Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Quantitative Risk Assessment
  • Cited by 57
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
June 2012
Print publication year:
2011
Online ISBN:
9780511974120
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974120
Subjects:
Strategic Management, Optimization, OR and risk, Statistics and Probability, Management
Information

Book description

Quantitative risk assessments cannot eliminate risk, nor can they resolve trade-offs. They can, however, guide principled risk management and reduction - if the quality of assessment is high and decision makers understand how to use it. This book builds a unifying scientific framework for discussing and evaluating the quality of risk assessments and whether they are fit for purpose. Uncertainty is a central topic. In practice, uncertainties about inputs are rarely reflected in assessments, with the result that many safety measures are considered unjustified. Other topics include the meaning of a probability, the use of probability models, the use of Bayesian ideas and techniques, and the use of risk assessment in a practical decision-making context. Written for professionals, as well as graduate students and researchers, the book assumes basic probability, statistics and risk assessment methods. Examples make concepts concrete, and three extended case studies show the scientific framework in action.

Reviews

'… a timely topic, and a very interesting book … It is very detailed and academically rigorous …'

Charles K. Davis Source: Reviews.com

'The book provides a scientific framework apt to evaluate the quality of risk assessments and in particular their flexibility to specifically required purposes … The book gives useful tools for graduate students and researchers as well for professionals.'

Source: Zentralblatt MATH

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Contents

Contents
References
References
Abrahamsen, E. B. and Aven, T. (2011). Safety oriented bubble diagrams in project risk management. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 7 Google Scholar(1), 91–96.
Abrahamsen, E. B., Aven, T. and Røed, W. (2010). Communication of cost-effectiveness of safety measures by use of a new visualizing g tool, Reliability & Risk Analysis: Theory & Applications, 2 Google Scholar(4), 38–46.
Abramson, L. R. (1981). Some misconceptions about the foundations of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 229–230.
Ale, B. J. M. (2002). Risk assessment practices in The Netherlands. Safety Science, 40 CrossRef | Google Scholar:105–126.
Ale, B., Bellamy, L. J., Boom, R.et al. (2009). Further development of a Causal model for Air Transport Safety (CATS): Building the mathematical heart. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1433–1441.
Anoop, M. B. and Rao, K. B. (2008). Determination of bounds on failure probability in the presence of hybrid uncertainties. Sadhana, 33 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 753–765.
Apostolakis, G. E. (1990) The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science, 250 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 1359–1364.
Apostolakis, G. E. (ed.) (1988). Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 23 CrossRef | Google Scholar.
Apostolakis, G. E. (1990). The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science, 250 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 1359–1364.
Apostolakis, G. E. (2004). How useful is quantitative risk assessment?Risk Analysis, 24 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 515–520.
Apostolakis, G. E. and Pickett, S. E. (1998). Deliberation: Integrating analytical results into environmental decisions involving multiple stakeholders, Risk Analysis, 18 CrossRef | Google Scholar(5), 621–634.
,AS/NZS 4360 (2004). Australian/New Zealand Standard: Risk management Google Scholar.
Aven, T. (1986) Formulae for the average unavailability (MFDT) of a coherent system with periodically tested components. Microelectronics and Reliability, 26 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 283–288.
Aven, T. (1992). Reliability and Risk Analysis. London CrossRef | Google Scholar: Elsevier.
Aven, T. (2003). Foundations of Risk Analysis. New Jersey CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Aven, T. (2004). Risk analysis and science. International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering, 11 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1–15.
Aven, T. (2006). On the precautionary principle, in the context of different perspectives on risk. Risk Management: an International Journal, 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 192–205.
Aven, T. (2007a). A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis and management covering both safety and security. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 745–754.
Aven, T. (2007b). On the ethical justification for the use of risk acceptance criteria. Risk Analysis, 27 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 303–312.
Aven, T. (2008a). Risk Analysis, New Jersey CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Aven, T. (2008b). A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 768–775.
Aven, T. (2009a). Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context – Review and discussion. Safety Science, 47 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 798–806.
Aven, T. (2009b). Safety is the antonym of risk for some perspectives of risk. Safety Science, 47 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 925–930.
Aven, T. (2009c). A new scientific framework for quantitative risk assessmentsInternational Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 67–77.
Aven, T. (2010a). Misconceptions of Risk, Chichester CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Aven, T. (2010b). Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 95 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 195–201.
Aven, T. (2010c). On the need for restricting the probabilistic analysis in risk assessments to variability. Risk Analysis, 30 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed(3), 354–360.
Aven, T. (2010d). Reply to discussants on “The need for restricting the probabilistic analysis in risk assessments to variability”. Risk Analysis, 30 CrossRef | Google Scholar (3), 381–384.
Aven, T. (2010e). On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 95 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 623–631.
Aven, T. (2010f). A holistic framework for conceptualising and describing risk Google Scholar. In Proceedings SSARS conference, Gdansk 20–25 June, 2010.
Aven, T. (2010 CrossRef | Google Scholarg). On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Revised and resubmitted Risk Analysis.
Aven, T. (2010 Google Scholarh). Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practice. Revised and resubmitted Reliability Engineering and System Safety.
Aven, T. (2010 Google Scholari). Shaky foundations: common misconceptions in risk assessment and management, and ideas for fixing them. Revised and resubmitted Risk Analysis.
Aven, T. (2011 CrossRef | Google Scholar). On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability and resilience. Risk Analysis. To appear.
Aven, T. and Abrahamsen, E. B. (2007). On the use of cost-benefit analysis in ALARP processes. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 3 Google Scholar, 345–353.
Aven, T., Asche, F., Lindøe, P., Toft, A., Wiencke, H. S. (2010). A framework for decision support on HSE regulations, Como, Italy: SRA Europe. 2005. In Risks Challenging Publics, Scientists and Governments, ed. Menoni, S.. London CrossRef | Google Scholar: CRC Press, pp. 49–56.
Aven, T. and Flage, R. (2009). Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1491–1498.
Aven, T. and Guikema, S. (2010 CrossRef | Google Scholar) Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'? Paper revised and resubmitted to Reliability Engineering and System Safety.
Aven, T. and Heide, B. (2009). Reliability and validity of risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1862–1868.
Aven, T. and Jensen, U. (1999). Stochastic Models in Reliability, New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Springer.
Aven, T. and Nøkland, T. E. (2010). On the use of uncertainty importance measures in reliability and risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 95 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 127–133.
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009a). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1–11.
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009b). The role of quantitative risk assessments for characterizing risk and uncertainty and delineating appropriate risk management options, with special emphasis on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 29 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 587–600.
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2011) Risk Management and Governance. New York Google Scholar: Springer.
Aven, T., Renn, O. and Rosa, E. (2010 Google Scholar) The ontological status of the concept of risk. Paper submitted for possible publication.
Aven, T. and Vinnem, J. E. (2007). Risk Management, with Applications from the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, New York Google Scholar: Springer.
Aven, T., Vinnem, J. E. and Røed, W. (2006). On the use of goals, quantitative criteria and requirements in safety management. Risk Management: an International Journal, 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 118–132.
Aven, T. and Zio, E. (2011). Treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision-making. Accepted for publication in Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 96 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 64–74.
Baraldi, P. and Zio, E. (2008) A combined Monte Carlo and possibilistic approach to uncertainty propagation in event tree analysis. Risk Analysis, 28 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed (5), 1309–1325.
Bedford, T. and Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis, Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Berenson, M. L., Levine, D. M. and Rindskopf, (1988). Applied Statistics, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Google Scholar.
Berger, J. (1994). An overview of robust Bayesian analysis. Test, 3 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 5–124.
Bergman, B. (2009). Conceptualistic pragmatism: a framework for Bayesian analysis?IIE Transactions, 41 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 86–93.
Bernardo, J. and Smith, A. (1994). Bayesian Theory. New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Bernoulli, J. (1713) Wahrrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, third and fourth parts, Ostwald, 506. Quarterly J. of Economics. Klassiker der exakten Wissenschaften, 108 Google Scholar, 1896, Leipzig, translation of “ars conjectandi,” published in 1713.
,Cabinet Office (2002 Google Scholar). Risk: improving government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty. Strategy unit report. UK.
Campbell, S. (2005). Determining overall risk. Journal of Risk Research, 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 569–581.
Carpi, A. and Egger, A. E. (2003) The Scientific Method. Visionlearning Vol. SCI-1 (1 Google Scholar), 2003. www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=45. Accessed 3 March 2010.
Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. New York Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Coolen, F. P. A. and Utkin, L. V. (2007). Imprecise reliability: A concise overview. In Risk, Reliability and Societal Safety, eds. Aven, T. and Vinnem, J. E., Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2007 (ESREL 2007), Stavanger, Norway, 25–27 June 2007. London Google Scholar: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 1959–1966.
Cumming, R. B. (1981). Is Risk Assessment A Science?Risk Analysis, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1–3.
Finetti, B. (1974). Theory of Probability, New York Google Scholar: Wiley.
Laplace, P. S. (1814). Theorie analytique des probabilities. Paris Google Scholar: Courcier Imprimeur.
Dempster, A. (1967). Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 325–339.
Rocquigny, E., Devictor, N. and Tarantola, S. (eds.) (2008). Uncertainty in Industrial Practice. A guide to quantitative uncertainty management. New Jersey CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Devooght, J. (1998). Model uncertainty and model inaccuracy. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 171–185.
Douglas, E. J. (1983). Managerial Economics: Theory, Practice and Problems, 2nd edn. New Jersey Google Scholar: Prentice Hall.
Dubois, D. (2006). Possibility theory and statistical reasoning. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 47–69.
Dubois, D. (2010). Representation, propagation and decision issues in risk analysis under incomplete probabilistic information. Risk Analysis, 30 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 361–368.
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1988). Possibility Theory. New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Plenum Press.
Dubois, D., Prade, H. and Sandri, S. (1993). On possibility/probability transformations. In Fuzzy Logic: State of the Art, eds. Lowen, R. and Roubens, M.. Dordrecht CrossRef | Google Scholar: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 103–112.
Ersdal, G. and Aven, T. (2008). Risk management and its ethical basis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 197–205.
,European Commission/Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General, Directorate C (2000). Scientific Opinions: First Report on the Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures, EU, Brussels Google Scholar.
,European Commission (2003). Final Report on Setting the Scientific Frame for the Inclusion of New Quality of Life Concerns in the Risk Assessment Process, EU, Brussels Google Scholar.
Ferson, S. and Ginzburg, L. R. (1996). Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 133–144.
Flage, R. and Aven, T. (2009). Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis (QRA). Reliability & Risk Analysis: Theory & Applications, 2 Google Scholar(13), 9–18.
Flage, R., Aven, T. and Zio, E. (2009) Alternative representations of uncertainty in reliability and risk analysis – review and discussion. In Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis. Theory, Methods and Applications, eds. Martorell, S., Soares, C. Guedes and Barnett, J., Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2008 (ESREL 2008), Valencia, Spain, 22–25 September 2008. London Google Scholar: CRC Press pp. 2081–2091.
Flage, R., Baraldi, P., Ameruso, F., Zio, E. & Aven, T. (2010). Handling epistemic uncertainties in fault tree analysis by probabilistic and possibilistic approaches. In Reliability, Risk and Safety: Theory and Applications, eds. Bris, R., Soares, C. Guedes and Martorell, S. Supplement Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2009 (ESREL 2009), Prague Google Scholar, Czech Republic, 7–10 September 2009.
Granger Morgan, M. and Henrion, M. (1990) Uncertainty. A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Garrick, B. J. (2010). Interval analysis versus probabilistic analysis. Risk Analysis, 3 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 369–70.
Graham, J. D. (1995). Verifiability isn't everything. Risk Analysis, 15 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 109.
Guikema, S. and Aven, T. (2010) Is ALARP applicable to the management of terrorist risks?Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 95 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 823–827.
Gärdenfors, P. and Sahlin, N -E. (1988). Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making. In Decision, Probability, and Utility, eds. Gärdenfors, P. and Sahlin, N -E.. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–334.
Haimes, Y. Y. (2004). Risk Modelling, Assessment, and Management, 2nd edn. New Jersey CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Hamada, M. S., Wilson, A. G., Reese, C. S. and Martz, H. F. (2008). Bayesian Reliability. New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Springer.
Helton, J. C. (1994). Treatment of uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Risk Analysis, 14 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 483–511.
Helton, J. C., Johnson, J. D., Sallaberry, C. J. and Storlie, C. B. (2006). Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1175–1209.
Hertz, D. B. and Thomas, H. (1983). Risk Analysis and its Applications. Chichester Google Scholar: Wiley.
,HSE (2001). Reducing Risk, Protecting People Google Scholar. HSE Books, ISBN 0 71762151 0.
,HSE (2006 Google Scholar). Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 regulation 12 demonstrating compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.
,HSE (2000 Google Scholar). Offshore Hydrocarbon Release Statistics, 1999, Offshore Technology Report OTO 079, HSE Offshore Safety Division (OSD), January 2000.
Hollnagel, E. (2004) Barriers and Accident Prevention, Aldershot Google Scholar: Ashgate.
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D. and Leveson, N., eds. (2006). Resilience Engineering, Concepts and Precepts. Burlington: Ashgate Google Scholar.
Holton, G. A. (2004). Defining risk. Financial Analysis Journal, 60 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 19–25.
,House of Lords (2006). Government Policy on the Management of Risk. Volume 1: Report. London Google Scholar: The Stationery Office.
Huber, W. A. (2010). Ignorance Is Not Probability. Risk Analysis, 3 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 371–376.
,IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1995). Guidelines for Integrated Risk Assessment and Management in Large Industrial Areas, Technical Document: IAEA–TECDOC PGVI–CIJV, IAEA, Vienna Google Scholar.
,IEC (1993). Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Technological Systems, Report IEC–CD (Sec) 381 issued by Technical Committee QMS/23, European Community, Brussels Google Scholar.
,IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change (2007). Geneva, Switzerland Google Scholar. www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm. Accessed 23 April 2010.
IPCS and WHO (World Health Organization) (2004). Risk Assessment Terminology, Geneva Google Scholar: WHO.
IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) (2005). Risk Governance – Towards an Integrative Approach, White Paper no 1, O. Renn with an Annex by Graham, P., Geneva Google Scholar: IRGC.
,ISO (2002). Risk Management Vocabulary. ISO/IEC Guide 73 Google Scholar.
,ISO (2009a). Risk Management – Vocabulary. Guide 73 Google Scholar:2009.
,ISO (2009b). Risk Management – Principles and guidelines, ISO 31000 Google Scholar:2009.
Jones-Lee, M. and Aven, T. (2009). The role of social cost-benefit analysis in societal decision-making under large uncertainties with application to robbery at a cash depot. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94 (2009 CrossRef | Google Scholar) 1954–1961.
Jones-Lee, M. and Aven, T. (2010 Google Scholar). What does the ALARP principle really mean? Revised and resubmitted Reliability Engineering and System Safety.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 Google Scholar, 1124–1131.
KaminskiJr., J., Riera, J. D., Menezes, R. C. R., Miguel, L. F. F. (2008). Model uncertainty in the assessment of transmission line towers subjected to cable rupture. Engineering Structures, 30 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 2935–2944.
Kaplan, S. (1991). Risk assessment and risk management – basic concepts and terminology. In Risk Management: Expanding Horizons in Nuclear Power and Other Industries. Boston, MA Google Scholar: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, pp. 11–28.
Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 11–27.
Keeney, R. L. and McDaniels, T. (2001). A Framework to guide thinking and analysis regarding climate change policies, Risk Analysis, 6 CrossRef | Google Scholar (12), 989–1000.
Kettunen, P. (1998). Globalisation and the Criteria of “Us” – A Historical Perspective on the Discussion of the Nordic Model and New Challenges, in Global Redefining of Working Life, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen Google Scholar.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Washington DC Google Scholar: Beard Books. Reprinted 2002.
Kröger, W. (2005). Risk analyses and protection strategies for operation of nuclear power plants. In Landolt-Börnstein New Series Vol. VIII/3B: Advanced Materials and Technologies/Energy. Berlin Google Scholar: Springer.
Kröger, W. (2006). Reflections on current and future nuclear safety, ATW-International Journal for Nuclear Power, 51 Google Scholar, July, 331–337.
Kujawski, E. and Miller, G. A. (2007). Quantitative risk-based analysis for military counterterrorism systems. Systems Engineering, 10 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 273–289.
Kumamoto, H. (2007). Satisfying Safety Goals by Probabilistic Risk Assessment. London Google Scholar: Springer.
Kørte, J., Aven, T. and Rosness, R., 2002. On the use of risk analysis in different decision settings. In Proceedings from the ESREL 2002 Conference, 19–20, March, Lyon, France Google Scholar, vol. I, pp. 175–180.
Lauridsen, K., Christou, M., Amendola, A.et al. (2001). Assessing the uncertainties in the process of risk analysis of chemical establishments. In Safety and Reliability. Towards a Safer World, eds Zio, E., Demichela, M. and Piccinini, N., Proceedings. Vol. I. ESREL 2001, Torino (IT) Google Scholar, 16–20 Sep 2001. pp. 592–606.
Leveson, N. (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science, 42 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 237–270.
Leveson, N. (2007) Modeling and Analyzing Risk in Complex Socio-Technical Systems. NeTWork workshop, Berlin Google Scholar27–29 Sept. 2007.
Levy, H. and Sarnat, M. (1994). Capital Investment and Financial Decisions. 5th edn. New Jersey Google Scholar: Prentice Hall.
Lindley, D. (1985). Making Decisions. New York Google Scholar: Wiley.
Lindley, D. V. (2000). The philosophy of statistics. The Statistician, 49 Google Scholar, 293–337. With discussions.
Lindley, D. V. (2006). Understanding Uncertainty. New Jersey CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Lindley, D. V., Tversky, A. and Brown, R. V. (1979). On the reconciliation of probability assessments (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 142 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 146–180.
Lirer, L., Petrosino, P. and Alberico, I. (2001) Hazard assessment at volcanic fields: the Campi Flegrei case history. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 112 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 53–73.
Lowrance, W. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk – Science and the Determination of Safety. Los Altos, CA CrossRef | Google Scholar: William Kaufmann Inc.
Luxhøj, J. T., Choopavang, A. and Arendt, D. N. (2001). Risk Assessment of Organizational Factors in Aviation Systems. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 9 CrossRef | Google Scholar (3), 135–174.
,Lyse (2007). Capra, G., Cleaver, P., Chester, A. and Phillips, A. Google Scholar QRA of the proposed Lyse Gass LNG base load export terminal, Advantica, R100-PB-S-SR0001, 11.04.2007.
,Lyse (2008 Google Scholar). Quantitative risk analysis (QRA) Lyse LNG base load plant Train 1, Linde, R100-LE-S-RS0003, 25.08.2007.
Löfstedt, R. E. (2003). The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Trans IchemE, 81 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 36–43.
Mandel, D. (2007). Toward a concept of risk for effective military decision making. Defence R&D Canada – Toronto. Technical Report. DRDC Toronto TR Google Scholar2007–124.
Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their Product. New York Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Mohaghegh, Z., Kazemi, R. and Mosleh, A. (2009). Incorporating organizational factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: A hybrid technique formalization. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1000–1018.
Morgan, M. G. and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Mosleh, A. and Bier, V. M. (1996). Uncertainty about probability: a reconciliation with the subjectivist viewpoint. Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A: Systems and Humans, 26 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 303–311.
Möller, N., Hansson, S. O. and Person, M. (2006). Safety is more than the antonym of risk. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 419–432.
Nilsen, T. and Aven, T. (2003). Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 309–317.
North, W. (2010) Probability theory and consistent reasoning. Risk Analysis, 30 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed, 377–380.
NRC (National Research Council) (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC Google Scholar: National Academy Press.
,NRC (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Research Council, Washington, DC Google Scholar: National Academy Press.
,NRC (2009). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC Google Scholar: National Academy Press.
,NRC (2010 Google Scholar). Defense-in-depth. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/defense-in-depth.html. Accessed 10 February 2010.
O'Brien, M. (2000). Making Better Environmental Decisions. Cambridge, MA Google Scholar: The MIT Press.
Östergaard, C., Dogliani, M., Soares, C. Guedes, Parmentier, G. and Pedersen, P. T. (1996). Measures of model uncertainty in the assessment of primary stresses in ship structures. Marine Structures, 9 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 427–447.
Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1996). Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2–3), 95–111.
Paté-Cornell, E. and Dillon, R. (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis for the NASA space shuttle: a brief history and current work. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 74 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 345–352.
,PSA (2001). Risk Management Regulations Google Scholar. Petroleum Safety Authority Norway.
,PSA (2002). The Facilities Regulations. Regulations Relating to Design and Outfitting of Facilities etc. in the Petroleum Activities, 2002 Google Scholar. Petroleum Safety Authority Norway. www.ptil.no/regelverk/category21.html. Accessed 10 May 2010.
,PSA (2007). Guidelines to Regulations Relating to Material and Information in the Petroleum Activities (The Information Duty Regulations) Google Scholar, §13. Petroleum Safety Authority Norway.
,PSA (2009). Trend in Risk level in the Petroleum Activity Google Scholar. Summary report 2008. 23.4.2009. Petroleum Safety Authority Norway.
,Purple book (2008 Google Scholar). Guidelines Risk Calculations (Purple Book) BEVI Module C, Version 3.0 Date 1 January 2008: Modelling specific BEVI categories (BEVI is the abbreviation of the decree implementing the SEVESO directive).
Rasmussen, J. (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety Science, 27 CrossRef | Google Scholar (2/3), 183–213.
Rechard, R. P. (1999). Historical relationship between performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal and other types of risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 19 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed(5):763–807.
Rechard, R. P. (2000). Historical background on performance assessment for the waste isolation pilot plant, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 69 CrossRef | Google Scholar (3), 5–46.
Reid, S. G. (1992). Acceptable risk. In Engineering Safety, ed. Blockley, D. I.. New York Google Scholar: McGraw-Hill, pp. 138–166.
Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classification. In Social Theories of Risk, eds. Krimsky, S. and Golding, D.. Westport Google Scholar: Praeger, pp. 53–79.
Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar (1), 49–71.
Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance. London CrossRef | Google Scholar: Earthscan.
,Research Council of Norway: RCN (2000). Quality in Norwegian Research – An overview of Terms, Methods and Means (In Norwegian only). Oslo Google Scholar.
Rosa, E. A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 15–44.
Rosa, E. A. (2003). The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF); metatheoretical foundations and policy implications. In The Social Amplification of Risk, eds. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P.. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–79.
Rosness, R (2009) A contingency model of decision-making involving risk of accidental loss. Safety Science, 47 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 807–812.
Ross, S. M. (1993). Probability Models, 5th edn. San Diego, CA Google Scholar: Academic Press.
Røed, W., Mosleh, A., Vinnem, J. E. and Aven, T. (2009). On the use of hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 455–455.
Sahlin, N -E. (1993). On higher order beliefs. In Philosophy of Probability, ed. Dubucs, J -P.. Dordrecht Google Scholar: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 889–907.
Sandin, P., Peterson, M., Hansson, S. O., Rudén, C. and Juthe, A. (2002). Five charges against the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research, 5 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 287–299.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T.et al. (2008). Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. New York Google Scholar: Wiley.
Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton Google Scholar: Princeton University Press.
Singpurwalla, N. D. (1988). Foundational Issues in Reliability and Risk Analysis. SIAM Review, 30 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 264–282.
Singpurwalla, N. (2006). Reliability and Risk. A Bayesian Perspective. New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Wiley.
Sinn, H. -W. (1980) A rehabilitation of the principle of insufficient reason. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar (3), 493–506.
Steen, R. and Aven, T. (2010). A risk perspective suitable for resilience engineering. Safety Science, 49 Google Scholar, 292–297.
Stirling, A. (1998). Risk at a turning point?Journal of Risk Research, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 97–109.
Stirling, A. (2007). Science, precaution and risk assessment: towards more measured and constructive policy debate. European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports, 8 Google Scholar, 309–315.
Stirling, A. and Gee, D. (2002). Science, precaution and practice. Public Health Reports, 117 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed(6), 521–533.
Stirling, A., Renn, O. and Zwanenberg, P. (2006). A framework for the precautionary governance of food safety: integrating science and participation in the social appraisal of risk. In Implementing the Precautionary Principle, eds. Fisher, E., Jones, J. and Schomberg, R.. Cheltenham Google Scholar: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 284–315.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London Google Scholar: Penguin.
Tickner, J. and Kriebel, D. (2006). The role of science and precaution in environmental and public health policy. In Implementing the Precautionary Principle, eds. Fisher, E., Jones, J., and Schomberg, R.. Northampton, MA Google Scholar: Edward Elgar Publishing.
,US Congress. (2004). Homeland Security: The Balance Between Crisis and Consequence Management Through Training and Assistance. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 108th Congress, November 20 Google Scholar, 2003.
,US National Research Council (1996). Understanding Risk, eds. Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, V.. Washington D.C. Google Scholar: National Academy Press.
Eijndhoven, J. C. M. and Ravenzwaaij, A. (2006). Optimizing risk analysis relating to external safety in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 9 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 495–504.
Vatn, J. (2007). Societal Security – A case study related to a cash depot. In Risk, Reliability and Societal Safety, eds. Aven, T. and Vinnem, J. E., Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference 2007 (ESREL 2007), Stavanger, Norway, 25–27 June 2007. London Google Scholar: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 2599–2607.
Vatn, J. (2010). Issues related to localization of an LNG plant. In Reliability, Risk and Safety, eds. Bris, R., Soares, C. Guedes and Martorell, S.. London: Taylor & Francis Group, vol. II Google Scholar, pp. 917–921.
Vatn, J, Vatn, G. A, and Drottz-Sjøber, B-M. (2008). Societal security – a case study related to an LNG facility, Social Security Conference Google Scholar, Norwegian Research Foundation.
Vercelli, A. (1995). From soft uncertainty to hard environmental uncertainty, Economie applique´e, 48 Google Scholar(2), 251–269.
Verma, M. and Verter, V. (2007). Railroad transportation of dangerous goods: Population exposure to airborne toxins. Computers and Operations Research, 34 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1287–1303.
Vinnem, J. E. (2010). Risk analysis and risk acceptance criteria in the planning processes of hazardous facilities – a case of an LNG plant in an urban area. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 95 CrossRef | Google Scholar (6), 662–670.
Vinnem, J. E., Aven, T., Husebø, T., Seljelid, J. and Tveit, O. (2006). Major hazard risk indicators for monitoring of trends in the Norwegian offshore petroleum sector. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 778–791.
Vose, D. (2008). Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide. 3rd edn, Chichester Google Scholar: Wiley.
Walley, P. (1991). Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Chapman and Hall.
Weick, K. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the Unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Google Scholar.
Weinberg, A. M. (1981). Reflections on Risk Assessment. Risk Analysis, 1 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 5–7.
Weinberg, A. M. (1972). Science and Trans-science, Minerun, 10 Google Scholar, 209–222.
Wiener, J. B. and Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 5 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 317–349.
Willis, H. H. (2007). Guiding resource allocations based on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 27 CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed(3), 597–606.
Winkler, R. L. (1996). Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 85 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 127–132.
Wolfs, F. (2009 Google Scholar). Introduction to the Scientific Method – An explanation on what the scientific method is and does. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html. Accessed 3 March 2010.
Zio, E. (2009). Reliability engineering: Old problems and new challenges. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 125–141.
Zio, E. and Apostolakis, G. E. (1996). Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 225–241.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.