Book contents
- Improving Homeland Security Decisions
- Improving Homeland Security Decisions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Improving Homeland Security Decisions
- 2 Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Terrorism Risk
- 3 Integrating Stakeholder Values into Strategic Planning through Comparative Risk Analysis
- 4 Validating Terrorism Risk Assessment Models – Lessons Learned from 11 Models
- 5 Coping with Uncertainty in Adversarial Risk Analysis
- 6 A Risk and Economic Analysis of Dirty Bomb Attacks on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
- 7 Regional Transportation and Supply Chain Modeling for Large-Scale Emergencies
- 8 Economic Consequences of Terrorism and Natural Disasters: The Computable General Equilibrium Approach
- 9 Economic Resilience to Terrorism and Natural Hazards
- 10 The Temporal Regional Economic Impacts of a Hurricane Disaster on Oil Refinery Operations: A FlexNIEMO Approach
- 11 Risk-Informed Benefit-Cost Analysis
- 12 Enhancing Post-disaster Economic Resilience: Public-Private Partnership for Insuring Terrorism
- 13 Economic Impacts of Changes in Wait Times at U.S. Ports of Entry
- 14 Organizational Decision Processes
- 15 A Value Model for Evaluating Homeland Security Decisions
- 16 Identifying, Structuring, and Comparing the Objectives of Al Qaeda and ISIL
- 17 Multi-objective Decision Making: Expected Utility vs. Some Widely Used (and Flawed) Methods
- 18 Achieving Multiple Objectives with Limited Resources: Using Utility Theory and Control Theory
- 19 Defender-Attacker Decision Tree Analysis to Combat Terrorism
- 20 Decision Making for Bioterror Preparedness: Examples from Smallpox Vaccination Policy
- 21 Stackelberg Security Games (SSG) Basics and Application Overview
- 22 Basic Solution Concepts and Algorithms for Stackelberg Security Games
- 23 Mixed-Integer Optimization Methods for Solving Stackelberg Security Games
- 24 Methods for Addressing the Unpredictable Real-World Element in Security
- 25 Learning to Play Stackelberg Security Games
- 26 Evaluating Deployed Decision Support Systems for Security: Challenges, Analysis, and Approaches
- 27 Homeland Security Resource Allocation Games: Considering Partially Strategic Attackers and Equity
- 28 Decision Analysis by Proxy for Adaptive Adversaries
- 29 Asymmetric Prescriptive/Descriptive Game Theory for Counterterrorism
- 30 Near-Misses and Decision Making Under Uncertainty in the Context of Cybersecurity
- Index
- References
3 - Integrating Stakeholder Values into Strategic Planning through Comparative Risk Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2017
Book contents
- Improving Homeland Security Decisions
- Improving Homeland Security Decisions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Improving Homeland Security Decisions
- 2 Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Terrorism Risk
- 3 Integrating Stakeholder Values into Strategic Planning through Comparative Risk Analysis
- 4 Validating Terrorism Risk Assessment Models – Lessons Learned from 11 Models
- 5 Coping with Uncertainty in Adversarial Risk Analysis
- 6 A Risk and Economic Analysis of Dirty Bomb Attacks on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
- 7 Regional Transportation and Supply Chain Modeling for Large-Scale Emergencies
- 8 Economic Consequences of Terrorism and Natural Disasters: The Computable General Equilibrium Approach
- 9 Economic Resilience to Terrorism and Natural Hazards
- 10 The Temporal Regional Economic Impacts of a Hurricane Disaster on Oil Refinery Operations: A FlexNIEMO Approach
- 11 Risk-Informed Benefit-Cost Analysis
- 12 Enhancing Post-disaster Economic Resilience: Public-Private Partnership for Insuring Terrorism
- 13 Economic Impacts of Changes in Wait Times at U.S. Ports of Entry
- 14 Organizational Decision Processes
- 15 A Value Model for Evaluating Homeland Security Decisions
- 16 Identifying, Structuring, and Comparing the Objectives of Al Qaeda and ISIL
- 17 Multi-objective Decision Making: Expected Utility vs. Some Widely Used (and Flawed) Methods
- 18 Achieving Multiple Objectives with Limited Resources: Using Utility Theory and Control Theory
- 19 Defender-Attacker Decision Tree Analysis to Combat Terrorism
- 20 Decision Making for Bioterror Preparedness: Examples from Smallpox Vaccination Policy
- 21 Stackelberg Security Games (SSG) Basics and Application Overview
- 22 Basic Solution Concepts and Algorithms for Stackelberg Security Games
- 23 Mixed-Integer Optimization Methods for Solving Stackelberg Security Games
- 24 Methods for Addressing the Unpredictable Real-World Element in Security
- 25 Learning to Play Stackelberg Security Games
- 26 Evaluating Deployed Decision Support Systems for Security: Challenges, Analysis, and Approaches
- 27 Homeland Security Resource Allocation Games: Considering Partially Strategic Attackers and Equity
- 28 Decision Analysis by Proxy for Adaptive Adversaries
- 29 Asymmetric Prescriptive/Descriptive Game Theory for Counterterrorism
- 30 Near-Misses and Decision Making Under Uncertainty in the Context of Cybersecurity
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Improving Homeland Security Decisions , pp. 32 - 53Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Alliance Development Works. (2012). World risk report. Alliance Development Works, in cooperation with the United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security and the Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
Andrews, C. J. (1998). Substance, process, and participation: Evaluating a decade of comparative risk. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Collegiate Schools of Planning. Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
Committee to Review the DHS’s Approach to Risk Analysis. (2010). Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s approach to risk analysis. National Research Council of the National Academies, Editor, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 148.Google Scholar
DeKay, M. L., et al. (2001). The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development. In Fischbeck, P. & Farrow, R. S. (Eds.), Improving regulation: Cases in environment, health, and safety (pp. 208–230). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Department of the Taoiseach. (2014). Draft national risk Assessment. R.o.I. Department of the Taoiseach, Editor. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., et al. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.Google Scholar
Florig, H. K., et al. (2001). A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 913–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagel, C. T. (2014). Quadrennial defense review. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.Google Scholar
Homeland Security Council (HSC/DHS). (2005). National planning scenarios (2005). Homeland Security Council in partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Editor. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Jenni, K. E. (1997). Attributes for risk evaluation. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2011). A value model for evaluating homeland security decisions. Risk Analysis 31(9), 1470–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C., & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 179–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C.S. (2003). Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Natural Hazards Review, 4, 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, R. (2013). Comparing homeland security risks using a deliberative risk ranking methodology. Santa Monica, CA: Pardee RAND Graduate School. 408.Google Scholar
Lundberg, R., & Willis, H. H. (n.d.) Perceptions of homeland security risk: Comparing responses of a deliberative risk ranking to a nationally representative survey. Working paper.Google Scholar
McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L. J., & Slovic, P. (1995). Characterizing perception of ecological risk. Risk Analysis, 15(5), 575–588.Google Scholar
Meinhart, R. (2006). Strategic planning by the Chairmen, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1990 to 2005. DTIC Document.Google Scholar
Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, K. M. (1999). Development and evaluation of a method for risk ranking. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Morgan, K. M., et al. (2001). A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 923–937.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. G., et al. (1996). A Proposal for Ranking Risk within Federal Agencies. Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities, 111–147.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. G., et al. (2000). Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009). Innovation in country risk management. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
Rademaker, M. (2008). National security strategy of the Netherlands: An innovative approach. Information & Security. An International Journal, 23(1).Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., et al. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2009). National infrastructure protection plan. Department of Homeland Security, Editor. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2010). Quadrennial homeland security review report: A strategic framework for a secure homeland. Department of Homeland Security, Editor. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2013). Comprehensive preparedness guide 201: Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment guide. Department of Homeland Security, Editor. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1987). Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Editor. 1987, National Technical Information Service Report: Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
Vlek, C. (2013). How solid is the Dutch (and the British) national risk assessment? Overview and decision-theoretic evaluation. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 948–971.Google Scholar
White House. (2003). Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-7): Critical infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.Google Scholar
Willis, H. H. (2002). Ecological risk perception and ranking: Towards a method for improving the quality of public participation in environmental policy. August. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Willis, H. H., et al. (2004). Ecological risk ranking: Development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 363–378.Google Scholar
Willis, H. H., et al. (2005). Aggregate, disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 405–428.Google Scholar
Willis, H. H., et al. (2010). Prioritizing environmental health risks in the UAE. Risk Analysis, 30(12), 1842–1856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, H. H., et al. (2012). The validity of the preference profiles used for evaluating impacts in the Dutch National Risk Assessment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Willis, H. H., & LaTourrette, T. (2008). Using probabilistic terrorism risk modeling for regulatory benefit-cost analysis: Application to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative in the Land Environment. Risk Analysis, 28(2): 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum (EFF). (2015). Global risks report: 2015. in World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
Xu, J., Florig, H. K., & DeKay, M. L. (2011). Evaluating an analytic–deliberative risk-ranking process in a Chinese context. Journal of Risk Research, 14(7), 899–918.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by