Advertisement

Implications for Risk Governance

Chapter
First Online:
  • 1.3k Downloads

Abstract

Risk perception differs from scientific or statistical assessment of risks. More than reflecting probability and magnitude, risk perception also includes aspects such as voluntariness of risk, possibility of personal control, or familiarity. It is also based on intuitive processes of making inferences, social values, and cultural beliefs. They follow specific patterns of semantic images and facilitate judgments about acceptability. Risk perceptions should not be seen as irrational responses to complex phenomena but rather as indicators for individual and societal concerns that require management and communication action.

Keywords

Risk perception Intuitive heuristics Attribution studies Semantic images Psychometrics Cultural theory of risk Risk governance Risk communication Public risk discourse 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amy, D. J. (1983). Environmental mediation: An alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sciences, 15(4), 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applegate, J. S. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: The use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decision making. Indiana Law Journal, 73, 903.Google Scholar
  4. Armour, A. (1995). The citizen’s jury model of public participation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating new models for environmental discourse (pp. 175–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bracha, H. S. (2004). Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: Adaptionist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectrums, 9(9), 679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breakwell, G. M. (1994). The echo of power: A framework for social psychological research. The Psychologist, 17(2), 65–72.Google Scholar
  9. Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The psychology of risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brehmer, B. (1987). The psychology of risk. In W. T. Singleton & J. Howden (Eds.), Risk and decisions (pp. 25–39). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 575–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, L. (1989). Acceptable risk? Making decisions in a toxic environment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Covello, V. T. (1983). The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(1), 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Jonge, J., van Kleef, E., Frewer, L., & Renn, O. (2007). Perception of risk, benefit and trust associated with consumer food choice. In L. Fewer & H. van Trijp (Eds.), Understanding consumers of food products (pp. 534–557). Cambridge: Woodhead.Google Scholar
  15. De Marchi, B. (2015). Risk governance and the integration of different types of knowledge. In U. F. Paleo (Ed.), Risk governance. The articulation of hazard, politics and ecology (pp. 149–165). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Dienel, P. C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: Citizen reports on technological projects. In C. Vlek & G. Cvetkovich (Eds.), Social decision methodology for technological projects (pp. 133–151). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Durant, J., & Joss, S. (1995). Public participation in science. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  19. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, B. (1985). Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
  22. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combus, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kusenof, S., Ness, M., & Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases”. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gigerenzer, G. (2013). Risiko. Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. München: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  27. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Rethinking rationality. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 1–12). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: A new perspective for environmental negotiation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). (2005). Risk governance—Towards an integrative approach (White Paper no 1, with an Annex by P. Graham). IRGC, Geneva.Google Scholar
  30. Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  31. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H.-R., & Fischer, K. (2005). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2012). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight, A., & Warland, J. (2005). Determinants of food safety risk: A multi-disciplinary approach. Rural Sociology, 70(2), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, T. R. (1981). The public perception of risk and the question of irrationality. In Royal Society of Great Britain (Ed.), Risk perception (pp. 5–16). London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  39. Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Fitzgerald, K. B. (1996). Conflicting views on fair sitting processes: Evidence from Austria and the US. Risk: Health Safety & Environment, 7(2), 119–134.Google Scholar
  40. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, E. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lopes, L. L. (1983). Some thoughts on the psychological concept of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(1), 137–144.Google Scholar
  42. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In R. F. Geyer & J. van der Zouven (Eds.), Sociokybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Luhmann, N. (1997). Grenzwerte der ökologischen Politik: Eine Form von Risikomanagement. In P. Hiller & G. Krücken (Eds.), Risiko und Regulierung. Soziologische Beiträge zu Technikkontrolle und präventiver Umweltpolitik (pp. 195–221). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  44. Marks, I., & Nesse, R. (1994). Fear and fitness: An evolutionary analysis of anxiety disorders. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(5), 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marshall, B. K. (1999). Globalization, environmental degradation and Ulrich Beck’s risk society. Environmental Values, 8(2), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mazur, A. (1987). Does public perception of risk explain the social response to potential hazard. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 11(2), 41–45.Google Scholar
  47. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S., & Slovic, P. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2001). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mythen, G. (2005). Employment, individualization, and insecurity: Rethinking the risk society perspective. The Sociological Review, 53(1), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2002). Guidance document on risk communication for chemical risk management (Series on Risk Management, no 16, Environment, Health and Safety Publications). OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  51. Peters, E., Burraston, B., & Mertz, C. K. (2004). An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma-susceptibility: Cognitive-appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1349–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters, H. P. (1991). Durch Risikokommunikation zur Technikakzeptanz? Die Konstruktion von Risiko “Wirklichkeiten” durch Experten, Gegenexperten und Öffentlichkeit. In J. Krüger & S. Ruß-Mohl (Eds.), Risikokommunikation. Technikakzeptanz, Medien und Kommunikationsrisiken (pp. 11–67). Berlin: Edition Stigma.Google Scholar
  53. Pidgeon, N. F. (1997). The limits to safety? Culture, politics, learning and man–made disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pollatsek, A., & Tversky, A. (1970). A theory of risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7(3), 540–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Renn, O. (1990). Risk perception and risk management: A review. Risk Abstracts, 7(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  56. Renn, O. (2005). Risk perception and communication lessons for the food and food packaging industry. Food Additives and Contaminants, 22(10), 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  58. Renn, O. (2014a). Das Risikoparadox: Warum wir uns vor dem Falschen fürchten. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.Google Scholar
  59. Renn, O. (2014b). Stakeholder involvement in risk governance. London: Ark Group.Google Scholar
  60. Renn, O., & Benighaus, C. (2013). Perception of technological risk: Insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 16(3–4), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Renn, O., & Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-vultural risk perception research: State and challenges. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies (pp. 211–233). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Renn, O., & Schweizer, P. (2009). Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Renn, O., Burns, W., Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical application. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Renn, O., Schweizer, P.-J., Dreyer, M., & Klinke, A. (2007). Risiko: Über den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Unsicherheit. München: Oekom.Google Scholar
  65. Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-national studies on the perception and evaluation of hazards. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of research results (pp. 55–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  66. Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception research—An introduction. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical etudies (pp. 11–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosa, E. A., Matsuda, N., & Kleinhesselink, R. R. (2000). The cognitive architecture of risk: Pancultural unity or cultural shaping? In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies (pp. 185–210). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rosa, E. A., Renn, O., & McCright, A. M. (2014). The risk society revisited. Social theory and governance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000): Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scholz, R. (2009). Environmental literacy in science and society. From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Shubik, M. (1991). Risk, society, politicians, scientists and people. In M. Shubik (Ed.), Risk, organizations, and society (pp. 7–30). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perceptions of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25(1), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sjöberg, L. (1999). Risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio, 28(6), 543–549.Google Scholar
  74. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 220(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  78. Slovic, P. (2000). Informing an education the public about risk. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 182–191). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  79. Slovic, P., Finucane, E., Peters, D., & MacGregor, R. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahnemann (Eds.), Intuitive judgment, heuristic and biases (pp. 397–420). Cambridge; MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment how safe is safe enough? (pp. 181–214). New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study of risk perception. In V. R. Covello, J. Menkes, & J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumadere, M., & Mays, C. (2000). Nuclear power and the public: A comparative study of risk perception in the United States and France. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of research results (pp. 55–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 799–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994). Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, V. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  87. Streffer, C., Bücker, J., Cansier, A., Cansier, D., Gethmann, C. F., Guderian, R., … Wuttke, K. (2003). Environmental standards: Combined exposures and their effects on human beings and their environment. Berlin: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2009). Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Thompson, M. (1980). An outline of the cultural theory of risk (International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) Working Paper, WP–80–177). IIASA, Laxenburg.Google Scholar
  90. Thompson, M., Ellis, W., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  91. Townsend, E., Clarke, D. D., & Travis, B. (2004). Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1369–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. US-National Research Council of the National Academies. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  93. Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2010). The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., & Renn, O. (1991). A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: The group Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39(3), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wilkinson, I. (2001). Social theories of risk perception: At once indispensable and insufficient. Current Sociology, 49(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wynne, B. (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50(3), 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zwick, M. M., & Renn, O. (1998) Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Technik in Baden-Württemberg. Paper presented at Stuttgart Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Sustainability StudiesPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options