Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Environmental Sociology

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

  • 3424 Accesses

Abstract

An understanding of what risk is, how it is measured and perceived, and how it impacts social structures and processes is necessary for environmental sociology. Conceptually, risks motivate individual, institutional, and social actions by identifying the consequences of different decisions and trajectories. Practically, risk evaluations establish the boundaries for all kinds of environmental and health policies and practices, and most environmental regulations rely on understandings and calculations of risk. Additionally, scientific and technological innovations often produce new, unanticipated risks. But far from existing as politically- and value-neutral calculations, risk perceptions, risk assessments, and any decisions made or actions taken on the basis of risk are in fact deeply social. This chapter presents definitions of risk and associated concepts, and then provides an overview of major theoretical approaches to risk, in sociology generally and environmental sociology specifically. It concludes by discussing major areas of risk-related research for contemporary environmental sociology and identifying theoretical and empirical research needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of government and the making of subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthews, C. (2016). Trends and directions in environmental justice: From inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alario, M. V., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2010). Environmental risks and environmental justice, or how titanic risks are not so titanic after all. Sociological Inquiry, 80(3), 500–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, B. (2003). Uneasy alchemy: Citizens and experts in Louisiana’s chemical corridor disputes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Althaus, C. (2005). A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Analysis, 25(3), 567–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, R. G., Morello-Frosch, R., Brody, J. G., Rudel, R., Brown, P., & Averick, M. (2008). Pollution comes home and gets personal: Women’s experience of household chemical exposure. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 49(4), 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. (1995). The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of Health and Illness, 17(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, E., & Bernstein, M. (2008). Culture, power, and institutions: A multi-institutional politics approach. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 74–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2012). Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, 32(10), 1647–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baugher, J., & Roberts, J. T. (1999). Perceptions and worry about hazards at work: Unions, contract maintenance, and job control in the U.S. petrochemical industry. Industrial Relations, 38(4), 522–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1993). Risk society and the provident state. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 27–43). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2010). Climate for change, or how to create a green modernity. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2014). How climate change might save the world. Development and Society, 43(2), 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition, and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. E., & McBride, B. B. (2013). Assessing high reliability practices in wildland fire management: An exploration and benchmarking of organizational culture. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, J. (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14(4), 380–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickman, R., Jasanoff, S., & Ilgen, T. (1985). Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. (1987). Popular epidemiology: Community response to toxic waste-induced disease in Woburn, Massachusetts. Science, Technology & Human Values, 12(3/4), 78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. (2007). Toxic exposures: Contested illnesses and the environmental health movement. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Mikkelsen, E. J. (1990). No safe place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., Mccormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R., & Gasior Altman, R. (2004). Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(1), 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Morello-Frosch, R., & Zavestoski, S. (2012). Contested illnesses: Citizens, science, and health social movements. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, R. (2014). Institutionalized delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122(4), 681–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. (1999). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. (2005). The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, S., & Cable, C. (1995). Environmental problems, grassroots solutions: The politics of grassroots environmental conflict. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, S., Shriver, T. E., & Mix, T. L. (2008). Risk society and contested illnesses: The case of nuclear workers. American Sociological Review, 73, 380–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. (2007). The precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment: Rethinking how we assess and mitigate environmental threats. Organization & Environment, 20(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Centeno, M. A., Nag, M., Patterson, T. S., Shaver, A., & Windawi, A. J. (2015). The emergence of global systemic risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, L. (1988). Explaining choices among technological risks. Social Problems, 35(1), 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commonweal. (2013). Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. http://www.commonweal.org/programs/wingspread-statement.html.

  • Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, A. (2015a). Defining and defending risk: Conceptual risks formulas in chemical alternatives assessment. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, A. (2015b). Strategic science translation and environmental controversies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(6), 915–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, A. (2016a). Toxic safety: Flame retardants, chemical controversies, and environmental health. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, A. (2016b, July 18). Why chemicals in the U.S. are still “innocent until proven guilty.” Smithsonian Magazine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, A., & Brown, P. (2013). Moments of uncertainty: Ethical considerations and emerging contaminants. Sociological Forum, 28(3), 469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, A., Richter, L., & Brown, P. (2019). Environmental chemicals and public sociology: Engaged scholarship on highly fluorinated compounds. Environmental Sociology, 5(4), 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darier, E. (1996). Environmental governmentality. Environmental Politics, 5(4), 585–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison, R. (2018). Pruitt’s EPA plans to systematically deconstruct the expanded authority a bipartisan congress gave it less than two years ago. Environmental Defense Fund. http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/03/pruitts-epa-plans-to-systematically-deconstruct-the-expanded-authority-a-bipartisan-congress-gave-it-less-than-two-years-ago/#more-7648.

  • Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, L. (2015). Inequality, democracy, and the environment. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E. (2010). The maturation and diversification of environmental sociology: From constructivism and realism to agnosticism and pragmatism. In M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (2nd ed., pp. 15–34). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R. (1979). Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 243–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (Eds.). (1992). American environmentalism: The U.S. environmental movement, 1970–1990. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estabrook, T. (2007). Labor-environment coalitions: Lessons for a Louisiana petrochemical region. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyal, G. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118(1), 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, D. (2008). Capitalizing on environmental injustice: The polluter-industrial complex in the age of globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, J. (2015). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. PNAS, 113(1), 92–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feagin, J. (2001). Social justice and sociology: Agendas for the twenty-first century. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, S., & Collman, G. (2016). The pivotal role of the social sciences in environmental health sciences research. New Solutions, 26(3), 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, E. A. (2011). Sustainable development: Problematising normative constructions of gender within global environmental governmentality. Globalizations, 8(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. B., Clark, B., & York, R. (2010). The ecological rift: Capitalism's war on the earth. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Collected interviews and other essays, 1971–1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W. (2000). The ‘risk society’ reconsidered: Recreancy, the division of labor, and risks to the social fabric. In M. J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in the modern age: Social theory, science, and environmental decision-making (pp. 107–120). London: Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W., & Pastor, S. (1992). Public responses to technological risks: Toward a sociological perspective. Sociological Quarterly, 33(3), 389–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S. (2004). Just science? Organizing scientist activism in the U.S. environmental justice movement. Science as Culture, 13(4), 449–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., & Edwards, M. (2014). Untangling ignorance in environmental risk assessment. In S. Boudia & N. Jas (Eds.), Powerless science? Science and politics in a toxic world (pp. 215–233). New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., & Moore, K. (Eds.). (2006). The new political sociology of science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., & Vincent, M. B. (2007). Hurricane Katrina, contamination, and the unintended organization of ignorance. Technology in Society, 29(2), 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. (2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(4), 444–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., Torcasso, R., & Anderson, A. (2015). The organization of expert activism: Shadow mobilization in two social movements. Mobilization, 20(3), 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiser, K. (2015). Chemicals without harm: Policies for a sustainable world. Boston: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). Consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotham, K. S. (2016). Antinomies of risk reduction: Climate change and the contradictions of coastal restoration. Environmental Sociology, 2(2), 208–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M. (2007). The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts. Current Sociology, 55, 742–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J., & Brown, S. (2016). Whose life counts: Biopolitics and the ‘bright line’ of chloropicrin mitigation in California’s strawberry industry. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(3), 461–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlan, S. L., Pellow, D. N., & Roberts, J. T. (2015). Climate justice and inequality. In R. E. Dunlap & R. J. Brulle (Eds.), Climate change and society. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. L. (2011). Pesticide drift and the pursuit of environmental justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. (2009). The potentials and limitations of civil society research: Getting undone science done. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), 306–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogue, C. (2013). Assessing alternatives to toxic chemicals. Chemical & Engineering News, 91(50), 19–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, E. (2018). Environmental reproductive justice: Intersections in an American Indian community impacted by environmental contamination. Environmental Sociology, 4(1), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, E., Renauld, M., Edelstein, M., & Brown, P. (2015). Social science contributions to transdisciplinary environmental health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123, 1100–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howes, M. (2002). Reflexive modernization, the internet, and democratic environmental decision making. Organization & Environment, 15(3), 328–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2010). Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Jasper Ridge, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. In R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack, M. (2012). Principles of alternatives assessment. http://www.gmaonline.org/file-manager/20120907_GreenChemistryAACoalitionDocument_PrinciplesofAlternativesAssessment.pdf.

  • Karlsson, M. (2010). The precautionary principle in EU and US chemicals policy: A comparison of industrial chemicals legislation. In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, & C. Ruden (Eds.), Regulating chemical risk: European and Global Challenges (pp. 239–265). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempler, J., Merz, J. F., & Bosk, C. L. (2011). Forbidden knowledge: Public controversy and the production of nonknowledge. Sociological Forum, 26(3), 475–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, A. H., & Kinchy, A. (2019). Science by the people: Participation, power, and the politics of environmental knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchy, A. (2012). Seeds, science, and struggle: The global politics of transgenic crops. Cambridge: MA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchy, A. (2017). Citizen science and democracy: Participatory water monitoring in the Marcellus shale fracking boom. Science as Culture, 26(1), 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (2014). The shock doctrine: Disaster capitalism in action. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L. (1995). Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L., & Suryanarayanan, S. (2012). Dying bees and the social production of ignorance. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(4), 492–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kojola, E. (2018). Indigeneity, gender and class in decision-making about risks from resource extraction. Environmental Sociology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1426090.

  • Krimsky, S. (2005). The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary. Journal of Law and Policy, 8(1), 43–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (1992). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, E., Heine, L., Holder, H., Rossi, M., Lee, R., Connor, E., et al. (2010). Chemical alternatives assessment: Enabling substitution to safer chemicals. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(24), 9244–9249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, A. A., Kates, R. W., & Parris, T. M. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 413–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, S. (2010). Sacrifice zones: The front lines of toxic chemical exposure in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. (1982). Love Canal: Science, politics, and people. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, P. C. (2014). Toxic town: IBM, pollution, and industrial risks. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S. (2018). Privilege and responsibility in environmental justice research. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longo, S., & Clark, B. (2016). An ocean of troubles: Advancing marine sociology. Social Problems, 63(4), 463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, T. (2016). Environmental governmentality. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyng, S. (1993). Edgework: The sociology of risk-taking. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKendrick, N. (2018). Better safe than sorry: How consumers navigate exposure to everyday toxics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus, D. (2008). Risk management versus the precautionary principle: Agnotology as a strategy in the debate over genetically engineered organisms. In R. Proctor & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malin, S. A., & Ryder, S. S. (2018). Developing deeply intersectional environmental justice research. Environmental Sociology, 4(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, G. E., & Rosner, D. (2002). Deceit and denial: The deadly politics of industrial pollution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz, J., Brown, P., & Brody, J. (2016). Social science-environmental health collaborations: An exciting new direction. New Solutions, 26, 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, B. (2009). Cross-movement coalition formation: Bridging the labor-environment divide. Sociological Inquiry, 79(2), 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, S. (2009). Mobilizing science: Movements, participation, and the remaking of knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, S. (2015). The sociology of environmental health. In K. A. Gould & T. L. Lewis (Eds.), Twenty lessons in environmental sociology (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGoey, L. (2012). Strategic unknowns: Towards a sociology of ignorance. Economy and Society, 41(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2015). Which came first, people or pollution? Assessing the disparate siting and post-siting demographic change hypotheses of environmental injustice. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 115008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P., Pellow, D. N., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 405–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K., Kleinman, D., Hess, D., & Frickel, S. (2011). Science and neoliberal globalization: A political sociological approach. Theory & Society, 40(5), 505–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morello-Frosch, R., Zavestoski, S., Brown, P., Altman, R. G., McCormick, S., & Mayer, B. (2006). Embodied health movements: Responses to a ‘Scientized’ world. In S. Frickel & K. Moore (Eds.), The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2015). A framework to guide selection of chemical alternatives. D.C.: Washington. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18872/a-framework-to-guide-selection-of-chemical-alternatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nel, A. (2015). The choreography of sacrifice: Market environmentalism, biopolitics and environmental damage. Geoforum, 65, 246–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, K. (2014). The politics of fire and the social impacts of fire exclusion on the Klamath. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 36, 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, P. (2008). Governmentality and risk. In J. Zinn (Ed.), Social theories of risk and uncertainty: An introduction (pp. 52–75). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Obach, B. (2004). Labor and the environmental movement: The quest for common ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, A., Ohman, S., & Nygren, K. G. (2016). An intersectional risk approach for environmental sociology. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 346–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottinger, G., & Cohen, B. R. (Eds.). (2011). Technoscience and environmental justice: Expert cultures in a grassroots movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellow, D. N. (2007). Resisting global toxics: Transnational movements for environmental justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pellow, D. N., & Brulle, R. (Eds.). (2005). Power, justice, and the environment: A critical appraisal of the environmental justice movement. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, T. E. (2012). Women’s pathways into activism. Organization & Environment, 25(1), 76–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R., & Schiebinger, L. (Eds.). (2008). Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffensperger, C., & Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 83–116). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, L., Cordner, A., & Brown, P. (2018). Non-stick science: Sixty years of research and (in)action on fluorinated compounds. Social Studies of Science, 48(5), 691–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T. J., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, J. R., & Bolden, A. L. (2015). Bisphenonl S and F: A systematic review and comparison of the hormonal activity of bisphenol a substitutes. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123, 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E., Renn, O., & McCright, A. (2013). The risk society revisited: Social theory and governance. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudel, T. K., Roberts, J. T., & Carmin, J. (2011). Political economy of the environment. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, N. M. (2011). Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. University of Illinois Law Review, 1285–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. (1989). Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In V. T. Covello, D. McCallum, & M. Pavlova (Eds.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schnaiberg, A., & Gould, K. A. (1994). Environment and society: The enduring conflict. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2005). Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), 0364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. W., Kim, J., & Son, J. (2017). Public attitudes toward climate change and other environmental issues across countries. International Journal of Sociology, 47(1), 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. (2004). Social movements as challenges to authority: Resistance to an emerging conceptual hegemony. In D. Myers & D. Cress (Eds.), Authority in contention. Boston: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingraber, S. (1997). Living downstream: An ecologist looks at cancer and the environment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., Schewe, R. L., & McDermott, M. (2012). Responding to climate change: Barriers to reflexive modernization in U.S. agriculture. Organization & Environment, 25(3), 308–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). High reliability organizations. Best Practice and Clinical Anesthesiology, 25, 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szasz, A. (2007). Shopping our way to safety: How we changed from protecting the environment to protecting the environment to protecting ourselves. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, V., & Zald, M. N. (2010). The shape of collective action in the U.S. health sector. In J. Banaszak-Holl, S. Levitsky, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and the transformation of American health care (pp. 300–317). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Gooby, P., & Zinn, J. (2006). Current directions in risk research: New developments in psychology and sociology. Risk Analysis, 26(2), 397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Threadgold, S., Farrugia, D., Askland, H., Askew, M., Hanley, J., Sherval, M., & Coffey, J. (2018). Affect, risk and local politics of knowledge: Changing land use in Narrabri, NSW. Environmental Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1463673.

  • Tierney, K. J. (2007). From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 503–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. (1993). Reference dose: Description and use in health risk assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/iris/reference-dose-rfd-description-and-use-health-risk-assessments.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. (2011). Design for the environment program alternatives assessment criteria for hazard evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternatives_assessment_criteria_for_hazard_eval.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. (2012). Essential principles for reform of chemicals management legislation. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/principles.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. (2018a). About risk assessment. https://www.epa.gov/risk/about-risk-assessment#whatisrisk.

  • U.S. EPA. (2018b). Procedures for chemical risk evaluation under the amended toxic substances control act. Federal Register, 82(138), 33726–33753.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA. (2018c). Risk assessment. http://www.epa.gov/risk/history.htm.

  • Vaughn, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S. A., & Roberts, J. A. (2011). Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim. Health Affairs, 30(5), 898–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • vom Saal, F., & Hughes, C. (2005). An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol a shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(8), 926–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant ethic and the ‘spirit’ of capitalism. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). South canyon revisited: Lessons from high reliability organizations. Wild, 4(4), 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinhold, B. (2006). Epigenetics: The science of change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(3), A160–A167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, S., & Wolf, S. (2000). Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1987). The whale and the reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2008). At risk: Naturla hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E. (2006). Nanoscience, green chemistry, and the privilege position of science. In S. Frickel & K. Moore (Eds.), The new political sociology of science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2014). World urbanization prospects. http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth/en/.

  • Wynne, B. (1992). Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. New York: Prager.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, R. (2015). The science of nature and the nature of science. In K. A. Gould & T. L. Lewis (Eds.), Twenty lessons in environmental sociology (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G. C., Janssen, M. A., Ostrom, E., & van der Leeuw, S. (2006). The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research. Global Environmental Research, 16(3), 304–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinn, J. (2008). Introduction: The contribution of sociology to the discourse on risk and uncertainty. In J. Zinn (Ed.), Social theories of risk and uncertainty: An introduction (pp. 1–17). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA, USA

    Alissa Cordner

Authors
  1. Alissa Cordner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alissa Cordner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Solutions Journal, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Beth Schaefer Caniglia

  2. Department of Sociology and Environmental Studies Program, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

    Andrew Jorgenson

  3. Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Stephanie A. Malin

  4. Department of Sociology and Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Lori Peek

  5. Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    David N. Pellow

  6. Department of Sociology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

    Xiaorui Huang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cordner, A. (2021). Risk. In: Schaefer Caniglia, B., Jorgenson, A., Malin, S.A., Peek, L., Pellow, D.N., Huang, X. (eds) Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77712-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation