IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v191y2019ics0951832018307932.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk aggregation: What does it really mean?

Author

Listed:
  • Bjørnsen, Kjartan
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

Risk aggregation is a common concept in risk management contexts. Overall, it relates to the process of summing and showing the interaction between single or individual risks, to see the bigger picture. However, its meaning and use are not clear when looking more closely into the concept and comparing various applications. In this paper, we will provide an in-depth study of the aggregation concept, using as a basis a general way of defining and understanding risk (in line with the Glossary from the Society for Risk Analysis), which includes most common perspectives on risk. The aim of the paper is to provide new insight into the concept, in order to strengthen the foundation of risk management and in particular the communication about risk issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Aven, Terje, 2019. "Risk aggregation: What does it really mean?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018307932
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832018307932
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106524?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. Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2010. "Risk analysis and risk acceptance criteria in the planning processes of hazardous facilities—A case of an LNG plant in an urban area," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 662-670.
    2. Bernard, Carole & Jiang, Xiao & Wang, Ruodu, 2014. "Risk aggregation with dependence uncertainty," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 93-108.
    3. Ides Boone & Yves Van der Stede & Jeroen Dewulf & Winy Messens & Marc Aerts & Georges Daube & Koen Mintiens, 2010. "NUSAP: a method to evaluate the quality of assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 337-352, April.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    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. 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).
    2. Casado, Ramon Swell Gomes Rodrigues & Alencar, Marcelo Hazin & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2022. "Combining a multidimensional risk evaluation with an implicit enumeration algorithm to tackle the portfolio selection problem of a natural gas pipeline," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    3. Zoltán Kovács & Tibor Csizmadia & István Mihálcz & Zsolt T. Kosztyán, 2022. "Multipurpose Aggregation in Risk Assessment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Shane N. Hall & Mark A. Gallagher & Daniel S. Fenn, 2020. "Risk Framework for an Organizational System With Major Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2509-2523, December.
    5. 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).

    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. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    2. 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.
    3. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Risk bounds for factor models," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 631-659, July.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    7. 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.
    8. Hofert Marius & Memartoluie Amir & Saunders David & Wirjanto Tony, 2017. "Improved algorithms for computing worst Value-at-Risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 34(1-2), pages 13-31, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    11. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    12. Daniël Linders & Jan Dhaene & Wim Schoutens, 2015. "Option prices and model-free measurement of implied herd behavior in stock markets," International Journal of Financial Engineering (IJFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 1-35.
    13. Corrado De Vecchi & Max Nendel & Jan Streicher, 2024. "Upper Comonotonicity and Risk Aggregation under Dependence Uncertainty," Papers 2406.19242, arXiv.org.
    14. 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.
    15. Giovanni Puccetti & Pietro Rigo & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2019. "Centers of probability measures without the mean," Journal of Theoretical Probability, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 1482-1501, September.
    16. Kim, Sojung & Weber, Stefan, 2022. "Simulation methods for robust risk assessment and the distorted mix approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 380-398.
    17. 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).
    18. Cosimo Munari & Stefan Weber & Lutz Wilhelmy, 2023. "Capital requirements and claims recovery: A new perspective on solvency regulation," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 90(2), pages 329-380, June.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018307932. 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.