Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principles and Concepts in Risk Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Health Risk Assessment for Human Exposure to Chemicals

Part of the book series: Environmental Pollution ((EPOL,volume 27))

  • 1305 Accesses

Abstract

In its application to chemical exposure problems, the risk assessment process is used to compile and organize the scientific information that is necessary to support environmental and public health risk management decisions. The approach is used to help identify potential problems, establish priorities, and provide a basis for regulatory actions. Indeed, it is apparent that t advancement of risk analysis in regulatory decision-making—among several others—has helped promote rational policy deliberations over the past several decades. Yet, as real-world practice indicates, risk analyses have often been as much the source of controversy in regulatory considerations as the facilitator of consensus (ACS and RFF 1998). Anyhow, risk assessment can appropriately be regarded as a valuable tool for public health and environmental decision-making—albeit there tends to be disagreement among experts and policy makers about the extent to which its findings should influence decisions about risk. To help produce reasonable/pragmatic and balanced policies in its application, it is essential to explicitly recognize the character, strengths, and limitations of the analytical methods that are involved in the use of risk analyses techniques in the decision-making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Suggested Reading

  • Andretta, M. (2014). Some considerations on the definition of risk based on concepts of systems theory and probability. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1184–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolakis, G. E. (2004). How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis, 24, 515–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2011). On risk governance deficits. Safety Science, 49(6), 912–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2012). Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, 32(10), 1647–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010). Risk management and risk governance. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Zio, E. (2014). Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1164–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bate, R. (Ed.). (1997). What risk? (Science, politics & public health). Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D. V. (1994). Environmental health risks and public policy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W., & Segerson, K. (Eds.). (1992). The social response to environmental risk: Policy formulation in an age of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox Jr., L. A. (2002). Risk analysis: Foundations, models and methods. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox Jr., L. A. (2008). What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox Jr., L. A. (2012a). Confronting deep uncertainties in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 32(10), 1607–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox Jr., L. A. (2012b). Evaluating and improving risk formulas for allocating limited budgets to expensive risk-reduction opportunities. Risk Analysis, 32(7), 1244–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, A. (2011). Solution-focused risk assessment: A proposal for the fusion of environmental analysis and action. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 17(4), 754–787.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamed, M. M. (1999). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of public health risk assessment from contaminated soil. Journal of Soil Contamination, 8(3), 285–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamed, M. M. (2000). Impact of random variables probability distribution on public health risk assessment from contaminated soil. Journal of Soil Contamination, 9(2), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J. K. (1995). Can more information increase uncertainty? Chance, 8(3), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J. K., & Shlyakhter, A. I. (1999). The expected value of information and the probability of surprise. Risk Analysis, 19(1), 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.-O. (1989). Dimensions of risk. Risk Analysis, 9(1), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.-O. (1996a). Decision making under great uncertainty. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 26(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.-O. (1996b). What is philosophy of risk? Theoria, 62, 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2010). Risk—Objective or subjective, facts or values? Journal of Risk Research, 13, 231–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O., & Aven, T. (2014). Is risk analysis scientific? Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1173–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, M., & Mindell, J. (2002). A framework for the evidence base to support health impact assessment. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(2), 132–132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, C. A., & Gaylor, D. W. (1988). Issues in qualitative and quantitative risk analysis for developmental toxicology. Risk Analysis, 8, 15–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacGillivray, B. H. (2014). Heuristics structure and pervade formal risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 34(4), 771–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, C. A. (2014). Summarizing risk using risk measures and risk indices. Risk Analysis, 34(12), 2143–2162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, S. J., Yearsley, R., et al. (2002). Current directions in the practice of environmental risk assessment in the United Kingdom. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(4), 530–538.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D., & Rowe, W. D. (1999). Decision-making with heterogeneous sources of information. Risk Analysis, 19(1), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ryzin, J. (1980). Quantitative risk assessment. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 22, 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Bibliography

  • ACS and RFF. (1998). Understanding Risk Analysis (A Short Guide for Health, Safety and Environmental Policy Making), A Publication of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and Resources for the Future (RFF)—written by M. Boroush, ACS, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. S., & Yuhas, A. I. (1996). Improving risk management by characterizing reality: A benefit of probabilistic risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2, 55–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asante-Duah, D. K. (1998). Risk assessment in environmental management: A guide for managing chemical contamination problems. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, M. C. (1988). Speaking of risk. ASCE Civil Engineer, 58(2), 59–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlow, P. P., Burton, D. J., & Routh, J. I. (1982). Introduction to the chemistry of life. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogen, K. T. (1994). A note on compounded conservatism. Risk Analysis, 14, 379–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burmaster, D. E., & Harris, R. H. (1993). The magnitude of compounding conservatisms in Superfund risk assessments. Risk Analysis, 13, 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burmaster, D. E., & von Stackelberg, K. (1991). Using Monte Carlo simulations in public health risk assessments: estimating and presenting full distributions of risk. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 1, 491–512.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, K. (1996). Approaches to the risk assessment and control of major industrial chemical and related hazards in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 6(4–6), 361–387.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cogliano, V. J. (1997). Plausible upper bounds: are their sums plausible? Risk Analysis, 17(1), 77–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohrssen, J. J., & Covello, V. T. (1989). Risk analysis: A guide to principles and methods for analyzing health and environmental risks. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), US Dept. of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, R. A. (Ed.). (1982). Environmental risk analysis of chemicals. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cothern, C. R. (Ed.). (1993). Comparative environmental risk assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T., Menkes, J., & Mumpower, J. (Eds.). (1986). Risk evaluation and management (Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T., & Merkhofer, M. W. (1993). Risk assessment methods: Approaches for assessing health and environmental risks. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T., & Mumpower, J. (1985). Risk analysis and risk management: an historical perspective. Risk Analysis, 5, 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, R. W., & Lave, B. L. (Eds.). (1981). The scientific basis of risk assessment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, A. C. (1994). Measures of compounding conservatism in probabilistic risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 14(4), 389–393.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. C. (Ed.). (1996). Comparing environmental risks: Tools for setting government priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiering, M. B., & Jackson, B. B. (1971). Synthetic Streamflows, Water Resources Monograph 1. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union (AGU).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S., & Keeney, R. (1981). Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glickman, T. S., & Gough, M. (Eds.). (1990). Readings in risk. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratt, L. B. (1996). Air toxic risk assessment and management: Public health risk from normal operations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallenbeck, W. H., & Cunningham, K. M. (1988). Quantitative risk assessment for environmental and occupational health (4th ed.). Chelsea, MI: Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, W. W. (1996). Essentials of environmental toxicology: The effects of environmentally hazardous substances on human health. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W. (1978). Risk assessment of environmental hazard, SCOPE Report 8. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocher, D. C., & Hoffman, F. O. (1991). Regulating environmental carcinogens: Where do we draw the line? Environmental Science and Technology, 25, 1986–1989.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolluru, R. V., Bartell, S. M., Pitblado, R. M., & Stricoff, R. S. (Eds.). (1996). Risk assessment and management handbook (for Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaGoy, P. K. (1994). Risk assessment, principles and applications for hazardous waste and related sites. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, L. B. (Ed.). (1982). Quantitative risk assessment in regulation. Washington, DC: The Brooking Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of acceptable risk: Science and the determination of safety. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGillivray, B. H. (2014). Heuristics structure and pervade formal risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 34(4), 771–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massmann, J., & Freeze, R. A. (1987). Groundwater contamination from waste management sites: The interaction between risk-based engineering design and regulatory policy 1. Methodology 2. Results. Water Resources Research, 23(2), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcmahon, T. A., & Mein, R. G. (1986). River and reservoir yield. Littleton, CO: Water Resources Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeller, D. W. (1997). Environmental Health (Revisedth ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, W. B. (1994). Introduction to Chemical Exposure and Risk Assessment. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers/CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrman, J. (2001). Decision Analysis under Risk and Uncertainty at Contaminated Sites – A Literature Review, SGI Varia 501, Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI). Sweden: Linkoping.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council), 1982. Risk and Decision-Making: Perspective and Research, NRC Committee on Risk and Decision-Making, National Academy Press: Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Research Council, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (1994a). Building Consensus through Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (1994b). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment, National Research Council, Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paustenbach, D. J. (Ed.). (1988). The risk assessment of environmental hazards: A textbook of case studies. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petak, W. J., & Atkisson, A. A. (1982). Natural hazard risk assessment and public policy: Anticipating the unexpected. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. L. (Ed.). (1986). Toxic hazard assessment of chemicals. London, England: Royal Society of Chemistry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. L. (Ed.). (1990). Risk assessment of chemicals in the environment. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. L. (Ed.). (1992). Risk management of chemicals. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemicals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, W. D. (1977). An anatomy of risk. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, W. D. (1983). Evaluation methods for environmental standards. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, D., et al. (2014). The distinction between risk and hazard: Understanding and use in stakeholder communication. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1270–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1997). Public perception of risk. Journal of Environmental Health, 59(9), 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, G. W. (1993). Ecological risk assessment. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, C. C., Richter, S. A., Crouch, E. A. C., Wilson, R., & Klema, E. D. (1987). Cancer risk management. Environmental Science and Technology, 21, 415–420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turnberg, W. L. (1996). Biohazardous waste: Risk assessment, policy, and management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. (1984b). Risk assessment and management: Framework for decision making (EPA 600/9-85-002), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, C. J., & Hermens, J. L. M. (Eds.). (1995). Risk assessment of chemicals: An introduction. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whipple, C. (1987). De Minimis risk. Contemporary issues in risk analysis (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, A. V., & Burton, I. (Eds.). (1980). Environmental risk assessment, SCOPE Report 15. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Health Risk Assessment Practice, Washington, DC, USA

    Kofi Asante-Duah (Scientific Advisor/Environmental Consultant)

Authors
  1. Kofi Asante-Duah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Asante-Duah, K. (2017). Principles and Concepts in Risk Assessment. In: Public Health Risk Assessment for Human Exposure to Chemicals. Environmental Pollution, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1039-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation