Skip to main content
Log in

Defining risk

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk is the focal topic in the management of many activities and technologies. For that management to be successful, an explicit and accepted definition of the term “risk” is essential. Creation of that definition is a political act, expressing the definers' values regarding the relative importance of different possible adverse consequences for a particular decision. Those values, and with them the definition of risk, can change with changes in the decisionmaker, the technologies considered, or the decision problem. After a review of the sources of controversy in defining risk, a general framework is developed, showing how these value issues can be systematically addressed. As an example, the approach is applied to characterizing the risks of six competing energy technologies, the relative riskeness of which depends upon the particular definition used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, S. and Husseiny, A. A. (1978). “A multivariate utility approach for selection of energy sources,” Energy 3: 669–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baecher, G. B., Pate, M. E. and de Neufville, R. (1980). “Risk of dam failure in benefit-cost analysis,” Water Resources Research 16: 449–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkhofer, A. (1980). “The German risk study for nuclear power plants,” IAEA Bulletin 22 (5/6): 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, C., Clifford, P., Goldgraben, G., Graf-Webster, E., Krickenberger, K., Maher, H. and Zimmerman, N. (1979). Accidents and Unscheduled Events Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy Resources and Technology. Washington, D.C.: MITRE Corporation for Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budnitz, R. J. and Holdren, J. P. (1976). “Social and environmental costs of energy systems,” Annual Review of Energy 1: 553–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. and Lee, I. (1979). “A catalog of risks,” Health Physics 36: 707–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comar, C. L. and Sagan, L. A. (1976). “Health effects of energy production and conversion,” Annual Review of Energy 1: 581–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotgrove, A. (1982). Catastrophe or Cornucopia? The Environment, Politics and the Future. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, E. A. C. and Wilson, R. (1982). Risk/Benefit Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (1979). Energy Technologies for the United Kingdom, Vol. I and II. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derr, P., Goble, R., Kasperson, R. E. and Kates, R. W. (1983). “Responding to the double standard of worker/public protection,” Environment 25 (6): 6–11, 35–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunster, J. H. (1980). “The approach of a regulatory authority to the concept of risk,” IAEA Bulletin 22 (5/6): 123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, G. R. and Eisdorfer, C., (Eds.) (1982). Stress and Human Health. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1983). “Acceptable risk: The case of nuclear power,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2: 559–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1984). “Standard setting standards,” Management Science in press.

  • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L. and Keeney, R. L. (1981). Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1983). “The public vs. The experts: Perceived vs. actual disagreements about the risks of nuclear power,” in V. Covello, G. Flamm, J. Rodericks, and R. Tardiff (Eds.), Analysis of Actual vs. Perceived Risks. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. (1978). “How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits,” Policy Sciences 8: 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. H. (1980). “Risk: Attitudes and beliefs,” in D. V. Canter (Ed.), Behaviour in Fires. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, G. (1980). The Necessity for Nuclear Power. London: Graham & Trotman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. D. (1980). “Comparative risks from different energy systems: Evolutions of the methods of studies,” IAEA Bulletin 22 (5/6): 35–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, J. H., Swanson, L. and Reddy, P. (1979). “A risky business,” Environment21 (6): 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhaber, H. (1979). “Risk with energy from conventional and nonconventional sources,” Science 203: 718–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1980). “Evaluating alternatives involving potential fatalities,” Operations Research 28: 188–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Preferences and Value Trade-offs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop, J. W. and Watson, S. R. (1982). “Decision analysis for the evaluation of risk in nuclear waste management,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 3: 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M. and Combs, B. (1978). “Judged frequency of lethal events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4: 551–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okrent, D. (1980). “Comment on social risk,” Science 208: 372–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway, H. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1982). “Beyond acceptable risk: On the social acceptability of technologies,” Policy Sciences 14: 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reissland, J. and Harries, V. (1979). “A scale for measuring risks,” New Scientist 83: 809–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, D. W. O. and Templin, R. J. (1980). “Errors in a risk assessment of renewable resources,” Energy 5: 101–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980). “Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk,” in R. Schwing and W. A. Albers Jr. (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1984). “Characterizing perceived risk,” in R. W. Kates and C. Hohenemser (Eds.), Technological Hazard Management. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, in press.

  • Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, L. and Fischhoff, B. (1984). “Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents,” Management Science in press.

  • Starr, C. (1969). “Social benefit versus technological risk,” Science 165: 1232–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1982). Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants: A Discussion Paper. NUREG-0880. Washington, D.C.: The Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, C. A. J. and Stallen, P. J. M. (1981). “Risk perception in the small and in the large,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28: 235–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. R. (1981). “On risks and acceptability,” Journal of the Radiological Protection Society 1: 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (1979). “Analyzing the daily risks of life,” Technology Review 81 (4): 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1983). “Institutional mythologies and dual societies in the management of risk,” in H. C. Kunreuther and E. V. Ley (Eds.), The Risk Analysis Controversy. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zentner, R. D. (1979). “Hazards in the chemical industry,” Chemical and Engineering News57 (45): 25–27, 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fischhoff, B., Watson, S.R. & Hope, C. Defining risk. Policy Sci 17, 123–139 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00146924

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00146924

Keywords

Navigation