Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2003
  • Online publication date: June 2012

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

Summary

RISK ANALYSIS AND SOCIETY

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.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
References
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): 1537–41
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–S124
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): 103–20
Crouch, E. A. C., and Wilson, R. 1979. Interspecies comparison of carcinogenic potency. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 5: 1095–1118
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): 2973–9
Crutzen, P. J. 1974. Estimates of possible variations in total ozone due to natural causes and human activities. Ambio, 3(6): 201–10
Cumming, R. B. 1981. Editorial: Is risk assessment a science?Risk Analysis, 1(1): 1–3
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: 224–38
Goldstein, B. D. 1990. The problem with the margin of safety: Toward the concept of protection. Risk Analysis, 10(1): 7–10
Graham, J. D. 1995. Historical perspective on risk assessment in the federal government. Toxicology, 102(1/2): 29–52
Haimes, Y. Y. 1999. Editorial: The role of the Society for Risk Analysis in the emerging threats to critical infrastructures. Risk Analysis, 19(2): 153–7
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): 241–68
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): 841–8
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1972. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3: 430–54
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4): 237–51
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): 11–27
Mackay, D. 1979. Finding fugacity feasible. Environmental Science & Technology, 13: 1218–23
Molina, M. J., and Rowland, F. S. 1974. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine atom-catalyzed destruction of ozone. Nature, 249: 810–12
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:http://www.fplc.edu/risk/vol6/fall/pausten.htm
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: http://www.riskworld.com/nreports/1996/risk_rpt/RR6ME001.HTM
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): 763–807
Ruckleshaus, W. D. 1983. Science, risk, and public policy. Science, 221(4615): 1026–8
Metropolis, N., and Ulam, S. M. 1949. The Monte Carlo method. Journal of American Statistical Association, 44(247): 335–41
Starr, C. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk: What is our society willing to pay for safety?Science, 165: 1232–8
Turner, M. E. Jr. 1975. Some classes of hit-theory models. Mathematical Biosciences, 23: 219–35
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: 21402–5
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