IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v34y2014i1d10.1007_s10669-014-9488-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Igor Linkov

    (United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center)

  • Elke Anklam

    (European Commission’s Joint Research Centre)

  • Zachary A. Collier

    (United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center)

  • Daniel DiMase

    (Society of Automotive Engineers)

  • Ortwin Renn

    (University of Stuttgart)

Abstract

In response to rapidly changing threats posed to increasingly complex socio-technical systems, many in the government and private sector have called for protection through risk-based standards. However, given the nature of these dynamic and uncertain threats, traditional risk assessment techniques may not be sufficient. Instead, there is a critical need for an integrated approach in which decision analytic techniques are used to assess evidence-based data with the values and preferences of decision makers. We point to three examples in the fields of nuclear power regulation, nanotechnology, and cybersecurity, where risk-based approaches (bottom–up) have been combined with decision analysis (top–down) to guide decision makers toward risk management policies that manifest both the best available evidence and the plurality of values within a society.

Suggested Citation

  • Igor Linkov & Elke Anklam & Zachary A. Collier & Daniel DiMase & Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 134-137, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:34:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9488-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3?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. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 587-600, April.
    2. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    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. Ineke Malsch & Vrishali Subramanian & Elena Semenzin & Danail Hristozov & Antonio Marcomini, 2015. "Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 54-75, March.

    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. Michael Greenberg, 2011. "Risk analysis and port security: some contextual observations and considerations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 121-136, July.
    2. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    3. Michael R. Greenberg & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Tayfur Altiok, 2011. "Risk‐Based Decision Support Tools: Protecting Rail‐Centered Transit Corridors from Cascading Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1849-1858, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Terje Aven & Seth Guikema, 2015. "On the Concept and Definition of Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2162-2171, December.
    6. Annette Hofmann & Nicos A. Scordis, 2018. "Challenges in Applying Risk Management Concepts in Practice: A Perspective," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 21(2), pages 309-333, September.
    7. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    8. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    9. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    10. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    12. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    13. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    14. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    17. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    18. Julie E. Shortridge & Benjamin F. Zaitchik, 2018. "Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 525-539, December.
    19. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    20. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2006. "On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 293-296, April.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:34:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9488-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.