IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i2p196-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Probabilistic Risk Assessment Can Mislead Terrorism Risk Analysts

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald G. Brown
  • Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr.

Abstract

Traditional probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), of the type originally developed for engineered systems, is still proposed for terrorism risk analysis. We show that such PRA applications are unjustified in general. The capacity of terrorists to seek and use information and to actively research different attack options before deciding what to do raises unique features of terrorism risk assessment that are not adequately addressed by conventional PRA for natural and engineered systems—in part because decisions based on such PRA estimates do not adequately hedge against the different probabilities that attackers may eventually act upon. These probabilities may differ from the defender's (even if the defender's experts are thoroughly trained, well calibrated, unbiased probability assessors) because they may be conditioned on different information. We illustrate the fundamental differences between PRA and terrorism risk analysis, and suggest use of robust decision analysis for risk management when attackers may know more about some attack options than we do.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald G. Brown & Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2011. "How Probabilistic Risk Assessment Can Mislead Terrorism Risk Analysts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 196-204, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:196-204
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01492.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01492.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01492.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. Robert F. Bordley & Gordon Hazen, 1992. "Nonlinear Utility Models Arising from Unmodelled Small World Intercorrelations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(7), pages 1010-1017, July.
    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. Simon Grant & John Quiggin, 2008. "Bounded rationality and small worlds," Risk & Uncertainty Working Papers WPR08_2, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    2. Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
    3. Erio Castagnoli & Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "Expected utility without utility," Game Theory and Information 0508004, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:31:y:2011:i:2:p:196-204. 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.