Three Types of Risk Assessment: A Methodological Analysis

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

1. C. Mandl and J. Lathrop: “Comparing Risk Assessments for Liquefied Gas Terminals — Some Results.” In The Risk Analysis Controversy. An Institutional Perspective, H. Kunreuther and E.V. Ley (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1982, pp. 42–43.

   Google Scholar 

2. C. Starr, “Social Benefit versus Technological Risk,” Science, Vol. 165, Sept. 19, 1969, pp. 1232–1238.

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

3. G. Apostolakis: “Probability and Risk Assessment: The Subjectivist Viewpoint and Some Suggestions,” Nuclear Safety, Vol. 19. No. 3, May–June 1978, pp. 305–315.

   Google Scholar 

4. Risk and Decisionmaking: Perspectives and Research. Committee on Risk and Decisionmaking Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academic Press, Washington, D.C., 1982. p. 61,

   Google Scholar 

5. G.N. Parry and D.W. Winter, “Characterization and Evaluation of Uncertainty in Probability Risk Analysis,” Nuclear Safety, Vol$122, No. 1, January–February 1981, pp. 28–42.

   Google Scholar 

6. D. Okrent, “A Survey of Expert Opinion on Low-Probability Earthquakes,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2, 1975, pp. 601–614.

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. The Axman and Nuclear Power,” (Leader) New York Times, March 20, 1983.

   Google Scholar 

8. Nuclear Incompetence,” New Scientist, May 19, 1983, p. 434.

   Google Scholar 

9. J.R. Ravetz, “The Safety of Safeguards,” Minerva, Vol. XII, No. 3, July 1974, pp. 323–325.

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. S. Kaplan and F.J. Garrick, “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk, ” Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1981, p. 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. B. Wolfe, “Is the Energy Debate Really about Energy?”, IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1983, pp. 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

12. M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), “Rationality and Relativism,” B. Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

13. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture, University of California, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

14. J.M. Ziman, Public Knowledge, (Cambridge U.P., 1968 ).

    Google Scholar 

15. J. Tye, “On the Safety Beat,” Safety, (London) February 1982.

    Google Scholar 

16. Health and Safety Executive. “Canvey: An Investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area,” 1978, and “Canvey: A Second Report,” 1981 ( London: HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

17. J.R. Ravetz, “The Political Economy of Risk,” New Scientist, September 8, 1977, pp. 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Philosophy, The University, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

   Silvio O. Funtowicz & Jerome R. Ravetz

Editors and Affiliations

1. U.S. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA

   Vincent T. Covello

2. State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, USA

   Jeryl L. Mumpower

3. Centre for Technology and Policy Studies, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

   Pieter J. M. Stallen

4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

   V. R. R. Uppuluri

Cite this paper

Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R. (1985). Three Types of Risk Assessment: A Methodological Analysis. In: Covello, V.T., Mumpower, J.L., Stallen, P.J.M., Uppuluri, V.R.R. (eds) Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis. NATO ASI Series, vol 4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70634-9_30

Download citation

• .RIS
• .ENW
• .BIB

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70634-9_30

• Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

• Print ISBN: 978-3-642-70636-3

• Online ISBN: 978-3-642-70634-9

• eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive