A Thousand Flowers, A Thousand Weeds: New Challenges to the

Rationality of Risk*

Eugene A. RosaProfessor of Sociology

Edward R. Meyer Professor of Natural Resource andEnvironmental Policy

Washington Sate University, USArosa@wsu.edu

*Presented at the Risk and Rationalities Conference, University of Cambridge, UK, 29-31 March 2007

Risk = ƒ{Si, Pi, Ci}, ( i = 1, 2….nS)

The functional form summarizes three questions:

•What can happen? (called a Scenario, Si—or Context)

•How likely will it happen?(The Probability (Pi) of it happening in Scenarioi)

•If it does happen, what are the consequences? (The consequences or evaluation measure of the scenario, Ci )

RISK: CONVENTIONAL FUNCTIONAL FORM

IDEA OF RATIONALITY (RATIONAL AGENT):

•COMPLEX REASONING PROCESSES THAT INVOLVE CONSCIOUS, PURPOSIVE CHOICE & ACTION BY AN AGENT.

•AGENTS ARE ASSUMED TO BE PURPOSIVE ACTORS, CAPABLE OF DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION AND OUTCOME, AND ARE ASSUMED TO BE CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHICH ALTERNATIVE WILL PROVIDE THE MOST PREFERRED OUTCOME.

KEY OBJECTIVES OF R,U,RA:

•DELINEATE THE DOMINANT ROLE OF RATIONALTIY IN RISK CHARACTERIZATION

•SKETCH THE SCOPE OF APPLICABILITY OF RATIONALITY VIA CRITICAL EVALUATION

•EVALUATE AND RECOMMEND COMPLEMENTARY FORMS OF RATIONALITY

RATIONAL ACTION: LEVELS OF SCOPE

•RAW - RATIONAL ACTION AS WORLDVIEW

•RAP - RATIONAL ACTION AS PARADIGM

•RATh - RATIONAL ACTION AS THEORY

(NARROWEST)

(BROADEST)

THREE APPLICATIONS OF RAP:

•ACTUARIAL APPROACH (COMPUTING EXPECTED VALUES)

•PROBABILISITIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA)

•TOXICOLOGICAL AND EPIDEMOLOGICAL

SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSIONS:

• IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES RAP IS AN EFFECTIVE FRAMEWORK.

• BUT AS A GENERAL ORIENTATION TOO MANY SYSTEMATIC VIOLATION OF RAP ASSUMPTIONS. • CHALLENGE I: TO INCORPORATE OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES.

• CHALLENGE II: TO DELINEATE AND INCOPORATE OTHER RATIONALITIES INTO RISK ANALYSIS.

METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS:

•AN OVER-EMPHASIS ON “RATIONAL” EXPECTATIONS OF HUMANS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALZED

AGENTS.

•AN OVER-EMPHASIS ON INDIVIDUALS AS THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS.

•NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE BEHAVIOR, “RATIONAL” AND “IRRATIONAL,” OF AGENTS MAKING THE

MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS-ORGANIZATIONS.

CHALLENGES TO THE RISK & RATIONALITY LINK:

FROM TWO DIRECTIONS:

• FROM THE BOTTOM: ADVANCES IN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE CAPACITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF DECISION MAKERS

• FROM THE TOP: THE AMPLIFICATION OF OLD RISKS AND THE EMERGENCE OF NEW ONES

A NEW RISK WORLD:

OLD RISKS AMPLIFIED:

•NATURAL DISASTERS - (FREQUENCY, CONSEQUENCES)

•SCALE, TOXICITY, LONGEVITY OF WASTES (e.g. NUCLEAR WASTES)

•INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

NEW RISKS:

•GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

•EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES BIOENGINEERING NANOTECHNOLOGY GMOs FOR FOOD AND FOR FUELS

•ERSTWHILE NUCLEAR CLUB MEMBERS

TWO EXAMPLES OF THE NEW WORLD OF RISK

•NEW RISK - GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: THREATS TO SUSTAINABILITY

•OLD RISK - AMPLIFIED:

STEWARDSHIP OF LONG-LIVED WASTES

OLD RISK - AMPLIFIED:

•STEWARDSHIP OF LONG-LIVED WASTES

NEW RISK - GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE:

•THREATS TO SUSTAINABILITY

STIRPAT1 RESEARCH PROGRAM

IMPACTS EXAMINED:CO2 (CARBON DIOXIDE)CH4 (METHANE)SO2 (SULFUR DIOXIDE)NOX (NITROGEN OXIDES)ODS (OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES)ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT - (TOTAL)ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT - (PARTS)

1OTHER TEAM MEMBERS: THOMAS DIETZ, MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. RICHARD F. YORK, UNIV. OF OREGON

WEBSITE: STIRPAT.ORG

GENERAL FINDINGS:

FOR EVERY IMPACT EXAMINED:

•POPULATION IS ALWAYS THE LEADING DRIVER

(1) CONSISTENTLY A PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIP (UNIT ELASTICITY)

•AFFLUENCE (CONSUMPTION IS ALWAYS THE SECOND LEADING DRIVER

(1) FOR CO2 THE RELATIONSHIP IS ALWAYS ELASTIC (COEFFICIENT ≈ 1.5)

(2) FOR OTHER INPACTS THE RELATIONSHIP IS POSITIVE, BUT INELASTIC (COEFFICIENTS OF .26

TO .94)

BIOSFEAR I

ELEMENTS OF THE NEW RISK WORLD:

OLD RISKS AMPLIFIED:

•NATURAL DISASTERS - (FREQUENCY, CONSEQUENCES)

•SCALE, TOXICITY, LONGEVITY OF WASTES (e.g. NUCLEAR WASTES)

•INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

NEW RISKS:

•GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

•EMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES BIOENGINEERING NANOTECHNOLOGY GMOs FOR FOOD AND FOR FUELS

•ERSTWHILE NUCLEAR CLUB MEMBERS

NEW RISK WORLD: A GRAND CHALLENGE:

•HOW TO DEVELOP FRAMEWORKS FOR DISCIPLINED COMPARISONS AMONG A VARIETY OF RISK DOMAINS

•HOW TO DEVELOP METHODOLOGIES FOR MAKING PRINCIPALED DISTRIBUTIONS OF EFFORT AND RESOURCES ACROSS RISK DOMAINS

NEW APPROACHES TO RISK CHARACTERIZATION

• ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES

• INTEGRATED SCENARIO ANALYSES

• WAR GAME AND INTERNET GAME APPROACHES

• DOMAIN MAPPING

• WORST CASE ANALYSES