text:
Risk assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Estimation of risk associated with exposure to a given set of hazards
Broadly speaking, a risk assessment is the combination effort of 1. identifying and analyzing potential (future) events that may negatively impact individuals, assets, and/or the environment (i.e., risk analysis); and 2. making judgements "on the tolerability of the risk on the basis of a risk analysis" while considering influencing factors (i.e., risk evaluation).[1][2] Put in simpler terms, a risk assessment analyzes what can go wrong, how likely it is to happen, what the potential consequences are, and how tolerable the identified risk is.[1] As part of this process, the resulting determination of risk may be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative fashion. The risk assessment plays an inherent part of an overall risk management strategy, which attempts to, after a risk assessment, "introduce control measures to eliminate or reduce" any potential risk-related consequences.[1][2]
Contents
1 Need
1.1 Individual risk assessment
1.2 Systems risk assessment
2 Concept
2.1 Mathematical conceptualization
2.1.1 Quantitative risk assessment
3 Assessment of risk
3.1 Dose dependent risk
4 Dynamic risk assessment
5 Fields of application
5.1 General health
5.1.1 Small sub-populations
5.1.2 Acceptable risk criteria
5.2 Auditing
5.3 Public health
5.4 Project management
5.5 Information security
5.6 Megaprojects
5.7 Software evolution
5.8 Shipping industry
5.9 Underwater diving
5.10 Environment
6 See also
7 References
7.1 Footnotes
7.2 General references
8 External links
Need[edit]
Individual risk assessment[edit]
Risk assessment is necessary in individual cases, including patient and physician interactions.[3] Individual judgements or assessments of risk may be affected by psychological, ideological, religious or otherwise subjective factors, which impact rationality of the process.[3]
A systematic review of patients and doctors from 2017 found that overstatement of benefits and understatement of risks occurred more often than the alternative.[3][4]
There is a tendency for individuals to be less rational when risks and exposures concern themselves as opposed to others.[3] There is also a tendency to underestimate risks that are voluntary or where the individual sees themselves as being in control, such as smoking.[3] A 2017 systematic review from the Cochrane collaboration suggests “well-documented decision aids” are helpful in reducing effects of such tendencies or biases.[3][5] The ways statistics are expressed and communicated, both through words and numerically also impact the interpretation of benefit and harm. For example, a fatality rate may be interpreted as less benign than the corresponding survival rate.[3]
Systems risk assessment[edit]
Risk assessment can also be made on a much larger "systems" scale, for example assessing the risks of a nuclear power plant (an interactively complex mechanical, electronic, nuclear, and human system) or a hurricane (a complex meteorological and geographical system). Systems may be defined as linear and nonlinear (or complex), where linear systems are predictable and relatively easy to understand given a change in input, and non-linear systems unpredictable when inputs are changed.[6] As such, risk assessments of non-linear/complex systems tend to be more challenging.
In the engineering of complex systems, sophisticated risk assessments are often made within safety engineering and reliability engineering when it concerns threats to life, environment, or machine functioning. The agriculture, nuclear, aerospace, oil, railroad, and military industries have a long history of dealing with risk assessment.[7] Also, medical, hospital, social service,[8] and food industries control risks and perform risk assessments on a continual basis. Methods for assessment of risk may differ between industries and whether it pertains to general financial decisions or environmental, ecological, or public health risk assessment.[7]
Concept[edit]
Rapid technological change, increasing scale of industrial complexes, increased system integration, market competition, and other factors have been shown to increase societal risk in the past few decades.[1] As such, risk assessments become increasingly critical in mitigating accidents, improving safety, and improving outcomes. Risk assessment consists of an objective evaluation of risk in which assumptions and uncertainties are clearly considered and presented. This involves identification of risk (what can happen and why), the potential consequences, the probability of occurrence, the tolerability or acceptability of the risk, and ways to mitigate or reduce probability of the risk.[2] Optimally, it also involves documentation of the risk assessment and its findings, implementation of mitigation methods, and review of the assessment (or risk management plan), coupled with updates when necessary.[1] Sometimes risks can be deemed acceptable, meaning the risk "is understood and tolerated ... usually because the cost or difficulty of implementing an effective countermeasure for the associated vulnerability exceeds the expectation of loss."[9]
Part of the difficulty in managing risk is that both the quantities by which risk assessment is concerned—potential loss and probability of occurrence—can be very difficult to measure. The chance of error in measuring these two concepts is high. Risk with a large potential loss and a low probability of occurrence is often treated differently from one with a low potential loss and a high likelihood of occurrence. In theory, both are of near equal priority, but in practice it can be very difficult to manage when faced with the scarcity of resources—especially time—in which to conduct the risk management process.
Mathematical conceptualization[edit]
Risk assessment from a financial point of view.
To see the risk management process expressed mathematically, one can define total risk as the sum over individual risks, R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} , which can be computed as the product of potential losses, L i {\displaystyle L_{i}} , and their probabilities, p ( L i ) {\displaystyle p(L_{i})} :
R i = L i p ( L i ) {\displaystyle R_{i}=L_{i}p(L_{i})\,\!}
R t o t a l = ∑ i L i p ( L i ) {\displaystyle R_{total}=\sum _{i}L_{i}p(L_{i})\,\!}
Even though for some risks R i , R j {\displaystyle R_{i},R_{j}} , we might have R i = R j {\displaystyle R_{i}=R_{j}} , if the probability p ( L j ) {\displaystyle p(L_{j})} is small compared to p ( L i ) {\displaystyle p(L_{i})} , its estimation might be based only on a smaller number of prior events, and hence, more uncertain. On the other hand, since R i = R j {\displaystyle R_{i}=R_{j}} , L j {\displaystyle L_{j}} must be larger than L i {\displaystyle L_{i}} , so decisions based on this uncertainty would be more consequential, and hence, warrant a different approach.
Financial decisions, such as insurance, express loss in terms of dollar amounts. When risk assessment is used for public health or environmental decisions, loss can be quantified in a common metric such as a country's currency or some numerical measure of a location's quality of life. For public health and environmental decisions, loss is simply a verbal description of the outcome, such as increased cancer incidence or incidence of birth defects. In that case, the "risk" is expressed as
R i = p ( L i ) {\displaystyle R_{i}=p(L_{i})\,\!}
If the risk estimate takes into account information on the number of individuals exposed, it is termed a "population risk" and is in units of expected increased cases per a time period. If the risk estimate does not take into account the number of individuals exposed, it is termed an "individual risk" and is in units of incidence rate per a time period. Population risks are of more use for cost/benefit analysis; individual risks are of more use for evaluating whether risks to individuals are "acceptable".
Quantitative risk assessment[edit]
Further information: Quantitative Risk Assessment software
In quantitative risk assessment an annualized loss expectancy (ALE) may be used to justify the cost of implementing countermeasures to protect an asset. This may be calculated by multiplying the single loss expectancy (SLE), which is the loss of value based on a single security incident, with the annualized rate of occurrence (ARO), which is an estimate of how often a threat would be successful in exploiting a vulnerability.
The usefulness of quantitative risk assessment has been questioned, however. Barry Commoner, Brian Wynne and other critics have expressed concerns that risk assessment tends to be overly quantitative and reductive. For example, they argue that risk assessments ignore qualitative differences among risks. Some charge that assessments may drop out important non-quantifiable or inaccessible information, such as variations among the classes of people exposed to hazards, or social amplification.[10] Furthermore, Commoner and O'Brien claim that quantitative approaches divert attention from precautionary or preventative measures.[11] Others, like Nassim Nicholas Taleb consider risk managers little more than "blind users" of statistical tools and methods.[12]
Assessment of risk[edit]
The process of risk assessment may be somewhat informal at the individual social level, managing economic and household risks,[13][14] or a sophisticate process at the strategic corporal level. However, in both cases, ability to anticipate future events and create effective strategies for mitigating them when deemed unacceptable is vital.
At the individual level, a simple process of identifying objectives and risks, weighing their importance and creating plans, may be all that's necessary. At the strategic organisational level, more elaborate policies are necessary, specifying acceptable levels of risk, procedures to be followed within the organisation, priorities, and allocation of resources.[15]:10 At the systematic level, management involved with the project produce project level risk assessments with the assistance of the available expertise as part of the planning process, and set up systems to ensure that required actions to manage the assessed risk are in place. At the dynamic level, the personnel directly involved may be required to deal with unforeseen problems in real time. The tactical decisions made at this level should be reviewed after the operation to provide feedback on the effectiveness of both the planned procedures and decisions made in response to the contingency.
The first step in risk assessment is to establish the context. This restricts the range of hazards to be considered.
This is followed by identification of visible and implied hazards that may threaten the project, and determining the qualitative nature of the potential adverse consequences of each hazard. Without a potential adverse consequence, there is no hazard.
It is also necessary to identify the potential parties or assets which may be affected by the threat, and the potential consequences to them if the hazard is activated.
If the consequences are dependent on dose, i.e. the amount of exposure, the relationship between dose and severity of consequence must be established, and the risk depends on the probable dose, which may depend on concentration or amplitude and duration or frequency of exposure. This is the general case for many health hazards where the mechanism of injury is toxicity or repetitive injury, particularly where the effect is cumulative.
For other hazards, the consequences may either occur or not, and the severity may be extremely variable even when the triggering conditions are the same. This is typical of many biological hazards as well as a large range of safety hazards. Exposure to a pathogen may or may not result in actual infection, and the consequences of infection may also be variable. Similarly a fall from the same place may result in minor injury or death, depending on unpredictable details. In these cases estimates must be made of reasonably likely consequences and associated probability of occurrence.
In cases where statistical records are available they may be used to evaluate risk, but in many cases there are no data or insufficient data available to be useful. Mathematical or experimental models may provide useful input.
Dose dependent risk[edit]
Food risk assessment nomogram
Dose-Response Analysis, is determining the relationship between dose and the type of adverse response and/or probability or the incidence of effect (dose-response assessment). The complexity of this step in many contexts derives mainly from the need to extrapolate results from experimental animals (e.g. mouse, rat) to humans, and/or from high to lower doses, including from high acute occupational levels to low chronic environmental levels. In addition, the differences between individuals due to genetics or other factors mean that the hazard may be higher for particular groups, called susceptible populations. An alternative to dose-response estimation is to determine a concentration unlikely to yield observable effects, that is, a no effect concentration. In developing such a dose, to account for the largely unknown effects of animal to human extrapolations, increased variability in humans, or missing data, a prudent approach is often adopted by including safety or uncertainty factors in the estimate of the "safe" dose, typically a factor of 10 for each unknown step.
Exposure Quantification, aims to determine the amount of a contaminant (dose) that individuals and populations will receive, either as a contact level (e.g., concentration in ambient air) or as intake (e.g., daily dose ingested from drinking water). This is done by examining the results of the discipline of exposure assessment. As different location, lifestyles and other factors likely influence the amount of contaminant that is received, a range or distribution of possible values is generated in this step. Particular care is taken to determine the exposure of the susceptible population(s).
The results of these steps are combined to produce an estimate of risk. Because of the different susceptibilities and exposures, this risk will vary within a population. An uncertainty analysis is usually included in a health risk assessment.
Dynamic risk assessment[edit]
During an emergency response, the situation and hazards are often inherently less predictable than for planned activities (non-linear). In general, if the situation and hazards are predictable (linear), standard operating procedures should deal with them adequately. In some emergencies this may also hold true, with the prepared and trained responses being adequate to manage the situation. In these situations, the operator can manage risk without outside assistance, or with the assistance of a backup team who are prepared and available to step in at short notice.
Other emergencies occur where there is no previously planned protocol, or when an outsider group is brought in to handle the situation, and they are not specifically prepared for the scenario that exists but must deal with it without undue delay. Examples include police, fire department, disaster response and other public service rescue teams. In these cases ongoing risk assessment by the involved personnel can advise appropriate action to reduce risk.[15] HM Fire Services Inspectorate has defined dynamic risk assessment (DRA) as:
The continuous assessment of risk in the rapidly changing circumstances of an operational incident, in order to implement the control measures necessary to ensure an acceptable level of safety.[15]
Dynamic risk assessment is the final stage of an integrated safety management system which can provide appropriate response during changing circumstances. It relies on experience, training and continuing education, including effective debriefing to analyse not only what went wrong, but also what went right, and why, and to share this with other members of the team and the personnel responsible for the planning level risk assessment.[15]
Fields of application[edit]
Application of risk assessment procedures is common in a wide range of fields, and these may have specific legal obligations, codes of practice and standardised procedures. Some of these are listed here.
General health[edit]
There are many resources that provide health risk information.
The National Library of Medicine provides risk assessment and regulation information tools for a varied audience.[16] These include:
TOXNET (databases on hazardous chemicals, environmental health, and toxic releases),[17]
the Household Products Database (potential health effects of chemicals in over 10,000 common household products),[18]
TOXMAP (maps of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund and Toxics Release Inventory data).
The United States Environmental Protection Agency provides basic information about environmental health risk assessments for the public for a wide variety of possible environmental exposures.[19]
The Environmental Protection Agency began actively using risk assessment methods to protect drinking water in the United States after passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. The law required the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on drinking water issues, and in its report the NAS described some methodologies for doing risk assessments for chemicals that were suspected carcinogens, recommendations that top EPA officials have described as perhaps the study’s most important part.[20]
Considering the increase in junk food and its toxicity, FDA required in 1973 that cancer-causing compounds must not be present in meat at concentrations that would cause a cancer risk greater than 1 in a million over a lifetime. The US Environmental Protection Agency provides extensive information about ecological and environmental risk assessments for the public via its risk assessment portal.[21] The Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) supports a qualitative risk framework for public health protection from chemicals that display environmental and biological persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity (PBT) and long range transport; most global chemicals that meet this criteria have been previously assessed quantitatively by national and international health agencies.[22]
Small sub-populations[edit]
When risks apply mainly to small sub-populations, there is uncertainty at which point intervention is necessary. For example, there may be a risk that is very low for everyone, other than 0.1% of the population. It is necessary to determine whether this 0.1% is represented by:
all infants younger than X days or
recreational users of a particular product.
If the risk is higher for a particular sub-population because of abnormal exposure rather than susceptibility, strategies to further reduce the exposure of that subgroup are considered. If an identifiable sub-population is more susceptible due to inherent genetic or other factors, public policy choices must be made. The choices are:
to set policies for protecting the general population that are protective of such groups, e.g. for children when data exists, the Clean Air Act for populations such as asthmatics or
not to set policies, because the group is too small, or the costs too high.
Acceptable risk criteria[edit]
The idea of not increasing lifetime risk by more than one in a million has become commonplace in public health discourse and policy.[23] It is a heuristic measure. It provides a numerical basis for establishing a negligible increase in risk.
Environmental decision making allows some discretion for deeming individual risks potentially "acceptable" if less than one in ten thousand chance of increased lifetime risk. Low risk criteria such as these provide some protection for a case where individuals may be exposed to multiple chemicals e.g. pollutants, food additives or other chemicals.
In practice, a true zero-risk is possible only with the suppression of the risk-causing activity.
Stringent requirements of 1 in a million may not be technologically feasible or may be so prohibitively expensive as to render the risk-causing activity unsustainable, resulting in the optimal degree of intervention being a balance between risks vs. benefit. For example, emissions from hospital incinerators result in a certain number of deaths per year. However, this risk must be balanced against the alternatives. There are public health risks, as well as economic costs, associated with all options. The risk associated with no incineration is potential spread of infectious diseases, or even no hospitals. Further investigation identifies options such as separating noninfectious from infectious wastes, or air pollution controls on a medical incinerator.
Intelligent thought about a reasonably full set of options is essential. Thus, it is not unusual for there to be an iterative process between analysis, consideration of options, and follow up analysis.
Auditing[edit]
For audits performed by an outside audit firm, risk assessment is a crucial stage before accepting an audit engagement. According to ISA315 Understanding the Entity and its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement, "the auditor should perform risk assessment procedures to obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control". Evidence relating to the auditor’s risk assessment of a material misstatement in the client’s financial statements. Then, the auditor obtains initial evidence regarding the classes of transactions at the client and the operating effectiveness of the client’s internal controls. Audit risk is defined as the risk that the auditor will issue a clean unmodified opinion regarding the financial statements, when in fact the financial statements are materially misstated, and therefore do not qualify for a clean unmodified opinion. As a formula, audit risk is the product of two other risks: Risk of Material Misstatement and Detection risk. This formula can be further broken down as follows: inherent risk × control risk × detection risk.
Public health[edit]
In the context of public health, risk assessment is the process of characterizing the nature and likelihood of a harmful effect to individuals or populations from certain human activities. Health risk assessment can be mostly qualitative or can include statistical estimates of probabilities for specific populations. In most countries the use of specific chemicals or the operations of specific facilities (e.g. power plants, manufacturing plants) is not allowed unless it can be shown that they do not increase the risk of death or illness above a specific threshold. For example, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food safety through risk assessment.[24]
Project management[edit]
In project management, risk assessment is an integral part of the risk management plan, studying the probability, the impact, and the effect of every known risk on the project, as well as the corrective action to take should an incident implied by a risk occur.[25] Of special consideration in this area are the relevant codes of practice that are enforced in the specific jurisdiction. Understanding the regime of regulations that risk management must abide by is integral to formulating safe and compliant risk assessment practices.
Information security[edit]
Main article: IT risk management § Risk assessment
Information technology risk assessment can be performed by a qualitative or quantitative approach, following different methodologies. One important difference[clarification needed] in risk assessments in information security is modifying the threat model to account for the fact that any adversarial system connected to the Internet has access to threaten any other connected system.[26] Risk assessments may therefore need to be modified to account for the threats from all adversaries, instead of just those with reasonable access as is done in other fields.
Another notable difference is the strategic nature of IT risk assessments. Unlike tactical vulnerability assessments and penetration testing which aim to identify and close specific gaps in security, IT risk assessments are functional at the executive level to examine the broader picture of IT risk management.[clarification needed][27]
Megaprojects[edit]
Megaprojects (sometimes also called "major programs") are extremely large-scale investment projects, typically costing more than US$1 billion per project. They include bridges, tunnels, highways, railways, airports, seaports, power plants, dams, wastewater projects, coastal flood protection, oil and natural gas extraction projects, public buildings, information technology systems, aerospace projects, and defence systems. Megaprojects have been shown to be particularly risky in terms of finance, safety, and social and environmental impacts.
Software evolution[edit]
Studies have shown that early parts of the system development cycle such as requirements and design specifications are especially prone to error. This effect is particularly notorious in projects involving multiple stakeholders with different points of view. Evolutionary software processes offer an iterative approach to requirement engineering to alleviate the problems of uncertainty, ambiguity and inconsistency inherent in software developments.[clarification needed]
Shipping industry[edit]
In July 2010, shipping companies agreed to use standardized procedures in order to assess risk in key shipboard operation. These procedures were implemented as part of the amended ISM Code.[28]
Underwater diving[edit]
See also: List of diving hazards and precautions
Formal risk assessment is a required component of most professional dive planning, but the format and methodology may vary. Consequences of an incident due to an identified hazard are generally chosen from a small number of standardised categories, and probability is estimated based on statistical data on the rare occasions when it is available, and on a best guess estimate based on personal experience and company policy in most cases. A simple matrix is often used to transform these inputs into a level of risk, generally expressed as unacceptable, marginal or acceptable. If unacceptable, measures must be taken to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, and the final outcome of the risk assessment must be accepted by the affected parties before a dive commences. Higher levels of risk may be acceptable in special circumstances, such as military or search and rescue operations when there is a chance of recovering a survivor. Diving supervisors are trained in the procedures of hazard identification and risk assessment, and it is part of their planning and operational responsibility. Both health and safety hazards must be considered. Several stages may be identified. There is risk assessment done as part of the diving project planning, on site risk assessment which takes into account the specific conditions of the day, and dynamic risk assessment which is ongoing during the operation by the members of the dive team, particularly the supervisor and the working diver.[29][30]
In recreational scuba diving, the extent of risk assessment expected of the diver is relatively basic, and is included in the pre-dive checks. Several mnemonics have been developed by diver certification agencies to remind the diver to pay some attention to risk, but the training is rudimentary. Diving service providers are expected to provide a higher level of care for their customers, and diving instructors and divemasters are expected to assess risk on behalf of their customers and warn them of site-specific hazards and the competence considered appropriate for the planned dive. Technical divers are expected to make a more thorough assessment of risk, but as they will be making an informed choice for a recreational activity, the level of acceptable risk may be considerably higher than that permitted for occupational divers under the direction of an employer.[31][32]
Environment[edit]
Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) aims at assessing the effects of stressors, often chemicals, on the local environment. A risk is an integrated assessment of likelihood and severity of an undesired event. In ERA, the undesired event often depends on the chemical of interest and on the risk assessment scenario.[33] This undesired event is usually a detrimental effect on organisms, populations or ecosystems. Current ERAs usually compare an exposure to a no-effect level, such as the Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No-Effect Concentration (PEC/PNEC) ratio in Europe. Although this type of ratio is useful and often used in regulation purposes, it is only an indication of an exceeded apparent threshold.[34] New approaches start to be developed in ERA in order to quantifiy this risk and to communicate effectively on it with both the managers and the general public.[33]
See also[edit]
Acceptable loss
Benefit risk
Control self-assessment
Cost risk
Digital Continuity
Duty of Care
Edwards v. National Coal Board
Extreme risk
Flood risk assessment
Form 696
Global catastrophic risk
HACCP: hazard analysis and critical control points, risk assessment in food
Hazard (risk)
Hazard Identification
Health Impact Assessment
Information assurance
List of auditing topics
ISO 28000
ISO 31000
ISSOW
Megaprojects and Risk
Network Theory in Risk Assessment
Optimism bias
PIMEX a video exposure monitoring method
Probabilistic risk assessment
Probit model
Project risk management
Reference class forecasting
Reliability Engineering
Safety Engineering
Risk
Risk aversion
Risk based auditing
Risk management
Risk management tools
Risk matrix
Risk (statistics)
Security risk
SimpleRisk
Strategic misrepresentation
References[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Rausand, M. (2013). "Chapter 1: Introduction". Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–28. ISBN 9780470637647.
^ Jump up to: a b c Manuele, F.A. (2016). "Chapter 1: Risk Assessments: Their Significance and the Role of the Safety Professional". In Popov, G.; Lyon, B.K.; Hollcraft, B. Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide to Assessing Operational Risks. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–22. ISBN 9781118911044. CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list (link)
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Levi, Ragnar (June 1, 2018). "Getting Real About Both Benefits and Risks" (PDF). Swedish Agency of Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. pp. 8–9. ISSN 1104-1250. Retrieved 2018-06-14 – via Science & Practice, English Special 2018.
Jump up ^ Hoffmann, Tammy C.; Del Mar, Chris (2015). "Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review". JAMA Internal Medicine. 175 (2): 274–286. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016. ISSN 2168-6114. PMID 25531451.
Jump up ^ Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Lewis, Krystina; Barry, Michael J.; Bennett, Carol L.; Eden, Karen B.; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary; Lyddiatt, Anne (12 April 2017). "Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 4: CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5. ISSN 1469-493X. PMID 28402085.
Jump up ^ Rausand, M. (2013). "Chapter 6: Accident Models". Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 137–76. ISBN 9780470637647.
^ Jump up to: a b Vamanu, B.I.; Gheorghe, A.V.; Kaina, P.F. (2016). Critical Infrastructures: Risk and Vulnerability Assessment in Transportation of Dangerous Goods: Transportation by Road and Rail. Springer. p. 11. ISBN 9783319309316. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Lacey, Peter (2011). "An Application of Fault Tree Analysis to the Identification and Management of Risks in Government Funded Human Service Delivery". Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Public Policy and Social Sciences. SSRN 2171117  .
Jump up ^ Shirey, R. (August 2007). "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2". Network Working Group. The IETF Trust. p. 9. Retrieved 19 July 2018.
Jump up ^ Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X., Ratick, S. (1988). "The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework". Risk Analysis. 8 (2): 177–187. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Commoner, Barry. O'Brien, Mary. Shrader-Frechette and Westra 1997.
Jump up ^ The fourth quadrant: a map of the limits of statistics [9.15.08] Nassim Nicholas Taleb An Edge Original Essay
Jump up ^ Holzmann, R.; Jørgensen, S. (2001). "Social Risk Management: A New Conceptual Framework for Social Protection, and Beyond". International Tax and Public Finance. 8 (4): 529–56. doi:10.1023/A:1011247814590. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Nakaš, N. (21 November 2017). "Three Lessons About Risk Management from Everyday Life". Knowledge Hub. Center of Excellence in Finance. Retrieved 19 July 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Lock, Gareth (June 2017). Phillips, Mark, ed. "Public Safety Diving-Dynamic Risk Assessment" (PDF). PS Diver Magazine. PSDiver.com (116): 9. Retrieved 20 June 2017.
Jump up ^ "Risk Assessment and Regulation Information from the NLM". NLM. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
Jump up ^ "Databases on toxicology, hazardous chemicals, environmental health, and toxic releases". TOXNET. NLM. May 2012. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
Jump up ^ "Household Products Database". U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services. January 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
Jump up ^ "Risk Assessment Portal". EPA. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
Jump up ^ EPA Alumni Association: Senior EPA officials discuss early implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Video, Transcript (see pages 11,14).
Jump up ^ EPA, ORD, NCEA, US. "Risk Assessment". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2016-04-07. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Szabo DT, Loccisano AE (March 30, 2012). "POPs and Human Health Risk Assessment". Dioxins and Persistent Organic Pollutants. 3rd (Edition): John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118184141.ch19.
Jump up ^ Hunter, Paul R.; Fewtrell, Lorna (2001). "Acceptable Risk" (PDF). World Health Organization.
Jump up ^ Merrill, Richard A. "Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause" in Annual Review of Public Health, 1997, 18:313-40. This source includes a useful historical survey of prior food safety regulation.
Jump up ^ Managing Project Risks - Retrieved May 20th, 2010
Jump up ^ Spring, J.; Kern, S.; Summers, A. (2015-05-01). "Global adversarial capability modeling". 2015 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime): 1–21. doi:10.1109/ECRIME.2015.7120797.
Jump up ^ Arnold, Rob. "3 Types of Security Assessments". Threat Sketch. Threat Sketch. Retrieved 17 November 2016.
Jump up ^ "ISM CODE – Amendments from 1st July 2010 Risk Assessment".
Jump up ^ "Diving Regulations 2009". Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 – Regulations and Notices – Government Notice R41. Pretoria: Government Printer. Archived from the original on 4 November 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2016 – via Southern African Legal Information Institute.
Jump up ^ Staff (August 2016). "15 - General safety requirements". Guidance for diving supervisors IMCA D 022 (Revision 1 ed.). London, UK: International Marine Contractors Association. pp. 15-5.
Jump up ^ Staff (1977). "The Diving at Work Regulations 1997". Statutory Instruments 1997 No. 2776 Health and Safety. Kew, Richmond, Surrey: Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO). Retrieved 6 November 2016.
Jump up ^ Gurr, Kevin (August 2008). "13: Operational Safety". In Mount, Tom; Dituri, Joseph. Exploration and Mixed Gas Diving Encyclopedia (1st ed.). Miami Shores, Florida: International Association of Nitrox Divers. pp. 165–180. ISBN 978-0-915539-10-9.
^ Jump up to: a b Goussen, Benoit; Price, Oliver R.; Rendal, Cecilie; Ashauer, Roman (2016-10-26). "Integrated presentation of ecological risk from multiple stressors". Scientific Reports. 6. doi:10.1038/srep36004. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5080554  . PMID 27782171.
Jump up ^ Jager, Tjalling; Heugens, Evelyn H. W.; Kooijman, Sebastiaan A. L. M. (2006-04-20). "Making Sense of Ecotoxicological Test Results: Towards Application of Process-based Models". Ecotoxicology. 15 (3): 305–314. doi:10.1007/s10646-006-0060-x. ISSN 0963-9292.
General references[edit]
Dorne, Jean-Lou C. M.; Kass, George E. N.; Bordajandi, Luisa R.; Amzal, Billy; Bertelsen, Ulla; Castoldi, Anna F.; Heppner, Claudia; Eskola, Mari; Fabiansson, Stefan; Ferrari, Pietro; Scaravelli, Elena; Dogliotti, Eugenia; Fuerst, Peter; Boobis, Alan R.; Verger, Philippe (2011). "Chapter 2. Human Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals: Principles and Applications". In Astrid Sigel; Helmut Sigel; Roland K O Sigel. Metal Ions in Toxicology. RSC Publishing. pp. 27–60. doi:10.1039/9781849732116-00027.
Mumtaz, Moiz M.; Hansen, Hugh; Pohl, Hana R. (2011). "Chapter 3. Mixtures and Their Risk Assessment in Toxicology". In Astrid Sigel; Helmut Sigel; Roland K O Sigel. Metal Ions in Toxicology. RSC Publishing. pp. 61–80. doi:10.1039/9781849732116-00061.
Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1994), Science and judgment in risk assessment, Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, ISBN 0-309-04894-X, retrieved 27 September 2010 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Barry Commoner. “Comparing apples to oranges: Risk of cost/benefit analysis” from Contemporary moral controversies in technology, A. P. Iannone, ed., pp. 64–65.
Hallenbeck, William H. Quantitative risk assessment for environmental and occupational health. Chelsea, Mich.: Lewis Publishers, 1986
Harremoës, Poul, ed. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000.
John M. Lachin. Biostatistical methods: the assessment of relative risks.
Lerche, Ian; Glaesser, Walter (2006), Environmental risk assessment : quantitative measures, anthropogenic influences, human impact., Berlin: Springer, ISBN 3-540-26249-0, retrieved 27 September 2010
Kluger, Jeffrey (November 26, 2006), "How Americans Are Living Dangerously", Time, retrieved 27 September 2010 Also published as December 4 cover title: "Why We Worry About the Wrong Things: The Psychology of Risk"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. & United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology (1983), A Review of risk assessment methodologies, Washington: U.S: report / prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress for the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology; transmitted to the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Deborah G. Mayo. “Sociological versus metascientific views of technological risk assessment” in Shrader-Frechette and Westra.
Nyholm, J, 2009 "Persistency, bioaccumulation and toxicity assessment of selected brominated flame retardants"
O’Brien, Mary (2002), Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-15051-4, retrieved 27 September 2010 Paperback ISBN 0-262-65053-3
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin; Westra, Laura, eds. (1997), Technology and values, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-8476-8631-0, retrieved 27 September 2010
External links[edit]
Risk Assessment Worksheet and Management Plan A comprehensive guide to risk assessment in project management, includes template - By John Filicetti

Authority control
NDL: 00982332
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_assessment&oldid=856080478"
Categories:
Impact assessment
Probability assessment
Risk analysis
Hazard analysis
Technology assessment
Safety engineering
Reliability engineering
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
Articles with short description
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from June 2017
Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Български
Dansk
Davvisámegiella
Deutsch
Español
Estremeñu
فارسی
Français
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Lietuvių
日本語
Română
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Türkçe
中文
10 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 August 2018, at 18:45 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

attrs: class style

values: shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux

value: b

value: sup

values:
/wiki/Quantitative_property
mw-redirect
Quantitative property

values:
/wiki/Qualitative_data
mw-redirect
Qualitative data

attrs: href title

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values: Edit section: Individual risk assessment

values: Edit section: Mathematical conceptualization

values: vertical-align: -0.671ex; width:2.564ex; height:2.509ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.671ex; width:2.383ex; height:2.509ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.838ex; margin-left: -0.089ex; width:5.451ex; height:2.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.838ex; margin-right: -0.387ex; width:13.793ex; height:2.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -3.005ex; margin-right: -0.387ex; width:20.312ex; height:5.509ex;

values: vertical-align: -1.005ex; width:6.271ex; height:2.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -1.005ex; width:8.336ex; height:2.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -1.005ex; margin-left: -0.089ex; width:5.561ex; height:3.009ex;

values: vertical-align: -1.005ex; width:2.493ex; height:2.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.838ex; margin-right: -0.387ex; width:11.41ex; height:2.843ex;

values: Edit section: Quantitative risk assessment

values:
/wiki/Single_loss_expectancy
mw-redirect
Single loss expectancy

values: Annualized rate of occurrence (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/No_effect_concentration
mw-redirect
No effect concentration

values:
/wiki/National_Library_of_Medicine
mw-redirect
National Library of Medicine

values: United States Environmental Protection Agency

values:
/wiki/Stockholm_Convention
mw-redirect
Stockholm Convention

values:
/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutants
mw-redirect
Persistent organic pollutants

values:
/wiki/Control_risk
mw-redirect
Control risk

values:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

values: what does this actually mean (June 2017)

values: What does this have to do with risk assessment? (June 2017)

values: Hazard identification and risk assessment (page does not exist)

values: Dynamic risk assessment (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Recreational_scuba_diving
mw-redirect
Recreational scuba diving

values:
/wiki/Diver_certification_agencies
mw-redirect
Diver certification agencies

values:
/wiki/Benefit_risk
mw-redirect
Benefit risk

values:
/wiki/Digital_Continuity
mw-redirect
Digital Continuity

values:
/wiki/Duty_of_Care
mw-redirect
Duty of Care

values:
/wiki/Edwards_v._National_Coal_Board
mw-redirect
Edwards v. National Coal Board

values:
/wiki/Hazard_(risk)
mw-redirect
Hazard (risk)

values:
/wiki/Hazard_Identification
mw-redirect
Hazard Identification

values:
/wiki/Health_Impact_Assessment
mw-redirect
Health Impact Assessment

values:
/wiki/List_of_auditing_topics
mw-redirect
List of auditing topics

values:
/wiki/Network_Theory_in_Risk_Assessment
mw-redirect
Network Theory in Risk Assessment

values:
/wiki/Reliability_Engineering
mw-redirect
Reliability Engineering

values:
/wiki/Safety_Engineering
mw-redirect
Safety Engineering

values:
/wiki/Risk_based_auditing
mw-redirect
Risk based auditing

values:
/wiki/Risk_(statistics)
mw-redirect
Risk (statistics)

values:
/wiki/Security_risk
mw-redirect
Security risk

values:
/wiki/Strategic_misrepresentation
mw-redirect
Strategic misrepresentation

values: -moz-column-width: 22em; -webkit-column-width: 22em; column-width: 22em;

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1104-1250

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/2168-6114

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531451

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1469-493X

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28402085

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=2171117

values:
nofollow
external text
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1011247814590

values:
nofollow
external text
http://knowledgehub.cef-see.org/?p=1399

values:
nofollow
external text
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov

values:
nofollow
http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.epa.gov/risk/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1002/9781118184141.ch19

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1109/ECRIME.2015.7120797

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038/srep36004

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/2045-2322

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27782171

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1007/s10646-006-0060-x

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0963-9292

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/National_Academy_Press
mw-redirect
National Academy Press

values: Category:Articles with short description

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from June 2017

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Risk_assessment
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: تقييم المخاطر – Arabic

values: Оценка на риска – Bulgarian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bg
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-da
display: none;

values: Riska- ja rašesvuođaguorahallan – Northern Sami

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-se
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ext
display: none;

values: ارزیابی ریسک – Persian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

values: 리스크 평가제도 – Korean

values: הערכת סיכונים – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lt
display: none;

values: リスクアセスメント – Japanese

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ro
display: none;

values: Процена ризика – Serbian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Risk_assessment rootpage-Risk_assessment skin-vector action-view