Yann Blumer

Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective

Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience are terms that are being used increasingly frequently in a large range of sciences. This paper shows how these terms can be consistently defined based on a decision-theoretic, verbal, and formal definition. Risk is conceived as an evaluation of an uncertain loss potential. The paper starts from a formal decision-theoretic definition of risk, which distinguishes between the risk situation (i.e. the risk analyst’s model of the situation in which someone perceives or assesses risk) and the risk function (i.e. the risk analyst’s model about how someone is perceiving and assessing risk). The approach allows scholars to link together different historical approaches to risk, such as the toxicological risk concept and the action-based approach to risk. The paper then elaborates how risk, vulnerability, and resilience are all linked to one another. In general, the vulnerability concept, such as the definition of vulnerability by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), goes beyond risk, as it includes an adaptive capacity. Thus vulnerability is mostly seen as a dynamic concept that refers to a certain period of time. If the vulnerability of a system is viewed only at a certain point of time, vulnerability equals risk. In contrast, if we consider dynamic risk in the sense that we include actions that may follow adverse events, risk resembles vulnerability. In this case we speak about adaptive risk management. Similar to vulnerability, resilience incorporates the capability of a system to cope with the adverse effects that a system has been exposed to. Here we distinguish between specified and general resilience. Specified resilience equals (dynamic) vulnerability as the adverse events linked to threats/hazards to which a system is exposed to are known. Robustness can be seen as an antonym to (static) vulnerability. General resilience includes coping with the unknown. In particular, the approach presented here allows us to precisely relate different types of risk, vulnerability, robustness and resilience, and considers all concepts together as part of adaptive risk management.

From risk to vulnerability: the role of perceived adaptive capacity for the acceptance of contested infrastructure

Infrastructure projects such as repositories for nuclear waste or hazardous waste sites impose risks (in the form of potential burdens or losses) over extensive timescales. These risks change dynamically over time and so, potentially, does their management. Societies and key actors go through learning processes and subsequently may be better able to deal with related challenges. However, social scientific research on the acceptance of such projects is mainly concerned with (static) risk perception issues and does not include dynamic aspects. Adaptive capacity, which is part of the concept of vulnerability, therefore represents a promising complementing facet for this line of research. The aim of this paper is to examine the role of perceived adaptive capacity (PAC) for the acceptance of contested long-term infrastructure for the two issues of nuclear and hazardous waste. In an online experimental survey (N = 300) examining either the acceptance of a nuclear waste repository or of a hazardous waste site, we demonstrate that (i) PAC can be separated empirically as a psychological construct from risk and benefit perception, and (ii) PAC explains a significant additional share of variance in the acceptance of both waste types beyond risk and benefit perception. Furthermore, we report what adaptation mechanisms of PAC participants expect to occur in the future. We conclude that such a dynamic perspective yields important insights in understanding individual decision-making regarding long-term infrastructure projects.

Navigating behavioral energy sufficiency : results from a survey in Swiss cities on potential behavior change

Many countries have some kind of energy-system transformation either planned or ongoing for various reasons, such as to curb carbon emissions or to compensate for the phasing out of nuclear energy. One important component of these transformations is the overall reduction in energy demand. It is generally acknowledged that the domestic sector represents a large share of total energy consumption in many countries. Increased energy efficiency is one factor that reduces energy demand, but behavioral approaches (known as “sufficiency”) and their respective interventions also play important roles. In this paper, we address citizens’ heterogeneity regarding both their current behaviors and their willingness to realize their sufficiency potentials—that is, to reduce their energy consumption through behavioral change. We collaborated with three Swiss cities for this study. A survey conducted in the three cities yielded thematic sets of energy-consumption behavior that various groups of participants rated differently. Using this data, we identified four groups of participants with different patterns of both current behaviors and sufficiency potentials. The paper discusses intervention types and addresses citizens’ heterogeneity and behaviors from a city-based perspective.