Abstract
Our analysis has shown that narrow risk concepts based on probabilistic risk assessments, which produce numerical probabilities derived from experiments, models, expert judgements, and/or scenario techniques, provide society only with a limited scope of what humans might value. The economic, psychological and social science perspectives on risk broaden the scope of undesirable effects, includes other ways of expressing possibilities and likelihood, and expand the horizon of risk outcomes by referring to “socially constructed” or “socially mediated” realities. The psychological, social and cultural experience of risk includes the perception of actual damage; but it is more focused on the evaluation of the risk context, the non-physical impacts and the associations between the risk and social or cultural artefacts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brehmer, B. (1987). The psychology of risk. In W. T. Singleton & J. Howden (Eds.), Risk and decisions (pp. 25–39). New York: Wiley.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Weighing the risks. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 265–283). Boulder: Westview.
Freudenburg, W. R. (1992). Nothing recedes like success? Risk analysis and the organizational amplification of risk. Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 3, 1–35.
Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in risk communication practice. In H. Kunreuther & P. Slovic (Eds.), Annals of the American Academy of political and social science, Special Issue: Challenges in risk assessment and risk management (pp. 85–94). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Fitzgerald, K. B. (1996). Conflicting views on fair siting processes: Evidence from Austria and the US. Risk Issues in Health Safety and Environment, 7(2), 119–134.
MacLean, D. (1986). Social values and the distribution of risk. In D. MacLean (Ed.), Values at risk (pp. 75–93). Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld.
Meyer-Abich, K. M. (1989). Von der Wohlstandsgesellschaft zur Risikogesellschaft: Die gesellschaftliche Bewertung industriewirtschaftlicher Risiken. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 36, 31–42.
O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government. London: UCL.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In R. Kasperson & P. J. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risk to the public (pp. 175–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rohrmann, B. (1995). Technological risks: Perception, evaluation, communication. In R. E. Mechlers & M. G. Stewart (Eds.), Integrated risk assessment, current practice and new directions (pp. 7–12). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aven, T., Renn, O. (2010). Conclusions. In: Risk Management and Governance. Risk, Governance and Society, vol 16. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-13925-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-13926-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)