Risk Management Flashcards
lecture overview
R I Q M P H S F P
Really irritating queens make Penises Have small foreskin piercings
1) risk -vulnerability and assessement
2) indicators and confidence scales
3) quantifying impact
4) models- fault tree and example
5) protection goals
6) hazard identification
7) strategy comparisons
8) flood example
9) considerations in poilicy
lecture overview letters
R I Q M P H S F P
risk definition and key qu (2)
a probability of damage/danger/loss/injury or other adverse consequence
what? agents,pathways,receptors
Where/When? time space vulnerability
Vulnerability compnenets + who/when
Brooks 2003
a) biophysical vulnerability - propensity for agent to cause harm to receptor
b) social vulnerability -human factors that reduce receptor ability to cope with agent interactors
does vulnerability imply co responsability?
Assessment
vulnerability means need to assign responsability for management
done through assessment
vulnerability to 1 risk
may reduce it for others - ie is enviro risk
also how do we take into account dif risks?
(drunk driving) / genetic medical disease
Assessment questions (8)
what can go wrong? When? Likelihood? Consequences? Options? Tradeoffs? CBA models? Legislation
what can we use for assessment (3)
evidence quality indicators
confidence scales
quantify impact
risk models
evidence quality indicators
quality rank) + indicators (5
can public trust government
look at qual of evidence on scale -
very low,low.moderate.high,very high=quality rank
theoretical basis scientific method auditability calibration objectivity
good evidence
wellestablished theory
best available practice
large sample + direct means
well documented to trace data
bad evidence
crude specification
no rigour
no link back to data
Confidence scales + percentage and based on what
based on IPCC 2005- flossary of terms for climate change reports (how confident of term)
very low 0-5 low 5-33 moderate 33-67 high-67-95 very high 95-100
Quantifying impact different ways (3)
direct market value - get for selling ie polluted water vs clean (difficult to play to ecosystem services)
hedonic pricing- relate to some market values ie if house near busy road less valuable as pollution
contingent valuation- WTP and WTA -willingness to pay/accept - problem = biased questions + subjective
Risk models - composition
1) Hazard identification - formal listing of hazards - risk matrices and top event
2) Assignment of probabilities - each of sequential events have probability- probability of top event is derived from sub events multiplication
3) consequence modelling - ie toxic damage estimated
what do models do?
produce a distribution of different outcomes
Example model
FAULT TREE MODEL
series of events which together add up to make problem for example an invasive insect establishment by importing fruit
Fault tree model breakdown example for citrus fruit invested by pest
initiatiating event ( 60% harvested for export) P1 = 5% infested P2-40 escape port detection P3 5% to infesrable areas P4- 5% exposed to citrus TOP EVENT - introduction of pest
Fault tree standards
Satandards exist for example acceptable quarantine risk is 99.8% safe
each of th probabilities have certain degree of uncertainty so should
have distributions for each number and multiply distributions at mean and median for safe differ. Standard being determined by distribution would be better
Expert opinion use for standards?
pro=2
con=3
PROS - maximises flexibility if have broad expet range, maximises use of information
CONS- overconfident,opinions differ, how do determine “experts” - may be influenced by attitudes/ values
example for expert reliability
ASPINALL’s Leaking DAM
experts had to look at likelihood of dam breaking and estimate time woul hold under different conditions
2 ways to judge responses
2 ways APsinall DAm judges expert responses
combine all distributions and use mean
test experts with known cases to test how good they are and then weigh their reliability using these questions this is called cooke method
COOKE METHOD
performance weighted solutions (better than equal weights)
identifying protection goals
what consequences will yo accept wrt likelihood?
AUstralia OGTR
consequence accepted depends on likelihood
if highly unlikely accept intermediate consequence
but minor consequences only at likely
helps determine management levels
likely
could occur under many circumstances
minor consequence
“reversible health or enviro effect”
Hazard identification -mosquito example
what is going to cause harm
will it come into contact with component of enviro that will allow this harm to occur?
pathways for exposure - biting (disease transmission-ingestion etc)
measuring exposure- disease incidence,bites,reaction - HGT?
hazard comparison
do comparisons in lab between control and infective mozzie
a) individuals
b) population
Then compare response to hazard
control system- local convention/local field pop modified, SIT, ITM , IRS ?
helath indicators and nuiance indicators? more harm or not?
hazard concern who determines
public and regulators –> consequences are relative to worst case (top event)
limits of concern
assign weights to different dimensions
can be relative to enviro consequence
negligible, v low, low , moderate ,high, v high
negligible
no measurable adverse impacts + some positive attributs
low
occassional , restricted, limited reversible damage
v low
minimal,localised,short term
moderate
damage of limited severity + reversible i ntime
high
extensive and enduring damage widespread and not readily reversible
very high
loss at large scales,long time frames and not reversible
strategies with what yo udo with risk (4)
terminate mitigate transfer exploit accept
terminate
elimate risk source
mitigate
preventative,corrective or directive
transfer
insuurance,hybrid
exploit
explore opportunities in the risk approach
accept
make decisions to tolerate risk
when considering and comparing strategies need to consider 5
econ enviro social organisational capabilities technical factors
Case study Environmental Agency flood risk
what was risk and focal issue?
risk- suscepibility of flooding from river / sea without defences
likelihood issue as size less imprtant
Flood risk assessment flood mpas
arease with 1 in 100 yr chanc of occurance or greater - river map
sea map - 1 in 200 yr
extreme risk is seen as 1 in 100 yr
What happened? Future?
insurers backed away from these areas
now flood re launched in 2016 has secured multi billion reisurance programme to ocver properties built after jan 2009
transferring risk to unsurers
peremium based on tax band of property.
past failures of flood - homes lost 2007 2009 2012 2013
55,000
1,500
7,000
11,000
in 2007 floods cost what?
3.2 BILLION pounds
risk and policy considerations
gravity/magnitude acceptable level - how and who decides public outrage trade-off- rewards? tradeoff 1 risk vs anothe individual or group at risk- bearers? beneficiaries of risk blame of responsability
