Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context – Review and discussion

There exist many perspectives on risk, and traditionally some of the perspectives have been seen as representing completely different frameworks, making the exchange of ideas and results difficult. Much of the existing discussions on risk perspectives have in our view lacked a sufficient level of precision on the fundamental ideas of risk assessments and management. For example, there is more than one line of thinking in risk analysis and assessment and mixing all approaches into one gives a rather meaningless discussion. In this presentation we summarise and categorise some of the common perspectives on risk, including an approach integrating aspects of technical and economic risk analyses, as well as social scientists’ perspectives on risk. For the different perspectives we clarify the meaning of key concepts such as risk and uncertainty. Special focus is placed on the different perspectives’ impact on decision-making. Implementation of the ALARP principle is used as an example to illustrate the differences.     

On the ontological status of the concept of risk

In this paper we review a set of frequently used risk definitions and analyze their ontological status, i.e. to what extent risk exists in itself independent of any specific assessor. According to some prevailing risk perspectives in the social sciences, risk exists as objective states of the world, but for other common risk perspectives the status of risk is not as clear, for example if risk is viewed as uncertainty about and severity of the consequences of an activity with respect to something that humans value. The principal aim of this paper is to contribute to a clarification of the issue in order to strengthen the foundations of the meaning of risk.     

Safety is the antonym of risk for some perspectives of risk

Safety and safe are terms closely related to risk, but do they extend beyond the realm of risk? Is safety/safe just the antonym of risk, or the same as acceptable risk? This issue has been given due attention in the literature and in this paper we explore how different perspectives of risk affect the relationship between safety/safe and risk. If risk is defined as an expected value or as a measure of the probability and severity of adverse effects, the conclusions would be different than if the essential component of risk is uncertainty. For risk understood as uncertainty about and severity of the consequences of an activity we argue that safe means acceptable risk. Three dimensions of safety are discussed; events and consequences (harm), probability and uncertainty.     

A risk perspective suitable for resilience engineering

In recent years, resilience engineering has been given considerable attention among safety researchers and analysts. The area represents a new way of thinking about safety. Whereas conventional risk management approaches are based on hindsight knowledge, failure reporting and risk assessments calculating historical data-based probabilities, resilience engineering looks for ways to enhance the ability of organisations to be resilient in the sense that they recognise, adapt to and absorb variations, changes, disturbances, disruptions and surprises. The implications of this shift in thinking are many. We focus in this paper on the understanding of the risk concept and how risk can be assessed and treated. The traditional ways of looking at risk are not suitable for use in resilience engineering, but other risk perspectives exist. A main purpose of this paper is to draw attention to such perspectives, in particular one category of perspectives where probability is replaced by uncertainty in the definition of risk. We argue that the basic ideas of resilience engineering can be supported by such risk perspectives.     

Risk analysis and risk management approaches applied to the petroleum industry and their applicability to IO concepts

Due to changes introduced by Integrated Operations (IO) it is possible that traditional risk analysis and risk management approaches in the oil and gas industry are also challenged. In this paper we study the impact on these approaches by asking two questions: (1) what methods for risk analysis are used in the Norwegian oil and gas industry? (2) What are the risk analysis and risk management challenges in an IO context from the perspective of actors in the Norwegian oil and gas industry? An explorative approach was chosen and the empirical findings are based on three separate studies: (1) a survey of risk analysis and risk management in different business sectors in the oil and gas industry; (2) qualitative interviews about the generation of knowledge for decisions that involve risk in an operating company; and (3) qualitative interviews of people working with risk analyses in different companies exploring their use of risk analysis methods. The four main results are: due to IO it is necessary to look for other inputs to risk analyses; establish suitable assessment approaches to human and organizational issues; develop resilience-based approaches for operational risk assessment; and, utilize IO to improve the risk management process.     

A risk concept applicable for both probabilistic and non-probabilistic perspectives

In engineering risk assessments, probability is the common tool used to describe the epistemic uncertainties about unknown quantities. Probability is considered a main component of risk. However, a number of alternative approaches exist for representing and describing uncertainties in risk assessments, including possibility theory and evidence theory. For these approaches and theories a probability-based risk definition cannot in general serve as a conceptual framework for risk assessments. A broader risk perspective is required. The purpose of the present paper is to present such a perspective and show how both the probabilistic and the alternative approaches and theories can be supported by this perspective. The key feature of this perspective is that uncertainty replaces probability in the definition of risk.     

A stochastic approach for risk analysis in vapor cloud explosion

A stochastic approach for evaluating the risk of vapor cloud explosions is proposed in this work. The proposed methodology aims to incorporate the effect of uncertainty into the risk analysis to produce a better overall view for the risk. Some stochastic variables are used to estimate the probability of vapor cloud explosions: frequency of the release, the probability of not having an immediate ignition, the probability of delayed ignition and the probability of a vapor cloud explosion given a delayed ignition, as well as different possible meteorological conditions. These stochastic variables are represented with probability distribution curves. Different curves for the frequencies of releases from process equipment types (steel process pipes, flanges, manual valves, actuated valves, etc.), different equipment diameters and different leak sizes are also used in this analysis. Monte Carlo simulation is performed to obtain the risk as a probability distribution using the Analytic Solver Platform. Then the risk distribution curve obtained by Monte Carlo simulation is used to estimate the probability of satisfying the risk tolerance criterion.     

Got a risk reduction strategy?

Process safety can be viewed as part of a triad that supports safety in a petrochemical facility. The other two parts are OSHA-type people safety (slips, falls, etc.) and industrial hygiene. The paper will look at process safety from a top down, plant centric view. Process safety can be distilled down to the basic concept of risk reduction. If we reduce risk, our facility will be safer. The obvious problem is that we have potential risks everywhere so how are we going to reduce all these risks to an acceptable level. Clearly we need a strategy or to use a less fancy word – a plan.Too many times it is easy to concentrate on certain aspects such as safety instrumented systems (SIS), layer of protection analysis (LOPA), behavioral safety, prevention, etc. and lose track of the whole picture of what risk reduction entails in a plant.This paper will look at risk reduction in a facility from a plant viewpoint and will cover the details and concepts of risk reduction across a wide spectrum of plant functionalities – safety climate and culture, process safety management, mechanical integrity and risk, layers of protection in risk reduction, loss of containment/hazard relationship, the risk reduction bow-tie diagram, developing a risk reduction strategy, risk reduction strategy elements, and sustainability.It will also discuss some key concepts in dealing with risk reduction in general.     

Carbon capture and storage-desirability from a risk management point of view

Environmental and safety risks related to carbon capture and storage concern leakages and accidental releases during transport and geological storage. Based on principles widely accepted in the EU and beyond in the discussion about the where’s and why’s of nuclear waste repositories, this paper discusses the desirability of carbon capture and storage from a risk management point of view, focusing on environmental risks on the global level (climate change). On this basis it is concluded that, if the key energy issue of coming generations, not just in Europe but all around the world, is not the abundance of fossil resources but rather an unacceptably high probability of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, then the solution should not include any massive hiding of the emissions but entirely focus on the avoidance based on improved technology in power plants and other industrial installations.     

基于动态风险平衡的海洋平台事故连锁风险研究

针对海洋平台事故风险特点,提出动态风险平衡概念,以此建立事故动力模型,并将该模型运用到墨西哥湾"深水地平线"井喷事故。动态风险平衡表征事故动力与事故阻力之间的动态平衡状态,具有动态性和暂时稳定性。事故动力模型以海洋平台可能发生的重大事故为研究对象,从工艺、技术和管理等角度分析事故可能致因和事故发展可能影响因素。该模型首先分析对象的初始事故动力,建立事故连锁风险图,然后计算初始动力发生情况下,传递动力和传递阻力的概率分布,最后提出相应风险控制措施。实例分析表明,基于动态风险平衡建立的事故动力模型能有效分析海洋平台事故连锁风险。     

基于N-K模型的海上交通安全风险因素耦合分析

为定量分析海上交通安全风险因素间的影响关系,识别导致海上交通事故的关键因素,分别从单因素、双因素和多因素的角度分析了人、船、环境、管理等风险因素间的耦合关系,运用N-K模型构建了海上交通安全风险耦合度量模型,结合中国海事局、德国联邦海事事故调查局、英国船舶事故调查局和美国国家运输安全委员会等海事调查机构公布的710起海上交通事故,利用所构建的模型计算出不同风险耦合的发生概率和风险值。结果表明:风险耦合因素越多,海上交通事故的发生概率越高;人的因素是引发海上交通事故的重要原因。     

Computing the limits of risk aversion

Utility theory can be used to model the decision process involved in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of systems that protect against a risk to assets. A key variable in the model is the coefficient of relative risk aversion (or simply “risk-aversion”) which reflects the decision maker's reluctance to invest in such safety systems. This reluctance to invest is the scaled difference in expected utility before and after installing the safety system and has a minimum at some given value of risk-aversion known as the “permission point”, and it has been argued that decisions to sanction safety systems would be made at this point. As the cost of implementing a safety system increases, this difference in utility will diminish. At some point, the “point of indiscriminate decision”, the decision maker will not be able to discern any benefit from installing the safety system. This point is used to calculate the maximum reasonable cost of a proposed safety system. The value of the utility difference at which the decision maker is unable to discern any difference is called the “discrimination limit”.By considering the full range of accident probabilities, costs of the safety system and potential loss of assets, an average risk-aversion can be calculated from the model. This paper presents the numerical and computational techniques employed in performing these calculations. Two independent approaches to the calculations have been taken, the first of which is the derivative-based secant method, an extension of the referred derivative method employed in previous papers. The second is the Golden Bisection Method, based on a Golden Section Search algorithm, which was found to be more robust but less efficient than the secant method. The average risk-aversion is a function of several key parameters: the organisation's assets, the probability and maximum cost of an incident, and the discrimination limit. An analysis of the sensitivity of the results to changes in these parameters is presented. An average risk-aversion of 0.8–1.0 is found for a wide range of parameters appropriate to individuals or small companies, while an average risk-aversion of 0.1 is found for large corporations. This reproduces the view that large corporations will be risk neutral until faced with risks that pose a threat to their viability.     

弹性系数视角下风险耦合特性的仿真分析

风险耦合导致风险发生非线性演化,从而给风险的定量评估带来困难。为给出风险耦合控制的有效对策,基于弹性系数视角界定风险耦合弹性系数概念,以此实现对风险耦合强度的定量测度;基于装备研制项目设计论证环节,从风险测度指标节点裕度角度,采用Arena软件仿真分析单指标和全指标在线性和非线性耦合关系下的系统风险熵和后传风险熵的变化情况。结果表明,全指标非线性耦合会显著改变系统性能,而单指标非线性耦合和全指标线性耦合次之,欲实现风险耦合控制应极力制止全局性的非线性耦合关系。     

油气储运设施事故风险指数模糊逻辑评估方法

油气储运设施风险是其事故发生概率和事故后果的综合度量,而事故概率和后果的定量评估结果往往是具有不确定性的数据,以确定性风险评估准则为基础的传统风险矩阵法和风险值法显然难以评估油气储运设施风险。为此提出开展油气储运设施事故风险的模糊逻辑推理法,首先,对风险矩阵的概率语言等级和损失语言等级的边界进行定量划分;然后,建立油气储运设施风险矩阵模糊集和模糊逻辑推理规则;最后,通过风险模糊推理运算和模糊风险解模糊化以确定油气储运设施的风险水平。实例应用与分析表明,利用推荐方法可得到较为详尽的风险数据信息,不但风险指数更加清晰,而且其所属风险等级类别也更加明确,评估结果能更好地指导油气储运设施的风险管理。     

环境风险评价内涵与外延研究

在简要介绍环境风险评价(Environmental Risk Assessment,ERA)发展历程的基础上,总结现阶段国内外普遍采用的ERA定义,深入分析ERA的内涵和类型,在重新给出涵盖性更全面的ERA定义的同时,对3种评价内容的评价程序和评价方法进行了横向比较。收集整理了ERA的研究进展和应用现状,从时间、范畴和应用范围3个方面划定了ERA的外延。     

Ethics and fundamental principles of risk acceptance criteria

Ethics are concerned with distinguishing between what actions are “right” and “wrong” and what values are “good” and “bad”, etc. and there is a long academic tradition in discussing ethics and ethical theories. Risk acceptance criteria, on the other hand, distinguish between levels of risks that are acceptable and levels that are intolerable. In some sense, one may say that risk acceptance criteria distinguishes between “good” and “bad” systems and activities with regards to the risk they expose the society or elements of a society to and there is thus an obvious link between ethics and risk acceptance criteria or to risk management at large. However, there are few references in the literature that explores this link, and in this paper, the ethical foundation of fundamental principles of risk acceptance criteria will be elaborated upon.This paper considers some important principles for establishing risk acceptance criteria for safety critical systems and activities. The various principles and the philosophies behind them might at first sight seem contradictory and exclusive, but it is demonstrated how they may coexist in one and the same regulatory regime; They may complement each other in order to achieve the overall safety objectives of society. Then, some brief considerations of the ethical foundations for the principles will be given and some relevant examples of actual risk acceptance criteria will be given from the maritime industries. However, it is believed that the principles and discussions are of general interest and apply to all areas of technical risk and to safety regulations in a broader perspective.     

The importance of weather variations in a quantitative risk analysis

As more and more quantitative risk analyses (QRAs) are performed for petrochemical facilities around the world, the variety of techniques used in these analyses continually expands. Although the emphasis is often placed on risk's two constituents, consequence and probability, many of the contributing elements get marginalized, or even lost in the analysis. One such element is the weather data. Changes in wind speed and atmospheric stability affect the size and extent of impact zones, while the different wind directions modify how the impacts are mapped in the area surrounding each release point. Weather data is often defined by three variables (wind speed, atmospheric stability, and wind direction), and is site-specific in nature, with definable probabilities for each triplet combination. Many QRA studies shortcut the quantitative nature of an analysis by condensing the weather data into a small number of combinations, with unpredictable results. By utilizing robust risk mapping techniques, it can be demonstrated that risk contours may be critically dependent on the number of wind speed/stability/direction combinations employed in the analysis. This paper will also demonstrate how a risk assessment can arrive at different conclusions based on the level of weather data detail applied in the analysis.     

Decision analysis on fire safety design based on evaluating building fire risk to life

This study presents a framework of decision analysis on fire safety design alternatives based on evaluating building fire risk to life. A probabilistic risk assessment method for occupant life is presented with consideration of some uncertainties of evacuation process and fire development at first. For occupant evacuation time assessment, occupant pre-movement time is characterized by normal distribution. For onset time to untenable conditions assessment, its uncertainty is considered as probability distribution according to the range of design fires. Based on event tree technique, probable fire scenarios are analyzed with consideration of the effect of fire protection systems, employees extinguishing, etc. It is difficult to make a precise assessment on probability and consequence of every fire scenario, but their lower bound and upper bound can be achieved based on statistical data. Therefore, Supersoft Decision Theory [Malmnäs, P.E., 1995. Methods of Evaluation in Supersoft Decision Theory. Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, 365 Stockholm; Johansson, H., Malmnäs, P.E., 2000. Application of supersoft decision theory in fire risk assessment. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 14, 55–84] that allows decision maker to utilize vague statement is utilized to integrate with risk assessment to make decision on different fire safety design alternatives. To express how to make decision on different fire safety design alternatives based on evaluating building fire risk to life, two hypothetical fire safety design alternatives for a commercial building are presented.     

An integrated methodology to manage risk factors of aging urban oil and gas pipelines

Aging urban oil and gas pipelines have a high failure probability due to their structural degradation and external interference. The operational safety of the aging urban oil and gas pipeline is challenged by different hazards. This paper proposes a novel methodology by integrating an index-based risk evaluation system and fuzzy TOPSIS model for risk management of aging urban oil and gas pipelines, and it is carried out by evaluating the priority of hazards affecting pipeline safety. Firstly, the hazard factors of aging urban oil and gas pipelines are identified to establish an index-based risk evaluation system. Subsequently, the fuzzy TOPSIS model is employed to evaluate the importance of these hazard factors and to decide which factors should be managed with priority. This work measures the importance of a hazard factor from three aspects, i.e. occurrence (O), severity (S) and detectability (D), and the weights of these three parameters are determined by a combination weight method. Eventually, the proposed methodology is tested by an industrial case to illustrate its effectiveness, and some safety strategies to reduce the operational risk of the pipeline are presented. The proposed methodology is a useful tool to implement more efficient risk management of aging urban oil and gas pipelines.     

基于Bowtie模型的机场安全风险分析

运用Bowtie模型对隐患、可能的事故原因以及后果进行评判，分析重点放在风险控制和组织控制的薄弱环节上。利用Bowtie模型，分析机场安全风险，以跑道侵入事件为算例进行深入分析，探讨影响机场安全风险的组织因素。量化影响跑道侵入的结构重要度，计算不同阶段、不同条件下，可能导致跑道侵入事件发生的概率。从风险管理和组织安全的角度，预防跑道侵入事件的发生提供理论依据和实际指导。