The Concepts of Risk and Safety. Möller, N. In Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., & Peterson, M., editors, Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, pages 55–85. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2012. ![The Concepts of Risk and Safety [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex 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.
@incollection{moller_concepts_2012,
address = {Dordrecht},
title = {The {Concepts} of {Risk} and {Safety}},
isbn = {978-94-007-1433-5},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3},
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.},
language = {en},
urldate = {2023-08-31},
booktitle = {Handbook of {Risk} {Theory}: {Epistemology}, {Decision} {Theory}, {Ethics}, and {Social} {Implications} of {Risk}},
publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
author = {Möller, Niklas},
editor = {Roeser, Sabine and Hillerbrand, Rafaela and Sandin, Per and Peterson, Martin},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3},
keywords = {Acceptable Risk, Epistemic Uncertainty, Normative Aspect, Safety Culture, Unwanted Event},
pages = {55--85},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"PcacF7LH4PxM2ZbB6","bibbaseid":"mller-theconceptsofriskandsafety-2012","author_short":["Möller, N."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","address":"Dordrecht","title":"The Concepts of Risk and Safety","isbn":"978-94-007-1433-5","url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3","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.","language":"en","urldate":"2023-08-31","booktitle":"Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk","publisher":"Springer Netherlands","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Möller"],"firstnames":["Niklas"],"suffixes":[]}],"editor":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Roeser"],"firstnames":["Sabine"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hillerbrand"],"firstnames":["Rafaela"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sandin"],"firstnames":["Per"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Peterson"],"firstnames":["Martin"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2012","doi":"10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3","keywords":"Acceptable Risk, Epistemic Uncertainty, Normative Aspect, Safety Culture, Unwanted Event","pages":"55–85","bibtex":"@incollection{moller_concepts_2012,\n\taddress = {Dordrecht},\n\ttitle = {The {Concepts} of {Risk} and {Safety}},\n\tisbn = {978-94-007-1433-5},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3},\n\tabstract = {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.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2023-08-31},\n\tbooktitle = {Handbook of {Risk} {Theory}: {Epistemology}, {Decision} {Theory}, {Ethics}, and {Social} {Implications} of {Risk}},\n\tpublisher = {Springer Netherlands},\n\tauthor = {Möller, Niklas},\n\teditor = {Roeser, Sabine and Hillerbrand, Rafaela and Sandin, Per and Peterson, Martin},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3},\n\tkeywords = {Acceptable Risk, Epistemic Uncertainty, Normative Aspect, Safety Culture, Unwanted Event},\n\tpages = {55--85},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Möller, N."],"editor_short":["Roeser, S.","Hillerbrand, R.","Sandin, P.","Peterson, M."],"key":"moller_concepts_2012","id":"moller_concepts_2012","bibbaseid":"mller-theconceptsofriskandsafety-2012","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_3"},"keyword":["Acceptable Risk","Epistemic Uncertainty","Normative Aspect","Safety Culture","Unwanted Event"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","5XkfmA9xajmKjWGio"],"keywords":["acceptable risk","epistemic uncertainty","normative aspect","safety culture","unwanted event"],"search_terms":["concepts","risk","safety","möller"],"title":"The Concepts of Risk and Safety","year":2012}