Reference List
Uploaded by
maalime9Reference List
Uploaded by
maalime9Common questions
Powered by AIAven's exploration of uncertainty in risk analysis addresses the challenges in quantifying risks, which are often subject to varying interpretations due to incomplete knowledge and inherent unpredictability. This discussion supports subjective likelihood estimation by providing theoretical foundations that acknowledge these uncertainties, thereby justifying the use of expert judgment and subjective assessments in determining the likelihood of risk events when objective data is scarce or non-existent .
Kaplan and Garrick define risk as a function of probability and consequences, providing a quantitative foundation for evaluating potential adverse events. This concept underpins modern risk analysis models by enabling the systematic assessment of varying risk scenarios through probabilistic modeling, allowing for more objective comparisons and the prioritization of risks based on their potential impact and likelihood of occurrence .
Salmon et al. (2016) describe systemic risk analysis approaches that consider the interactions between technical and human factors in accident causation. These approaches, such as the Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP), address socio-technical accident causation by analyzing the entire system, including organizational, technological, and human components, to identify discrepancies and faults that could lead to accidents, thus providing a holistic view for prevention strategies .
Vafaee & Monfared (2025) address multi-stakeholder perspectives by incorporating input from various stakeholders to ensure comprehensive process safety risk evaluations. They highlight governance issues such as decision-making transparency, accountability, and the alignment of safety goals among stakeholders. These issues underscore the need for collaborative frameworks that allow diverse perspectives to inform risk management decisions, ensuring that safety evaluations are balanced and inclusive .
Dvořák et al. (2020) employ scenario-based analysis in transport risk evaluation by creating various hypothetical situations to assess potential outcomes and impacts of transport systems on the environment. This approach's advantages include its ability to cope with uncertainty and complexity by allowing decision-makers to explore a wide range of possible scenarios, thus enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the risk evaluation process .
ISO 31000:2018 establishes guidelines for risk management, providing a standardized approach to risk analysis and evaluation which serves as a benchmark for assessing current risk management practices against best practices. This framework is pivotal in conducting a gap analysis as it allows organizations to identify discrepancies between current and ideal risk management procedures, emphasizing improvements needed to align with international standards .
Cox (2008) criticizes risk matrices for their inability to accurately represent the probabilistic relationship between events and outcomes, often leading to misinterpretations due to their qualitative nature. The main issues include poor resolution among risk levels, misrepresentation of data, and arbitrary scales for scoring. These limitations affect subjective risk scoring by introducing biases and inconsistencies that can result in flawed risk prioritization and decision-making .
Yang et al. (2018) identify structured risk analysis methods, such as fault tree analysis and event tree analysis, to model accident likelihood and consequences in hazardous materials transportation. These methodologies are significant because they provide systematic approaches to dissect complex transport systems, enabling the identification of potential failure points and adverse outcomes, thus improving risk management strategies in hazardous materials logistics .
Flyvbjerg outlines how decision biases and stakeholder pressures significantly skew risk assessments in megaprojects by fostering over-optimism and strategic misrepresentations. Such biases include scope changes, underestimation of costs, and overconfidence in projected outcomes, often exacerbated by stakeholders' vested interests. These factors lead to misallocation of resources and erroneous risk management strategies, necessitating more rigorous governance frameworks to ensure balanced decision-making .
He et al. (2025) model operational risk factors such as traffic congestion, vehicle breakdowns, and driver shortages, which can significantly impact the efficiency and reliability of road freight logistics. These factors influence decision-making processes by requiring logistics managers to account for contingencies and implement strategies like route optimization and workforce planning to mitigate potential disruptions and ensure smooth operational workflows .