Risk Analysis and Decision Processes

1. Front Matter

   Pages i-xviii

   PDF

2. The Problem

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 1-17

3. The Framework

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 18-31

4. The FRG: Ripples at Wilhelmshaven

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 32-63

5. The Netherlands: The Rotterdam — Eemshaven Debate

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 64-97

6. The UK: Sparks at Mossmorran—Braefoot Bay

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 98-122

7. The USA: Conflicts in California

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 123-147

8. LEG Risk Assessments: Experts Disagree

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 148-177

9. Risk Analysis in the Policy Process

   • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

   Pages 178-208

10. Improving the Siting Process

    • Howard C. Kunreuther, Joanne Linnerooth, John Lathrop, Hermann Atz, Sally Macgill, Christoph Mandl et al.

    Pages 209-231

11. Postscript: A Cultural Basis for Comparison

    • Michael Thompson

    Pages 232-262

12. Back Matter

    Pages 263-290

    PDF

For old and new studies in decision making and risk analysis, this book should stand at tlle watershed. Studies of conflict resolution and public policy will surely now have to take account of the model investigation provided by the IIASA team, and many things will not be the same again. This is a report of inquiries into the siting of liquefied energy gas (LEG) facilities in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The risks of transporting this highly combustible stuff, and the economic benefits of being able to bring a natural energy source from one side of the globe to the other, holding it, and piping it out as needed, make LEG a model case for studying the public response to dangerous technology. The dangers of LEG are differ­ ent from those of nuclear power, for instance, where the response too often becomes entangled with the fear of nuclear war. The dangers of LEG include unco~trollable explosions, rather than insidious contami­ nation. But the degree of dangerousness is very much of the same order as that of nuclear power, and is at least as difficult to assess. In four different countries the constitutional procedures involved in obtaining approval of nuclear or LEG facilities are on record. The four case histories here are a model for comparative study of conflict resolu­ tion. The period over which the negotiations developed is much the same.

• Flüssiggasanlage
• Industrieller Standort
• Risiko
• Technische Sicherheit
• energy
• policy

• Decision Sciences Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

  Howard C. Kunreuther

• International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

  Joanne Linnerooth, Hermann Atz, Michael Thompson

• 3 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, USA

  John Lathrop

• School of Geography, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

  Sally Macgill

• Elin-Union AG für Elektrische Industrie, Wien, Austria

  Christoph Mandl

• Department of Social and Economic Studies, Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London, London, UK

  Michiel Schwarz

Policies and ethics