect of egalitarianism on information insufficiency. Moreover, cultural worldview was a significant moderator of the relationships between information insufficiency and risk information seeking and processing. The positive relationship between information insufficiency and information seeking grew stronger with increasing egalitarianism. In contrast, the negative relationship between information insufficiency and heuristic processing was strengthened with increasing hierarchy. This study extends prior theories and models in risk communication by addressing the roles of cultural worldview, an important individual difference factor in interpreting environmental risks.     

Risk Analysis of Dust Explosion Scenarios Using Bayesian Networks

In this study, a methodology has been proposed for risk analysis of dust explosion scenarios based on Bayesian network. Our methodology also benefits from a bow‐tie diagram to better represent the logical relationships existing among contributing factors and consequences of dust explosions. In this study, the risks of dust explosion scenarios are evaluated, taking into account common cause failures and dependencies among root events and possible consequences. Using a diagnostic analysis, dust particle properties, oxygen concentration, and safety training of staff are identified as the most critical root events leading to dust explosions. The probability adaptation concept is also used for sequential updating and thus learning from past dust explosion accidents, which is of great importance in dynamic risk assessment and management. We also apply the proposed methodology to a case study to model dust explosion scenarios, to estimate the envisaged risks, and to identify the vulnerable parts of the system that need additional safety measures.     

The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust—or lack of trust—in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.