There is considerable discussion and activity in the fire protection engineering and
building regulatory communities related to the use of risk in analysis, design, and
regulation. However, understanding risk can be complex, as there are widely varying
views as to what risk means, how it can be quantified, how it is perceived, and
generally how it can be characterized. This paper presents an overview of key issues
that impact the understanding of risk from a variety of perspectives as a resource
to better facilitate discussions and agreements in the fire protection engineering
and building regulatory communities.
1.
Fire Safety Engineering–Guidance on Fire Risk Assessment
, ISO/PDTS 16732, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, October 2003.
2.
2.
NFPA 551
, Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments, National Fire
Protection Association,
Quincy, MA
, 2003.
3.
3. ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA
, 2001.
4.
4. ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA
, 2003.
5.
5.
NFPA 5000
, Construction and Safety Code,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA
, 2003.
6.
6.
NFPA 101
, The Life Safety Code,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA
, 2003.
7.
7.
Covello, V.T.
and
Merkhofer, M.W.
, Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health &
Environmental Risks,
Plenum Press, New York
, 1993.
8.
8.
Rassmussen, N.C.
, ‘‘The Application of Probabilistic Risk
Assessment Techniques to Energy Technologies,’’ In:
Glickman
and
Gough
, eds., Readings in Risk, Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC
, 1990, pp. 195–206.
9.
9.
Wynne, B.
, ‘‘Risk and Social Learning: Reification to
Engagement,’’ In:
Krimsky
and
Golding
, eds., Social Theories of Risk,
Praeger, Westport, CT
, 1992, pp. 275–300.
10.
10.
Slovic, P.
, ‘‘Perception of Risk: Reflections on the
Psychometric Paradigm,’’ In:
Krimsky
and
Golding
, eds., Social Theories of Risk,
Praeger, Westport, CT
, 1992, pp. 117–152.
11.
11.
Fischhoff, B.
et al., Acceptable Risk,
Cambridge University Press, New York
, 1981.
12.
12.
Renn, O.
, ‘‘Concepts of Risk: A
Classification,’’ In:
Krimsky
and
Golding
, eds., Social Theories of Risk,
Praeger, Westport, CT
, 1992, pp. 54–79.
13.
13. Custom Analysis–U.S. Fire Trends and Patterns by Selected
Characteristics, Prepared for Brian Meacham, Prepared by Kimberly Rohr,
NFPA, Quincy, MA
.
14.
14.
Ahrens, M.
, The U.S. Fire Problem Overview Report: Leading Causes and Other
Patterns and Trends,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA
, June 2003.
15.
15.
Benjamin, J.R.
, and
Cornell, C.A.
, Probabilities, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers,
McGraw-Hill, New York
, 1970.
16.
16.
Apostolakis, G.
,
‘‘Probability and Risk Assessment: The Subjectivistic
Viewpoint and Some Suggestions,’’Nuclear Safety, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.
305–315
.
17.
17.
Von Winterfeldt, D.
and
Edwards, W.
, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
, 1986.
18.
18.
Hall, J.R. Jr.
, ‘‘Product Fire Risk,’’SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd ed.,
NFPA, Quincy, MA
, 2002, pp. 5-143–5-152.
19.
19.
Kasperson, R.E.
, ‘‘The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in
Developing an Integrative Framework,’’ In:
Krimsky
and
Golding
, eds., Social Theories of Risk,
Praeger, Westport, CT
, 1992, pp. 153–178.
20.
20.
Stern, P.C.
and
Fineburg, H.V.
, eds., Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic
Society,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC
, 1996.
21.
21. Meacham, B.J., A Process for Identifying, Characterizing, and
Incorporating Risk Concepts into Performance-Based Building and Fire Regulation
Development, Ph.D. Dissertation, Clark University, Worcester, MA, 2000.
22.
22.
Meacham, B.J.
, ‘‘Building Fire Risk
Analysis,’’ Section 5, Chapter 12, SFPE Handbook
of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd ed.,
NFPA, Quincy, MA
, pp. 5-153–5-175.
23.
23.
Starr, C.
,
‘‘Societal Benefit vs. Technological Risk,’’Science, Vol. 165, pp.
1232–1238
.
24.
24.
Kahneman, D.
and
Tversky, A.
,
‘‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,’’Science, Vol. 185, pp.
1124–1131
.
25.
25.
Slovic, P.
,
‘‘Perception of Risk,’’Science, Vol. 236, pp.
280–285
.
26.
26.
Litai, D.
,
Lanning, D.D.
and
Rasmussen, N.
, ‘‘The Public Perception of
Risk,’’ In:
Covello, V.T.
et al., eds., The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks,
Plenum Press, NY
, 1983, pp. 213–224.
27.
27.
Rasbash, D.J.
,
‘‘Criteria for Acceptability for Use with Quantitative
Approaches to Fire Safety,’’Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 8, 1984/85, pp.
141–158
.
28.
28.
Kasperson, R.E.
and
Kasperson, J.X.
, ‘‘Determining the Acceptability of Risk: Ethical
and Policy Issues,’’ In:
Rogers, J.T.
and
Bates, D.V.
, eds., Proceedings of Risk: A Symposium on the Assessment and Perception
of Risk to Human Health in Canada,
Royal Society of Canada
, 1982.
29.
29.
Kunreuther, H.
and
Slovic, P.
, ‘‘Science, Values, and
Risk,’’ In:
Kunreuther
and
Slovic
, eds., Special Edition of The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Vol. 545, pp. 116–125.
30.
30.
Keeney, R.L.
,
‘‘Formal Analysis Including Value Judgments and Public Risk,’’Toxic Substances Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.
8–22
.
31.
31.
Keeney, R.L.
, Value Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
, 1992.
32.
32.
Keeney, R.L.
,
‘‘The Role of Values in Risk Management,’’The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.
545, pp.
126–134
.
33.
33.
Crouch, E.
and
Wilson, R.
, Risk/Benefit Analysis,
Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA
, 1982.
34.
34.
Karter, M.J., Jr.
,
‘‘1996 US Fire Loss,’’NFPA Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp.
77–83
.
35.
35.
Hall, J.R. Jr.
and
Cote, A.E.
, ‘‘America’s Fire Problem and Fire Protection,’’Fire Protection Handbook, 18th ed.,
NFPA, Quincy, MA
, 1997, pp. 1-3–1-25.
36.
36.
Whipple, C.
(ed.), De Minimis Risk,
Plenum Press, NY
, 1987.
37.
37.
Kasperson
et al., Corporate Management of Health & Safety Hazards: A
Comparison of Current Practice,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO
, 1988.
38.
38. The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations,
Health and Safety Executive, HMSO, London
, 1988.
39.
39.
Morgan, M.G.
and
Henrion, M.
, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk
and Policy Analysis,
Cambridge Press, Cambridge, UK
, 1990.
40.
40.
Kleindorfer, P.R.
,
Kunreuther, H.C.
and
Schoemaker, P.J.H
, Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective,
Cambridge University Press, NY
, 1993.
41.
41.
Wilson, R.
,
‘‘Commentary: Risks and Their Acceptability,’’Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 9, No.
2, pp.
11–22
.
42.
42. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
.
43.
43.
Finkel, A.
,
‘‘Comparing Risks Thoughtfully,’’Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, Vol. 7, No.
4, pp.
325–359
.
44.
44.
Frantzich, H.
, Uncertainty and Risk Analysis in Fire Safety Engineering, Report
LUTVDG/(TVbb-1016),
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
, 1998.
45.
45.
Notarianni, K.
, ‘‘Uncertainty,’’
Section 5, Chapter 5, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering,
3rd ed.,
NFPA, Quincy, MA
, 2002.
46.
46.
Meacham, B.J.
,
‘‘Decision-Making for Fire Risk Problems: A Review of
Challenges and Tools,’’JFPE, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2004, pp.
149–168
.
47.
47.
Spangler, M.B.
, ‘‘A Summary Perspective on NRC’s
Implicit and Explicit Use of De Minimis Risk Concepts in Regulating for
Radiological Protection in the Nuclear Fuel
Cycle,’’ In:
Whipple, C.
, ed., DeMininis Risk,
Plenum Press
, 1987, pp. 111–143.
48.
48.
Donnelly, R.E.
, ‘‘Implications of De Minimis Risk Concepts for
OSHA,’’ In:
Whipple, C.
, ed., De Minimis Risk,
Plenum Press, NY
, 1987, pp. 95–99.
49.
49.
Flamm
et al., ‘‘Carcinogenic Potencies and
Establishment of a Threshold of Regulation for Food Contact
Substances,’’ In:
Whipple, C.
, ed., De Minimis Risk,
Plenum Press, NY
, 1987, pp. 87–93.
50.
50.
Merkhofer, M.W.
, A Comparative Evaluation of Quantitative Decision-Making
Approaches, SRI Project 2102,
SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
, 1983.
51.
51.
Merkhofer, M.W.
, ‘‘Comparative Analysis of Formal Decision-Making
Approaches,’’ In:
Covello, V.T.
et al., eds., Risk Evaluation and Management,
Plenum Press, NY
, 1986, pp. 183–220.
52.
52. Wolski, A., Addressing Building Fire Safety as an Acceptable Risk
Problem–A Guide for Developing Performance-Based Fire Safety Regulations,
Masters Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, May 1999.
53.
53.
Wolski, A.
,
Dembsey, N.
and
Meacham, B.
,
‘‘Accommodating Perceptions of Risk in
Performance-Based Building Fire Safety Code Development,’’Fire Safety Journal,
Elsevier, London
, Vol. 34, No. 3. pp.
297–310
.
54.
54.
Kasperson, R.
et al.,
‘‘The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,’’Risk Analysis, Vol. 8, pp.
177–187
.
55.
55.
Lang, Tony
, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sunday, December 16, 2001.
56.
56.
Bagli, Charles V.
, New York Times, January 29, 2002.
57.
57.
Meacham, B.J.
,
‘‘Incorporating Risk Concepts into Performance-Based
Buildings and Fire Code Development,’’
In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Fire Safety Design in
the 21st Century, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester,
MA, 2002, pp.
115–130
.
58.
58. ‘‘Section Five–Fire Risk Analysis,’’SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd ed.,
NFPA, Quincy, MA
, pp. 5-1–5-233.
