Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References

Environmental Risks and Public Perceptions

Profile image of Cordula KroppCordula Kropp

2000, The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607873.N41
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper discusses the complex interplay between environmental risks and public perceptions, emphasizing the limitations of traditional sociological approaches that separate risks from their societal implications. It explores how new forms of risks, shaped by social constructions and interdependent uncertainties, challenge existing social norms and institutions. The analysis aims to foster a deeper understanding of environmental risks as embedded in globalization and the importance of negotiating new social norms for effective risk regulation and management.

Related papers

Introductory Chapter: Environmental Risks between Conceptualization and Action
Adrian GROZAVU

Environmental Risks, 2018

Changes in the contemporary world materialized in particular through population growth and mobility, urbanization, and economic expansion also result in an increased exposure of people and assets to extreme events and impose, implicitly, adequate management of induced risks. The occurrence of natural and anthropogenic risk phenomena, known as hazards, puts a heavy tribute on disaster-sensitive human communities regardless of their level of development. The magnitude of the disasters and their increasing frequency and severity imply the need for their approach by the entire world community and for global action. It is, therefore, necessary to find answers to questions: Is the world really a more dangerous place? If so, what are the causes? Why is the dimension of disasters much higher in poor countries? What are the best ways to reduce the impact of hazards and disasters in the future? In this context, knowledge of risks becomes a sine qua condition in carrying out impact studies, risk prevention plans, spatial planning plans, and, in general, a condition for effective management of natural resources or sustainable development projects. This explains a large number of specialized studies, the extent of research in the field, and the sustained efforts to achieve the transfer from theory to practice. A multidisciplinary scientific field has emerged over the past decades, in which there is a specialized terminology that wants to be as precise as possible, eliminating the semantic ambiguities and the difficulties of communication between the theoreticians and practitioners. Within this multidisciplinary research field, the methodology, taken from different fundamental domains, gradually improved, new methods and models of integrated analysis

View PDFchevron_right
The Role of Science and Discourse in the Application of the Precautionary Approach
Klaus Ammann

Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals and Technical Proteins, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Environmental disasters and critical politics
Alejandro Camargo

Routledge Handbook of Latin America and the Environment, 2023

View PDFchevron_right
Dark Nature Como Meeting, 6–8 September, 2005 ii
Anna Fokaefs

scienze-como.uninsubria.it

View PDFchevron_right
The concept of risk in social sciences
imran shabani
View PDFchevron_right
AIR, FIRE, WATER AND EARTH(QUAKE). Perceived threats from and to the environment: case studies between Geography and History
Davide Del Gusto, Gianluca Casagrande
View PDFchevron_right
GJ #2015, 3, Editorial On Global Risks
Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation
View PDFchevron_right
The need for an integrative scientific and societal approach to natural hazards
Dale Dominey-howes

2006

View PDFchevron_right
Natural Disaster: Nature Beckons?
Debashish Mitra

Opening up the knowledge system frontier by human beings has not only destroyed the older, traditional forms of knowledge, but has also distanced him from the nature. It is a cyclical process where knowledge system must begin and end with NATURE. The impending threat is further taking human being far away from nature, which is a vicious cycle that needs to be understood at a very primary level. It is because the concerted effort of man is being subverted by viewing development as a progressive uni-linear movement. Development, whether cultural, social, political, etc, became a story of ascension from one type to another. Nonetheless, it is quite imperative for us to shoulder the responsibility of carrying the knowledge formation where we as human being could develop a consciousness towards moving closer to nature. It does not mean moving away from the knowledge structure, rather going akin to the nature.

View PDFchevron_right
HOW TO FACE THREATS FROM THE FORCES OF NATURE EXISTING ON PLANET EARTH
Fernando A G Alcoforado

This article aims to present how to deal with localized or global threats to human beings caused by the forces of nature that exist on planet Earth. The threats to human beings caused by the forces of nature that exist on planet Earth include earthquakes and tsunamis that can affect specific areas of the planet, volcanic eruptions that can affect specific areas of the planet or have a global impact, the cooling of the Earth's core and the inversion of the Earth's magnetic poles, both of which have a global impact. Specific measures are proposed to deal with each of the threats, but in addition to these, it is necessary to create a global structure, a World Organization for Defense Against Natural Disasters with global scope linked to the UN (United Nations) that has the capacity to technically coordinate the actions of countries around the world in dealing with these threats. The creation of this body is absolutely necessary because most of the threats from the forces of nature that exist on planet Earth have a global impact. To carry out its functions, this body must have financial resources from a global fund against natural disasters of global scope to be maintained by all countries on the planet and administered by the UN.

View PDFchevron_right

References (47)

  1. Adam, B. and van Loon, J. (2000) Repositioning Risk: The Challenge for Social Theory. In: Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J. (eds) The Risk Society and Beyond. London: Sage, pp. 1-33.
  2. Adams, J. (1995) Risk. London: UCL Press.
  3. Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (eds) (2004) Mapping Vulnerability. London: Earthscan.
  4. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
  5. Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  6. Beck, U. (1996) World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. Theory, Culture & Society, 13(4):1-32.
  7. Beck, U. (1997) The Re-Invention of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  8. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity.
  9. Beck, U. (2006a) Power in the Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  10. Beck, U. (2006b) The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  11. Beck, U. (2006c) Reflexive Governance. Politics in the Global Risk Society. In: Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D. and Kemp, R. (eds) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Edinburgh: Edward Elgar, pp. 31-56.
  12. Beck, U. and Lau, C. (2004) Entgrenzung und Entscheidung. Was ist neu an der Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung? Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
  13. Bonß, W. (1995) Vom Risiko. Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in der Moderne. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.
  14. Böschen, S. Kropp, C. and Soentgen, J. (2005) Risikokonflikte kartiert -Entwicklung und Erprobung von internetbasierten Wissenskartographien als Medium reflexiver Wissenspolitik. Manuskript. 26 Seiten.
  15. Dewey, J. (1954) [1927] The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press.
  16. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) Risk and Culture. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
  17. Ewald, F. (1991) Insurance and Risk. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govern- mentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 197-210.
  18. Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (1995) The Unmanageable Consumer. London: Sage.
  19. Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  20. Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  21. Huntington, S. P. (1993) The Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
  22. Fischoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. et al. (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Studies 9: 127-152.
  23. Jasanoff, S. (1999) The songlines of risk. Environmental Politics, 9(2), 135-153.
  24. Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2006) Systemic risks as challenge for policy making in risk governance. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7(1), Art. 33. Available at http:www. qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-06/06-1-33-e.htm
  25. Krimsky, S. and Plough, A. (eds) (1988) Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process. Dover: Auburn House.
  26. Lau, Chr. (1999) Neue Risiken und gesellschaftliche Konflikte. In: Beck, U., Hajer, M. and Kesselring, S. (eds) Der unscharfe Ort der Politik. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. pp. 248-266.
  27. Latour, B. (2004a) Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  28. Latour, B. (2004b) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 30: 225-248.
  29. Law, J. (2004) Disaster in Agriculture: or Foot and Mouth Mobilities. Published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University at www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/ papers/law-disaster-mobilities-foot-and-mouth.pdf
  30. Luhmann, N. (1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine/de Gruyter.
  31. Lupton, D. (1999) Risk. London: Routledge.
  32. Mythen, G. (2004) Ulrich Beck. A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society. London: Pluto Press.
  33. Palmer, C.G.S. (1996) Risk perception: an empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct. Risk Analysis 16: 717-723.
  34. Ong, A. (2004) Assembling around SARS: Technology, Body Heat, and Political Fever in Risk Society. In: Poferl, A.and Sznaider, N. (eds) Ulrich Becks kosmopolitisches Projekt. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Soziologie. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. pp. S.81-89.
  35. Renn, O. and Klinke, A. (2004) Systemic risks: a new challenge for risk management. EMBO Rep. 2004 October 5 (Suppl 1): S41-S46.
  36. Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (eds) (2000) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies. (Technology, Risk and Society, 13). Berlin and New York: Springer.
  37. Rifkin, J. (1992) Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. New York: Penguin.
  38. Rippl, S. (2002) Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement. Journal of Risk Research, 5: 147-165.
  39. Schwarz, M. and Thompson, M. (1990) Divided We Stand - Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  40. Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. and Fischoff, B. (1980) Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In: Schwing R. C. and Albers, W. A. (eds) Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum.
  41. Smith, B. and Goldblatt, D. (2000) Whose Health Is It Anyway? In: Hinchcliffe, S. and Woodward, K. (eds) The Natural and the Social: Uncertainty, Risk, Change. London: Sage, pp. 43-77.
  42. Strydom, P. (2003) Risk, Environment and Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  43. Tulloch, J. and Lupton, D. (2003) Risk and Everyday Life. London: Sage.
  44. Urry, J. (2004) Risks and Mobilities. In: Poferl, A. and Sznaider, N. (eds) Ulrich Becks kosmopolitisches Projekt. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Soziologie. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. S. 90-97.
  45. Van Loon, J. (2002) Risk and Technological Culture. Towards a Sociology of Virulence. London and New York: Routledge.
  46. Wehling, P. (2003) Reflexive Wissenspolitik: das Aufbrechen tradierter Wissensordnungen der Moderne. Anmerkungen zu Werner Rammerts "Zwei Paradoxien einer innovation- sorientierten Wissenspolitik. Soziale Welt 54: 509-518.
  47. Wildavsky, A. and Dake, K. (1990) Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Deadalus 119, 41-60.

Related papers

Evaluating the Source of the Risks Associated with Natural Events
Colleen Murphy

Within philosophy there has been little discussion of the risks associated with natural events such as earthquakes. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate why such risks should be the subject of more sustained philosophical interest. We argue that we cannot simply apply to risks associated with natural events those insights and frameworks for moral evaluation developed in the literature considering ordinary risks, technological risks and the risks posed by anthropogenic climate change. The second objective of this paper is to identify and develop a framework for the moral evaluation of the source of the risks associated with natural events, or the actions which sustain and impact such risks. Our discussion concentrates on the ways the construction and modification of built and natural environments can alter the probability of occurrence of natural events and the character and magnitude of the impact that such events have. We then argue for the need to develop a standard of reasonable care for decisions about the built and modified natural environment, which accounts for technical and resource constraints, as well as the place of natural hazard mitigation in public policy.

View PDFchevron_right
Environmental Risks between Conceptualization and Action
Florin Constantin MIHAI

2018

Changes in the contemporary world materialized in particular through population growth and mobility, urbanization, and economic expansion also result in an increased exposure of people and assets to extreme events and impose, implicitly, adequate management of induced risks. The occurrence of natural and anthropogenic risk phenomena, known as hazards, puts a heavy tribute on disaster-sensitive human communities regardless of their level of development. The magnitude of the disasters and their increasing frequency and severity imply the need for their approach by the entire world community and for global action. Knowledge of risks becomes a sine qua condition in carrying out impact studies, risk prevention plans, spatial planning plans, and, in general, a condition for effective management of natural resources or sustainable development projects.

View PDFchevron_right
Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Philosophical Reflections on the Social and Cultural Dimension of Natural Disaster Risk
Mark Coeckelbergh

In: Gardoni, P., Murphy, C., and Rowell, A. (eds.), Risk Analysis of Natural Hazards, pp. 27-41, Springer, 2016

Risk analysis and risk management are ways for humans to cope with natural disaster risk. This chapter connects discussions about risk with reflections on nature, technology, vulnerability, and modernity. In particular, it raises questions regarding the natural/human distinction and how human societies and cultures (should) cope with risk. How "natural" are hazards, given human interventions in and interpretations of events, and what are the limitations of "objective" modern approaches to risk? The chapter argues that coping with risk related to natural disasters should be sensitive to the social and cultural dimensions of risk. For this purpose it proposes the concept of "vulnerability transformations". It focuses on the experience and phenomenology of natural hazards in relation to existential vulnerability, and, taking a cross-cultural perspective, shows that apart from modern scientific thinking there are also other, less modern ways to cope with natural hazards.

View PDFchevron_right
Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Philosophical Reflections on the Social and Cultural Dimensions of Natural Disaster Risk
Mark Coeckelbergh

Risk Analysis of Natural Hazards, 2016

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to reflect on what can be learned about disaster risk reduction (DRR) from the L'Aquila trial of scientists. The court case was initiated because of a controversial meeting on 31 March 2009 of the Major Risks Committee (MRC), held under the auspices of the Italian Department of Civil Protection. The purpose of the meeting was to consider (prior to the fatal earthquake of 6 April 2009) disaster risk in the L'Aquila area, which was being affected by an earthquake swarm since October 2008. Design/methodology/approach-The authors undertook a document analysis of trial materials, and a review of academic and media commentary about the trial. Findings-The legal process revealed that disaster governance was inadequate and not informed by the DRR paradigm or international guidelines. Risk assessment was carried out only in a techno-scientific manner, with little acknowledgement of the social issues influencing risks at the local community level. There was no inclusion of local knowledge or engagement of local people in transformative DRR strategies. Originality/value-Most previous commentary is inadequate in terms of not considering the institutional, scientific and social responsibilities for DRR as exposed by the trial. This paper is unique in that it considers the contents of the MRC meeting as well as all trial documents. It provides a comprehensive reflection on the implications of this case for DRR and the resilience of peoples and places at risk. It highlights that a switch from civil protection to community empowerment is needed to achieve sustainable outcomes at the local level.

View PDFchevron_right
On the need to tackle disasters within the context of the risk society
Jeroen Warner
View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Infrastructures of risk: a mapping approach towards controversies on risks
Cordula Kropp

Journal of Risk Research, 2011

Anyone concerned about food risks related, for example, to acrylamide, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or food supplements is confronted with vast and complex landscapes of political debates, with various uncertainties, contested responsibilities, competing knowledge and ambivalent value‐making. In risk assessment procedures, these fluid complexities often get simplified to come to any evaluation at all. A retrospective review of risk scandals, however, highlights that most risks arise just from those connections in production, usage and disposal which remained unseen or were even blinded out during previous risk assessment. To better deal with these ‘unknown unknowns’, society at large and decision‐makers in particular need not only new strategies to avoid manufactured uncertainties but also more comprehensive knowledge tools and concepts to fully explore potential sources and connections of hazards, risks and uncertainties. Facing this challenge of risk governance, the paper discusses the potential of the visualisation (‘mapping’) of risk controversies and introduces the concept of ‘risk infrastructures’. The aim is to equip stakeholders, laypersons and decision‐makers with risk mappings which make visible how competing knowledge claims, protagonists, institutional settings, facts and values are related to each other. It will do so in referring to a prototype software application of such a ‘re‐assembling strategy’ (Actor‐Network‐Theory (ANT)) called ‘Risk Cartography’.

View PDFchevron_right
Public perceptions of environmental risk in China
Arthur Mol

2013

View PDFchevron_right
Human–Tiger Conflict in Context: Risks to Lives and Livelihoods in the Bangladesh Sundarbans
Zubair Hussni Fahad, Christina Greenwood

Human Ecology, 2013

People's perceptions of the risk posed by wild animals to human lives and/or livelihoods can influence the rate at which people intentionally kill these species. Consequently, human-wildlife conflict (HWC) management strategies may benefit from the inclusion of actions which reduce risk perceptions. This study uses Participatory Risk Mapping (PRM) and semi-structured interviews to explore local perceptions and the wider socio-economic context of human-tiger conflict (HTC) in the Bangladesh Sundarbans area. Of the 24 locally-relevant problems identified by the PRM process, tigers were the only problem to be cited by >50 % of respondents. The 'tiger problem' was also perceived by villagers to be of relatively high severity. Negative perceptions of tigers in the Sundarbans communities are exacerbated by other locally-experienced poverty-related problems, as well cyclones, floods and soil erosion. Interactions between the problems experienced by villagers, including HTC, result in a complex 'risk web' which detrimentally affects lives and livelihoods and ultimately perpetuates poverty levels in the Sundarbans communities. This research demonstrates that PRM and in-depth, qualitative research can enhance understanding of the perceived magnitude and wider socio-economic context of risks from wildlife and aid the identification of risk perception management actions which may help to reduce the number of animals killed by people.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved