Abstract
The previously identified lawful means to promote or enforce disaster risk reduction, that states could implement if democratic support was given, leads this chapter to examine deliberative democracy as an avenue to mobilise democratic demand for disaster risk reduction. To that end, this chapter examines how deliberative processes can mitigate the influence of distorted risk perception on public risk evaluation and explores the advantages of deliberative democracy under normative political theory. The chapter further strengthens the case for deliberative processes by discussing competing schools of thought that propose empowering experts to make ‘rational’ risk decisions for the public to mitigate the influence of distorted risk perception. The discussion highlights the flaws of such proposals with respect to their practical implementation and their compatibility with normative political theory, particularly the concept of political legitimacy.
The material well-being of a democratic society depends on its ability to rationally manage a nearly limitless variety of often competing risks. The integrity of such a society’s commitment to self-governance depends on its ability to fashion procedures that are genuinely deliberative, open, and democratic. (Kahan et al. 2006, p. 1109)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953).
- 2.
See Sect. 1.1.2.
- 3.
Ivčević et al. (2021).
- 4.
Chambers (2003), p. 309.
- 5.
Renn (2008), pp. 155, 294, 333.
- 6.
Ibid, pp. 155, 187–188.
- 7.
Habermas (2015), p. 37.
- 8.
Renn (2008), pp. 294, 333.
- 9.
Gunderson (2018), p. 719.
- 10.
Habermas (1996), p. 304.
- 11.
Green (1981), p. 11.
- 12.
Knight and Johnson (1994), p. 286.
- 13.
Ibid.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Chambers (2021), p. 154.
- 19.
- 20.
Rawls (1971), p. 548.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
See Renn (2008), pp. 178–179.
- 24.
Van Coile (2016), pp. 32–35.
- 25.
Ibid, p. 37.
- 26.
- 27.
Howse (2000), p. 2330.
- 28.
Renn (2008), p. 307.
- 29.
See Fischer (1990), p. 24.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Runciman (2018), p. 183.
- 33.
- 34.
Holst and Molander (2017), pp. 242–243.
- 35.
Ibid, pp. 241–243.
- 36.
- 37.
Sunstein and Pildes (1997), pp. 135–136.
- 38.
See Renn (2008), p. 96.
- 39.
Habermas (2015), p. 37.
- 40.
See Sect. 2.1.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
Sunstein (2002a), p. 64.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
See Sect. 2.3.1.
- 46.
Sunstein and Pildes (1997), p. 136.
- 47.
Ibid, p. 135.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
- 50.
Sunstein and Pildes (1997), p. 135.
- 51.
- 52.
Baan and Klijn (2004), p. 118.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
Laudan (1997), pp. 24–27.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
Shrader-Frechette (2005), p. 94.
- 63.
Sunstein (2002b), p. 6.
- 64.
Laudan (1997), pp. 24–27.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
See for example, the study by Rose et al. (2007). This study examined a statistical sample of 5500 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation grants between 1993 and 2003. It found the overall benefit-cost ratio to be 4:1. Another study found 102 of 117 case studies report ‘average cost-benefit ratios above the economic equilibrium’, see Hugenbusch and Neumann (2016), p. 29. Reasons for usual uncertainties in calculating the economic benefits of DRR are addressed in Childs (2013), p. 12 and in Shreve and Kelman (2014), p. 214, also cited in Albris et al. (2020), pp. 8–9.
- 68.
Newman et al. (2017), p. 380.
- 69.
Childs (2013), p. 8.
- 70.
Cross (1998), p. 36.
- 71.
- 72.
Covello (1991), p. 79.
- 73.
Ibid.
- 74.
Cross (1998).
- 75.
Ames et al. (1987), p. 277.
- 76.
- 77.
Cranor (1993), p. 128.
- 78.
Between 2003 and 2023, 165,353 Europeans have died in disasters triggered by natural hazards in CoE member states, while technological disaster killed 9778 Europeans, see EM-DAT, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium (as per 10 April 2023). However, it should be noted that EM-DAT considers situations or events as disasters, which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for external assistance as disaster.
- 79.
- 80.
The United States’ Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson in an interview with Gilbert (2020).
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
Cranor (1993), p. 127.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
Williams (1973), pp. 136–137.
- 88.
- 89.
Stoll (2003), p. 337.
- 90.
Shrader-Frechette (2005), p. 99.
- 91.
The White House (2020b).
- 92.
- 93.
Ross and Athanassoulis (2012), p. 839.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
Woollard and Howard-Snyder (2022), para 1.
- 97.
Kamm (2007), p. 18.
- 98.
- 99.
- 100.
Scheffler (2004), p. 216.
- 101.
Cranor (1993), p. 127.
- 102.
Campbell (1967), p. 574.
- 103.
Smith (2002), p. 101.
- 104.
Ibid.
- 105.
Ibid.
- 106.
Ibid.
- 107.
Kamm (2007), p. 296.
- 108.
- 109.
Habermas (1997), p. 107.
- 110.
Knight and Johnson (1994), p. 286.
- 111.
- 112.
Dietz (1994), p. 305.
- 113.
Renn (2008), p. 294.
- 114.
- 115.
- 116.
Renn (2008), p. 319.
- 117.
Ibid, p. 318.
- 118.
See generally, ibid, pp. 187–188.
- 119.
- 120.
Renn (2008), p. 320.
- 121.
Ibid.
- 122.
Ibid, p. 305.
- 123.
- 124.
Bohman (1999), p. 596.
- 125.
- 126.
- 127.
- 128.
- 129.
- 130.
See Sect. 1.5.2.
- 131.
- 132.
- 133.
- 134.
- 135.
Baan and Klijn (2004), p. 118.
- 136.
Ibid.
- 137.
Ibid.
- 138.
See Sect. 2.1.5.
- 139.
- 140.
German Advisory Council on Global Change (1998), p. 53.
- 141.
- 142.
See van Coile (2016), p. 38.
- 143.
Albris et al. (2020), p. 6.
- 144.
Renn et al. (2011), p. 234.
- 145.
Van Coile (2016), p. 38.
- 146.
- 147.
- 148.
- 149.
Capurro et al. (2021), p. 2181 (11).
- 150.
Ibid, p. 2181 (1).
- 151.
Ibid; Caulfield et al. (2021).
- 152.
- 153.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005), para 13.
- 154.
Mastrandrea et al. (2010), p. 1.
- 155.
- 156.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005), para 13.
- 157.
Mastrandrea et al. (2010), Annex A.
- 158.
Moore (2018), p. 644.
- 159.
- 160.
For an overview of respective critics, see Renn (2008), p. 306.
- 161.
Ibid, p. 304.
- 162.
- 163.
See references cited in Renn (2008), p. 313.
- 164.
For plenty references, see ibid, pp. 309, 350.
- 165.
For an overview and evaluation of experiences with these applications, see ibid, pp. 347–350.
- 166.
See generally Gunderson (2018), p. 729.
- 167.
Renn (2008), p. 350 with many references.
- 168.
Gunderson (2018), p. 717.
- 169.
Ibid, pp. 715–716, citing Dietz and Stern (2008), p. 226.
- 170.
Renn (2008), p. 291.
- 171.
- 172.
See Sect. 1.1.3.
- 173.
Paletta (2011), pp. 870–871.
- 174.
- 175.
- 176.
- 177.
- 178.
Estlund and Landemore (2018), p. 120.
- 179.
- 180.
- 181.
- 182.
Habermas (1996).
- 183.
Gutmann and Thompson (2004).
- 184.
Peter (2017), para 4.3.
- 185.
Knight and Johnson (1994), pp. 281–287.
- 186.
Habermas (1996), p. 304.
- 187.
See Habermas (2015), pp. 36–39.
- 188.
- 189.
Peter (2017), para 3.3.
- 190.
- 191.
Rawls (1987).
- 192.
Ibid, p. 4 Fn 7.
- 193.
Ibid, p. 13 Fn 21; Christiano (2009), pp. 8–9.
- 194.
- 195.
Chambers (2003), p. 308.
- 196.
Chambers (2017), pp. 268–270.
- 197.
- 198.
- 199.
Christiansen and Hallsson (2017), p. 60.
- 200.
Goodin (1993).
- 201.
- 202.
Baade (2017), pp. 308–310.
- 203.
Meghani (2009), p. 133.
- 204.
Ibid.
- 205.
Ibid, p. 131.
- 206.
Fung (2007), p. 449.
- 207.
Ibid, pp. 448–449; Meghani (2009), p. 131.
- 208.
Baade (2017), p. 309.
- 209.
- 210.
Fung (2007), p. 449.
- 211.
Baade (2017), p. 309.
- 212.
Muirhead (2015).
- 213.
- 214.
Kitcher (2011), p. 65.
- 215.
Baade (2017), pp. 315–316.
- 216.
Christiano and Bajaj (2022), para 2.2.3.
- 217.
Baade (2017), pp. 312–313.
- 218.
ECtHR, Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom, Judgment, 13 August 1981, Eur Court HR (ser A) 44, para 63; the Court confirmed this interpretation in ECtHR, Chassagnou and Others v France, Judgment, 29 April 1999, Eur Court HR III 21, p. 65 para 112 and in ECtHR, Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, Judgment, 11 January 2006, Eur Court HR I 1, pp. 29–30 para 58.
- 219.
- 220.
- 221.
Strøm (2000), pp. 266–267.
- 222.
- 223.
Renn (2008), p. 332.
- 224.
- 225.
- 226.
Waldron (2012), p. 200.
- 227.
Ibid.
- 228.
Ibid.
- 229.
Chambers (2003), p. 308.
- 230.
Waldron (2012), p. 200.
- 231.
Chambers (2017), p. 270.
- 232.
Ibid, pp. 268, 270; Holst (2012), p. 53.
- 233.
Lauta (2018), p. 50.
- 234.
- 235.
- 236.
Moore (2014), p. 54.
- 237.
- 238.
Rayner (2003).
- 239.
Rayner (2007), p. 166.
- 240.
- 241.
Swyngedouw (2010), pp. 225–227.
- 242.
- 243.
- 244.
Staudenmaier (2020).
- 245.
- 246.
- 247.
Moore (2018), p. 642.
- 248.
Chambers (2017), p. 268.
- 249.
- 250.
- 251.
- 252.
Moore (2018), p. 644.
- 253.
Holst and Molander (2017), p. 242.
- 254.
Ibid, pp. 242–243.
- 255.
- 256.
Bae et al. (2020), W23.
- 257.
World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Western Pacific (2020).
- 258.
Altmetric (2020).
- 259.
One study found that medical journals halved the reviewing period based on an assessment of 669 articles, Horbach (2020). Another, and more extensive, statistical study determined the median time between submission to journals’ acceptance of COVID-19 articles to be just 6 days in comparison to a typical median of around 100 days, Palayew et al. (2020).
- 260.
- 261.
- 262.
Rabin (2020).
- 263.
Baade (2017), pp. 319–320.
- 264.
See ibid, p. 313.
- 265.
- 266.
Reuchamps and Suiter (2016).
- 267.
- 268.
- 269.
Roeser et al. (2012), pp. 8–9.
- 270.
Peter (2017), para 4.
- 271.
Holst (2012), pp. 50–51.
- 272.
- 273.
See Peter (2017), para 4.1.
- 274.
See ibid.
- 275.
- 276.
- 277.
Jensen (2012), p. 407.
- 278.
- 279.
Horkheimer (2013), p. 2.
- 280.
- 281.
Breyer (1993), p. 55.
- 282.
- 283.
Sunstein and Pildes (1997), p. 145.
- 284.
Breyer (1993), p. 60.
- 285.
Ibid.
- 286.
Evans (2006), p. 222.
- 287.
- 288.
For further references, see Shrader-Frechette (1991), pp. 89–99.
- 289.
Brennan (2016).
- 290.
- 291.
- 292.
- 293.
Jamieson (2014), p. 100.
- 294.
Cf. Fiorino (2018).
- 295.
Shearman and Smith (2007), p. 4.
- 296.
See generally Christiano and Bajaj (2022), paras 2–2.2.3.
- 297.
Holst (2012), pp. 42–43.
- 298.
- 299.
Horkheimer (2013), p. 2.
- 300.
- 301.
- 302.
- 303.
Haring (2010), pp. 160–161.
- 304.
Fischer (1990), p. 17.
- 305.
- 306.
Haring (2010), pp. 260–261.
- 307.
- 308.
Runciman (2018), p. 123.
- 309.
- 310.
Nunan (2014), p. 89.
- 311.
- 312.
- 313.
Christiano and Bajaj (2022), para 4.2.1.
- 314.
See Held (2006), pp. 146–151.
- 315.
- 316.
Held (2006), p. 147.
- 317.
Schumpeter (2010), p. 230.
- 318.
Held (2006), p. 148.
- 319.
Nunan (2014), p. 96.
- 320.
Christiano and Bajaj (2022), para 4.2.1.
- 321.
Cf. Dryzek (2001), p. 663.
- 322.
- 323.
Held (2006), pp. 152–153.
- 324.
Rawls (1987), p. 13 Fn 21.
- 325.
See on this point Held (2006), p. 153.
- 326.
Moravcsik (2004), p. 338.
- 327.
See Horkheimer (2013), p. 2.
- 328.
Rawls (1987).
- 329.
See Sect. 5.1.1.2.
- 330.
- 331.
- 332.
- 333.
- 334.
Green (1981), p. 11.
- 335.
- 336.
Hartzell-Nichols (2012), p. 948.
- 337.
See, e.g., Cross (1998).
- 338.
- 339.
See generally Hansson (2012), pp. 32–33.
- 340.
- 341.
Hansson (2012), p. 32.
- 342.
- 343.
- 344.
- 345.
- 346.
Hansson (2012), p. 32.
- 347.
Ibid.
- 348.
See ibid.
- 349.
Ibid, p. 29.
- 350.
Renn (2008), p. 155.
- 351.
- 352.
- 353.
Runciman (2018), p. 185.
- 354.
Schumpeter (2010), p. 241.
- 355.
Held (2006), pp. 153–154.
- 356.
Walker (1966).
- 357.
Horkheimer (2013), p. 1.
- 358.
- 359.
Stewart (1995), pp. 58–59.
- 360.
Ibid, p. 59.
- 361.
- 362.
Roeser et al. (2012), p. 9.
- 363.
- 364.
- 365.
- 366.
Sunstein (2002a), p. 102.
- 367.
- 368.
Slovic (2000), p. 22.
- 369.
- 370.
- 371.
- 372.
- 373.
- 374.
- 375.
- 376.
Murphy and Gardoni (2012), p. 985.
- 377.
- 378.
- 379.
- 380.
- 381.
Meghani (2009), pp. 137–138.
- 382.
- 383.
Meghani (2009), pp. 137–138.
- 384.
Sunstein and Pildes (1997), p. 141.
- 385.
MacLean (2012), p. 799.
- 386.
Sunstein and Pildes (1997), p. 141.
- 387.
Ibid, p. 140.
- 388.
Slovic (1987), p. 285.
- 389.
See generally Held (2006), p. 153.
- 390.
See Baade (2017), pp. 320–321.
- 391.
Howse (2000), p. 2337.
- 392.
Fischhoff et al. (1978), p. 149.
- 393.
- 394.
In relation to Germany, see, e.g., Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V. (2021).
- 395.
- 396.
See generally Fung (2007), p. 449.
- 397.
- 398.
See Sect. 5.2.1.
- 399.
See Walker (1966).
- 400.
- 401.
Chambers (2003), p. 309.
- 402.
Christiano (2020), para 5.
- 403.
Habermas (1996), p. 304.
- 404.
Gunderson (2018), p. 721.
- 405.
Renn (2008), p. 313.
- 406.
- 407.
- 408.
- 409.
Howse (2000), p. 2330.
- 410.
See Walker (1966).
- 411.
- 412.
References
Adler MD, Posner EA (2006) New foundations of cost-benefit analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Albris K, Lauta KC, Raju E (2020) Disaster knowledge gaps: exploring the interface between science and policy for disaster risk reduction in Europe. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 11(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00250-5
Alemanno A (2016) Risk and regulation. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn JO (eds) Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 191–203
Altmetric (2020) Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS–CoV-2: a controlled comparison in 4 patients: overview of attention for article published in Annals of Internal Medicine, July 2020. Web Page. https://annals.altmetric.com/details/79213450. Accessed 19 June 2023
Ames BN, Magaw R, Gold LS (1987) Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards. Science 236(4799):271–280. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563506
Baade B (2017) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte als Diskurswächter. In: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 263. Springer, Heidelberg
Baan PJ, Klijn F (2004) Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands. Int J River Basin Manag 2(2):113–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2004.9635226
Bae S, Kim M-C, Kim JY, Cha H-H, Lim JS, Jung J, Kim M-J, Oh DK, Lee M-K, Choi S-H, Sung M, Hong S-B, Chung J-W, Kim S-H (2020) Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: a controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med 173(1):W22–W23. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1342
Bajak Aleszu, Howe J (2020) A study said covid wasn’t that deadly. The right seized it: how coronavirus research is being weaponized. The New York Times, 14 May 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/coronavirus-research-misinformation.html. Accessed 19 June 2023
Beatley T (1989) Towards a moral philosophy of natural disaster mitigation. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 7(1):5–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072708900700102
Beisbart C (2012) A rational approach to risk? Bayesian decision theory. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 376–404
Bernholz P (1966) Economic policies in a democracy. Kyklos 19(1):48–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1966.tb02492.x
Bohman J (1999) Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. Am J Polit Sci 43(1):590. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991808
Boschele M (2020) COVID-19 science policy, experts, and publics: why epistemic democracy matters in ecological crises. OMICS 24(8):479–482. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0083
Bouchard F (2016) The roles of institutional trust and distrust in grounding rational deference to scientific expertise. Perspect Sci 24(5):582–608. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00224
Breakey H (2015) Positive duties and human rights: challenges, opportunities and conceptual necessities. Polit Stud 63(5):1198–1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12150
Brennan J (2014) Epistocracy within public reason. In: Cudd AE, Scholz SJ (eds) Philosophical perspectives on democracy in the 21st century. Springer, Cham, pp 191–204
Brennan J (2016) Against democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Brettschneider C (2005) Balancing procedures and outcomes within democratic theory: core values and judicial review. Polit Stud 53(2):423–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00536.x
Breyer S (1993) Breaking the vicious circle: toward effective risk regulation. The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, vol 1992. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Briceño S (2015) Looking back and beyond Sendai: 25 years of international policy experience on disaster risk reduction. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 6(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0040-y
Byskov MF (2020) Utilitarianism and risk. J Risk Res 23(2):259–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1501600
Campbell WF (1967) Adam Smith’s theory of justice, prudence, and beneficence. Am Econ Rev 57(2):571–577
Capurro G, Jardine CG, Tustin J, Driedger M (2021) Communicating scientific uncertainty in a rapidly evolving situation: a framing analysis of Canadian coverage in early days of COVID-19. BMC Public Health 21(1):2181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12246-x
Caulfield T, Bubela T, Kimmelman J, Ravitsky V (2021) Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science. FACETS 6(1):403–423. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0018
Cerovac I (2016) The role of experts in a democratic society. JECS 7(2):75–88. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20162.75.88
Chambers S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci 6(1):307–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
Chambers S (2017) Balancing epistemic quality and equal participation in a system approach to deliberative democracy. Soc Epistemol 31(3):266–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1317867
Chambers S (2021) Truth, deliberative democracy, and the virtues of accuracy: is fake news destroying the public sphere? Polit Stud 69(1):147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890811
Childs D (2013) Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action: Summary of Reports 2007–2013. https://www.undrr.org/quick/11319. Accessed 19 June 2023
Chmutina K, von Meding J (2019) A dilemma of language: “natural disasters” in academic literature. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 10(3):283–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00232-2
Christiano T (2009) Must democracy be reasonable? Can J Philos 39(1):1–34. https://doi.org/10.1353/cjp.0.0037
Christiano T (2012) Rational deliberation among experts and citizens. In: Parkinson J, Mansbridge J (eds) Deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 27–51
Christiano T (2020) Authority. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/. Accessed 19 June 2023
Christiano T, Bajaj S (2022) Democracy. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/. Accessed 19 June 2023
Christiansen A, Hallsson BG (2017) Democratic decision making and the psychology of risk. Les ateliers de l’éthique/The Ethics Forum 12(1):51–83. https://doi.org/10.7202/1042278ar
Christoforou T (2003) The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: a European legal perspective. Sci Public Policy 30(3):205–212. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780443
Clarke S (2010) Cognitive bias and the precautionary principle: what’s wrong with the core argument in Sunstein’s laws of fear and a way to fix it. J Risk Res 13(2):163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903126200
Coglianese C (1999) The limits of consensus: the environmental protection system in transition: toward a more desirable future. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 41(3):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139159909604620
Covello VT (1991) Risk comparisons and risk communication: issues and problems in comparing health and environmental risks. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds) Communicating risks to the public: international perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 79–124
Cranor CF (1993) Regulating toxic substances: a philosophy of science and the law, Environmental ethics and science policy series. Oxford University Press, New York
Cross FB (1998) Facts and values in risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 59(1):27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00116-6
Crosweller HS, Wilmshurst J (2013) Natural hazards and risk: the human perspective. In: Rougier J, Hill LJ, Sparks RSJ (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 548–569
de Lazari-Radek K, Singer P (2017) Utilitarianism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dewey J (1927) The public and its problems. Holt, New York
Dietz T (1994) ‘What should we do?’: human ecology and collective decision making. Hum Ecol Rev 1(2):301–309. https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2015.1.1.123
Dietz T, Stern PC (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Dryzek JS (2001) Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Polit Theory 29(5):651–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029005003
Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN, Felicetti A, Fishkin JS, Farrell DM, Fung A, Gutmann A, Landemore H, Mansbridge J, Marien S, Neblo MA, Niemeyer S, Setälä M, Slothuus R, Suiter J, Thompson D, Warren ME (2019) The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363(6432):1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694
Duncan DE (2020) “Prepare, Prepare, Prepare”: why didn’t the world listen to the coronavirus Cassandras? Vanity Fair, 27 March 2020. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/why-didnt-the-world-listen-to-the-coronavirus-cassandras. Accessed 19 June 2023
Dworkin G (2015) The nature of autonomy. Nordic J Stud Educ Policy 1(28479):1–8. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28479
Else H (2020) Covid in papers: a torrent of science. Nature 588(7839):553. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y
EM-DAT, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium. www.emdat.be. Accessed 19 June 2023
Estlund DM (2008) Democratic authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Estlund D, Landemore H (2018) The epistemic value of democratic deliberation. In: Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge JJ, Warren M (eds) The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 112–131
Evans JH (2006) Between technocracy and democratic legitimation: a proposed compromise position for common morality public bioethics. J Med Philos 31(3):213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310600732834
Faulkner H, Parker D, Green C, Beven K (2007) Developing a translational discourse to communicate uncertainty in flood risk between science and the practitioner. Ambio 36(7):692–703. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[692:DATDTC]2.0.CO;2
Fiorino DJ (2018) Can democracy handle climate change? Democratic futures. Polity, Cambridge
Fischer F (1990) Technocracy and the politics of expertise. SAGE, Newbury Park
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
Freer J, Beven KJ, Neal J, Schumann G, Hall J, Bates P (2013) Flood risk and uncertainty. In: Rougier J, Hill LJ, Sparks RSJ (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 190–233
Fung A (2007) Democratic theory and political science: a pragmatic method of constructive engagement. Am Polit Sci Rev 101(3):443–458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540707030X
Ganesh J (2020) Coronavirus and the comeback of the administrative state. Financial Times, 11 March 2020. https://www.ft.com/content/22f51a26-6385-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5. Accessed 19 June 2023
Gastil J, Black L, Moscovitz K (2008) Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Polit Commun 25(1):23–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807836
German Advisory Council on Global Change (1998) World in transition: strategies for managing global environmental risks. World in Transition, Berlin
Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V. (2021) Positionspapier des Gesamtverbandes der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft für ein zeitgemäßes und nachhaltiges Bauordnungs- und Bauplanungsrecht, das den Herausforderungen durch Klimawandel und Extremwetterereignissen zuverlässig begegnen kann. https://www.gdv.de/resource/blob/66384/3b4b78bbd97fe50268d7bdb1d42a9d58/positionspapier-bauen-data.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2023
Gilbert C (2020) Coronavirus: Sen. Ron Johnson says keep outbreak in perspective. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 18 March 2020. https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/analysis/2020/03/18/coronavirus-sen-ron-johnson-says-keep-outbreak-perspective/5074145002/. Accessed 19 June 2023
Glöckner A (2016) Psychology and disaster: why we do not see looming disasters and how our way of thinking causes them. Glob Policy 7:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12289
Gomez C (2017) Ethics and disaster risk reduction including climate change adaptation. In: Kelman I, Mercer J, Gaillard JC (eds) The Routledge handbook of disaster risk reduction including climate change adaptation. Taylor & Francis, Milton, pp 174–186
Gonçalves VB (2013) The precautionary principle and environmental risk management: contributions and limitations of economic models. Ambient Soc 16(4):121–138. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2013000400008
Goodin RE (1993) Democracy, preferences and paternalism. Policy Sci 26(3):229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999718
Graham JD, Wiener JB (1997) Risk vs. risk: tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Green HP (1981) The role of law in determining acceptability of risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci 363(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb20712.x
Greenacre M, Fleshner K (2017) Distributive justice in disaster triage. UWOMJ 86(1):35–37. https://doi.org/10.5206/uwomj.v86i1.2162
Grove WM, Meehl PE (1996) Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Public Policy Law 2(2):293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
Gunderson R (2018) Global environmental governance should be participatory: five problems of scale. Int Sociol 33(6):715–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580918792786
Gutmann A, Thompson DF (2004) Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press, Princeton
Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Studies in contemporary German social thought. MIT Press, Cambridge
Habermas J (1997) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge
Habermas J (2015) Inclusion of the other: studies in political theory. Polity Press, Cambridge
Hansson SO (2004) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23(2):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-004-5371-z
Hansson SO (2007) Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Econ Philos 23(2):163–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267107001356
Hansson SO (2012) A panorama of the philosophy of risk. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 27–54
Haring S (2010) Herrschaft der Experten oder Herrschaft des Sachzwangs? – Technokratie als politikwissenschaftliches “Problem-Ensemble”. Zeitschrift für Politik 57(3):243–264. https://doi.org/10.5771/0044-3360-2010-3-243
Hartzell-Nichols L (2012) Intergenerational risks. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 931–960
Haworth L (1984) Autonomy and utility. Ethics 95(1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1086/292594
Held D (2006) Models of democracy, 3rd edn. Polity, Cambridge
Henriques A (2016) Students’ difficulties in understanding of confidence intervals. In: Ben-Zvi D, Makar K (eds) The teaching and learning of statistics: international perspectives. Springer, Cham, pp 129–138
Holmes S (1995) Passions and constraint: on the theory of liberal democracy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Holst C (2012) What is epistocracy? In: Øyen SA, Lund-Olsen T, Vaage NS (eds) Sacred science? On science and its interrelations with religious worldviews. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 41–54
Holst C (2014) Why not epistocracy? Political legitimacy and ‘the fact of expertise’. In: Holst C (ed) Expertise and democracy. ARENA Centre for European Studies, Oslo, pp 1–11
Holst C, Molander A (2017) Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: making experts accountable. Soc Epistemol 31(3):235–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1317865
Holst C, Molander A (2019) Epistemic democracy and the role of experts. Contemp Polit Theory 18(4):541–561. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-018-00299-4
Horbach SP (2020) Pandemic publishing: medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19. Quant Sci Stud 1(3):1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00076
Horkheimer M (2013) Eclipse of reason. Bloomsbury Revelations, Bloomsbury, London
Howse R (2000) Democracy, science, and free trade: risk regulation on trial at the World Trade Organization. Mich Law Rev 98(7):2329–2357
Hugenbusch D, Neumann T (2016) Cost-benefit analysis of disaster risk reduction: a synthesis for informed decision making. Aktion Deutschland Hilft e.V. https://www.aktion-deutschland-hilft.de/fileadmin/fmdam/pdf/publikationen/ADH_Studie_EN_rev3.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2023
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on addressing uncertainties. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote-1.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2023
Ivčević A, Mazurek H, Siame L, Bertoldo R, Statzu V, Agharroud K, Estrela Rego I, Mukherjee N, Bellier O (2021) Lessons learned about the importance of raising risk awareness in the Mediterranean region (North Morocco and West Sardinia, Italy). Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 21(12):3749–3765. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3749-2021
Jamieson D (2014) Reason in a dark time: why the struggle against climate change failed - and what it means for our future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jasanoff S (1994) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Jasanoff S (2003) (No?) accounting for expertise. Sci Public Policy 30(3):157–162. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780542
Jasanoff S (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 13–45
Jensen KK (2012) A philosophical assessment of decision theory. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 405–439
Jones G (2020) 10% less democracy: why you should trust elites a little more and the masses a little less. Stanford University Press, Redwood City
Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J (2006) Fear of democracy: a cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk. Harv Law Rev 119(4):1071–1109
Kalokairinou E (2018) Kantian virtue ethics approaches. In: O’Mathúna DP, Dranseika V, Gordijn B (eds) Disasters: core concepts and ethical theories. Springer, Cham, pp 217–228
Kamm FM (2007) Intricate ethics. Oxford University Press
Kitcher P (2011) Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books, Amherst
Knight J, Johnson J (1994) Aggregation and deliberation: on the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Polit Theory 22(2):277–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591794022002004
Lateef F (2011) Ethical issues in disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med 26(4):289–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X1100642X
Laudan L (1994) The book of risks: fascinating facts about the chances we take every day. Wiley, New York
Laudan L (1997) Danger ahead: the risks you really face on life’s highway. Wiley, New York
Lauta KC (2018) Disasters and responsibility. normative issues for law following disasters. In: O’Mathúna DP, Dranseika V, Gordijn B (eds) Disasters: core concepts and ethical theories. Springer, Cham, pp 43–53
Lauta KC, Faure MG (2016) Disaster risk management. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn JO (eds) Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 179–188
Lavazza A, Farina M (2020) The role of experts in the Covid-19 pandemic and the limits of their epistemic authority in democracy. Front Public Health 8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00356
Liberatore A, Funtowicz S (2003) ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Sci Public Policy 30(3):146–150. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780551
Lin JY, Anderson-Shaw L (2009) Rationing of resources: ethical issues in disasters and epidemic situations. Prehosp Disaster Med 24(3):215–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049023x0000683x
MacLean D (2012) Ethics and risk. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 791–804
Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach KJ, Matschoss PR, Plattner G-K, Yohe GW, Zwiers FW (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2023
Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Edenhofer O, Stocker TF, Field CB, Ebi KL, Matschoss PR (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim Chang 108(4):675–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0178-6
Matthews D (2020) French trust in science drops as coronavirus backlash begins. Times Higher Education, 8 June 2020. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/french-trust-science-drops-coronavirus-backlash-begins. Accessed 19 June 2023
Mayo-Yánez M (2020) Research during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: to “preprint” or not to “preprint”, that is the question. Med Clin (Engl Ed) 155(2):86–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2020.05.002
Meghani Z (2009) The US’ Food and Drug Administration, normativity of risk assessment, GMOs, and American democracy. J Agric Environ Ethics 22(2):125–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9133-6
Meghani Z (2014) Risk assessment of genetically modified food and neoliberalism: an argument for democratizing the regulatory review protocol of the food and drug administration. J Agric Environ Ethics 27(6):967–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9511-1
Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, Henry TD, Patel AN (2020a) Retraction: cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007621. N Engl J Med 382(26):2582. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2021225
Mehra MR, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN (2020b) Retraction—hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet 395(10240):1820. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6
Mill JS (1861) Considerations on representative government. Parker, Son, and Bourn, London
Mirrlees JA (1982) The economic uses of utilitarianism. In: Sen A, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–84
Misak C (2009) Truth and democracy: pragmatism and the deliberative virtues. In: Geenens R, Tinnevelt R (eds) Does truth matter?: Democracy and public space. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 29–39
Möller N (2012) The concepts of risk and safety. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 55–85
Moore A (2014) Democratic theory and expertise: between competence and consent. In: Holst C (ed) Expertise and democracy. ARENA Centre for European Studies, Oslo, pp 49–83
Moore A (2018) Deliberative democracy and science. In: Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge JJ, Warren M (eds) The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 639–654
Moravcsik A (2002) In defence of the ‘democratic deficit’: reassessing legitimacy in the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 40(4):603–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00390
Moravcsik A (2004) Is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in world politics? A framework for analysis. Gov Oppos 39(2):336–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00126.x
Muirhead R (2015) Anthony Downs, an economic theory of democracy. In: Levy JT (ed) Oxford handbook of classics in contemporary political theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mulligan T (2015) On the compatibility of epistocracy and public reason. Soc Theory Pract 41(3):458–476. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201541324
Murphy C, Gardoni P (2012) The capability approach in risk analysis. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 980–997
Newman JP, Maier HR, Riddell GA, Zecchin AC, Daniell JE, Schaefer AM, van Delden H, Khazai B, O’Flaherty MJ, Newland CP (2017) Review of literature on decision support systems for natural hazard risk reduction: current status and future research directions. Environ Model Softw 96:378–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.042
Nunan R (2014) Proportional representation, the single transferable vote, and electoral pragmatism. In: Cudd AE, Scholz SJ (eds) Philosophical perspectives on democracy in the 21st century. Springer, Cham, pp 87–101
Palayew A, Norgaard O, Safreed-Harmon K, Andersen TH, Rasmussen LN, Lazarus JV (2020) Pandemic publishing poses a new COVID-19 challenge. Nat Hum Behav 4(7):666–669. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0911-0
Paletta D (2011) Political legitimacy. In: Chatterjee DK (ed) Encyclopedia of global justice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 870–872
Pateman C (2012) Participatory democracy revisited. Perspect Polit 10(1):7–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004877
Peter F (2017) Political legitimacy. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/. Accessed 19 June 2023
Rabin RC (2020) The pandemic claims new victims: prestigious medical journals. The New York Times, 14 June 2020, updated on 16 June 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/virus-journals.html. Accessed 19 June 2023
Raju E, da Costa K (2018) Governance in the Sendai: a way ahead? Disaster Prev Manag 27(3):278–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-08-2017-0190
Rakić V (2018) Disaster consequentialism. In: O’Mathúna DP, Dranseika V, Gordijn B (eds) Disasters: core concepts and ethical theories. Springer, Cham, pp 145–156
Rashidah Paujah Ismail N, Abdol Razak F, Baharun N (2018) Investigating students’ difficulties in understanding confidence intervals in linear regression models. IJET 7(4.33):60–64. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.33.23485
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rawls J (1987) The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxf J Leg Stud 7(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/7.1.1
Rawls J (1997) The idea of public reason revisited. Univ Chic Law Rev 64(3):765. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600311
Rayner S (2003) Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Sci Public Policy 30(3):163–170. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780533
Rayner S (2007) The rise of risk and the decline of politics. Environ Haz 7(2):165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.05.003
Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world, Earthscan risk in society series. Routledge, London
Renn O, Klinke A (2016) Risk governance: concept and application to technological risk. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn JO (eds) Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 204–215
Renn O, Klinke A, van Asselt M (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio 40(2):231–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0
Reuchamps M, Suiter J (2016) A constitutional turn for deliberative democracy in Europe? In: Reuchamps M, Suiter J (eds) Constitutional deliberative democracy in Europe. ECPR Press, Colchester, pp 1–13
Revesz RL, Livermore MA (2008) Retaking rationality: how cost-benefit analysis can better protect the environment and our health. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (2012) Introduction to risk theory. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht
Rose A, Porter K, Dash N, Bouabid J, Huyck C, Whitehead J, Shaw D, Eguchi R, Taylor C, McLane T, Tobin LT, Ganderton PT, Godschalk D, Kiremidjian AS, Tierney K, West CT (2007) Benefit-cost analysis of FEMA hazard mitigation grants. Nat Haz Rev 8(4):97–111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2007)8:4(97)
Ross A, Athanassoulis N (2012) Risk and virtue ethics. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 833–856
Rougier J (2013) Quantifying hazard losses. In: Rougier J, Hill LJ, Sparks RSJ (eds) Risk and uncertainty assessment for natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–39
Runciman D (2018) How democracy ends. Profile Books, London
Sanger DE, Lipton E, Sullivan E, Crowley M (2020) Before virus outbreak, a cascade of warnings went unheeded. New York Times, 19 March 2020, updated 22 March 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-outbreak.html. Accessed 19 June 2023
Saretzki T (1994) Technokratie, Technokratiekritik und das Verschwinden der Gesellschaft: Zur Diskussion um das andere politische Projekt der Moderne. In: Lenk K, Greven MT, Kühler P, Schmitz M (eds) Politikwissenschaft als Kritische Theorie: Festschrift für Kurt Lenk. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 353–386
Schäfer A (2006) Die demokratische Grenze output-orientierter Legitimation. Integration 29(3):187–200
Scharpf FW (1997) Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. J Eur Public Policy 4(1):18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017697344217
Scheffler S (2004) Doing and allowing. Ethics 114(2):215–239. https://doi.org/10.1086/379355
Schneewind JB (2010) Autonomy, obligation, and virtue: an overview of Kant’s Moral philosophy. In: Schneewind JB (ed) Essays on the history of moral philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 248–276
Schudson M (2006) The trouble with experts – and why democracies need them. Theor Soc 35(5–6):491–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9012-y
Schumpeter JA (2010) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge, London
Shearman DJ, Smith JW (2007) The climate change challenge and the failure of democracy. Politics and the environment. Praeger, Santa Barbara
Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley
Shrader-Frechette K (2005) Flawed attacks on contemporary human rights: Laudan, Sunstein, and the cost-benefit state. Hum Rights Rev 7(1):92–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-005-1004-1
Shreve CM, Kelman I (2014) Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 10:213–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004
Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan risk in society. Taylor & Francis, London
Smart JJ (1973) An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics. In: Smart JJ, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–74
Smith A (2002) The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge texts in the history of philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Spence R, So E (2021) Why do buildings collapse in earthquakes?: Building for safety in seismic areas. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken
Staudenmaier R (2020) World’s top coronavirus experts face fame, scorn amid pandemic. Deutsche Welle, 30 April 2020. https://p.dw.com/p/3bcKi. Accessed 19 June 2023
Stefanovic IL (2003) The contribution of philosophy to hazards assessment and decision making. Nat Haz 28(2–3):229–247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022965604958
Stewart H (1995) A critique of instrumental reason in economics. Econ Philos 11(1):57–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100003229
Stoll P-T (2003) Sicherheit als Aufgabe von Staat und Gesellschaft: Verfassungsordnung, Umwelt- und Technikrecht im Umgang mit Unsicherheit und Risiko. Jus Publicum, vol 101. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Strøm K (2000) Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Eur J Polit Res 37(3):261–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007064803327
Sun LG (2016) Climate change and the narrative of disaster. In: Peel J, Fisher D (eds) The role of international environmental law in disaster risk reduction. Brill, Leiden, pp 27–48
Sunstein CR (2002a) Probability neglect: emotions, worst cases, and law. Yale Law J 112(1):61–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/1562234
Sunstein CR (2002b) Risk and reason: safety, law, and the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sunstein CR (2004a) Lives, life-years, and willingness to pay. Colum Law Rev 104(1):205–252
Sunstein CR (2004b) Valuing life: a plea for disaggregation. Duke Law J 54(2):385–446
Sunstein CR (2005a) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Ethics 115(2):351–385. https://doi.org/10.1086/426308
Sunstein CR (2005b) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. The Seeley Lectures, vol 6. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sunstein CR, Pildes R (1997) Experts, economists, and democrats. In: Sunstein CR (ed) Free markets and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 128–150
Swyngedouw E (2010) Apocalypse forever? Theory Cult Soc 27(2–3):213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358728
Talisse RB (2009) Folk epistemology and the justification of democracy. In: Geenens R, Tinnevelt R (eds) Does truth matter?: Democracy and public space. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–54
The White House (2020a) Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and members of the coronavirus task force in press conference. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-conference/. Accessed 19 June 2023
The White House (2020b) Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and members of the coronavirus task force in press conference. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-c-oronavirus-task-force-press-briefing/. Accessed 19 June 2023
The White House (2020c) Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and members of the coronavirus task force in press conference. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-9/. Accessed 19 June 2023
Thompson PB (1990) Risk objectivism and risk subjectivism: when are risks real? Risk Issues Health Saf 1(1):3–22
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Urbinati N (2014) Democracy disfigured: opinion, truth, and the people. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
van Coile R (2016) Probability. In: Burgess A, Alemanno A, Zinn JO (eds) Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 27–38
van de Poel I, Fahlquist JN (2012) Risk and responsibility. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 877–907
Vibert F (2007) The rise of the unelected: democracy and the new separation of powers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Viscusi WK (1992) Fatal tradeoffs: public and private responsibilities for risk. Oxford University Press, New York
Viscusi WK (2015) Pricing lives for corporate risk decisions. Vanderbilt Law Rev 68(4):1117–1162. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2015.40
Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
Waldron J (2012) Democracy. In: Estlund DM (ed) The Oxford handbook of political philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 187–203
Walker JL (1966) A critique of the elitist theory of democracy. Am Polit Sci Rev 60(2):285–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953356
Williams B (1973) A critique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JJ, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–150
Woollard F, Howard-Snyder F (2022) Doing vs. allowing harm. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/. Accessed 19 June 2023
World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Western Pacific (2020) Calibrating long-term non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: principles and facilitation tools, Manila. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332099. Accessed 19 June 2023
Zack N (2011) Ethics for disaster. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simmig, C.A. (2023). The ‘Better Argument’ in Legitimate Risk Governance. In: Of Risks and Normative Responses. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41104-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41104-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41103-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41104-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)