2.2 Impacts of Technology
13
frequency of certain events in the past) and prospective probabilistic comparisons
based on logical considerations and the stochastic laws.
Defining the system boundaries as well as the assessment of specific scenarios is
normative, i.e., not determined by empirical findings and data, and depends heavily
on who defines the damage. From a different perspective, damage to a protected
good can be seen as a benefit. Moreover, the average expected value of the loss
does not allow for any objective comparison of various damage categories such as
personal injury, material damage, or environmental damage. Comparing damage
categories requires weighting each of them based on a system of values, which can
vary significantly in a pluralistic society.
Once the risk (or risks) have been determined (also quantitatively), it is important
to also consider the various ways in which a risk can be perceived. The same risk
(in terms of its probability and impact) can be perceived very differently between
individuals or between cultures. This perception can be separated into different
layers based on the extent of technical rationality applied:
1. Scientific/technical layer of risk: Risk calculated using only scientific and
technical information. This is the most technically rational perception of risk.
2. Psychological layer of risk: Risk expressed using an individual’s personal
understanding of a risk (including subjective biases and preferences). At this
level, technical rationality is no longer sufficient to cover all aspects that may be
perceived as a risk by a person.
3. Sociological layer of risk: Risk considered in the context of a societal understanding of risks and how they are perceived and valued by different societal groups.
At this level, technical information and rationality may play a considerably less
important role.
Accordingly, a technical risk assessment is often in contrast to the subjective risk
perception of a person or a societal group, and there is usually no direct correlation
between them. This is in part because individuals include additional dimensions
in their intuitive risk perception, for example, the possibility of influencing the risk
themselves or a personal connection to what is being protected. This societal context
of risks should therefore not be left out. When industrial risks are perceived and
allocated to a specific industry, the acceptance of these risks by society dwindles.
Risks with all of these facets have become important aspects within our society
(Beck, 1992). The societal perception of risks and the importance of communicating
risks with society are further discussed in Chap. 9.
2.2.3 Limits to the Concept of Risk and the Precautionary Principle
A risk as it is defined in the previous section can only be determined when
both the type of event (and its impact) and the probability of this event are
known. In many cases, however, the probabilities of events with adverse impacts
cannot be determined, or even the relevant events themselves are not yet known,
13
frequency of certain events in the past) and prospective probabilistic comparisons
based on logical considerations and the stochastic laws.
Defining the system boundaries as well as the assessment of specific scenarios is
normative, i.e., not determined by empirical findings and data, and depends heavily
on who defines the damage. From a different perspective, damage to a protected
good can be seen as a benefit. Moreover, the average expected value of the loss
does not allow for any objective comparison of various damage categories such as
personal injury, material damage, or environmental damage. Comparing damage
categories requires weighting each of them based on a system of values, which can
vary significantly in a pluralistic society.
Once the risk (or risks) have been determined (also quantitatively), it is important
to also consider the various ways in which a risk can be perceived. The same risk
(in terms of its probability and impact) can be perceived very differently between
individuals or between cultures. This perception can be separated into different
layers based on the extent of technical rationality applied:
1. Scientific/technical layer of risk: Risk calculated using only scientific and
technical information. This is the most technically rational perception of risk.
2. Psychological layer of risk: Risk expressed using an individual’s personal
understanding of a risk (including subjective biases and preferences). At this
level, technical rationality is no longer sufficient to cover all aspects that may be
perceived as a risk by a person.
3. Sociological layer of risk: Risk considered in the context of a societal understanding of risks and how they are perceived and valued by different societal groups.
At this level, technical information and rationality may play a considerably less
important role.
Accordingly, a technical risk assessment is often in contrast to the subjective risk
perception of a person or a societal group, and there is usually no direct correlation
between them. This is in part because individuals include additional dimensions
in their intuitive risk perception, for example, the possibility of influencing the risk
themselves or a personal connection to what is being protected. This societal context
of risks should therefore not be left out. When industrial risks are perceived and
allocated to a specific industry, the acceptance of these risks by society dwindles.
Risks with all of these facets have become important aspects within our society
(Beck, 1992). The societal perception of risks and the importance of communicating
risks with society are further discussed in Chap. 9.
2.2.3 Limits to the Concept of Risk and the Precautionary Principle
A risk as it is defined in the previous section can only be determined when
both the type of event (and its impact) and the probability of this event are
known. In many cases, however, the probabilities of events with adverse impacts
cannot be determined, or even the relevant events themselves are not yet known,