Three Types of Risk Assessment: A Methodological Analysis

  • Silvio O. Funtowicz
  • Jerome R. Ravetz
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 4)


The study of risks and the impact of new technological systems in our society and environment is now accepted as a legitimate subject of research.


Risk Assessment System Uncertainty Public Knowledge Technological Risk Probability Risk Analysis 
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. 1.
    C. Mandl and J. Lathrop: “Comparing Risk Assessments for Liquefied Gas Terminals — Some Results.” In The Risk Analysis Controversy. An Institutional Perspective, H. Kunreuther and E.V. Ley (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1982, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Starr, “Social Benefit versus Technological Risk,” Science, Vol. 165, Sept. 19, 1969, pp. 1232–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. G. Apostolakis: “Probability and Risk Assessment: The Subjectivist Viewpoint and Some Suggestions,” Nuclear Safety, Vol. 19. No. 3, May–June 1978, pp. 305–315.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Risk and Decisionmaking: Perspectives and Research. Committee on Risk and Decisionmaking Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academic Press, Washington, D.C., 1982. p. 61,Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    G.N. Parry and D.W. Winter, “Characterization and Evaluation of Uncertainty in Probability Risk Analysis,” Nuclear Safety, Vol$122, No. 1, January–February 1981, pp. 28–42.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    D. Okrent, “A Survey of Expert Opinion on Low-Probability Earthquakes,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2, 1975, pp. 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    The Axman and Nuclear Power,” (Leader) New York Times, March 20, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Nuclear Incompetence,” New Scientist, May 19, 1983, p. 434.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    J.R. Ravetz, “The Safety of Safeguards,” Minerva, Vol. XII, No. 3, July 1974, pp. 323–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    S. Kaplan and F.J. Garrick, “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk, ” Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1981, p. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    B. Wolfe, “Is the Energy Debate Really about Energy?”, IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1983, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), “Rationality and Relativism,” B. Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture, University of California, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    J.M. Ziman, Public Knowledge, (Cambridge U.P., 1968 ).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    J. Tye, “On the Safety Beat,” Safety, (London) February 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Health and Safety Executive. “Canvey: An Investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area,” 1978, and “Canvey: A Second Report,” 1981 ( London: HMSO).Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    J.R. Ravetz, “The Political Economy of Risk,” New Scientist, September 8, 1977, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvio O. Funtowicz
    • 1
  • Jerome R. Ravetz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations