Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:13:41.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Risk Perception and Risk Ranking

from Part III - How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

M. Granger Morgan
M. Granger Morgan
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
Including Applications in Science and Technology
 , pp. 373 - 388
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Covello, V.T., Sandman, P.M., and Slovic, P. (1988). Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers, Chemical Manufacturers Association, 57pp.Google Scholar
DeKay, M.L., Florig, H.K., Fischbeck, P.S., Morgan, M.G., Morgan, K.M., Fischhoff, B., and Jenni, K.E. (2001). “The Use of Public Risk Ranking in Regulatory Development,” in Fischbeck, P.S. and Farrow, G.S. (eds.), Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment Health and Safety, Resources for the Future, pp. 208–232.Google Scholar
Engineering and Public Policy (1983). “On Judging the Frequency of Lethal Events: A Replication,” Risk Analysis, 3, pp. 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPA (1987). Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 119pp.Google Scholar
EPA (1990). Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, Report SAB-EC-90-021 of the EPA Science Advisory Board, 25pp.Google Scholar
EPA (1993). A Guidebook to Comparing Risks and Setting Environmental Priorities, EPA 230 8-93-003, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 226pp.Google Scholar
Fischer, G.W., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I., and Lave, L.B. (1991). “What Risks Are People Concerned about?,” Risk Analysis, 11(2), pp. 303–314.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. and Morgan, M.G. (2009). “The Science and Practice of Risk Ranking,” Horizons, 10(3), pp. 40–47.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. and Kadvany, J. (2011). Risk: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 162pp.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, 9(2), pp. 127–152.Google Scholar
Florig, H.K., Morgan, M.G., Morgan, K.M., Jenni, K.E., Fischhoff, B., Fischbeck, P.S., and DeKay, M.L. (2001). “A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development,” Risk Analysis, 21(5), pp. 913–921.Google Scholar
Glickman, T.S. and Gough, M. (1990). Readings in Risk, RFF Press – Routledge, 280pp.Google Scholar
Jenni, K.E. (1997). “Attributes for Risk Evaluation,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 241pp.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(6), pp. 551–578.Google Scholar
Morgan, K.M., DeKay, M.L., Fischbeck, P.S., Morgan, M.G., and Fischhoff, B. (2001). “A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers,” Risk Analysis, 21(5), pp. 923–937.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G., Florig, H.K., DeKay, M., Fischbeck, P., Morgan, K., Jenni, K., and Fischhoff, B. (2000). “Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking,” Risk Analysis, 20(1), pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G., Slovic, P., Nair, I., Geisler, D., MacGregor, D., Fischhoff, B., Lincoln, D., and Florig, H.K. (1985). “Power Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis, 5, pp. 139–150.Google Scholar
Roth, E., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L.B., and Bostrom, A. (1990). “What Do We Know about Making Risk Comparisons?,” Risk Analysis, 10(3), pp. 375–392.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of Risk,” Science, 236(4779), pp. 280–285.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, 473pp.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1980). “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk,” in Schwing, R.S. and Albers, W.A. Jr. (eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?, Plenum, pp. 181–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, C. (1969). “Social Benefits versus Technological Risk,” Science, 165, pp. 1232–1238.Google Scholar
WASH-1400 (1975). Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-75/014, WASH-1400, 207pp.Google Scholar
Willis, H.H. and DeKay, M.L. (2007). “The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis, 27, pp. 1365–1380.Google Scholar
Willis, H.H., DeKay, M.L., Morgan, M.G., Florig, H.K., and Fischbeck, P.S. (2004). “Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making,” Risk Analysis, 24, pp. 363–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, H.H., DeKay, M.L., Fischhoff, B., and Morgan, M.G. (2005). “Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions,” Risk Analysis, 25(2), pp. 405–428.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. (1979). “Analyzing the Daily Risks of Life,” Technology Review, 81, pp. 41–46. Reprinted in Glickman, T.S. and Gough, M., Readings in Risk, RFF Press – Routledge, pp. 55–59, 1990.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. and Crouch, E.A.C. (1982). Risk/Benefit Analysis, Ballinger, 219pp.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×