University of Stavanger, Ullandhaug Stavanger 4036, Norway.
Risk Anal. 2011 Apr;31(4):515-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01528.x. Epub 2010 Nov 15.
Recently, considerable attention has been paid to a systems-based approach to risk, vulnerability, and resilience analysis. It is argued that risk, vulnerability, and resilience are inherently and fundamentally functions of the states of the system and its environment. Vulnerability is defined as the manifestation of the inherent states of the system that can be subjected to a natural hazard or be exploited to adversely affect that system, whereas resilience is defined as the ability of the system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable degradation parameters and to recover within an acceptable time, and composite costs, and risks. Risk, on the other hand, is probability based, defined by the probability and severity of adverse effects (i.e., the consequences). In this article, we look more closely into this approach. It is observed that the key concepts are inconsistent in the sense that the uncertainty (probability) dimension is included for the risk definition but not for vulnerability and resilience. In the article, we question the rationale for this inconsistency. The suggested approach is compared with an alternative framework that provides a logically defined structure for risk, vulnerability, and resilience, where all three concepts are incorporating the uncertainty (probability) dimension.
最近，人们对基于系统的风险、脆弱性和弹性分析方法给予了相当多的关注。有人认为，风险、脆弱性和弹性本质上和根本上是系统及其环境状态的功能。脆弱性被定义为系统固有状态的表现，这些状态可能会受到自然灾害的影响，或者被利用来对系统产生不利影响，而弹性则被定义为系统在可接受的降解参数范围内承受重大破坏并在可接受的时间内恢复以及复合成本和风险的能力。另一方面，风险是基于概率的，由不利影响（即后果）的概率和严重程度来定义。在本文中，我们更仔细地研究了这种方法。可以观察到，关键概念在不一致的意义上，即风险定义中包含不确定性（概率）维度，但脆弱性和弹性定义中不包含。在本文中，我们质疑这种不一致的理由。所建议的方法与另一种框架进行了比较，该框架为风险、脆弱性和弹性提供了一个逻辑定义的结构，其中所有三个概念都包含不确定性（概率）维度。
