IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i11p1983-1995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elusive Critical Elements of Transformative Risk Assessment Practice and Interpretation: Is Alternatives Analysis the Next Step?

Author

Listed:
  • Royce A. Francis

Abstract

This article argues that “game‐changing” approaches to risk analysis must focus on “democratizing” risk analysis in the same way that information technologies have democratized access to, and production of, knowledge. This argument is motivated by the author's reading of Goble and Bier's analysis, “Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't” (Risk Analysis, 2013; 33: 1942–1951), in which living risk assessments are shown to be “game changing” in probabilistic risk analysis. In this author's opinion, Goble and Bier's article focuses on living risk assessment's potential for transforming risk analysis from the perspective of risk professionals—yet, the game‐changing nature of information technologies has typically achieved a much broader reach. Specifically, information technologies change who has access to, and who can produce, information. From this perspective, the author argues that risk assessment is not a game‐changing technology in the same way as the printing press or the Internet because transformative information technologies reduce the cost of production of, and access to, privileged knowledge bases. The author argues that risk analysis does not reduce these costs. The author applies Goble and Bier's metaphor to the chemical risk analysis context, and in doing so proposes key features that transformative risk analysis technology should possess. The author also discusses the challenges and opportunities facing risk analysis in this context. These key features include: clarity in information structure and problem representation, economical information dissemination, increased transparency to nonspecialists, democratized manufacture and transmission of knowledge, and democratic ownership, control, and interpretation of knowledge. The chemical safety decision‐making context illustrates the impact of changing the way information is produced and accessed in the risk context. Ultimately, the author concludes that although new chemical safety regulations do transform access to risk information, they do not transform the costs of producing this information—rather, they change the bearer of these costs. The need for further risk assessment transformation continues to motivate new practical and theoretical developments in risk analysis and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Royce A. Francis, 2015. "Elusive Critical Elements of Transformative Risk Assessment Practice and Interpretation: Is Alternatives Analysis the Next Step?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 1983-1995, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:11:p:1983-1995
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12391
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12391?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Michelle Driedger & John Eyles & Susan D. Elliott & Donald C. Cole, 2002. "Constructing Scientific Authorities: Issue Framing of Chlorinated Disinfection Byproducts in Public Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 789-802, August.
    2. David Pennington & Pierre Crettaz & Annick Tauxe & Lorenz Rhomberg & Kevin Brand & Olivier Jolliet, 2002. "Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 2—Noncancer Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 947-963, October.
    3. Frank N. Laird, 1989. "The Decline of Deference: The Political Context of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 543-550, December.
    4. Joel A Tickner & Sara Wright, 2003. "The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A US perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 213-218, June.
    5. Stan Kaplan, 1997. "The Words of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 407-417, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sheila Jasanoff, 1991. "Cross-National Differences in Policy Implementation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(1), pages 103-119, February.
    2. Beierle, Thomas, 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-06, Resources for the Future.
    3. Fabiana Navia Miranda & Tiago Miguel Ferreira, 2019. "A simplified approach for flood vulnerability assessment of historic sites," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 96(2), pages 713-730, March.
    4. Bing Wu & Huibin Tian & Xinping Yan & C. Guedes Soares, 2020. "A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 422-436, April.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2011. "Responses to Terje Aven's Paper: On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 689-692, May.
    7. Fluixá-Sanmartín, Javier & Escuder-Bueno, Ignacio & Morales-Torres, Adrián & Castillo-Rodríguez, Jesica Tamara, 2020. "Comprehensive decision-making approach for managing time dependent dam risks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 515-522, April.
    9. D E Salazar A & C M Rocco S & E Zio, 2008. "Optimal protection of complex networks exposed to a terrorist hazard: A multi-objective evolutionary approach," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 222(3), pages 327-335, September.
    10. Susan G. Hadden, 1991. "Public Perception of Hazardous Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 47-57, March.
    11. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    12. Robert P. Anex & Will Focht, 2002. "Public Participation in Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment: A Shared Need," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 861-877, October.
    13. Long, Zoe & Axsen, Jonn & Kitt, Shelby, 2020. "Public support for supply-focused transport policies: Vehicle emissions, low-carbon fuels, and ZEV sales standards in Canada and California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 98-115.
    14. Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    15. Shobita Parthasarathy, 2011. "Whose knowledge? What values? The comparative politics of patenting life forms in the United States and Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 267-288, September.
    16. Wouter Fransman & Harrie Buist & Eelco Kuijpers & Tobias Walser & David Meyer & Esther Zondervan‐van den Beuken & Joost Westerhout & Rinke H. Klein Entink & Derk H. Brouwer, 2017. "Comparative Human Health Impact Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1358-1374, July.
    17. Jessica Kratchman & Bing Wang & John Fox & George Gray, 2018. "Correlation of Noncancer Benchmark Doses in Short‐ and Long‐Term Rodent Bioassays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 1052-1069, May.
    18. Jason R. W. Merrick & Martha Grabowski & Premnath Ayyalasomayajula & John R. Harrald, 2005. "Understanding Organizational Safety Using Value‐Focused Thinking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 1029-1041, August.
    19. Ruponen, Pekka & Montewka, Jakub & Tompuri, Markus & Manderbacka, Teemu & Hirdaris, Spyros, 2022. "A framework for onboard assessment and monitoring of flooding risk due to open watertight doors for passenger ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    20. Todor Backalic & Marinko Maslaric, 2012. "Climate Change And The Risk Management In Serbian Inland Waterway Transport," Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, Alliance of Central-Eastern European Universities, vol. 1(3), pages 6-21, Decembre.

    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:35:y:2015:i:11:p:1983-1995. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.