246
15 Risk-Informed Decision Making
As can be inferred from the discussion above, no dam failure in this portfolio
could be called unforeseeable, with an exception made for some extreme evaluations
of Dams 1A and 1B. As stated in Sect. 7.3, we shall not call unforeseeable what is
indeed foreseeable.
The dams of the portfolio are all in the Cassandra category, except for Dam 3
which we would categorize as Pythias (Sect. 7.4). Perhaps Dams 1A and 1B could
be considered Sword of Damocles by some readers, although the shallow depth of
their geotechnical investigations tells us the contrary. Finally Dam 4, a catastrophe
waiting to happen, could also be classed as a Medusa.
15.6 Consequences
Going back in time, in Oboni et al. (2013) we stated that: “Especially for very
large projects, risk assessments generally consider too simplistic consequences and
ignore “indirect/life-changing” effects on population and other social aspects” that
inevitably will hinder SLO/CSR. Using conceptually sound risk assessment methodologies makes it possible to consider the significant uncertainties that surrounds the
driving parameters and related consequences. Among these (see Sect. 12.1):
• human H&S (health and safety);
• fish, fauna and top-soil/vegetation consequences;
• long term economic and development consequences, and social impacts.
Similarly, other recommended consequence models should include (see Sects. 7.4
and 7.6):
• extent of damage as expressed in casualties, business interruption, etc. possibly
merged into one metric, with the inevitable uncertainties;
• geographic dispersion of damage;
• duration of the damage;
• reversibility of the damage (or perpetual losses?);
• latency between an accident and the occurrence of its damages;
• social impacts (inequity/injustice, psychological stress and discomfort, conflicts
and mobilization, spillover effects) (see Sect. 5.5).
The Mackenzie Valley Review Board (MVRB 2013: Appendix D, see Sect. 5.2)
defined what a modern risk assessment should include, based on the results of public
hearings. Thus it becomes clear that partial components of the consequences such as:
• biological impacts and land use
• regulatory impacts and censure
• public concern and image
• health and safety (H&S)
• direct and indirect costs
have to be included.
15 Risk-Informed Decision Making
As can be inferred from the discussion above, no dam failure in this portfolio
could be called unforeseeable, with an exception made for some extreme evaluations
of Dams 1A and 1B. As stated in Sect. 7.3, we shall not call unforeseeable what is
indeed foreseeable.
The dams of the portfolio are all in the Cassandra category, except for Dam 3
which we would categorize as Pythias (Sect. 7.4). Perhaps Dams 1A and 1B could
be considered Sword of Damocles by some readers, although the shallow depth of
their geotechnical investigations tells us the contrary. Finally Dam 4, a catastrophe
waiting to happen, could also be classed as a Medusa.
15.6 Consequences
Going back in time, in Oboni et al. (2013) we stated that: “Especially for very
large projects, risk assessments generally consider too simplistic consequences and
ignore “indirect/life-changing” effects on population and other social aspects” that
inevitably will hinder SLO/CSR. Using conceptually sound risk assessment methodologies makes it possible to consider the significant uncertainties that surrounds the
driving parameters and related consequences. Among these (see Sect. 12.1):
• human H&S (health and safety);
• fish, fauna and top-soil/vegetation consequences;
• long term economic and development consequences, and social impacts.
Similarly, other recommended consequence models should include (see Sects. 7.4
and 7.6):
• extent of damage as expressed in casualties, business interruption, etc. possibly
merged into one metric, with the inevitable uncertainties;
• geographic dispersion of damage;
• duration of the damage;
• reversibility of the damage (or perpetual losses?);
• latency between an accident and the occurrence of its damages;
• social impacts (inequity/injustice, psychological stress and discomfort, conflicts
and mobilization, spillover effects) (see Sect. 5.5).
The Mackenzie Valley Review Board (MVRB 2013: Appendix D, see Sect. 5.2)
defined what a modern risk assessment should include, based on the results of public
hearings. Thus it becomes clear that partial components of the consequences such as:
• biological impacts and land use
• regulatory impacts and censure
• public concern and image
• health and safety (H&S)
• direct and indirect costs
have to be included.