Introduction: Concept of Risk

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 16)

Abstract

In today’s world of globalized trade, travel and communication, an ever larger number of risk-related events have a trans-boundary impact, crossing national and regional frontiers: large–scale electricity blackouts, chemical accidents and risks related to emerging technologies have all affected various parts of the world only recently. Even these risks seem limited, however, when compared to those that can and do go global – and which, as a result of the rapid movement of people, goods and information, do so almost real–time. A highly topical example is that of the potential avian influenza epidemic; other examples include energy supply and price fluctuations and the political and psychological impacts of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Keywords

Risk Perception Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Terrorist Attack Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aven, T. (2003). Foundations of risk analysis: A knowledge and decision-oriented perspective. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aven, T. (2007a). A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis and management covering both safety and security. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92, 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aven, T. (2007b). On the ethical justification for the use of risk acceptance criteria. Risk Analysis, 27, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aven, T. (2008a). Risk analysis: Assessing uncertainties beyond probabilities. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Aven, T. (2008b). A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 93, 768–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aven, T. (2009a). Risk perspectives in a decision making context. Safety Science, 47, 798–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aven, T., & Jensen, U. (1999). Stochastic models in reliability. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009a). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009b). The role of quantitative risk assessments for characterizing risk and uncertainty and delineating appropriate risk management options, with special emphasis on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 29, 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aven, T., & Vinnem, J. E. (2007). Risk management, with applications from the offshore petroleum industry. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Beck, U. (1992b). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage. Translated by Mark A. Ritter (originally published 1986).Google Scholar
  12. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization, politics, traditions and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 1–55). Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Cabinet Office. (2002). Risk: Improving government’s capability to handle risk and uncertainty (Strategy Unit Report). London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, S. (2005). Determining overall risk. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, S. (2006). What is the definition of risk? Nottingham: Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, S., & Currie, G. (2006). Against beck: In defence of risk analysis. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas, M. (1990). Risk as a forensic resource. Daedalus, 119(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1985). Three types of risk assessment methodological analysis. In C. Whipple & V. T. Covello (Eds.), Risk analysis in the private sector. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  21. Graham, J. D., & Weiner, J. B. (Eds.). (1995). Risk versus risk: Tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. HSE. (2001). Reducing risk protecting people. London: Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
  23. IRGC. (2005). Risk governance: Towards an integrative approach. White Paper No. 1, O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).Google Scholar
  24. ISO. (2002). Risk management vocabulary. ISO/IEC Guide 73.Google Scholar
  25. ISO. (2008). TC229 ISO/TS 27687: Nanotechnologies, terminology and definitions for nano-objects, nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc-catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=381983&published=on
  26. ISO. (2008b). Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries. Production assurance and reliability management (1st ed.). Geneva: ISO 20815.Google Scholar
  27. Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk uncertainty and rational action. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  28. Jasanoff, S. (1999). The songlines of risk. Environmental Values: Special Issue on Risk, 8(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan, S. (1991). Risk assessment and risk management: Basic concepts and terminology. In Risk management: Expanding horizons in nuclear power and other industries (pp. 11–28). Boston, MA: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of acceptable risk: Science and the determination of safety. Los Altos: William Kaufman.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2003a). Emerging systemic risks in the 21st century: An agenda for action. Final Report to the OECD Futures Project. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 83–115). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Rosa, E. A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosa, E. A. (2003). The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) metatheoretical foundations and policy implications. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 47–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosa, E. A. (2008). White, black and grey: Critical dialogue with the international risk governance council’s framework for risk governance. In O. Renn & K. Walker (Eds.), Global risk governance, concept and practice of using the irgc framework (pp. 101–117). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1985). Risk analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical problems with evaluation societal hazards. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–178). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Thompson, M., Ellis, W., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  40. Willis, H. H. (2007). Guiding resource allocations based on terrorism risk. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wynne, B. (1992b). Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 275–297). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  42. Ale, B.J.M. (2002). Risk assessment practices in The Netherlands. Safety Science 40, 105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Aven, T. (2010). On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 95, 623–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Aven, T.; Renn, O. and Rosa, E. (2010) The ontological status of the concept of risk. Paper submitted to Safety Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StavangerStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Social Sciences V and EnvironmentUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations