The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society
Abstract
Understanding Risk addresses a central dilemma of risk decisionmaking in a democracy: detailed scientific and technical information is essential for making decisions, but the people who make and live with those decisions are not scientists. The key task of risk characterization is to provide needed and appropriate information to decisionmakers and the public. This important new volume illustrates that making risks understandable to the public involves much more than translating scientific knowledge. The volume also draws conclusions about what society should expect from risk characterization and offers clear guidelines and principles for informing the wide variety of risk decisions that face our increasingly technological society. Understanding Risk * Frames fundamental questions about what risk characterization means. * Reviews traditional definitions and explores new conceptual and practical approaches. * Explores how risk characterization should inform decisionmakers and the public. * Looks at risk characterization in the context of the entire decisionmaking process. Understanding Risk discusses how risk characterization has fallen short in many recent controversial decisions. Throughout the text, examples and case studies--such as planning for the long-term ecological health of the Everglades or deciding on the operation of a waste incinerator--bring key concepts to life. Understanding Risk will be important to anyone involved in risk issues: federal, state, and local policymakers and regulators; risk managers; scientists; industrialists; researchers; and concerned individuals.
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
Cited by
The Struggle to Govern the Commons
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091015 · Cited by 4,209
Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support
Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., & Krayer von Krauss, M. P. (2003) · Integrated Assessment · doi:10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466 · Cited by 2,067
Stirling, A. (2008) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907311265 · Cited by 1,567
Addressing the vaccine confidence gap
Larson, H. J., Cooper, L. Z., Eskola, J., Katz, S. L., & Ratzan, S. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60678-8 · Cited by 853
The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks
Pidgeon, N., & Fischhoff, B. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1080 · Cited by 680
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1997-06-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 34-5653-34-5653
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1544945890
- Cited by
- 1,441
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.34-5653
- The paper
- Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. (1997). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.34-5653
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.