Greene, A; Root, D and Thorpe, A (2000) The comfort blanket of risk assessment: An investigation into the subjective assessment of risk. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
There is a growing emphasis being placed upon the objective analysis and assessment of risk on construction projects encouraging the utilisation of quantitative methods of risk assessment. This paper argues that risk is fundamentally a subjective view of a hazard, and consequently is dependent upon the knowledge and values of the individual. By treating the perceptions of hazard as an objective phenomenon, quantitative techniques encourage the externalisation of the risk perception process and differentiate between the individual's risk perception and the outcomes of decisions made by those individuals. Consequently the quantitative techniques act as a comfort blanket for the subjective perception of risk and provide a reconstructed logic of the risk perception process.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | risk; risk assessment; hazard; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | risk perception, comfort, investigation, quantitative method, risk assessment, construction project |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, occupational health and safety management, environmental hazards, financial risk, production management |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here