IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v146y2016icp33-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the use of conservatism in risk assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

It is common to use conservatism in risk assessments, replacing uncertain quantities with values that lead to a higher level of risk. It is argued that the approach represents a practical method for dealing with uncertainties and lack of knowledge in risk assessment. If the computed probabilities meet the pre-defined criteria with the conservative quantities, there is strong support for the “real risk†to meet these criteria. In this paper we look more closely into this practice, the main aims being to clarify what it actually means and what the implications are, as well as providing some recommendations. The paper concludes that conservatism should be avoided in risk assessments – “best judgements†should be the ruling thinking, to allow for meaningful comparisons of options. By incorporating sensitivity analyses and strength of knowledge judgements for the background knowledge on which the assigned probabilities are based, the robustness of the conclusions can be more adequately assessed.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje, 2016. "On the use of conservatism in risk assessments," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 33-38.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:146:y:2016:i:c:p:33-38
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015002938
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.011?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. Viscusi, W. Kip & Hamilton, James T. & Dockins, P. Christen, 1997. "Conservative versus Mean Risk Assessments: Implications for Superfund Policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 187-206, November.
    2. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, September.
    3. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2014. "An illustration of the use of an approach for treating model uncertainties in risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 46-53.
    4. Zio, E., 2009. "Reliability engineering: Old problems and new challenges," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 125-141.
    5. Amundrud, Øystein & Aven, Terje, 2015. "On how to understand and acknowledge risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 42-47.
    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. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    2. Flage, Roger & Askeland, Tore, 2020. "Assumptions in quantitative risk assessments: When explicit and when tacit?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    5. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    6. Medeiros, Cristina Pereira & da Silva, Lucas Borges Leal & Alencar, Marcelo Hazin & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2021. "A new method for managing multidimensional risks in Natural Gas Pipelines based on non-Expected Utility," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    7. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    8. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.

    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. Terje Aven, 2017. "Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 295-305, June.
    2. Rokstad, Marius Møller & Ugarelli, Rita Maria, 2015. "Minimising the total cost of renewal and risk of water infrastructure assets by grouping renewal interventions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 148-160.
    3. 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.
    4. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    5. Asadzadeh, S.M. & Azadeh, A., 2014. "An integrated systemic model for optimization of condition-based maintenance with human error," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 117-131.
    6. Rajkumar Bhimgonda Patil & Basavraj S Kothavale & Laxman Yadu Waghmode, 2019. "Selection of time-to-failure model for computerized numerical control turning center based on the assessment of trends in maintenance data," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 105-117, April.
    7. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    8. Rodrigo Andrade & Somayeh Moazeni & Jose Emmanuel Ramirez‐Marquez, 2020. "A systems perspective on contact centers and customer service reliability modeling," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 221-236, March.
    9. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2014. "Modeling Risk‐Related Knowledge in Tunneling Projects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 323-339, February.
    11. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    12. Natalia Vladimirovna Gryzunova & Victoria Ivanovna Pyatanova & Viktoriya Valeryevna Manuylenko & Konstantin Vasilievich Ordov, 2019. "Models of credit limit-setting for companies as means of encouraging competitiveness," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(1), pages 615-625, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Kaya, Gulsum Kubra & Hocaoglu, Mehmet Fatih, 2020. "Semi-quantitative application to the Functional Resonance Analysis Method for supporting safety management in a complex health-care process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Senderov, Sergey M. & Smirnova, Elena M. & Vorobev, Sergey V., 2020. "Analysis of vulnerability of fuel supply systems in gas-consuming regions due to failure of critical gas industry facilities," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    17. Baraldi, Piero & Podofillini, Luca & Mkrtchyan, Lusine & Zio, Enrico & Dang, Vinh N., 2015. "Comparing the treatment of uncertainty in Bayesian networks and fuzzy expert systems used for a human reliability analysis application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 176-193.
    18. Edward J. Oughton & Daniel Ralph & Raghav Pant & Eireann Leverett & Jennifer Copic & Scott Thacker & Rabia Dada & Simon Ruffle & Michelle Tuveson & Jim W Hall, 2019. "Stochastic Counterfactual Risk Analysis for the Vulnerability Assessment of Cyber‐Physical Attacks on Electricity Distribution Infrastructure Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 2012-2031, September.
    19. Grzegorz Drozdowski & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Jacek Stasiak, 2021. "The Empirical Analysis of the Core Competencies of the Company’s Resource Management Risk. Preliminary Study," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    20. Jyrki Savolainen & Michele Urbani, 2021. "Maintenance optimization for a multi-unit system with digital twin simulation," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 1953-1973, October.

    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:146:y:2016:i:c:p:33-38. 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.