Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action

By B. Johnson. 2002

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb7da2c9b3c6867f2221d572035986d0eba7a88f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey (2004, background): “Feedbacks between the media and public opinion are also documented, and have been formalized in the theory of risk amplification (Jaeger et al., 2001), which maintains that risk perceptions can become amplified through media presentations, and subsequent stakeholder responses.”
Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk (2007, background): “This suggests, as others propose, that as perceived knowledge increases, questions and uncertainties may increase as well (Funtowics and Ravetz, 1990; Jaeger et al., 2001).”
The meaning of risk-taking – key concepts and dimensions (2019, background): “Reflexivity is a key tenet of the rational actor paradigm of risk-taking which requires ideally full knowledge and relatively stable preferences to rationally weigh the pros and cons of alternatives (Jaeger et al. 2001).”
Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making (2008, background): “Environmental decision-making process Several research traditions provide concepts, logic and modeling tools with the intent of facilitating better decisions about the environment (Jaeger et al., 2001).”
Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions (2012, unknown): “Of course, although some of our decisions reflect a formal weighing of values, beliefs and trust, many others are made without much reflection, but on the basis of normative expectations, emotions, interpretations of symbols and snap judgements 80–82 .”
The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change (2014, background): “2008; Jacquet 2012), perceptions of procedural fairness (Gross 2007; McComas, Stedman, and Hart 2011), and economic compensation (Jacquet 2012) often explain resident attitudes towards development better than measures of proximity. Further, the NIMBY concept fails to describe temporal variation in r”