Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Concepts of Risk and Safety

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Risk Theory

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to analyze the concepts of risk and safety in the context of societal decision-making. Risk and safety research is a heterogeneous field, and different areas have conceived of the nature of risk in different ways. In the chapter, I categorize risk perspectives in three broad groups: the scientist approach, the psychological approach, and the cultural approach to risk. Between these groups, the nature and status of risk and safety have been the debated subjects. I will attempt to bring some light onto complicated and controversial philosophical topics such as whether risk and safety are natural or normative notions, whether they are social constructions, objective, or even real. This investigation will focus on a range of different questions. I will distinguish between five common definitions of the term “risk,” as well as contrast the notion of risk with both the notion of safety and the notion of acceptable risk. The main part of the chapter will focus on a quantitative or comparative concept of risk, that is, a notion that is in play in statements such as “the risk of flying is lower than the risk of traveling by car” and “the risk of nuclear power is 10−4 deaths per reactor year.” The central aspects of such a notion of risk and safety will be discussed, in particular the notions of probability and harm. I will also discuss the common claim that it is the expectation value of the severity of harm that is the correct measure of risk. Furthermore, I investigate additional aspects such as epistemic uncertainty and other, more controversial aspects that have been proposed.

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 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
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

  • Asveld L, Roeser S (eds) (2009) The ethics of technological risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2003) Foundations of risk analysis: a knowledge and decision-oriented perspective. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2007) A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis and management covering both safety and security. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 92:745–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Renn O (2009) On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J Risk Res 12:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron J (1987) Second-order probabilities and belief functions. Theory Decision 23:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn S (1984) Spreading the word. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn S (1998) Ruling passions: a theory of practical reasoning. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R (1991) Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Phil Stud 61:127–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury J (1989) The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Sci Technol Hum Values 14:380–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R (2002) Tales of the mighty dead: historical essays in the metaphysics of intentionality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell S (2005) Determining overall risk. J Risk Res 8:569–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L, Short J (1993) Social organization and risk: some current controversies. Annu Rev Sociol 19:375–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen BL (2003) Probabilistic risk analysis for a high-level radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 23:909–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dancy J (1995) In: Defence of thick concepts, in French, Uehling, Wettstein (eds), Midwest studies in philosophy 20. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Ind

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy J (2004) Ethics without principles. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • de Finetti B (1937) La prevision: see lois logiques, ses sources subjectives, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 7

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas EJ (1983) Managerial economics: theory, practice and problems, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Decision evaluation methods under uncertainty and imprecision. In: Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M (eds) Combining fuzzy impression with probabilistic uncertainty in decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 48–65

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2003) Technical guidance document in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Joint Research Centre, EUR 20418 EN, Office for Official Publications of the EC, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart J Econ 75:643–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstein D, Hurka T (2009) From thick to thin: two moral reduction plans. Canad J Philos 39:515–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewald F (1991) Insurance and risk. In: Burchell G, Gordon C, Miller P (eds) The Foucault effect: studies in governmental rationality. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978/2000) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefits. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London, pp 80–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P, Sahlin N-E (1982/1988) Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making. In: Gärdenfors P, Sahlin N-E (eds) Decision, probability, and utility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 313–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham JD, Weiner JB (eds) (1995) Risk versus risk: tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking I (1991) A tradition of natural kinds. Phil Stud 61:109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking I (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1998) Setting the limit. Occupational health standards and the limits of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004a) Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techne 8:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004b) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2005) Seven myths of risk. Risk Manage 7:7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2009) Risk and safety in technology. In: Meijers A (ed) Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol 9: philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1069–1102

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2010) Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values. J Risk Res 13:231–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare RM (1952) The language of morals. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare RM (1997) Sorting out ethics. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson C, Urbach P (2006) Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach, 3rd edn. Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (2000) Safety of nuclear power plants: design. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2002) Risk management – vocabulary – guidelines for use in standards. ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan M (1983) Decision theory as philosophy. Phil Sci 50:549–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. BoardBooks, Washington, DC (Reprinted 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992/2000) Intuitive toxicology: experts and lay judgements of chemical risks. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London, pp 285–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg HE (1968) Bets and beliefs. Am Phil Q 5:54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) (1970) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange M (ed) (2007) Philosophy of science: an anthology. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand J (1991) Equity and choice: an essay in economics and applied philosophy. Harper Collins Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi I (1974) On indeterminate probabilities. J Phil 71:391–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi I (1986) Hard choices: decision making under unresolved conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewens T (2007) Risk: philosophical perspectives. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Little M (1994) Moral realism II: non-naturalism. Phil Books 35:225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance W (1976) Of acceptable risk – science and the determination of safety. William Kaufmann, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo D (1991) Sociological versus metascientific views of risk assessment. In: Mayo D, Hollander R (eds) Acceptable evidence, science and values in risk management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 249–280

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell J (1978) Are moral requirements hypothetical imperatives? In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, Supplementary volume 52, pp 13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell J (1979) Virtue and reason. Monist 62:331–350

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell J (1981) Non-cognitivism and rule-following. In: Holtzman S, Leich C (eds) Wittgenstein: to follow a rule. Routledge/Kegan Paul, London/Boston, pp 141–162

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1982) Values in science. In: PSA: proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, 2:3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller CO (1988) System safety. In: Wiener EL, Nagel DC (eds) Human factors in aviation. Academic, San Diego, pp 53–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Misumi Y, Sato Y (1999) Estimation of average hazardous-event-frequency for allocation of safety-integrity levels. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 66:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller N (2009a) Thick concepts in practice: normative aspects of risk and safety. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller N (2009b) Should we follow the experts’ advice? Epistemic uncertainty, consequence dominance and the knowledge asymmetry of safety. Int J Risk Assess Manage 11:219–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller N (2010) The non-reductivity of normativity in risks. In: de Vries MJ, Hansson SO, Meijers AWM (eds) Norms and the artificial: moral and non-moral norms in technology (Forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller N, Hansson SO (2008) Principles of engineering safety: risk and uncertainty reduction. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 93:776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller N, Hansson SO, Peterson M (2006) Safety is more than the antonym of risk. J Appl Philos 23:419–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GE (1903) Principia ethica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway H (1987) Experts, risk communication, and democracy. Risk Anal 7:125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson M (2002) What is a de minimis risk? Risk Manage 4:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey F (1931) Truth and probability. In: Braithwaite RB (ed) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp 156–198. (Reprinted in: Gärdenfors P, Sahlin N-E (eds). Decision, probability, and utility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–47)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechard RP (1999) Historical relationship between performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal and other types of risk assessment. Risk Anal 19:763–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1992) Social theories of risk. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2005) Risk governance: towards an integrative approach. White paper no. 1, written by Ortwin Renn with an Annex by Peter Graham. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik M (1987) Choices: an introduction to decision theory. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa EA (1998) Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. J Risk Res 1:15–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage L (1972/1954) The foundations of statistics, 2nd edn. Dover, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1987) On ethics and economics. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (1993) Burying uncertainty: risk and the case against geological disposal of nuclear waste. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms B (1980) Higher order degrees of belief. In: Mellor DH (ed) Prospects for pragmatism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames S (2005) Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century: the age of meaning. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson C (1944) Ethics and language. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerton J, Berner B (2003) Constructing risk and safety in technological practice: an introduction. In: Summerton J, Berner B (eds) Constructing risk and safety in technological practice. Routledge, London, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Tench W (1985) Safety is no accident. Collins, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Unwin S (1986) A fuzzy set theoretic foundation for vagueness in uncertainty analysis. Risk Anal 6:27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallentyne P (1998) The nomic role account of carving reality at the joints. Synthese 115:171–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandall B (2004) Values in science and risk assessment. Toxicol Lett 152:265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams B (1985) Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis HH (2007) Guiding resource allocations based on terrorism risk. Risk Anal 27:597–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf M (2002) The curious role of natural kind terms. Pacific Phil Q 83:81–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1982) Institutional mythologies and dual societies in the management of risk. In: Kunreuther H, Ley E (eds) The risk analysis controversy. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1992) Carving out science (and politics) in the regulatory jungle. Soc Stud Sci 22:745–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 237590.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DA, UK

    Dr. Niklas Möller (Faculty of Philosophy)

Authors
  1. Dr. Niklas Möller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Möller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  2. Philosophy Department, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  3. Human Technology Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Rafaela Hillerbrand

  4. Department of Plant Physiology and Forest Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

    Per Sandin

  5. Section for Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Martin Peterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Möller, N. (2012). The Concepts of Risk and Safety. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation