Literature DB >> 31379003

The Coming of Age of Risk Governance.

Andreas Klinke1, Ortwin Renn2.   

Abstract

Proposed as an advanced conceptualization of how to handle risk, risk governance begins with the critique and expansion of the traditional idea and standard practices of risk analysis. In developments over the last two decades, proponents of a more integrative approach on governing risks have moved further away from distinct conceptions of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication and toward the processes and institutions that guide, restrain, and integrate collective activities of handling risk. In early formulations of what risk governance entails, the superiority of the interplay between risk evaluation and risk management over linear and simple deductions from risk assessment to risk management was established precisely by developing a distinctive rationality of how to proceed. Later, the International Risk Governance Council recaptured this distinctive rationality that institutionalized processes should embody the interplay of the assessment of risks and related concerns, their sociopolitical appraisal, and the logical inference for risk management. Recently, this approach has been refined and augmented toward an integrative and adaptive concept of risk governance and toward a postnormal conception of risk governance. Main characteristics are a new concept of differentiated responsibility and deliberation in which expertise, experience, and tacit knowledge are integrated, forming the core of legitimate political risk decision making.
© 2019 Society for Risk Analysis.

Keywords:  Deliberation; distributed responsibility; postnormal conception; risk evaluation; risk expertise; risk governance

Year:  2019        PMID: 31379003     DOI: 10.1111/risa.13383

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  5 in total

1.  Recommendations for environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications for malaria vector control.

Authors:  John B Connolly; John D Mumford; Debora C M Glandorf; Sarah Hartley; Owen T Lewis; Sam Weiss Evans; Geoff Turner; Camilla Beech; Naima Sykes; Mamadou B Coulibaly; Jörg Romeis; John L Teem; Willy Tonui; Brian Lovett; Aditi Mankad; Abraham Mnzava; Silke Fuchs; Talya D Hackett; Wayne G Landis; John M Marshall; Fred Aboagye-Antwi
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Governing heatwaves in Europe: comparing health policy and practices to better understand roles, responsibilities and collaboration.

Authors:  Kirsten Vanderplanken; Peter van den Hazel; Michael Marx; Ahmad Zia Shams; Debarati Guha-Sapir; Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2021-02-15

3.  Internet Use and Quality of Life: The Multiple Mediating Effects of Risk Perception and Internet Addiction.

Authors:  Bo Qian; Mengmeng Huang; Mengyi Xu; Yuxiang Hong
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  The risk perception of nanotechnology: evidence from twitter.

Authors:  Finbarr Murphy; Ainaz Alavi; Martin Mullins; Irini Furxhi; Arash Kia; Myles Kingston
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 3.361

5.  Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario.

Authors:  Joel Rasmussen; Petter B Wikström
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-18       Impact factor: 4.614

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.