In recent years calls have been made for a shift from risk to resilience. The basic idea is that we need to be prepared when threatening events occur, whether they are anticipated or unforeseen. This article questions the extent to which this call will have and should have implications for the risk field and science. Is the call based on a belief that this field and science should be replaced by resilience analysis and management, or is it more about priorities: Should more weight be placed on improving resilience? The article argues that the only meaningful interpretation of the call is the latter. Resilience analysis and management is today an integrated part of the risk field and science, and risk analysis in a broad sense is needed to increase relevant knowledge, develop adequate policies, and make the right decisions, balancing different concerns and using our limited resources in an effective way.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Terje Aven (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: