Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:36:05.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Valuing Risk Management Choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Robin S. Gregory
Affiliation:
Decision Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Timothy McDaniels
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Mitchell Small
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

WHY VALUE RISKS?

Risks involve the possibility of damage or loss or injury to individuals or to groups. Whether a risk creates a high level of concern is established through judgments that are made about the definition of the problem, the nature and scope of its consequences, and the likelihood of different exposures. A risk that matters greatly to one person or one group may not be a concern to another because of differences in the context within which it is viewed. This context includes such considerations as the relative importance of other risks, the perception of accompanying benefits, the timing of the expected impacts, uncertainties associated with their receipt, the anticipated response of others, the understanding of realistic alternatives, and so forth. Risk is thus a multidimensional concept, defined differently by different people and in different cultures or at different times to help make sense of, and to create strategies for dealing with, a world that includes perceived dangers and hazards.

All decisions involve some weighing of risks, just as they involve some balancing of costs and benefits. Other things being equal, it is preferable to reduce risks in a given management context. Understanding the values and concerns that arise in the context of specific management options is important, however, because all other things rarely are equal; as a result, decision makers require information about the preferences and priorities of potentially affected individuals or groups toward the relevant set of risks, benefits, and costs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Risk Analysis and Society
An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field
, pp. 213 - 250
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.)

References

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louvire, J. 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80: 64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alhakami, A-S., and Slovic, P. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14 (6): 1085–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron, J., and Spranca, M. 1997. Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70: 1–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., and Yagil, J. 1989. Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study. Management Science, 35: 270–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M., et al. 1987. Valuing changes in health risks: A comparison of alternative measures. Southern Economic Journal, 53: 967–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomquist, G. 1979. Value of life saving: Implications of consumption activity. Journal of Political Economy, 87: 540–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., and Morgan, M-G. 1992. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (4): 85–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, J. 1989. The policy implications of differing conceptions of risk. Science, Technology, and Human Values 14: 380–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T., Peterson, G., and Tonn, B. 1995. The values jury to aid natural resource decisions. Land Economics, 71: 250–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chuenpagdee, R., Knetsch, J., and Brown, T. (2001). Environmental damage schedules: Community judgments of importance and assessments of losses. Land Economics, 77 (1): 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coglianese, C. 1999. The limits of consensus. Environment, 41: 28–33Google Scholar
Dake, K. 1991. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22: 61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A-R. 1994. Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon, New York
Dunlap, R-E., Gallup, G-H. Jr., & Gallup, A-M. 1993. Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment, 35: 7–15, 33–9Google Scholar
Edwards, W., and Winterfeldt, D. (1987). Public values in risk debates. Risk Analysis, 7 (2): 141–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finucane, M., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., and Johnson, S. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13: 1–173.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B. 1984. Setting standards: A systematic approach to managing public health and safety risks. Management Science, 30: 823–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B. and Cox, L-A., Jr. (1985). Conceptual framework for benefits assessment. In J. Bentkover, V. Covello, and J. Mumpower, eds., Benefits Assessment: The State of the Art. D Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Fischhoff, B., and Furby, L. 1988. Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1: 147–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Quadrel, M., Kamlet, M.Loewenstein, G., Dawes, R., Fischbeck, P., Kleeper, S., Leland, J., and Stroh, P. 1993. Embedding effects: Stimulus representation and response mode. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6: 211–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Welch, N., and Frederick, S. 1999. Construal processes in preference assessment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19: 139–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C-K. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14 (6): 1101–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, A-M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Gerking, S., DeHaan, M., and Schulze, W. 1988. The marginal value of job safety: A contingent valuation study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1: 185–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowda, R. 1999. Heuristics, biases, and the regulation of risk. Policy Sciences, 32: 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J-D., Carrothers, R., and Evans, J. 1999. Valuing the health effects of air pollution. Risks in Perspective, vol. 7 (July), Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Cambridge, MA
Gregory, R. 2000. Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions. Environment, 42: 34–44Google Scholar
Gregory, R., and Keeney, R-L. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science, 40: 1035–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R., Flynn, J., and Slovic, P. (1995). Technological stigma. American Scientist, 83: 220–23Google Scholar
Gregory, R., Flynn, J., Johnson, S-M., Satterfield, T-A., Slovic, P., and Wagner, R. 1997. Decision pathway surveys: A tool for resource managers. Land Economics, 73 (2): 240–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., and MacGregor, D-G. 1993. The role of past states in determining reference points for policy decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J., Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. 1999. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Holling, C-S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, Chichester
Hsee, C-K. 1996. Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes: 66: 122–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, J., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., and McClelland, G. 1993. Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6: 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. 1998. Task-specific information processing in multiple-response stated-preference surveys. Paper presented at EPA conference, Alternatives to Traditional Contingent Valuation in Environmental Valuation (October 1998), Nashville, Tennessee
Jones-Lee, M. 1989. The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Kahneman, D., and Knetsch, J. 1992. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22: 57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2): 263–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J-L., and Thaler, R-H. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (6): 1325–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperson, R-E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H-S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J-X., and Ratick, S. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8: 177–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. 1990. Mortality risks due to economic expenditures. Risk Analysis, 10: 147–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeney, R. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Keeney, R., and Raiffa, H. 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge University Press, New York
Keeney, R., and Winterfeldt, D. 1986. Why indirect health risks of regulations should be examined. Interfaces, 16: 13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R., and Winterfeldt, D. 1990. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38: 191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R., von Winterfeldt, D., and Eppel, T. 1990. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Management Science, 36: 1011–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetich, J. 1990. Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of value. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18 (3): 227–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopp, R-J., and Smith, V-K. 1993. Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Kunreuther, H., and Slovic, P. 1996. Science, values, and risk. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545: 116–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G-F. 1988. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science, 34: 200–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G. 1996. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65: 272–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. 1982. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92: 805–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luckert, M., and Adamowicz, W. 1993. Empirical measures of factors affecting social rates of discount. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9: 587–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniels, T-L. 1996a. A multiattribute framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of electric utilities. Journal of Environmental Management, 46: 57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniels, T-L. 1996b. The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15 (2): 227–513.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniels, T-L., Gregory, R-S., and Fields, D. 1999. Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19 (3): 497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellers, B., Richards, V., and Birnbaum, J. 1992. Distributional theories of impression formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51: 313–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkhofer, M., and Keeney, R. 1987. A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear wate. Risk Analysis, 7: 173–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R-C., and Carson, R-T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Mitchell, R-C., and Carson, R-T. 1995. Current issues in the design, administration, and analysis of contingent valuation surveys. In P. Johansson, B. Kristrom & K. Maler, eds., Current Issues in Environmental Economics. Manchester University Press, New York
Morgan, G., and Henrion, M. 1990. Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, New York
Morgan, G, Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Lave, L., and Atman, C-J. 1992. Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science and Technology, 26: 2048–56Google Scholar
Morgan, K., DeKay, M., Fischbeck, P., Morgan, G., Florig, K., and Fischhoff, B. 1999. Development of a method for risk ranking. Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
Opaluch, J., Swallow, S., Weaver, T., Wessells, C., and Wichelns, D. 1993. Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: Including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24: 41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J-W., Bettman, J-R., and Johnson, E-J. 1992. Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43: 87–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J-W., Bettman, J-R., and Johnson, E-J. 1993. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, New York
Peelle, E. 1996. Beyond the Nimby Impasse II: Public participation in an age of distrust. Proceedings of the Spectrum 88 Conference, Pasco, WA, pp. 575–82
Peterson, G., and Brown, T. 1998. Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom. Land Economics, 74: 240–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Ritov, I., and Kahneman, D. 1997. How people value the environment. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni, eds., Environment, Ethics and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation. New Lexington Press, San Francisco
Rutherford, M., Knetsch, J., and Brown, T. (1998). Assessing Environmental Losses: Judgments of Importance and Damage Schedules. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22: 51–101Google Scholar
Schacter, R. 1986. Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research, 34: 871–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, H., and Presser, S. 1996. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., and Tversky, A. 1993. Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49: 11–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science, 236: 280–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P. 1995. The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50: 364–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. 1992. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds., Social Theories of Risk, pp. 117–52. Praeger, New York
Slovic, P., and Gregory, R. 1999. Risk analysis, decision analysis, and the social context for risk decision making. In J. Shanteau, B-A. Mellers, and D-A. Schum, eds., Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards, pp. 353–65. Kluwer Academic, Boston
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In R. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J. Kasperson, eds., Perilous Progress: Technology as Hazard. Westview, Boulder, CO
Smith, V-K., and Johnson, R. 1988. How do risk percpetions respond to information? The case of radon. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C., Kahneman, D. and Schkade, D. 1998. Assessing punitive damages (with notes on cognition and valuation in law). The Yale Law Journal, 107: 2071–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., and Slovic, P. 1988. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95 (3): 371–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, K. 1993. The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature, 31: 1912–46Google Scholar
Viscusi, K., Magat, W., and Huber, G. 1987. An investigation of the rationality of consumer valuations of multiple health risks. Rand Journal of Economics, 18: 465–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, K., Magat, W., and Huber, G. 1991. Worker learning and compensating differentials. Industrial Labor Relations Review, 45: 80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Winterfeldt, D. 1992. Expert knowledge and public values in risk management: The role of decision analysis. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds., Social Theories of Risk, pp. 321–42. Praeger, Westport, CT
Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New York
Webler, T. 1997. Organizing public participation: A critical review of three handbooks. Human Ecology Review, 3: 245–54Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. 1979. No risk is the highest risk of all. American Scientist, 67: 32–7Google Scholar
Wilson, R., and Crouch, E-A-C. 1982. Risk/Benefit Analysis. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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
×