A Frequency/Consequence‐based Technique for Visualizing and Communicating Uncertainty and Perception of Risk

This chapter presents an approach under development for communicating uncertainty regarding risk. The approach relies on a risk imaging technology that decomposes risk into two basic elements: (i) the frequency of each kind of harm associated with a hazard and (ii) the adversity of each of those harms. Because different kinds of harm are often measured along incompatible dimensions, adversity is quantified on an ordinal scale. Frequency is quantified on a ratio scale. Sampling error, measurement error, and bias all contribute to uncertainty about frequency. Differences in opinion, measurement error, and choice of dimensions lead to uncertainty about adversity. In this chapter, risk is imaged as an area circumscribed by uncertainty bounds around all of the harms. This area is called the risk profile of a hazard. Different individuals and groups respond to uncertainty and risk differently, and the risk profile can be further focused to visualize particular risk perceptions. These alternate risk visualizations may be contrasted and compared across management choices or across different risk perceivers to facilitate communication and decision making. To illustrate the method, we image published clinical trial data.

[1]  C. Reynolds Physician's Desk Reference , 2008 .

[2]  John A. Wagner,et al.  A cost-effectiveness approach to the qualification and acceptance of biomarkers , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[3]  J. Freston,et al.  Rating the severity of the medical consequences of drug-induced liver injury. , 2005, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[4]  Henry H. Willis,et al.  Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  B. Johnson Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach , 2002 .

[6]  B Fischhoff,et al.  A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  H. Florig,et al.  A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Probability Bounds Analysis Solves the Problem of Incomplete Specification in Probabilistic Risk and Safety Assessments , 2001 .

[9]  D. Vogel,et al.  The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice , 2000 .

[11]  P. Slovic,et al.  “How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  P. Slovic Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  Daniel Berleant,et al.  Bounding the Results of Arithmetic Operations on Random Variables of Unknown Dependency Using Intervals , 1998, Reliab. Comput..

[14]  M. Economics Physicians' Desk Reference: PDR , 1997 .

[15]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong , 1997 .

[16]  Scott Ferson,et al.  What Monte Carlo methods cannot do , 1996 .

[17]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[19]  R. Keeney,et al.  Improving risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Risk analysis and public policy for major hazards , 1982 .

[21]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[22]  Stephen A. Williams,et al.  Th-W56:7 A cost-benefit approach to the regulation, qualification and acceptance of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints , 2006 .

[23]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Constructing Probability Boxes and Dempster-Shafer Structures , 2003 .

[24]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Probability bounds analysis in environmental risk assessments , 2003 .

[25]  E. Weber Origins and Functions of Perceptions of Risk , 2003 .

[26]  R. Löfstedt The precautionary principle - Risk, regulation and politics , 2003 .

[27]  Chris R Jones,et al.  QUANTIFIED RISK ASSESSMENT OF AIRCRAFT FUELLING OPERATIONS. , 2000 .

[28]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  World Views, Political Attitudes and Risk Perception , 1998 .

[29]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Probability bounds analysis , 1998 .

[30]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Designing risk communications: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, Part I. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Evaluating risk communications: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, Part II. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  G. Ballard,et al.  Guest editorial: Societal risk—progress since Farmer , 1993 .

[33]  Ortwin Renn The social arena concept of risk debates , 1993 .

[34]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Cultural theory and risk analysis , 1992 .

[35]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm , 1992 .

[36]  R. Kasperson The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework of risk’, in S. , 1992 .

[37]  J. R. Beattie,et al.  NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND THE EVALUATION OF POPULATION HAZARDS , 1976 .

[38]  F. Farmer REACTOR SAFETY AND SITING: A PROPOSED RISK CRITERION. , 1967 .

[39]  D. Rasch,et al.  E. L. Crow, F. A. Davis und W. Maxfield: “Statistics Manual with examples taken from ordonance development”. Dover Publications, Inc. New York-New York 1960. XVII + 288 S. (einschließlich Tabellen und Abbildungen), Preis $ 1,65 , 1965 .

[40]  M. Fréchet Généralisation du théorème des probabilités totales , 1935 .