A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers

Morgan, Kara; DeKay, Michael L.; Fischbeck, Paul S.; Morgan, M. Granger; Fischhoff, Baruch; Florig, H. Keith

doi:10.1111/0272-4332.215162

Cited by 101 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, a number of visual aids continue to be developed and tested to help people better understand seemingly complex risk information and put risk magnitudes into proper perspective. These include risk ladders, pie charts, dots, and community risk scales (Hammitt, 1990;Gutteling and Wiegman, 1996;Sandman et al, 1994;Weinstein et al, 1996;Calman and Royston, 1997;Siegrist, 1997;Florig et al, 2001;Morgan et al, 2001). Verbal analogies, such as comparing a risk to its equivalent in time, distance, population, or games of chance, have also been used to present risk information (Weinstein et al, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Williams¹

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to communicate effectively the degree or magnitude of public exposures or health risks is essential for risk assessors and risk managers. Various guidelines exist for communicating environmental and public health risks, including recommended approaches for putting risk data into proper context. Although it remains unclear as to which approach is the most useful or appropriate under different circumstances, risk comparisons are a popular choice for conveying the significance of or providing a better perspective on a particular chemical exposure or health risk. In this paper, several different types of risk comparisons are described that are frequently used in the private and public sectors, and these are illustrated using a variety of examples from the literature. These approaches include: (1) intrachemical comparisons, (2) interchemical comparisons, (3) comparisons to background levels of risk, (4) comparisons to theoretical risks or safety levels, and (5) comparisons to other actions or activities. The primary purpose of this paper is to summarize and briefly discuss the advantages and limitations of these risk communication approaches. The evolving field of risk communication is also discussed, including ongoing research on public risk perceptions and alternative methods for communicating risk magnitudes and data uncertainties. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology IntroductionThe ability to communicate effectively the degree or magnitude of public exposures or health risks is essential for risk assessors and risk managers (Williams, 2000). Risk communication is the process of conveying information about an exposure, risk, or risk management decision (NRC, 1989). More specifically, risk communication can be defined as ''any public or private communication that informs individuals about the existence, nature, severity, or acceptability of risks '' (Plough and Krimsky, 1987). Communicating risks often involves interpreting available scientific evidence, and describing and summarizing scientific knowledge about exposure and risk issues (NRC, 1989). Risk communication can also be used to influence public opinion or choice, or to arouse or alleviate public concerns about a risk issue (Kasperson et al., 1988;Sandman, 1993). The history of risk communication as applied to environmental and public health risks has not been fully documented, but has clearly evolved through several developmental stages over time (Fischhoff, 1995) and may have been influenced by the desire to gain acceptance for decisions grounded in risk assessment methods (Plough and Krimsky, 1987) or the organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressures (Chess, 2001).Over the last 20 years, various guidelines have been published for communicating environmental and public health risks. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has produced several risk communication reports and case studies as part of their mission to explain the public health hazards associated...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Williams¹

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response, Morgan et al proposed a framework for a risk-ranking method that could engage a wide range of stakeholder participation in a systematic process that used multiple quantitative and qualitative estimates of consequence (Morgan et al 1996). Later papers developed the framework into a systematic process called the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (Jenni 1997;Morgan et al 2000;Florig et al 2001;Morgan et al 2001).…”

Section: The Deliberative Methods For Ranking Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Deliberative Method for Ranking Risk was initially tested in a ranking of the health and safety risks at a school and was validated for both lay-people and risk experts (Morgan 1999;Florig et al 2001;Morgan et al 2001). Later papers expanded the set of risks to compare risks that affect both human-related and ecological environmental concerns (Willis et al 2004), applied the risk ranking method in high-level governmental decision-making contexts (Willis et al 2010), and examined the utility of the method in different contexts of the UAE (Willis et al 2010) and China (Xu et al 2011).…”

Section: The Deliberative Methods For Ranking Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We selected 17 attributes to describe the hazards: five attributes described health, four described economic consequences, three involves non-economic societal consequences, and five represented non-consequence attributes associated with the perception of risks (Table 2). Consistent with previous studies using the deliberative method, we included multiple perspectives of important characteristics Morgan et al 2001;Willis et al 2004; Willis et al 2010;Xu et al 2011); in this case, we included both expected value as well as the consequences for an event should one occur for both health and economic consequences. We presented both perspectives to avoid constraining the choices of those comparing the risks (Lundberg 2013).…”

Section: Identifying Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, some characteristics of risk are not easily measured using quantitative approaches because of either lack of valid measures or lack of reliable data. For example, the psychologic impacts of risks or environmental consequences of risk have been characterized using qualitative methods in past comparative risk analysis studies (Morgan 1999;Florig et al 2001;Morgan et al 2001;Willis et al 2004). Second, for a quantitative approach requires using importance-weights to aggregate across different types of consequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Lundberg¹,

Willis

2016

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Reliably managing homeland security risks requires an understanding of which risks are more concerning than others. This paper applies a validated risk ranking methodology, the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks, to the homeland security domain. This method provides a structured approach to elicit risk rankings from participants based on deliberative consideration of science-based risk assessments. Steps in this effort include first identifying the set of attributes that must be covered when describing terrorism and disaster hazards in a comprehensive manner, then developing concise summaries of existing knowledge of a broad set of homeland security hazards. Using these materials, the study elicits relative concerns about the hazards that are being considered. The relative concerns about hazards provide a starting point for prioritizing solutions for reducing risks to homeland security. The consistency and agreement of the rankings, as well as the individual satisfaction with the process and results, suggest that the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks can be appropriately applied in the homeland security domain. The rankings themselves reflected greater concern over natural disasters than terrorist events. This research suggests that deliberative risk ranking methods could provide a valid and reliable description of individuals' concerns about homeland security risks to inform strategic planning.

show abstract

Protection of the Environment

Nickerson

2007

Handbook of Applied Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers

Cited by 101 publications

References 18 publications

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Protection of the Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About