Abstract
In response to rapidly changing threats posed to increasingly complex socio-technical systems, many in the government and private sector have called for protection through risk-based standards. However, given the nature of these dynamic and uncertain threats, traditional risk assessment techniques may not be sufficient. Instead, there is a critical need for an integrated approach in which decision analytic techniques are used to assess evidence-based data with the values and preferences of decision makers. We point to three examples in the fields of nuclear power regulation, nanotechnology, and cybersecurity, where risk-based approaches (bottom–up) have been combined with decision analysis (top–down) to guide decision makers toward risk management policies that manifest both the best available evidence and the plurality of values within a society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aebi U, Anklam E, Baun A, Donaldson K, Fadeel B, Fears R, Gehr P, Kreyling W, Krug H, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Monard D, Riediker M, Stamm H (2011) Joint JRC-EASAC Report impact of engineered nanomaterials on health: considerations for benefit-risk assessment. EUR 24847 EN
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 Anal 29(4):587–600
Executive Order 13636—Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (2013) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf
Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–17
Linkov I, Moberg E (2012) Multi-criteria decision analysis: environmental applications and case studies. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Linkov I, Bates ME, Canis LJ, Seager TP, Keisler JM (2011) A decision-directed approach for prioritizing research into the impact of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. Nat Nanotechnol 6:784–787
Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Convertino M, Linkov I (2012) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal 33(3):356–367
Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London
U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2012) Guide for conducting risk assessments. NIST Special Publication, USA, pp 800–830
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2012) A proposed risk management regulator framework. NUREG-2150
Acknowledgments
This paper is prepared for the session organized by Drs. Linkov and Anklam at the 2014 AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. The authors are grateful to Commissioner Apostolakis (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and Dr. Ross (National Institute for Standards and Technology) for valuable discussions in developing the concept for the session and paper. Permission was granted by the USACE Chief of Engineers to publish this material. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and not those of the US Army or European Commission, or other sponsor organizations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Linkov, I., Anklam, E., Collier, Z.A. et al. Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches. Environ Syst Decis 34, 134–137 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3