Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis

Risk analysis as a field and discipline is about concepts, principles, approaches, methods, and models for understanding, assessing, communicating, managing, and governing risk. The foundation of this field and discipline has been subject to continuous discussion since its origin some 40 years ago with the establishment of the Society for Risk Analysis and the Risk Analysis journal. This article provides a perspective on critical foundational challenges that this field and discipline faces today, for risk analysis to develop and have societal impact. Topics discussed include fundamental questions important for defining the risk field, discipline, and science; the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary features of risk analysis; the interactions and dependencies with other sciences; terminology and fundamental principles; and current developments and trends, such as the use of artificial intelligence.     

Learning to Manage the Multirisk World

Risk assessment, perception, and management tend to focus on one risk at a time. But we live in a multirisk world. This essay in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) and the journal Risk Analysis suggests that we can—and have already begun to—strengthen risk analysis and policy outcomes by moving from a focus on the single to the multiple—multiple stressors, multiple impacts, and multiple decisions. This evolution can improve our abilities to assess actual risks, to confront and weigh risk-risk trade-offs and innovate risk-superior moves, and to build learning into adaptive regulation that adjusts over time. Recognizing the multirisk reality can help us understand complex systems, foresee unintended consequences, design better policy solutions, and learn to improve.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.     

Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges

As part of the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis and Risk Analysis: An International Journal, this essay reviews the 10 most important accomplishments of risk analysis from 1980 to 2010, outlines major accomplishments in three major categories from 2011 to 2019, discusses how editors circulate authors’ accomplishments, and proposes 10 major risk-related challenges for 2020–2030. Authors conclude that the next decade will severely test the field of risk analysis.     

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

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

Nano Risk Analysis: Advancing the Science for Nanomaterials Risk Management

Scientists, activists, industry, and governments have raised concerns about health and environmental risks of nanoscale materials. The Society for Risk Analysis convened experts in September 2008 in Washington, DC to deliberate on issues relating to the unique attributes of nanoscale materials that raise novel concerns about health risks. This article reports on the overall themes and findings of the workshop, uncovering the underlying issues for each of these topics that become recurring themes. The attributes of nanoscale particles and other nanomaterials that present novel issues for risk analysis are evaluated in a risk analysis framework, identifying challenges and opportunities for risk analysts and others seeking to assess and manage the risks from emerging nanoscale materials and nanotechnologies. Workshop deliberations and recommendations for advancing the risk analysis and management of nanotechnologies are presented.     

Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.     

Risk Analysis for Invasive Species: General Framework and Research Needs

A joint workshop was convened by the Society for Risk Analysis Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty Group and the Ecological Society of America Theoretical Ecology Section to provide independent scientific input into the formulation of methods and processes for risk assessment of invasive species. In breakout sessions on (1) the effects of invasive species on human health, (2) effects on plants and animals, (3) risk analysis issues and research needs related to entry and establishment of invasive species, and (4) risk analysis issues and research needs related to the spread and impacts of invasive species, workshop participants discussed an overall approach to risk assessment for invasive species. Workshop participants agreed on the need for empirical research on areas in which data are lacking, including potential invasive species, native species and habitats that may be impacted by invasive species, important biological processes and phenomena such as dispersal, and pathways of entry and spread for invasive species. Participants agreed that theoretical ecology can inform the process of risk assessment for invasive species by providing guidelines and conceptual models, and can contribute to improved decision making by providing a firm biological basis for risk assessments.     

供应链风险管理中的几个重要问题

供应链风险管理是供应链管理领域一个新的热点研究方向,吸引了来自于运作管理、财务管理和战略管理等领域的研究人员和企业管理人员的极大关注.文章对有关供应链风险管理定量分析的一些主要工作进行评述,并讨论这一领域的几个重要研究方向,希望引起国内学术界的重视.     

Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and overt conflict have become pervasive. Risk-perception research has recently begun to provide a new perspective on this problem. Distrust in risk analysis and risk management plays a central role in this perspective. According to this view, the conflicts and controversies surrounding risk management are not due to public ignorance or irrationality but, instead, are seen as a side effect of our remarkable form of participatory democracy, amplified by powerful technological and social changes that systematically destroy trust. Recognizing the importance of trust and understanding the "dynamics of the system" that destroys trust has vast implications for how we approach risk management in the future.     

Risk Analysis,Decision Analysis,Causal Analysis,and Economics: A Personal Perspective from More Than 40 years Experience

I entered the field of risk analysis forty years ago from a background in physics followed by doctoral training and experience in decision analysis. I came into the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) after participating as a committee member in the 1983 National Academies report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. The insights and recommendations from this report, and successor reports from 1996 and 2008, merit revisiting on this 40th anniversary. Risk analysis includes risk assessment, a process of summarizing applicable science to inform decisions; and risk management, a process of making informed choices, usually involving multiple stakeholders. Inherent in both is the need to deal with complexity, uncertainty, and differing perspectives and goals. The lessons I have learned include the need for a conceptual separation of risk management from risk assessment, the benefit of an iterative dialogue between these activities, and the wisdom of articulating and assessing what we know, what we want, and what we can do as we seek to understand and manage risks affecting ourselves and those we advise.     

因子模型在风险预算分析中的应用

风险预算在国外正赢得学术界、养老基金和资产管理领域等许多方面的广泛关注,并认为是组合管理的一种创新。国内投资者日益认识到投资组合管理与风险控制的重要意义,并近乎成为他们的第一要务。本文利用因子模型,通过风险预算这一投资管理和风险控制技术与方法,讨论投资组合因子风险分解并进行实证分析。     

Quantifying Flood Risks in the Netherlands

The Flood Risk in the Netherlands project (Dutch acronym: VNK2) is a large‐scale probabilistic risk assessment for all major levee systems in the Netherlands. This article provides an overview of the methods and techniques used in the VNK2 project. It also discusses two examples that illustrate the potential of quantitative flood risk assessments such as VNK2 to improve flood risk management processes: (i) informing political debates about the risks of flooding and the effectiveness of risk management actions, and (ii) (re)directing research efforts towards important sources of uncertainty.     

What's Wrong with Risk Matrices?

Risk matrices—tables mapping "frequency" and "severity" ratings to corresponding risk priority levels—are popular in applications as diverse as terrorism risk analysis, highway construction project management, office building risk analysis, climate change risk management, and enterprise risk management (ERM). National and international standards (e.g., Military Standard 882C and AS/NZS 4360:1999) have stimulated adoption of risk matrices by many organizations and risk consultants. However, little research rigorously validates their performance in actually improving risk management decisions. This article examines some mathematical properties of risk matrices and shows that they have the following limitations. (a) Poor Resolution . Typical risk matrices can correctly and unambiguously compare only a small fraction (e.g., less than 10%) of randomly selected pairs of hazards. They can assign identical ratings to quantitatively very different risks ("range compression"). (b) Errors . Risk matrices can mistakenly assign higher qualitative ratings to quantitatively smaller risks. For risks with negatively correlated frequencies and severities, they can be "worse than useless," leading to worse-than-random decisions. (c) Suboptimal Resource Allocation . Effective allocation of resources to risk-reducing countermeasures cannot be based on the categories provided by risk matrices. (d) Ambiguous Inputs and Outputs . Categorizations of severity cannot be made objectively for uncertain consequences. Inputs to risk matrices (e.g., frequency and severity categorizations) and resulting outputs (i.e., risk ratings) require subjective interpretation, and different users may obtain opposite ratings of the same quantitative risks. These limitations suggest that risk matrices should be used with caution, and only with careful explanations of embedded judgments.     

The Role of Risk Analysis in Understanding Bioterrorism

Recent events have made the domestic risk from bioterrorism more tangible. The risk management process so far, however, has not benefited from many of the contributions that analysts, communicators, and managers can make to the public discourse. Risk professionals can contribute much to the understanding of and solutions to bioterrorist events and threats. This article will provide an overview of the bioterrorism problem and outline a number of areas to which members of the Society for Risk Analysis, and other risk practitioners, could usefully contribute.     

项目风险分析与管理

本文在分析比较传统风险分析方法的基础上,提出了一个更为有效的风险分析方法,即“交叉分析-蒙特卡罗模拟”综合模型。并利用此模型对H集团的某技改投资项目进行了案例分析。在此基础上,提出了建立项目风险防范预警系统的风险管理模式。     

Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't

The printing press was a game‐changing information technology. Risk assessment could be also. At present, risk assessments are commonly used as one‐time decision aids: they provide justification for a particular decision, and afterwards usually sit on a shelf. However, when viewed as information technologies, their potential uses are much broader. Risk assessments: (1) are repositories of structured information and a medium for communication; (2) embody evaluative structures for setting priorities; (3) can preserve information over time and permit asynchronous communication, thus encouraging learning and adaptation; and (4) explicitly address uncertain futures. Moreover, because of their “what‐if” capabilities, risk assessments can serve as a platform for constructive discussion among parties that hold different values. The evolution of risk assessment in the nuclear industry shows how such attributes have been used to lower core‐melt risks substantially through improved templates for maintenance and more effective coordination with regulators (although risk assessment has been less commonly used in improving emergency‐response capabilities). The end result of this evolution in the nuclear industry has been the development of “living” risk assessments that are updated more or less in real time to answer even routine operational questions. Similar but untapped opportunities abound for the use of living risk assessments to reduce risks in small operational decisions as well as large policy decisions in other areas of hazard management. They can also help improve understanding of and communication about risks, and future risk assessment and management. Realization of these opportunities will require significant changes in incentives and active promotion by the risk analytic community.     

Plurality of Worlds, Plurality of Risks

Risk management decisions are not made only on the basis of expert risk assessment. In numerous instances, public controversy erupts, questioning the results of previous risk assessment procedures and shaping the development of risk management episodes. This article presents a case study of risk management in the context of a 1980s controversy over aerial spraying against a spruce budworm epidemic in Quebec and draws some general conclusions concerning the relationship between risk analysis and public controversies. Actors in public controversies define risks more broadly than risk assessment experts. Moreover, public controversies only partly concern issues of risk. They are first and foremost debates about social choices in which actors carry with them a multidimensional social experience of technology, trust, credibility and decision-making institutions. This experience contributes to the construction of a plurality of emergent representations of what is at stake in a controversy, referred to in this paper as "worlds of relevance." Analysis shows that in any given public controversy, there are not just two parties arguing against each other. Rather, several "worlds of relevance" can be found that link, in a variety of ways, a variety of entities not necessarily shared by all these worlds. Each "world of relevance" presents a different definition of what the issues and the stakes of the controversy are. Risks are only part of the picture, and they are embedded in "worlds of relevance" from which they take their significance. The successful management of a controversy entails the association of entities from different worlds.     

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.