Measures of Societal Risk and Their Potential Use in Civil Aviation

This article seeks to clarify the conceptual foundations of measures of societal risk, to investigate how such measures may be used validly in commonly encountered policy contexts, and to explore the application of these measures in the field of civil aviation. The article begins by examining standard measures of societal and individual risk (SR and IR), with attention given to ethical as well as analytical considerations. A comprehensive technical analysis of SR is provided, encompassing scalar risk measures, barrier functions, and a utility‐based formulation, and clarifications are offered with respect to the treatment of SR in recent publications. The policy context for SR measures is shown to be critically important, and an extension to a hierarchical setting is developed. The prospects for applying SR to civil aviation are then considered, and some technical and conceptual issues are identified. SR appears to be a useful analytical tool in this context, provided that careful attention is given to these issues.     

Assessing Risk Factors in the Organic Control System: Evidence from Inspection Data in Italy

Certification is an essential feature in organic farming, and it is based on inspections to verify compliance with respect to European Council Regulation—EC Reg. No 834/2007. A risk‐based approach to noncompliance that alerts the control bodies to activate planning inspections would contribute to a more efficient and cost‐effective certification system. An analysis of factors that can affect the probability of noncompliance in organic farming has thus been developed. This article examines the application of zero‐inflated count data models to farm‐level panel data from inspection results and sanctions obtained from the Ethical and Environmental Certification Institute, one of the main control bodies in Italy. We tested many a priori hypotheses related to the risk of noncompliance. We find evidence of an important role for past noncompliant behavior in predicting future noncompliance, while farm size and the occurrence of livestock also have roles in an increased probability of noncompliance. We conclude the article proposing that an efficient risk‐based inspection system should be designed, weighting up the known probability of occurrence of a given noncompliance according to the severity of its impact.     

Risk in Benefit-Cost Analysis

In recent years, benefit-cost analysis has been increasingly applied to large societal decision problems (such as developing a fast breeder energy economy) which involve both risks to society and analysis of very long-term consequences possibly extending over many human generations. This paper examines the philosophical underpinnings of the technique which is a special case of utilitarianism, and compares implications of the technique to those arising from alternative ethical systems in analyzing questions of public safety. Ethical systems which emphasize the good of the whole, such as utilitarianism, are shown to differ sharply in decision outcomes from those which emphasize the rights of the individual, such as libertarianism. It is suggested that benefit-cost analysis should be broadened to include alternative weightings of benefits and costs consistent with a variety of ethical views.     

On the Ethical Justification for the Use of Risk Acceptance Criteria

To protect people from hazards, the common safety regulation regime in many industries is based on the use of minimum standards formulated as risk acceptance or tolerability limits. The limits are seen as absolute, and in principle these should be met regardless of costs. The justification is ethical - people should not be exposed to a risk level exceeding certain limits. In this article, we discuss this approach to safety regulation and its justification. We argue that the use of such limits is based on some critical assumptions; that low accident risk has a value in itself, that risk can be accurately measured and the authorities specify the limits. However, these assumptions are not in general valid, and hence the justification of the approach can be questioned. In the article, we look closer into these issues, and we conclude that there is a need for rethinking this regulation approach - its ethical justification is not stronger than for alternative approaches. Essential for the analysis is the distinction between ethics of the mind and ethics of the consequences, which has several implications that are discussed.     

The Application of Genetic Information for Regulatory Standard Setting Under the Clean Air Act: A Decision-Analytic Approach

In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an “Interim Policy on Genomics,” stating a commitment to developing guidance on the inclusion of genetic information in regulatory decision making. This statement was followed in 2004 by a document exploring the potential implications. Genetic information can play a key role in understanding and quantifying human susceptibility, an essential step in many of the risk assessments used to shape policy. For example, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants at levels to protect even sensitive populations from adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety. Asthmatics are generally regarded as a sensitive population, yet substantial research gaps in understanding genetic susceptibility and disease have hindered quantitative risk analysis. This case study assesses the potential role of genomic information regarding susceptible populations in the NAAQS process for fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) under the CAA. In this initial assessment, we model the contribution of a single polymorphism to asthma risk and mortality risk; however, multiple polymorphisms and interactions (gene‐gene and gene‐environment) are known to play key roles in the disease process. We show that the impact of new information about susceptibility on estimates of population risk or average risk derived from large epidemiological studies depends on the circumstances. We also suggest that analysis of a single polymorphism, or other risk factor such as health status, may or may not change estimates of individual risk enough to alter a particular regulatory decision, but this depends on specific characteristics of the decision and risk information. We also show how new information about susceptibility in the context of the NAAQS for PM_2.5 could have a large impact on the estimated distribution of individual risk. This would occur if a group were consequently identified (based on genetic and/or disease status), that accounted for a disproportionate share of observed effects. Our results highlight certain conditions under which genetic information is likely to have an impact on risk estimates and the balance of costs and benefits within groups, and highlight critical research needs. As future studies explore more fully the relationship between exposure, genetic makeup, and disease status, the opportunity for genetic information and disease status to play pivotal roles in regulation can only increase.     

Risk Ranking of Antimicrobial‐Resistant Hazards Found in Meat in Switzerland

Human exposure to bacteria resistant to antimicrobials and transfer of related genes is a complex issue and occurs, among other pathways, via meat consumption. In a context of limited resources, the prioritization of risk management activities is essential. Since the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) situation differs substantially between countries, prioritization should be country specific. The objective of this study was to develop a systematic and transparent framework to rank combinations of bacteria species resistant to selected antimicrobial classes found in meat, based on the risk they represent for public health in Switzerland. A risk assessment model from slaughter to consumption was developed following the Codex Alimentarius guidelines for risk analysis of foodborne AMR. Using data from the Swiss AMR monitoring program, 208 combinations of animal species/bacteria/antimicrobial classes were identified as relevant hazards. Exposure assessment and hazard characterization scores were developed and combined using multicriteria decision analysis. The effect of changing weights of scores was explored with sensitivity analysis. Attributing equal weights to each score, poultry‐associated combinations represented the highest risk. In particular, contamination with extended‐spectrum β‐lactamase/plasmidic AmpC‐producing Escherichia coli in poultry meat ranked high for both exposure and hazard characterization. Tetracycline‐ or macrolide‐resistant Enterococcus spp., as well as fluoroquinolone‐ or macrolide‐resistant Campylobacter jejuni , ranked among combinations with the highest risk. This study provides a basis for prioritizing future activities to mitigate the risk associated with foodborne AMR in Switzerland. A user‐friendly version of the model was provided to risk managers; it can easily be adjusted to the constantly evolving knowledge on AMR.     

From Ideal to Real Risk: Philosophy of Causation Meets Risk Analysis

A question has been raised in recent years as to whether the risk field, including analysis, assessment, and management, ought to be considered a discipline on its own. As suggested by Terje Aven, unification of the risk field would require a common understanding of basic concepts, such as risk and probability; hence, more discussion is needed of what he calls “foundational issues.” In this article, we show that causation is a foundational issue of risk, and that a proper understanding of it is crucial. We propose that some old ideas about the nature of causation must be abandoned in order to overcome certain persisting challenges facing risk experts over the last decade. In particular, we discuss the challenge of including causally relevant knowledge from the local context when studying risk. Although it is uncontroversial that the receptor plays an important role for risk evaluations, we show how the implementation of receptor‐based frameworks is hindered by methodological shortcomings that can be traced back to Humean orthodoxies about causation. We argue that the first step toward the development of frameworks better suited to make realistic risk predictions is to reconceptualize causation, by examining a philosophical alternative to the Humean understanding. In this article, we show how our preferred account, causal dispositionalism, offers a different perspective in how risk is evaluated and understood.     

Characterizing Risk for Cumulative Risk Assessments

In assessing environmental health risks, the risk characterization step synthesizes information gathered in evaluating exposures to stressors together with dose–response relationships, characteristics of the exposed population, and external environmental conditions. This article summarizes key steps of a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) followed by a discussion of considerations for characterizing cumulative risks. Cumulative risk characterizations differ considerably from single chemical‐ or single source‐based risk characterization. CRAs typically focus on a specific population instead of a pollutant or pollutant source and should include an evaluation of all relevant sources contributing to the exposures in the population and other factors that influence dose–response relationships. Second, CRAs may include influential environmental and population‐specific conditions, involving multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors. Third, a CRA could examine multiple health effects, reflecting joint toxicity and the potential for toxicological interactions. Fourth, the complexities often necessitate simplifying methods, including judgment‐based and semi‐quantitative indices that collapse disparate data into numerical scores. Fifth, because of the higher dimensionality and potentially large number of interactions, information needed to quantify risk is typically incomplete, necessitating an uncertainty analysis. Three approaches that could be used for characterizing risks in a CRA are presented: the multiroute hazard index, stressor grouping by exposure and toxicity, and indices for screening multiple factors and conditions. Other key roles of the risk characterization in CRAs are also described, mainly the translational aspect of including a characterization summary for lay readers (in addition to the technical analysis), and placing the results in the context of the likely risk‐based decisions.     

Addressing Climate Change as an Emerging Risk to Infrastructure Systems

The consequences that climate change could have on infrastructure systems are potentially severe but highly uncertain. This should make risk analysis a natural framework for climate adaptation in infrastructure systems. However, many aspects of climate change, such as weak background knowledge and societal controversy, make it an emerging risk where traditional approaches for risk assessment and management cannot be confidently employed. A number of research developments aimed at addressing these issues have emerged in recent years, such as the development of probabilistic climate projections, climate services, and robust decision frameworks. However, additional research is needed to improve the suitability of these methods for infrastructure planning. In this perspective, we outline some of the challenges in addressing climate change risks to infrastructure and summarize new developments aimed at meeting these challenges. We end by highlighting needs for future research, many of which could be well‐served by expertise within the risk analysis community.     

Human Agency in Disaster Planning: A Systems Approach

Current approaches to risk management place insufficient emphasis on the system knowledge available to the assessor, particularly in respect of the dynamic behavior of the system under threat, the role of human agents (HAs), and the knowledge available to those agents. In this article, we address the second of these issues. We are concerned with a class of systems containing HAs playing a variety of roles as significant system elements—as decisionmakers, cognitive agents, or implementers—that is, human activity systems. Within this family of HAS, we focus on safety and mission‐critical systems, referring to this subclass as critical human activity systems (CHASs). Identification of the role and contribution of these human elements to a system is a nontrivial problem whether in an engineering context, or, as is the case here, in a wider social and public context. Frequently, they are treated as standing apart from the system in design or policy terms. Regardless of the process of policy definition followed, analysis of the risk and threats to such a CHAS requires a holistic approach, since the effect of undesirable, uninformed, or erroneous actions on the part of the human elements is both potentially significant to the system output and inextricably bound together with the nonhuman elements of the system. We present a procedure for identifying the potential threats and risks emerging from the roles and activity of those HAs, using the 2014 flooding in southwestern England and the Thames Valley as a contemporary example.     

The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards

Many risk scholars recognize the importance of including ethical considerations in risk management. Risk ethics can provide in‐depth ethical analysis so that ethical considerations can be part of risk‐related decisions, rather than an afterthought to those decisions. In this article, I present a brief sketch of the field of risk ethics. I argue that risk ethics has a bias toward technological hazards, thereby overlooking the risks that stem from natural and semi‐natural hazards. In order to make a contribution to the field of risk research, risks ethics should broaden its scope to include natural and semi‐natural hazards and develop normative distribution criteria that can support decision making on such hazards.     

Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

EPA Underestimates,Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates,and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility

If exposed to an identical concentration of a carcinogen, every human being would face a different level of risk, determined by his or her genetic, environmental, medical, and other uniquely individual characteristics. Various lines of evidence indicate that this susceptibility variable is distributed rather broadly in the human population, with perhaps a factor of 25‐ to 50‐fold between the center of this distribution and either of its tails, but cancer risk assessment at the EPA and elsewhere has always treated every (adult) human as identically susceptible. The National Academy of Sciences “Silver Book” concluded that EPA and the other agencies should fundamentally correct their mis‐computation of carcinogenic risk in two ways: (1) adjust individual risk estimates upward to provide information about the upper tail; and (2) adjust population risk estimates upward (by about sevenfold) to correct an underestimation due to a mathematical property of the interindividual distribution of human susceptibility, in which the susceptibility averaged over the entire (right‐skewed) population exceeds the median value for the typical human. In this issue of Risk Analysis, Kenneth Bogen disputes the second adjustment and endorses the first, though he also relegates the problem of underestimated individual risks to the realm of “equity concerns” that he says should have little if any bearing on risk management policy. In this article, I show why the basis for the population risk adjustment that the NAS recommended is correct—that current population cancer risk estimates, whether they are derived from animal bioassays or from human epidemiologic studies, likely provide estimates of the median with respect to human variation, which in turn must be an underestimate of the mean. If cancer risk estimates have larger “conservative” biases embedded in them, a premise I have disputed in many previous writings, such a defect would not excuse ignoring this additional bias in the direction of underestimation. I also demonstrate that sensible, legally appropriate, and ethical risk policy must not only inform the public when the tail of the individual risk distribution extends into the “high‐risk” range, but must alter benefit‐cost balancing to account for the need to try to reduce these tail risks preferentially.     

Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion

Proposed in this article is one possible framework for classifying multiple types of ethical issues in risk communication research and practice to help continue a discussion initiated in 1990 by Morgan and Lave. Some of the questions that each stage of the process for planning risk communication strategies appears to pose for ethics are discussed (e.g., selecting issues to be communicated, knowing the issue, dealing with constraints). Also discussed briefly are some issues raised by the possibility that risk communicators aspire to the status of a profession. The purpose is to foster discussion rather than issue a conclusive statement on the topic, because its very nature makes a definitive pronouncement indefensible.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In spite of the maturity reached by many of the methods used in risk assessment and risk management, broad consensus has not been established on fundamental concepts and principles. The risk fields still suffer from a lack of clarity on many key scientific pillars. The purpose of this article is to point to this situation and through some illustrating examples discuss the challenges that the fields here face. Moreover, the purpose of the article is to reflect on how to improve the present situation and enhance the risk fields. We argue that the establishment of some common scientific pillars as well as a strong and continuous research focus on foundational issues are critical success factors. The article specifically addresses the role of the peer‐reviewed journals and the international standards in the fields. We hope that the article can contribute to a revitalization of the discussion of foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management.     

The Role of Emotions in Risk Communication

We present two experiments investigating the role of emotions concerning technological and natural hazards. In the first experiment, technological hazards aroused stronger emotions, and were considered to be riskier than natural hazards. No differences were found between the texts versus audio presentations. However, the presence of pictures aroused stronger emotions and increased the perceived risk. Emotions play a mediating role between hazard types and perceived risk, as well as between pictures and perceived risk. The second experiment adopted real‐world materials from webpages and TV. Emotions again play a mediating role between pictorial information and risk perception. Moreover, specific emotions were found to be associated with different types of action tendencies. For example, loss‐based emotions (e.g., fear, regret) tend to lead to prevention strategies, whereas ethical emotions (e.g., anger) lead to aggressive behavior. We also find that loss‐based emotions in the technical hazard scenario trigger more coping strategies (from prevention to retaliation) than in the natural hazard scenario.     

Improving Flood Risk Communication by Focusing on Prevention‐Focused Motivation

This article proposes an approach to flood risk communication that gives particular emphasis to the distinction between prevention and promotion motivation. According to E. Tory Higgins, the promotion system and the prevention system are assumed to coexist in every person, but one or the other may be temporarily or chronically more accessible. These insights have far‐reaching implications for our understanding of people's reasoning about risks. Flood risk communication framed in terms of prevention involves the notions of chance and harm, woven into a story about particular events that necessitate decisions to be more careful about safety issues and protect one's family and oneself from danger. The article describes how the insights worked out in practice, using a flood risk communication experiment among a sample from the general population in a highly populated river delta of the Netherlands. It had a posttest‐only control group design (n = 2,302). The results showed that risk communication had a large effect on the participants’ responses and that this effect was higher among chronic prevention‐focused people than among others. Any information that increased the fit between a prevention‐framed message and a person's chronic prevention motivation produced stronger situationally induced, prevention‐focused responses. This may significantly improve communication about risks. In contrast, the notion of water city projects, featuring waterside living, had more appeal to promotion‐focused people.     

Evaluation of Two Approaches to Defining Extinction Risk under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The predominant definition of extinction risk in conservation biology involves evaluating the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of extinction time at a particular point (the “time horizon”). Using the principles of decision theory, this article develops an alternative definition of extinction risk as the expected loss (EL) to society resulting from eventual extinction of a species. Distinct roles are identified for time preference and risk aversion. Ranges of tentative values for the parameters of the two approaches are proposed, and the performances of the two approaches are compared and contrasted for a small set of real‐world species with published extinction time distributions and a large set of hypothetical extinction time distributions. Potential issues with each approach are evaluated, and the EL approach is recommended as the better of the two. The CDF approach suffers from the fact that extinctions that occur at any time before the specified time horizon are weighted equally, while extinctions that occur beyond the specified time horizon receive no weight at all. It also suffers from the fact that the time horizon does not correspond to any natural phenomenon, and so is impossible to specify nonarbitrarily; yet the results can depend critically on the specified value. In contrast, the EL approach has the advantage of weighting extinction time continuously, with no artificial time horizon, and the parameters of the approach (the rates of time preference and risk aversion) do correspond to natural phenomena, and so can be specified nonarbitrarily.     

The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms “risk” and “hazard.” The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four‐fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders’ perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.