Risk description

The next step in this framework is the risk description. The two aspects of this segment include an ecological risk summary and the interpretation of ecological significance. Although this division is somewhat artificial, it can be paraphrased as (1) what are the potential effects and do I believe them, and (2) how big a problem is this really going to be  

The ecological risk summary itemizes the risk estimation results and the uncertainties. The crucial aspect to this section is the decision-making regarding the accuracy of the risk estimation. These decisions revolve around three general aspects of the analysis  

Sufficiency of the data relates to the quality of the data and its completeness. Much of the discussion revolves around the quality and appropriateness of the research conducted or cited in the formation of the risk assessment. 

Corroborative information is data derived from similar studies with similar stressors that tend to support the conclusions of the risk assessment. Science is inherently conservative, and the similarity in data and conclusions of related studies enhances the credibility of the current risk assessment. However, similarity to previous conclusions or ecological theory does not mean that the current study is flawed it may mean that the previous work is not as similar as originally thought or that the overall paradigm is incorrect. 

Evidence of causality is perhaps the most concrete and also the most elusive aspect of the data assessment process. At the single organism or species level, it is often possible to assign specific mechanistic connections for mortality or other impact. Unfortunately, it is not clearly understood how prevalent and pervasive these impacts are at the community level. Correlational data may be all that are available for impacts at the level of interspecies interactions. Correlations are difficult to assess because correlation does not denote cause and effect. In a system as complex as an ecosystem, multiple correlations due to chance may occur. It may also be difficult to separate cause and effect without firmly established criteria. 

---

After risks have been estimated, available information must be integrated and interpreted to form conclusions about risks to the assessment endpoints. Risk descriptions include an evaluation of the lines of evidence supporting or refuting the risk estimate(s) and an interpretation of the adverse effects on the assessment end point. Confidence in the conclusions of a risk assessment may be increased by using several lines of evidence to interpret and compare risk estimates. These lines of evidence may be derived from different sources or by different techniques relevant to adverse effects on the assessment end points, such as quotient estimates, modeling results, field experiments,... 

At this stage, risk descriptions will usually be defined in relatively general statements. The project plan for the next phase (in this case, the EvP stage) must include detailed milestones including the expected completion of the EvP stage. 

Risk characterization. This compartment is comprised of the risk estimation and risk description boxes. The integration of the exposure and effects data from the analysis compartment is reconciled in the risk estimation process. 

Risk description has two primary elements. The first is the ecological risk summary, which summarizes the results of the risk estimation and uncertainty analysis and assesses confidence in the risk estimates through a discussion of the weight of evidence. The second element is interpretation of ecological significance, which describes the magnitude of the identified risks to the assessment endpoint. 

A discussion of the recovery potential may be an integral part of risk description, although the need for such an evaluation will depend on the objective of the assessment and the assessment endpoints. An evaluation of the recovery potential may require additional analyses, as discussed in Section 3.1, and will depend on the nature, duration, and extent of the stressor. 

Risk characterization concludes with a risk description that ... 

Risk descriptive statement Storage color code Handling advice... 

VII. Basel II Most focus on VaR, which is a quantile in the loss distribution, i.e. the risk description is a special case of (P,C). 

We see that risk is defined and described in different ways. The distinction between the risk concept as such and the risk description is often unclear. 

Risk Description [fa Result is validated (approved) when it is not completed Kish inay result in a wrong result and a wrong diagnosis. Kore... 

Unknown unknown - strictly unknown to all (at least in the scientific community). This means an actual event A that was not captured by the list A in the risk description. 

The risk analysts will then perform the analysis, and return a risk description. The risk description covers requested information and knowledge in relation to the risk, assessed through the eyes of the risk analyst and experts. 

Eventually the risk analyst hands over the risk description of the aspects and alternatives requested. At this point, there is a very important question that needs to be reflected upon by the manager, preferably even before reading the report. Should the risk description be indiscrirninately accepted and assimilated as the manager s own Informal arguments in favor could be that risk analysts are professional experts paid to do the job and it could be difficult to challenge that from a manager s ignorant position. 

A related topic is also that the risk analysts themselves might be biased . For instance, could the risk analysts have personal interests for a decision to enter In Amenas, or a particular security technology This issue is often seen in political decisions. Administrative staff performs the analysis, prepares the case and advises the elected officials on a decision. Of course the administrators try to be objective in their assessment, but they too have political or financial interests of their own which may influence the analysis and advice. The manager must also take similar concerns into account when presented with a risk description, as such biases could lead to unpleasant surprises. 

Also relevant is the fact that the risk analysis with its qualitative flaws and weaknesses is only one contribution of many. The risk description is limited and targets only some aspects and events. In this case only finance and security risk is considered. What about technical challenges Or third party risk Or the environment The manager also has to bring these elements to the table. 

A decision is risk informed, not risk based (Apostolakis 2004). The risk description will only target some aspects and events, and has weaknesses and limitations both in its quality and scope. 

In the end, the foundation for the decision will constitute the risk description covering elements of risk, knowledge, uncertainty and black swans placed in a greater context which takes into account 1) limitations and weaknesses of the risk description, and 2) other concerns and inputs (analysis). Now, judging how to give weight to all of these elements and inputs, and use them in order to reach a choice—a decision—is the job of the manager. 

At the point when the risk description is judged eligible to be input to the decision, and all elements are on the table, the next role of the manager begins to give weight to consequences and surprises, uncertainties and knowledge in balance and synthesis with other concerns. Many principles are applicable to that end. 

Risk description the semi-quantitative risk estimation is a crucial element to reach the goals of the method. In such an estimation method, verbal statements are used to describe the risk factors. According to these verbal statements, a value on a numerical scale is assigned for each... 

Kaplan (1997) proposes the so-called probability of frequency approach to risk assessment, based on a risk concept in line with risk definition C6 (R = P C), where subjective probabilities are used to express uncertainty about true frequen-tist probabilities. The assessment thus focuses on quantifying uncertainty about an underlying true risk, which is estimated. Kaplan s view is strongly tied to realism, as the risk description focuses on a true risk as determined by experts. Closely related perspectives are those where uncertainty is quantified around a true risk, such as in the traditional Bayesian perspective where uncertainty is quantified in relation to model parameters (Aven Heide 2009). Such uncertainty quantification can also be done using non-probabilistic representations of epistemic uncertainty (Helton Johnson 2011). These methods typicdly consider a risk problem in a highly mathematized form. 

Bayesian approach and one applying Dempster-Shafer evidence theory to quantify uncertainty about model parameters. The precautionary view is only found once, in the early 2000s, and hence represents somewhat of an outlier view in the application area. There is relatively more work in line with the scientific proceduralism view on risk assessment, from the late 1990s onwards. The argument view, where expert judgment is taken as a core element of the risk description, represents a minority of the perspectives on risk assessment. 

In the field of maritime transportation, risk assessment is overall very strongly tied to probabilities, both in relation to the adopted definition as in the applied risk description. This may be at least in part due to the definition in the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), as the combination of the frequency and the severity of the consequence (IMO 2007). 

In this paper we introduce a method for detecting and classifying the ship-ship encounters, using AIS data, and experts judgments. Subsequently the method is adopted to develop a risk model, which quantifies the risk level over a sea area in tempo-spatial manner, associating the magnitude of Risk Indicator with the level of complexity of an encounter. The model attempts to convert available data into information first, and then information to understanding. Data serves here as the input to the risk assessment model, information contains the risk description, which is based on the data. 

We take the risk description suggested by Flage and Aven (2009) as a starting point, and write (where the symbol means is described by ) ... 

Aven (2010) argues that such uncertainties should be made explicit, from which he arrives at a risk description ... 

In addition to the qualitative uncertainty assessment, the risk description by Flage and Aven (2009) also considers sensitivity S, which relates to the change in the relevant calculated risk measures conditional to changes in the uncertain quantities. This leads to a risk description ... 

Our recommended risk description can be schematically summarized as follows ... 

---