Dear colleagues,
I'm working in the fields of landslide hazard and risk analysis.
At the moment I'm confronted with the problems involved in defining
acceptable risk levels. Defining such risk levels is crucial to the
preparation of natural risk maps - risk here is defined as the product of
hazard, vulnerability and the "value" of the elements at risk. Without
having defined acceptable risk levels which can be used in the preparation
of risk maps, the resulting risk maps might show risky areas which are
"only" risky due to the subjective choice of the risk levels.
Until now Iceland is the only country I know which implemented acceptable
risk levels for snow avalanches and landslides in national law. There, they
have defined these risk levels due to comparison with the risk to die in
traffic accidents. In Hong Kong at least interim acceptable risk levels are
defined.
Although it may be problematic to stick to the psychometric paradigm
(meaning that it might not be possible to compare different risks to use
such an approach for defining acceptable risks), it is a way that allows
the Icelandic Goverment and the Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO) who
is responsible for the execution of the risk assessment to reduce snow
avalanche and landslide risks.
Does anyone knows other countries, states, etc. which are operating with
implemented acceptable risk levels, either considering any kind of natural
risks or technological risks?
Furthermore I'm interested in alternatives how acceptable risks can be
defined or have already been defined.
Any response would be highly appreciated!
Best regards
Rainer Bell
---------------------------------------
Dipl.-Geogr. Rainer Bell
Department of Geography
University of Bonn
Meckenheimer Allee 166
D-53115 Bonn
Germany
Phone: ++49-(0)-228-737480
Fax: ++49-(0)-228-739099
Mail: [log in to unmask]
|