IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i4p1003-1019.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expert Judgment‐Based Risk Assessment Using Statistical Scenario Analysis: A Case Study—Running the Bulls in Pamplona (Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Fermín Mallor
  • Carmen García‐Olaverri
  • Sagrario Gómez‐Elvira
  • Pedro Mateo‐Collazas

Abstract

In this article, we present a methodology to assess the risk incurred by a participant in an activity involving danger of injury. The lack of high‐quality historical data for the case considered prevented us from constructing a sufficiently detailed statistical model. It was therefore decided to generate a risk assessment model based on expert judgment. The methodology is illustrated in a real case context: the assessment of risk to participants in a San Fermin bull‐run in Pamplona (Spain). The members of the panel of “experts on the bull‐run” represented very different perspectives on the phenomenon: runners, surgeons and other health care personnel, journalists, civil defense workers, security staff, organizers, herdsmen, authors of books on the bull‐run, etc. We consulted 55 experts. Our methodology includes the design of a survey instrument to elicit the experts' views and the statistical and mathematical procedures used to aggregate their subjective opinions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fermín Mallor & Carmen García‐Olaverri & Sagrario Gómez‐Elvira & Pedro Mateo‐Collazas, 2008. "Expert Judgment‐Based Risk Assessment Using Statistical Scenario Analysis: A Case Study—Running the Bulls in Pamplona (Spain)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1003-1019, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:1003-1019
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01098.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01098.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01098.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. H. Gregg Claycamp, 2006. "Rapid Benefit‐Risk Assessments: No Escape from Expert Judgments in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 147-156, February.
    3. Nigel W. Arnell & Emma L. Tompkins & W. Neil Adger, 2005. "Eliciting Information from Experts on the Likelihood of Rapid Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1419-1431, December.
    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    5. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    6. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    7. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," 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. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    8. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    10. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    11. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," 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. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    12. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    13. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    14. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    15. Hope, Aimie L.B. & Jones, Christopher R., 2014. "The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 48-59.
    16. Garrett C. Waycaster & Taiki Matsumura & Volodymyr Bilotkach & Raphael T. Haftka & Nam H. Kim, 2018. "Review of Regulatory Emphasis on Transportation Safety in the United States, 2002–2009: Public versus Private Modes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 1085-1101, May.
    17. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    18. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    19. Julita Gil Cuesta & Joris Adriaan Frank Van Loenhout & Maria Da Conceição Colaço & Debarati Guha-Sapir, 2017. "General Population Knowledge about Extreme Heat: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Lisbon and Madrid," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, January.
    20. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    21. Matthew R. Hallowell & Dillon Alexander & John A. Gambatese, 2017. "Energy-based safety risk assessment: does magnitude and intensity of energy predict injury severity?," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1-2), pages 64-77, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:1003-1019. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.