Summarizes efforts by the Health Council of the Netherlands to develop a national risk management approach

Passchier, Wim F.

Reij, Wim C.

English

University of New Hampshire

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)
Volume 8 | Number 2 Article 3
March 1997
Risk Is More Than Just a Number
Wim F. Passchier
Wim C. Reij
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/risk
Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Commons
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New Hampshire
Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University of
New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact ellen.phillips@law.unh.edu.
Repository Citation
Wim F. Passchier, Wim C. Reij, Risk Is More Than Just a Number, 8 RISK 107 (1997).
Risk is More Than Just a Number
Wim F. Passchier & Wim C. Reij*
Introduction
A committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands has issued
two reports on the scientific basis of risk assessment and risk
management in environmental policy. The first 1 discussed the basis
of the present policy in the Netherlands, and the second 2 presented
the views of the committee on developing a risk management approach.
This article closely follows the Executive Summary of the latter.
Risk and the Origin of Risk
Risk is inextricably related to any human action.3 The committee
defines risk as the possibility of damage to health, environment and
goods in combination with its nature and magnitude. Risks are
ultimately caused by human demands and needs that generate human
action, e.g., developing and operating a chemical plant, living below sea
level, drinking alcohol and traveling by car. Such activities can lead to
damage or loss involving human health, the environment or goods.
* Dr. Passchier (physical chemist) and Ir Reij (civil engineer) were Chairman and
Scientific Secretary of the Committee, Risk Measures and Risk Assessment of the
Health Council of the Netherlands, which did the work discussed here. Other
members were: Dr. W. F. J. P. M. ten Berge (industrial toxicologist, DSM, Geleen),
Dr. Ir W. Biesiot (nuclear physicist, University of Groningen), Prof. Dr. L. A.
Clarenburg (chemist, Pijnacker), Dr. H. J. P. Eijsackers (ecotoxicologist, RIVM,
Bilthoven), Prof. Dr. Ir J. D. F. Habbema (medical decision analyst, Erasmus
University Rotterdam), Dr. Ir G. De Mik (toxicologist, RIVM, Bilthoven), Dr. C.
M. Plug, Advisor (Ministry of the Environment, The Hague), Prof. Dr. U. Rosenthal,
Advisor (management scientist, University of Leiden), Dr. W. A. Smit (physicist,
University of Twente), Dr. P. J. M. Stallen (biochemist/psychologist, Stallen & Smit,
Consultants), Dr. Ir J. P. Visser (chemical engineer, Shell International BV, The
Hague), Prof. Dr. C. A. J. Vlek (psychologist, University of Groningen), Dr. E. E. M.
de Hollander, Scientific Secretary (biologist, RIVM, Bilthoven and Health Council,
The Hague). Email: wf as@worldaccess.nL.
1 Health Council of the Netherlands, Committee on Risk Measures and Risk
Assessment, Not All Risks Are Equal (1995).
2 Health Council of the Netherlands, Committee on Risk Measures and Risk
Assessment, Risk is More Than Just a Number (March 1996).
3 Also natural processes may be detrimental to human and environmental health,
although in some cases short term detriment may lead to long term benefits.
8 Risk- Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 1997]
The aim of human activities is to produce benefits, but the
inevitable side effect is the creation of risks. This is why risks cannot be
viewed separately from benefits. The figure below shows both benefits
and possible undesirable effects.
Generation of Risk and Classification of Possible Effects
Human demands Human action, Possible harm
Human needs change in substance and energy or loss
flows, stressors, exposure
" Planned • Intended desired effects
" Motives, implementation • Direct undesired effects
• Selection - Indirect undesired
effects of options
• Deranged - Direct undesired effects
implementation - Indirect effects
When assessing risks for human and ecological health, it is
important to distinguish activities that proceed as planned and activities
that do not. This makes it possible to make a distinction between the
risk contribution of (unplanned) accidents and risk contributions of a
less incidental nature (e.g. those associated with licensed emissions).
The committee points to indirect effects of risk, such as economic
damage and employment loss after serious accidents. These are often
neglected in risk analyses even though they can be the most important
aspect of the risk. Indirect effects are also related to the fact that only
limited resources are available for risk management. The choice of a
specific option for risk reduction competes with deploying the same
resources for reducing other risks or for satisfying other needs. In risk
management, one should account for "opportunity costs" generated
because resources once deployed are no longer available.
The Process of Risk Assessment and Risk Management
The committee advocates coping with risks by a transparent
process. This makes it clear for all involved when and why a decision
has been proposed or made - and by whom. Assessment encompasses:
problem description, risk analysis and risk characterization. During
problem description, the scope and nature of the problem are
Passchier & Reij: More Than Just a Number 109
determined. Social preferences inevitably play a part. This makes
consultations between risk managers and assessors necessary, with
managers expressing preferences of parties involved.
The outcome of risk analysis is an estimate which is expressed using
a variety of characteristics or attributes and may be thought of as the
risk profile of the human action under consideration. The selection of
relevant risk attributes cannot be left to the assessor. Here again, the risk
manager should represent the preferences of the parties. Examples of
characteristics are: probability of disease or death, the reduction of
species in ecosystems and the level of training of industrial operators.
During the risk management stage, a decision is made about the
tolerability of the risk. In the context of the present report, that
decision is made by the government. Measures will be taken on the
basis of the decision to keep the risk within acceptable limits, and the
effectiveness of these measures will be monitored.
The committee advocates a dynamic process of risk assessment and
management. In the assessment stage, one may conclude that the scope
of the problem is different, usually more extensive, than originally
determined. Also, one may wish to study alternative abatement
strategies. Parts of the process are then again passed through. Feedback
from actual practice may lead to reviewed risk estimates and adaptation
of risk measures.
Not All Risk Problems Are Equal
The committee believes that several factors have considerable
influence on the way risk problems are assessed and how decisions are
made about them:
* scope of the risk in time,
* spatial scope of the risk,
* uncertainty about the nature and scope of the risk, and
* societal importance of the activity that causes the risk.
Together with the jurisdiction of the authority that makes these
decisions, these facets determine the status of the problem: Is it
strategic, tactical or operational? The higher the problem "scores" on
one of the four dimensions, the more it shifts from operational to
strategic. The status of the problem is not rigid. In general, each
problem has strategic, tactical and operational aspects. The
8 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 19971
development of the Port of Rotterdam, with its industrial operations,
may be viewed as a strategic problem; the construction of the so-called
"Betuwe railway-line" for the transport of goods from Rotterdam to
the German hinterland, as a tactical choice; and noise reducing
measures taken in houses along the railway-line, as operational.
Criteria for Determining the Nature of a Risk Problem:
Is its character mainly operational or strategic?
From Operational to Strategic
a. Fits in with all established -> Results in new decision
decision methods and criteria? methods and criteria?
b. Accords with scientific knowledge? -> Consistent arguments?
Well thought-out vision?
c. Risk attributes adequate for -> Various protection objectives
protection objective? taken into account?
d. Risk within previously -> Does the societal benefit
established tolerability limits? outweigh the risk according
to various parties?
e. Risk management for lowest -> Efficient after consideration
costs of opportunity costs?
Different risk problems require different risk management
strategies. The latter has to be adapted to how risks arise. They are, at
least in the case of problems which have previously arisen, set down or
referred to in environmental legislation and regulations. The committee
points to the necessity, especially in the case of problems of strategic
importance, of creating an environment in which justice is done to a
variety of political views and cultures, i.e., to a variety of risk
perceptions. This makes fruitful discussion possible between affected
parties before government makes decisions about accepting certain risks
and about associated conditions.
As stated, the intended benefits of activities play a role in arriving at
a decision. A possible problem is that those involved can differ in their
assessments of the social importance of the activity, depending on their
vision of society and their position with respect to the activity and the
risk (risk-takers, beneficiaries, victims, or combinations of the three).
This is especially true for strategic questions, as is demonstrated by the
discussions on the energy policy and on public transport systems
Passchier & Reij: More Than Just a Number 111
(expansion of Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam, connecting to the
European high speed train network). In the case of risk problems with a
marked operational nature, social benefits are often not discussed
explicitly because the usefulness of the risky activities is often thought
to go without saying.
Risk Management
Risks do not come about on their own. An analysis of the cause and
effect sequence shows various opportunities for risk management. Here,
the "quality of the organization" and "priority setting and risk
comparison" will be discussed.
Quality Control - In effective and efficient risk management, the
way activities are organized plays a central role: Risk management
should be a part of a system of quality control. In the case of industrial
processes, this system starts on the drawing board, has implications for
employee training at all levels, and is related to, e.g., maintenance and
disposal of waste products. Feedback is important: Experience with the
control system should result in alterations and improvements that
should also include risk management measures.
Quality control should also be the motto for government with
respect to involvement in risk assessment and risk management. This
leads to an organization of the process that is transparent, appropriate to
the nature of the problem and grants a central position to risk
communication.
Risk management through quality control and communication are
particularly applicable if diversion is an important cause of the risk.
Diversion onto other parts of the world or future generations means
that risk takers no longer perceive the possible harmful effects of their
activities in those terms; an important motive for risk reduction is
lacking. Another diversion mechanism shifts risks from individuals to
the collective; many individuals or bodies believe that they can quite
reasonably take risks on their own, but the combined risk can become
intolerable.
4
4 Consider, e.g., private car transport. For individuals, the benefits for a particular
trip usually outweigh the risks, with respect to both the health of the individual and
environmental effects. Yet, as many individuals make similar decisions at the same
time the collective risk may exceed the collective benefits, and risk reduction measures
may be in order (e.g. using public transportation).
8 Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 1997]
Priority Setting and Risk Comparison - How should
environmental dollars be spent? This is the question faced by the
government in tackling various environmental problems it encounters.
There are two problems in priority setting: What do we not do if we
deploy the available resources for a particular problem and what risks
does that involve? How do we compare efforts involved in one
problem with those involved in another?
When answering these questions, it can be helpful to make a link
between the costs of risk management measures and the level of risk
reduction which they aim to achieve. The committee recommends that
the following risk attributes should be taken into account: reduction in
life expectancy and quality of life, nuisance, negative appreciation of the
environment, reduction of biodiversity, reduced functioning of
ecosystems and reduction of environmental functions. Comparative risk
analysis may provide a solution for the comparison of problems of
different kinds. In such an analysis, experts or representatives from
social groups and government officials rank problems in consultation.
Different Approaches to Dissimilar Risks
How can government manage risks and take the individual nature
of various kinds of problems into account during the process? For
matters of a mainly operational nature, the committee proposes
choosing between:
* strict standardization,
* balancing risk reduction against reduction costs, and
* self-regulation with requirements for the organization of
the activity.
"Standardization" includes government decisions about conditions
for acceptance of risks, the form of risk management measures, and the
desired level of risk reduction. The second point relates to the
application of the ALARA principle: The reduction of risks to a level
that is as low as is reasonably achievable. Risk reduction may also be
unreasonable if other beneficial activities may not be carried out because
of the lack of resources. The third point, self-regulation, can improve
the quality of the organization of the activity which causes the risk. At
the same time, it imposes stringent demands on the monitoring role of
Passchier & Reij: More Than Just a Number 113
government to which the "self-regulated" is accountable. Risk
communication plays an important role in this respect.
There are no generally accepted approaches in current Dutch
government policy for problems with a less operational, more strategic
nature. The committee list the following possibilities:
* breaking down the problem into parts for which there
are acceptable risk management approaches,
" taking measures on the safe side, particularly if
consequences are irreversible,
" searching for measures to stimulate risk reduction
(bonuses) or encourage risk acceptance of (insurance), and
" determining the extent to which and the conditions in
which compensation can play a role in controlling risk
distribution judged to be unfair.
In problems of major strategic importance, government must
initiate and follow procedures that create conditions for good
understanding among all those involved of the particular risk problem,
of how the different parties approach the problem, and of the decision-
making criteria that will be followed. Measures will primarily consist of
encouraging some developments and discouraging others to manage
risks without creating excessive obstacles to the functioning of the
society.
It may be helpful in this respect to classify measures according to
the costs of estimated levels of risk reduction on relevant risk attributes.
The committee believes that the following deserve particular attention:
" Strategic problems are complex in nature and generally
unique. They cannot therefore be tackled using standard
approaches. A failure to recognize the need to look for
new approaches - generally a mixture of various tactics
- can interfere with efficient risk management. Global
climate change is an example.
" All parties involved can be expected to indicate how the
activities which cause the risk advance the public interest.
They should also state whether this benefit off-sets the
risks and, in particular, how the risk is distributed across
the various parties. Each party should clarify which
distribution of risk and benefits it considers just.
Strategic risk problems make it necessary to look for new ways to
cope with risks: Who decides, when, about the tolerability of what
part of the risk, and who is responsible for keeping risk acceptable?
8 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 1997]
Risk is More Than Just a Number
Risk management questions are questions about the structuring of
the society. The answers are determined by beliefs about the
vulnerability of nature, concern for future generations, and freedom of
action.
Supplying milk in plastic bottles and the construction of a network
of high-speed train tracks are both types of human activities that, in
addition to serving meaningful objectives, threaten human health and
the environment. Milk supply and fast trains are, however, different in
nature, scope and societal importance, and the risks involved cannot
therefore be assessed in the same way. The different nature and extent
of risk management measures will partly depend on the importance
that groups in society attach to particular types of packaging and to fast
trains.
A transparent, orderly approach to risk assessment and risk
management can lead to a result with which the people involved can
live. In many cases, this requires much more than just a number.


Risk Is More Than Just a Number

UNH Scholars' Repository

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)Volume 8 | Number 2 Article 3March 1997Risk Is More Than Just a NumberWim F. PasschierWim C. ReijFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/riskPart of the Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Social and Behavioral SciencesCommonsThis Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New HampshireScholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University ofNew Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact ellen.phillips@law.unh.edu.Repository CitationWim F. Passchier, Wim C. Reij, Risk Is More Than Just a Number, 8 RISK 107 (1997).Risk is More Than Just a NumberWim F. Passchier & Wim C. Reij*IntroductionA committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands has issuedtwo reports on the scientific basis of risk assessment and riskmanagement in environmental policy. The first 1 discussed the basisof the present policy in the Netherlands, and the second 2 presentedthe views of the committee on developing a risk management approach.This article closely follows the Executive Summary of the latter.Risk and the Origin of RiskRisk is inextricably related to any human action.3 The committeedefines risk as the possibility of damage to health, environment andgoods in combination with its nature and magnitude. Risks areultimately caused by human demands and needs that generate humanaction, e.g., developing and operating a chemical plant, living below sealevel, drinking alcohol and traveling by car. Such activities can lead todamage or loss involving human health, the environment or goods.* Dr. Passchier (physical chemist) and Ir Reij (civil engineer) were Chairman andScientific Secretary of the Committee, Risk Measures and Risk Assessment of theHealth Council of the Netherlands, which did the work discussed here. Othermembers were: Dr. W. F. J. P. M. ten Berge (industrial toxicologist, DSM, Geleen),Dr. Ir W. Biesiot (nuclear physicist, University of Groningen), Prof. Dr. L. A.Clarenburg (chemist, Pijnacker), Dr. H. J. P. Eijsackers (ecotoxicologist, RIVM,Bilthoven), Prof. Dr. Ir J. D. F. Habbema (medical decision analyst, ErasmusUniversity Rotterdam), Dr. Ir G. De Mik (toxicologist, RIVM, Bilthoven), Dr. C.M. Plug, Advisor (Ministry of the Environment, The Hague), Prof. Dr. U. Rosenthal,Advisor (management scientist, University of Leiden), Dr. W. A. Smit (physicist,University of Twente), Dr. P. J. M. Stallen (biochemist/psychologist, Stallen & Smit,Consultants), Dr. Ir J. P. Visser (chemical engineer, Shell International BV, TheHague), Prof. Dr. C. A. J. Vlek (psychologist, University of Groningen), Dr. E. E. M.de Hollander, Scientific Secretary (biologist, RIVM, Bilthoven and Health Council,The Hague). Email: wf as@worldaccess.nL.1 Health Council of the Netherlands, Committee on Risk Measures and RiskAssessment, Not All Risks Are Equal (1995).2 Health Council of the Netherlands, Committee on Risk Measures and RiskAssessment, Risk is More Than Just a Number (March 1996).3 Also natural processes may be detrimental to human and environmental health,although in some cases short term detriment may lead to long term benefits.8 Risk- Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 1997]The aim of human activities is to produce benefits, but theinevitable side effect is the creation of risks. This is why risks cannot beviewed separately from benefits. The figure below shows both benefitsand possible undesirable effects.Generation of Risk and Classification of Possible EffectsHuman demands Human action, Possible harmHuman needs change in substance and energy or lossflows, stressors, exposure" Planned • Intended desired effects" Motives, implementation • Direct undesired effects• Selection - Indirect undesiredeffects of options• Deranged - Direct undesired effectsimplementation - Indirect effectsWhen assessing risks for human and ecological health, it isimportant to distinguish activities that proceed as planned and activitiesthat do not. This makes it possible to make a distinction between therisk contribution of (unplanned) accidents and risk contributions of aless incidental nature (e.g. those associated with licensed emissions).The committee points to indirect effects of risk, such as economicdamage and employment loss after serious accidents. These are oftenneglected in risk analyses even though they can be the most importantaspect of the risk. Indirect effects are also related to the fact that onlylimited resources are available for risk management. The choice of aspecific option for risk reduction competes with deploying the sameresources for reducing other risks or for satisfying other needs. In riskmanagement, one should account for "opportunity costs" generatedbecause resources once deployed are no longer available.The Process of Risk Assessment and Risk ManagementThe committee advocates coping with risks by a transparentprocess. This makes it clear for all involved when and why a decisionhas been proposed or made - and by whom. Assessment encompasses:problem description, risk analysis and risk characterization. Duringproblem description, the scope and nature of the problem arePasschier & Reij: More Than Just a Number 109determined. Social preferences inevitably play a part. This makesconsultations between risk managers and assessors necessary, withmanagers expressing preferences of parties involved.The outcome of risk analysis is an estimate which is expressed usinga variety of characteristics or attributes and may be thought of as therisk profile of the human action under consideration. The selection ofrelevant risk attributes cannot be left to the assessor. Here again, the riskmanager should represent the preferences of the parties. Examples ofcharacteristics are: probability of disease or death, the reduction ofspecies in ecosystems and the level of training of industrial operators.During the risk management stage, a decision is made about thetolerability of the risk. In the context of the present report, thatdecision is made by the government. Measures will be taken on thebasis of the decision to keep the risk within acceptable limits, and theeffectiveness of these measures will be monitored.The committee advocates a dynamic process of risk assessment andmanagement. In the assessment stage, one may conclude that the scopeof the problem is different, usually more extensive, than originallydetermined. Also, one may wish to study alternative abatementstrategies. Parts of the process are then again passed through. Feedbackfrom actual practice may lead to reviewed risk estimates and adaptationof risk measures.Not All Risk Problems Are EqualThe committee believes that several factors have considerableinfluence on the way risk problems are assessed and how decisions aremade about them:* scope of the risk in time,* spatial scope of the risk,* uncertainty about the nature and scope of the risk, and* societal importance of the activity that causes the risk.Together with the jurisdiction of the authority that makes thesedecisions, these facets determine the status of the problem: Is itstrategic, tactical or operational? The higher the problem "scores" onone of the four dimensions, the more it shifts from operational tostrategic. The status of the problem is not rigid. In general, eachproblem has strategic, tactical and operational aspects. The8 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 19971development of the Port of Rotterdam, with its industrial operations,may be viewed as a strategic problem; the construction of the so-called"Betuwe railway-line" for the transport of goods from Rotterdam tothe German hinterland, as a tactical choice; and noise reducingmeasures taken in houses along the railway-line, as operational.Criteria for Determining the Nature of a Risk Problem:Is its character mainly operational or strategic?From Operational to Strategica. Fits in with all established -> Results in new decisiondecision methods and criteria? methods and criteria?b. Accords with scientific knowledge? -> Consistent arguments?Well thought-out vision?c. Risk attributes adequate for -> Various protection objectivesprotection objective? taken into account?d. Risk within previously -> Does the societal benefitestablished tolerability limits? outweigh the risk accordingto various parties?e. Risk management for lowest -> Efficient after considerationcosts of opportunity costs?Different risk problems require different risk managementstrategies. The latter has to be adapted to how risks arise. They are, atleast in the case of problems which have previously arisen, set down orreferred to in environmental legislation and regulations. The committeepoints to the necessity, especially in the case of problems of strategicimportance, of creating an environment in which justice is done to avariety of political views and cultures, i.e., to a variety of riskperceptions. This makes fruitful discussion possible between affectedparties before government makes decisions about accepting certain risksand about associated conditions.As stated, the intended benefits of activities play a role in arriving ata decision. A possible problem is that those involved can differ in theirassessments of the social importance of the activity, depending on theirvision of society and their position with respect to the activity and therisk (risk-takers, beneficiaries, victims, or combinations of the three).This is especially true for strategic questions, as is demonstrated by thediscussions on the energy policy and on public transport systemsPasschier & Reij: More Than Just a Number 111(expansion of Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam, connecting to theEuropean high speed train network). In the case of risk problems with amarked operational nature, social benefits are often not discussedexplicitly because the usefulness of the risky activities is often thoughtto go without saying.Risk ManagementRisks do not come about on their own. An analysis of the cause andeffect sequence shows various opportunities for risk management. Here,the "quality of the organization" and "priority setting and riskcomparison" will be discussed.Quality Control - In effective and efficient risk management, theway activities are organized plays a central role: Risk managementshould be a part of a system of quality control. In the case of industrialprocesses, this system starts on the drawing board, has implications foremployee training at all levels, and is related to, e.g., maintenance anddisposal of waste products. Feedback is important: Experience with thecontrol system should result in alterations and improvements thatshould also include risk management measures.Quality control should also be the motto for government withrespect to involvement in risk assessment and risk management. Thisleads to an organization of the process that is transparent, appropriate tothe nature of the problem and grants a central position to riskcommunication.Risk management through quality control and communication areparticularly applicable if diversion is an important cause of the risk.Diversion onto other parts of the world or future generations meansthat risk takers no longer perceive the possible harmful effects of theiractivities in those terms; an important motive for risk reduction islacking. Another diversion mechanism shifts risks from individuals tothe collective; many individuals or bodies believe that they can quitereasonably take risks on their own, but the combined risk can becomeintolerable. 44 Consider, e.g., private car transport. For individuals, the benefits for a particulartrip usually outweigh the risks, with respect to both the health of the individual andenvironmental effects. Yet, as many individuals make similar decisions at the sametime the collective risk may exceed the collective benefits, and risk reduction measuresmay be in order (e.g. using public transportation).8 Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 1997]Priority Setting and Risk Comparison - How shouldenvironmental dollars be spent? This is the question faced by thegovernment in tackling various environmental problems it encounters.There are two problems in priority setting: What do we not do if wedeploy the available resources for a particular problem and what risksdoes that involve? How do we compare efforts involved in oneproblem with those involved in another?When answering these questions, it can be helpful to make a linkbetween the costs of risk management measures and the level of riskreduction which they aim to achieve. The committee recommends thatthe following risk attributes should be taken into account: reduction inlife expectancy and quality of life, nuisance, negative appreciation of theenvironment, reduction of biodiversity, reduced functioning ofecosystems and reduction of environmental functions. Comparative riskanalysis may provide a solution for the comparison of problems ofdifferent kinds. In such an analysis, experts or representatives fromsocial groups and government officials rank problems in consultation.Different Approaches to Dissimilar RisksHow can government manage risks and take the individual natureof various kinds of problems into account during the process? Formatters of a mainly operational nature, the committee proposeschoosing between:* strict standardization,* balancing risk reduction against reduction costs, and* self-regulation with requirements for the organization ofthe activity."Standardization" includes government decisions about conditionsfor acceptance of risks, the form of risk management measures, and thedesired level of risk reduction. The second point relates to theapplication of the ALARA principle: The reduction of risks to a levelthat is as low as is reasonably achievable. Risk reduction may also beunreasonable if other beneficial activities may not be carried out becauseof the lack of resources. The third point, self-regulation, can improvethe quality of the organization of the activity which causes the risk. Atthe same time, it imposes stringent demands on the monitoring role ofPasschier & Reij: More Than Just a Number 113government to which the "self-regulated" is accountable. Riskcommunication plays an important role in this respect.There are no generally accepted approaches in current Dutchgovernment policy for problems with a less operational, more strategicnature. The committee list the following possibilities:* breaking down the problem into parts for which thereare acceptable risk management approaches," taking measures on the safe side, particularly ifconsequences are irreversible," searching for measures to stimulate risk reduction(bonuses) or encourage risk acceptance of (insurance), and" determining the extent to which and the conditions inwhich compensation can play a role in controlling riskdistribution judged to be unfair.In problems of major strategic importance, government mustinitiate and follow procedures that create conditions for goodunderstanding among all those involved of the particular risk problem,of how the different parties approach the problem, and of the decision-making criteria that will be followed. Measures will primarily consist ofencouraging some developments and discouraging others to managerisks without creating excessive obstacles to the functioning of thesociety.It may be helpful in this respect to classify measures according tothe costs of estimated levels of risk reduction on relevant risk attributes.The committee believes that the following deserve particular attention:" Strategic problems are complex in nature and generallyunique. They cannot therefore be tackled using standardapproaches. A failure to recognize the need to look fornew approaches - generally a mixture of various tactics- can interfere with efficient risk management. Globalclimate change is an example." All parties involved can be expected to indicate how theactivities which cause the risk advance the public interest.They should also state whether this benefit off-sets therisks and, in particular, how the risk is distributed acrossthe various parties. Each party should clarify whichdistribution of risk and benefits it considers just.Strategic risk problems make it necessary to look for new ways tocope with risks: Who decides, when, about the tolerability of whatpart of the risk, and who is responsible for keeping risk acceptable?8 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 107 [Spring 1997]Risk is More Than Just a NumberRisk management questions are questions about the structuring ofthe society. The answers are determined by beliefs about thevulnerability of nature, concern for future generations, and freedom ofaction.Supplying milk in plastic bottles and the construction of a networkof high-speed train tracks are both types of human activities that, inaddition to serving meaningful objectives, threaten human health andthe environment. Milk supply and fast trains are, however, different innature, scope and societal importance, and the risks involved cannottherefore be assessed in the same way. The different nature and extentof risk management measures will partly depend on the importancethat groups in society attach to particular types of packaging and to fasttrains.A transparent, orderly approach to risk assessment and riskmanagement can lead to a result with which the people involved canlive. In many cases, this requires much more than just a number.

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1318&amp;context=risk

Risk Is More Than Just a Number

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire

UNH Scholars' Repository