Original Articles

Acceptable Risk and Disaster Research

  • 1. School of Geographic Sciences and Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China;
    2. School of Geography and Tourism, Jiaying University, Meizhou 514105, Guangdong, China;
    3. Natural Disaster Research Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Online published: 2010-01-25


The purpose of disaster risk assessment is to assess “how safe is safe enough?” Acceptable risk is the common method to answer the question which is defined as the level of potential losses that people considers acceptable given existing social, economic, political and environmental conditions. Many countries and regions had a number of explorations on life acceptable risk, but only a few of them were about disaster acceptable risk, and they focused on three types of disaster of landslide, earthquake and flood. According to the risk or its consequence, many countries established quantitative criteria of acceptable risk and most of them were similar. At present the methodology of acceptable risk included risk matrix, cost-benefit analysis, life quality index and FN curves. Risk matrix was based on qualitative analysis and commonly used in the countries lack of data and technology. The three others were based on quantitative analysis, of which cost-benefit analysis was the most commonly used as early as 1969. Life quality index sovled the economical value of life by the combination of GDP, life expectancy and the ratio of work and leisure. And the advantage of FN curves was its expression of graph, howerver its disadvantage was how to calculate the frequency. Now the challenges are uncertainty evaluation, probability assignment, rational value of life, distinction between objective and subjective value and environmental damage. On the basis of a summary of acceptable risk researches home and abroad, this paper prospects that the basic problem of disaster acceptable risk are theory, criteria and methodology of acceptable risk. By three different expressions of life risk, economical risk and environmental risk, this paper proposes that it is necessary to establish the principles and criteria of acceptable risk conformed to our national conditions, and promotes the integrated study on acceptable risk, so as to provide scientific bases for disaster control and risk management.

Cite this article

SHANG Zhihai1,2, LIU Xilin1,3 . Acceptable Risk and Disaster Research[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2010 , 29(1) : 23 -30 . DOI: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.01.004


[1]   Huang Chongfu, Liu Xilin. Thoery and Practice of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response. Paris: Atlantis Press, 2008: 1-896.
[2]   赵庆良, 许世远, 王军, 等. 沿海城市风暴潮灾害风险评估研究进展. 地理科学进展, 2007, 26(5): 32-40.
[3]   汪敏, 刘东燕. 滑坡灾害风险分析研究. 工程勘察, 2001(2): 1-6.
[4]   Starr C. Social Benefit versus Technological Risk. Science, 1969, 165(3899): 1232-1238.
[5]   Kelly K A, Cardon N C. The myth of 10-6 as a definition of acceptable risk. EPA Watch, 1994, 17(3): 4-8.
[6]   HSE. Reducing Risks: Protecting People - HSE's decision making process. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001, 21-52.
[7]   Fewtrell L, Bartram J. Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health. London: IWA Publishing, 2001,207-227.
[8]   Bottelberghs P H. Risk analysis and safety policy developments in the Netherlands. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000, 71(1-3): 59-84.
[9]   Ale B J M. Tolerable or acceptable: A comparison of risk regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 2005, 25(2): 231-241.
[10] ANCOLD. Guidelines on Risk Assessment. Tatura: Australian National Committee on Large Dams, 2003,24-30.
[11] ERM-Hong Kong. Landslides and Boulder Falls from Natural Terrain: Interim Risk Guidelines. Hong Kong: Geotechnical Engineering Office, 1998,1-15.
[12] 岑慧贤, 房怀阳, 吴群河. 可接受风险的界定方法探讨. 重庆环境科学, 2000, 22(3): 18-19.
[13] 时振刚, 张作义, 薛澜. 核能风险接受性研究. 核科学与工程, 2002, 22(3): 193-198.
[14] 李典庆, 唐文勇, 张圣坤. 海洋工程风险接受准则研究进展. 海洋工程, 2003, 21(2): 96-102.
[15] 肖义, 郭生练, 熊立华, 等. 大坝安全评价的可接受风险研究与评述. 安全与环境学报, 2005, 5(3): 90-94.
[16] 肖义, 郭生练, 刘攀, 等. 大坝防洪安全风险评估框架及其应用. 武汉大学学报(工学版), 2006, 39(4): 18-24.
[17] 胡群芳, 黄宏伟. 隧道及地下工程风险接受准则计算模型研究. 地下空间与工程学报, 2006, 2(1): 60-64.
[18] 郭章林, 贾增科, 李晓慧. 建筑工程施工风险接受准则研究. 西安建筑科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 40(1): 76-79.
[19] 赵忠刚, 姚安林, 赵学芬. 油气管道可接受性风险评估的研究进展. 石油工业技术监督, 2005,(5): 94-98.
[20] 赵忠刚, 姚安林, 李又绿, 等. 油气管道可接受风险标准值的界定研究. 西南石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 30(2): 147-150.
[21] 秦岭, 陈利琼, 陈康. 油气管道风险接受准则. 天然气与石油, 2007, 25(2): 15-17.
[22] 刘莉, 谢礼立, 葛红. 城市防震减灾能力评价中的可接受风险研究. 世界地震工程, 2009, 25(1): 82-87.
[23] Lowrance. Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1976, 1-174.
[24] Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, et al. Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1-171.
[25] Marszal E M. Tolerable risk guidelines. Isa Transactions, 2001, 40(4): 391-399.
[26] Fell R. Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1994, 31(2): 261-272.
[27] Dai F C, Lee C F, Ngai Y Y. Landslide risk assessment and management: An overview. Engineering Geology, 2002, 64(1): 65-87.
[28] Aleotti P, Chowdhury R. Landslide hazard assessment: Summary review and new perspectives. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 1999, 58(1): 21-44.
[29] Fell R, Cororninas J, Bonnard C, et al. Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk-zoning for land use planning. Engineering Geology, 2008, 102(3/4): 85-98.
[30] United Nations. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction[R/OL]. (2009-01-01)[2009-6-1]. http://www.unisdr.org/publications.
[31] Bolt B A. Balance of risks and benefits in preparation of earthquakes. Science, 1991, 251(4990): 169-174.
[32] Werner S D, Dickenson S E , Taylor C E. Seismic risk reduction at ports : Case studies and acceptable risk evaluation. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 1997, 123(6): 337-346.
[33] Jonkman S N, van Gelder P H A J M, Vrijling J K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 99(1): 1-30.
[34] Jonkman S N, Kok M, Vrijling J K. Flood risk assessment in the Netherlands: A case study for dike ring South Holland. Risk Analysis, 2008, 28(5): 1357-1373.
[35] 姜树海, 范子武. 大坝的允许风险及其运用研究. 水利水运工程学报, 2003, 24(3): 7-12.
[36] AGS. Landslide risk management concepts and guidelines. Australian Geomechanics, 2000, 35(1): 1-214.
[37] AGS. Practice note guidelines for landslide risk management 2007. Australian Geomechanics, 2007, 42(1): 64-114.
[38] Okrent D. Comment on societal risk. Science, 1980, 208(4442): 372-375.
[39] Evans A W, Verlander N Q. What is wrong with criterion FN-lines for judging the tolerability of risk? Risk Analysis, 1997, 17(2): 157-168.
[40] Starr C, Whipple C. Risks of risk decisions. Science, 1980, 208(4448): 1114-1119.
[41] Reid S G. Acceptable risk criteria. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 2000, 2(2): 254-262.
[42] Rackwitz R. Optimization and risk acceptability based on the Life Quality Index. Structural Safety, 2002, 24(2-4): 297-331.
[43] Nathwani J S, Lind N C, Pandey M D. Affordable Safety by Choice: The life Quality Method. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo, 1997, 8-12.
[44] Nathwani J S, Lind N C, Pandey M D. The LQI standard of practice: Optimizing engineered safety with the Life Quality Index. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2008, 4(5): 327-334.
[45] Pandey M D, Nathwani J S. Canada wide standard for particulate matter and ozone: Cost-benefit analysis using a life quality index. Risk Analysis, 2003, 23(1): 55-67.
[46] Sanchez-Silva M, Rackwitz R. Socioeconomic implications of life quality index in design of optimum structures to withstand earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004, 130(6): 969-977.
[47] Rackwitz R. Optimal and acceptable technical facilities involving risks. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(3): 675-695.
[48] Farmer F R. Siting criteria-a new approach. Atom, 1967, 128: 152-166.
[49] HSE. Transport Fatal Accidents and FN-curves: 1967-2001. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2003: 3-4.
[50] Vrijling J K, van Hengel W, Houben R J. A framework for risk evaluation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1995, 43(3): 245-261.
[51] Gloant S, Burton I. A semantic differential experiment in interpretation and grouping of environmental hazards. Geographical Analysis, 1970, 18(2): 120-134.