IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v5y2015i3p241-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining and defending risk: conceptual risk formulas in environmental controversies

Author

Listed:
  • Alissa Cordner

Abstract

Environmental risks are contested topics, and definitions of risk often vary across contexts, disciplines, and institutions. Identifying and describing differences between risk definitions is particularly important because they directly impact risk assessment and management practices. This paper describes how stakeholders rhetorically define and technically operationalize the risks of industrial chemicals, focusing on contemporary debates over flame retardant chemicals that in recent years have been the subject of numerous risk assessments, regulatory activities, and activist campaigns. This paper uses a multi-method approach to develop six conceptual risk formulas which delineate the components that go into evaluating risk and the relationships between those components: the classic risk formula, the emerging toxicology risk formula, the exposure-proxy risk formula, the exposure-centric risk formula, the hazard-centric risk formula, and the either-or risk formula. Using chemical alternatives assessment as an example, this analysis demonstrates how conceptual risk definitions influence the operationalization of risk assessment and management activities. Copyright AESS 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Alissa Cordner, 2015. "Defining and defending risk: conceptual risk formulas in environmental controversies," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 241-250, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:5:y:2015:i:3:p:241-250
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-015-0300-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-015-0300-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-015-0300-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward J Calabrese & Linda A Baldwin, 2003. "Toxicology rethinks its central belief," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6924), pages 691-692, February.
    2. Reich, M.R., 1983. "Environmental politics and science: the case of PBB contamination in Michigan," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 73(3), pages 302-313.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:jss:jstsof:12:i05 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Song, Liwen & Tang, Sanyi & Xiang, Changcheng & Cheke, Robert A. & He, Sha, 2023. "Modelling and bifurcation analysis of spatiotemporal hormetic effects on pest control," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Zbigniew Jaworowski, 2004. "Chernobyl, Nuclear Wastes and Nature," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(5), pages 807-824, September.
    4. Li, Qian & Xiao, Yanni, 2019. "Bifurcation analyses and hormetic effects of a discrete-time tumor model," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 363(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Jason Vogel, 2004. "Tunnel vision: The regulation of endocrine disruptors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 277-303, December.
    6. Erin Lebow-Skelley & Brittany B. Fremion & Martha Quinn & Melissa Makled & Norman B. Keon & Jane Jelenek & Jane-Ann Crowley & Melanie A. Pearson & Amy J. Schulz, 2022. "“They Kept Going for Answers”: Knowledge, Capacity, and Environmental Health Literacy in Michigan’s PBB Contamination," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Anne Chapman, 2006. "Regulating Chemicals—From Risks to Riskiness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 603-616, June.
    8. Kun Qian & Xiaofeng Jiang & Laiyu Sun & Guoqing Zhou & Haixia Ge & Xinqiang Fang & Li Xiao & Qiong Wu, 2018. "Effect of Montmorillonite on 4-Nonylphenol Enrichment in Zebrafish," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.
    9. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2014. "Heuristics Structure and Pervade Formal Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 771-787, April.
    10. Jaap C. Hanekamp & Aalt Bast, 2008. "Why RDAs and ULs Are Incompatible Standards in the U‐Shape Micronutrient Model: A Philosophically Orientated Analysis of Micronutrients' Standardizations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1639-1652, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:5:y:2015:i:3:p:241-250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.