IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v13y2010i4p517-543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicious management of uncertain risks: I. Developments and criticisms of risk analysis and precautionary reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Vlek

Abstract

In situations of serious uncertain risk, precautionary assessment, decision-making and control may be inevitable. In this paper, the long and wide-ranging debate about the precautionary principle (PP) is surveyed in comparison to parallel developments of classical risk analysis. The 'new risks' provoking precaution typically are complex, often extensive in space and time, socially diverse, supposedly unlikely but highly uncertain, and potentially catastrophic. Classical risk analysis falls short of grasping such ill-defined problems validly enough for effective policy support. Similarly, the 'prudent' PP is criticised for its vagueness, multiple meanings and lack of practical elaboration. Despite their differences, however, risk-analytic and precautionary-principled approaches seem to be converging. On the way towards a decision-theoretic exposition (see follow-up paper), an integrative circumscription of the PP is proposed, which comprises 10 key issues for further elaboration. Logically, the 'pessimistic' PP is contrasted with its 'optimistic' counterpart, the venture principle (VP), which may be equally rational and/or inevitable in particular uncertain decision situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Vlek, 2010. "Judicious management of uncertain risks: I. Developments and criticisms of risk analysis and precautionary reasoning," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 517-543, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:4:p:517-543
    DOI: 10.1080/13669871003629887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669871003629887
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669871003629887?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charles Vlek, 2013. "How Solid Is the Dutch (and the British) National Risk Assessment? Overview and Decision‐Theoretic Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 948-971, June.
    2. Charles Vlek, 2011. "Straightening Out the Grounds for Precaution: A Commentary and Some Suggestions About Terje Aven's “On Different Types of Uncertainties”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1534-1537, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:4:p:517-543. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.