Grasping the nettle? Considering the contemporary challenges of risk assessment

Figures & data

Table 1. Source of challenges in the risk assessment process.

Author/s	Findings/Challenges	Source of Challenge
		Rational	Technical	Expert
NRC Risk assessment in the federal government (1983)	Evaluates past efforts to develop and use risk assessment guidelines, reviews the experience of regulatory agencies with different administrative arrangements for risk assessment, and evaluates various proposals to modify procedures.	✓	✓
Kasperson et al. (1988)	A conceptual framework that seeks to link systematically the technical assessment of risk with psychological, sociological and cultural perspectives of risk perception and risk related behaviour.		✓
Kunreuther and Easterling (1990)	Proposes a two-period expected utility model to explain preferences for benefit packages. The empirical analysis examines the predictive power of this model.	✓
Wu, Apostolakis, and Okrent (1990)	Examines the degree to which non-probabilistic models can be applied to system analysis in terms of capacity to combine knowledge.			✓
Noll and Krier (1990)	Considers implications of the cognitive theory for regulatory policies designed to control risks to life, health and the environment.	✓
Clemen R. T. and Winkler R. L. (1999)	Suggests that an overall aggregation process could involve both mathematical and behavioural aspects. No single process is defined as optimum for all circumstances.			✓
Viscusi and Hamilton (1999)	Analyses decisions made by federal and state regulators at hazardous waste sites addressed by the Superfund program to determine how their decisions diverge from those predicted by expected utility theory and benefit cost analysis.	✓
Beroggi and Waliace (2000)	Evaluates decision models proposed in the literature for individual risk managers to account for situations where multiple risk managers are involved.			✓
Slovic et al. (2004)	Posits that rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel through symbiosis. Focuses on studies that have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect.	✓	✓
Rothstein, Huber, and Gaskell (2006)	Proposes that pressures towards greater coherence, transparency and accountability in risk assessment can create institutional challenges by exposing the inherent limitations of regulation.	✓
Taylor and Yetley A. (2008)	Considers approaches that rely on the systematic scientific assessment of risk to determine the levels of intake below which no harm may occur.		✓
Lin and Cheng (2009)	Indicates that aggregation models significantly outperform the best expert approach, signalling the need for inputs from multiple experts.		✓	✓
Slovic (2010)	Explores the concept of ‘risk as feelings’ and examines the interaction of feeling and cognition in influencing perceptions of risk.	✓

Figure 1. Summary of key challenge areas in risk assessment for public regulatory bodies.

National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: managing the Progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 Google Scholar

Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1988. “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework.” Risk Analysis 8 (2): 177–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kunreuther, H., and D. Easterling. 1990. “Are Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities?” American Economic Review 80 (2): 252–256.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, J. S., G. Apostolakis, and D. Okrent. 1990. “Uncertainties in System Analysis: Probabilistic versus Non-Probabilistic Theories.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 30 (1-3): 163–181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(90)90093-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Noll, R. G., and J. E. Krier. 1990. “Some Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Risk Regulation.” The Journal of Legal Studies 19 (S2): 747–779. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/467870.

 Google Scholar

Clemen, R. T., and R. L. Winkler. 1999. “Combining Probability Distributions from Experts in Risk Analysis.” Risk Analysis 19 (2): 187–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00399.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Viscusi, W. K., and J. T. Hamilton. 1999. “Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Clean-up Decisions.” American Economic Review 89 (4): 1010–1027. doi:https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.4.1010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beroggi, G. E. G., and W. A. Waliace. 2000. “Multi-Expert Operational Risk Management.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 30 (1): 32–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/5326.827452.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Slovic, P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. 2004. “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 24 (2): 311–322. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rothstein, H., M. Huber, and G. Gaskell. 2006. “A Theory of Risk Colonization: The Spiralling Regulatory Logics of Societal and Institutional Risk.” Economy and Society 35 (1): 91–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140500465865.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taylor, C. L., and E. A. Yetley. 2008. “Nutrient Risk Assessment as a Tool for Providing Scientific Assessments to Regulators.” The Journal of Nutrition 138 (10): 1987S–1991S. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/138.10.1987S.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, S. W., and C. Cheng. 2009. “The Reliability of Aggregated Probability Judgments Obtained through Cooke's Classical Model.” Journal of Modelling in Management 4 (2): 149–161. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660910973961.

 Google Scholar

Slovic, P. 2010. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. Routledge: Earthscan, Taylor & Francis Group.

 Google Scholar