The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges
Abstract
Risk research over the last three decades has been focused on the development of methods of and procedures for risk analysis and risk management. As a consequence of this research, risk management agencies have been trying to make risk assessments a routine operation for evaluating different hazards, chemical agents, or technologies. The problem with the worldwide routinization of the risk assessment methodology is, however, that formal analysis may obscure the conceptual foundations and limitations of this method and may induce a false degree of certainty when dealing with potential side-effects of human actions and interventions. One of the main tasks of the risk community should be to emphasize the necessity of integrated risk assessment and the development of innovative risk management strategies that build upon the insights of the natural, technical and social sciences. In order to integrate risk assessment and risk perception, the article analyses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to risk analysis and highlights the potential contributions that the technical sciences and the social sciences can offer to risk management. Technical assessments provide the best estimate for judging the average probability of an adverse effect linked to an object or activity. Public perception should govern the selection of criteria on which acceptability or tolerability are to be judged. In addition, public input is needed to determine the trade-offs between criteria. Finally, public preferences are needed to design resilient strategies for coping with remaining uncertainties.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Cited by
Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research
Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x · Cited by 759
Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk
Rosa, E. A. (1998) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/136698798377303 · Cited by 489
Risk: From perception to social representation
Joffe, H. (2003) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466603763276126 · Cited by 426
Perceived risk of HIV infection among deported male injection drug users in Tijuana, Mexico
Pinedo, M., Burgos, J. L., Robertson, A. M., Vera, A., Lozada, R., & Ojeda, V. D. (2014) · Global Public Health · doi:10.1080/17441692.2014.893367 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Renn, O.
- Venue
- Journal of Risk Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-71
- ISSN
- 1366-9877 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4461
- OpenAlex
- W2004856665
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 28.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/136698798377321
- The paper
- Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377321
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.