IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v17y1997i6p797-806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Score Comparison Method as an Aid to Integrating Separate Comparative Risk Rankings into a Single, Comparative Risk Ranking

Author

Listed:
  • Paul F. Deisler

Abstract

A Score Comparison Method (SCM), for use in comparative risk projects, is described. It provides a degree of analytical guidance for those undertaking to integrate environmental issues which have been placed into separate, qualitative rankings according to different types of risk into a single, qualitative, integrated risk ranking. Its use in an actual case is shown.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul F. Deisler, 1997. "A Score Comparison Method as an Aid to Integrating Separate Comparative Risk Rankings into a Single, Comparative Risk Ranking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 797-806, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:17:y:1997:i:6:p:797-806
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01285.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01285.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01285.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Konisky, David, 1999. "Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-46, Resources for the Future.
    2. Konisky, David M., 1999. "Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings," Discussion Papers 10474, Resources for the Future.
    3. Clinton J. Andrews & David M. Hassenzahl & Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Accommodating Uncertainty in Comparative Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1323-1335, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:17:y:1997:i:6:p:797-806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.