Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review).

Abstract

Hazards are threats to people and what they value and risks are measures of hazards. Comparative analyses of the risks and hazards of technology can be dated to Starr's 1969 paper [Starr, C. (1969) Science 165, [1232][1233][1234][1235][1236][1237][1238] but are rooted in recent trends in the evolution of technology, the identification of hazard, the perception of risk, and the activities of society. These trends have spawned an interdisciplinary quasi profession with new terminology, methodology,, and literature. A review of 54 Englishlanguage monographs and book-length collections, published between 1970 and 1983, identified seven recurring themes: (i) overviews of the field of risk assessment, (ii) efforts to estimate and quantify risk, (iii) discussions of risk acceptability, (iv) perception, (v) analyses of regulation, (vi) Enter the risk assessors and hazard managers. Self-appointed or summoned by society, they come from diverse disciplines and professions (Table 1) Beginning with World War II and the development of the atomic bomb, an impressive technological revolution that has accompanied major expansion of certain goods and services has generated an alarming array of hazardous materials, products, and processes. These developments stem in part from the exponential increase in production of synthetic chemicals, the concentration by mining and processing of materials normally dispersed in nature, and the changes in energy flow and mineral cycling that accompany massive engineering works, transportation routes, and waste creation and disposal.Commoner (57) has argued that these changes are fundamental and disjunctive, not simply a continuation of the processes initiated by the Industrial Revolution. In any case, improved monitoring has surely heightened the sense of technology as hazard. Major advances in analytic and bioassay methods virtually ensure positive identification of chemical and biological hazards (58, 59). New screening devices, computer models, and monitoring and surveillance systems enhance capability for identifying, estimating, and assessing hazards (49).Recognition (or even mere suspicion) of new hazards also stems in no small measure from a discernibly heightened public perception of danger and from increased expectations and demands for protection and safety. Though trailing both hazard making and monitoring, public attitudes changed rapidly in the early 1970s and now show signs of leveling off as a continuing, potent force in the society. The environmental and consumer movements have lessened in intensity since the early 1970s, but that is more likely a measure of success in institutionalizing public protection than a diminution of public concern (60). deed, even in the face of grave economic recession-and a national antiregulatory climate, recent polls demonstrate convincingly both a persistence of strong public values for environmental quality (61, 62) and a mounting concern over technological risk (61,63).The explanation for these perceptions, concerns, and expect...

Development of avalanche risk between 1950 and 2000 in the Municipality of Davos, Switzerland

“…This is a very technical perspective. Particularly from the socio-scientific perspective, it has to be noted that risk has a wider meaning than the product of recurrence interval and extent of damage (Kates, 1971;Kates and Kasperson, 1983;Renn, 1995;Cutter, 1996;Slovic, 1999). Nevertheless, this basic formulation is well established in the area of engineering science (Varnes, 1984;Fell, 1994;Hollenstein, 1997;Borter, 1999).…”

Assessing Energy Security in a Low-Carbon Context: The Case of Electricity in the UK

“…Following from this, 'risk' is defined as "the possibility that human actions or events lead to consequences that harm aspects of things that human beings value" (Hohenemser et al 1983;Kates and Kasperson 1983). Risk is therefore both an analytic and a normative concept; perceptions of risk will depend on the preferences and values of those seeking to measure it, and the process of evaluation will depend on the type of risk (Klinke and Renn 2002).…”

Flood Risk Assessment on Selected Critical Infrastructure in Kota Marudu Town, Sabah, Malaysia

“…Kates and Kasperson [3] considered that there are three distinct steps for risk assessment which include the identification of hazards, the estimation of risks and the evaluation of the associated consequences of the derived risk. However, Ologunorisa and Abuwua [4] believed that post-audits of all risk exercises should be considered as another additional step in order for sound risk management to occur.…”