| 1. |
- Ekenberg, Love, et al.
(författare)
-
General risk constraints
- 2001. - 1
-
Ingår i: Journal of Risk Research. - 1366-9877 .- 1466-4461. ; 4:1, s. 31-47
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The risk evaluation process is integrated with procedures for handling vague and numerically imprecise probabilities and utilities. A body of empirical evidence has shown that many managers would welcome new ways of highlighting catastrophic consequences, as well as means to evaluating decision situations involving high risks. When events occur frequently and their consequences are not severe, it is relatively simple to calculate the risk exposure of an organisation, as well as a reasonable premium when an insurance transaction is made, relying on variations of the principle of maximising the expected utility. When, on the other hand, the frequency of damages is low, the situation is considerably more difficult, especially if catastrophic events may occur. When the quality of estimates is poor, e.g., when evaluating low-probability/high-consequence risks, the customary use of quantitative rules together with unrealistically precise data could be harmful as well as misleading. We point out some problematic features of evaluations performed using utility theory and criticise the demand for precise data in situations where none is available. As an alternative to traditional models, we suggest a method that allows for interval statements and comparisons, which does not require the use of numerically precise statements of probability, cost, or utility in a general sense. In order to attain a reasonable level of security, and because it has been shown that managers tend to focus on large negative losses, it is argued that a risk constraint should be imposed on the analysis. The strategies are evaluated relative to a set of such constraints considering how risky the strategies are. The shortcomings of utility theory can in part be compensated for by the introduction of risk constraints.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hochrainer-Stigler, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Integrating Systemic Risk and Risk Analysis Using Copulas
- 2018
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. - : Springer. - 2095-0055 .- 2192-6395. ; 9:4, s. 561-567
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Systemic risk research is gaining traction across diverse disciplinary research communities, but has as yet not been strongly linked to traditional, well-established risk analysis research. This is due in part to the fact that systemic risk research focuses on the connection of elements within a system, while risk analysis research focuses more on individual risk to single elements. We therefore investigate how current systemic risk research can be related to traditional risk analysis approaches from a conceptual as well as an empirical point of view. Based on Sklar's Theorem, which provides a one-to-one relationship between multivariate distributions and copulas, we suggest a reframing of the concept of copulas based on a network perspective. This provides a promising way forward for integrating individual risk (in the form of probability distributions) and systemic risk (in the form of copulas describing the dependencies among such distributions) across research domains. Copulas can link continuous node states, characterizing individual risks, with a gradual dependency of the coupling strength between nodes on their states, characterizing systemic risk. When copulas are used for describing such refined coupling between nodes, they can provide a more accurate quantification of a system's network structure. This enables more realistic systemic risk assessments, and is especially useful when extreme events (that occur at low probabilities, but have high impacts) affect a system's nodes. In this way, copulas can be informative in measuring and quantifying changes in systemic risk and therefore be helpful in its management. We discuss the advantages and limitations of copulas for integrative risk analyses from the perspectives of modeling, measurement, and management.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hochrainer-Stigler, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Measuring, modeling, and managing systemic risk : the missing aspect of human agency
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Risk Research. - : Routledge. - 1366-9877 .- 1466-4461. ; 23:10, s. 1301-1317
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is problematic to treat systemic risk as a merely technical problem that can be solved by natural-science methods and through biological and ecological analogies. There appears to be a discrepancy between understanding systemic risk from a natural-science perspective and the unresolved challenges that arise when humans with their initiatives and interactions are included in systemic-risk considerations. It is therefore necessary to investigate possible fundamental differences and similarities of systemic risk with and without accounting for human involvement. Focusing on applied and implementation aspects of measuring, modeling, and managing systemic risks, we identify three important and distinct features characterizing such fundamental differences: indetermination, indecision, and responsibility. We contend that, first, including human initiatives and interactions in systemic-risk considerations must emphasize a type of variability that is especially relevant in this context, namely the role of free will as a fundamental source of essential indetermination in human agency. Second, we postulate that collective indecision generated by mutual uncertainty often leads to the suspension or alteration of rules, procedures, scripts, and norms. Consequently, the associated systemic risks cannot be incorporated into explanatory models, as the new causal rules cannot be predicted and accounted for. Third, analogies from biology and ecology, especially the idea of ‘contagion,’ downplay human agency, and therefore human responsibility, promoting the false belief that systemic risk is a merely technical problem. For each of these three features, we provide recommendations for future directions and suggest how measuring, modeling, and managing approaches from the natural-science domain can best be applied in light of human agency.
|
|
| 4. |
- James, Rachel A., et al.
(författare)
-
Attribution: How Is It Relevant for Loss and Damage Policy and Practice?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Loss and Damage from Climate Change : Climate Risk Management, Policy and Governance - Climate Risk Management, Policy and Governance. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 9783319720258 - 9783319720265 ; , s. 113-154
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (L&D). In this highly-politicised context, attribution is often associated with responsibility and blame; and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to establish responsibility or blame, but rather to investigate drivers of change. Attribution science is advancing rapidly, and has potential to increase understanding of how climate variability and change is influencing slow onset and extreme weather events, and how this interacts with other drivers of risk, including socio-economic drivers, to influence losses and damages. Over time, some uncertainties in the science will be reduced, as the anthropogenic climate change signal becomes stronger, and understanding of climate variability and change develops. However, some uncertainties will not be eliminated. Uncertainty is common in science, and does not prevent useful applications in policy, but might determine which applications are appropriate. It is important to highlight that in attribution studies, the strength of evidence varies substantially between different kinds of slow onset and extreme weather events, and between regions. Policy-makers should not expect the later emergence of conclusive evidence about the influence of climate variability and change on specific incidences of losses and damages; and, in particular, should not expect the strength of evidence to be equal between events, and between countries. Rather than waiting for further confidence in attribution studies, there is potential to start working now to integrate science into policy and practice, to help understand and tackle drivers of losses and damages, informing prevention, recovery, rehabilitation, and transformation.
|
|
| 5. |
- Komendantova, Nadejda, et al.
(författare)
-
Are Energy Security Concerns Dominating Environmental Concerns? Evidence from Stakeholder Participation Processes on Energy Transition in Jordan
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Climate. - : MDPI AG. - 2225-1154. ; 6:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To satisfy Jordan’s growing demand for electricity and to diversify its energy mix, the Jordanian government is considering a number of electricity-generation technologies that would allow for locally available resources to be used alongside imported energy. Energy policy in Jordan aims to address both climate change mitigation and energy security by increasing the share of low-carbon technologies and domestically available resources in the Jordanian electricity mix. Existing technological alternatives include the scaling up of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind; the deployment of nuclear energy; and shale oil exploration. However, the views, perceptions, and opinions regarding these technologies—their benefits, risks, and costs—vary significantly among different social groups both inside and outside the country. Considering the large-scale policy intervention that would be needed to deploy these technologies, a compromise solution must be reached. This paper is based on the results of a four-year research project that included extensive stakeholder processes in Jordan, involving several social groups and the application of various methods of participatory governance research, such as multi-criteria decision-making. The results show the variety of opinions expressed and provide insights into each type of electricity-generation technology and its relevance for each stakeholder group. There is a strong prevalence of economic rationality in the results, given that electricity-system costs are prioritized by almost all stakeholder groups.
|
|
| 6. |
- Komendantova, Nadejda, et al.
(författare)
-
Energy for the Future : Evaluating different electricity-generation technologies against selected performance characteristics and stakeholder preferences: Insights from the case study in Jordan
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Currently, energy policy in Jordan is facing the challenge of having to cover the country’s electricity demand which is growing because of different factors, among them population growth, cooling of houses, desalination, large consumption centres and industry. The goal to provide reliable and affordable electricity includes diversification of electricity-generation sources from extensive reliance on fossil fuel imports to the generation of electricity from locally available resources, such as renewable energy sources but also nuclear energy and shale oil. Energy transition towards a more significant share of domestically generated resources will inevitably lead to a societal transformation in Jordan, which will affect interests of existing and emerging electricity-generation industries and other stakeholders. To be sustainable, such a transition should also address issues of environmental protection and its contribution to socio-economic development. Therefore, it is necessary to develop compromise solutions to mitigate the risk that differences in views about electricity-generation technologies needed for energy transition will turn into conflicting opinions. Also, energy transition should address not only national energy security targets, but it should also integrate interests of local communities in the vicinity of future electricity-generation and transmission infrastructure. This report is based on the assumption that human factors play an important role in energy transition. These human factors include perceptions of different risks connected with the use of certain technologies as well as views about benefits and impacts generated by different technologies. An innovative methodology was developed to address these views. This methodology allows us to assess the relevance of Jordan’s electricity-generation technologies, such as utility-scale photovoltaic (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), onshore wind, utility-scale hydro-electric, bituminous coal, heavy fuel oil, shale oil and natural gas against a set of criteria, which reflect environmental, social and economic components of sustainable development. The results show that stakeholders prefer utility PV technology over all other technologies. The results also show that at the time of writing, the discourse in Jordanian society is dominated by economic rationality, such as electricity costs, supported by concerns about safety during operation and maintenance of electricity-generation power plans. The results also show a strong desire of all stakeholder groups for an opportunity to engage in decision-making processes on energy transition as the alternative of being simply compensated for the installation of electricity-generation and -transmission technologies does not appeal to local communities.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
