Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling,Planning, Assessment,Management, and Communication

This article is grounded on the premise that the complex process of risk assessment, management, and communication, when applied to systems of systems, should be guided by universal systems‐based principles. It is written from the perspective of systems engineering with the hope and expectation that the principles introduced here will be supplemented and complemented by principles from the perspectives of other disciplines. Indeed, there is no claim that the following 10 guiding principles constitute a complete set; rather, the intent is to initiate a discussion on this important subject that will incrementally lead us to a more complete set of guiding principles. The 10 principles are as follows: First Principle: Holism is the common denominator that bridges risk analysis and systems engineering. Second Principle: The process of risk modeling, assessment, management, and communication must be systemic and integrated. Third Principle: Models and state variables are central to quantitative risk analysis. Fourth Principle: Multiple models are required to represent the essence of the multiple perspectives of complex systems of systems. Fifth Principle: Meta‐modeling and subsystems integration must be derived from the intrinsic states of the system of systems. Sixth Principle: Multiple conflicting and competing objectives are inherent in risk management. Seventh Principle: Risk analysis must account for epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. Eighth Principle: Risk analysis must account for risks of low probability with extreme consequences. Ninth Principle: The time frame is central to quantitative risk analysis. Tenth Principle: Risk analysis must be holistic, adaptive, incremental, and sustainable, and it must be supported with appropriate data collection, metrics with which to measure efficacious progress, and criteria on the basis of which to act. The relevance and efficacy of each guiding principle is demonstrated by applying it to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration complex Next Generation (NextGen) system of systems.     

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.     

Risk Assessment for Invasive Species

Although estimates vary, there is a broad agreement that invasive species impose major costs on the U.S. economy, as well as posing risks to nonmarket environmental goods and services and to public health. The domestic effort to manage risks associated with invasive species is coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), which is charged with developing a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with the introduction and spread of invasive species. Various international agreements have also elevated invasive species issues onto the international policy agenda. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement establishes rights and obligations to adhere to the discipline of scientific risk assessment to ensure that SPS measures are applied only to the extent required to protect human, animal, and plant health, and do not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable technical barriers to trade. Currently, however, the field of risk assessment for invasive species is in its infancy. Therefore, there is a pressing need to formulate scientifically sound methods and approaches in this emerging field, while acknowledging that the demand for situation-specific empirical evidence is likely to persistently outstrip supply. To begin addressing this need, the Society for Risk Analysis Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty Group and the Ecological Society of America Theoretical Ecology Section convened a joint workshop to provide independent scientific input into the formulation of methods and processes for risk assessment of invasive species to ensure that the analytic processes used domestically and internationally will be firmly rooted in sound scientific principles.     

Disaster risk and artificial intelligence: A framework to characterize conceptual synergies and future opportunities

Artificial intelligence (AI) methods have revolutionized and redefined the landscape of data analysis in business, healthcare, and technology. These methods have innovated the applied mathematics, computer science, and engineering fields and are showing considerable potential for risk science, especially in the disaster risk domain. The disaster risk field has yet to define itself as a necessary application domain for AI implementation by defining how to responsibly balance AI and disaster risk. (1) How is AI being used for disaster risk applications; and how are these applications addressing the principles and assumptions of risk science, (2) What are the benefits of AI being used for risk applications; and what are the benefits of applying risk principles and assumptions for AI-based applications, (3) What are the synergies between AI and risk science applications, and (4) What are the characteristics of effective use of fundamental risk principles and assumptions for AI-based applications? This study develops and disseminates an online survey questionnaire that leverages expertise from risk and AI professionals to identify the most important characteristics related to AI and risk, then presents a framework for gauging how AI and disaster risk can be balanced. This study is the first to develop a classification system for applying risk principles for AI-based applications. This classification contributes to understanding of AI and risk by exploring how AI can be used to manage risk, how AI methods introduce new or additional risk, and whether fundamental risk principles and assumptions are sufficient for AI-based applications.     

An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications

To solve real‐life problems—such as those related to technology, health, security, or climate change—and make suitable decisions, risk is nearly always a main issue. Different types of sciences are often supporting the work, for example, statistics, natural sciences, and social sciences. Risk analysis approaches and methods are also commonly used, but risk analysis is not broadly accepted as a science in itself. A key problem is the lack of explanatory power and large uncertainties when assessing risk. This article presents an emerging new risk analysis science based on novel ideas and theories on risk analysis developed in recent years by the risk analysis community. It builds on a fundamental change in thinking, from the search for accurate predictions and risk estimates, to knowledge generation related to concepts, theories, frameworks, approaches, principles, methods, and models to understand, assess, characterize, communicate, and (in a broad sense) manage risk. Examples are used to illustrate the importance of this distinct/separate risk analysis science for solving risk problems, supporting science in general and other disciplines in particular.     

Some Considerations on the Definition of Risk Based on Concepts of Systems Theory and Probability

The concept of risk has been applied in many modern science and technology fields. Despite its successes in many applicative fields, there is still not a well‐established vision and universally accepted definition of the principles and fundamental concepts of the risk assessment discipline. As emphasized recently, the risk fields suffer from a lack of clarity on their scientific bases that can define, in a unique theoretical framework, the general concepts in the different areas of application. The aim of this article is to make suggestions for another perspective of risk definition that could be applied and, in a certain sense, generalize some of the previously known definitions (at least in the fields of technical and scientific applications). By drawing on my experience of risk assessment in different applicative situations (particularly in the risk estimation for major industrial accidents, and in the health and ecological risk assessment for contaminated sites), I would like to revise some general and foundational concepts of risk analysis in as consistent a manner as possible from the axiomatic/deductive point of view. My proposal is based on the fundamental concepts of the systems theory and of the probability. In this way, I try to frame, in a single, broad, and general theoretical context some fundamental concepts and principles applicable in many different fields of risk assessment. I hope that this article will contribute to the revitalization and stimulation of useful discussions and new insights into the key issues and theoretical foundations of risk assessment disciplines.     

Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples

This article aims to demonstrate that risk science is important for society, industry and all of us. Rather few people today, including scientists and managers, are familiar with what this science is about—its foundation and main features—and how it is used to gain knowledge and improve communication and decision making in real-life situations. The article seeks to meet this challenge, by presenting three examples, showing how risk science works to gain new generic, fundamental knowledge on risk concepts, principles, and methods, as well as supporting the practical tackling of actual risk problems.     

The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective

In commemorating the 40th anniversary of Risk Analysis, this article takes a retrospective look at some of the ways in which decision analysis (as a “sibling field”) has contributed to the development both of the journal, and of risk analysis as a field. I begin with some early foundational papers from the first decade of the journal's history. I then review a number of papers that have applied decision analysis to risk problems over the years, including applications of related methods such as influence diagrams, multicriteria decision analysis, and risk matrices. The article then reviews some recent trends, from roughly the last five years, and concludes with observations about the parallel evolution of risk analysis and decision analysis over the decades—especially with regard to the importance of representing multiple stakeholder perspectives, and the importance of behavioral realism in decision models. Overall, the extensive literature surveyed here supports the view that the incorporation of decision-analytic perspectives has improved the practice of risk analysis.     

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.     

How to Design Rating Schemes of Risk Matrices: A Sequential Updating Approach

Risk matrices have been widely used as a risk evaluation tool in many fields due to their simplicity and intuitive nature. Designing a rating scheme, i.e., determining the number of ratings used in a risk matrix and assigning different ratings to different cells, is an essential part of risk matrix construction. However, most of the related literature has focused on applying a risk matrix to various fields, instead of researching how to design risk matrices. Based on the analysis of several current rules, we propose a new approach, namely, the sequential updating approach (SUA), to design the rating scheme of a risk matrix in a reliable way. In this article, we propose three principles and a rating algorithm based on these principles. The three principles, namely, adjusted weak consistency, consistent internality, and continuous screening, characterize a good rating scheme. The resulting rating scheme has been proven to be unique. A global rating algorithm is then proposed to create the design that satisfies the three principles. We then explore the performance of the SUA. An illustrative application is first given to explain the feasibility of our approach. The sensitivity analysis shows that our method captures a resolution‐reliability tradeoff for decisionmakers in choosing an appropriate rating scheme for a risk matrix. Finally, we compare the designs based on the SUA and Cox's axioms, highlighting the advantages of the SUA.     

Risk Management Solutions for Climate Change–Induced Disasters

In honor of the 40th anniversary of Risk Analysis, this article suggests ways of linking risk assessment and risk perception in developing risk management strategies that have a good chance of being implemented, focusing on the problem of reducing losses from natural hazards in the face of climate change. Following a checklist for developing an implementable risk management strategy, Section 2 highlights the impact that exponential growth of CO₂ emissions is likely to have on future disaster losses as assessed by climate and social scientists. Section 3 then discusses how people perceive the risks of low-probability adverse events and the cognitive biases that lead them to underprepare for future losses. Based on this empirical evidence, Section 4 proposes a risk management strategy for reducing future losses using the principles of choice architecture to communicate the likelihood and consequences of disasters, coupled with economic incentives and well-enforced regulations.     

风险资产组合的均值—M有效前沿及其实证分析

本文基于由Carlo Acerbi(2002)提出的一类一致性风险度量—谱风险测度M,给出了谱风险测度的一些性质及构造谱密度的一种具体形式;重点讨论了正态情形下风险资产组合的均值—M有效前沿,探讨了其经济含义,并与经典的均值—方差有效前沿进行了对比研究,获得了若干深入的结果。由于期望短缺ES是特殊的谱风险测度,因此其对应的有效前沿是本文结果的特例。最后,本文利用前面的结论对深市和沪市的风险资产组合的均值—M有效前沿作了实证分析。     

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.     

The [R]Evolving Relationship Between Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, the National Research Council recommends improvements in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approach to risk assessment. The recommendations aim to increase the utility of these assessments, embedding them within a new risk‐based decision‐making framework. The framework involves first identifying the problem and possible options for addressing it, conducting related analyses, then reviewing the results and making the risk management decision. Experience with longstanding requirements for regulatory impact analysis provides insights into the implementation of this framework. First, neither the Science and Decisions framework nor the framework for regulatory impact analysis should be viewed as a static or linear process, where each step is completed before moving on to the next. Risk management options are best evaluated through an iterative and integrative procedure. The extent to which a hazard has been previously studied will strongly influence analysts’ ability to identify options prior to conducting formal analyses, and these options will be altered and refined as the analysis progresses. Second, experience with regulatory impact analysis suggests that legal and political constraints may limit the range of options assessed, contrary to both existing guidance for regulatory impact analysis and the Science and Decisions recommendations. Analysts will need to work creatively to broaden the range of options considered. Finally, the usefulness of regulatory impact analysis has been significantly hampered by the inability to quantify many health impacts of concern, suggesting that the scientific improvements offered within Science and Decisions will fill an crucial research gap.     

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.     

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.     

Elusive Critical Elements of Transformative Risk Assessment Practice and Interpretation: Is Alternatives Analysis the Next Step?

This article argues that “game‐changing” approaches to risk analysis must focus on “democratizing” risk analysis in the same way that information technologies have democratized access to, and production of, knowledge. This argument is motivated by the author's reading of Goble and Bier's analysis, “Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't” (Risk Analysis, 2013; 33: 1942–1951), in which living risk assessments are shown to be “game changing” in probabilistic risk analysis. In this author's opinion, Goble and Bier's article focuses on living risk assessment's potential for transforming risk analysis from the perspective of risk professionals—yet, the game‐changing nature of information technologies has typically achieved a much broader reach. Specifically, information technologies change who has access to, and who can produce, information. From this perspective, the author argues that risk assessment is not a game‐changing technology in the same way as the printing press or the Internet because transformative information technologies reduce the cost of production of, and access to, privileged knowledge bases. The author argues that risk analysis does not reduce these costs. The author applies Goble and Bier's metaphor to the chemical risk analysis context, and in doing so proposes key features that transformative risk analysis technology should possess. The author also discusses the challenges and opportunities facing risk analysis in this context. These key features include: clarity in information structure and problem representation, economical information dissemination, increased transparency to nonspecialists, democratized manufacture and transmission of knowledge, and democratic ownership, control, and interpretation of knowledge. The chemical safety decision‐making context illustrates the impact of changing the way information is produced and accessed in the risk context. Ultimately, the author concludes that although new chemical safety regulations do transform access to risk information, they do not transform the costs of producing this information—rather, they change the bearer of these costs. The need for further risk assessment transformation continues to motivate new practical and theoretical developments in risk analysis and management.     

Efficient or Fair? Operationalizing Ethical Principles in Flood Risk Management: A Case Study on the Dutch-German Rhine

Flood risk management decisions in many countries are based on decision-support frameworks which rely on cost-benefit analyses. Such frameworks are seldom informative about the geographical distribution of risk, raising questions on the fairness of the proposed policies. In the present work, we propose a new decision criterion that accounts for the distribution of risk reduction and apply it to support flood risk management decisions on a transboundary stretch of the Rhine River. Three types of interventions are considered: embankment heightening, making Room for the River, and changing the discharge distribution of the river branches. The analysis involves solving a flood risk management problem according to four alternative formulations, based on different ethical principles. Formulations based on cost optimization lead to very poor performances in some areas for the sake of reducing the overall aggregated costs. Formulations that also include equity criteria have different results depending on how these are defined. When risk reduction is distributed equally, very poor economic performance is achieved. When risk is distributed equally, results are in line with formulations based on cost optimization, while a fairer risk distribution is achieved. Risk reduction measures also differ, with the cost optimization approach strongly favoring the leverage of changing the discharge distribution and the alternative formulations spending more on embankment heightening and Room for the River, to rebalance inequalities in risk levels. The proposed method advances risk-based decision-making by allowing to consider risk distribution aspects and their impacts on the choice of risk reduction measures.     

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.     

Principles for Conduct of Pest Risk Analyses: Report of an Expert Workshop

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have focused attention on risk assessment of potential insect, weed, and animal pests and diseases of livestock. These risks have traditionally been addressed through quarantine protocols ranging from limits on the geographical areas from which a product may originate, postharvest disinfestation procedures like fumigation, and inspections at points of export and import, to outright bans. To ensure that plant and animal protection measures are not used as nontariff trade barriers, GATT and NAFTA require pest risk analysis (PRA) to support quarantine decisions. The increased emphasis on PRA has spurred multiple efforts at the national and international level to design frameworks for the conduct of these analyses. As approaches to pest risk analysis proliferate, and the importance of the analyses grows, concerns have arisen about the scientific and technical conduct of pest risk analysis. In January of 1997, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) held an invitation-only workshop in Washington, D.C. to bring experts in risk analysis and pest characterization together to develop general principles for pest risk analysis. Workshop participants examined current frameworks for PRA, discussed strengths and weaknesses of the approaches, and formulated principles, based on years of experience with risk analysis in other setting and knowledge of the issues specific to analysis of pests. The principles developed highlight the both the similarities of pest risk analysis to other forms of risk analysis, and its unique attributes.