Kinds of Risk

A number of different types of risk can be distinguished.'' We will consider four: individually perceived risk, collectively perceived risk, calculated risk and 'real risk'. The last is put in inverted commas because there is some question as to whether it is a legitimate concept. There is also the question of whether an 'acceptable risk' can be set as a standard by, say, some national authority, the difficulty being to distinguish to which kind of risk it refers. Perceived risk is the risk that one thinks is the case. It might be personal risk to oneself, as with the possibility of personal injury, or the risk to other people or things. Risk is after all the chance of adverse happenings.

Though it could be injury and loss of life, it could also be property damage or loss, financial loss, as with an investment going awry, or environmental damage. The essential point here is to ask whose perception it is and why the risk is being perceived. These questions of who and why are crucial.

'Who' are those likely to suffer risk. 'Why' refers to the reasons why risk needs to be considered, which is almost always in the context of decisions that have to be made. The importance of perceived risk is that the perceivers, even if they do not make the primary decisions, are likely to affect the decisions through the political process. The perception of risk associated with a particular situation depends on a number of factors over and above objective or intersubjective considerations. Some of them are as follows:

· Voluntary/involuntary nature of risk

· Familiarity with the situation

· Number of people involved Manner of death

· Cultural context

· Personal context

· Nature of communication

· Long-term versus short-term exposure

Immediacy of consequences To discuss them briefly, first, there is the degree to which the risk is voluntary. People object to having a risk thrust upon them even though they would be happy to take the same level of risk voluntarily, demanding, for instance, much higher safety standards in public transport than for their own cars. Part of the reason for this is the belief that if one is in control, the risk can be avoided by one's own skill

There is generally a stronger adverse reaction to some sorts of death than to others. Death by fire is seen as more horrifying than death in a road accident, and death as a result of a nuclear incident is even worse. The cultural context in which a risk situation exists affects its perception. Historically, for instance, the West has come to view death as far more significant than it did 50 years ago.

Religious and metaphysical beliefs have a strong influence on the perceived importance of life. Perceived risk is very much affected by personal context-whether it is one's own or someone else's risk, for example, or the magnitude of one's need to achieve some goal. If the need is great, then the risk often seems to diminish.

The way in which information about risk is received strongly affects its perception. Media coverage emphasizing the dangers and drawbacks of a project would affect one's understanding of risk, especially if it were conveyed in emotional terms. Likewise an overenthusiastic description of the advantages of a project could conceal its dangers and lead to an underestimation of risk. Long-term exposure to a hazard is seen as much more serious than short-term exposure.

To live near a chemical or nuclear plant is more a cause for concern than the more transient risks of, say, car travel, as the risk has to be lived with all the time and there is no way to get away from it, either for oneself or for one's family. Finally there is the matter of the immediacy of results. It is highly hazardous to smoke. However, many smokers are prepared to accept the risk as the consequences are not immediate but are likely to show themselves in the distant future. The future problems are discounted compared, in this case, with the immediate pleasures.