Suchergebnisse

AbstractEarthquakes, tsunamis, and landslides take a devastating toll on human lives, critical infrastructure, and ecosystems. Harnessing the predictive capacities of hazard models is key to transitioning from reactive approaches to disaster management toward building resilient societies, yet the knowledge that these models produce involves multiple uncertainties. The failure to properly account for these uncertainties has at times had important implications, from the flawed safety measures at the Fukushima power plant, to the reliance on short‐term earthquake prediction models (reportedly at the expense of mitigation efforts) in modern China. This article provides an overview of methods for handling uncertainty in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, tsunami hazard analysis, and debris flow modeling, considering best practices and areas for improvement. It covers sensitivity analysis, structured approaches to expert elicitation, methods for characterizing structural uncertainty (e.g., ensembles and logic trees), and the value of formal decision‐analytic frameworks even in situations of deep uncertainty.

AbstractMany philosophers and statisticians argue that risk assessors are morally obligated to evaluate the probabilities and consequences of methodological error, and to base their decisions of whether to adopt a given parameter value, model, or hypothesis on those considerations. This argument is couched within the rubric of null hypothesis testing, which I suggest is a poor descriptive and normative model for risk assessment. Risk regulation is not primarily concerned with evaluating the probability of data conditional upon the null hypothesis, but rather with measuring risks, estimating the consequences of available courses of action and inaction, formally characterizing uncertainty, and deciding what to do based upon explicit values and decision criteria. In turn, I defend an ideal of value‐neutrality, whereby the core inferential tasks of risk assessment—such as weighing evidence, estimating parameters, and model selection—should be guided by the aim of correspondence to reality. This is not to say that value judgments be damned, but rather that they should be accounted for within a structured approach to decision analysis, rather than embedded within risk assessment in an informal manner.

Lay perceptions of risk appear rooted more in heuristics than in reason. A major concern of the risk regulation literature is that such "error‐strewn" perceptions may be replicated in policy, as governments respond to the (mis)fears of the citizenry. This has led many to advocate a relatively technocratic approach to regulating risk, characterized by high reliance on formal risk and cost‐benefit analysis. However, through two studies of chemicals regulation, we show that the formal assessment of risk is pervaded by its own set of heuristics. These include rules to categorize potential threats, define what constitutes valid data, guide causal inference, and to select and apply formal models. Some of these heuristics lay claim to theoretical or empirical justifications, others are more back‐of‐the‐envelope calculations, while still more purport not to reflect some truth but simply to constrain discretion or perform a desk‐clearing function. These heuristics can be understood as a way of authenticating or formalizing risk assessment as a scientific practice, representing a series of rules for bounding problems, collecting data, and interpreting evidence (amethodology). Heuristics are indispensable elements of induction. And so they are not problematicper se, but they can become so when treated as laws rather than as contingent and provisional rules. Pitfalls include the potential for systematic error, masking uncertainties, strategic manipulation, and entrenchment. Our central claim is that by studying the rules of risk assessmentquarules, we develop a novelrepresentationof the methods, conventions, and biases of the prior art.

The polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a class of brominated flame retardants used extensively in an array of textiles and plastics. Initially viewed as inert and nontoxic, in recent years an emerging body of science has cast doubt on this perception. Consequently, the compounds have drawn sustained government, media, and lobby group focus in the United States and Europe, yet have taken contrasting trajectories in different risk regulation regimes. We present a longitudinal analysis of these pathways, examining the actions of legislatures, executives, courts, scientists, and pressure groups. We show that the emergence and resolution of PBDEs as a risk issue was strongly shaped by path dependency, political entrainment (inter‐institutional conflict unrelated to PBDEs), and partisan lawmaking. This raises the question of whether risk‐based principles are capable of being the foundation on which managing the potential for harm can be based—even when that harm is associated with specific objects like flame‐retardant chemicals. We conclude by reflecting on the difficult normative issues that are raised.

This is the accepted version of an article subsequently published in the journal, Public Understanding of Science [Sage / © The Authors]. The definitive version is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662513512442 ; Decarbonising housing is a key UK government policy to mitigate climate change. Using discourse analysis, we assess how low carbon housing is portrayed within British broadsheet media. Three distinct storylines were identified. Dominating the discourse, Zero carbon housing promotes new-build, low carbon houses as offering high technology solutions to the climate problem. Retrofitting homes emphasises the need to reduce emissions within existing housing, tackling both climate change and rising fuel prices. A more marginal discourse, Sustainable living, frames low carbon houses as related to individual identities and 'off-grid' or greener lifestyles. Our analysis demonstrates that technical and economic paradigms dominate media discourse on low carbon housing, marginalising social and behavioural aspects.