Literature DB >> 18469210

Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to minimize it.

Janet M Carey1, Mark A Burgman.   

Abstract

Most risk assessments assume uncertainty may be decomposed into variability and incertitude. Language is often overlooked as a source of uncertainty, but linguistic uncertainty may be pervasive in workshops, committees, and other face-to-face language-based settings where it can result in misunderstanding and arbitrary disagreement. Here we present examples of linguistic uncertainty drawn from qualitative risk analysis undertaken in stakeholder workshops and describe how the uncertainties were treated. We used a process of iterative re-assessment of likelihoods and consequences, interspersed with facilitated discussion, to assist in the reduction of language-based uncertainty. The effects of this process were evident as changes in the level of agreement among groups of assessors in the ranking of hazards.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18469210     DOI: 10.1196/annals.1399.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci        ISSN: 0077-8923            Impact factor:   5.691


  11 in total

1.  Towards a duty of care for biodiversity.

Authors:  G Earl; A Curtis; C Allan
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-02-06       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 2.  Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning.

Authors:  Aija S Kukkala; Atte Moilanen
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2012-12-22

3.  Capturing expert uncertainty in spatial cumulative impact assessments.

Authors:  Alice R Jones; Zoë A Doubleday; Thomas A A Prowse; Kathryn H Wiltshire; Marty R Deveney; Tim Ward; Sally L Scrivens; Phillip Cassey; Laura G O'Connell; Bronwyn M Gillanders
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion.

Authors:  Roger Cousens
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-02-10       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Intensive Livestock Farming and Residential Health: Experts' Views.

Authors:  Valérie Eijrond; Liesbeth Claassen; Joke van der Giessen; Danielle Timmermans
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  An assessment on potential risk pathways for the incursion of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in backyard poultry farm in Bangladesh.

Authors:  Kamrul Islam; Md Murshidul Ahsan; Shovon Chakma; Kinley Penjor; Mukti Barua; Mohammad Shah Jalal; Abdullah Al Momen Sabuj; Zakia Tabassum Ani; Abdul Ahad
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2020-10-09

7.  Uncertainty in and around biophysical modelling: insights from interdisciplinary research on agricultural digitalization.

Authors:  M Espig; S C Finlay-Smits; E D Meenken; D M Wheeler; M Sharifi
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  Assessing the risk of Nipah virus establishment in Australian flying-foxes.

Authors:  S E Roche; S Costard; J Meers; H E Field; A C Breed
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 4.434

9.  Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays.

Authors:  Gerald G Singh; Jim Sinner; Joanne Ellis; Milind Kandlikar; Benjamin S Halpern; Terre Satterfield; Kai Chan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Towards inclusive social appraisal: risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology.

Authors:  Andrew Stirling; K R Hayes; Jason Delborne
Journal:  BMC Proc       Date:  2018-07-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.