Author
Listed:
- Matteo Spada
- Peter Burgherr
- Markus Hohl
Abstract
National Risk Assessment (NRA) studies have recently received increased interest from governments, authorities and other involved stakeholders, e.g. civil protection agencies, emergency planners, etc. The NRA approach combines risk assessment methods and decision-making processes in a structured manner to support the prioritization and management of national hazards and threats. A NRA commonly builds upon an intensive information processing and judgmental exercise, therefore, in a qualitative or semi-quantitative way, requiring the cooperation of experts from various fields. The validation of a NRA is of great importance to ensure that the analysis of national hazard scenarios results in the implementation of adequate preparedness strategies and contingency planning. In this study, a first step toward a comprehensive framework for NRA validation is presented. The method is developed to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of establishing risk indicator values by expert elicitation by comparing it against historical experience. The proposed method is based on Bayesian analysis, and is tested in three hazard scenario case studies for the Swiss NRA. The results for the chosen Swiss NRA cases show that expert estimates and quantitative assessment of historical experience are overall in good agreement. However, scenario-specific assumptions and boundary conditions defined by the experts are not in all cases supported by evaluation of historical experience. Finally, the main drawback of the proposed approach is that it can only be applied to hazard scenarios with sufficient historical observations, while it has the advantage to be generic and thus applicable to other risk assessment contexts outside of NRA.
Suggested Citation
Matteo Spada & Peter Burgherr & Markus Hohl, 2019.
"Toward the validation of a National Risk Assessment against historical observations using a Bayesian approach: application to the Swiss case,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(11), pages 1323-1342, November.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:11:p:1323-1342
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1459794
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:11:p:1323-1342. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.