Chapter 13
Tolerance and Acceptability
In this chapter we discuss risk tolerance and acceptability, how they used to be defined,
how they can be defined. Tolerance/acceptability thresholds have to be developed
independently from risks to ensure unbiased results.
What constitutes acceptable/tolerable risk depends on the perspectives (https://
www.riskope.com/2013/11/07/social-acceptability-criteria-winning-back-publictrust-require-drastic-overhaul-of-risk-assessments-common-practice/) of the organizations or persons involved. A family or community living in the dam breach
inundation zone will have different perspectives than the mining companies whose
executives have been told that their designs and risk management practices have
been based on best practices. The level of risk deemed acceptable to a corporation
is not necessarily what may be considered acceptable to government or the public
the-twin-towers-911-terror-attack-deadly-traffic-accidents-and-aquila-earthquakeitaly-hurricanes-have-in-common/), even if it is based on a collaborative engagement
process. The tolerance and acceptability thresholds are set by society: government,
authorities, regulators, or others who are directly concerned (Darbre 1998). The
acceptability of risk also has to consider closure implications as well the broad
benefits to society that flow from economic development. The level of protection
(mitigation) to be applied to any system is therefore a function of the comparison
between the various risk scenarios and the risk acceptability/tolerance threshold.
Two thresholds should be derived: an acceptability threshold and a tolerance threshold.
The acceptability threshold denotes a rejectable quality and is always lower than the
tolerance threshold, which is an upper boundary of permissible deviation (Kalinina
et al. 2016). These threshold can be set either in the form of constant values or curves.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
F. Oboni and C. Oboni, Tailings Dam Management for the Twenty-First Century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19447-5_13
185
Tolerance and Acceptability
In this chapter we discuss risk tolerance and acceptability, how they used to be defined,
how they can be defined. Tolerance/acceptability thresholds have to be developed
independently from risks to ensure unbiased results.
What constitutes acceptable/tolerable risk depends on the perspectives (https://
www.riskope.com/2013/11/07/social-acceptability-criteria-winning-back-publictrust-require-drastic-overhaul-of-risk-assessments-common-practice/) of the organizations or persons involved. A family or community living in the dam breach
inundation zone will have different perspectives than the mining companies whose
executives have been told that their designs and risk management practices have
been based on best practices. The level of risk deemed acceptable to a corporation
is not necessarily what may be considered acceptable to government or the public
the-twin-towers-911-terror-attack-deadly-traffic-accidents-and-aquila-earthquakeitaly-hurricanes-have-in-common/), even if it is based on a collaborative engagement
process. The tolerance and acceptability thresholds are set by society: government,
authorities, regulators, or others who are directly concerned (Darbre 1998). The
acceptability of risk also has to consider closure implications as well the broad
benefits to society that flow from economic development. The level of protection
(mitigation) to be applied to any system is therefore a function of the comparison
between the various risk scenarios and the risk acceptability/tolerance threshold.
Two thresholds should be derived: an acceptability threshold and a tolerance threshold.
The acceptability threshold denotes a rejectable quality and is always lower than the
tolerance threshold, which is an upper boundary of permissible deviation (Kalinina
et al. 2016). These threshold can be set either in the form of constant values or curves.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
F. Oboni and C. Oboni, Tailings Dam Management for the Twenty-First Century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19447-5_13
185