Perception and communication of risk, and the importance of dependability

Structural Safety

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 373-384

  Reid, Stuart G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Acceptable risk; Decision analysis; Dependability; Reliability; Risk communication; Risk mangement; Risk perception; Safety; Structural engineering

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; DECISION THEORY; RELIABILITY; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAFETY FACTOR; STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

ACCEPTABLE RISK; RISK COMMUNICATION;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 0033345589     PISSN: 01674730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4730(99)00031-4     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Pidgeon N.F. The psychology of risk. Blockley D.I. Engineering safety. 1992;167-185 McGraw-Hill, London.
2. Turner B.A. The sociology of safety. Blockley D.I. Engineering safety. 1992;186-201 McGraw-Hill, London.
3. Raiffa H. Decision analysis. 1968;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
4. Savage L.J. The foundations of statistics. 1954;Wiley, New York.
5. Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. 1943;Princeton University Press, Princeton.
6. Simon H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69:1955;99-118.
7. United States Atomic Energy Commission/Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 'Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in United States Commercial Nuclear Power Plants', Report No. WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014), NC Rasmussen, Chairman, National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA, USA, 1975.
8. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science. 165:1969;1232-1238.
9. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty. heuristics and biases Science. 185:1974;1124-1131.
10. Gow H.B.F., Otway H. Communicating with the public about major accident hazards. 1990;Elsevier Applied Science, London.
11. Zeckhauser R. Procedures for valuing lives, Public Policy, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1975.
12. Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty. heuristics and biases:1982;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. Frangopol DM. Probabilistic structural optimization, progress in structural engineering and materials, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1998.
14. Reid SG. Acceptable risk, engineering safety, D.I. Blockley, ed., McGraw-Hill, 1992. p. 138-66.
15. Reid SG. Risk acceptance for novel engineering systems, Proceedings of Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 2 - Safety and Reliability, ASME, 1992. p. 67-71.
16. Ellingwood B.R. Probability-based codified design: past accomplishments and future challenges. Structural Safety. 13(3):1994;159-176.
17. Starr C., Rudman R., Whipple C. Philosophical basis for risk analysis. Annual Review of Energy. 1:1976;629-662.
18. Lathrop JW. Evaluating technological risk: prescriptive and descriptive perspectives, in The Risk Analysis Controversy [Kunreuther and Ley, 1982].
19. Slovic P, Fischhoff B. How safe is safe enough? Determinants of perceived and acceptable risk, too hot to handle: social and policy issues in the management of radioactive wastes. Gould L, and Walker CA, eds, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1979.
20. Fischhoff B, et-al, Acceptable risk, Cambridge University Press, 1981.
21. Rayner S., Cantor R. How fair is safe enough?? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis. 7(1):1987;3-9.
22. Pate-Cornell M.E. Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities. Structural Safety. 13(3):1994;145-157.
23. CIRIA, 'Rationalisation of Safety and Serviceability Factors in Structural Codes', Report 63, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, July 1977.
24. Kletz T.A. Hazard analysis - a review of criteria. Reliability Engineering. 3:1982;325-338.
25. The Royal Society, Risk assessment, Report of a Royal Society Study Group, The Royal Society, London, England, January 1983.