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
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