IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v142y2015icp42-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On how to understand and acknowledge risk

Author

Listed:
  • Amundrud, Øystein
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

In Norway two concepts in risk assessment and management – risikoforståelse and risikoerkjennelse – have recently been given much attention, particularly in the oil and gas industry and in societal safety and security contexts. The former concept corresponds quite well to ‘risk understanding’ but the latter does not have an exact counterpart in English – the best term seems to be ‘risk acknowledgement’. The discourse related to these two concepts has given us new general insights concerning the risk concept and its practical use, and the purpose of the present paper is to point to and discuss the main observations made. A main conclusion of the paper is that justified beliefs – what we refer to as knowledge – and the processes of generating these beliefs is an essential feature of both these concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Amundrud, Øystein & Aven, Terje, 2015. "On how to understand and acknowledge risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 42-47.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:142:y:2015:i:c:p:42-47
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015001398
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    3. Aven, T. & Nøkland, T.E., 2010. "On the use of uncertainty importance measures in reliability and risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 127-133.
    4. Rae, Andrew & Alexander, Rob & McDermid, John, 2014. "Fixing the cracks in the crystal ball: A maturity model for quantitative risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-81.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shortridge, Julie & Aven, Terje & Guikema, Seth, 2017. "Risk assessment under deep uncertainty: A methodological comparison," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 12-23.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2016. "On the use of conservatism in risk assessments," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 33-38.
    3. Yin, Xuanpeng & Xu, Xuanhua & Pan, Bin, 2021. "Selection of Strategy for Large Group Emergency Decision-making based on Risk Measurement," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Antonovsky, A. & Pollock, C. & Straker, L., 2016. "System reliability as perceived by maintenance personnel on petroleum production facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 58-65.
    5. Ruipeng Tong & Cunli Zhai & Qingli Jia & Chunlin Wu & Yan Liu & Surui Xue, 2018. "An Interactive Model among Potential Human Risk Factors: 331 Cases of Coal Mine Roof Accidents in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    4. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    5. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Thai, Vinh V., 2021. "An Operational Risk Analysis Model for Container Shipping Systems considering Uncertainty Quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. Antonín Korauš & Miroslav Gombár & Pavel Kelemen & Jozef Polák, 2019. "Analysis of respondents' opinions and attitudes toward the security of payment systems," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(4), pages 1987-2002, June.
    7. Marcela Tuzová & Martina Toulová & Lea Kubíčková, 2017. "The Specifics of the Internationalization Process of Czech SMEs in the Food Industry," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 1055-1064.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Ignoring scenarios in risk assessments: Understanding the issue and improving current practice," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 215-220.
    9. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    10. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    11. Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    12. Teng, Kuei-Yung & Thekdi, Shital A. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Identification and evaluation of priorities in the business process of a risk or safety organization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-86.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    14. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    15. Martorell, S. & Villamizar, M. & Martón, I. & Villanueva, J.F. & Carlos, S. & Sánchez, A.I., 2014. "Evaluation of risk impact of changes to surveillance requirements addressing model and parameter uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 153-165.
    16. Lewis, Austin D. & Groth, Katrina M., 2022. "Metrics for evaluating the performance of complex engineering system health monitoring models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    17. Pesenti, Silvana M. & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2019. "Reverse sensitivity testing: What does it take to break the model?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 654-670.
    18. Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Hao, Wenrui & Lu, Zhenzhou & Wei, Pengfei, 2013. "Uncertainty importance measure for models with correlated normal variables," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 48-58.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:142:y:2015:i:c:p:42-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.