22.04.2014 Views

Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting <strong>Abstracts</strong><br />

M2-J.3 Jones, SM*; Smith, DW; Conestoga-Rovers &<br />

Associates; sjones@craworld.com<br />

Ecological <strong>Risk</strong> and Hydraulic Fracturing: Perception,<br />

Assessment, and Reality<br />

The environmental impacts and risks of hydraulic fracturing<br />

(fracking) to human and ecological receptors are highly<br />

controversial. Opponents of fracking contend that chemicals in<br />

fracking fluids, as well as the fracking process itself, impact<br />

groundwater supplies, surface waters, and other human and<br />

natural resources. In an ef<strong>for</strong>t to evaluate the risks associated<br />

with fracking, federal and state agencies, industry, academic<br />

institutions, environmental groups, and Hollywood have<br />

produced a number of impact statements, analyses, and<br />

position papers. One notable example is the Draft Supplemental<br />

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) prepared<br />

by the New York State Department of Environmental<br />

Conservation. Instead of settling the issues and calming the<br />

storm, these reviews are, un<strong>for</strong>tunately, often derided <strong>for</strong><br />

alleged bias, misin<strong>for</strong>mation, and inadequate analysis. In this<br />

talk, we identify the key ecological issues associated with<br />

fracking, identify major impact assessments and analyses that<br />

have been conducted, and present, as best we can, an objective<br />

evaluation of the major points of contention, focusing on<br />

ecological receptors and natural resources.<br />

T1-C.2 Jongman, B*; Hochrainer-Stigler, S.; Rojas, R.; Feyen,<br />

L.; Bouwer, L.M.; Botzen, W.J.W.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Ward, P.J.;<br />

Institute <strong>for</strong> Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam;<br />

brenden.jongman@vu.nl<br />

Challenging disaster risk financing capacities:<br />

probabilistic flood risk assessment on pan-European scale<br />

Flooding of rivers is the most frequent and damaging natural<br />

hazard currently affecting European countries, causing annual<br />

losses of more than 9 billion USD. The upward trend in<br />

damages that is reported over the past three decades across<br />

the continent is expected to continue in the future, as a result<br />

of changes in flood hazard, and increases in exposure. Several<br />

mechanisms are in place to distribute and compensate flood<br />

losses on both country and European Union levels. These<br />

mechanisms can be divided into three main categories:<br />

insurance, national government funding and the EU-funded<br />

Solidarity Fund. The sustainability and viability of the risk<br />

financing sources is subject to changes in disaster risk, and in<br />

particular flood risk. To analyse the pressure on the financing<br />

mechanisms, a probabilistic approach is required that assesses<br />

changes in exceedance probabilities of high losses. In this<br />

paper we (1) present probabilistic trends and projections in<br />

flood losses <strong>for</strong> different parts of Europe using empirical loss<br />

data and high-detail risk modelling techniques; (2) analyse the<br />

public and private mechanisms in place <strong>for</strong> financing flood<br />

recovery and adaptation; (3) assess the expected required and<br />

available funds <strong>for</strong> the period 2010 – 2050; and (4) propose<br />

policy on flood risk financing going <strong>for</strong>ward. The results are<br />

important <strong>for</strong> researchers, policy makers and (re-) insurance<br />

firms that are concerned with natural disaster costs and<br />

financing mechanisms. The novel probabilistic methods can be<br />

relevant <strong>for</strong> scholars and analysts working on risk assessment<br />

across different regions.<br />

T4-H.2 Jose, VRR*; Zhuang, J; Georgetown University;<br />

vrj2@georgetown.edu<br />

Beyond <strong>Risk</strong>-Neutrality in Attacker-Defender Games:<br />

Expected Utility and Cumulative Prospect Theories<br />

Traditional models of attacker-defender games typically assume<br />

that players are risk-neutral. Behavioral research however has<br />

shown that individuals often violate risk-neutrality. In this talk,<br />

we consider how the use of alternative decision making<br />

frameworks, namely expected utility and prospect theories,<br />

affects the equilibrium behavior of players in attacker-defender<br />

games. We then demonstrate how certain results may no longer<br />

hold when risk-neutrality is dropped in favor of these theories.<br />

For example, we show that although the literature posits that<br />

the more risk-averse a defender is, the more likely she is to<br />

defend, and that the less risk-averse an attacker is, the more<br />

likely he is to attack, we find that this behavior may not always<br />

be true when other factors such as risk preferences and loss<br />

aversion are considered.<br />

T1-F.2 Jovanovic, A. S.; ZIRIUS, University of Stuttgart &<br />

EU-VRi, Stuttgart, Germany; jovanovic@risk-technologies.com<br />

Aligning approaches to management of emerging risks –<br />

the new European CEN CWA pre-standard<br />

The contribution highlights practical aspects of the<br />

development and practical application of the EU approach set<br />

up in the European pre-standard document issued by CEN<br />

(European Committee <strong>for</strong> Standardization) entitled “CWA 67 -<br />

General Framework and Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Early Recognition,<br />

Monitoring and Integrated Management of Emerging New<br />

Technology Related <strong>Risk</strong>s” (http://www.cen.eu/cen/<br />

Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/<br />

Workshops/Pages/WS67-Integ<strong>Risk</strong>s.aspx). The document is<br />

based on the results of the iNTeg-<strong>Risk</strong> project<br />

(www.integrisk.eu-vri.eu). Main goals of the<br />

pre-standardization action has been to provide a better basis<br />

<strong>for</strong> the consensus needed <strong>for</strong> acceptance of new technologies.<br />

This acceptance can be reached only if the stakeholders are<br />

convinced that possible or perceived emerging risks related to<br />

these technologies can be managed in a safe, responsible and<br />

transparent way. The role of the CEN documents is, hence, also<br />

the improving the management of emerging risks, primarily by<br />

proposing a procedure <strong>for</strong> early recognition and monitoring of<br />

emerging risks and decrease reaction times if major accidents<br />

involving emerging risks happen (improved resilience). The<br />

CWA consists of a general Guideline <strong>for</strong> the Emerging <strong>Risk</strong><br />

Management Framework (ERMF) supported by additional parts<br />

dealing with Emerging <strong>Risk</strong>s related in particular to (a) New<br />

Technologies, (b) New Materials and Products, (c) New<br />

Production and Production Networks, (d) Emerging <strong>Risk</strong>s<br />

Policies and (e) Uncertainties in testing procedures. The<br />

alignment of positions and development and approval of the<br />

CWA have involved European industry, research institutions<br />

and academia, as well as representatives of the European<br />

standardization bodies, under the leadership of the German<br />

national standardization body DIN. Liaison to ISO and the ISO<br />

31000 standard and the respective ISO Committee (TS 262)<br />

have been established. The CWA is not intended <strong>for</strong><br />

certification.<br />

December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!