A framework for risk criteria for critical infrastructures: fundamentals and case studies in the Netherlands

Vrijling, J.K.; Gelder, Pieter van; Goossens, Louis; Voortman, H. G.; Pandey, Mahesh D.

doi:10.1080/1366987032000081178

Cited by 32 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of criticality criteria, or infrastructure-related risk criteria, is an ongoing activity in many countries, for example Canada (Robert et al 2003), the Netherlands (Vrijling et al 2004), Switzerland (Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection 2009), the United Kingdom (UKCO 2010), the United States (Moteff 2007), or even in some provinces, for example, British Columbia (PEP 2007), as well as within the EU for all European countries (EC 2008). Many more countries have published a strategy that typically is the preliminary step to the identification process, for example Australia (Australian Government 2010) and Germany (Federal Ministry of the Interior of Germany 2009).…”

Section: Demand For Simplified Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common criteria for the assessment of critical infrastructures

Fekete

2011

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Society is reliant on infrastructure services, such as information and communication technology, energy, water, and food supply, but also on governmental, cultural, and search and rescue organizations. The goal of project Kritis-KAT at the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance in Germany is the development of generic criteria for the identification and evaluation of infrastructures regarded as "critical" for society. Acknowledging that full protection against all threats and cascading effects is not possible, the approach focuses on the impacts rather than the prevention of threats. The development of generic criteria requires the prioritization of infrastructures and identification of their key characteristics for civil protection purposes, risk management activities, and strategic proactive planning. For this purpose, the development of a national critical infrastructure priority inventory is based on a thorough examination of the range of criteria typically used in similar approaches. The specific focus of this paper is to identify and simplify essential characteristics of infrastructure criticality. The main outcome of this study is the development of common criteria generally applicable to a variety of infrastructures.

show abstract

Section: Demand For Simplified Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common criteria for the assessment of critical infrastructures

Fekete

2011

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These initiatives include, among others, offshore installations in Norway [44], critical infrastructures in the Netherlands [45] and occupational safety in number of UK facilities, including nuclear and chemical installations. [46].…”

Section: Alarp As a Risk-management Requirement: The Tor Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating impurities in pharmaceutical products: a tolerability of risk approach?

Bouder

2008

Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the implications of the EMEA guideline EMEA/CHMP/QWP/251344/2006 for pharmaceutical risk decisions. The guidelines propose to consider the intake of 1.5 µg/day of a genotoxic impurity as a 'threshold of toxicological concern', and to treat this level as an acceptable risk (excess cancer risk of <10(-5) over a lifetime). The guidance document also introduces a specific decision-tree to assess the acceptability of genotoxic impurities. According to this decision-tree, when the presence of genotoxic impurities is unavoidable, their levels should be reduced 'as low as reasonably practicable' (ALARP). In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive has developed a 'tolerability of risk' (ToR) model to support ALARP requirements. The paper compares the EMEA risk-reduction requirements and the ToR model. EMEA/CHMP/QWP/251344/2006 introduces a risk-avoidance principle based on a controversial interpretation of 'pollution control'. The paper supports the view that this model is not optimal from a risk-management point of view. Using a ToR model could bring improvements to pharmaceutical risk decisions and would support a more practical and consensual approach to meeting the ALARP requirements.

show abstract

“…Note, however, the interactive group consensus method may be influenced by dominant personalities in the group. In terms of performance, some evidence suggests that mathematical aggregation outperforms behavioral aggregation ( Expert elicitation has been applied to a broad range of domains, ranging from environmental protection (Salvi and Gaston 2004), infrastructure vulnerability (Vrijling et al 2004), accident consequence modeling (Cooke and Goossens 2000), nuclear waste regulations (DeWispelare et al 1995), medical diagnosis (Lau and Leung 1999) to carbon capture and storage technology (Chan et al 2011). Regardless of the variations in elicitation approaches and the application domains, for expert elicitation to maintain its scientific rigor as a consensus methodology, it is imperative that the elicitation methods, processes, and tools are transparent and free of biases; the selection of expertise is based on relevant expertise to ensure proper domain coverage while minimizing bias; and the analysis approach and elicitation results are repeatable (Cooke and Goossens 2000).…”

Section: Expert Elicitation Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%