Formal Criteria and Instruments for the Decision Process

  • K. Pinkau
  • K. Decker
  • C. F. Gethmann
  • H. W. Levi
  • J. Mittelstraß
  • S. Peyerimhoff
  • G. zu Putlitz
  • A. Randelzhofer
  • C. Streffer
  • F. E. Weinert


Environmental standards establish what risk is collectively regarded as acceptable after the utilities have been weighed up. As has been expounded in chapter 1, the question about procedures and criteria according to which the acceptable risk can be determined in a socially binding way cannot be answered on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, such as, for example, knowledge about the dose response relation (Mayntz 1990, 141). This chapter focuses on working out rational evaluation procedures and developing instruments that can become effective in the social decision process. Its reflections orient by the question how far the limits of a scientific way of proceeding can be extended in the face of the social decision processes described in chapter 4.


Decision Maker Group Decision Environmental Standard Decision Situation Formal Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K.J. (1951): Social Choice and Individual Values, New York, Basic.Google Scholar
  2. Bacow, L.S., Wheeler, M. (1984): Environmental Dispute Resolution, New York, Plenum.Google Scholar
  3. Baram, M. (1980): Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Inadequate Basis for Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulatory Decisionmaking, Ecology Law Quarterly 8, 473–531.Google Scholar
  4. Behn, R.D., Vaupel, J.V. (1982): Quick Analysis for Busy Decision Makers, New York, Basic.Google Scholar
  5. Benane, M. (1988): Delphi and Delphilike Approaches with Special Regard to Environmental Standard Setting, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 33, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, S., Niehaus F., Simpson, D. (1979): How Safe Is ‚Too’ Safe? Report WP-79–68, Laxenburg, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
  7. Butters, G., Califee, J., Ippolito, P. (1981): Reply to Steven Kelman, Regulation 5, Nr. 2, 41–42.Google Scholar
  8. Crouch, E.A.C., Wilson, R. (1982): Risk-Benefit Analysis Cambridge, Ballinger.Google Scholar
  9. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O. (1963): An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts, Management Science 9, Nr. 3.Google Scholar
  10. DeFina, R. (1977): Public and Private Expenditures for Federal Regulation of Business, St. Louis, Center for the Study of American Business.Google Scholar
  11. Derby, S.L., Keeney, R.L. (1981): Risk Analysis: Understanding How Safe Is Safe Enough, Risk Analysis 1, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diederichsen, U. (1990): Risikobewältigung durch Jurisprudenz in: Risiko und die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt, M. Schüz (ed.), Vol. 1, Pfullingen, Neske, 150–171.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, W. (1954): The Theory of Decision Making, Psychological Bulletin 51, 380–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, W. (1977): How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7, 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenführ, F., Weber, M. (1986): Zielstrukturierung: ein kritischer Schritt im Entscheidungsprozeß, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 38, 907–929.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, L., Frick, M.C., Schwing, R.C. (1989): Is it Safer to Fly or Drive? General Motors Research Laboratories, GUR-6722, Warren, Mich., General Motors.Google Scholar
  17. Farquhar, P.H. (1984): Utility Assessment Methods, Management Science 30, 1283–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiorino, D.J. (1989): Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis 9, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer, D. (1973): Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse—Hilfe für rationale Entscheidungen, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 129, 230–245.Google Scholar
  20. Fischoff, B., Watson, S.R., Hope, C. (1984): Defining Risk, Policy Sciences 17, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. (1979): Weighing the Risks, Which Risks are Acceptable?, Environment, 21, 17–20, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. (1985): Weighing the Risks, in: Peribus Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, R.W. Kates, C. Hohenemser & J.X. Kasperson (eds.), Boulder, Westview, 265–283.Google Scholar
  23. Fishburn, P.C., Keeney, R.L. (1974): Seven Independent Concepts and Continuous Multiattribute Utility Functions, Mathematical Psychology 11, 294–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frankena, W.K. (1963): Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Fritzsche, A.F. (1986): Wie sicher leben wir? Risikobeurteilung undGoogle Scholar
  26. bewältigung in unserer Gesellschaft, Köln, Verlag TÜV Rheinland und Gäfgen, G. (1963): Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entscheidung, Tübingen, Mohr.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, J., Vaupel, J. (1980): The Value of Life: What Difference Does It Make?, Risk Analysis 1, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Häfele, W., Renn, O., Erdmann, G. (1990): Risiko, Unsicherheit und Undeutlichkeit, in: Energiesysteme im Übergang—Unter den Bedingungen der Zukunft, W. Hafele (ed.), Landsberg, Poller, 373–423.Google Scholar
  29. Hansmeyer, K.-H., Rürup, B. (1975): Staatswirtschaftliche Planungsinstrumente, Tübingen, Mohr.Google Scholar
  30. Hartkopf, G., Boehme, E. (1983): Die Ausgangssituation unserer Umweltpolitik. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 42, 3–12.Google Scholar
  31. Harvey, C.M. (1985): Decision Analysis Models for Risk in Distant Futures, In: Risk Assessment and Management, L.B. Lave (ed.), New York, Plenum, 509–558.Google Scholar
  32. Hattis, D., Kennedey, D. (1990): Assessing Risks from Health Hazards: An Imperfect Science, in: Readings in Risk, T.S. Glickman & M. Gough (eds.), Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, 156–163.Google Scholar
  33. Hill, K.Q., Fowles, J. (1975): The Methodological Worth of the Delphi Forecasting Technique, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 7, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Höffe, O. (1977): Uber John Rawls Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Frankfurt a.M. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  35. Höffe, O. (1987): Politische Gerechtigkeit. Grundlegung einer kritischen Philosophie von Recht und Staat, Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. Hoerger, F. (1987): On the Evaluation of Risk Assessment and Risk Management and Future Needs, in: Risk Assessment and Management, L.B. Lave (ed.) New York, Plenum, 649–556.Google Scholar
  37. Horowitz, J.K., Carson, R.F. (1990): Discounting Statistical Lives, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huber, G.P. (1974): Methods for Quantifying Subjective Probabilities and Multiattribute Utilities, Decision Sciences 5, 430–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Humphreys, P. (1977): Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory, in: Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, H. Jungermann & D. de Zeeuw (eds.), Dordrecht, Reidel, 265–205.Google Scholar
  40. Hyman, E.L., Stiftel, B. (1988): Combining Facts and Values in Environmental Impact Assessment, Boulder, Westview.Google Scholar
  41. Just, R.E., Health, D.L., Schmitz, A. (1982): Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Keeney, R.L. (1981): Measurement Scales for Quantifying Attributes, Behavioral Science 26, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keeney, R.L. (1988): Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest, Operations Research 36, 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H. (1976): Decision with Multiple Objectives. Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Keeney, R.L., Renn, O., Winterfeldt, D. von, Kotte, U. (1984): Die Wertbaumanalyse. Entscheidungshilfe für die Politik, München, HTV Edition „Technik und Sozialer Wandel“.Google Scholar
  46. Keeney, R.L., Renn, O., Winterfeldt, D. von (1987): Structuring West Germany’s Energy Objectives, Energy Policy 15, Nr. 4, 352–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kelman, S. (1981): Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique, Regulation 5, Nr. 1, 33–40.Google Scholar
  48. Kip Viscusi, W. (1984): The Influence of Legislative Mandates on the Oversight of Risk Regulatory Agencies, in: Risk Analysis, Institutions, and Public Policy, S. Hadden (ed.), Port Washington, N.Y., Associated Faculty Press, 117–131.Google Scholar
  49. Krewski, D., Birkwood, P.L. (1987): Risk Assessment and Risk Management: A Survey of Recent Models, in: Risk Assessment and Management, L.B. Lave (ed.), New York, Plenum, 339–406.Google Scholar
  50. Külp, B. (1976): Wohlfahrtsökonomie 1: Wohlfahrtskriterien, Tübingen 1976, Mohr.Google Scholar
  51. Lagadec, P. (1987): From Seveso to Mexico and Bhopal: Learning to Cope with Crisis, in: Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond, P. Kleindorfer & H. Kunreuther (eds.), Berlin, Springer, 13–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Linnerooth, J. (1983): Die Risikoanalyse im politischen Prozeß, in: Risikoanalyse und politische Entscheidungsprozesse, H. Kunreuther & J. Linnerooth (eds.), Berlin, Springer, 219–258.Google Scholar
  53. Lorenzen, P., Schwemmer, O. (1972): Konstruktive Logik, Ethik und Wissenschaftstheorie, Mannheim, Bibliographisches Institut—Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  54. Loucks, D.F., Somlyodi, L. (1986): Multiobjective Assessment of Multipurpose Water Resources Projects for Developing Countries, National Resources. Forum 10, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. MacLean, D. (1986): Social Values and the Distribution of Risk, in: Values at Risk, D. MacLean (ed.), Totowa, Rowman and Allanheld, 75–93.Google Scholar
  56. Major, D.C. (1978): Multiobjective Water Resource Planning, Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union.Google Scholar
  57. Mayntz, R. (1990): Entscheidungsprozesse bei der Entwicklung von Umweltstandards, Die Verwaltung 23, Heft 2, 137–151.Google Scholar
  58. Merkhofer, L.W. (1984): Comparative Analysis of Formal Decision-Making Approaches, in: Risk Evaluation and Management, V.T. Covello, J. Menkes & J. Mumpower (eds.), New York, Plenum, 183–220.Google Scholar
  59. Merkhofer, L.W. (1987): The Use of Risk Comparisons to Aid the Communication and Interpretation of the Risk Analyses for Regulatory Decision Making, in: Risk Assessment and Management, L.B. Lave (ed.), New York, Plenum, 581–607.Google Scholar
  60. Merkhofer, L.W., Keeney, R.L. (1987): A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste, Risk Analysis 7, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyer-Abich, K. (1990): Zulassung von Risiken für die Allgemeinheit, in: Risiko und Wagnis: Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt, W. Schüz (ed.), Pfullingen, Neske, 172–191.Google Scholar
  62. Mintroff, L. L., Turoff, M. (1975): Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of Delphi, in: The Delphi Method, H.A. Linstone & M. Turoff (eds.), Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 17–36.Google Scholar
  63. Morgan, G. (1990): Choosing and Managing Technology-Induced Risk, in: Readings in Risk, T.S. Glickman & M. Gough (eds), Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, 17–28.Google Scholar
  64. National Academy of Sciences (1975): Decisionmaking for Regulating Chemicals in the Environment, Washington, D.C., National Research Council.Google Scholar
  65. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983): Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, D.C., National Research. Council.Google Scholar
  66. Neale, M.A., Bazaerman, M.H. (1985): Perspectives for Understanding Negotiation: Viewing Negotiation as a Judgmental Process, Journal of Conflict Resolution 29, 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Phillips, L.D. (1979): Introduction to Decision Analysis, Tutorial Paper 79- London, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  68. Raiffa, H. (1973): Einführung in die Entscheidungstheorie, München.Google Scholar
  69. Raiffa, H. (1982): The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rawls, J. (1971): A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rehbinder, E. (1976): Umweltrecht, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches internationales Privatrecht 3, 365–372.Google Scholar
  72. Renn, O. (1986): Decision Analytic Tools for Resolving Uncertainty in the Energy Debate, Nuclear Engineering and Design 93, Nr. 2&3, 167–180.Google Scholar
  73. Renn, O. (1988): Evaluation of Risk Communication: Concepts, Strategies, and Guidelines, in: Managing Environmental Risks, Air Pollution Control Association (ed.), Washington, DC., APCA, 99–117.Google Scholar
  74. Renn, O. (1990): Risk Management and Communication in the Aftermath of Chernobyl: A Comparative Perspective, Environmental Psychology 10, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Renn, O., Kotte, U. (1984): Umfassende Bewertung der vier Pfade der EnquêteKommission auf der Basis eines Indikatorkatalogs, in: Energie im Brennpunkt, G. Albrecht & H. U. Stegelmann (ed.), München, HTV Edition „Technik und Sozialer Wandel“, 190–232.Google Scholar
  76. Renn, O., Kals, J. (1990): Technische Risikoanalyse und unternehmerisches Handeln, in: Risiko und Wagnis: Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt, M. Schüz (ed.), vol. 1, Pfullingen, Neske, 60–80.Google Scholar
  77. Rowe, W.D. (1977): An Anatomy of Risk, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  78. Rowe, W.D. (1979): What is an Acceptable Risk and How Can It Be Determined? in: Energy Risk Management, G.T. Goodman & W.D. Rowe (eds.), London, Academic Press, 327–344.Google Scholar
  79. Rushefsky, M. (1984): Institutional Mechanisms for Resolving Risk Controversies, in: Risk Analysis, Institutions, and Public Policy, S.G. Hadden (ed.), Port Washington, Associated Foreign Press, 133–148.Google Scholar
  80. Schoemaker, P.J. (1982): The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence, and Limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 30, 529–563.Google Scholar
  81. Schrader-Frechette, K.S. (1984): Risk-Cost-Benefit Methodology and Equal Protection, in: Risk Evaluation and Management, V.T. Covello, J. Menkes & J. Mumpower (eds.), New York, Plenum, 275–296.Google Scholar
  82. Schrader-Frechette, K.S. (1985): Risk Analysis and Scientific Method: Methodological and Ethical Issues with Evaluating Societal Risks, Dordrecht, Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schürmann, H.J. (1978): Ökonomische Ansätze zu einer rationalen Umweltpolitik und wirtschaftspolitische Konsequenzen, 2. Edition, München, R. Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  84. Simon, H. (1976): Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 3. ed., New York, Basic.Google Scholar
  85. Slovic, P. (1987): Perceptions of Risk, Science 23, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smith, V.K. (1986): A Conceptual Overview of the Foundations of Benefit-Cost Analysis, in: Benefits Assessment: The State of the Art, J.D. Bentkover, V.T. Covello & J. Mumpower (eds.), Dordrecht, Reidel, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Starr, C. (1969): Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk, Science 165, 1232–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Susskind, L., Richardson, J.R., Hildebrand, K.J. (1979): Resolving Environmental Disputes, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  89. Talbot, A.R. (1987): Settling Things: Six Case Studies in Environmental Mediation, Washington, D.C., The Conservation Foundation und the Ford Foundation.Google Scholar
  90. Tversky, A. (1972): Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice, Psychological Review 79, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Watson, S.R. (1982): Multi-Attribute Utility Theory for Measuring Safety, European Journal of Operational Research 10, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Weber, M. (1983): Entscheidungen bei Mehrfachzielen, Wiesbaden, Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weber, M., Eisenführ, F., Winterfeldt, D. von (1988): The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multi-Attribute Utility Measurement, Management Science 34, 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., Renn, O. (1991): The Group Delphi: A Novel Approach to Reducing Uncertainty, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39, Nr. 3, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wicke, L. (1990): Der Okonomische Wert der Okologie, in: Risiko und Wagnis: Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt, M. Schüz (ed.), vol. 1, Pfullingen, Neske, 210–227.Google Scholar
  96. Wildavsky, A. (1979): No Risk Is the Highest Risk of All, American ScientistGoogle Scholar
  97. 67, Nr.1, 32–37.Google Scholar
  98. Wilson, R., Crouch, E.A.C. (1987): Risk Assessment and Comparisons: An Introduction, Science 236, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilson, R., Crouch, E.A.C. (1990): Risiko-Abschätzung und Vergleiche, in: Risiko und Wagnis: Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt, M. Schüz (ed.), Pfullingen, Neske, vol. 1, 42–59Google Scholar
  100. Winkler, R.L. (1968): The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions, Management Science 15, B61-B75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Winterfeldt, D. von (1980): Structuring Decision Problems for Decision Analysis, Acta Psychologica 45, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Winterfeldt, D. von, Edwards, W. (1984): Patterns of Conflict about Risk Debates, Risk Analysis 4, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Winterfeldt, D. von, Edwards, W. (1986): Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Pinkau
  • K. Decker
  • C. F. Gethmann
  • H. W. Levi
  • J. Mittelstraß
  • S. Peyerimhoff
  • G. zu Putlitz
  • A. Randelzhofer
  • C. Streffer
  • F. E. Weinert

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations