Jou rnal of R isk R esearch 2 (3), 201–218 (1999)

R isk manage me nt and su stainable

de ve lo pme nt: mu tu al le sso ns fro m
appro ache s to the u se o f indicato rs†
P . C . R . G R A Y * A N D P . M . W IE D E M A N N
Program m e G rou p Hu mans, E nvironm ent, T echnology – Forschu ngsz entru m Jülich G mbH ,
D-52425 Jülich, Germ any

A bstract

Risk manage ment and sustainable development are frameworks for studying and
managing the environmental impacts of human actions; as such each requires indica-
tors for monitoring, decision-making and commu nication. This paper compares the two
frameworks as used in practice, and their experience of using indicators. Sustainable
development is a systems-based concept with a long time horizon, a tendency to apply
precaution in decisions, and a positive normative ‘mission’ (development). Risk manage-
ment focuses on speciŽ c, linear chains of cause and effect over short time periods, is
typically associated with cost-beneŽ t decision-making, and concentrates on avoiding
negative outcomes. However risk manage ment is also potentially a tool for informing
and implementing sustainability. Both risk and su stainability are multidimensional
constructs which can be indicated in varied ways. The selection of indicators in both
Ž elds depends on technical (e.g. robustness, problem-orientation) and communicative
criteria (e.g. truthfulness, informativeness, relevance, clarity and resonance). Lessons
from risk indicators include a better understanding of communicative criteria such as
resonance, and greater aware ness of communication pitfalls. Sustainability indicators
demonstrate the advantages of a participatory approach to selection for incorporating
different values, echoing the experience of the U S state s’ comparative risk assessment
approach, as well as the need for a systematic perspective on problems leading to the
use of mu ltiple indicators. Risk manage ment and sustainable development have much
mu tual relevance and could each beneŽ t from more intensive exchange both generally,
and regarding the use of indicators.

1. Introduction
R isk management and su stainable development are two strategic frameworks u tilized
for stu dying and managing the environmental consequ ences of hu man actions. A s su ch,
both frameworks requ ire indicators with which to measu re, monitor and commu nicate.

†This is an extensively revised version of a paper deliver ed at the MA B-Workshop Ziele, Möglichkeiten u nd
Probleme eines gesellschaftlichen Monitorings, 13–15 Ju ne 1996, Potsdam and su bsequ ently pu blished as: G ray,
P.C.R . and Wiedemann, P.M. (1998) R isk and su stainability: mu tu al lessons from approach es to the u se of indica-
tors, in L. Kruse-G rau mann, G. H artmu th and K-H. Erdmann (eds) Workshop Proceedings. M A B-M itteilu ngen 42
(1998), 43–52. Bu ndesamt für Natu rschu tz, Bonn.
* Au thor to whom cor respondence shou ld be addressed. e-mail: ph.gray@kfa-ju elich.de

1366-9877 © 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd

202 G ray and W iedem ann

This paper aims to see what can be learned by comparing the experience with indica-
tors in each area, and more broadly by considering the relationship between risk and
su stainability in general.
The paper introdu ces risk and su stainability (Section 2) and discu sses the relation-
ship between them. Section 3 introdu ces indicators, Sections 4 and 5 present Ž ndings
from work on risk and su stainability indicators, and Section 5 draws lessons. The aim
is to learn by Ž rst comparing the ‘core’ of each Ž eld, and then the work on indicators.

2. Risk and sustainability

This section will compare the concepts ‘su stainable development’ and ‘risk manage-
ment’ as appro aches to evalu ating environ mental problems. While there are many
differences between these two frameworks, the comparison is necessary because they
operate alongside each other and often represent potential alternative approaches to
the same problems. They form different frames which particular actors (e.g. different
companies, scientists, go vernment departments) bring to bear on similar problems.

2.1. TH E ME A NING S O F SU STA INA BILITY A ND R ISK

Both the concept of risk management and that of su stainable development encompass
many approaches and perspectives; the following accou nt is therefore selective, and
attempts to focu s on the core properties of each. It is worth noting that each term
consists of two elements (e.g. ‘risk’ and ‘management’), which each need to be consid-
ered individu ally as well as together.

2.1.1. Su stainable developm ent

Within the last decade the concept of su stainable development has become the gu iding
ideal for environmental policy in international, national and local settings (R enn and
Kastenholz, 1996). The most essential characteristics are captu red in the in u ential
Bru ndtland commission deŽ nition: ‘development that meets the needs of the present
withou t compromising the ability of fu ture generations to meet their own needs’ (World
Commission on E nvironment and D evelopment, 1987) .
Looking at each element separately, ‘su stainability’ means the capacity for an activity
to be carried on indeŽ nitely into the fu ture (or better, for a system to continu e fu nction-
ing), given the amou nts and types of available resou rces, whereas ‘development’ implies
that society will change or grow in some way. H ence ‘su stainable development’ su ggests
change and improvement that is compatible with environmental, social and other limits
(thu s combining two potentially antagonistic goals), both now and in the long-term fu tu re.
More detailed interpretations of su stainable development differ. It is generally agreed that
su stainability has both environmental, economic and social dimensions, bu t some
approaches focu s only on the environment since it is seen as setting the ‘limits to growth’
(‘one-pillar’ models), while others attempt to treat all three aspects simu ltaneou sly
(‘three-pillar’ models). There are different opinions abou t the extent to which natu ral
‘capital’ can be traded for hu man-made capital, and whether su stainability is compatible
with continu ed economic growth as conventionally measu red. The time span over which
activities shou ld be ‘su stainable’ is also debated. Finally, variou s different methods (su fŽ -
ciency, efŽ ciency, su bstitution) are advocated for achieving su stainability.
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 203

Where exactness is necessary, the concept of ‘weak to strong’ su stainability – where

economic growth mu st be at least modiŽ ed, and su bstitution of natural capital is only
partially possible, if at all (Pearce et al., 1993) – will be u sed here for the pu rpose of
comparison. For the sake of brevity we will only refer in the following to the environ-
m ental issu es connected with su stainability.

2.1.2. R isk m anagem ent

R isk management contains, Ž rst of all, the concept of ‘risk’, the meaning of which is
at least as debated as that of ‘su stainability’ (see e.g. Beck, 1996; Vlek, 1990; Lu hmann,
1991; R enn, 1992; R oyal Society Stu dy G rou p 1992; R ayn er, 1993; Szerszynsk i et al.,
1996). A ll deŽ nitions include some potential event which from the viewpoint of some
stakeholder grou p (s) is a potential loss or u ndesirable ou tcome. H owever the types of
harm considered, whether they mu st be physically measu rable or can also be socially
perceived or constru cted, the emphasis given to likelihood/probability, and the types
of evidence u sed all vary between different approaches to risk.
The roots of risk management lie in the handling of economic risk in early capitalism,
in the development of large-scale technologies after 1945, and in natural hazards
research. A s the Ž eld has expanded, it has increasingly been criticized by social scientists
for failing to recognize its own inherent valu e orientations and its exclu sion of social,
psychological and political aspects of reality. Some elements of this criticism (particularly
from psycho logists) have largely been accepted, so that the Ž eld today has a somewhat
richer perspective. Nevertheless it is still a broadly technically oriented appro ach.
R isk management deals with risk mainly in terms of the likelihoods of given u nde-
sirable ou tcomes. R isk is the potential that a physical loss will occu r, along with an
attempt to measu re the u ncertainties involved. A ttention is restricted to physically (or
Ž nancially) measu rable ou tcomes, su ch as loss of life or damage to health, the envi-
ronment or property. Sou rces of harm typically considered are hu man activities (u su ally
exclu ding su ch essentially u npredictable situations as war or social u nrest), lifestyle,
technologies and natural hazards. The aim is, in principle, to measu re the u ncertainties
in terms of probabilities or qu alitative likelihoods – one of the main tools distingu ishing
risk management from earlier attempts to manage danger. While in economics the ‘risks’
of a decision refers to both oppor tu nities (beneŽ ts) and dangers, this global view is
largely lost in the risk concept of environm ental risk management.
The combination of ‘risk’ with the term ‘management’, which mainly arises from the
natural science/engineering area, seems to imply a conŽ dence that environmental prob-
lems can be controlled in a rational way. ‘R isk management’ also tends to su ggest an
emphasis on protecting the existing state of affairs or way of doing things; it is not
primarily abou t encou raging or implementing change. A lthou gh it certainly plays a role
in managing new (technological) developments, it provides little gu idance abou t the
overall direction su ch development shou ld take.

2.2. CO MPA R ISO N O F TH E TWO CO NCE PTS

The concepts of risk management and su stainable development can now be compared.
Table 1 su mmarizes their respective main features in terms of the core concepts
(‘risk’ and ‘su stainability’ and their practical contexts of application (‘management’ and
‘development’).
204 G ray and W iedem ann
Table 1. Comparison of main features of ‘R isk management’ and ‘Su stainable development’.

A . Core concepts (‘risk’ and ‘su stainability’)

Featu re R isk (natu ral science concept) Su stainability (strong to weak /
A genda 21 concept)

Typical time reference Shor t to medium- term fu tu re Mediu m- to long-term futu re

Main focu sa Focu s on loss Focu s on beneŽ ts (and system
limits)
U ncertainty component E xplicitly calcu lated Implicit
Type of potential loss Mainly hu man biological/ E nvironmental, social,
considered physical econom ic
Level of analysis of To individu als/grou ps To systems (ecosystem/social
potential loss systems/economies)
N ote: a This is more than ju st the difference between risk as a ‘negative’ and su stainability as a ‘positive’
attribute. A lthou gh achieving su stainability is to some extent abou t avoiding loss, ju st as risk managemen t
is, many au thors wou ld maintain that su stainability (in the context of developme nt) also goes beyond the
avoidance of losses to encompass active im provem ent of the qu ality of life (cf. deŽ nitions discu ssed in R enn
and Kastenholz, 1996). This seems to be qu alitatively different to the (more limited) focu s of risk (manage-
ment).

B. Contexts of application (‘management’/‘development’)

Featu re R isk m anagem ent Su stainable developm ent

Context or ‘mission’ Management (protecting statu s D evelopment (initiating

D ecision-making approach
Message format
qu o)
R isk-beneŽ t assessment
(optimization)
Qu antities, especially
probability-based estimates
or fostering change)
Precautionary principle
Qu alities, theories and
visions as well as qu antities

Both risk and su stainability are nominally fu tu re-oriented – that is, they assess present
actions according to what they may lead to – bu t risk management is typically concerned
with shorter fu ture time spans. A s we have seen, both concepts are also concerned with
potential loss in some sense. H owever a major difference is that su stainability is closely
associated with the idea that certain needs ou ght to be met (see below). By contrast
risk, in the context of environm ental risk management, does not directly include a ‘bene-
Ž ts’ component, as previou sly remarked.
Both areas have to take account of the u ncertainty associated with fu tu re ou tcomes,
bu t they do this differently. In estimating risks, the u ncertainty of given ou tcomes is a
central concern, which it attempts to capture in explicit probability estimates. In su stain-
ability studies, althou gh u ncertainty can be factored into economic estimates, and also
appears in some environm ental predictions (notably concerning global warming), it is
often treated implicitly or qu alitatively, if at all.
Fu rther differences become clear in terms of the types of loss typically considered.
R isk tends to be concerned with injury and death of hu mans, and (more rarely) of
other species. Su stainability has a broader concern which emphasizes more global issu es
su ch as biodiversity and social effects. More importantly, at least in its narrower forms,
su stainability relates mainly to system s rather than individu als. R isks are of most interest
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 205

for su stainability when they affect the environment, or hu man society or societies in
aggregate. This is a matter of emphasis, however, and not an absolu te difference.
Thu s (u n)su stainability is both a more comprehensive concept than that of risk, and
correspondingly, less detailed in respect of direct physical risks to hu mans. Interestingly,
the perception of risks by laypeople seems in some respects to correspond more closely
to the concept of su stainability, than does the technical concept of risk employed by
experts. For instance, factors which lay people tend to bring into their ju dgements of
riskiness seem to include effects on fu ture generations, catastrophic potential, persis-
tency, tampering with natu re, and so on. Formal risk assessments tend to be limited to
more proximate, immediate consequ ences. It is also worth noting in this connection
that laypeople seem to identify positively with the valu es behind the su stainability
concept (Macnaghten et al., 1995), while experience su ggests that they tend to be more
sceptical abou t risk management.
The second part of Table 1 deals with risk and su stainability in their contexts of
application (or ‘missions’), which frame the practical application of each concept. A s
discu ssed, management seems more geared to avoiding harmfu l changes, while devel-
opment is abou t fostering positive change. A gain, this conceptu al distinction does not
ru le ou t some overlap in practice.
D ifferent tendencies can also be detected in relation to decision-making. Within
su stainable development the application of the precautionary principle is emphasized. In
risk management, despite the emphasis on losses mentioned earlier, one strong tradition
argu es for the explicit weighing of risks and beneŽ ts in decisions (e.g. u sing Cost-BeneŽ t
A nalysis, CBA ) (admittedly there are other examples where this does not occu r, e.g. in
the U SA ’s regu lation of carcinogens). There seems to be no logically necessary reason
for this difference to exist; it seems to arise from historical and ‘cu ltural’ grou nds.
Finally, the typical format of messages for pu blic commu nication differs between the
two approaches. While risk estimates are normally given in terms of qu antities,
especially probability-based estimates, or categor ies (e.g. safe/dangerou s), pu blic
messages abou t su stainable development tend to have a broader content including
qu alities, qu antities, visions and strategies.

2.3. A R E CO NCILIA TIO N

A lthou gh the above discu ssion contrasts risk and su stainability, they can also be seen
as different bu t com plementary concepts. Su stainable development seeks to promote a
system which is robu st, that is, which is able to su rvive existential hazards. R isk manage-
ment is a tool which can be u sed to measu re and redu ce speciŽ c hazards. To some
extent the concern (or lack of it) with su stainable development can also be seen as
re ecting society’s risk perception (Matten, 1998). This su ggests that risk assessment
and management ou ght to have a role in considering certain aspects of su stainable
development issu es.
D espite all the differences, there are indeed signs that the two areas are growing
towards each other – for instance, some company environm ental reports discu ss their
risk management in the light of su stainable development goals; and increasing atten-
tion is being given within risk management to ‘global risks’ (e.g. R enn and Klinke,
1998). Much more work remains to be done to describe the relationship between these
two frameworks, and to Ž nd the critical gaps between them.
206 G ray and W iedem ann

3. Sustainable development indicators

3.1. G E NE R A L U SE S A ND LIMITA TIO NS O F IND ICA TO R S

Indicators are measu res u sed to describe the condition of a broader phenomenon or
aspect of reality (G ray, 1996). They are u su ally thou ght of as being qu antitative, bu t a
broader concept of indicators wou ld also include semiqu antitative (categorical) descrip-
tions and qu alitative statements (e.g. safety warnings, accident descriptions), which in
practical commu nication are often the more important.
Indicators are a basic tool of management in any sphere, in particular for describing and
monitoring the situation being managed, to help assess the available management options,
and to evalu ate the ou tcomes of actions taken. In addition, indicators are important in the
commu nication between variou s stakeholders which is involved in all these fu nctions.
The basic, inherent difŽ cu lty with indicators is that they are selective. They each
represent one measu re of one aspect of any situation. This means that there is always
room for discu ssion and even disagreement abou t whether they really represent that
which one wants to measu re; whether other people want to measu re the same thing;
and whether the measu re is u nderstandable to nonexperts.

3.2. PU R PO SE A ND TYPE S O F SU STA INA BILITY IND ICA TO R

R ealizing the goal of su stainable development implies that we need to be able to
measu re the su stainability of ou r cu rrent behaviou r, as well as the direction in which
we are moving, and to say what size of changes are necessary to meet these goals; in
other words, we requ ire indicators of su stainability. Work in this area began u nder the
heading of ‘green accou nting’, and was boosted by A genda 21, signed at the R io ‘E arth
Su mmit’ (U NCE D ) in 1992. A genda 21’s goals include the development by local govern-
ments and their commu nities of local plans for moving towards su stainability (‘local
A genda 21s’), including speciŽ c indicators.
Variou s indicator systems exist for the individu al dimensions of su stainability (envi-
ronmental, social and economic) mentioned above; however, these were not developed
to indicate su stainability as su ch, so it is important to select, adapt and constru ct new
indicators for this pu rpose. A fu rther problem which then arises is the potential
complexity of indicator schemes, and how to link the measu rements in different areas,
both of which lead to consideration of aggr egated statistics; althou gh a fu lly integrated
indicator system across all three areas is far from available. For reasons of simplicity
the following will focu s mainly on indicators for the environmental dimension; however
since it is impossible to separate these clearly from the discu ssion of econom ic indica-
tors, these will also be mentioned.
Work on su stainability indicators has occu rred at two different levels: the ‘macro’
level work on environmental indicators/green accou nting, and the ‘micro’ level of (local)
A genda 21. ‘Macro’-indicators attempt to measu re the su stainability of a nation or the
world, while ‘micro’-indicators generally relate to smaller, more local u nits.

3.2.1. Indicators of environm ental su stainability

Since the su stainability debate arose originally ou t of environmental concerns, it
is natural that mu ch interest in su stainability indicators has focu sed on measu ring
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 207

environm ental conditions. H owever established media-based environm ental indicators,

e.g. air pollu tion indices, do not in themselves indicate su stainability. For this, a more
systematic overview of processes, and some concept of limits or desirable trends are
necessary.
A basic starting point is the distinction (stemming from the O E CD , based on earlier
Canadian govern ment work) between environmental indicators relating respectively to
Pressu re on the environm ent, its State (i.e. what is happening to it1), and the R esponse
to these pressu res, for any particular issu es (H ammond et al., 1995). For instance, indi-
cators of climate change might include the emissions of greenhou se gases (Pressu re);
their ambient concentrations (State); and redu ctions in energy u se (R esponse). For
biodiversity, possible indicators include land conversion (Pressu re); species abu ndance
relative to virgin areas (State); and the amou nt of land u nder protection (R esponse).
H ammond et al. (1995, p. 15ff) fu rther divide environmental indicators according to
whether they refer to sou rces, sinks, life su pport capacity, and impacts on hu man
welfare. For each of these, they provide individu al indicators and a respective composite
index, consisting of a pollu tion index, resou rce depletion index, ecosystem index and
an index of environm ental impact on hu man welfare (whereby the latter overlap with
social indicators). The pros and cons of the aggregation process will be discu ssed later,
bu t the categorization is u sefu l.
Instead of aggregation, it is possible to provide lists of indicators which the reader
can directly assess. A n example is the recent catalogu e of 30 su stainability indicators
for the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, G ermany, produ ced by the Stu ttgart
A cademy of Technology A ssessment (PŽ ster et al., 1997) . These consist of (mainly)
Pressu re and State indicators relating to sinks, sou rces and life su pport (ecosystems),
and an attempt is made to strike a balance between detail and conciseness, both in the
nu mber and presentation of the indicators.
Critics of the Pressu re–State–R esponse ‘model’ warn that its simple linearity leads
to a focu s on symptoms instead of the deeper causes of global problems (Wu ppertal
Institute, 1995). If retained, the model shou ld at least be Ž lled ou t more completely (as
H ammond et al., 1995 appear to do), and precaution shou ld be emphasized more
strongly. Certainly the framework does not exhau st all the possibilities for selecting
indicators, bu t it is a u sefu l gu ide.
Two well-known types of indicator are worth mentioning individu ally. The Ž rst are
Pressu re (resou rce depletion) indicators which highlight the effects of hu man activities:
the ‘ecological ru cksack’ and ‘ecological footprint’. These are graphic expressions for
the total environmental impact of particular activities or popu lations. The ‘footprint’
calculates the land area requ ired to su pply the total inpu ts of energy and material to
a given popu lation, over whole produ ct lifecycles.
In contrast to the discu ssion so far, the other well-known type of indicator incorpo-
rates limits for consu mption (a kind of Pressu re ‘maxima’) and includes ‘environmental
space’, ‘carrying capacity’ (Wu ppertal Institute, 1995), and the related idea of ‘critical
loads’. ‘Carrying capacity’ is the calculated total su stainable popu lation (at a certain
standard of living) for a given region, based on resou rces and critical loads (see below);
‘environmental space’ is the average su stainable entitlement to each resou rce per
person, based on the existing popu lation and resou rces, assu ming absolu te equ ality.

1
‘State’ inclu des the changes and trends that are happening as a resu lt of the Pressures. It does not imply ‘stasis’
208 G ray and W iedem ann

‘Critical loads’ are the maximu m inpu ts, e.g. of acidic su bstances, which a given
ecosystem can bear, and are requ ired to calculate the carrying capacity. The G erman
Cou ncil on E nvironmental Qu ality has su ggested the extension of the critical loads
concept to encompass ‘critical stru ctural changes’ (R SU , 1994). A ll these concepts can
so far in general only be calculated with signiŽ cant u ncertainties.
A nother important area of work on ‘environm ental’ indicators is ‘green accou nting’
(A tkinson and H amilton, 1996). The aim of this approach is to produ ce national (or other)
economic measu res which take into accou nt the changes in environmental factors su ch as
the stock of nonrenewable resou rces. The indicators may be expr essed in monetary or in
physical terms, and include variou s su mmary measu res which might serve as a ‘green
G ross D omestic Produ ct (G D P)’, althou gh the search for the latter has proved difŽ cu lt.
The nearest equ ivalent in practice is the Index of Su stainable E conomic Welfare (ISE W),
which su btracts certain items from G D P; however there is no allowance for adding posi-
tive items, e.g. environmental or health improvements (A tkinson and H amilton, 1996).

3.3. CR ITE R IA A ND PR O CESSE S FO R CH O O SING SU STA INA BILITY IND ICA TO R S

The above discu ssion shows that a basic requ irement for selecting indicators is a clear
concept of what is being indicated (su stainable development), and its main dimensions.
A re there any other general gu idelines for selecting the indicators? A nd who shou ld
do the choosing?
A gainst the backgrou nd of the discu ssion of the u ses of indicators in general above,
it can be said that two kinds of criteria are needed for indicators: technical and com mu-
nicative criteria. The former concern the relationship between the indicator and the
phenomenon of interest, while the latter refer to the indicator’s u sefu lness for commu-
nicating with the intended au dience.
It is therefore interesting that two widely echoed criteria for the selection of su stain-
ability indicators are that they shou ld be m eaningfu l (accu rate) and m otivating (resonant)
(LG MB, 1993; papers in MacG illivray, 1995). Because these criteria may sometimes
con ict, they need to be balanced against each other.
The accu racy of indicators means the extent to which they ‘objectively’ relate to the
phenomenon u nder discu ssion, and is rou ghly equ ivalent to the criteria of Tru thfu lness
and Informativeness, discu ssed earlier u nder risk indicators. This means, for instance,
that the indicators shou ld as far as possible be free from extraneou s in u ences (robu st)
(LG MB, 1993); be capable of showing the potential for change and developm ent; be
oriented towards actions and responses; and be available on a regional or local level,
to enable local action (CIE SIN, 1992).
R esonance refers to the ‘signiŽ cance’ of an indicator for its intended au dience, in
other words the indicator’s effectiveness in bringing attention to problems. The reason
for emphasizing this seems to be the implicit assu mption that su stainable development
requ ires a higher pu blic awareness of environm ental and other relevant issu es, as a
prerequ isite for motivating change. This assu mption does have a normative element;
on the other hand, simply ensu ring that the indicator gains attention does not neces-
sarily presu ppose any particular type of ou tcome. Nevertheless it cou ld be a problem
if attention-grabbing leads to inaccu racy or irrelevance.
A ggregated indicators are ‘something of a H oly G rail’ for indicators (A tkinson and
H amilton, 1996) , and there is disagreement abou t their valu e and validity (see LG MB,
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 209

1993). The main problems with aggregation are loss of information, the need for valu e
ju dgements, and the loss of transparency. Thu s for aggregated indicators to be accepted,
there generally needs to be the opportu nity to explain their constru ction, and to bu ild
u p tru st in them over time. This may well be possible in exp ert contexts, bu t will be
harder in pu blic ones, u nless the basic valu es involved have been agreed. Thu s the
u sefu lness of aggregated indicators probably depends greatly on the context and on
how they are introdu ced, as well as their degree of complexity.
The issu e of agreeing the valu es involved in indicators has wider implications. The
‘micro’-indicator work u nder A genda 21 emphasizes a participatory approach to indi-
cator selection. Some case studies of su ch efforts are explored in MacGillivray (1995),
and the u se of focu s grou ps to study indicator development and their credibility with lay
people in Lancashire is described by Macnaghten et al. (1995). The latter work fou nd that
the su ccess of initiatives cou ld be hampered by general cynicism and lack of tru st in
gove rnment, or in its ability to ‘deliver’ su stainability. H owever the concept of su stain-
ability itself, and the Cou ncil’s initiative in consu lting lay people, were seen positively by
the focu s grou ps. Pu blishing indicators is therefore not enou gh on its own; at the least,
efforts to tackle problems and to win the conŽ dence of the commu nity are also needed.

3.4. SU MMA R Y
In su mmary, some important criteria for su stainability indicators are that they shou ld
be robu st, problem- or action-oriented, chosen according to the particular management
task involved (problem recognition, option development etc.), and resonant. A ggregated
indicators requ ire explanation and a basis of agreed valu es. Consideration shou ld be
given to choosing indicators in conju nction with potential u sers and not only throu gh
expert debate.
The u sefu lness of these lessons in the context of risk will be discu ssed later.

4. Risk indicato rs

4.1. U SE S O F R ISK IND ICA TO R S

R isk indicators are mainly requ ired in certain phases of the risk management process
(see previou s section), notably in measu ring and evalu ating risk (and beneŽ t), assessing
options and evalu ating actions, and for the general task of commu nication. These fu nc-
tions can be divided broadly into two categories: (i) describing the size and im portance
of a risk (its cause, consequ ence, likelihood etc.), and of any associated beneŽ ts; and
(ii) assessing options for controlling the risk, including alternative activities, as well as
the actual performance of the options once implemented (predicted effects of each
control option on the preceding risk indicators).

4.2. TYPE S O F R ISK IND ICA TO R

A ny given typ e of risk has many dimensions, each of which can be indicated in variou s
ways. These dimensions include the following (no te that most relate to individu al risk,
while the last two concern the aggr egated risks across a popu lation) (Fischhoff et al.,
1984; H ansson, 1989; G ray, 1996):
210 G ray and W iedem ann

1. the potential harm (consequ ences);

2. individu al prob ability of this harm being experienced;
3. variability in risk within the popu lation;
4. latency of harm;
5. catastrophic or grou p risk;
6. collective dimension (nu mbers of individu als exposed).
A cross-cu tting dimension is that of u ncertainty in any of the Ž gu res, including the
prob ability (Fu ntowicz and R avetz 1990). It shou ld be noted that there is some overlap
between the dimensions, and they cou ld also be divided u p in other ways. Some of the
possibilities for indicating them will now be discu ssed.
(1) The types of consequ ences typically focu sed u pon in technical risk assessments
include death or injury, property damage, and harm to the natural environment. O ne
of the dangers this creates is that nonfatal consequ ences – su ch as stress, nu isance or
‘minor’ illnesses – will be overlooked.
(2) The likelihood of harm, expressed as the probability of a particular consequ ence,
is often seen as the ‘core’ risk indicator. A mong the most common measu res are the
average individu al risk, and the risk to the most exp osed individu al (ME I). E xamination
of real-life risk literature reveals that in practice, probabilities are often u navailable or,
if available, relatively u nhelpfu l for describing a complex situ ation. H ence what may
be termed ‘secondary’ indicators are often u sed, relating to preceding physical condi-
tions or events, e.g. concentrations, spatial dimensions or nu mbers of u nits (e.g. nu mber
of sou rces) (G ray, 1996). Taking this line of thou ght still fu rther, one can classify other
indicators as ‘tertiary’ indicators of the likelihood of harm; for instance social factors
su ch as the commu nity’s tru st in the operator of a plant or in a regu lator, or qu alita-
tive commu nications, e.g. warning notices, or the statements of opinion leaders abou t
the causes of a risk.
(3) The variability or distribu tion of risk can be indicated by variou s means, su ch as
qu oting the likelihood of harm to the most expo sed individu al (ME I) in addition to
the average risk; or by providing estimates of the increased risks to vu lnerable grou ps.
Variability is not to be confu sed with u ncertainty; while u ncertainty is in principle
redu cible, variability can be better deŽ ned, bu t not redu ced by more research.
(4) The latency of the consequ ence (delay between exposu re and onset of effect) can
be measu red qu antitatively in variou s ways, e.g. in terms of average delay of onset for
those su ffering harm,2 or indirectly in ‘loss of life expectancy’.
(5) Catastrophic or grou p risk is the risk that a certain minimum nu mber of people
will be harmed at the same time. It can also be thou ght of as the distribu tion pattern
of the consequ ences over time. It can be indicated nu merically by a graph of frequ ency
versu s nu mbers harmed (f/N), or by selected points from the resu ltant cu rve. ‘Secondary’
indicators here (see above) include the nu mbers of sou rces, or the size of popu lation
exposed (e.g. nu mbers living near a nu clear reactor).
(6) The collective dimension is frequ ently overlooked in risk commu nication, bu t is
important for societal planning, as well as for individu al evalu ations of a problem in
societal rather than personal terms. It can be described qu antitatively by the total

2
If data are available, this measu re is u su ally seen as more relevant than the aver age delay for all per sons exposed,
assu ming that the harmfu l ou tcome (e.g. mesotheliom a after asbestos exposu re) is not experienced by ever yone who
is exposed.
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 211

nu mbers of people exposed plu s the individu al risk, or by the nu mbers predicted to be
harmed. Qu alitative indicators might include the fact that the hazard is widely distrib-
u ted, e.g. au tomobile ownership or environm ental contamination.
Qu antitative risk indicators can vary in their composition; in particular, probability
expr essions can u se variou s back grou nd u nits: e.g. whether probability is measu red
against u nit time, u nit distance, repetition of activity, or other measu res. Finally, similar
qu antitative information can sometimes be presented in variou s different ways, e.g.
probabilities as percentages, decimal fractions, arithmetic fractions, or odds, withou t
changing its logical information content, bu t with possibly signiŽ cantly commu nication
effects.
The effectiveness of speciŽ c control options or actions in altering risks may be indi-
cated u sing any of the above dimensions, whether in qu antitative or qu alitative form.
The costs of the control options – including any risk transfer, i.e. increase in other risks
– need to be included.

4.3. SE LE CTING R ISK IND ICA TO R S

It was propose d earlier that indicators need to fu lŽ l both technical and commu nicative
criteria. For both it is important to consider the overall aim of u sing the indicators: to
provid e the interested and affected people, including experts, with the information
needed to make decisions abou t the risk and how to respond to it. In some cases a
stronger, normative goal is speciŽ ed, su ch as warning or reassu ring individu als abou t
a risk.
O n the technical side, risk indicators, like su stainability indicators, shou ld be robu st
and problem-oriented. That is, they shou ld reliably re ect changes in the hazard being
measu red, and provide information abou t the relevant management aspects, including
the size of the risk, possible control options and so on. A s far as possible all the rele-
vant dimensions mentioned in the preceding section shou ld be covered, and the
comments made in that section abou t each dimension taken into accou nt.
A central lesson of risk management has been that selecting indicators on a tech-
nical basis alone is often insu fŽ cient to achieve acceptable decisions, or ‘rational’
behaviou r by the affected people (from the experts’ viewpoint). Because of this, mu ch
research and experience exists within risk management which is relevant to u nder-
standing the commu nicative criteria for indicators, notably u nder the heading of risk
perception and commu nication.
O ne possible set of commu nicative criteria for indicators are the maxims of commu-
nication stated by the philosopher G rice (1975): Tru thfu lness, Info rmativeness,
R elevance, and Clarity. If it is considered that the indicator shou ld motivate particular
actions, then one may also wish to consider motivational factors. These criteria can be
Ž lled ou t based on a large amou nt of relevant psychological and commu nication research
(some of which is reviewed in G ray, 1996, 1998). It will be assu med here that commu-
nication with the interested pu blic is concerned, althou gh the principles shou ld also
apply generally to e.g. commu nication with experts or decision-makers.
T ru thfulness implies that the indicator shou ld not only be technically meaningfu l, bu t
its presentation shou ld be transparent, and not manipu lated in order to encou rage
‘favou rable’ perceptions. This means paying attention to the effects of given forms of
presentation, some of which may not be immediately obviou s – e.g. framing effects,
212 G ray and W iedem ann

selective risk comparisons, or hidden backgrou nd u nits (denominators) (see below and
G ray, 1996; NR C Committee, 1996, 50ff). U navoidable biases can be pointed ou t or
balanced by other indicators.
A n example of the choice of backgrou nd u nit is that the risk of a fatal accident from
motorcycling per m ile driven is abou t 25 tim es higher than that of driving a car (based
on U S statistics); however in terms of average annu al risk, it is a less drastic 4 to 5
times higher – because car drivers tend to drive fu rther (see G ray, 1996, p. 50ff). The
former Ž gu re is requ ired to compare the risks from speciŽ c jou rneys, while the latter
one is more relevant for assessing insu rance premiu ms or the overall choice of trans-
port method. In other cases, the argu ments may be less clear; then it may help to
present probabilities u sing several different backgrou nd u nits.
The inclusion of u ncertainty information is often recommended, bu t Ž ndings abou t
its practical effects indicate certain tradeoffs. Johnson and Slovic (1995) fou nd that the
inclusion of simple u ncertainty (range) information in risk commu nications tended to
increase ratings of an agency’s honesty, bu t also to decrease ratings of competence.
More research is needed here, for instance into longer term effects.
Inform ativeness can be interpreted as the need to meet the au dience’s information
requ irements. Some of these requ irements can be dedu ced from research on risk percep-
tion, which shows that people have a broader view of risks than often re ected by risk
assessments, and take into account su ch qu alitative factors as their control over the
risk, its latency (delay before effect), catastrophic potential, potential effects on fu ture
generations, ‘dreadfu lness’ and so on (Slovic et al., 1980; Pidgeon et al., 1992). Indicators
can be provided for many of these dimensions. More detailed information may be avail-
able from case-speciŽ c literature, contacts with advocacy grou ps etc. The list of
dimensions discussed in the preceding section can act as a general checklist. It also
needs to be ensu red that people have the necessary context to interpret the informa-
tion, e.g. by providing reference levels su ch as the normal backgrou nd or action level.
In addition, all indicators shou ld be stated as fu lly as possible, including backgrou nd
u nits and the sou rce of information, to assist evalu ation by u ser.
A fair amou nt of research, mu ch of it in the U SA , has been aimed at the issu e of
how to achieve clarity in describing risks, including whether to u se nu mbers and/or
qu alitative terms when discu ssing qu antities. There is evidence that both shou ld have
a role. E veryd ay commu nication makes su btle u se of qu alitative descriptions to imply
both qu antities and the certainty of information (Moxey and Sandford, 1993).
Nevertheless, laypeople Ž nd nu merical probabilities u sefu l in forming ju dgements abou t
risk (Johnson and Fisher, 1989; Sandman and Weinstein, 1995) . H owever they often
make errors in combining probabilities, and perceptions (inclu ding those of experts)
are in u enced by framing effects e.g. whether ou tcomes are expr essed as potential
deaths or potential lives saved (Tversky and Kahneman, 1985). Concerning the presen-
tation of Ž gu res, experts u su ally advise ‘keeping things simple’ and avoiding specialized
u nits su ch as scientiŽ c notation, bu t limited research has been done on the effects
of different presentations of probability; most experimental work u ses forms su ch as
‘1 in x,000’, or decimal fractions (see also Siegrist, 1997). It shou ld be noted that the
mediu m of commu nication, the context and the au dience all in u ence how complex the
information can be. Finally, risk comparisons shou ld only be u sed sensitively, in the
light of available gu idance, especially in controversial situations (Covello, 1991; G ray,
1996, 80ff).
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 213

R elevance means trying to make the information apply as closely as possible to the
situation of the individu al. O ne way to do this is to provide individu ating information,
which enables the individu al to assess whether and how mu ch a risk applies to them:
e.g. which grou ps are most affected, what factors redu ce the risk etc.
In risk commu nication the term ‘resonance’ is little u sed, bu t the concept is relevant
for cases when commu nicators wish to draw attention to particular risks, e.g. with the
aim of persu ading people to avoid smoking. R esearch has fou nd that as well as
R elevance, other important factors in the su ccess of su ch persu asive commu nication
are Invo lvement (willingness to process information) and A bility (opportu nity to act
on the information) (Cvetkovich and E arle, 1995). These three factors all appear to be
ways in which the idea of resonance can be operationalized on a psychological level.
U ltimately, the selection of indicators remains an u navoidably valu e-based activity.
Not only the selection of the cause and the consequ ence, bu t also that of the back-
grou nd u nit are essentially nonscientiŽ c decisions which embody social and political
valu es, e.g. abou t the attribu tion of blame (even if the scientist involved has no consciou s
political intention). A minimum responsibility is to make clear why any particular indi-
cator has been selected, and the fact that other choices are possible.

4.4. PR O CE SSE S FO R SE LE CTING R ISK IND ICA TO R S

Based on the discu ssion so far, it is clear that selecting risk indicators is not only
complex, bu t may tou ch u pon important personal, social and political valu es. In certain
cases – e.g. where fu ndamental decisions are involved, or there is mu ch disagreement
abou t how to measu re risks – speciŽ c processes for discu ssing these issu es may have
to be applied.
A particu larly good example are certain state-level comparative risk assessment
(CR A ) processes in the U SA , which show promise as procedu res for agreeing sets of
relevant dimensions of risk (Chociolko, u npu blished; Finkel and G olding, 1994;
A ndrews, 1995). Interestingly, these tend to go beyon d the traditional view of risk
management to incorporate categories su ch as economic risk, ‘qu ality of life’ or
‘welfare’, and ecological effects, as well as hu man health risks. The projects vary in
approach and scope, bu t most include some form of pu blic involvement.
The basic motivation for these efforts is to allow more consciou s decisions abou t the
allocation of pu blic fu nds to environm ental and related issu es. Many observers note
that the process allows structured debate and thou ght abou t difŽ cu lt issu es (A ndrews,
1995), althou gh critics fear that risk is simply too narrow a concept for the task of
priority setting (see Finkel and G olding, 1994). A t least it seems clear that these
processes are worth exploring as ways to develop richer approaches to the measu re-
ment and evalu ation of risks, with meaningfu l inpu t from the pu blic.
A nother relevant approach may be the propose d ‘commu nity risk proŽ les’ (CR Ps),
which wou ld record all the major aspects of a commu nity’s health and environm ental
statu s, in continu ou sly u pdated form, u niting cu rrently fragmented or u nsystematic
information (Wernick, 1995) . This concept wou ld provide a framework for a system of
risk indicators for a given area; however u nlike the CR A approach, it does not seem
to incorporate any particu lar method for exp loring differences between stakeholders.
These examples show interesting parallels with the work on su stainability indicators
u nder Local A genda 21.
214 G ray and W iedem ann

4.5. SU MMA R Y
A s we have seen, the aim of risk indicators is to provide information for managing
risks, inclu ding commu nication, risk assessment and decisions abou t control. R isk has
variou s dimensions, each of which can be indicated in variou s ways. It is important to
consider all the dimensions when selecting indicators. Selection depends on both tech-
nical and commu nicative criteria.
G eneral technical criteria for selecting risk indicators are similar to those for selecting
su stainability indicators (robu st, prob lem-oriented etc.), with the addition of speciŽ c
factors relating to the individu al dimensions of risk.
Possible commu nicative criteria include Tru thfu lness, Inform ativeness, R elevance and
Clarity. Much has been learned abou t fu lŽ lling these criteria from the extensive psycho-
logical research on risk perception, and related areas su ch as information processing.
U ltimately, however, selecting indicators depends on the valu es applied. Because of
this, the process u sed for selecting the indicators plays an important role. For impor-
tant or controversial decisions affecting many stakeholders, special approaches may be
needed, for which the Comparative R isk A ssessment processes developed in the U SA
provide one possible model.

5. Conclusions: Lessons for choosing and using indicators

5.1. MU TU A L LE SSO NS
Work on risk indicators has mu ch in common with that on su stainability indicators.
First of all, they both illustrate that qu alities su ch as ‘risk’ or ‘su stainable development’
are complex constru cts with many dimensions, each of which can be indicated in a wide
range of ways. U ltimately each one can only be u nderstood and evalu ated by exam-
ining variou s different indicators, as demanded by the particular problem to be solved.
Second, in selecting indicators it is therefore important to clarify their pu rpose or
role – for instance with reference to the management cycle. In general these roles fall
into technical and commu nicative categories. D etailed criteria within each category have
been developed in both Ž elds, and show both parallels and differences.
A third general lesson for indicators is that different u nits may relate to u nderlying
political or valu e differences, which cannot be solved withou t debate – as frequ ently
pointed ou t by sociologists (e.g. Beck, 1996), and demonstrated by disagreements over
e.g. indicators for national greenhou se gas redu ctions. This problem emphasizes the
need for openness abou t the selection of indicators, and in certain cases for a selection
process based on dialogu e.

5.2. LE SSO NS FO R SU STA INA BILITY IND ICA TO R S

The work on risk indicators described here has provided some insights into the commu-
nicative requ irements for indicators: for instance, that they shou ld be tru thfu l,
informative, relevant to the au dience and clear. The concept of ‘resonance’ has also
been analysed in more detail.
R isk indicators also highlight the potential pitfalls of commu nication with the pu blic
over environmental issu es: for instance, that an indicator arou ses ou trage by trivializing
seriou s concerns, or ignoring the pu blic’s perception of the relevant dimensions of a
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 215

problem. O nce again, this lends su pport to the participative approach being taken to
local su stainability indicators.
Finally, the study of risk indicators can be applied directly to the qu antitative assess-
ment of threats to su stainability – say, threats to coastal defences, the fu ture incidence
of infectiou s diseases, or risks to the world economic system (see e.g. R enn and Klinke,
1998). In these cases the discu ssion of selecting risk indicators is directly relevant,
althou gh the kinds of problem involved are relatively complex and u ncertain.

5.3. LE SSO NS FO R R ISK IND ICA TO R S

Su stainability indicators demonstrate that it is possible to take an appro ach to indica-
tors which is broad-based and participative. In addition, it appears that risk management
wou ld beneŽ t from an examination of some of its goals and assu mptions in the light
of su stainability.
Work on su stainability indicators has been characterized by a systematic perspective,
leading to the development of relatively orderly sets of indicators. These indicators
encompass a broad concept of relevant effects, including ecological, economic and social
harm, and many different types of measu re, including qu alitative and su bjective ones
(e.g. su bjective welfare).
In comparison, risk management has tended, historically, to take a mu ch narrower
and technocratic approach, often discu ssing risks in terms of only one indicator e.g.
average individu al risk. R isk management has also been poor at handling secondary,
psychological and environm ental pressu res or effects on fu tu re generations. Some of
these characteristics are methodological, bu t some of them relate to valu e assu mptions
and a lack of participation. A related point is that while su stainability indicators are
being developed for regions and localities, risk management (at least ou tside the U SA )
has generally not dealt with risk in an integrated way, covering the overall spatial distri-
bu tion of risks (especially total risks, from heterogeneou s sou rces).
Many of these issu es involve valu es, and the strength of the participative approach
to su stainability indicators is that, in principle, it opens the possibility that a wider range
of relevant stakeholders’ valu es can be discu ssed and/or taken into accou nt. This clar-
iŽ es the potential advantages of processes su ch as comparative risk assessment, or other
methods to give the affected pu blic an opportu nity to consider the issu es of how to
describe ‘their’ risk.
A possible conclu sion is that risk management shou ld take steps to develop broader,
more inclusive sets of risk indicators, whether for geographical u nits, or for given types
of risk. These featu res are to some extent fostered by, say, the comparative risk assess-
ment approach. Pu tting this more forcefu lly, risk management needs to consider and
criticize its own fu ndamental goals in the light of su stainable development. While the
two Ž elds have distinctive foci, there are reasons to think their goals can proŽ tably be
reconciled. The analysis in this paper su ggests that this is not yet the case, and this
issu e is worthy of mu ch greater discu ssion and debate.
R isk and su stainability are two areas of work with a great relevance for each other,
and which cou ld beneŽ t from more intensive contact. This is tru e both at the general
level, for instance in terms of goals and u nderlying assu mptions, and in the speciŽ c
experience of indicator u se. A s this paper tries to show, work on indicators in each
area is complementary and mu ch can be learned by ‘looking across the fence’. Better
216 G ray and W iedem ann

still wou ld be if the fence were dismantled and the obviou s links between the areas
better developed and u sed.

References
A ndrews, R .N.L. (1995) R eview of California comparative risk project report, ‘Towards the 21st
Centu ry: Planning for the Protection of California’s E nvironment’, E nvironm ent 37, 25–28.
A tkinson, G . and H amilton, K. (1996) A ccou nting for progress: indicators for su stainable devel-
opment, E nvironm ent 38, 16–20, 40–44.
Beck, U . (1992) R isk Society: T owards a N ew M odernity, London : Sage. (G erman version: D ie
R isikogesellschaft: A u f dem W eg in eine andere M oderne, Frankfu rt-am-Main: Su hrkamp,
1986.)
Beck, U . (1996) R isk society and the provident state, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne
(eds), R isk , E nvironm ent and M odernity, pp. 27–44, London : Sage.
Chociolko, C. (unpu blished) E nvironmental priority setting: A tool for pu blic policy makers.
Backgrou nd paper for the O ntario Ministry of E nvironment and E nergy, Science and
Technology Branch. 1994. Kingston, O ntario: William Leiss and A ssociates Ltd.
CIE SIN (1992) Pathway s of Understanding: T he Interactions of Hu m anity and G lobal
E nvironm ental Change, U niversity Center, MI: Consortiu m for International E arth Science
Information Network.
Covello, V.T. (1991) R isk comparisons and risk commu nication: issues and problems in comparing
health and environmental risks, in R .E . Kasperson and P.J.M. Stallen (eds), Com mu nicating
R isk s to the Pu blic, D ordrecht: Klu wer.
Cvetkovich, G . and E arle, T. (1995) Produ ct warnings and information processing: the case of
alcohol warning labels, Eu ropean R eview of A pplied Psychology 45, 17–20.
Finkel, A .M. and G olding, D . (1994) W orst T hings First? T he D ebate over R isk-B ased N ational
E nvironm ental Priorities, Washington, D C: R esou rces for the Fu tu re.
Fischhoff, B., Watson, S.R . and H ope, C. (1984) D eŽ ning risk, Policy Sciences 17, 123–39.
Fu ntowicz, S.O . and R avetz, J.R . (1990) Uncertainty and Qu ality in Science for Policy, D ordrecht:
Klu wer.
G ray, P.C.R . (1996) R isk Indicators: T ypes, Criteria, E ffects. A fram ework for analy sing the u se
of risk indicators and com parisons in risk com mu nication. Stu dies on R isk Commu nication,
Vol. 56. MU T, Forschu ngszentru m Jülich. pp. 105.
G ray, P.C.R . (1998) Indikatoren für die R isikokommu nikation. E in Beitrag im R ahmen des
Foru ms R isikoforschu ng der U niversität Bremen, in Volker Preuss (ed.) R isikoanaly sen: Über
den Um gang m it G esundheits- u nd Um weltgefahren, pp. 115–32, H eidelberg: A sanger Verlag.
G rice, H . (1975) Logic and conversation, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Speech A cts, Syntax
and Sem antics, Vol. 12, pp. 41–58. New York.
H ammond, A ., A driaanse, A ., R odenbu rg, E ., Bryant, D . and Woodward, R . (1995) . E nviron-
m ental Indicators: A systematic approach to m easu ring and reporting on environmental policy
performance in the context of sustainable developm ent, May 1995, Washington D .C: World
R esou rces Inst.
H ansson, S.O . (1989) D imensions of risk, R isk A nalysis 9, 107–12.
Johnson, B.B. and Slovic, P. (1995) Presenting u ncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial stu dies
of its effects on risk perception and tru st, Risk A nalysis 15, 485–94.
Johnson, F.R . and Fisher, A . (1989) Conve ntional wisdom on risk commu nication and evidence
from a Ž eld experiment, R isk A nalysis 9, 209–13.
LG MB (Local G overnment Management Board) (1993) A Fram ework for L ocal Su stainability.
L ocal G overnm ent M anagem ent Board for E ngland and W ales, Lu ton, U nited Kingdom: LG MB.
Lu hmann, N. (1991) Soz iologie des R isikos, Berlin/New York: Walter de G ru yter Verlag.
MacG illivray, A . (ed.) (1995) A ccou nting for Change: Papers from an international seminar,
R isk m anagem ent and su stainable developm ent 217

T oynbee H all, O ctober 1994, pp. 88. London : New E conom ics Fou ndation.
Macnaghten, P., G rove- White, R ., Jacobs, M. and Wynne (1995) Pu blic Perceptions and Su stain-
ability in L ancashire. R eport by Centre for the Stu dy of E nvironmental Change, Lancaster
U niversity, to Lancashire Cou nty Cou ncil (LCC). Preston, E ngland: LCC Planning
D epartment.
Matten, D . (1998) Su stainable developm ent als betriebswirtschaftliches Leitbild: H intergründe,
A bgrenzu ngen, Perspektiven, Z eitschrift für B etriebliches Um weltmanagem ent, E rgänzu ngsheft
1/98, 1–23.
Moxey, L.M. and Sandford, A .J. (1993) Com mu nicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective,
H ove (U K) and H illsdale (U SA ): Lawrence E rlbaum A ssociates.
NR C Committee (1996) Understanding Risk . Inform ing D ecisions in a D em ocratic Society.
National R esearch Cou ncil Comm ittee on R isk Characterization. Washington, D .C.: National
A cademy Press.
Pearce, D ., Tu rner, R ., O ’R iordan, T., A dger N., A tkinson, G ., Brisson, I., Brown, K., Du bou rg, R .,
Fankhau ser, S., Jordan A ., Maddison, D ., Moran, D . and Powell, J. (1993) Chapter 1: D eŽ ning
su stainable development. B lu eprint 3: M easu ring Su stainable D evelopm ent, pp. 3–14. London :
E arthscan Books.
PŽ ster, G ., Knau s, A . and R enn, O . (1997) N achhaltige E ntwick lu ng in B aden- W ürttem berg:
Statu sbericht, Stuttgart: A kademie für Technikfolgenabschätzu ng in Baden-Württemberg.
Pidgeon, N., H ood, C., Jones, D ., Tu rner, B. and G ibson, R . (1992) R isk Perception, Chapter 5,
pp. 89–134, London : R oyal Society Stu dy G rou p.
R ayner, S. (1993) R isk perception, technology accceptance and institu tional cultu re: case stu dies
of some new deŽ nitions, in Bayerische R ückversicheru ng (ed.), R isk is a Construct, pp. 197–220,
Münich: Knesebeck Verlag.
R enn, O . (1992) Concepts of risk: a classiŽ cation, in: S. Krimsky and D . G olding (eds), Social
T heories of R isk , pp. 53–79. Praeger, Westport, CT, U SA .
R enn, O . and Kastenholz, H . (1996) E in regionales Konzept nachhaltiger Entwicklu ng, G A IA ,
5, 86–102.
R enn, O . and Klinke, A . (1998) Theory and modelling: R isk concepts and risk classiŽ ca-
tion. Introdu ctory paper in Symposiu m on Classifying and Managing G lobal E nvironmental
R isks. A nnu al Conference of the Society for R isk A nalysis – Eu rope, Paris, 11–14 O ctober
1998.
R oyal Society Stu dy G rou p (1992) R isk : A nalysis, Perception and M anagem ent, London: The
R oyal Society.
R SU (R at von Sachverständigen für U mweltfragen/G erman Cou ncil on E nvironmental Quality)
(1994), Für eine dau erhafte E ntwick lu ng: Um weltgu tachten 1994. Stu ttgart: Metzler-Poeschel.
Sandman, P.M. and Weinstein, N.D . (1995) Commu nicating effectively abou t risk magnitu des:
Bottom line conclusions and recommendations for practitioners. O CLC 32596351. Washington,
D .C: U S E nvironmental Protection A gency.
Siegrist, M. (1997) Commu nicating low risk magnitu des: incidence rates expressed as frequ ency
versu s rates expressed as probability. R isk A nalysis 17, 507–510.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) Facts and fears: u nderstanding perceived risks,
in R .C. Schwing and W.A . A lbers (eds), Societal R isk A ssessment: H ow safe is safe enou gh,
pp. 181–216, New York: Plenu m Press.
Szerszynski, B., Lash, S. and Wynne, B. (1996) Introdu ction: E cology, realism and the social
sciences, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, B. Wynne (eds), R isk , E nvironm ent and M odernity, pp.
1–26, London: Sage.
Tversky, A . and Kahneman, D . (1985) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,
in V.T. Covello, J.L. Mu mpowe r, P.J.M. Stallen and V.R .R . U ppu lu ri (eds), E nvironm ental
Im pact A ssessment, T echnology A ssessment, and R isk A nalysis, pp. 107–130, Berlin: Springer-
Verlag. (R eprinted from Science 211, pp. 453–58, 1981).
218 G ray and W iedem ann

Vlek, C.A .J. (1990) B eslissen over risico-acceptatie/Decision-m ak ing abou t risk acceptance. R apport
in H oofdlijnen/E xecu tive Su mmary. 52pp. R eport no. A 90/10H , The H agu e: G ezondheidsraad/
National H ealth Cou ncil.
Wernick, I. (1995) . A ddressing E nvironmental Qu ality and Pu blic H ealth at the Commu nity
Level: A Problem Statement [Commu nity R isk ProŽ les]. Backgrou nd Paper. New York:
R ockefeller U niversity.
World Commission on E nvironment and D evelopment (WCE D ) (1987) Our Com m on Fu ture,
O xford: O xford U niversity Press.
Wuppertal Institute (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, U mwelt, E nergie) (1995) Z u ku nftsfähiges
D eutschland: E in B eitrag zu einer global nachhaltigen E ntwick lu ng, E ine Stu die im Au ftrag
von BU ND u nd Misereor. O ct. 1995. A achen: BU ND /Misereor.