Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking

Morgan, M. Granger; Florig, H. Keith; DeKay, Michael L.; Fischbeck, Paul S.

doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00005

Cited by 142 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In response, Morgan et al proposed a framework for a risk-ranking method that could engage a wide range of stakeholder participation in a systematic process that used multiple quantitative and qualitative estimates of consequence (Morgan et al 1996). Later papers developed the framework into a systematic process called the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (Jenni 1997;Morgan et al 2000;Florig et al 2001;Morgan et al 2001).…”

Section: The Deliberative Methods For Ranking Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…lung disease), and perception and valuation (e.g. sociological status) as examples of how the respective strategies could be applied (Morgan et al 2000). Similarly, homeland security risks can be categorized in several ways such as by event (e.g.…”

Section: Defining Risks In Terms Of Hazardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…terrorist groups). Morgan et al conclude that the categorization structure used should align with the organizational structures responsible for managing the risks (Morgan et al 2000). For our purposes, we chose homeland security risks to align with the organizational structures and interventions of DHS.…”

Section: Defining Risks In Terms Of Hazardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Lundberg¹,

Willis

2016

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Reliably managing homeland security risks requires an understanding of which risks are more concerning than others. This paper applies a validated risk ranking methodology, the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks, to the homeland security domain. This method provides a structured approach to elicit risk rankings from participants based on deliberative consideration of science-based risk assessments. Steps in this effort include first identifying the set of attributes that must be covered when describing terrorism and disaster hazards in a comprehensive manner, then developing concise summaries of existing knowledge of a broad set of homeland security hazards. Using these materials, the study elicits relative concerns about the hazards that are being considered. The relative concerns about hazards provide a starting point for prioritizing solutions for reducing risks to homeland security. The consistency and agreement of the rankings, as well as the individual satisfaction with the process and results, suggest that the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks can be appropriately applied in the homeland security domain. The rankings themselves reflected greater concern over natural disasters than terrorist events. This research suggests that deliberative risk ranking methods could provide a valid and reliable description of individuals' concerns about homeland security risks to inform strategic planning.

show abstract

Section: The Deliberative Methods For Ranking Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defining Risks In Terms Of Hazardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Lundberg¹,

Willis

2016

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ReCiPe, Eco-indicator 99 [26], and LIME [27] are LCIA methodologies that provide endpoint characterization and include an additional step of grouping and weighting LCIA indicators into damage indicators and then a single score. Although such an approach may better facilitate comparisons, this process inevitably involves judgments that are subject to errors, bias, and misconceptions [10,[28][29][30][31].…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Product Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Metrics for Improving the Life Cycle Approach to Assessing Product System Sustainability

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life cycle approaches are critical for identifying and reducing environmental burdens of products. While these methods can indicate potential environmental impacts of a product, current Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods fail to integrate the multiple impacts of a system into unified measures of social, economic or environmental performance related to sustainability. Integrated metrics that combine multiple aspects of system performance based on a common scientific or economic principle have proven to be valuable for sustainability evaluation. In this work, we propose methods of adapting four integrated metrics for use with LCAs of product systems: ecological footprint, emergy, green net value added, and Fisher information. These metrics provide information on the full product system in land, energy, monetary equivalents, and as a unitless information index; each bundled with one or more indicators for reporting. When used together and for relative comparison, integrated metrics provide a broader coverage of sustainability aspects from multiple theoretical perspectives that is more likely to illuminate potential issues than individual impact indicators. These integrated metrics are recommended for use in combination with traditional indicators used in LCA. Future work will test and demonstrate the value of using these integrated metrics and combinations to assess product system sustainability.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, risk analysis becomes increasingly more complicated given the increased interconnectivity between heterogeneous critical infrastructures. In the vast majority of cases the number of such risks is large enough for the need for aggregation, filtering and ranking to arise (Berdica, 2002 andMorgan, 2000). (Haimes, 2004) proposed a Hierarchical Holographic Model (HHM) to account for the interdependencies of the highway transportation system: Emergency Response and Recovery (ERR), Intermodal, Physical, Economic, Functional, and Users, pertaining to industry sectors that depend on the transportation infrastructure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Risk Assessment Framework For Interconnected And Interdependent Surface Transport Networks

Leventakis¹,

Sfetsos²,

Moustakidis³

et al. 2013

OTMCJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The functioning and viability of modern societies is heavily depended upon the continuous and uninterruptible operation of critical infrastructures. Surface transportation systems are in the heart of the daily lives of millions of citizens globally. As such, they are open and freely accessible by design and in the past have been exploited for terrorism attacks. Like many critical infrastructures, different multimodal and heterogeneous transportation networks are interconnected as integral part of larger synergistic systems forming a "network of networks". These underlying and often concealed interconnections between network assets enable adverse effects to manifest at assets that are initially unaffected by a security incident. The present paper introduces a holistic Risk Assessment Framework for heterogeneous, transportation networks that is applicable at a strategic level, where risk is propagated between interconnected networks through an "Incident Propagation Matrix" taking into account the nature of the interconnection and the type of threat. The proposed methodology views and models the risk analysis process from the perspective of the network operator and emergency responders and emphasizes the reduction of the impacts on business continuity. g . l e v e n t a k i s · a . s f e t s o s · n . m o u s t a k i d i s · n . n i k i t a k o s · a r i s k a s s e s s m e n t f r a m e w o r k f o r i n t e r c o n n e c t e d a n d . . . · pp 811 -819 o r g a n i z a t i o n , t e c h n o l o g y a n d m a n a g e m e n t i n c o n s t r u c t i o n · a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l · 6(2)2013 812

show abstract

Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking

Cited by 142 publications

References 12 publications

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Integrated Metrics for Improving the Life Cycle Approach to Assessing Product System Sustainability

A Risk Assessment Framework For Interconnected And Interdependent Surface Transport Networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About