**6. Conclusions**

*Risk Management and Assessment*

of objectives to be fulfilled. Experience tells us that these conditions, these expectations, are not always fulfilled. Events, predictable or not, can occur in the more or less near future and cause deviations to what was expected with the consequences (positive or negative). According to this conceptual framework, the aforementioned ISO standard defines risk as the effect of uncertainty on objectives. This definition alerts us, in an elegant way, to the need to identify the objectives intended to achieve (e.g., the preservation of human life) the uncertainties to consider

Risk management does not predict the future that will occur, but several possible or plausible future scenarios are considered and the respective probabilities of occurrence and the potential consequences, tangible or non-tangible, are evaluated. The risk management process comprises a set of procedures and components and a relatively

(epistemic and random) and the likely effects or consequences.

consensual quantitative analysis formalism (**Figure 1**).

**10**

**Figure 1.**

*General risk management process. Adapted from ISO 31000 [15].*

The risk concept is based on the combination of expected consequences and probabilities/uncertainties dimensions. Quantitative risk analysis, despite the great benefits of its application in certain contexts, should not be considered as a panacea to guarantee absolute security. Qualitative or semiquantitative analyses may prove to be more appropriate in specific circumstances.

The risk management and analysis methodologies have in their favor the positive fact of placing the consequences or uncertain effects resulting from the exposure to a hazard, at the center of decisions. They can thus contribute to avoid irreparable damage or loss and, overall, improve the safety of a community, a company, or an enterprise.

Risk analysis and management should not be ruled by rigid or dogmatic methodologies and structures, which generate illusions or myths related to rationality and efficiency without limits. In some circumstances, it may be advisable to adopt the management of two of the variables that jointly provide the quantitative definition of risk in addition to the probability of the event, the exposure level, and in particular, the vulnerability. The probabilities are not always the most useful tool to characterize the uncertainties.

In any case, the characterization of the uncertainties involved in the risk assessment calculations must be carried out, considering the possibility of making more suitable decisions with the available knowledge. Without an analysis of the epistemic uncertainties embedded in the calculations, the apparent rigor of the results of a quantitative risk assessment can lead to disproportionate decisions.
