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.     

The Call for a Shift from Risk to Resilience: What Does it Mean?

In recent years calls have been made for a shift from risk to resilience. The basic idea is that we need to be prepared when threatening events occur, whether they are anticipated or unforeseen. This article questions the extent to which this call will have and should have implications for the risk field and science. Is the call based on a belief that this field and science should be replaced by resilience analysis and management, or is it more about priorities: Should more weight be placed on improving resilience? The article argues that the only meaningful interpretation of the call is the latter. Resilience analysis and management is today an integrated part of the risk field and science, and risk analysis in a broad sense is needed to increase relevant knowledge, develop adequate policies, and make the right decisions, balancing different concerns and using our limited resources in an effective way.     

Is Risk Analysis Scientific?

This article discusses to what extent risk analysis is scientific in view of a set of commonly used definitions and criteria. We consider scientific knowledge to be characterized by its subject matter, its success in developing the best available knowledge in its fields of study, and the epistemic norms and values that guide scientific investigations. We proceed to assess the field of risk analysis according to these criteria. For this purpose, we use a model for risk analysis in which science is used as a base for decision making on risks, which covers the five elements evidence, knowledge base, broad risk evaluation, managerial review and judgment, and the decision; and that relates these elements to the domains experts and decisionmakers, and to the domains fact‐based or value‐based. We conclude that risk analysis is a scientific field of study, when understood as consisting primarily of (i) knowledge about risk‐related phenomena, processes, events, etc., and (ii) concepts, theories, frameworks, approaches, principles, methods and models to understand, assess, characterize, communicate, and manage risk, in general and for specific applications (the instrumental part).     

The Course of Dyadic Adjustment and Depressive Symptoms During and After Couples Therapy: A Prospective Follow-up Study of Inpatient Treatment

A clinical sample of adult patients suffering from relational distress and concurrent psychiatric symptoms was followed from admission, through residential couple therapy, to 1-year follow-up. At follow-up, 9.8% were separated. The remaining couples showed significant improvement in dyadic adjustment at posttreatment. However, at 1-year follow-up, a subgroup of 25% of the positive treatment responders had deteriorated to below their admission levels of dyadic adjustment. Contrary to expectation, the deteriorated group had showed significantly less distress both in depressive symptoms and in one early maladaptive schema domain—Impaired Autonomy—at admission, when compared with the rest of the sample, which suggests the need for further research and possible replication in this area.     

Probability and Possibility‐Based Representations of Uncertainty in Fault Tree Analysis

Expert knowledge is an important source of input to risk analysis. In practice, experts might be reluctant to characterize their knowledge and the related (epistemic) uncertainty using precise probabilities. The theory of possibility allows for imprecision in probability assignments. The associated possibilistic representation of epistemic uncertainty can be combined with, and transformed into, a probabilistic representation; in this article, we show this with reference to a simple fault tree analysis. We apply an integrated (hybrid) probabilistic‐possibilistic computational framework for the joint propagation of the epistemic uncertainty on the values of the (limiting relative frequency) probabilities of the basic events of the fault tree, and we use possibility‐probability (probability‐possibility) transformations for propagating the epistemic uncertainty within purely probabilistic and possibilistic settings. The results of the different approaches (hybrid, probabilistic, and possibilistic) are compared with respect to the representation of uncertainty about the top event (limiting relative frequency) probability. Both the rationale underpinning the approaches and the computational efforts they require are critically examined. We conclude that the approaches relevant in a given setting depend on the purpose of the risk analysis, and that further research is required to make the possibilistic approaches operational in a risk analysis context.     

Hate speech harms: a social justice discussion of disabled Norwegians’ experiences

This article presents findings from a survey on hate speech reported by disabled people in Norway. Previous British and American research shows that disabled people are more likely than their non-disabled peers to be the victims of hate speech and hate crime. In our study, 38% reported at least one experience of hate speech during the previous 12 months. The respondents reported a wide range of consequences of hate speech related to psychological, social and societal issues. The findings reveal that people place restrictions on their own lives as a result of being exposed to hate speech, including raising their opinion in public debates. Drawing on the work of Nancy Fraser, we discuss the mechanisms that prevent disabled people from participating in society on equal terms. We conclude that to combat hate speech, transformative strategies need to be applied.     

Internet and the Political Public Sphere

The article addresses the main theory of the political public sphere generally, and the role of the Internet and Internet‐based media in the theory specifically. It first reviews briefly the initial social research on the Internet in the 1990s concerning political participation. After a presentation of Jürgen Habermas' theory of the contemporary public sphere, it proceeds to discuss the main problems concerning the Internet as a platform or infrastructure for public debate: segmentation and concentration. It argues that a general conclusion is that the public sphere differentiates and become more complex. A key task for future research, it argues, is to investigate the complex connections between Internet publics and mass media publics.     

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.     

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.