IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4668-d188858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Nesticò

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy)

  • Shuquan He

    (School of Economics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Gianluigi De Mare

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy)

  • Renato Benintendi

    (Megaris Ltd., Reading RG2 9FL, UK)

  • Gabriella Maselli

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy)

Abstract

The process of allocating financial resources is extremely complex—both because the selection of investments depends on multiple, and interrelated, variables, and constraints that limit the eligibility domain of the solutions, and because the feasibility of projects is influenced by risk factors. In this sense, it is essential to develop economic evaluations on a probabilistic basis. Nevertheless, for the civil engineering sector, the literature emphasizes the centrality of risk management , in order to establish interventions for risk mitigation. On the other hand, few methodologies are available to systematically compare ante and post mitigation design risk, along with the verification of the economic convenience of these actions. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how these limits can be at least partially overcome by integrating, in the traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis schemes, the As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) logic. According to it, the risk is tolerable only if it is impossible to reduce it further or if the costs to mitigate it are disproportionate to the benefits obtainable. The research outlines the phases of an innovative protocol for managing investment risks. On the basis of a case study dealing with a project for the recovery and transformation of an ancient medieval village into a widespread-hotel, the novelty of the model consists of the characterization of acceptability and tolerability thresholds of the investment risk, as well as its ability to guarantee the triangular balance between risks, costs and benefits deriving from mitigation options.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4668-:d:188858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4668/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4668/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arianne de Blaeij & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Piet Rietveld & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-089/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.
    3. Catherine E. Althaus, 2005. "A Disciplinary Perspective on the Epistemological Status of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 567-588, June.
    4. Viscusi, W Kip & Aldy, Joseph E, 2003. "The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 5-76, August.
    5. Vincent T. Covello & Jeryl Mumpower, 1985. "Risk Analysis and Risk Management: An Historical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 103-120, June.
    6. Jones-Lee, M. & Aven, T., 2011. "ALARP—What does it really mean?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 877-882.
    7. Vincenzo Del Giudice & Francesca Salvo & Pierfrancesco De Paola, 2018. "Resampling Techniques for Real Estate Appraisals: Testing the Bootstrap Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, August.
    8. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    10. repec:reg:rpubli:282 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Savvides, Savvakis C., 1994. "Risk Analysis in Investment Appraisal," MPRA Paper 10035, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 14 Aug 2008.
    12. Gianluigi De Mare & Maria Fiorella Granata & Antonio Nesticò, 2015. "Weak and Strong Compensation for the Prioritization of Public Investments: Multidimensional Analysis for Pools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    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. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Mohammad Ehsan Basiri & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2019. "An Evidential Model for Environmental Risk Assessment in Projects Using Dempster–Shafer Theory of Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Ming-Lang Tseng & Phan Anh Tan & Shiou-Yun Jeng & Chun-Wei Remen Lin & Yeneneh Tamirat Negash & Susilo Nur Aji Cokro Darsono, 2019. "Sustainable Investment: Interrelated among Corporate Governance, Economic Performance and Market Risks Using Investor Preference Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Giuliano Marella & Valentina Antoniucci, 2019. "Time Overrun in Public Works—Evidence from North-East Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2020. "On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    6. Antonio Nesticò & Piera Somma, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Katarina Buganova & Maria Luskova & Jozef Kubas & Michal Brutovsky & Jaroslav Slepecky, 2021. "Sustainability of Business through Project Risk Identification with Use of Expert Estimates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Ahmad Soltanzadeh & Mohsen Mahdinia & Alireza Omidi Oskouei & Ehsan Jafarinia & Esmaeil Zarei & Mohsen Sadeghi-Yarandi, 2022. "Analyzing Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks of Construction Projects Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Field Study Based on a Project Management Body of Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Antonio Nesticò & Pierfrancesco Fiore & Emanuela D’Andria, 2020. "Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.

    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, 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).
    2. Victor Cardenas, 2024. "Financial climate risk: a review of recent advances and key challenges," Papers 2404.07331, arXiv.org.
    3. Natina Yaduma & Mika Kortelainen & Ada Wossink, 2013. "Estimating Mortality and Economic Costs of Particulate Air Pollution in Developing Countries: The Case of Nigeria," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 361-387, March.
    4. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    5. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Rackwitz, Rüdiger, 2006. "The effect of discounting, different mortality reduction schemes and predictive cohort life tables on risk acceptability criteria," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 469-484.
    7. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    8. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    9. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2020. "A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2399-2412, November.
    10. Marcela Parada-Contzen & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín, 2019. "An analysis of economic incentives to encourage organ donation: evidence from Chile," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2010. "Le calcul de la valeur statistique d’une vie humaine," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 487-530, décembre.
    12. Christoph Rheinberger, 2011. "A Mixed Logit Approach to Study Preferences for Safety on Alpine Roads," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 121-146, May.
    13. Andersson, Henrik, 2013. "Consistency in preferences for road safety: An analysis of precautionary and stated behavior," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 41-49.
    14. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    15. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    17. Damien Sheehan-Connor & Theodore Bergstrom & Rodney Garratt, 2015. "Saving lives with stem cell transplants," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 23-51, August.
    18. Anna Alberini, 2004. "Robustness of VSL Values from Contingent Valuation Surveys," Working Papers 2004.135, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Maureen Cropper & James K. Hammitt & Lisa A. Robinson, 2011. "Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions: Progress and Challenges," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 313-336, October.
    20. Thijs Dekker & Roy Brouwer & Marjan Hofkes & Klaus Moeltner, 2011. "The Effect of Risk Context on the Value of a Statistical Life: a Bayesian Meta-model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 597-624, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4668-:d:188858. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.