It seems to me that all risk valuation is subjective. Theer may be an agreed
method for working out a figure, but the choice of that figure is
subjective.
Critically who is doing the defining and who is at risk need to be matched.
Too often 'authorities' assign a risk value for communities and populations
who have no say in the determination of acceptability.
I prefer to avoid fine, numerical rankings (they can be wrong, can ne
misledaing, misinterpreted and often encourage invalid comparisons between
dissinilar risks. I incline towards 'high', 'medium' and 'low' categories as
being bvlunter and fuzzier at the edges.
The "applications guide" at the Emergency Management Australia website
(www.ema.gov.au) has a number of risk assessment methods and the Bureau of
Transport Economics in Australia a few years ago costed natural hazards and
this project involved risk estimation and a comparison of some methods.
Philip Buckle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rainer Bell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:33 PM
Subject: acceptable risk levels
> 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]
|