Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Risk Management and Governance

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

  • 4946 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to give a brief review and discussion of the variety of concepts of risk in different disciplines and application areas, as a basis for describing the integrated approach taken in this book.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

  • Abrahamsen, E. B., & Aven, T. (2008). On the consistency of risk acceptance criteria with normative theories for decision-making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93, 1906–1910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, F., & Heinzerling, L. (2004). Priceless. New York: New.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (1995). Risk. London: UCL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amy, D. J. (1987). The politics of environmental mediation. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Designing risk communication completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes: Part 1. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 779–788.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2007b). On the ethical justification for the use of risk acceptance criteria. Risk Analysis, 27, 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2008a). Risk analysis: Assessing uncertainties beyond probabilities. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2008b). A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 93, 768–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2009a). Risk perspectives in a decision making context. Safety Science, 47, 798–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2009b). Safety is the antonym of risk for some perspectives of risk. Safety Science, 47, 925–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T. (2009c). Trends in risk analysis. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 5, 447–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Abrahamsen, E. B. (2007). On the use of cost-benefit analysis in ALARP processes. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 3, 345–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Flage, R. (2009). Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94, 1491–1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Vinnem, J. E. (2005). On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 90, 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Vinnem, J. E. (2007). Risk management, with applications from the offshore petroleum industry. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1986). Die Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992b). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage. Translated by Mark A. Ritter (originally published 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1997). Subpolitics. Organization and Environment, 10, 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis: Foundations and methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellaby, P. (1990). To risk or not to risk? Use and limitations of mary douglas on risk-acceptability for understanding health and safety at work and road accidents. Sociological Review, 38(3), 456–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 135–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1992). Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, J. A. (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14(4), 380–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1987). The psychology of risk. In W. T. Singleton & J. Howden (Eds.), Risk and decisions (pp. 25–39). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunting, C., Renn, O., Florin, M.-V., & Cantor, R. (2007). Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. The John Liner Review, 21(2), 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, W. J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., Renn, O., & Emani, S. (1993). Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 611–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2002). Risk: Improving government’s capability to handle risk and uncertainty (Strategy Unit Report). London: Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T. (1983). The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 285–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perceptions of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (2001a). Everyday irrationalit How pseudo-scientists, lunatics, and the rest of us systematically fail to think rationally. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. M., Stern, P. C., & Rycroft, R. W. (1989). Definitions of conflict and the legitimization of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum, 4, 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, E. J. (1983). Managerial economics: Theory, practice and problems (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social science. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M. (1991). Perception of risk, studies of risk attitudes, perceptions, and definitions. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Agency. (1998). Strategic risk assessment: Further developments and trials (R&D Report E70). London: Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ersdal, G., & Aven, T. (2008). Risk management and its ethical basis. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 93, 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1985). Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1994). Acceptable risk: A conceptual proposal. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 1, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S., & Keeney, R. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1982). Structuralism and post-structuralism: An interview. Telos, 55, 195–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 701–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gheorghe, A. V., Masera, M., Weijnen, M., & Vries, L. D. (2006). Critical infrastructures at risk. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization: politics, traditions and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 56–109). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Rethinking rationality. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Boston: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, L. C., Gardner, G. Y., DeLuca, D. R., Tieman, A., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1988). Perceptions of technological risk and benefits. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. D., & Rhomberg, L. (1996). How risks are identified and assessed. In H. Kunreuther & P. Slovic (Eds.), Challenges in risk assessment and risk management. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (pp. 15–24). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grendstad, G. (2000). Grid-group theory and political orientations: Effects of cultural biases in Norway in the 1990s. Scandinavian Political Studies, 23(3), 217–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action: Vol 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon. Translated by T. McCarthy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action: Vol 2. System and lifeworld. Boston: Beacon. Translated by T. McCarthy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., & Spash, C. L. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokstad, P., Vatn, J., Aven, T., & Sørum, M. (2004). Use of risk acceptance criteria in Norwegian offshore industry: Dilemmas and challenges. Risk Decision and Policy, 9(3), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoos, I. (1980). Risk assessment in social perspective. In Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (Ed.), Perceptions of risk (pp. 57–85). Washington, DC: NCRP.

    Google Scholar 

  • HSE. (2001). Reducing risk protecting people. London: Health and Safety Executive.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, B. M. (2006). Risk, regulation, and management. In P. Taylor-Gooby & J. Zinn (Eds.), Risk in social science (pp. 202–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC. (1993). Guidelines for risk analysis of technological system (Report IEC-CD (Sec) 381 Issued by the Technical Committee QMS/23). Brussels: European Community.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • IRGC. (2007). An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework, Policy brief. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk uncertainty and rational action. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1999). The songlines of risk. Environmental Values: Special Issue on Risk, 8(2), 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 31–54). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B. (1987). The environmentalist movement and grip/group analysis: A modest critique. In B. B. Johnson & V. T. Covello (Eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk (pp. 147–178). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E. (1992). The social amplification of risk. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 197–213). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E. (2005a). Acceptability of human risk. In J. X. Kasperson & R. E. Kasperson (Eds.), The social contours of risk (Risk analysis, corporations and the globalization of risk, Vol. II, pp. 19–28). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E. (2005b). Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. In J. X. Kasperson & R. E. Kasperson (Eds.), The social contours of risk (Risk communication and the social amplification of risk, Vol. I, pp. 19–28). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., & Kasperson, J. X. (1983). Determining the acceptability of risk: Ethical and policy issues. In J. T. Rogers & D. V. Bates (Eds.), Assessment and perception of risk to human health: Conference proceedings (pp. 135–155). Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., & Pijawka, K. D. (2005). Societal response to hazards and major hazard events: Comparing natural and technological hazards. In J. X. Kasperson & R. E. Kasperson (Eds.), The social contours of risk (Risk analysis, corporations and the globalization of risk, Vol. II, pp. 29–49). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 13–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, V., & Crawford, M. B. (2000). Strategic risk assessment phase 2: Development of environmental harm framework. Oakham: Galson Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071–1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk uncertainty and profit. Washington, DC, USA: Beard Books. Reprinted 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A., & Warland, J. (2005). Determinants of food safety risks: A multi-disciplinary approach. Rural Sociology, 70(2), 253–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolluru, R. V. (1995). Risk assessment and management: A unified approach. In R. V. Kolluru, S. Bartell, R. Pitblado, & S. Stricoff (Eds.), Risk assessment and management handbook for environmental, health, and safety professionals (pp. 1.3–1.41). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, V., Aven, T., & Ford, D. (2006). A new perspective on Renn and Klinke’s approach to risk evaluation and risk management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91, 421–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. (1995). Voluntary siting of noxious facilities: The role of compensation. In O. Renn, T. Weber, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation, evaluating new models for environmental discourse (pp. 283–295). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, S. (2000). Risk culture. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory (pp. 47–62). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, H., & Sarnat, M. (1990). Capital investment and financial decisions (4th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog, R. (2005). Siting conflicts: Democratic perspectives and political implications. Journal of Risk Research, 8(3), 187–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, N. (2002). Social and economic criteria of acceptable risk. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 78, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, D. V. (1985). Making decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfsedt, R. E. (2005). Risk management in post-trust societies. New York, London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, L. L. (1983). Some thoughts on the psychological concept of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Weber, E. U. (1986). An axiomatic theory of conjoint expected risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 188–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Cambridge, USA: Polity. Translated by J. Bednarz, Jr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York, USA: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machlis, E., & Rosa, E. (1990). Desired risk: Broadening the social amplification of risk framework. Risk Analysis, 10, 161–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, D. (1986). Social values and the distribution of risk. In D. MacLean (Ed.), Values at risk (pp. 75–93). Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuda, J. R., & Garvin, T. (2006). Place, culture, and the social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis, 26(2), 437–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (1987). Does public perception of risk explain the social response to potential hazard? Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 11, 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melchers, R. E. (2001). On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 71, 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modarres, M. (1993). What every engineer should know about reliability and risk analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2001). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nas, T. F. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathwani, J. S., Lind, N. C., & Pandey, M. D. (1997). Affordable safety by choice: The life quality method. Canada: Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (1982). Blunders in the business of risk. Nature, 298, 775–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (1991). Environmental epidemiology: Public health and hazardous wastes. Washington, DC, USA: US-National Research Council of the National Academies, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, P. (2004). Risk, uncertainty and government. London: Glasshouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003a). Emerging systemic risks in the 21st century: An agenda for action. Final Report to the OECD Futures Project. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. F. (1998). Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programs: Why we do need risk perception research. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C. C., Jones, D. K. C., Turner, B. A., & Gibson, R. (1992). Risk perception. In Royal Society Study Group (Ed.), Risk analysis, perception and management (pp. 89–134). London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. (1987). The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12(3–4), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, S. J. T., Duarte Davidson, R., Yearsley, R., Twigger-Ross, C., Fisher, J., Willows, R., et al. (2000). A strategic approach to the consideration of ‘environmental harm. Bristol: Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackwitz, R. (2000). Optimization: The basis of code-making and reliability verification. Structural Safety, 22, 27–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (1987). Risk and relativism in science for policy. In V. T. Covello & B. B. Johnson (Eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Reiss, A. (1992). The institutionalization of risk. In J. F. Short & L. Clarke (Eds.), Organizations, uncertainties, and risk (pp. 299–308). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1990). Risk perception and risk management: A review. Risk Abstract, 7(1 (parts 1 and 2)), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1991). Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risk to the public (pp. 287–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1992b). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53–79). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2004a). Perception of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 29(1), 102–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2004b). The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In T. McDaniels & M. J. Small (Eds.), Risk analysis and society: An interdisciplinary characterization of the field (pp. 289–366). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-cultural 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. C., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Jaeger, C. C., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (1999). The rational actor paradigm in risk theories: Analysis and critique. In M. J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in the modern age: Social theory (pp. 35–61). Macmillan, London: Science and Environmental Decision-Making.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimington, J., McQuaid, J., & Trbojevic, V. (2003). Application of risk-based strategies to workers’ health and safety protection: UK experience (Vol. 5). London, UK: Reed Business Information. ISBN 905901275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception research: An introduction. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies (pp. 11–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E. A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 15–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 10 (pp. 173–220). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, S. (1998). Offshore QRA and the ALARP principle. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 61, 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology, and social choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. F. (1989). On defining, describing, and explaining elephants (and Reactions to them): Hazards, Disasters, and risk analysis. Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 7(3), 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. F., & Clarke, L. (1992). Social organization and risk. In J. F. Short & L. Clarke (Eds.), Organizations, uncertainties, and risk (pp. 309–332). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991). Risk and rationality. Berkeley: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms, University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk, Decision, and Policy, 2, 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2006). Rational risk perception: Utopia or dystopia? Risk Research, 9(6), 683–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjong, R., & Ronold, K. O. (1998, July). Societal indicators and risk acceptance. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanic and Artic Engineering (OMAE98), Paper No 1488, ASME, Oslo, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjong, R., & Ronold, K. O. (2002, June). So much for safety. Proceedings of OMAE, Oslo, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1981). Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society A376 (pp. 17–34). London: Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, B. (1996). Postmodern social theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Social theory (pp. 396–428). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streffer, C., Bücker, J., Cansier, A., Cansier, D., Gethmann, C. F., Guderian, R., et al. (2003). Environmental standards: Combined exposures and their effects on human beings and their environment. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, J. (1992). Grounds of dispute: Art history, cultural politics and the discursive field. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M., Ellis, W., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, K. J. (1999). Towards a critical sociology of risk. Sociological Forum, 14(2), 215–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology (pp. 67–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinnem, J. E., Aven, T., Husebø, T., Seljelid, J., & Tveit, O. (2006). Major hazard risk indicators for monitoring of trends in the norwegian offshore petroleum sector. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 91, 778–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, C. A. J. (1996). A multi-level, multi-stage and multi-attribute perspective on risk assessment, decision-making, and risk control. Risk, Decision, and Policy, 1(1), 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, C. A. J., & Stallen, P. J. (1981). Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 235–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBGU, German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2000). World in transition: Strategies for managing global environmental risks (Annual Report). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zinn, J. O., & Taylor-Gooby, P. (2006). Risk as an interdisciplinary research area. In P. Taylor-Gooby & J. Zinn (Eds.), Risk in social science (pp. 20–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway

    Prof. Terje Aven

  2. Institute of Social Sciences V and Environment, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstraße 36, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Ortwin Renn

Authors
  1. Prof. Terje Aven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Ortwin Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terje Aven .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aven, T., Renn, O. (2010). Risk Perspectives. In: Risk Management and Governance. Risk, Governance and Society, vol 16. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0_3

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation