Both because of the shortcomings of existing risk assessment methodologies, as well as newly available tools to predict hazard and risk with machine learning approaches, there has been an emerging emphasis on probabilistic risk assessment. Increasingly sophisticated AI models can be applied to a plethora of exposure and hazard data to obtain not only predictions for particular endpoints but also to estimate the uncertainty of the risk assessment outcome. This provides the basis for a shift from deterministic to more probabilistic approaches but comes at the cost of an increased complexity of the process as it requires more resources and human expertise. There are still challenges to overcome before a probabilistic paradigm is fully embraced by regulators. Based on an earlier white paper (Maertens et al., 2022), a workshop discussed the prospects, challenges and path forward for implementing such AI-based probabilistic hazard assessment. Moving forward, we will see the transition from categorized into probabilistic and dose-dependent hazard outcomes, the application of internal thresholds of toxicological concern for data-poor substances, the acknowledgement of user-friendly open-source software, a rise in the expertise of toxicologists required to understand and interpret artificial intelligence models, and the honest communication of uncertainty in risk assessment to the public.
Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around USD 260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy communities recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and we specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and we identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, there are a number of global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards that have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whereas fewer exist in the peer-reviewed literature for global studies related to geological hazards. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to encourage further dialogue on knowledge sharing between disciplines and communities working on different hazards and risk and at different spatial scales.
Risk matrices have been widely used in the industry under the notion that risk is a product of likelihood by severity of the hazard or safety case under consideration. When reliable raw data are not available to feed mathematical models, experts are asked to state their estimations. This paper presents two studies conducted in a large European airline and partially regarded the weighting of 14 experienced pilots’ judgment though software, and the calculation of agreement amongst 10 accident investigators when asked to assess the worst outcome, most credible outcome and risk level for 12 real events. According to the results, only 4 out of the 14 pilots could be reliably used as experts, and low to moderate agreement amongst the accident investigators was observed.
