Advertisement

Tolerance and Acceptability

  • Franco OboniEmail author
  • Cesar Oboni
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss risk tolerance and acceptability, how they used to be defined, how they can be defined. Tolerance/acceptability thresholds have to be developed independently from risks to ensure unbiased results.

References

  1. [AGSLT 2007] Australian Geomechanics Society Landslide Taskforce (2007) Practice Note Guidelines For Landslide Risk Management, Landslide Practice Note Working Group, Journal and News of the Australian Geomechanics SocietyGoogle Scholar
  2. [APEGBC 2014] APEGBC 2014. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (2014) Professional Practice Guidelines – Legislated. Dam Safety Reviews in BC V2.0. https://www.apeg.bc.ca/For-Members/Professional-Practice/Professional-Practice-Guidelines
  3. [ANCOLD 2003] Australian National Committee on Large Dams (2003) Guidelines on risk assessment. Sydney: ANCOLDGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohnenblust H, Schneider T (1987) Risk appraisal: Can it be improved by formal decision models? In: Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making, ed. VT Covello, et al., pp. 71–87, New York, Plenum PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comar C (1987) Risk: A pragmatic de minimis approach, in: De Minimis Risk, ed C. Whipple, pp. xiii–xiv, New York, Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Christou M, Struckl, M, Biermann, T (2006) Land use planning guidelines in the context of article 12 of the Seveso II Directive 96/82/EC as amended by Directive105/2003/EC. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. EUR 22634 EN FR DEGoogle Scholar
  7. Darbre G (1998) Dam risk analysis. Report, Federal Office for Water and Geology. Dam Safety, BienneGoogle Scholar
  8. [EDI 1989] Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern (1989) Verordnung über den Schutz vor Störfallen (Störfallverordnung, SFV), Entwurf, BernGoogle Scholar
  9. Farmer F (1967) Siting criteria – a new approach, in: Containment and siting of nuclear power plants, pp. 303–329, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)Google Scholar
  10. Geerts R, Heitinka J, Gooijerb L, van Vlietb A, Scheresa R, de Boerc D (2016) Societal Risk and Urban Land Use Planning: Creating Useful Pro-Active Risk Information. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 48, The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.aidic.it/cet
  11. Gordon K (1924) Group judgments in the field of lifted weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology 7: 398–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstätter P (1986) Gruppendynamik, Hamburg, RowohltGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (1994) Practice note for professional persons. ProPECC PN 2/94 https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/english/resources_pub/publications/files/pn94_2.pdf
  14. Jones-Lee MW (1989) The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk, Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalinina A, Spada M, Marelli S, Burgherr P, Sudret B (2016) Uncertainties in the risk assessment of hydropower dams state-of-the-art and outlook, Zurich, ETHZ https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/baug/ibk/risk-safety-and-uncertainty-dam/publications/reports/RSUQ-2016-008.pdf
  16. Kumamoto H, Henley EJ (2000) Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd ed. New York, Wiley-IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, E.M., Jones, D.K.C., Landslide Risk Assessment, Thomas Telford, 2004Google Scholar
  18. Marin A (1992) Costs and Benefits of Risk Reduction. Appendix in Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, Report of a Royal Society Study Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Mooney GM (1977) The Valuation of Human Life, Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [NSW 2011] NSW Government: Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No 4 Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning, January 2011. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Other/hazardous-industry-planning-advisory-paper-no-4-risk-criteria-for-land-use-safety-planning-2011-01.pdf?la=en
  21. Oboni F, Oboni C (2007) Improving Sustainability through Reasonable Risk and Crisis Management, ISBN 978-0-9784462-0-8Google Scholar
  22. Oboni C, Oboni F (2013) Factual and Foreseeable Reliability of Tailings Dams and Nuclear Reactors -a Societal Acceptability Perspective, Tailings and Mine Waste 2013, Banff, AB, November 6 to 9, 2013Google Scholar
  23. Pearce, DW, Cline WR, Achanta AN, Fankhauser S, Pachauri RK, Tol RSJ, Vellinga P (1996) The Social Costs of Climate Change: Greenhouse damage and the benefits of control, in: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson CR, Beach LR (1976) Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68: 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plattner T (2005) Modeling public risk evaluation of natural hazards: a conceptual Approach, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 5: 357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renshaw FM (1990) A Major Accident Prevention Program, Plant/Operations Progress 9(3): 194–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whitman RV (1984) Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical engineering. J. Geot. Engineering 110(2): 145–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilde GJS. (2001) Target risk 2, Toronto, PDE PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson R (1984) Commentary: Risks and their acceptability, Science, Technology, and Hitman Values 9(2): 11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson AC, Crouch E (1982) Risk/Benefit Analysis, Cambridge MA, Ballinger Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oboni Riskope Associates Inc.RiskopeVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations