초록
Usually, a risk can be expressed as a product of likelihood and consequence of a hazard factor. Therefore, conventional risk assessment is carried out by frequency analysis and severity analysis, in turns. However, it is well known that intuitive thinking is another excellent way of thinking of human beings. This study aimed to confirm whether there exist any difference in risk assessment results derived by two different procedures - intuitive and analytical. Thus, the present study showed 10 different illustrations to 30 undergraduate students. Their responses were organized as fuzzy membership functions, and summarized as risk assessments, and compared. The results were also verified with the help of statistical hypothesis testing, which showed no significant difference. On the contrary, however, similarity measure used in fuzzy set theory was not credible as anticipated. Many cases failed to satisfy statistical hypothesis even with similarity measure higher than 0.60 so that only a trend could be accepted. In addition, a subject showed a somewhat consistent logical discrepancy in his response, which implied the necessity of sincere analysis in fuzzy formulations.