Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking
Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk‐management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Risk analysis 2000-02, Vol.20 (1), p.49-58 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 58 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 49 |
container_title | Risk analysis |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Morgan, M. Granger Florig, H. Keith DeKay, Michael L. Fischbeck, Paul |
description | Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk‐management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in terms of environmental loadings or initiating events. However, the resulting categories typically need to be modified in light of other considerations. Risk‐ranking projects can benefit from considering several alternative categorization strategies and drawing upon elements of each in developing their final categorization of risks. In principle, conducting multiple ranking exercises by using different categorizations could be interesting and useful. In practice, agencies are unlikely to have either the resources or patience to do this, but other groups in society might. Done well, such additional independent rankings could add valuable inputs to democratic risk‐management decision making. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/0272-4332.00005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60643938</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>60643938</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4075-f9fd836540e586b6e6b3fb5587d9ca019f0f457d23c67916990aeaed1c3ae6c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1PAjEQxRujEUTP3gyJibeFdvt9JBtFDNEENRyb7m5LKguLLUTxr7ewhHhzLjOZ-b2XzAPgGsEeitWHKU8TgnHag7HoCWgjimXCZEpOQft4bYGLED4gRJHh56CFIJcUY9EGt5lem1nt3Y9bzroTF-aha2u_n7oTvZzH9SU4s7oK5urQO-D94f4te0zGL8NRNhgnBYGcJlbaUmBGCTRUsJwZlmObUyp4KQsNkbTQEsrLFBeMS8SkhNpoU6ICa8MKhDvgrvFd-fpzY8JaLVwoTFXppak3QTHICJZYRLDfgIWvQ_DGqpV3C-23CkG1y0XtPle7z9U-l6i4OVhv8oUp__BNEBEgDfDlKrP9z09NRq-DxjdpZC6szfdRpv1cMY45VdPnoRJPmXgeT4li-BfTLXlq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>60643938</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Morgan, M. Granger ; Florig, H. Keith ; DeKay, Michael L. ; Fischbeck, Paul</creator><creatorcontrib>Morgan, M. Granger ; Florig, H. Keith ; DeKay, Michael L. ; Fischbeck, Paul</creatorcontrib><description>Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk‐management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in terms of environmental loadings or initiating events. However, the resulting categories typically need to be modified in light of other considerations. Risk‐ranking projects can benefit from considering several alternative categorization strategies and drawing upon elements of each in developing their final categorization of risks. In principle, conducting multiple ranking exercises by using different categorizations could be interesting and useful. In practice, agencies are unlikely to have either the resources or patience to do this, but other groups in society might. Done well, such additional independent rankings could add valuable inputs to democratic risk‐management decision making.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-4332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-6924</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.00005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10795338</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RIANDF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston, USA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc</publisher><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor ; Classification ; Decision Making ; Ethics ; Hazards ; Health ; Humans ; Public Health ; Risk ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Assessment - classification ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk Assessment - organization & administration ; risk categorization ; Risk Management - classification ; Risk Management - methods ; Risk Management - organization & administration ; Risk ranking ; Safety ; United States ; United States Environmental Protection Agency</subject><ispartof>Risk analysis, 2000-02, Vol.20 (1), p.49-58</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4075-f9fd836540e586b6e6b3fb5587d9ca019f0f457d23c67916990aeaed1c3ae6c13</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F0272-4332.00005$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F0272-4332.00005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10795338$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Morgan, M. Granger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Florig, H. Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeKay, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischbeck, Paul</creatorcontrib><title>Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking</title><title>Risk analysis</title><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><description>Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk‐management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in terms of environmental loadings or initiating events. However, the resulting categories typically need to be modified in light of other considerations. Risk‐ranking projects can benefit from considering several alternative categorization strategies and drawing upon elements of each in developing their final categorization of risks. In principle, conducting multiple ranking exercises by using different categorizations could be interesting and useful. In practice, agencies are unlikely to have either the resources or patience to do this, but other groups in society might. Done well, such additional independent rankings could add valuable inputs to democratic risk‐management decision making.</description><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Hazards</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - classification</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - organization & administration</subject><subject>risk categorization</subject><subject>Risk Management - classification</subject><subject>Risk Management - methods</subject><subject>Risk Management - organization & administration</subject><subject>Risk ranking</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Environmental Protection Agency</subject><issn>0272-4332</issn><issn>1539-6924</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1PAjEQxRujEUTP3gyJibeFdvt9JBtFDNEENRyb7m5LKguLLUTxr7ewhHhzLjOZ-b2XzAPgGsEeitWHKU8TgnHag7HoCWgjimXCZEpOQft4bYGLED4gRJHh56CFIJcUY9EGt5lem1nt3Y9bzroTF-aha2u_n7oTvZzH9SU4s7oK5urQO-D94f4te0zGL8NRNhgnBYGcJlbaUmBGCTRUsJwZlmObUyp4KQsNkbTQEsrLFBeMS8SkhNpoU6ICa8MKhDvgrvFd-fpzY8JaLVwoTFXppak3QTHICJZYRLDfgIWvQ_DGqpV3C-23CkG1y0XtPle7z9U-l6i4OVhv8oUp__BNEBEgDfDlKrP9z09NRq-DxjdpZC6szfdRpv1cMY45VdPnoRJPmXgeT4li-BfTLXlq</recordid><startdate>200002</startdate><enddate>200002</enddate><creator>Morgan, M. Granger</creator><creator>Florig, H. Keith</creator><creator>DeKay, Michael L.</creator><creator>Fischbeck, Paul</creator><general>Blackwell Publishers Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200002</creationdate><title>Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking</title><author>Morgan, M. Granger ; Florig, H. Keith ; DeKay, Michael L. ; Fischbeck, Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4075-f9fd836540e586b6e6b3fb5587d9ca019f0f457d23c67916990aeaed1c3ae6c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Hazards</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - classification</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - organization & administration</topic><topic>risk categorization</topic><topic>Risk Management - classification</topic><topic>Risk Management - methods</topic><topic>Risk Management - organization & administration</topic><topic>Risk ranking</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Environmental Protection Agency</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Morgan, M. Granger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Florig, H. Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeKay, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischbeck, Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Morgan, M. Granger</au><au>Florig, H. Keith</au><au>DeKay, Michael L.</au><au>Fischbeck, Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking</atitle><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><date>2000-02</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>49</spage><epage>58</epage><pages>49-58</pages><issn>0272-4332</issn><eissn>1539-6924</eissn><coden>RIANDF</coden><abstract>Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk‐management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in terms of environmental loadings or initiating events. However, the resulting categories typically need to be modified in light of other considerations. Risk‐ranking projects can benefit from considering several alternative categorization strategies and drawing upon elements of each in developing their final categorization of risks. In principle, conducting multiple ranking exercises by using different categorizations could be interesting and useful. In practice, agencies are unlikely to have either the resources or patience to do this, but other groups in society might. Done well, such additional independent rankings could add valuable inputs to democratic risk‐management decision making.</abstract><cop>Boston, USA and Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishers Inc</pub><pmid>10795338</pmid><doi>10.1111/0272-4332.00005</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0272-4332 |
ispartof | Risk analysis, 2000-02, Vol.20 (1), p.49-58 |
issn | 0272-4332 1539-6924 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60643938 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Business Source Complete |
subjects | Air Pollution, Indoor Classification Decision Making Ethics Hazards Health Humans Public Health Risk Risk Assessment Risk Assessment - classification Risk Assessment - methods Risk Assessment - organization & administration risk categorization Risk Management - classification Risk Management - methods Risk Management - organization & administration Risk ranking Safety United States United States Environmental Protection Agency |
title | Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T00%3A52%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Categorizing%20Risks%20for%20Risk%20Ranking&rft.jtitle=Risk%20analysis&rft.au=Morgan,%20M.%20Granger&rft.date=2000-02&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=58&rft.pages=49-58&rft.issn=0272-4332&rft.eissn=1539-6924&rft.coden=RIANDF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/0272-4332.00005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E60643938%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=60643938&rft_id=info:pmid/10795338&rfr_iscdi=true |