Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-q5mmw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-05-30T21:41:21.632Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction – Risk Anaysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Timothy L. McDaniels
School of Community and Regional Planning, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Mitchell J. Small
Departments of Civil Engineering & Environmental Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Timothy McDaniels
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Mitchell Small
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Get access



Being alive means seeking opportunities and taking risks. For people living in modern society at the beginning of the twenty-first century, being alive means grappling with a complex and growing array of risks to the well-being of humans and the natural environment. It also means increasing concern for the how these risks are understood, characterized, and managed. Hence, we have the human dread of and fascination for risk and the increasingly important role of risk analysis within societies.

Since the beginning of human development, risks to health and well-being have led to adaptive responses that open paths for change. When neolithic family groups shared knowledge and resources for combating hunger, thirst, climate, or outside attack, they were trying to manage risks they faced. Jared Diamond's recent book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, presents the complex and fundamental decisions faced by hunter-gatherers when considering whether to adopt food production in place of their traditional foraging way of life (Diamond, 1999). Issues of uncertainty, value trade-offs, community knowledge, outside expertise, ethical dilemmas, and the imposition of risks by others were all part of those choices.

Risk management has been a fundamental motivation for development of social and governance structures over the last 10,000 years. The onset of agricultural production brought increasing population and permanent settlements. Concentrated population in turn led to greater risks of drought, famine, and conquest by others. Settlements thus created the need for infrastructures for managing these risks, such as water supply, food storage, and defenses.

Risk Analysis and Society
An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field
, pp. 1 - 12
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Albert, R. E., Train, R., and Anderson, E., 1977. Rationale developed by EPA for the assessment of carcinogenic risks. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 58(5): 1537–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Physical Society (APS). 1975. Report to the American Physical Society by the study group on light-water reactor safety. Reviews Modern Physics, 47, Supplement 1: S1–S124CrossRef
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage, London
Bedford, T., and Cooke, R., 2001. Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK
Bernstein, P. J. 1998. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. Wiley, New York
Covello, V., and Mumpower, J. 1985. Risk analysis and risk management: An historical perspective. Risk Analysis, 5(2): 103–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, E. A. C., and Wilson, R. 1979. Interspecies comparison of carcinogenic potency. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 5: 1095–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crump, K. S., Hoel, D. G., Langley, C. H., and Peto, R. 1976. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low doserisk assessment. Cancer Research, 36(9 Pt. 1): 2973–9Google ScholarPubMed
Crutzen, P. J. 1974. Estimates of possible variations in total ozone due to natural causes and human activities. Ambio, 3(6): 201–10Google Scholar
Cumming, R. B. 1981. Editorial: Is risk assessment a science?Risk Analysis, 1(1): 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. 1999. Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Norton, New York
Dourson, M. L., and Stara, J. F. 1983. Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology, 3: 224–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, B. D. 1990. The problem with the margin of safety: Toward the concept of protection. Risk Analysis, 10(1): 7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. D. 1995. Historical perspective on risk assessment in the federal government. Toxicology, 102(1/2): 29–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haimes, Y. Y. 1999. Editorial: The role of the Society for Risk Analysis in the emerging threats to critical infrastructures. Risk Analysis, 19(2): 153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haimes, Y. Y. Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG) Work Group on Risk Assessment. 1979. Scientific bases for identification of potential carcinogens and estimation of risks. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 63(1, July): 241–68Google Scholar
Haimes, Y. Y.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990a. Scientific Assessment of Climate Change – Report of Working Group I, J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Haimes, Y. Y.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990b. Impacts Assessment of Climate Change – Report of Working Group II, W. J. McG. Tegart, G. W. Sheldon, and D. C. Griffiths, Eds. Australian Government Publishing, Canberra, Australia
Haimes, Y. Y.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990c. The IPCC Response Strategies – Report of Working Group III. Island Press, Covelo, CA
Haimes, Y. Y.International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). 1996. A conceptual framework to assess the risks of human disease following exposure to pathogens. Risk Analysis, 16(6): 841–8Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1972. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3: 430–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4): 237–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Solvic, P., and Tversky, A., Eds. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK
Kaplan, S., and Garrick, B. J. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1): 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, D. 1979. Finding fugacity feasible. Environmental Science & Technology, 13: 1218–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molina, M. J., and Rowland, F. S. 1974. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine atom-catalyzed destruction of ozone. Nature, 249: 810–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, T. 1978. A generic viewof toxic chemicals and similar risks, Ecology Law Quarterly, 7: 207–44
Paustenbach, D. J. 1995. Retrospective on U.S. health risk assessment. How others can benefit. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 6: 283–332, see: Scholar
Paustenbach, D. J.Presidential/Congressional Commission. 1977. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Final report, Volume 1. Posted on RiskWorld website, January 29, 1997, see:
Rasmussen, N. C., et al. 1975. Reactor safety study: An assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/014 (WASH-1400) Washington, DC
Rechard, R. P. 1999. Historical relationship between performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal and other types of risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 19(5): 763–807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruckleshaus, W. D. 1983. Science, risk, and public policy. Science, 221(4615): 1026–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metropolis, N., and Ulam, S. M. 1949. The Monte Carlo method. Journal of American Statistical Association, 44(247): 335–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starr, C. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk: What is our society willing to pay for safety?Science, 165: 1232–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. E. Jr. 1975. Some classes of hit-theory models. Mathematical Biosciences, 23: 219–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. E., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Health risk and economic impact assessments of suspected carcinogens: Interim procedures and guidelines. Federal Register, 41(102), May 25: 21402–5Google Scholar
Turner, M. E., U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Turner, M. E., U.S. National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Improving Risk Communication. NRC Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Turner, M. E., U.S. National Research Council. 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats