IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i3p411-419.html

An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Cherng G. Ding
  • York Y. Woo
  • Her‐Jiun Sheu
  • Hui‐Chen Chien
  • Shu‐Fen Shen

Abstract

Comparative risk assessment is an evaluation process designed to rank environmental problems based on the severity of potential hazards. The purpose of this paper is to provide an effective statistical approach to analyze perceived environmental risks. Environmental problems, evaluative criteria, and other potential moderator variables need to be determined first, and then the risk perception data collected. Repeated measures analysis is used to first test for interactions between environmental problems and potential moderator variables. If there are no significant interactions, then the risk difference among environmental problems is tested unconditionally; otherwise the risk difference is tested conditionally. Cluster analysis for environmental problems is performed only when the risk difference is significant. The clustering results can be objectively determined by using the simultaneous T2 confidence intervals. Risk‐based priority setting is made according to the clusters obtained. To illustrate this approach, an empirical study of comparative socioeconomic risks in Taiwan was conducted. Socioeconomic impacts areas including social security, quality of life, production cost, investment willingness, and economic resources are used as evaluative criteria. Results indicate that selected impact areas do affect relative risk differences among 24 environmental problems, and the difference is significant for each area. Therefore, cluster analysis is conducted separately for each impact area. Risk‐based priority settings for clusters of environmental problems are reported.

Suggested Citation

  • Cherng G. Ding & York Y. Woo & Her‐Jiun Sheu & Hui‐Chen Chien & Shu‐Fen Shen, 1996. "An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 411-419, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:411-419
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01475.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01475.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01475.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    2. Regina Thompson & Paul H. Templet & John K. Gamman & Scott T. McCleary & Margaret A. Reams, 1994. "A Process for Incorporating Comparative Risk into Environmental Policymaking in Louisiana," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 857-861, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:plo:pone00:0105397 is not listed 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. Jesper Akesson & Sam Ashworth-Hayes & Robert Hahn & Robert Metcalfe & Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-190, April.
    2. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    3. Melania Michetti & Stefano Ghinoi, 2020. "Climate-driven vulnerability and risk perception: implications for climate change adaptation in rural Mexico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 290-302, September.
    4. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    5. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    6. Ling Tian & Peng Yao & Shi-jie Jiang, 2014. "Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the earthquake insurance pilot area in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(3), pages 1595-1611, December.
    7. Monica Galizzi & Tommaso Tempesti, 2015. "Workers’ Risk Tolerance and Occupational Injuries," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1858-1875, October.
    8. Chiradip Chatterjee & Pallab Mozumder, 2014. "Understanding Household Preferences for Hurricane Risk Mitigation Information: Evidence from Survey Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 984-996, June.
    9. Courtney G. Flint, 2007. "Changing Forest Disturbance Regimes and Risk Perceptions in Homer, Alaska," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1597-1608, December.
    10. Fahad Alzahrani & Momtaz Elsebaei & Rady Tawfik, 2023. "Public Acceptance of Treated Wastewater Reuse in the Agricultural Sector in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Baker, Gregory A., 2003. "Food Safety And Fear: Factors Affecting Consumer Response To Food Safety Risk," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 6(01), pages 1-11.
    12. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    13. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    14. Deanna C. Denman & Austin S. Baldwin & Andrea C. Betts & Amy McQueen & Jasmin A. Tiro, 2018. "Reducing “I Don’t Know†Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 673-682, August.
    15. Andersson, Henrik & Lundborg, Petter, 2006. "Perception of Own Death Risk: An Analysis of Road-Traffic and Overall Mortality Risks," Working Papers 2006:1, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    16. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona F. Schneider, 1995. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non‐Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 503-511, August.
    17. Henrik Andersson, 2011. "Perception of Own Death Risk: An Assessment of Road‐Traffic Mortality Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1069-1082, July.
    18. Abel, Martin & Byker, Tanya & Carpenter, Jeffrey, 2021. "Socially optimal mistakes? debiasing COVID-19 mortality risk perceptions and prosocial behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 456-480.
    19. Luke Pavia & Simon Grima & Inna Romanova & Jonathan V. Spiteri, 2021. "Fine Art Insurance Policies and Risk Perceptions: The Case of Malta," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Kris Wernstedt & Pamela Murray‐Tuite, 2015. "The Dynamic Nature of Risk Perceptions After a Fatal Transit Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 536-552, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:411-419. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.