Next Article in Journal
An Intellectual Capital Approach to Citizens’ Quality of Life in Sustainable Cities: A Focus on Europe
Next Article in Special Issue
Validation of Dynamic Risk Analysis Supporting Integrated Operations Across Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Corporate Sustainability and CEO–Employee Pay Gap—Buster or Booster?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Extension of the Lean 5S Methodology to 6S with An Additional Layer to Ensure Occupational Safety and Health Levels
Open AccessConcept Paper

An Ontological and Semantic Foundation for Safety and Security Science

by Peter Blokland 1,* and Genserik Reniers 1,2,3
1
Safety & Security Science Group (S3G), Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
2
Center for Corporate Sustainability (CEDON)—KULeuven—Campus Brussels, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
3
Department of Engineering Management, Faculty of Applied Economic Sciences (ENM), University of Antwerp, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(21), 6024; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216024
Received: 4 September 2019 / Revised: 9 October 2019 / Accepted: 23 October 2019 / Published: 30 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Safety and Security Issues in Industrial Parks)
When discussing the concepts of risk, safety, and security, people have an intuitive understanding of what these concepts mean, and, to a certain level, this understanding is universal. However, when delving into the real meaning of these concepts, one is likely to fall into semantic debates and ontological discussions. In industrial parks, it is important that (risk) managers from different companies, belonging to one and the same park, have the same understanding of the concepts of risk, safety, and security. It is even important that all companies in all industrial parks share a common understanding regarding these issues. As such, this paper explores the similarities and differences behind the perceptions of these concepts, to come to a fundamental understanding of risk, safety, and security, proposing a semantic and ontological ground for safety and security science, based on an etymological and etiological study of the concepts of risk and safety. The foundation has been induced by the semantics used in the ISO 31000 risk management guidance standard. Hence, this article proposes a coherent, standardized set of concepts and definitions with a focus on the notion “objectives” that can be used as an ontological foundation for safety and security science, linking “objectives” with the concepts of safety, security, risk, performance and also failure and success, theoretically allowing for an increasingly more precise understanding and measurement of (un)safety across the whole range of individuals, sectors and organizations, or even society as a whole. View Full-Text
Keywords: ontology; semantics; safety; security; risk; performance; definitions; concepts; safety science; ISO 31000 ontology; semantics; safety; security; risk; performance; definitions; concepts; safety science; ISO 31000
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Blokland, P.; Reniers, G. An Ontological and Semantic Foundation for Safety and Security Science. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6024.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop