Risk Analysis

Risk analysis is the study and practice of how people deal with threats to humans and what they value. Communication is inherent in risk analysis, discussions of whether something is a threat, reports on how large a threat scientists or activists think it to be, or decision making on what, if anything, to do about it; communication is not restricted to messages between authorities (for example, government, business, scientists) and “the public,” although that is a common assumption among many professionals. Effective risk communication requires understanding other aspects of risk analysis, just as other aspects of risk analysis require understanding of communication to be effective.

Threats covered by risk analysis are usually physical (for example, an invasive species, terrorism, or injury, illness, death, property damage, or ecological disruption due to natural disasters or chemical or microorganisms in the air, drinking water, or food). Physical threats were the focus of early risk analysis and still get most of its attention. But nonphysical effects (for example, disruption of social networks, loss of social status or power, and moral outrage) may be included in risk analysis as well. For example, much early work on probability from the 17th century was devoted to gambling and investment, or financial risk analysis. Social scientists argue that nonphysical effects can be as important as, or more important than, physical effects in arousing concern and preventive action. Risk analysis thus covers natural, technological, and social hazards. Opportunities are also part of risk analysis—for example, building next to a river might pose a chance of flooding damage, but benefits of flat land for building, fertile soil for growing things, or the aesthetic value of water vistas might justify that choice. However, in practice, risk analysis has emphasized threats more than opportunities. This tendency has yielded certain imbalances: For example, uncertainties in estimating the size of risks associated with an action have received more attention in risk management than uncertainties in estimating the size of the action's benefits.

Professional risk analysis is a loose collection of disciplines, methods, and activities, despite attempts to foster more cohesion (for example, by the [Page 648]Society for Risk Analysis, or SRA, founded in 1980). This breadth and diversity has many sources. Professional risk analysts potentially can use theories and tools from any of the major natural sciences (for example, physics, chemistry, or biology), engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences (for example, economics, sociology, psychology, political science, or communication), as well as from some humanities (for example, philosophy and ethics) and professional (for example, law) fields. Getting agreement on relevant theories, methods, and definitions across these disciplines can be challenging. For example, the probability of an undesirable event or outcome, multiplied by its magnitude, is one common definition of risk. However, despite a number of attempts, a common definition of risk has not yet been achieved, and given the various purposes for which the term is used, may never be achieved.

The different kinds of hazards dealt with by risk analysts also pose a barrier to cohesion, although many tools used for one hazard (such as those to estimate the size of a risk) can be fruitfully applied to another hazard. For example, the methods for estimation of chemical health risks and microbial health risks are similar, but the latter also has to account for the ability of microorganisms to multiply once they enter the body. Another source of differences among professionals is that some risk analysts engage in practical work to support organizational decision making about hazards (those working in government, business, and activist groups, for example), while others engage in scholarly analysis of how and why people—including other professionals as well as ordinary citizens—deal with hazards the way they do. These professional differences and communication about them can be very fruitful if risk analysts are able to learn from contrasting perspectives and reexamine their own assumptions, but these differences do pose challenges for integration of the field.

...