Can we better predict or mitigate the consequences of natural disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes? Can we reduce the number of oil spills? And what should be done to clean up the mess when something does goes wrong? Why are people concerned about nuclear plants, but so reckless when they go skiing, or when they drive their motor cars? And how can we ensure that experts and ordinary citizens exchange meaningful information about hazards?
Over the past fifty years or so, eminent scholars from the decision sciences, geography, sociology, anthropology, and many other fields, have offered useful pointers towards finding an answer to these and other crucial questions. Their prolific and converging efforts have established Risk Analysis as a vivid new discipline, a discipline which this new Routledge collection enables users to discover—or to understand better.
The collection conveys essential lessons about how risks can be better assessed. Sophisticated models about the probability and magnitude of harms have been developed and tested in a variety of fields, for example, by engineers trying to build safer plants, or by toxicologists trying to understand the pathways of pollutants. The materials gathered here also help us to understand how powerful perception drivers shape our views of different risks and, as a consequence, how risk communication may be best conducted. Risk also brings together and makes sense of a body of knowledge that has allowed the development of specific methods to join together these two crucial elements into a coherent management ‘whole’.
Volume 1: Risk Assessment
1. National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (National Academy Press, 1983), Summary 1–8.
2. V. T. Covello and J. Mumpower, ‘Risk Analysis and Risk Management: An Historical Perspective’, Risk Analysis, 1985, 5, 103–19.
3. G. M. Gray, J. T. Cohen, and J. D. Graham, ‘The Challenge of Risk Characterization: Current Practice and Future Directions’, Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements, 1983, 101, 203–8.
4. P. Greenland, S. Grundy, R. C. Pasternak, and C. Lenfant, ‘Problems on the Pathway from Risk Assessment to Risk Reduction’, Circulation, 1998, 97, 1761–2.
5. S. Kaplan and B. J. Garrick, ‘On the Quantitative Definition of Risk’, Risk Analysis, 1981, 1, 11–27.
6. D. J. Paustenbach, ‘Health Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Pitfalls’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 1989, 14, 379–410.
7. J. Graham, ‘The Legacy of One in a Million in Risk in Perspective’, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis: Risk in Perspective, 1993, 1, 1–2.
8. G. Charnley, ‘How the Risk Commission Evolved from the Red Book’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2003, 9, 1213–17.
9. O. Renn and E. D. Elliot, ‘Chemicals’, in J. B. Wiener, M. D. Rogers, J. K. Hammitt, and P. H. Sand (eds.), The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (RFF Press, 2011), pp. 223–56.
10. B. Wynne and K. Dressel, ‘Cultures of Uncertainty: Transboundary Risks and BSE in Europe’, in J. Linnerooth-Bayer, R. E. Löfstedt, and G. Sjöstedt (eds.), Transboundary Risk Management (Earthscan, 2001), pp. 121–54.
11. C. C. Jaeger, O. Renn, E. A. Rosa, and T. Webler, ‘Risky Decisions of a Single Agent’, in R. E. Löfstedt (ed.), Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action (Earthscan, 2001), pp. 67–120.
12. G. Charnley and B. D. Goldstein, ‘A Public Health Context for Residual Risk Assessment and Risk Management Under the Clean Air Act’, Environmental Health Perspectives, 1998, 106, 519–21.
13. J. S. Evans, J. D. Graham, G. M. Gray, A. Hollis, A. Smith, M. Smith, and B. Ryan, ‘Summary of Workshop to Review an OMB Report on Regulatory Risk Assessment and Management’, Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 1992, 3, 71–83.
14. A. M. Finkel, ‘Edifying Presentation of Risk Estimates: Not as Easy as Seems’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1991, 10, 296–303.
15. W. F. Freudenberg, ‘Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of Probabilistic Risk Assessment’, Science, 1988, 242, 44–9.
16. P. M. Wiedeman, H. Schutz, and Al Spangenberg, ‘Evidence Maps: A Tool for Summarizing and Communicating Evidence in Risk Assessment’ (2008).
17. S. Jasanoff, ‘Relating Risk Assessment and Risk Management’, EPA Journal, 1993, 19, 35–7.
Volume II: Risk Perception
18. C. Starr, ‘Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk’, Science, 1969, 165, 1232–8.
19. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science, 1974, 185, 1124–31.
20. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, ‘Why Study Risk Perception?’, Risk Analysis, 1982, 2, 83–93.
21. P. Slovic, ‘Perception of Risk’, Science, 1987, 236, 280–5.
22. P. Slovic, H. Kunreuther, and G. White, ‘Decision Processes, Rationality and Adjustment to Natural Hazards’, The Perception of Risk (Earthscan, 2000), pp. 1–31.
23. W. F. Freudenberg and S. K. Pastor, ‘Public Responses to Technological Risks: Towards a Sociological Perspective’, Sociological Quarterly, 1992, 33, 389–412.
24. M. L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and J. M. Johnson, ‘The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000, 13, 1–16.
25. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, ‘How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits’, Policy Sciences, 1978, 9, 127–52.
26. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd, ‘Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food Related Hazards’, Risk Analysis, 1998, 18, 1, 95–102.
27. G. Gaskell and N. Allum, ‘Sound Science, Problematic Publics? Contrasting Representations of Risk and Uncertainty’, Notizie di politeia, 2001, 17, 13–25.
28. J. R. Houghton, E. van Kleef, G. Rowe, and L. J. Frewer, ‘Consumer Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Food Risk Management Practices: A Cross-Cultural Study’, Health, Risk & Society, 2006, 8, 165–83.
29. G. F. Loewenstein and D. Schkade, ‘Wouldn’t it Be Nice? Predicting Future Feelings’, in E. Diener, N. Schwartz, and D. Kahneman (eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (Russell Sage Foundation, 1999), pp. 85–105.
30. G. F. Loewenstein, E. U. Weber, C. K. Hsee, and E. S. Welch, ‘Risk as Feelings’, Psychological Bulletin, 2001, 127, 267–86.
31. P. Slovic, ‘Perceived Trust and Democracy’, Risk Analysis, 1993, 13, 6, 675–82.
32. M. Siegrist, G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth, ‘Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception’, Risk Analysis, 2000, 20, 353–62.
33. M. Siegrist, H. Gutscher, and T. C. Earle, ‘Perception of Risk: The Influence of General Trust, and General Confidence’, Journal of Risk Research, 2005, 8, 145–56.
34. P. Slovic, M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor, ‘Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk and Rationality’, Risk Analysis, 2004, 24, 311–22.
Volume III: Risk Communication
35. L. Clarke and W. R. Freudenburg, ‘Rhetoric, Reform and Risk’, Society, 1993, 30, 78–81.
36. B. Fischhoff, ‘Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process’, Risk Analysis, 1995, 15, 137–45.
37. W. Leiss, ‘Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1996, 545, 85–94.
38. R. E. Löfstedt, ‘Risk Communication and Management in the 21st Century’, International Public Management Journal, 2004, 7, 335–46.
39. K. A. McComas, ‘Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research: 1996–2005’, Journal of Health Communication, 2006, 11, 75–91.
40. W. R. Freudenburg, ‘Risky Thinking: Facts, Values and Blind Spots in Societal Decisions about Risks’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 72, 125–30.
41. O. Renn, ‘Basic Concepts and Challenges of Risk Communication’, Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (Earthscan, 2008), pp. 205–41.
42. O. Renn, ‘Guidance for Effective Risk Communication’, Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (Earthscan, 2008), pp. 242–72.
43. P. H. Sand, ‘Information Disclosure’, in J. B. Wiener, M. D. Rogers, J. K. Hammitt, and P. H. Sand (eds.), The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (RFF Press, 2011), pp. 323–60.
44. J. X. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson, B. J. Perkins, O. Renn, and A. L. White, ‘Media Risk Signals and the Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository 1985–1989’, in J. X. Kasperson and R. E. Kasperson (eds.), The Social Contours of Risk (Earthscan, 2005), pp. 133–60.
45. C. J. Altman, A. Bostrom, B. Fischhoff, and M. Granger Morgan, ‘Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I’, Risk Analysis, 1994, 14, 5, 779–88.
46. A. Bostrom, C. J. Altman, B. Fischhoff, and M. Granger Morgan, ‘Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II’, Risk Analysis, 1994, 14, 5, 789–98.
47. R. E. Kasperson, O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick, ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework’, Risk Analysis, 2000, 8, 177–87.
48. J. X. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson, N. Pidgeon, and P. Slovic, ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years of Research and Theory’, in P. Slovic (ed.), The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception (Earthscan, 2010), pp. 317–44.
49. B. Fischhoff, ‘Defining Stigma’, in P. Slovic, J. Flynn, and H. Kunreuther (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology (Earthscan, 2004), pp. 361–8.
50. H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic, ‘Coping with Stigma: Challenges and Opportunities’, in P. Slovic, J. Flynn, and H. Kunreuther (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology (Earthscan, 2004), pp. 332–52.
51. R. E. Kasperson, N. Jhaveri, and J. X. Kasperson, ‘Stigma and the Social Amplification of Risk: Toward a Framework of Analysis’, in P. Slovic, J. Flynn, and H. Kunreuther (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology (Earthscan, 2004), pp. 9–27.
52. R. E. Kasperson and I. Palmlund, ‘Evaluating Risk Communication’, in J. X. Kasperson and R. E. Kasperson (eds.), The Social Contours of Risk (Earthscan, 2005), pp. 51–67.
Volume IV: Risk Management
53. A. Klinke and O. Renn, ‘A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based and Discourse-Based Strategies’, Risk Analysis, 2002, 22, 1071–94.
54. D. Hattis and W. S. Minkowitz, ‘Risk Evaluation: Criteria Arising from Legal Traditions and Experience With Quantitative Risk Assessment in the United States’, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 1996, 2, 103–9.
55. J. K. Hammitt, ‘QALYs Versus WTP’, Risk Analysis, 2002, 22, 985–1001.
56. E. A. Rosa and J. F. Short, ‘The Importance of Context in Siting Controversies: The Case of High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal in the US’, in Å. Boholm and R. E. Å. Boholm (eds.), Facility Siting: Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning (Earthscan, 2004), pp. 1–20.
57. D. von Winterfeldt, T. Eppel, J. Adams, R. Neutra, and V. Del Pizzo, ‘Managing Potential Health Risks from Electric Powerlines: A Decision Analysis Caught in Controversy’, Risk Analysis, 2004, 24, 1487–502.
58. R. L. Keeney and D. von Winterfeldt, ‘Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants’, Risk Analysis, 1994, 14, 107–30.
59. R. A. Kagan, ‘What Makes Uncle Sammy Sue’, Law and Society Review, 1987, 21, 717–42.
60. T. C. Earle and G. Cvetkovich, ‘Social Trust and Culture in Risk Management’, in G. Cvetkovich and R. E. Löfstedt (eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk (Earthscan, 1999), pp. 9–21.
61. E. M. Uslaner, ‘Trust and Risk: Implications for Management’, in M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle, and H. Gutscher (eds.), Trust in Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind (Earthscan, 2007), pp. 73–94.
62. N. Pidgeon, ‘Risk, Uncertainty and Social Controversy: From Risk Perception and Communication to Public Engagement’, in G. Bammer and M. Smithson (ed.) Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Earthscan, 2008), pp. 349–62.
63. J. L. Arvai and A. Froschauer, ‘Good Decisions, Bad Decisions: The Interaction of Process and Outcome in Evaluations of Decision Quality’, Journal of Risk Research, 2010, 13, 845–59.
64. H. K. Florig, M. G. Morgan, K. M. Morgan, K. E. Jenni, B. Fischhoff, P. S. Fischbeck, and M. L. DeKay, ‘A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development’, Risk Analysis, 2001, 21, 913–21.
65. K. M. Morgan, M. L. DeKay, P. S. Fischbeck, M. G. Morgan, B. Fischoff, and H. K. Florig, ‘A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement Among Risk Managers’, Risk Analysis, 2001, 21, 923–37.
66. R. E. Löfstedt and D. Vogel, ‘The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States’, Risk Analysis, 2001, 21, 399–410.
67. J. B. Wiener and M. D. Rogers, ‘Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe’, Journal of Risk Research, 2002, 5, 317–49.
68. A. Klinke, M. Dreyer, O. Renn, A. Stirling, and P. van Zwanenberg, ‘Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance’, Journal of Risk Research, 2006, 9, 373–92.
69. G. Majone, ‘What Price Safety? The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, 40, 89–106.
70. R. E. Löfstedt, ‘The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principal to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2004, 28, 237–60.
71. F. Bouder, ‘A Case Study of Long QT Regulation: A Regulatory Tennis Game Across the Atlantic’, Journal of Risk Research, 2007, 10, 385–412.
72. M. B. A. Van Asselt and E. Vos, ‘The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox’, Journal of Risk Research, 2006, 9, 313–36.
The Critical Concepts in Social Sciences series encompasses a wide area of study and consequently the series includes titles on a number of popular subject areas, including human geography, leisure, tourism and economics. Risk is a new publication within this series and a suitable apt title for the times we live in. Examining potential hazards, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and oil spills, the collection looks to uncover how we may better understand Risk Analysis.
The social sciences is a large area of study that is growing in interest and research output. Collections in this series look to collate the best of the available scholarship and are edited and introduced by leading academics in the field.