Used price: $0.35
Buy one from zShops for: $7.51
Used price: $0.01
Collectible price: $4.50
Used price: $6.10
The author develops an interesting framework on how humans interpret and extrapolate risk. By reading this book, you will better understand where people are coming from, and how they support their claims regarding environmental risk and other uncertain risks.
Abstract:
This is a very interesting book on how we perceive and interpret risk. According to the author, the study of risk includes a critical "behavioral" component that is absent from most risk management framework. Below are three main concepts, I learned from this book.
1)A behavioral risk management model;
2)Three different risk temperaments;
3)Extrapolation methodologies in alternative dose-response.
A behavioral risk management model.
The author develops an interesting behavioral risk management model. According to this model, we have a certain propensity to take risk that is balanced by our perception of danger. From these two inputs, you get two outcomes:
1)accidents (the risk you took materialized), or
2)rewards (the risk you took was worth it, and you enjoyed your undertaking without crashing).
Where this model gets creative is that as our perception of risk changes, our propensity to take this risk will change in the opposite direction. He calls this a "balancing behavior." For instance, he analyzes mortality rates before and after a mandatory car seatbelt law was implemented in England. He comes up with the counter intuitive conclusion that the seatbelt law did not save any lives overall. It simply transferred some mortality risk from car drivers to bikers, and pedestrians. According to his model, car drivers feeling safer (lower perceived danger) now drove faster with their seatbelt on. Fewer car drivers died, because they survived accidents more frequently. But, more bikers and pedestrians died hit by cars more frequently than before the seatbelt law was implemented.
Three different risk temperaments.
The Individualist. Individualists are enterprising "self-made" people relatively free from controls by others, who strive to exert control over their environment and the people in it. Nature is bountiful, robust, stable, and forgiving of any insults humankind might inflict upon it. This temperament often represents "industry" on environmental debates. Industry will often underestimate environmental deterioration due to itself, and fight any related regulation that would curb its activities. Industry will often overestimate the negative economic impact of proposed regulations.
The Egalitarian. Egalitarians are the opposite of the Individualists. They are environmentalists. Nature is fragile, precarious, and unforgiving. It is in danger of being provoked by human greed or carelessness into catastrophic collapse. They often dramatize potential environmental impact. And, they favor government regulation to curb any industrial activities without any consideration for the associated economic impact.
The Hierarchist. These have a balanced approach between the Individualist and the Egalitarian, or between the Industrialist and the Environmentalist. In other words, they believe that nature is resilient up to a certain threshold of environmental stress (i.e., concentration of CO2 in the ozone); but beyond this threshold, they believe that nature can be permanently impaired just like the environmentalist. Many in government and within the scientific community belong to this group.
Extrapolation methodologies in alternative dose-response.
This relates to the method of extrapolating the toxicity of certain chemicals on humans from animal studies. There are four different methods: a) Supralinear, b) Linear, c) Sublinear, and d) Threshold.
Supralinear models assume that the level of risk will remain high as dose levels are reduced.
Linear models assume that there is a direct relationship between dose and risk. Reducing the dose by half will also reduce the risk or the impact by half.
Sublinear models assume that reducing the dose by half will reduce the risk or impact by more than half.
Threshold models assume that risk falls to zero when the dose levels fall below a certain value, the threshold dose.
None of the above model is either right or wrong. They are just assumptions to simulate how risk changes with chemical dosage in the real world. But, you can quickly see how the different risk temperaments will gravitate towards a certain model type.
The Egalitarian or Environmentalist will prefer the Supralinear model to justify the environmental risk remains high regardless of dose. And, therefore the emission of this chemical should be closely regulated.
The Individualist or Industrialist will prefer either the Sublinear or Threshold models because it will support that below a certain level the risk drops abruptly. Therefore, the emission of the same chemical does not need to be regulated.
The Hierarchist often Scientist may gravitate to a more balanced model like the Linear one. Thus, this group has no preconceived agenda regarding the necessary level of regulation to manage the risk of the exposure of the chemical considered above.
Conclusion.
Thus, by connecting the three different risk temperament types to the four different risk model types, you get to understand better the major environmental debates. You better understand where specific opinion groups are coming from, and how they back their respective arguments. You can also understand how different educated parties can reach drastically different conclusion about the same environmental factor.
Used price: $0.59
Buy one from zShops for: $2.50
Used price: $7.50
Buy one from zShops for: $7.99
Used price: $3.50
Buy one from zShops for: $12.79