IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v112y2022i3d10.1007_s11069-022-05287-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement

Author

Listed:
  • Ioanna Ioannou

    (University College London, UCL)

  • Jaime E. Cadena

    (University of Queensland)

  • Willy Aspinall

    (University of Bristol)

  • David Lange

    (University of Queensland)

  • Daniel Honfi

    (Monitoring and Analyses of Existing Structures)

  • Tiziana Rossetto

    (University College London, UCL)

Abstract

Risk assessment in communities or regions typically relies on the determination of hazard scenarios and an evaluation of their impact on local systems and structures. One of the challenges of risk assessment for infrastructure operators is how to identify the most critical scenarios that are likely to represent unacceptable risks to such assets in a given time frame. This study develops a novel approach for prioritizing hazards for the risk assessment of infrastructure. Central to the proposed methodology is an expert elicitation technique termed paired comparison which is based on a formal mathematical technique for quantifying the range and variance in the judgements of a group of stakeholders. The methodology is applied here to identify and rank natural and operational hazard scenarios that could cause serious disruption or have disastrous effects to the infrastructure in the transnational Øresund region over a period of 5 years. The application highlighted substantial divergences of views among the stakeholders on identifying a single ‘most critical’ natural or operational hazard scenario. Despite these differences, it was possible to flag up certain cases as critical among the natural hazard scenarios, and others among the operational hazards.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:112:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-022-05287-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-022-05287-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-022-05287-x
    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/s11069-022-05287-x?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. Stan Kaplan & Yacov Y. Haimes & B. John Garrick, 2001. "Fitting Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into the Theory of Scenario Structuring and a Resulting Refinement to the Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 807-807, October.
    2. Robert William Fuller & Tony E Wong & Klaus Keller, 2017. "Probabilistic inversion of expert assessments to inform projections about Antarctic ice sheet responses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Stephanie E. Chang & Timothy McDaniels & Jana Fox & Rajan Dhariwal & Holly Longstaff, 2014. "Toward Disaster‐Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 416-434, March.
    4. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    5. Bernd Kraan & Tim Bedford, 2005. "Probabilistic Inversion of Expert Judgments in the Quantification of Model Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 995-1006, June.
    6. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Mansouri, Mo & Nilchiani, Roshanak & Mostashari, Ali, 2010. "A policy making framework for resilient port infrastructure systems," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1125-1134, November.
    8. N. Özeyranlı Ergenç & Ş. Barış, 2018. "Prioritization of hazard profile for Istanbul using Analytical Hierarchy Process," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(1), pages 325-336, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Yacov Y. Haimes & Stan Kaplan & James H. Lambert, 2002. "Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management Framework Using Hierarchical Holographic Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 383-397, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    2. James H. Lambert & Jeffrey M. Keisler & William E. Wheeler & Zachary A. Collier & Igor Linkov, 2013. "Multiscale approach to the security of hardware supply chains for energy systems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 326-334, September.
    3. Mostafa Aliyari & Yonas Z Ayele & Abbas Barabadi & Enrique Lopez Droguett, 2019. "Risk analysis in low-voltage distribution systems," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 118-138, April.
    4. Gregory A. Lamm & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2002. "Assessing and managing risks to information assurance: A methodological approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 286-314.
    5. Elizabeth B. Connelly & Lisa M. Colosi & Andres F. Clarens & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 178-191, March.
    6. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    7. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    8. James H. Lambert & Benjamin L. Schulte & Priya Sarda, 2005. "Tracking the complexity of interactions between risk incidents and engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 262-277, September.
    9. Hong Sun & Fangquan Yang & Peiwen Zhang & Yunxiang Zhao, 2023. "Flight Training Risk Identification and Assessment Based on the HHM-RFRM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Barry M. Horowitz & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2003. "Risk‐based methodology for scenario tracking, intelligence gathering, and analysis for countering terrorism," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 152-169.
    11. Maria Leung & James H. Lambert & Alexander Mosenthal, 2004. "A Risk‐Based Approach to Setting Priorities in Protecting Bridges Against Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 963-984, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Wenjun Zhang & Yingjun Zhang & Weiliang Qiao, 2022. "Risk Scenario Evaluation for Intelligent Ships by Mapping Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into Risk Filtering, Ranking and Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Francesca Marsili & Jörg Bödefeld, 2021. "Integrating Cluster Analysis into Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Maintenance Management of Aging Culverts," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(20), pages 1-18, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Timothy L. McDaniels & Stephanie E. Chang & David Hawkins & Gerard Chew & Holly Longstaff, 2015. "Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 252-263, June.
    17. H. Klammler & P. S. C. Rao & K. Hatfield, 2018. "Modeling dynamic resilience in coupled technological-social systems subjected to stochastic disturbance regimes," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 140-159, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Dubaniowski, Mateusz Iwo & Heinimann, Hans Rudolf, 2021. "Framework for modeling interdependencies between households, businesses, and infrastructure system, and their response to disruptions—application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    20. Corinne Curt & Jean‐Marc Tacnet, 2018. "Resilience of Critical Infrastructures: Review and Analysis of Current Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2441-2458, November.

    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:nathaz:v:112:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-022-05287-x. 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.