Risk at a turning point?

Andrew Stirling
{"title":"Risk at a turning point?","authors":"Andrew Stirling","doi":"10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<119::AID-JEM20>3.0.CO;2-K","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is increasing recognition in comparative risk assessment of the intrinsic subjectivity of fundamental framing assumptions and the consequent necessity for active participation in analysis by all interested and affected parties. Despite this, there remains considerable inertia in the implementation of these insights in formal policy making and regulatory procedures on risk. Here, the issue seems as often to be seen as a need for better ‘communication’ and ‘management’ as for better analysis, with attention devoted as much to the classification of divergent public perspectives as to techniques for direct stakeholder participation. Pointing to the fundamental methodological problems posed in risk assessment by the conditions of ignorance and Arrow's impossibility, the present paper contends that public participation is as much a matter of analytical rigour as it is of political legitimacy. It is argued that straightforward techniques such as multi-criteria and sensitivity analysis, along with a formal approach to diversification across portfolios of ‘less risky’ options, may go some way toward addressing these apparently intractable problems. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>","PeriodicalId":100780,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Medicine","volume":"1 3","pages":"119-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<119::AID-JEM20>3.0.CO;2-K","citationCount":"189","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-1301%28199907/09%291%3A3%3C119%3A%3AAID-JEM20%3E3.0.CO%3B2-K","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 189

Abstract

There is increasing recognition in comparative risk assessment of the intrinsic subjectivity of fundamental framing assumptions and the consequent necessity for active participation in analysis by all interested and affected parties. Despite this, there remains considerable inertia in the implementation of these insights in formal policy making and regulatory procedures on risk. Here, the issue seems as often to be seen as a need for better ‘communication’ and ‘management’ as for better analysis, with attention devoted as much to the classification of divergent public perspectives as to techniques for direct stakeholder participation. Pointing to the fundamental methodological problems posed in risk assessment by the conditions of ignorance and Arrow's impossibility, the present paper contends that public participation is as much a matter of analytical rigour as it is of political legitimacy. It is argued that straightforward techniques such as multi-criteria and sensitivity analysis, along with a formal approach to diversification across portfolios of ‘less risky’ options, may go some way toward addressing these apparently intractable problems. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

处于转折点的风险?
在比较风险评估中,人们越来越认识到基本框架假设的内在主观性,以及所有相关方和受影响方积极参与分析的必要性。尽管如此,在正式的风险政策制定和监管程序中,这些见解的实施仍然存在相当大的惰性。在这里,这个问题似乎经常被视为需要更好的“沟通”和“管理”,也需要更好的分析,关注不同公众观点的分类和利益相关者直接参与的技术。本文指出,由于无知和阿罗不可能的条件,风险评估中存在根本的方法论问题,认为公众参与既是一个政治合法性问题,也是一个分析严谨性问题。有人认为,多标准和敏感性分析等简单的技术,以及在“风险较小”选项的投资组合中进行多元化的正式方法,可能会在一定程度上解决这些看似棘手的问题。版权所有©1999 John Wiley&;有限公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信