Desired Risk: Broadening the Social Amplification of Risk Framework1

Recently Kasperson et al.⁽⁶⁾ have proposed a conceptual framework, “The Social Amplification of Risk,” as a beginning step in developing a comprehensive theory of public experience of risk. A central goal of their effort is to systematically link technical assessments of risk with the growing findings from social scientific research. A key and growing domain of public risk experience is “desired” risk, but this is virtually neglected in the framework. This paper evaluates the scope of the “Social Amplification of Risk Framework,” asking whether it is applicable to desired risks, such as risk recreation (hang gliding, mountain climbing, and so forth). The analysis is supportive of the framework's applicability to the domain of desired risk.     

The Concept of Antifragility and its Implications for the Practice of Risk Analysis

Nassim Taleb's antifragile concept has been shown considerable interest in the media and on the Internet recently. For Taleb, the antifragile concept is a blueprint for living in a black swan world (where surprising extreme events may occur), the key being to love variation and uncertainty to some degree, and thus also errors. The antonym of “fragile” is not robustness or resilience, but “please mishandle” or “please handle carelessly,” using an example from Taleb when referring to sending a package full of glasses by post. In this article, we perform a detailed analysis of this concept, having a special focus on how the antifragile concept relates to common ideas and principles of risk management. The article argues that Taleb's antifragile concept adds an important contribution to the current practice of risk analysis by its focus on the dynamic aspects of risk and performance, and the necessity of some variation, uncertainties, and risk to achieve improvements and high performance at later stages.     

Climate Change Risk Perception and Communication: Addressing a Critical Moment?

Climate change is an increasingly salient issue for societies and policy‐makers worldwide. It now raises fundamental interdisciplinary issues of risk and uncertainty analysis and communication. The growing scientific consensus over the anthropogenic causes of climate change appears to sit at odds with the increasing use of risk discourses in policy: for example, to aid in climate adaptation decision making. All of this points to a need for a fundamental revision of our conceptualization of what it is to do climate risk communication. This Special Collection comprises seven papers stimulated by a workshop on “Climate Risk Perceptions and Communication” held at Cumberland Lodge Windsor in 2010. Topics addressed include climate uncertainties, images and the media, communication and public engagement, uncertainty transfer in climate communication, the role of emotions, localization of hazard impacts, and longitudinal analyses of climate perceptions. Climate change risk perceptions and communication work is critical for future climate policy and decisions.     

Artifactual Uncertainty in Risk Analysis

The field of comparative risk analysis of electrical energy alternatives has traditionally been plagued by highly uncertain estimates of risk rates, and consequently by conflicting judgements of relative risk. To the extent that this uncertainty arises from traditional sources–imperfect observations or actual variance in the data–it can be brought within a Bayesian statistical framework which allows policy conclusions to be formulted and tested at different levels of confidence. It is shown that there are important methodological or "artifactual" sources of uncertainty, however, that cannot be treated by statistical means; these require conceptual advances for their resolution. By identifying these sources of uncertainty in simple thought experiments and examples, it is shown in what ways the concept of attributable risk, which is the policy-maker's chief concern, must be sharpened and refined to have unambiguous meaning. The conventional "multilinear" formula for calculating risk indices is challenged as a measure of attributable risk, and directions for further research to improve the methodological foundations of comparative risk analysis are identified.     

An Anticipatory Governance Approach to Carbon Nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are novel materials with remarkable properties; possible beneficial applications include aircraft frames, hydrogen storage, environmental sensors, electrical transmission, and many more. At the same time, precise characterization of their potential toxicity remains elusive, in part because engineered nanostructures pose challenges to existing assays, predictive models, and dosimetry. While these obstacles are surmountable, their presence suggests that scientific uncertainty regarding the hazards of CNTs is likely to persist. Traditional U.S. policy approaches implicitly pose the question: “What level of evidence is necessary and sufficient to justify regulatory action?” In the case of CNTs, such a strategy of risk analysis is of limited immediate utility to both regulators essaying to carry out their mandates, and users of CNTs seeking to provide an appropriate level of protection to employees, customers, and other stakeholders. In contrast, the concept of anticipatory governance suggests an alternative research focus, that is: “Given the conflicted character of the data, how should relevant actors respond?” Adopting the latter theoretical framework, this article argues that currently available data support treating CNTs “as if” they are hazardous, while simultaneously highlighting some systemic uncertainties in many of the experiments carried out to date. Such a conclusion implies limiting exposure throughout product lifecycles, and also points to the possible applicability of various conceptual tools, such as life‐cycle and multicriteria decision analysis approaches, in choosing appropriate courses of action in the face of prolonged uncertainty.     

Decision Making for Group Risk Reduction: Dealing with Epistemic Uncertainty

Group risk is usually represented by FN curves showing the frequency of different accident sizes for a given activity. Many governments regulate group risk through FN criterion lines, which define the tolerable location of an FN curve. However, to compare different risk reduction alternatives, one must be able to rank FN curves. The two main problems in doing this are that the FN curve contains multiple frequencies, and that there are usually large epistemic uncertainties about the curve. Since the mid 1970s, a number of authors have used the concept of “disutility” to summarize FN curves in which a family of disutility functions was defined with a single parameter controlling the degree of “risk aversion.” Here, we show it to be risk neutral, disaster averse, and insensitive to epistemic uncertainty on accident frequencies. A new approach is outlined that has a number of attractive properties. The formulation allows us to distinguish between risk aversion and disaster aversion, two concepts that have been confused in the literature until now. A two‐parameter family of disutilities generalizing the previous approach is defined, where one parameter controls risk aversion and the other disaster aversion. The family is sensitive to epistemic uncertainties. Such disutilities may, for example, be used to compare the impact of system design changes on group risks, or might form the basis for valuing reductions in group risk in a cost‐benefit analysis.     

Integrated Uncertainty Analysis for Ambient Pollutant Health Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Ozone Mortality Risk

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses health risk assessment to help inform its decisions in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's standard approach is to make epidemiologically‐based risk estimates based on a single statistical model selected from the scientific literature, called the “core” model. The uncertainty presented for “core” risk estimates reflects only the statistical uncertainty associated with that one model's concentration‐response function parameter estimate(s). However, epidemiologically‐based risk estimates are also subject to “model uncertainty,” which is a lack of knowledge about which of many plausible model specifications and data sets best reflects the true relationship between health and ambient pollutant concentrations. In 2002, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) committee recommended that model uncertainty be integrated into EPA's standard risk analysis approach. This article discusses how model uncertainty can be taken into account with an integrated uncertainty analysis (IUA) of health risk estimates. It provides an illustrative numerical example based on risk of premature death from respiratory mortality due to long‐term exposures to ambient ozone, which is a health risk considered in the 2015 ozone NAAQS decision. This example demonstrates that use of IUA to quantitatively incorporate key model uncertainties into risk estimates produces a substantially altered understanding of the potential public health gain of a NAAQS policy decision, and that IUA can also produce more helpful insights to guide that decision, such as evidence of decreasing incremental health gains from progressive tightening of a NAAQS.     

On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough

Two images, “black swans” and “perfect storms,” have struck the public's imagination and are used—at times indiscriminately—to describe the unthinkable or the extremely unlikely. These metaphors have been used as excuses to wait for an accident to happen before taking risk management measures, both in industry and government. These two images represent two distinct types of uncertainties (epistemic and aleatory). Existing statistics are often insufficient to support risk management because the sample may be too small and the system may have changed. Rationality as defined by the von Neumann axioms leads to a combination of both types of uncertainties into a single probability measure—Bayesian probability—and accounts only for risk aversion. Yet, the decisionmaker may also want to be ambiguity averse. This article presents an engineering risk analysis perspective on the problem, using all available information in support of proactive risk management decisions and considering both types of uncertainty. These measures involve monitoring of signals, precursors, and near‐misses, as well as reinforcement of the system and a thoughtful response strategy. It also involves careful examination of organizational factors such as the incentive system, which shape human performance and affect the risk of errors. In all cases, including rare events, risk quantification does not allow “prediction” of accidents and catastrophes. Instead, it is meant to support effective risk management rather than simply reacting to the latest events and headlines.     

Improving Default Risk Prediction Using Bayesian Model Uncertainty Techniques

Credit risk is the potential exposure of a creditor to an obligor's failure or refusal to repay the debt in principal or interest. The potential of exposure is measured in terms of probability of default. Many models have been developed to estimate credit risk, with rating agencies dating back to the 19th century. They provide their assessment of probability of default and transition probabilities of various firms in their annual reports. Regulatory capital requirements for credit risk outlined by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision have made it essential for banks and financial institutions to develop sophisticated models in an attempt to measure credit risk with higher accuracy. The Bayesian framework proposed in this article uses the techniques developed in physical sciences and engineering for dealing with model uncertainty and expert accuracy to obtain improved estimates of credit risk and associated uncertainties. The approach uses estimates from one or more rating agencies and incorporates their historical accuracy (past performance data) in estimating future default risk and transition probabilities. Several examples demonstrate that the proposed methodology can assess default probability with accuracy exceeding the estimations of all the individual models. Moreover, the methodology accounts for potentially significant departures from “nominal predictions” due to “upsetting events” such as the 2008 global banking crisis.     

Bayesian Methodology for Model Uncertainty Using Model Performance Data

A simple and useful characterization of many predictive models is in terms of model structure and model parameters. Accordingly, uncertainties in model predictions arise from uncertainties in the values assumed by the model parameters (parameter uncertainty) and the uncertainties and errors associated with the structure of the model (model uncertainty). When assessing uncertainty one is interested in identifying, at some level of confidence, the range of possible and then probable values of the unknown of interest. All sources of uncertainty and variability need to be considered. Although parameter uncertainty assessment has been extensively discussed in the literature, model uncertainty is a relatively new topic of discussion by the scientific community, despite being often the major contributor to the overall uncertainty. This article describes a Bayesian methodology for the assessment of model uncertainties, where models are treated as sources of information on the unknown of interest. The general framework is then specialized for the case where models provide point estimates about a single‐valued unknown, and where information about models are available in form of homogeneous and nonhomogeneous performance data (pairs of experimental observations and model predictions). Several example applications for physical models used in fire risk analysis are also provided.     

On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle

Few policies for risk management have created more controversy than the precautionary principle. A main problem is the extreme number of different definitions and interpretations. Almost all definitions of the precautionary principle identify “scientific uncertainties” as the trigger or criterion for its invocation; however, the meaning of this concept is not clear. For applying the precautionary principle it is not sufficient that the threats or hazards are uncertain. A stronger requirement is needed. This article provides an in‐depth analysis of this issue. We question how the scientific uncertainties are linked to the interpretation of the probability concept, expected values, the results from probabilistic risk assessments, the common distinction between aleatory uncertainties and epistemic uncertainties, and the problem of establishing an accurate prediction model (cause‐effect relationship). A new classification structure is suggested to define what scientific uncertainties mean.     

When Is a Risk Assessment Deficient According to an Uncertainty‐Based Risk Perspective?

The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA‐N) has recently adopted a new definition of risk: “the consequences of an activity with the associated uncertainty.” The PSA‐N has also been using “deficient risk assessment” for some time as a basis for assigning nonconformities in audit reports. This creates an opportunity to study the link between risk perspective and risk assessment quality in a regulatory context, and, in the present article, we take a hard look at the term “deficient risk assessment” both normatively and empirically. First, we perform a conceptual analysis of how a risk assessment can be deficient in light of a particular risk perspective consistent with the new PSA‐N risk definition. Then, we examine the usages of the term “deficient” in relation to risk assessments in PSA‐N audit reports and classify these into a set of categories obtained from the conceptual analysis. At an overall level, we were able to identify on what aspects of the risk assessment the PSA‐N is focusing and where deficiencies are being identified in regulatory practice. A key observation is that there is a diversity in how the agency officials approach the risk assessments in audits. Hence, we argue that improving the conceptual clarity of what the authorities characterize as “deficient” in relation to the uncertainty‐based risk perspective may contribute to the development of supervisory practices and, eventually, potentially strengthen the learning outcome of the audit reports.     

Times Are Tough—Brother,Can You Paradigm?

Ten years ago, the National Academy of Science released its risk assessment/risk management (RA/RM) “paradigm” that served to crystallize much of the early thinking about these concepts. By defining RA as a four-step process, operationally independent from RM, the paradigm has presented society with a scheme, or a conceptually common framework, for addressing many risky situations (e.g., carcinogens, noncarcinogens, and chemical mixtures). The procedure has facilitated decision-making in a wide variety of situations and has identified the most important research needs. The past decade, however, has revealed that additional progress is needed. These areas include addressing the appropriate interaction (not isolation) between RA and RM, improving the methods for assessing risks from mixtures, dealing with “adversity of effect,” deciding whether “hazard” should imply an exposure to environmental conditions or to laboratory conditions, and evolving the concept to include both health and ecological risk. Interest in and expectations of risk assessment are increasing rapidly. The emerging concept of “comparative risk” (i.e., distinguishing between large risks and smaller risks that may be qualitatively different) is at a level comparable to that held by the concept of “risk” just 10 years ago. Comparative risk stands in need of a paradigm of its own, especially given the current economic limitations. “Times are tough; Brother, can you paradigm?”     

Assessing Uncertainty in Simulation-Based Maritime Risk Assessment

Recent work in the assessment of risk in maritime transportation systems has used simulation-based probabilistic risk assessment techniques. In the Prince William Sound and Washington State Ferries risk assessments, the studies' recommendations were backed up by estimates of their impact made using such techniques and all recommendations were implemented. However, the level of uncertainty about these estimates was not available, leaving the decisionmakers unsure whether the evidence was sufficient to assess specific risks and benefits. The first step toward assessing the impact of uncertainty in maritime risk assessments is to model the uncertainty in the simulation models used. In this article, a study of the impact of proposed ferry service expansions in San Francisco Bay is used as a case study to demonstrate the use of Bayesian simulation techniques to propagate uncertainty throughout the analysis. The conclusions drawn in the original study are shown, in this case, to be robust to the inherent uncertainties. The main intellectual merit of this work is the development of Bayesian simulation technique to model uncertainty in the assessment of maritime risk. However, Bayesian simulations have been implemented only as theoretical demonstrations. Their use in a large, complex system may be considered state of the art in the field of computational sciences.     

Review and Evaluation of the J100-10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems

Risk analysis standards are often employed to protect critical infrastructures, which are vital to a nation's security, economy, and safety of its citizens. We present an analysis framework for evaluating such standards and apply it to the J100-10 risk analysis standard for water and wastewater systems. In doing so, we identify gaps between practices recommended in the standard and the state of the art. While individual processes found within infrastructure risk analysis standards have been evaluated in the past, we present a foundational review and focus specifically on water systems. By highlighting both the conceptual shortcomings and practical limitations, we aim to prioritize the shortcomings needed to be addressed. Key findings from this study include (1) risk definitions fail to address notions of uncertainty, (2) the sole use of “worst reasonable case” assumptions can lead to mischaracterizations of risk, (3) analysis of risk and resilience at the threat-asset resolution ignores dependencies within the system, and (4) stakeholder values need to be assessed when balancing the tradeoffs between risk reduction and resilience enhancement.     

Predictive Modeling and Categorizing Likelihoods of Quarantine Pest Introduction of Imported Propagative Commodities from Different Countries

The present study investigates U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection records in the Agricultural Quarantine Activity System database to estimate the probability of quarantine pests on propagative plant materials imported from various countries of origin and to develop a methodology ranking the risk of country–commodity combinations based on quarantine pest interceptions. Data collected from October 2014 to January 2016 were used for developing predictive models and validation study. A generalized linear model with Bayesian inference and a generalized linear mixed effects model were used to compare the interception rates of quarantine pests on different country–commodity combinations. Prediction ability of generalized linear mixed effects models was greater than that of generalized linear models. The estimated pest interception probability and confidence interval for each country–commodity combination was categorized into one of four compliance levels: “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” and “Poor/Unacceptable,” Using K‐means clustering analysis. This study presents risk‐based categorization for each country–commodity combination based on the probability of quarantine pest interceptions and the uncertainty in that assessment.     

On Funtowicz and Ravetz's “Decision Stake—System Uncertainties” Structure and Recently Developed Risk Perspectives

The Funtowicz and Ravetz model for classifying problem‐solving strategies into applied sciences, professional consultancy, and postnormal sciences is well known in the social science risk literature. The model is illustrated in a diagram based on the two axes: (i) decision stakes—the value dimension (costs, benefits) and (ii) the system uncertainties—the knowledge dimension. These axes resemble the same two dimensions that characterize some recently developed risk perspectives: (a) consequences and the severity of these consequences and (b) associated uncertainties. In this article, we make a detailed comparison of these two types of risk frameworks. We point to similarities and differences in motivation and use. A main conclusion of the article is that these risk perspectives all provide adequate scientific bases for the Funtowicz and Ravetz model. New insights are provided on the understanding of what the outcome stakes/consequences and uncertainty dimensions really capture in these perspectives and frameworks.     

Characterizing Environmental Harm: Developments in an Approach to Strategic Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Environmental policymakers and regulators are often in the position of having to prioritize their actions across a diverse range of environmental pressures to secure environmental protection and improvements. Information on environmental issues to inform this type of strategic analysis can be disparate; it may be too voluminous or even absent. Data on a range of issues are rarely presented in a common format that allows easy analysis and comparison. Nevertheless, judgments are required on the significance of various environmental pressures and on the inherent uncertainties to inform strategic assessments such as “state of the environment” reports. How can decisionmakers go about this type of strategic and comparative risk analysis? In an attempt to provide practical tools for the analysis of environmental risks at a strategic level, the Environment Agency of England and Wales has conducted a program of developmental research on strategic risk assessment since 1996. The tools developed under this program use the concept of “environmental harm” as a common metric, viewed from technical, social, and economic perspectives, to analyze impacts from a range of environmental pressures. Critical to an informed debate on the relative importance of these perspectives is an understanding and analysis of the various characteristics of harm (spatial and temporal extent, reversibility, latency, etc.) and of the social response to actual or potential environmental harm from a range of hazards. Recent developments in our approach, described herein, allow a presentation of the analysis in a structured fashion so as to better inform risk‐management decisions.     

Bayesian Data Analysis of Severe Fatal Accident Risk in the Oil Chain

We analyze the risk of severe fatal accidents causing five or more fatalities and for nine different activities covering the entire oil chain. Included are exploration and extraction, transport by different modes, refining and final end use in power plants, heating or gas stations. The risks are quantified separately for OECD and non‐OECD countries and trends are calculated. Risk is analyzed by employing a Bayesian hierarchical model yielding analytical functions for both frequency (Poisson) and severity distributions (Generalized Pareto) as well as frequency trends. This approach addresses a key problem in risk estimation—namely the scarcity of data resulting in high uncertainties in particular for the risk of extreme events, where the risk is extrapolated beyond the historically most severe accidents. Bayesian data analysis allows the pooling of information from different data sets covering, for example, the different stages of the energy chains or different modes of transportation. In addition, it also inherently delivers a measure of uncertainty. This approach provides a framework, which comprehensively covers risk throughout the oil chain, allowing the allocation of risk in sustainability assessments. It also permits the progressive addition of new data to refine the risk estimates. Frequency, severity, and trends show substantial differences between the activities, emphasizing the need for detailed risk analysis.