How can the usefulness of capability assessments be improved?

Safety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems - Proceedings of the 25th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2015

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 3349-3356

  Lindbom, H ^a   Tehler, H ^a   Frykmer, T ^a   Uhr, C ^a,b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISASTERS; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; SPECIFIC TASKS; SWEDISHS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84959010769     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1201/b19094-441     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. Abt, E., Rodricks, J.V, Levy, J.I., Zeise, L., & Burke, T.A. 2010. Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 30(7): 1028-1036.
2. Arvai, J.L. 2007. Rethinking of risk communication: lessons from the decision sciences. Tree Genetics & Genomes, 3(2): 173-185.
3. Australian Capital Territory 2012. Emergencies Act 2004, republication no 20.
4. Aven, T., & Renn, O. 2009. The role of quantitative risk assessments for characterizing risk and uncertainty and delineating appropriate risk management options, with special emphasis on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 29(4): 587-600.
5. Bier, V. 2001a. On the state of the art: risk communication to decision-makers. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71(2): 151-157.
6. Bier, V. 2001b. On the state of the art: risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71(2): 139-150.
7. Bordens, K.S., & Abbott, B.B. 2010. Research design and methods: A process approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8. Cabinet Office 2014. Preparation and planning for emergencies: the national resilience capabilities programme-detailed guidance. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/capabilities-programme. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/capabilities-programme.
9. Comes, T., Wijngaards, N., & Schultmann, F. 2012. Efficient Scenario Updating in Emergency Management. In Leon Rothkrantz, Jozef Ristvej, Zeno Franco (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Iscram Conference, Vancouver, 22-25 April 2012. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University.
10. Cunningham, D.W., & Wallraven, C. 2011. Experimental Design: From User Studies to Psychophysics [E-book]. Hoboken: CRC Press.
11. Davis, P.K., & Kahan, J.P. 2006. Theory and methods for supporting high-level decision making. In Dawn Trevisani (ed.) Proc. SPIE 6227, Enabling Technologies for Simulation Science X, Kissimee, 17-18 April 2006.
12. Dieckmann, N.F., Mauro, R., & Slovic, P. 2010. The Effects of Presenting Imprecise Probabilities in Intelligence Forecasts. Risk Analysis, 30(6): 987-1001.
13. Dieckmann, N.F., Peters, E., Gregory, R., & Tusler, M. 2012. Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7): 717-735.
14. Dilla, W.N., & Stone, D.N. 1997. Representations as Decision Aids: The Asymmetric Effects of Words and Numbers on Auditors’ Inherent Risk Judgments. Decision Sciences, 28(3): 709-743.
15. Doyle, E.E.H., McClure, J., Johnston, D.M., & Paton, D. 2014. Communicating likelihoods and probabilities in forecasts of volcanic eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 272: 1-15.
16. Doyle, E.E.H., McClure, J., Paton, D., & Johnston, D.M. 2014. Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic crisis scenarios. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10: 75-101.
17. Dutch Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations 2009. Working with scenarios, risk assessment and capabilities in the National Safety and Security Strategy of the Netherlands.
18. Fischhoff, B. 1994. What forecasts (seem to) mean. International Journal of Forecasting, 10: 387-403.
19. FluidSurveys. 2015. Online Survey Software. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from http://fluidsurveys.com/.
20. Frank, M.V. 2002. Principles of risk communication: A brief primer from the experience of a risk practitioner. In Bruce Battrick (ed.) Proceedings of Joint ESA-NASA Space-Flight Safety Conference, Noordwijk, 11-14 June 2002. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division.
21. Fraser-Mackenzie, P., Sung, M.-C., & Johnson, J.E.V. 2014. Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk-Pricing Formats on Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 34(10): 1846-1869.
22. Harries, C. 2003. Correspondence to what? Coherence to what? What is good scenario-based decision making? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70: 797-817.
23. Homeland Security 2013. Capability Estimation. Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) XXX. Predecisional working draft. For review purposes only.
24. Houdijk, R. 2010. Regional risk assessment in The Netherlands-an introduction. The Hague.
25. Johansen, I.L., & Rausand, M. 2014. Foundations and choice of risk metrics. Safety Science, 62: 386-399.
26. Kristensen, V., Aven, T., & Ford, D. 2006. A new perspective on Renn and Klinke’s approach to risk evaluation and management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(4): 421-432.
27. Kühberger, A. 1995. The Framing of Decisions: A New Look at Old Problems. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 62(2): 230-240.
28. Lindbom, H., Tehler, H., Eriksson, K., & Aven, T. 2015. The capability concept-on how to define and describe capability in relation to risk, vulnerability and resilience. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 135: 45-54.
29. Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management n.d. National Capability Assessment. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/monitoring-and-evaluation/nationalcapability-assessments/.
30. Ohanian, E.V., Moore, J.A., Fowle III, J.R., Omenn, G.S., Lewis, S.C., Gray, G.M., & North, D.W. 1997. Risk characterization: A bridge to informed decision making. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 39(2): 81-88.
31. Palmqvist, H., Tehler, H., & Shoaib, W. 2014. How is capability assessment related to risk assessment? Evaluating existing research and current application from a design science perspective. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM), Honolulu, June 22-27 2014.
32. Programme National Security 2007. National security, strategy and work programme 2007-2008. Breda: Programme national security, Ministry of the interior and kingdom relations.
33. Rother, H.-A. 2014. Communicating pesticide neurotoxicity research findings and risks to decision-makers and the public. NeuroToxicology, 45: 327-337.
34. Scurich, N., & John, R.S. 2011. The effect of framing actuarial risk probabilities on involuntary civil commitment decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(2): 83-91.
35. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 2015. Map municipal fire and rescue services [Karta kommunal räddningstjänst]. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from http://skl.se/download/18.5b06742214b3091389c5a949/1425044506667/Kommunal-raddningstjanstkarta-2015.pdf.
36. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) (2014). National risk and capability assessment [Nationell risk-och förmågebedömning]. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from https://www.msb.se/sv/Forebyggande/Krisberedskap/Nationell-risk--ochformagebedomning/.
37. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157): 1124-1131.
38. Veland, H., & Aven, T. 2013. Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives. Reiliability Engineering & System Safety, 110: 34-40.
39. Williams, P.R.D., & Paustenbach, D.J. 2002. Risk characterization: principles and practice. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews, 5(4): 337-406.