Contributions to risk management : On the balance between value creation and protection
Keywords:
risikostyring, samfunnssikkerhetSynopsis
The overall objective of this thesis is to contribute to new knowledge in risk management. More concretely, the research relates to one of the main tasks of risk management: to obtain an appropriate balance between value creation on the one hand and protection on the other.
Risk management is considered to be all activities and measures carried out to manage the risk. The main purpose is to support the balancing of the conflicts inherent in exploring opportunities, creating values and development, on the one hand, and avoiding losses and accidents on the other. Many of the situations we face, however, involve high risk and uncertainty, making it challenging to predict the outcomes of our decisions and to obtain an appropriate balance between different concerns such as risk and socioeconomic profitability. Various strategies can form the basis for supporting risk management and decision-making under uncertainty, using different tools and approaches. To adequately inform the decision-makers about the risks and uncertainties, we need to make sure that the strategy we apply, and the approaches and principles that follow, are appropriate for the decision-making context and capable of capturing the relevant uncertainties. This is not straightforward, and there is a need to continuously develop the approaches we use to support the decision-makers. At the same time, we need to acknowledge the fact that the tools we use are just tools, with strong limitations. The quality of the produced decision support, then, relates to the quality of the background knowledge, on which the analyses and evaluations are based. To obtain good quality background knowledge, however, is not always straightforward.
The thesis contributes to this end by exploring approaches, principles and underlying ways of thinking related to how we can obtain the appropriate balance between value creation and protection, and by producing new knowledge to support that balance in a specific domain. The scientific contribution of the thesis consists of seven papers. The content and contribution of the seven papers are summarised in the following. In risk management, different strategies can be applied to support the tasks. The strategy refers to the underlying way of thinking and the principles that follow. Amongst the principles, ALARP is central. According to the ALARP principle, risks should be reduced to a level that is As Low As Reasonably Practicable, meaning that risk-reducing measures should be implemented unless the costs are grossly disproportionate to the obtained benefits. By large, however, observations from the industry and literature indicate that analysts focus on single measures in isolation when using the ALARP principle to support decision-making. This underlying way of thinking might lead to misguided decisions: it does not consider that safety measures do not always give the intended effect, as offset effects can occur, and the weight given to the cautionary principle might be inappropriate, given the decision-making context. Paper I discusses and illustrates the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle to guide decision-making under uncertainty. Systems thinking has a role to play, as it enhances the understanding of the decision-making context.
Enhancing the understanding and knowledge of a risk-related problem is essential for risk management. The available knowledge (justified beliefs) forms the foundation on which risks are assessed. Different methods exist on how to evaluate the strength of the knowledge, but there is a gap in the literature with respect to methods useful for the identification of relevant knowledge, and an arbitrary approach does not appear to be optimal. Paper II suggests a framework, using a systems approach, to identify and assess the background knowledge, as a means to reduce the risk of missing relevant knowledge and obtain more complete background knowledge, on which risk can be assessed. If we are unable to capture all the relevant knowledge, such as hidden assumptions, the result is incomplete background knowledge, which hampers risk management and the balance between value creation and protection.
The available background knowledge needs to be considered in a risk assessment, to inform the decision-makers on, for example, what assumptions the analysts made and what the risk assessment represents. The uncertainties and knowledge need adequate treatment and reflection, in order to produce informative decision support. Paper III contributes to this end and illustrates how the knowledge dimension can be integrated with a risk-based approach, supporting decisions about permanent plug and abandonment of offshore oil and gas wells. The objective of the original approach is to evaluate leakage risk from offshore wells on the basis of consequences and probability, in order to justify more costeffective solutions than the prescriptive ones. Creating cost-effective solutions, however, does not justify less focus on risk and uncertainties, and Paper III suggests an improved approach, which strengthens the decision support on the leakage risk by highlighting the uncertainties, assesses the risk of deviation from the assumptions and reflects the knowledge base.
The adoption of safety measures, such as barriers in an offshore well, is an essential activity of risk management. At the same time, it is well known that safety measures do not always give the intended effect, as new safety measures are sometimes offset by other system components. This is problematic for the balance between value creation and avoiding losses, as any company has limited resources for safety expenditure. This implies a need for proper consideration of economic concerns. However, economic evaluations are usually made with sole reference to expected values, in which no or limited weight is given to the cautionary principle. The use of expected values is rational given the portfolio theory, but, at the same time, expected values should be used with care in risk management, as the uncertainties and cautionary principle need stronger weight than what the frame of expected values supports. Papers IV and V discuss and illustrate why traditional economic tools need stronger weight on the cautionary principle when applied in a risk context. Paper IV discusses foundational issues of the use of socioeconomic profitability as a prerequisite for investments in security measures, while Paper V discusses the application of the return of investments in safety (ROSI) measure in the chemical industry. Without considerations of uncertainty and background knowledge, the economic tools might produce misguided decision support, hampering the balance of different concerns.
There is an increasing awareness of the importance of the knowledge dimension in the risk science field, in relation to managing risk. The knowledge dimension is split into general knowledge and specific knowledge. The former covers all knowledge available for related activities, whereas the latter covers specific knowledge of activities. For example, to improve patient safety in the emergency medical services, we need to know what can go wrong and why (i.e. general knowledge), but, at the same time, we need to make sure that necessary measures, such as a training programme, are implemented and functioning as intended in the emergency medical services (i.e. specific knowledge), especially when the risk management is subject to scarce resources. Papers VI and VII contribute to the latter, by producing new knowledge about the frequency of training in non-technical skills in the Norwegian emergency medical services. The studies indicate that training has had a positive effect, as the frequency of training in non-technical skills among the personnel in the helicopter emergency service has increased over recent years, and that there is a potential for learning and knowledge sharing between the two emergency medical services. This new specific knowledge provides input to evaluations and future practices of the training programmes, and to increase the general knowledge, which can assist the prehospital services in obtaining an appropriate balance between value creation and protection.
References
Abrahamsen, E.B. (2011). On the rationality of using risk acceptance criterion based on the expected utility theory. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, vol. 2 (1), 70-78. Doi: 10.1504/IJBCRM.2011.040016.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCRM.2011.040016
Abrahamsen, E.B. and Aven, T. (2012). Why risk acceptance criterion need to bedefined by the authorities and not the industry? Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 105, 47-50. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.004
Abrahamsen, E.B. and Selvik, J.T. (2013). A framework for selection of inspection intervals for well barriers. Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Beyond the Horizon: ESREL 2013, 631-636. London, UK: CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b15938-99
Abrahamsen, E.B., Abrahamsen, H.B. and Selvik, J.T. (2017a). A note on the layered approach for implementing ALARP and the grossly disproportionate criterion. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, vol. 7 (3), 204-210. Doi: 10.1504/IJBCRM.2017.088807.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCRM.2017.088807
Abrahamsen, E.B., Asche, F. and Aven, T. (2011). To what extent should all the attributes be transformed to one comparable unit when evaluating safety measures. The Business Review, Cambridge, vol. 19 (1), 70-76.
Abrahamsen, E.B., Asche, F. and Milazzo, M.F. (2013). An evaluation of the effects on safety of using safety standards in major hazard industries. Safety Science, vol. 59, 173-178. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.05.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.05.011
Abrahamsen, E.B., Aven, T. and Sandøy, M. (2006). A note on the concept of risk aversion in safety management. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, vol. 220 (1), 69-71. Doi: 10.1243/1748006XJRR16.
https://doi.org/10.1243/1748006XJRR16
Abrahamsen, E.B., Selvik, J.T. and Abrahamsen, H.B. (2020a). Using costeffectiveness acceptability curves as a basis for prioritizing investments in safety measures in the offshore oil and gas industry. International Journal of Performability Engineering, vol. 16 (2), 163-170. Doi: 10.23940/ijpe.20.02.p1.163170.
https://doi.org/10.23940/ijpe.20.02.p1.163170
Abrahamsen, E.B., Selvik, J.T. and Berg, H. (2016). Prioritising of safety measures in land use planning: on how to merge a risk-based approach with a cost-benefit analysis approach. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, vol. 6 (3), 182-196. Doi: 10.1504/IJBCRM.2016.079007.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCRM.2016.079007
Abrahamsen, E.B., Abrahamsen, H.B., Milazzo, M.F. and Selvik, J.T. (2018a). Using the ALARP principle for safety management in the energy production sector of chemical industry. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 169, 160-165. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.08.014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.08.014
Abrahamsen, E.B., Aven, T., Vinnem, J.E. and Wiencke, H. (2004). Safety management and the use of expected values. Risk, Decision and Policy, vol. 9 (4), 347-357. Doi: 10.1080/14664530490896645.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896645
Abrahamsen, E.B., Selvik, J.T., Lohne, H.P. and Arild, Ø. (2020b). Plug and abandonment decision-making: quality at the right price. International Journal of Performability Engineering, vol. 16 (1), 1-9. Doi: 10.23940/ijpe.20.01.p1.19.
https://doi.org/10.23940/ijpe.20.01.p1.19
Abrahamsen, E.B., Pettersen, K.A., Aven, T., Kaufmann, M. and Rosqvist, T. (2017b). A framework for selection of strategy for management of security measures. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 20 (3), 404-417. Doi: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1057205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1057205
Abrahamsen, E.B., Moharamzadeh, A., Abrahamsen, H.B., Asche, F., Heide, B. and Milazzo, M.F. (2018b). Are too many safety measures crowding each other out? Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 174, 108-113. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.02.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.02.011
Abrahamsen, H.B. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (2015). On the appropriateness of using the ALARP principle in safety management. Safety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems: ESREL 2017, 773-777. London, UK: CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b19094-104
Abrahamsen, H.B., Sollid, S.J.M., Öhlund, L., Røislien, J. and Bondevik, G. (2015). Simulation-based training and assessment of non-technical skills in the Norwegian helicopter emergency medical services: a cross-sectional survey. Emergency Medicine Journal, vol. 32, 647-653. Doi:10.1136/emermed-2014- 203962.
https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2014-203962
Adler, M.D. (2011). Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195384994.001.0001
Aehlert, B. (2011). Paramedic Practice Today: Above and Beyond. Vol. 1. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Agrawal, H., Shuayli, M.A. and Salmani, M. (2017). Reducing operational flaring through ALARP based decision making. International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 13-17, 2017. Society for Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/188748-MS
Ale, B.J.M., Hartford, D.N.D. and Slater, D. (2015). ALARP and CBA all in the same game. Safety Science, vol. 76, 90-100. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.012
Amendola, A. (2002). Recent paradigms for risk informed decision making. Safety Science, vol. 40 (1-4), 17-30. Doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00039-X.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00039-X
Amundrud, Ø., Aven, T. and Flage, R. (2017). How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part O, Journal of Risk and Reliability, vol. 231 (3), 286- 294. Doi: 10.1177/1748006X17699145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X17699145
Anderson, E. (1993). Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Apostolakis, G.E. (1990). The concept of probability in safety assessment of technological systems. Science, vol. 250 (4986), 1359-1364. Doi: 10.1126/science.2255906.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2255906
Apostolakis, G.E. (2004). How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis, vol. 24 (3), 515-520. Doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00455.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00455.x
Arild, Ø., Lohne, H.P., Majoumerd, M.M., Ford, E.P. and Moeinikia, F. (2017). Establishment of a quantitative risk-based approach for evaluation of containment performance in the context of permanently plugged and abandoned [23] petroleum wells. Offshore Technology Conference 2017, OTC-27711-MS, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX.
https://doi.org/10.4043/27711-MS
Arild, Ø., Lohne, H.P., Nielsen, M., Moeinikia, F., Selvik, J.T., Abrahamsen, E.B., Ford, E.P. et al. (2018). Permanent P&A design: what is good enough? SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 2018, SPE-191414-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX.
https://doi.org/10.2118/191414-MS
Arnold, R.D. and Wade, J. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 44, 669-678. Doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
Askeland, T., Flage, R. and Aven, T. (2017). Moving beyond probabilities: strength of knowledge characterisations applied to security. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 159, 196-205. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.035.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.035
Assum, T., Bjørnskau, T., Fosser, S. and Sagberg, F. (1999). Risk compensation: the case of road lighting. Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 31 (5), 545-553. Doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00011-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00011-1
Atack, L. and Maher, J. (2010). Emergency medical and health provider's perception of key issues in prehospital patient safety. Prehospital Emergency Care, vol. 14 (1), 95-102. Doi: 10.3109/10903120903349887.
https://doi.org/10.3109/10903120903349887
Aven, T. (2010). On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 95, 623-631. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.011
Aven, T. (2011a). A risk concept applicable for both probabilistic and non-probabilistic perspectives. Safety Science, vol. 49, 1080-1086. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.017
Aven, T. (2011b). Quantitative Risk Assessment: The Scientific Platform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aven, T. (2011c). On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Risk Analysis, vol. 31 (10), 1515-1525. Doi: 10.1111/j.1539-
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01612.x
2011.01612.x.
Aven, T. (2013). Practical implications of the new emerging risk perspectives. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 115, 136-145. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.020
Aven, T. (2014). Risk, Surprises and Black Swans: Fundamental Ideas and Concepts in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755175
Aven, T. (2015). Risk Analysis. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057819
Aven, T. (2017). Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 167, 42-48. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.006
Aven, T. (2018). An emerging new risk analysis science: foundations and implications. Risk Analysis, vol. 38 (5). Doi: 10.1111/risa.12899.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12899
Aven, T. (2019). The cautionary principle in risk management: foundation and practical use. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 191. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106585
Aven, T. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (2007). On the use of cost-benefit analysis in the ALARP process. International Journal of Performability Engineering, vol. 3 (3), 345-353.
Aven, T. and Flage, R. (2009). Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 94, 1491-1498. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2009.02.007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.02.007
Aven, T. and Flage, R. (2018). Risk assessment with broad uncertainty and knowledge characterisation: an illustrating case, in Aven, T. and Zio, E. (Eds.) Knowledge in Risk Assessment and Management, 3-26. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119317906.ch1
Aven, T. and Kristensen, V. (2019). How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 191. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106553
Aven, T. and Körte, J. (2003). On the use of risk and decision analysis to support decision-making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 76, 90-100. Doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00203-X.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00203-X
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 12 (1), 1-11. Doi: 10.1080/13669870802488883.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2010). Risk Management and Risk Governance. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2019). Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks. Journal of Risk Research. Doi: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1569099.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569099
Aven, T. and Vinnem, J.E. (2005). On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 90 (1), 15-24. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.009
Aven, T. and Vinnem, J.E. (2007). Risk Management: with Applications from the Offshore Petroleum Industry. New York: Springer Verlag.
Aven, T. and Ylönen, M. (2018). A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 175, 13-18. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2018.03.004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.03.004
Aven, T. and Ylönen, M. (2019). The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: a threat to proper development of these fields? Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 189, 279-286. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.035.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.035
Aven, T. and Zio, E. (2011). Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision-making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 96, 64-74. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001
Aven, T. and Zio, E. (2018a). Knowledge in Risk Assessment and Management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119317906
Aven, T. and Zio, E. (2018b). Quality of risk assessment: definition and verification, in Aven, T. and Zio, E. (Eds.) Knowledge in Risk Assessment and Management, 297- 312. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119317906
Aven, T., Vinnem, J.E. and Wiencke, H.S. (2007). A decision framework for risk management, with application to the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 92 (4), 433-448. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2005.12.009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.12.009
Ayyub, B.M. (2003). Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203497692
Baard, P. (2016). Risk-reducing goals: ideals and abilities when managing complex environmental risks. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 19 (2), 164-180. Doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.961513.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.961513
Baker, R., Chilton, S., Jones-Lee, M. and Metcalf, H. (2008). Valuing lives equally: defensible premise or unwarranted compromise? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 36, 125-138. Doi: 10.1007/s11166-008-9034-0.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-008-9034-0
Bani-Mustafa, T., Zeng, Z., Zio, E. and Vasseur, D. (2020). A practical approach for evaluating the strength of knowledge supporting risk assessment models. Safety Science, vol. 124. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104596.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104596
Baybutt, P. (2014). The ALARP principle in process safety. Process Safety Progress, vol. 33 (1), 36-40. Doi: 10.1002/prs.11599.
https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.11599
Bedford, T. and Cook, R. (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bellamy, L.J., Ale, B.J.M., Geyer, T.A.W., Gossens, L.H.J., Hale, A.R., Oh, J., Mud, M., Bloemhof, A., Papazoglou, I.A. and Whiston, J.Y. (2007). Storybuilder - A tool for the analysis of accident reports. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 92, 735-744. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.02.010. Bernardo, J.M. and Smith, A.F.M. (1994). Bayesian Theory. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.02.010
Bhardwaj, S., Bhattacharya, S., Tang, L. and Howell, K.E. (2019). Technology introduction on ships: the tension between safety and economic rationality. Safety Science, vol. 115, 329-338. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.025.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.025
Bryant, P.A., Croft, J. and Cole, P. (2018). Integration of risks from multiple hazards into a holistic ALARA/ALARP demonstration. Journal of Radiological Protection, vol. 38, 81-91. Doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/aa8e53.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aa8e53
Carayon, P., Hundt, A.S., Karsh, B.T., Gurses, A.P., Alvarado, C.J., Smith, M. and Brennan, P.F. (2006). Work system design for patient safety. the SEIPS model. Quality and Safety in Health Care, vol. 15 (1), i50-i58. Doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.015843.
https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015842
Carayon, P., Wetterneck, T.B., Rivera-Rodriguez, A.J., Hundt, A.S., Hoonakker, P., Holden, R. and Gurses, A.P. (2014). Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Applied Ergonomics, vol. 45(1), 14-25. Doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.023.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.023
Clemen, R.T. and Reilly, T. (2001). Making Hard Decisions with DecisionTools. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Thomson Learning. COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) (2017). Enterprise Risk Management: Integrating with Strategy and Performance. New York: AICPA.
Cox, T. (2011). Clarifying types of uncertainty: when are models accurate, and uncertainties small? Risk Analysis, vol. 31 (10), 1530-1533. Doi: 10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2011.01706.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01706.x
Day, R.A. and Gastel, B. (2006). How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dekker, S., Cilliers, P. and Hofmeyr, J.H. (2011). The complexity of failure: implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Safety Science, vol. 49 (6), 939-945. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.008
Deming, W.E. (2000). The New Economics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT CAES.
Dillon, R.L., Liebe, R.M. and Bestafka, T. (2009). Risk-based decision-making for terrorism applications. Risk Analysis, vol. 29 (3), 321-335. Doi: 10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2008.01196.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01196.x
Duijm, N.J., Fiévez, C., Gerbec, M., Hauptmanns, U. and Konstandinidou, M. (2008). Management of health, safety and environment in process industry. Safety Science, vol. 46 (6), 908-920. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.003
Eidesen, K., Sollid, S.J. and Aven, T. (2009). Risk assessment in critical care medicine: a tool to assess patient safety. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 12 (3-4), 281-294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802456914
Doi: 10.1080/13669870802456914.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802456914
Engemann, K.J. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (2020). Advances in safety risk management, in Engemann, K.J. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (Eds.) Safety Risk Management:Integrating Economic and Safety Perspectives, V-XI. Berlin, Germany: Walter
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110638189
de Gruyter. Doi: 10.1515/9783110638189-202.
Erkan, B., Ertan, G., Yeo, J. and Comfort, L.K. (2016). Risk, profit, or safety: sociotechnical systems under stress. Safety Science, vol. 88, 199-210. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.02.002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.02.002
Farrow, S. and Viscusi, W.K. (2011). Towards principles and standards for the benefitcost analysis of safety. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, vol. 2 (3), 1-25. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1033
2202/2152-2812.1033.
https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1033
Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. and Keeney, R. (1981). Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flage, R. (2010). Contributions to the Treatment of Uncertainty in Risk Assessment and Management. PhD Thesis, University of Stavanger, Faculty of Science and Technology, Stavanger, Norway.
Flage, R. (2019). Implementing an uncertainty-based risk conceptualisation in the context of environmental risk assessment, with emphasis on the bias of uncertain assumptions. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 36 (2-4), 149- 171. Doi: 10.1080/10286608.2019.1702029.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2019.1702029
Flage, R. and Askeland, T. (2020). Assumptions in quantitative risk assessments: when explicit and when tacit? Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 197. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106799.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106799
Flage, R. and Aven, T. (2009). Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis. Reliability & Risk Analysis: Theory & Applications, vol. 2 (13), 9-18.
Flage, R., Aven, T., Zio, E. and Baraldi, P. (2014). Concerns, challenges, and directions of development for the issue of representing uncertainty in risk assessment. Risk Analysis, vol. 34 (7), 1196-1207. Doi: 10.1111/risa.12247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12247
Flin, R.H., O'Connor, P. and Crichton, M. (2008) Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Nontechnical Skills. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Flood, R.L. and Carson, E.R. (1988). Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of System Science. New York: Plenum Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7799-3
Ford, E., Aven, T., Røed, W. and Wiencke, H.S. (2008). An approach for evaluating methods for risk and vulnerability assessments. Journal of Risk and Reliability, vol. 220, 315-326. Doi: 10.1243/1748006XJRR120.
https://doi.org/10.1243/1748006XJRR120
French, S. and Rios Insua, D. (2000). Statistical Decision Theory. London: Arnold. French, S., Bedford, T. and Atherton, E. (2005). Supporting ALARP decision making by cost-benefit analysis and multiattribute utility theory. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 8 (3), 207-223. Doi: 10.1080/1366987042000192408.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000192408
Goerlandt, F. and Reniers, G. (2016). On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams. Safety Science, vol. 84, 67-77. Doi: j.ssci.2015.12.001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.001
Gordon, M., Darbyshire, D. and Baker, P. (2012). Non-technical skills training to enhance patient safety: a systematic review. Medical Education, vol. 46, 1042-
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04343.x
Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04343.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04343.x
Grote, G. (2012). Safety management in high-risk domains: all the same? Safety Science, vol. 50 (10), 1938-1992. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.017
Grote, G. (2015). Promoting safety by increasing uncertainty: implications for risk management. Safety Science, vol. 71, 71-79. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.010
Hanley, N. and Spash, C.L. (1993). Cost-Benefit and the Environment. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hansson, S.O. (2002). Uncertainties in the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, vol. 54 (171), 39-46. Doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00357.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00357
Hertz, D.B. and Thomas, H. (1983). Risk Analysis and its Application. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hoegberg, L. (1998). Risk perception, safety goals and regulatory decision-making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 59 (1), 135-139. Doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00134-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00134-8
Hokstad, P. and Steiro, T. (2006). Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 91 (1), 100-111. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.014
Holden, R.J., Carayon, P., Gurses, A.P., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A.S., Ozok, A.A. and Rivera-Rodriguez, A.J. (2013). SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics, vol. 56 (11), 1669-1686. Doi: 10.1080/00140139.2013.838643.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.838643
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D. and Leveson, N.C. (2006). Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Hopkin, P. (2013). Risk Management. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Hopkins, A. (2011). Risk-management and rule-compliance: decision-making in hazardous industries. Safety Science, vol. 49 (2), 110-120. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.07.014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.07.014
HSE [Health and Safety Executive]. (2001). Reducing Risks, Protecting People: HSE's Decision-making Process. Norwich, UK: HSE Books.
Hurst, J., McIntyre, J., Tamauchi, Y., Kinuhata, H. and Kodama, T. (2018). A summary of the 'ALARP' principle and associated thinking. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, vol. 56 (2), 241-253. Doi: 10.1080/00223131.2018.1551814.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2018.1551814
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., et al. (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2018). ISO 31000: Risk Management: Principles and Guidelines. Switzerland: ISO.
Jensen, A. and Aven, T. (2018). A new definition of complexity in a risk analysis setting. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 171, 169-173. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.018
Jones-Lee, M. and Aven, T. (2011). ALARP - what does it really mean? Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 96, 877-882. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.006
Jonkman, S.N., van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. and Vrijling, J.K. (2003). An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 99 (1), 1-30. Doi: 10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00283-2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00283-2
Jore, S.H. (2019). The conceptual and scientific demarcation of security in contrast to safety. European Journal of Security Research, vol. 4, 157-174. Doi: 10.1007/s41125-017-0021-9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41125-017-0021-9
Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B.J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, vol. 1 (1), 11-27. Doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x
Kastenberg, W., Hauser-Kastenberg, G. and Norris, D. (2004). On developing a risk analysis framework for post-industrial age technologies, in Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U. and Dang, V.N. (Eds.) PSAM7, 2378-2383. London: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-410-4_382
Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174084
Kelman, S. (1981). Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. Regulation, vol. 5 (1), 33- 40.
Kletz, T.A. (2005). Looking beyond ALARP: overcoming its limitations. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 83 (2), 81-84. Doi: 10.1205/psep.04227.
https://doi.org/10.1205/psep.04227
Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2001). Precautionary principle and discursive strategies: classifying and managing risks. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 4 (2), 159-173. Doi: 10.1080/136698701750128105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136698701750128105
Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precautionary-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, vol. 22 (6), 1071-1094. Doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00274.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00274
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd ed. New Delhi, India: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
Kristensen, V., Aven, T. and Ford, D. (2005). A new perspective on Renn and Klinke's approach to risk evaluation and management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 91 (4), 421-432. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2005.02.006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.02.006
Lambert, J.H. and Farrington, M.W. (2006). Cost-benefit functions for the allocation of security sensors of air containment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 92 (7), 930-946. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.06.002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.06.002
Langdalen, H., Abrahamsen, E.B., Selvik, J.T. and Berg, H. (2020). An extended approach for prioritising physical safety measures to handle flood and landslide risks, in Engemann, K.J. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (Eds.), Safety Risk Management: Integrating Economic and Safety Perspectives, 155-172. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Doi: 10.1515/9783110638189-010.
Leveson, N. (2011). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8179.001.0001
Leveson, N. (2015). A systems approach to risk management through leading safety indicators. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 136, 17-34. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2014.10.008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.10.008
Levy, H. and Sarnat, M. (1994). Capital Investment & Financial Decisions. 5th ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Lind, N. (2002). Social and economic criteria of acceptable risk. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 78 (1), 21-25. Doi: 10.1016/S0951- 8320(02)00051-0.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00051-0
Lindley, D.V. (1985). Making Decisions. 2nd ed. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Löfstedt, R.E. (2003). The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 81 (1), 36-43. Doi: 10.1205/095758203762851976.
https://doi.org/10.1205/095758203762851976
Manser, T. (2009). Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, vol. 53 (2), 143- 151. Doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x
Marca, D.A. and McGowan, C.L. (1988). SADT: Structured Analysis and Design Technique. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.
McNab, D., McKay, J., Shorrock, S., Luty, S. and Bowie, P. (2019). Development and application of 'systems thinking' principles for quality improvement. BMJ Open Quality, vol. 9 (1), 1-10. Doi:10.1136/ bmjoq-2019-000714.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000714
Melchers, R.E. (2001). On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 71, 201-208. Doi: 10.1016/S0951- 8320(00)00096-X.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00096-X
Menon, C., Bloomfield, R.E. and Clement, T. (2013). Interpreting ALARP. Proceedings of the 8th IET International System Safety Conference. IET.
https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2013.1712
Möller, N. and Hansson, S.O. (2008). Principles of engineering safety: risk and uncertainty reduction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 93 (6), 798- 805. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.031.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.031
Myers, J.A., Powell, D.M.C., Psirides, A., Hathaway, K., Aldington, S. and Haney, M.F. (2016). Nontechnical skills evaluation in the critical care air ambulance environment: introduction of an adapted rating instrument: an observational study. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, vol. 24. Doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0216-5.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-016-0216-5
Nesticò, A., He, S., De Mare, G., Benintendi, R. and Maselli, G. (2018). The ALARP
principle in cost-benefit analysis for the acceptability of investment risk.
Sustainability, vol. 10 (12), 1-22. Doi: 10.3390/su10124668.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124668
North, W.D. (2011). Uncertainties, precaution, and science: focus on the state of
knowledge and how it may change. Risk Analysis, vol. 31 (10), 1526-1529. Doi:
1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01707.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01707.x
Norwegian Research Council. (2000). Kvalitet i norsk forskning: En oversikt over
begreper, metoder og virkemilder.
NOU (Official Norwegian reports). (2015). Først og fremst. Et helhetlig system for håndtering av akutte sykdommer og skader utenfor sykehus [Primarily. A comprehensive system for dealing with acute diseases and injuries outside hospitals]. NOU Norges Offentlige Utredninger No. 17, 2015. Norwegian Government Security and Service Organization. Retrieved from
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/ dokumenter/nou-2015-17. Accessed 27.03.2020.
NOU (Official Norwegian Reports). (2016). Samhandling for sikkerhet: beskyttelse av grunnleggende samfunnsfunksjoner i en omskiftelig tid [only in Norwegian]. NOU Norges Offentlige Utredninger No. 16, 2016, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2016-19/id2515424/. Accessed 19.03.2020.
O'Connor, P., Campbell, J., Newon, J., Melton, J., Salas, E. and Wilson, K.A. (2008). Crew resource management training effectiveness: a meta-analysis and some critical needs. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, vol. 18 (4), 353- 368. Doi: 10.1080/10508410802347044.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508410802347044
Palazzi, E., Currò, F. and Fabiano, B. (2015). A critical approach to safety equipment and emergency time evaluation based on actual information from the Bhopal gas tragedy. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 97 37-48. Doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2015.06.009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2015.06.009
Papazoglou, I.A., Bellamy, L.J., Hale, A.R., Aneziris, O.N., Ale, B.J.M., Post, J.G. and Oh, J.I.H. (2003). I-Risk: development of an integrated technical and management risk methodology for chemical installations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 16 (6), 575-591. Doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2003.08.008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2003.08.008
Pape, R.P. (1997). Developments in the tolerability of risk (TOR) and the application of ALARP. Nuclear Energy, vol. 36 (6), 457-463.
Patè-Cornell, E. (1996). Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 54 (2-3), 95-111. Doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00067-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00067-1
Patè-Cornell, E. (2002). Finding and fixing systems weaknesses: probabilistic methods and applications in engineering risk analysis. Risk Analysis, vol. 22 (2), 319-334. Doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00025.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00025
Paté-Cornell, E. and Dillon, R.L. (2006). The respective roles of risk and decision analyses in decision support. Decision Analysis, vol. 3 (4), 220-232. Doi: 10.1287/deca.1060.0077.
https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1060.0077
Peterson, M. (2006). The precautionary principle is incoherent. Risk Analysis, vol. 26 (3), 595-601. Doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00781.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00781.x
Peterson, M. (2007). The precautionary principle should not be used as a basis for decision-making. Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO Reports, vol. 8 (4), 305-308. Doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400947.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400947
Petitti, D.B. (2000). Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133646.001.0001
Phillips, J.J., Phillips, P.P. and Pulliam, A. (2014). Measuring ROI in Environment, Health, and Safety. Wiley Online Library. Doi: 10.1002/9781118899281.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118899281
Pritchard, C.L. (2015). Risk Management: Concepts and Guidance. 5th ed. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
PSAN (Petroleum Safety Authority Norway). (2018). Integrated and Unified Risk Management in the Petroleum Industry. Retrieved from https://www.ptil.no/contentassets/8d93722526cb4c57a5068e680be90a7b/risikos tyring-2018-engelsk.pdf. Accessed 21.02.2020.
Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety Science, vol. 27 (2/3), 183-213. Doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
Rausand, M. (2011). Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118281116
Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London, UK: Earthscan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0
Robinson, L.A. and Hammitt, J.K. (2011). Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit-cost analysis: towards principles and standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, vol. 2 (2), 1-51. Doi: 10.2202/2152-2812.1059.
https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1059
Robinson, L.A., Hammitt, J.K. and O'Keeffe, L. (2019). Valuing mortality risk reductions in global benefit-cost analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, vol. 10 (S1), 15 - 50. Doi: 10.1017/bca.2018.26.
https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2018.26
Rosa, E.A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, vol. 1 (1), 15-44. Doi: doi.org/10.1080/136698798377303.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377303
Ross, S.A., Westerfield, R.W., Jaffe, J.F. and Jordan, B.D. (2011). Core Principles and Applications of Corporate Finance: Global Edition. 3rd ed. New York: McGrawHill /Irwin.
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: representation of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, vol. 33 (2), 163-180. Doi: 10.1177/0165551506070706.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706
Ruud, S. and Mikkelsen, Å. (2008). Risk-based rules for crane safety systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 93, 1369-1376. Doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2007.08.004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.08.004
Sagberg, F., Fosser, S., and Sætermo, I.F. (1997). An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 29 (3), 293-302. Doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(96)00083-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(96)00083-8
Sandøy, M., Aven, T. and Ford, D. (2005). On integrating risk perspectives in project management. Risk Management, vol. 7, 7-21. Doi: 10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240224.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240224
Schofield, S. (1998). Offshore QRA and the ALARP principle. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 61 (1-2), 31-37. Doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00062-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00062-8
Selvik, J.T. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (2020). How to achieve dynamic decision principles for maintenance planning of safety critical equipment in the oil and gas industry, in Engemann, K.J. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (Eds.) Safety Risk Management: Integrating Economic and Safety Perspectives, 125-140. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Doi: 10.1515/9783110638189-008.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Society for Risk Analysis (SRA). (2015). Risk Analysis Foundations. Retrieved from www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/FoundationsMay7-2015-sent-x.pdf. Accessed 18.02.2020.
Society for Risk Analysis (SRA). (2018a). Society for Risk Analysis: Fundamental Principles. Retrieved from https://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA%20Fundamental%20Principles %20-%20R2.pdf. Accessed 24.02.20.
Society for Risk Analysis (SRA). (2018b). Society for Risk Analysis Glossary. Retrieved from www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA%20Glossary%20- %20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18.02.2020.
Sonnenreich, W., Albanese, J. and Stout, B. (2006). Return on security investment (ROSI): a practical quantitative model. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 38 (1).
St Pierre, M., Hofinger, G., Buerschaper, C. and Simon, R. (2011). Crisis Management in Acute Care Settings: Human Factors, Team Psychology, and Patient Safety in a High Stakes Environment. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19700-0
Stirling, A. (1999). Risk at a turning point? Journal of Environmental Medicine, vol. 1 (3), 119-126. Doi: 10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<119::AIDJEM20>3.0.CO;2-K.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<119::AID-JEM20>3.0.CO;2-K
Sørskår, L.I.K. (2018). Contributions to Effective Risk Management: On the Use of Safety Principles, Economic Tools and Safety Climate Instruments. PhD Thesis, University of Stavanger, Faculty of Science and Technology, Stavanger, Norway
Sørskår, L.I.K. and Abrahamsen, E.B. (2017). On how to manage uncertainty when considering regulatory HSE interventions. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, vol. 5, 97-116. Doi: 10.1007/s40070-017-0073-0.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-017-0073-0
Sørskår, L.I.K., Abrahamsen, E.B. and Abrahamsen, H.B. (2019). On the use of economic evaluation of new technology in helicopter emergency medical services. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, vol. 9 (1), 1-23. Doi: 10.1504/IJBCRM.2019.10016930.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCRM.2019.10016930
Talarico, L. and Reniers, G. (2016). Risk-informed decision making of safety investments by using the disproportion factor. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 100, 117-130. Doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2016.01.003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.01.003
Tappura, S., Sievänen, M., Heikkilä, J., Jussila, A. and Nenonen N. (2015). A management accounting perspective on safety. Safety Science, vol. 71 (part B), 151-159. 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.01.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.01.011
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 5, 297-323. Doi: 10.1007/BF00122574.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Van der Sluijs, J.P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J. and Risbey, J. (2005). Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in modelbased environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Analysis, vol. 25 (2), 481-492. Doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00604.x.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00604.x
van der Sluijs, J.P., Petersen, A.C., Janssen, P.H.M., Risbey, J.S. and Ravetz, J.R. (2008). Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environmental Research Letters, vol. 3 (2). Doi: 10.1088/1748- 9326/3/2/024008.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024008
Varian, H.R. (1999). Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. 5th ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Vesely, W.E. (1999). Principles of resource-effectiveness and regulatory-effectiveness for risk-informed applications: reducing burdens by improving effectiveness. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 63 (3), 283-292. Doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00044-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00044-1
Viscusi, W.K. (1993). The value of risk to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 31 (4), 1912-1946.
Viscusi, W.K., Huber, J. and Bell, J. (2019). Responsible precautions for uncertain environmental risks. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, vol. 10 (2), 296-315. Doi: 10.1017/bca.2019.14.
https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2019.14
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Vrolix, K. (2006). Behavioural Adaptation, Risk Compensation, Risk Homeostasis and Moral Hazards in Traffic Safety
Literature Review. RA-2006-95. Steunpunt Verkeersveiligheid, September 2006.
Wakker, P., Erev, I. and Weber, E.U. (1994). Comonotonic independence: the critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 9, 195-230. Doi: 10.1007/BF01064200.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064200
Walls, M.R. (2004). Combining decision analysis and portfolio management to improve project selection in the exploration and production firm. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 44, 55-65. Doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2004.02.005
Watkiss, P., Hunt, A., Blyth, W. and Dyszynski, J. (2015). The use of new economic decision support tools for adaptation assessment: a review of methods and applications, towards guidance on applicability. Climate Change, vol. 132 (3), 401-416. Doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1250-9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1250-9
Watson, S.R. (1994). The meaning of probability in probabilistic safety analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 45 (3), 261-269. Doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(94)90142-2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(94)90142-2
Watson, S.R. and Buede, D.M. (1987). Decision Synthesis: The Principles and Practice
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520716
of Decision Analysis. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Whittingham, R.B. (2008). Preventing Corporate Accidents: An Ethical Approach. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.
Wiencke, H.S., Aven, T. and Hagen, J. (2006). A framework for selection of methodology for risk and vulnerability assessments of infrastructures depending on information and technology. Safety and Reliability for Managing Risk: Proceedings of the 15th European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2006), 2297-2304. London, UK: CRC Press.
Yoon, H., Lee, H. and Moon, L. (2000). Quantitative business decision-making for the investment of preventing safety accidents in chemical plants. Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 24 (2-7), 1037-1041. Doi: 10.1016/S0098-
