How do we evaluate risk?
As stated earlier, risk evaluation is about comparing the risks against established evaluation criteria, prioritising those risk for further action and determining which risks are acceptable. We are making judgements about the relative seriousness of risks in order to determine which risks need to be treated ahead of others. So, having read this how do we actually evaluate the risks we have identified?
Firstly, if you cast your mind back to the first step in the emergency risk management process 'Establish the Context', you were asked to develop, in conjunction with your planning group and stakeholders, a set of criteria against which the risks can be evaluated. Therefore in this step of the process you should now compare that risk evaluation criteria against the risk statements and levels of risk that you developed earlier.
Read
Textbook: Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand (2004), AS/NZS 4360/2004 Risk management. Sydney . p.19
Read section '3.5 Evaluate risks' in the above publication to obtain an overview of the risk evaluation process.
The concept of prioritisation
Once risks have been compared against the risk evaluation criteria we can then prioritise the risks using a number of methods. Given that prioritisation essentially means 'ranking', we need to consider why it is necessary to rank risks; and how one can go about it. Ranking, or prioritisation is predicated on the use of chosen criteria. But which criteria? This section explores these issues.
Why prioritise risks?
In communities, industries and any activity there are limited resources and time for the management of hazards, risks and emergencies. Even with the greatest will in the world to protect people, property and the environment from all hazards, it is simply not possible given the constraints of real life. Therefore it is necessary to determine which risks should be addressed first or most urgently, and which risks may be addressed later or not at all.
The process of prioritising risks
The means for determining which risks to target for management is called ' risk prioritisation', or 'risk ranking'. There are a number of ways to prioritise risks, and a number of these will be discussed in this topic.
The first step is thus to involve the relevant people/ stakeholders.  The second step is to determine which criteria you wish to use to rank the hazards. The third step is to determine whether the risks are acceptable or not. |
1. Involve the relevant stakeholders
The key to any attempt at prioritising risks is to involve those who have a stake in the area being studied (community, industry or activity). This consultative process is necessary for the same reasons as in the other steps of the risk assesment process, as discussed earlier in Topic 2.-the commitment of those required to take action, and of those who may be affected by hazards and associated risks, is essential. Without this commitment, the best emergency management strategies based on the best of risk assessments will fail.
2. Determine the Criteria you will use to rank the hazards.
Criteria may include factors such as:
- the probability of an emergency;
- the level of vulnerability of people and/or property;
- the degree of manageability;
- whether the hazard threat may worsen, and how quickly if ignored;
- the perceived level of political, social and economic impact.
There are a number of methods that use such criteria, including the FEMA model, SMAUG prioritisation system and Foster's index . None of these methods are perfect for all applications, and it is suggested that at least two methods are used jointly.
In fact, you may find that in prioritising risks in your area there is no 'right' answer, and that there will be a number of risks that are considered to be more serious than others. You must remember that the risk assessment process discussed in this subject is qualitative , not quantitative , and that you may find it difficult trying to equate or compare the results of analyses of different hazards and their associated risks. This is to be expected, as different hazards may have very different effects, and it is not always possible to precisely compare hazards due to this fact.
In short, resources should be committed to those risks that the community considers to be most serious, using whatever criteria of 'seriousness' they determine are important. Therefore the risk prioritisation techniques should be used as a guide and modified to suit the requirements of your community, stakeholders and planning group.