A Scale of Risk

Abstract

This article proposes a conceptual framework for ranking the relative gravity of diverse risks. This framework identifies the moral considerations that should inform the evaluation and comparison of diverse risks. A common definition of risk includes two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the associated consequences of a set of hazardous scenarios. This article first expands this definition to include a third dimension: the source of a risk. The source of a risk refers to the agents involved in the creation or maintenance of a risk and captures a central moral concern about risks. Then, a scale of risk is proposed to categorize risks along a multidimensional ranking, based on a comparative evaluation of the consequences, probability, and source of a given risk. A risk is ranked higher on the scale the larger the consequences, the greater the probability, and the more morally culpable the source. The information from the proposed comparative evaluation of risks can inform the selection of priorities for risk mitigation.

Can Belief in a Just World Buffer Mood and Career Prospects of People in Need of Risk Protection? First Experimental Evidence

“…While these represent different types of risk, the BJW revealed a similar buffering pattern concerning mood for people in need of risk protection. Although the emotional impact (e.g., "dread" (46) ) and consequences (47) of life-threatening situations should be far greater than long-term financial difficulties, they might have been diminished by the use of hypothetical scenarios, while the seemingly real risk to participants' current career increased its perceived threat. However, the positive association between career prospects and BJW was not limited to people with low uncertainty tolerance, indicating possible fluctuations in the conditions required for the BJW to buffer against perceived threat.…”

Theories of Risk Management and Multiple Hazards: Thoughts for Engineers from Regulatory Policy

“…Risk theorists outside of law have emphasized the theoretical importance of identifying the source of risks to fully develop strategies for managing those risks Gardoni 2011, 2012;Gardoni and Murphy 2013). The concept of reciprocal risk highlights the importance of interrogating those sources to consider both sides of the reciprocal risk coin: the ranchers and the farmers, the factory and the townspeople, and natural processes and human behavior.…”

Multi-hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering

“…The generally accepted level of annual fatality risk (AFR) is one in a million (e.g. Stewart and Melchers 1997); see, for example, and Gardoni and Murphy (2014) for a fuller discussion on risk acceptability. The probability that an American will be killed by a terrorist in the USA, with the events of 2001 included in the count, stands at about one in four million per year (Mueller and Stewart 2016), or the probability an airline passenger will be killed by a terrorist act is a low one in 90 million per year (Mueller and Stewart 2016).…”