| 1. |
- Moberg, Christina, et al.
(författare)
-
De unga gör helt rätt när de stämmer staten
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Aftonbladet. - 1103-9000.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- 1 620 forskare och lärare i forskarvärlden: Vi ställer oss bakom Auroras klimatkrav
|
|
| 2. |
- Ingvarson, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
On the strength of arguments related to standardization in risk management regulations
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Safety Science. - : Elsevier BV. - 0925-7535. ; 158
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Risk-informed decision-making is a key concept in regulatory regimes covering a wide range of technical disciplines and risk domains. Increased standardization in terms of highly prescriptive and detailed requirements is observed in various risk management regulations and application areas. This development has spurred a discussion with equally strong voices promoting and opposing standardization of risk. The aim of this paper is to explore the knowledge base from scientific literature related to effects of standardization of risk and to assess the strength of the arguments used in the discussion. Through a scoping study and a systematic argument analysis, this study contributes to the debate on the most adequate approach to standardization in risk managementregulations. Conclusions from the study are that effects of standardization of risk management regulations are not widely covered in scientific literature and empirical evidence is largely lacking to support the arguments used. The argument analysis indicate that many arguments are assessed as being weak, interconnected and even contradictory. It seems not possible to come to a conclusion and reach agreement in the discussion if the strengths of standardization outweigh the weaknesses. Thus, the discussion should be in the form of dialectic rather than debate. Acknowledging, understanding and addressing the various arguments in favour of and rejecting standardization, as well as their respective context, is essential when designing risk management regulations. Future research efforts are required to further explore when and how the risk management and risk governance processes can be standardized and the appropriate level of standardization.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Ingvarson, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Standardization in Risk Management Regulations : What Can We Learn From Scientific Literature?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 31st European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2021). - 9789811820168
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The structural set-up and key characteristics of regulatory regimes for risk management vary between countries, technical domains and application areas. Risk regulations come in different forms, ranging from a highly prescriptive (“hard”) approaches including explicit requirements on key risk management components, to “softer” approaches requiring risk to be managed without defining how. Risk regulations are subject to continual development. Increased standardization is observed in diverse risk domains such as land-use planning, terrorism and security risk management, cyber security, and disaster risk management. This development is contested and the question of what form of standardization and whether a low versus high level of standardization is the most beneficial for effective and efficient risk management risk management is debated. Using a scoping study approach, this paper presents an overview of standardization of risk in scientific literature. The aim of this paper is to provide insights related to the arguments, effects, and experiences of using standards or standardized approaches for managing risk. The results indicate that effects of standardization in risk regulations are not extensively covered in research. The paper contributes to the knowledge base for judging the appropriate level and form of standardization in risk regulations but more research is needed.
|
|
| 7. |
- Ingvarson, Johan
(författare)
-
The Basis for Debating Standardization of Risk for Land-use Planning is Incomplete
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference. - Singapore : Research Publishing Services. - 9789811485930 ; , s. 3981-3988
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The practice of using quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) for managing risks in land-use planning varies between countries. Some regulatory regimes are highly prescriptive in terms of explicit requirements on methodology, assumptions, modelling tools, input data, risk criteria, etc. Others require risk analyses to support decision-making without regulating the details. The present study seeks to investigate different levels and forms of standardization and explores the knowledge base supporting the adoption of a specific regulatory regime. The experiences and practices from Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands is assessed. The study reveals that no formal structured evaluation or assessment, qualitative or quantitative, of the effects of the chosen approach has been performed in any of the countries. Also in scientific literature, there seem to be a lack of empirical data from this kind of evaluations. However, the debate whether increased or a certain type of standardization is desirable isongoing. A main conclusion from the study is that with ambiguous perspectives on how risk can or should be standardized for land-use planning and with limited empirical data available, the basis for debating appropriate levelof standardization of risk is incomplete. More knowledge of the effects from different risk regulatory approaches is required to form a sound basis for future changes to risk regulations.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
