Morgan M G, Florig H K, DeKay M L, Fischbeck P
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Risk Anal. 2000 Feb;20(1):49-58. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00005.
Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk-management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in terms of environmental loadings or initiating events. However, the resulting categories typically need to be modified in light of other considerations. Risk-ranking projects can benefit from considering several alternative categorization strategies and drawing upon elements of each in developing their final categorization of risks. In principle, conducting multiple ranking exercises by using different categorizations could be interesting and useful. In practice, agencies are unlikely to have either the resources or patience to do this, but other groups in society might. Done well, such additional independent rankings could add valuable inputs to democratic risk-management decision making.
任何实际的风险分级过程都必须将危害归为数量可控的类别。定义此类类别需要进行价值选择，而这些选择可能会对最终的分级结果产生重要影响。大多数风险管理组织会发现，从环境负荷或引发事件的角度开始定义类别很有用。然而，最终的类别通常需要根据其他因素进行调整。风险分级项目可以从考虑几种替代分类策略并在制定最终风险分类时借鉴每种策略的要素中受益。原则上，使用不同的分类进行多次分级练习可能既有趣又有用。实际上，各机构不太可能有资源或耐心这样做，但社会上的其他团体可能有。如果做得好，这种额外的独立分级可以为民主的风险管理决策提供有价值的信息。
