Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017

Session Schedule & Abstracts


* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

T4-G
Symposium: Foundational Issues in Risk Analysis II

Room: Salon H   3:30 pm–5:00 pm

Chair(s): Roger Flage   roger.flage@uis.no

Sponsored by Foundational Issues in Risk Analysis Specialty Group

The present symposium will contribute to the strengthening of the foundation of risk analysis. It will address issues that are critical for risk analysis as a field and are relevant for broad categories of applications. The scope of the symposium covers the study, investigation, development and scrutiny/clarification of basic and general concepts, theories, principles, and methods for the purpose of understanding, assessing, describing, managing, governing, and/or communicating risk.



T4-G.1  3:30 pm  A safety perspective on systemic risk. Selvik JT*, Signoret J-P; Author 1: University of Stavanger and IRIS (International Research Institute of Stavanger), Norway; Author 2: France: Project leader of ISO/TR 12489    jon.t.selvik@uis.no

Abstract: ‘Systemic risk’ is a common term used in finance to describe events that could threaten the stability of a whole system or a financial market, i.e. where a combination of events is causing adverse consequences on a system level. Within the oil and gas industry, the term is also used in a safety context where it is linked to safety-critical failures of safety instrumented systems (SIS). The paper studies the definition and the use of this term in such a context, showing that it strongly relates to the interdependencies between the components of the system. These dependencies are a key for understanding the risk of ‘systemic failures’ as the system failure cannot be simply described from the individual component failures of the system. This is a straight outcome of the Aristotle principle explaining that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Hence a holistic picture is needed when assessing the risk of such failures. Some relevant examples are used in this paper to clarify the meaning of this term and to show how different systemic dependencies can influence risk.

T4-G.2  3:50 pm  Emerging empirical research on risk perception and risk behavior using the new uncertainty–based risk perspectives. Bjerga T*, Aven T; University of Stavanger   torbjorn.bjerga@uis.no

Abstract: An impressive and vast body of research literature on risk perception and behavioral decision-making exists. Much of the research presented in this literature is empirical findings of people’s evaluation of, and behavior towards, risk, which have given important new insights to our societies. Many of these empirical studies are founded on traditional perspectives on risk linking risk to probabilities, and in particular “objective” frequentist probabilities. However, for many of the current risk perspectives, uncertainty has replaced probability. This does not reduce the importance of the empirical research that has been conducted, but it calls for further research and new research questions. In this talk, we will present and discuss some preliminary ideas on what questions to ask and how such research can be conducted. We will outline what type of results to be expected and what are the new insights that can be gained.

T4-G.3  4:10 pm  The rise of resilience: Inside the strange world of risk and sustainability governance. Merad MMe*; CNRS   myriam.merad@unice.fr

Abstract: These last years, many scholars have point out the limits of risk based approaches and highlight the contribution of resilience based approaches. Definitions and methods were proposed and “practical applications” were published. However, looking back to practitioners’ areal-life application, it seems that the switch in practice that scholars call for is still difficult to implement. In this paper, we will discuss about some missing in the conceptual and methodological arsenal in the way resilience is conceived and govern and will share some practical analysis of some risk prevention and energy transition policies and strategies with that respect.

T4-G.4  4:30 pm  Antibiotic Resistance: The Need for a New Risk Assessment Framework. Wu F, Chen C*; Michigan State University   fwu@msu.edu

Abstract: Increasingly, national and global health policymakers are recognizing and addressing the risk of bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotics available in medicine. If bacteria evolve widespread resistance to common antibiotics, many of the medical procedures taken for granted today (e.g., appendectomies and Caesarian sections), and the common infections currently treated with simple antibiotic regimes (e.g., ear infections and some skin infections), will become more difficult, complicated, and risky. However, assessing the risk of antibiotic resistance is complex, because at least three different potential hazards must be considered in dose-response and exposure assessments: the antibiotics themselves, the antibiotic resistant bacteria, and the antibiotic resistance genes. Moreover, problem formulation of the risk assessments would differ for antibiotics used for human medicine vs. animal agriculture. In this manuscript, we describe how three different types of risk assessment – chemical, ecological, and microbial – provide helpful insights to all aspects of assessing antibiotic resistance risk. We focus on the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, and discuss what gaps in knowledge must be filled.

T4-G.5  4:50 pm  Knowledge dimensions in the risk field – Ontologies and epistemologies. Ylonen M*; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland   marja.ylonen@vtt.fi

Abstract: Knowledge dimensions play a relevant role in the risk field. Despite its relevance in the risk context the concept of knowledge often remains undefined. Talks about uncertainties related to knowledge or strength of the knowledge leave the concept untouched. This presentation will look at the different definitions of knowledge based on philosophy and social sciences. In addition, ontological and epistemological questions are dealt with. What is knowledge? How knowledge is generated? How can we get a grip on knowledge? What kind of knowledges can we talk about? In which context we can talk about knowledge-based consensus? The aim of the presentation is to provide some insights into the world of knowledge in order to better understand the challenges and possibilities related to knowledge and production of it in the risk field. At its best, understanding of knowledge dimensions will contribute to strengthening the foundation of risk field.



[back to schedule]