- LATEST BLOG POST
- echo $post_date ?>
- How to bounce back from the Responsible Mining Foundation grim report with sustainable actions is a response to their statement:…
- Read More
Lately we have been busy working on a mining related comprehensive risk assessment. Integrating traditional knowledge in risk assessments proved to be a significant skill as public records and other usually available data were almost non-existent.
We use the adjective “comprehensive” for risk assessments covering multi hazards (earthquake, flood, man-made, etc…). The term also covers assessments with a variety of targets such as population, environment, as well as supply chain network elements.
When performing a comprehensive risk assessment it is fairly common to have various information sources for data:
They all come with their own level of credibility/uncertainty.
In the case cited above, for example, the geologist in charge of the project assessed potential for rockfalls impinging on the access road. Then he characterized each source with a with likelihood-magnitude relationship.
We also conducted interviews with the local population who had extensive life-experience with the specific locations. They provided us with anecdotal descriptions associated with magnitudes.
Of course, delivering likelihood estimates is a daunting task for an untrained individual. So we spent lots of effort to encode these anecdotes into a likelihood-magnitude witness-based (empirical) relationship. The similarity with integrating big data and thick data to deliver a “complete view” of local realities or processes is striking. As a matter of fact one source could be extremely scientific and claim (rightly so or not…) precision based on observation. However the same source may be missing the more complex story transmitted generation after generation by local inhabitants.
So, the questions is: how do we beneficially integrate all available information in a coherent unified way to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment? Is Integrating traditional knowledge in risk assessments truly beneficial?
As we are working probabilistically the approach to integration is to assign a “degree of credibility” to the variables of any problem. In the example above, for example, the likelihood of a rockfall and its magnitude. The “degree of credibility” increases (or decreases) the uncertainty range of the variable. It is a sort of “a priori Bayesian estimate” which is based on empirical distributions of the variables. We never assume a specific distribution type (Gauss, log-normal, etc.). Indeed assuming a distribution can be in itself a hazardous assumption.
In our practice we see many problems that would require probabilistic treatment actually being dealt deterministically. That’s because people feel probabilities are “too mathematical” and data are “too imprecise” to start with. That’s where huge mistakes occur. Probabilities allow us to consider the various sources of uncertainty and evaluate their impact on the big picture. Thus we are of the opinion that even rudimentary probabilistic analysis is better than working deterministically. In fact, the inclusion of uncertainties is far superior to “artificial” parametric studies (like, for example, varying one or two parameters at a time, to see their influence on the overall results).
We have to avoid unreasonably precise probabilities at all cost. All parameters should be delivered with a range and an expression of uncertainty (various options are available).
We consider likelihoods lower than 10-6 per year preposterous as soon as any uncertainty is present. Uncertainty is always the present, in any industry, anywhere in the world. Thus many disciplines consider 10-6 to 10-5 as the limits of credibility.
By including uncertainties and Integrating traditional knowledge in risk assessments we dare say that we are generally right as opposed to precisely wrong. At Riskope we consider that as a major benefit, especially when dealing with the public.