University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Risk Anal. 2022 Sep;42(9):2062-2074. doi: 10.1111/risa.13848. Epub 2021 Oct 24.
"Risk" and "resilience" are both terms with a long history, but how they are related and should be related are strongly debated. This article discusses the appropriateness of a perspective advocated by an active "resilience school" that sees risk as a change in critical system functionality, as a result of an event (disturbance, hazard, threat, accident), but not covering the recovery from the event. From this perspective, two theses are examined: risk and resilience are disjunct concepts, and risk is an aspect of resilience. Through the use of several examples and reasoning, the article shows that this perspective challenges daily-life uses of the risk term, common practices of risk assessments and risk management, as well as contemporary risk science. A fundamental problem with the perspective is that system recovery is also an important aspect of risk, not only of resilience. Risk and resilience analysis and management implications of the conceptual analysis are also discussed.
“风险”和“韧性”都是历史悠久的术语,但它们之间的关系以及应该建立怎样的关系存在很大争议。本文讨论了一种积极倡导“韧性学派”的观点的适当性,该观点将风险视为由于事件(干扰、危害、威胁、事故)而导致关键系统功能发生变化,但不包括从事件中恢复的情况。从这个角度来看,本文考察了两个论点:风险和韧性是不相关的概念,风险是韧性的一个方面。通过使用多个例子和推理,本文表明,这种观点挑战了日常使用风险术语的方式、风险评估和风险管理的常见做法以及当代风险科学。该观点的一个根本问题是,系统恢复也是风险的一个重要方面,而不仅仅是韧性。本文还讨论了概念分析对风险和韧性分析与管理的影响。