Preprint Article Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Advancing the Sustainability of Risk Assessments within the Renewable Energy Sector- Review of Published Risk Assessments

Version 1 : Received: 20 July 2023 / Approved: 21 July 2023 / Online: 21 July 2023 (13:36:10 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 28 July 2023 / Approved: 4 August 2023 / Online: 7 August 2023 (12:24:56 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Jenkins, M.; Loughney, S.; Matellini, D.B.; Wang, J. Advancing the Sustainability of Risk Assessments within the Renewable Energy Sector—Review of Published Risk Assessments. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2446, doi:10.3390/su16062446. Jenkins, M.; Loughney, S.; Matellini, D.B.; Wang, J. Advancing the Sustainability of Risk Assessments within the Renewable Energy Sector—Review of Published Risk Assessments. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2446, doi:10.3390/su16062446.

Abstract

The epistemology of the traditional risk assessment examined has a taxonomy based upon deterministic, behaviouristic and compatibilist methodologies which are likely driven by neo-liberal market related requirements for bigger, faster cheaper wind-turbines. Analysis of available risk assessments suggested that there is no conscious effort to deceive the reader although the intended audience is unclear. The language, and scoring mechanisms utilized indicates the presence of conformity bias, confirmation bias, and numerical inconsistency leading to data ossification. By reverse engineering risk assessment content, Pragmatic and Social Psychological aspects can be investigated, and the adequacy of the document can be evaluated using evidence-based models.

Keywords

Risk Assessment; Conformation Bias; Loss Aversion; Conflicting Goals; Renewable Energy; Offshore; Compliance; Systems; Determinism; Linearity; Causation; Cognitive Dissonance; Quantum theory; Total Re

Subject

Social Sciences, Safety Research

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 7 August 2023
Commenter: Mark Jenkins
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: Lines 520 -534 were deleted as the incidents described in lines 520-534 were nit related to G+ members. Refwerences also deleted
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.