Limitations on the Usefulness of Risk Assessment

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is now regarded as an essential component in the analysis of risks arising from installations classified as major hazards. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the value of the results in decision-making in practical situations. The use made of QRA in three contrasting cases which came to extensive public attention in the U.K. is examined. The first concerned an extension of domestic development near a chemical factory; the second an extension to a large petrochemical complex; and the third to a proposal to build a pressurized water reactor. The two public inquiries concerned with the chemical industry accepted standards of individual risk which were comparable to the risks from everyday accidents; the evidence of societal risk that could arise from major accidents at the petrochemical complex was compared with that of a local natural hazard — flooding. Higher standards of individual safety were set in the inquiry into the PWR proposal, and the definition of societal risk was debated at length. The QRA results were analyzed to show that risks arising from accidents were lower than those from normal operations, but they were used explicitly as a check on the overall safety of the design and of the operational and licensing organization. Such qualitative examination will always be required in addition to QRA. All these inquiries were faced with considerable technical argument. There is a need for the full details of risk calculations to be clear. The usefulness of QRA as an input to decision-making would be much enhanced if the technical points at issue could be clarified outside a formal public inquiry. In addition, there are some technical questions which apply to many installations. There should be better mechanisms of technical debate to achieve a measure of agreement on the optimum methods of calculation in these cases, and some possibilities are explored.     

On the Ethical Justification for the Use of Risk Acceptance Criteria

To protect people from hazards, the common safety regulation regime in many industries is based on the use of minimum standards formulated as risk acceptance or tolerability limits. The limits are seen as absolute, and in principle these should be met regardless of costs. The justification is ethical - people should not be exposed to a risk level exceeding certain limits. In this article, we discuss this approach to safety regulation and its justification. We argue that the use of such limits is based on some critical assumptions; that low accident risk has a value in itself, that risk can be accurately measured and the authorities specify the limits. However, these assumptions are not in general valid, and hence the justification of the approach can be questioned. In the article, we look closer into these issues, and we conclude that there is a need for rethinking this regulation approach - its ethical justification is not stronger than for alternative approaches. Essential for the analysis is the distinction between ethics of the mind and ethics of the consequences, which has several implications that are discussed.     

Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food-Related Hazards

The psychometric approach developed by Slovic and his co-workers has been effectively used to assess risk perceptions associated with different food-related hazards. However, further examination (using questionnaire data and partial correlation techniques) has indicated that technological hazards are highly differentiated from lifestyle hazards, in terms of both hazard control and knowledge about the hazard. Optimistic bias was also seen to vary between hazards. Further research has focused on a particular hazard, genetic engineering. Risk perceptions associated with genetic engineering are underpinned by ethical concern and questions relating to perceived need for the technology, as well as perceptions of risk or harm. However, increasing the specificity of hazard stimuli was found to alter the factor structure of underlying risk perceptions. The utility of preference mapping procedures in determining individual differences in trust in risk regulators is also discussed.     

Toward an Application Guide for Safety Integrity Level Allocation in Railway Systems

The work in the article presents the development of an application guide based on feedback and comments stemming from various railway actors on their practices of SIL allocation to railway safety‐related functions. The initial generic methodology for SIL allocation has been updated to be applied to railway rolling stock safety‐related functions in order to solve the SIL concept application issues. Various actors dealing with railway SIL allocation problems are the intended target of the methodology; its principles will be summarized in this article with a focus on modifications and precisions made in order to establish a practical guide for railway safety authorities. The methodology is based on the flowchart formalism used in CSM (common safety method) European regulation. It starts with the use of quantitative safety requirements, particularly tolerable hazard rates (THR). THR apportioning rules are applied. On the one hand, the rules are related to classical logical combinations of safety‐related functions preventing hazard occurrence. On the other hand, to take into account technical conditions (last safety weak link, functional dependencies, technological complexity, etc.), specific rules implicitly used in existing practices are defined for readjusting some THR values. SIL allocation process based on apportioned and validated THR values is finally illustrated through the example of “emergency brake” subsystems. Some specific SIL allocation rules are also defined and illustrated.     

Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge

Recent research indicates that social trust of those who manage a hazard is strongly correlated to judgments about the hazard's risk and benefits. The present study investigates the more specific question of “For which hazards is this?” It was postulated that when an individual lacks knowledge about a hazard, social trust of authorities managing the hazard determines perceived risks and benefits. On the other hand, when an individual has personal knowledge about a hazard and therefore does not need to rely on managing authorities, social trust is unrelated to judged risks and benefits. Participants (N = 91) assessed risks, benefits, and trust in managing authorities and personal knowledge associated with 25 hazardous technologies and activities. As expected, strong correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were observed for hazards about which people did not possess much knowledge. No significant correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were found for hazards about which people were knowledgeable. Results suggest that the lay public relies on social trust when making judgments of risks and benefits when personal knowledge about a hazard is lacking. Replicating findings of other studies, the present study also found negative correlations between perceived risks and perceived benefits. When social trust was controlled for, correlations between perceived risks and benefits diminished. Implications of the results for risk management are discussed.     

The Role of Emotions in Risk Communication

We present two experiments investigating the role of emotions concerning technological and natural hazards. In the first experiment, technological hazards aroused stronger emotions, and were considered to be riskier than natural hazards. No differences were found between the texts versus audio presentations. However, the presence of pictures aroused stronger emotions and increased the perceived risk. Emotions play a mediating role between hazard types and perceived risk, as well as between pictures and perceived risk. The second experiment adopted real‐world materials from webpages and TV. Emotions again play a mediating role between pictorial information and risk perception. Moreover, specific emotions were found to be associated with different types of action tendencies. For example, loss‐based emotions (e.g., fear, regret) tend to lead to prevention strategies, whereas ethical emotions (e.g., anger) lead to aggressive behavior. We also find that loss‐based emotions in the technical hazard scenario trigger more coping strategies (from prevention to retaliation) than in the natural hazard scenario.     

The Use of Individual and Societal Risk Criteria Within the Dutch Flood Safety Policy—Nationwide Estimates of Societal Risk and Policy Applications

The Dutch government is in the process of revising its flood safety policy. The current safety standards for flood defenses in the Netherlands are largely based on the outcomes of cost‐benefit analyses. Loss of life has not been considered separately in the choice for current standards. This article presents the results of a research project that evaluated the potential roles of two risk metrics, individual and societal risk, to support decision making about new flood safety standards. These risk metrics are already used in the Dutch major hazards policy for the evaluation of risks to the public. Individual risk concerns the annual probability of death of a person. Societal risk concerns the probability of an event with many fatalities. Technical aspects of the use of individual and societal risk metrics in flood risk assessments as well as policy implications are discussed. Preliminary estimates of nationwide levels of societal risk are presented. Societal risk levels appear relatively high in the southwestern part of the country where densely populated dike rings are threatened by a combination of river and coastal floods. It was found that cumulation, the simultaneous flooding of multiple dike rings during a single flood event, has significant impact on the national level of societal risk. Options for the application of the individual and societal risk in the new flood safety policy are presented and discussed.     

The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms “risk” and “hazard.” The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four‐fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders’ perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.     

Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy1,2

This paper looks critically at the emergence and present status of risk analysis with the aim of assessing its usefulness for policy decisions on risk regulation and the acceptability of risk-bearing innovations. The authors adopt a personal narrative to illustrate their own involvement in risk research and to comment on empirical trends that have resulted in the current fashion for risk workshops. The second part of the paper confronts specific issues in risk research. These are not new problems-indeed several of the questions asked have been taken directly from a list used to structure a recent risk seminar; but the stand taken here is rather less conciliatory than is usual when these issues are discussed. The pessimistic message of this paper is that risk research, especially in the area of risk perception, is being used as a panacea with which to attempt to remedy what are essentially societal and political matters. Risk research is being used as a tool in a discourse which is not concerned with risks per se, nor with the cognitive processes by which people misperceive the risks of new technologies, but whose hidden agenda is the legitimacy of decision-making institutions and the equitable distribution of hazards and benefits. The authors take a subjectivist view, not just of risk but in general, and query the natural science approach to risk perception, with its assumption that universal dimensions of risk perception can be discovered and used in policy-making and setting regulatory standards. Although it is possible to collect subjective data on the wider meanings that risks and benefits associated with technological innovations have for lay publics, the interpretation and recombination of these data into useful policy guidelines is seen as fraught with technical and, above all, political problems.     

Who Reaps the Benefits,Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism,Comparative Utility,and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology

Although the issue of risk target (e.g., self, others, children) is widely acknowledged in risk perception research, its importance appears underappreciated. To date, most research has been satisfied with demonstrating comparative optimism, i.e., lower perceived risk for the self than others, and exploring its moderators, such as perceived controllability and personal exposure. Much less research has investigated how the issue of target may affect benefit perceptions or key outcomes such as stated preferences for hazard regulation. The current research investigated these issues using data from a public survey of attitudes toward mobile phone technology (N= 1,320). First, results demonstrated comparative optimism for this hazard, and also found moderating effects of both controllability and personal exposure. Second, there was evidence of comparative utility, i.e., users believed that the benefits from mobile phone technology are greater for the self than others. Third, and most important for policy, preferences for handset regulation were best predicted by perceptions of the risks to others but perceived benefits for the self. Results suggest a closer awareness of target can improve prediction of stated preferences for hazard regulation and that it would be profitable for future research to pay more attention to the issue of target for both risk and benefit perceptions.     

Resource Allocation in Integrated Preoperational and Operational Management of Natural Hazards

The management of natural hazards occurring over a territory entails two main phases: a preoperational —or pre-event—phase, whose objective is to relocate resources closer to sites characterized by the highest hazard, and an operational —during the event—phase, whose objective is to manage in real time the available resources by allocating them to sites where their intervention is needed. Obviously, the two phases are closely related, and demand a unified and integrated treatment. This work presents a unifying framework that integrates various decisional problems arising in the management of different kinds of natural hazards. The proposed approach, which is based on a mathematical programming formulation, can support the decisionmakers in the optimal resource allocation before (preoperational phase) and during (operational phase) an emergency due to natural hazard events. Different alternatives of modeling the resources and the territory are proposed and discussed according to their appropriateness in the preoperational and operational phases. The proposed approach can be applied to the management of any natural hazard and, from an integration perspective, may be particularly useful for risk management in civil protection operations. An application related to the management of wildfire hazard is presented.     

The Government and Statutory Bodies in Hong Kong: Centralization and Autonomy

Over the past decade in Hong Kong, the relationship and accountability of statutory bodies to core government, to the legislature, and to the broader public have been the subject of continuing and, as yet, unresolved debate. Faced with scandals and other serious problems in a number of the major statutory bodies, and in the context of its own problems of lack of political support and legitimacy, the Tung administration tended to reduce the autonomy of the statutory bodies by increasing central control and integrating their functions with those of core government. Legislators have seen the problems of statutory bodies from a rather different perspective, arguing that they result from a lack of accountability and transparency. The government’s eventual concession to the need for reform has resulted, since 2003, in a review of the principles governing the work of all advisory and statutory bodies and of specific statutory bodies which have experienced serious problems. This article examines the principles contained in the review and assesses whether they are likely to lead to increased autonomy and improvements in governance standards.     

Confidence Matters: Self‐efficacy Moderates the Credit that Supervisors Give to Adaptive and Proactive Role Behaviours

In complex and uncertain work environments, employees need to not only be proficient in carrying out their core duties, but also to be adaptive (able to cope and respond to unpredictable events) and proactive (able to anticipate the situation and act in a self‐directed way) in their work roles. In this study we investigate the extent to which supervisors actually give credit to adaptive and proactive role behaviours when they judge employees’ overall job performance. Drawing on attribution theory, we propose that the extent to which these role behaviours are valued by supervisors will be enhanced by employees’ confidence for relevant role behaviours. Support for these ideas is provided using data from junior doctors and their supervisors in a hospital emergency department. Adaptive role behaviours positively influenced supervisors’ judgements of overall job performance. This relationship was stronger for employees with high self‐efficacy for achieving outcomes. Engaging in proactive role behaviours while also lacking role‐breadth self‐efficacy resulted in supervisors’ giving employees less credit for their proactive role behaviours. Findings support the argument that employees’ self‐efficacy for specific role behaviours provides attributional cues about capability that modify how adaptive and proactive role behaviours are interpreted and valued.     

Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards

Social scientists have argued about the role of political beliefs in highly charged policy debates among scientific experts. In debates about environmental hazards, the focus of contention is likely to rest on the appropriate scientific assumptions to inform safety standards. When scientific communities are polarized, one would expect to find systematic differences among combatants in the choice of appropriate assumptions, and variation in the application of "precaution" in standard setting. We test this proposition using an experiment applied in a mail survey format to groups of scientists from opposing sides of the nuclear policy debate. Questions were asked about the role of political, social, and epistemological beliefs in reaching scientific and policy judgments about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer incidence in human populations. We find that the precautionary tendency is pervasive regardless of whether the scientist is associated with a putatively pro- or anti-nuclear group. Using a multinomial logit model, we explain a modest percentage of the variation in the choice of preferred judgments about safety standards, but find that distinct sets of political and social values are significantly associated with policy positions among scientists. Implications for scientific advice to policymakers are discussed.     

Do People Believe Combined Hazards Can Present Synergistic Risks?

The risk attributable to some hazard combinations can be greater than the sum of the risk attributable to each constituent hazard. Such "synergistic risks" occur in several domains, can vary in magnitude, and often have harmful, even life-threatening, outcomes. Yet, the extent to which people believe that combined hazards can present synergistic risks is unclear. We present the results of two experimental studies aimed at addressing this issue. In both studies, participants examined synergistic and additive risk scenarios, and judged whether these were possible. The results indicate that the proportion of people who believe that synergistic risks can occur declines linearly as the magnitude of the synergistic risk increases. We also find that people believe, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, that certain hazard combinations are more likely to present additive or weakly synergistic risks than synergistic risks of higher magnitudes. Furthermore, our findings did not vary as a simple function of hazard domain (health vs. social), but varied according to the characteristics of the specific hazards considered (specified vs. unspecified drug combinations). These results suggest that many people's beliefs concerning the risk attributable to combined hazards could lead them to underestimate the threat posed by combinations that present synergistic risks, particularly for hazard combinations that present higher synergistic risk magnitudes. These findings highlight a need to develop risk communications that can effectively increase awareness of synergistic risks.     

A self‐motives perspective on feedback‐seeking behavior: Linking organizational behavior and social psychology research

Both the feedback‐seeking literature in management and the self‐motives domain in social psychology have focused on how motives affect the way in which people acquire information for self‐evaluation purposes. Despite apparent conceptual similarities, the implications of research in these domains have not been fully integrated. This paper aims to link research on feedback‐seeking behavior to recent theoretical developments in social psychology. First, the current perspective in management on feedback‐seeking motives is depicted. Second, a well‐established framework of self‐motives in social psychology is introduced. Third, similarities and differences between these two motivational perspectives are discussed and a first step towards integration is proposed. Fourth, it is demonstrated how a self‐motives perspective might guide future research on six key issues. Self‐motives might be useful in identifying new antecedents of feedback‐seeking behavior, resolving inconsistencies in the feedback‐seeking literature, understanding the interplay among feedback‐seeking motives, integrating feedback‐seeking and feedback reactions research, examining attitudinal outcomes of feedback‐seeking motives, and enhancing the feedback–performance relationship.     

Sequential Hazards Resilience of Interdependent Infrastructure System: A Case Study of Greater Toronto Area Energy Infrastructure System

Coupled infrastructure systems and complicated multihazards result in a high level of complexity and make it difficult to assess and improve the infrastructure system resilience. With a case study of the Greater Toronto Area energy system (including electric, gas, and oil transmission networks), an approach to analysis of multihazard resilience of an interdependent infrastructure system is presented in the article. Integrating network theory, spatial and numerical analysis methods, the new approach deals with the complicated multihazard relations and complex infrastructure interdependencies as spatiotemporal impacts on infrastructure systems in order to assess the dynamic system resilience. The results confirm that the effects of sequential hazards on resilience of infrastructure (network) are more complicated than the sum of single hazards. The resilience depends on the magnitude of the hazards, their spatiotemporal relationship and dynamic combined impacts, and infrastructure interdependencies. The article presents a comparison between physical and functional resilience of an electric transmission network, and finds functional resilience is always higher than physical resilience. The multiple hazards resilience evaluation approach is applicable to any type of infrastructure and hazard and it can contribute to the improvement of infrastructure planning, design, and maintenance decision making.     

Probabilistic Multiple Hazard Resilience Model of an Interdependent Infrastructure System

Multiple hazard resilience is of significant practical value because most regions of the world are subject to multiple natural and technological hazards. An analysis and assessment approach for multiple hazard spatiotemporal resilience of interdependent infrastructure systems is developed using network theory and a numerical analysis. First, we define multiple hazard resilience and present a quantitative probabilistic metric based on the expansion of a single hazard deterministic resilience model. Second, we define a multiple hazard relationship analysis model with a focus on the impact of hazards on an infrastructure. Subsequently, a relationship matrix is constructed with temporal and spatial dimensions. Further, a general method for the evaluation of direct impacts on an individual infrastructure under multiple hazards is proposed. Third, we present an analysis of indirect multiple hazard impacts on interdependent infrastructures and a joint restoration model of an infrastructure system. Finally, a simplified two‐layer interdependent infrastructure network is used as a case study for illustrating the proposed methodology. The results show that temporal and spatial relationships of multiple hazards significantly influence system resilience. Moreover, the interdependence among infrastructures further magnifies the impact on resilience value. The main contribution of the article is a new multiple hazard resilience evaluation approach that is capable of integrating the impacts of multiple hazard interactions, interdependence of network components (layers), and restoration strategy.