The role of risk perception for risk management

Abstract

Are risks social constructions of different societal actors that can be checked at best against standards of consistency, cohesion and internal conventions of deduction, but cannot claim any validity outside of the actor's logical framework? Or are technical estimates of risk representations of real hazards that can and will affect people as predicted by the statistical values, regardless of the beliefs or convictions of those who conduct the assessments? Which of the two sides one takes determines the legitimate function of risk perception for management purposes. The paper argues that both extremes, the constructivist and the realist perspective, miss the point, as risks are always mental representations of threats that are capable of claiming real losses. Over the last two decades, risk analysts have dealt with both sides of risk in an additive fashion. In times in which risk management has been under serious pressure to demonstrate effectiveness and cost-efficiency, the parallel approach of pleasing the technical elite and the public alike has lost legitimacy. In order to integrate risk assessment and perception, the paper analyses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to risk analysis and highlights the potential contributions that the technical sciences and the social sciences can offer to risk management. Technical assessments provide the best estimate for judging the average probability of an adverse effect linked to an object or activity. First, public perception should govern the selection of criteria on which acceptability or tolerability are to be judged. Second, public input is needed to determine the trade-offs between criteria. Third, public preferences are needed to design resilient strategies for coping with remaining uncertainties. A public participation model is introduced that promises an integration of analytic knowledge and deliberative process involving those who will be affected by the respective risk.