A Decision-Process Perspective on Risk and Policy Analysis

Risk analysis and policy analysis can play important roles in facilitating the siting of potentially hazardous facilities if one recognizes the descriptive features of the decision process. The case of siting a liquified natural gas LNG facility in California illustrates the multi-party sequential nature of the process and the role that widely differing risk estimates play in fueling conflicts between stakeholders. Risk analysis does have a useful function in clarifying the nature of the potential losses, particularly if rules of evidence are instituted for evaluating different studies. Policy analysis can facilitate the negotiation process by the use of compensation to redistribute gains and losses between the different parties. Examples from case studies are presented to illustrate the challenges for risk analysis and policy analysis in the siting process.

[1]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Judged frequency of lethal events , 1978 .

[2]  E LevineMichael,et al.  Agenda Influence and Its Implications , 1977 .

[3]  J. Linnerooth,et al.  The Role of Risk Assessment in a Political Decision Process , 1983 .

[4]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Agenda Influence and its Implications , 1977 .

[5]  Braybrooke.  TRAFFIC CONGESTION GOES THROUGH THE ISSUE-MACHINE , 1974 .

[6]  Charles D. Elder,et al.  Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building , 1975 .

[7]  Alvin M. Weinberg,et al.  Science and trans-science. , 1972 .

[8]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Siting energy facilities , 1980 .

[9]  Werner Pfennigstorf,et al.  Environment, Damages, and Compensation , 1979 .

[10]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Siting hazardous facilities: lessons from LNG , 1981 .

[11]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Characterizing Perceived Risk , 1985 .

[12]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[13]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[14]  H. Inhaber,et al.  Risk with energy from conventional and nonconventional sources. , 1979, Science.

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty , 1982 .

[16]  D. Winterfeldt,et al.  Beyond acceptable risk: On the social acceptability of technologies , 1982 .

[17]  Jack L. Walker.  Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection , 1977, British Journal of Political Science.

[18]  G. Allison,et al.  Essence of Decision , 1971 .

[19]  H R Piehler,et al.  Product Liability and the Technical Expert , 1974, Science.

[20]  E. S. Quade,et al.  Analysis for public decisions , 1975 .

[21]  B. Ackerman.  The Uncertain Search for Environmental Quality , 1974 .

[22]  William R. Ahern,et al.  CALIFORNIA MEETS THE LNG TERMINAL , 1980 .

[23]  Edward W. Lawless,et al.  Technology and Social Shock , 1977 .

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.