Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2008;1:3–73. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0_1

White Paper on Risk Governance: Toward an Integrative Framework

Ortwin Renn ‡
Editors: Ortwin Renn2, Katherine D Walker3
PMCID: PMC7120941

Abstract

This document aims to guide the work of the International Risk Governance Council and its various bodies in devising comprehensive and transparent approaches to ‘govern’ a variety of globally relevant risks. Globally relevant risks include trans-boundary risks, i.e. those that originate in one country and affect other countries (such as air pollution), international risks, i.e. those that originate in many countries simultaneously and lead to global impacts (such as carbon dioxide emissions for climate change) and ubiquitous risks, i.e. those that occur in each country in similar forms and may necessitate a co-ordinated international response (such as car accidents or airline safety). To this end the document and the framework it describes provide a common analytic structure for investigating and supporting the treatment of risk issues by the relevant actors in society. In doing so, the focus is not restricted to how governmental or supranational authorities deal with risk but equal importance is given to the roles of the corporate sector, science, other stakeholders as well as civil society — and their interplay. The analytic structure will, it is hoped, facilitate terminological and conceptual clarity, consistency and transparency in the daily operations of IRGC and assure the feasibility of comparative approaches in the governance of risks across a broad range of hazardous events and activities. In particular, this document is meant to assist members of IRGC in their tasks to provide scientifically sound, economically feasible, legally and ethically justifiable and politically acceptable advice to IRGC's targeted audiences. It is also to support IRGC in its effort to combine the best available expertise in the respective field with practical guidance for both risk managers and stakeholders.

Keywords: Risk Management, Risk Perception, White Paper, Risk Communication, Risk Governance

References

  1. Amy D.J. Environmental mediation: An alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sciences. 1983;15:345–365. doi: 10.1007/BF00146007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Applegate J. Beyond the usual suspects: The use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decisionmaking. Indiana Law Journal. 1998;73:903. [Google Scholar]
  3. Armour A. The citizen's jury model of public participation. In: Renn O., Webler T., Wiedemann P., editors. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995. pp. 175–188. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baram M. The right to know and the duty to disclose hazard information. American Journal of Public Health. 1984;74(4):385–390. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.74.4.385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barber B. Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beck U. The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In: Beck U., Giddens A., Lash S., editors. Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1994. pp. 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  7. Beierle T.C., Cayford J. Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Benz A., Eberlein B. The Europeanization of regional policies: Patterns of multi–level governance. Journal of European Public Policy. 1999;6(2):329–348. doi: 10.1080/135017699343748. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boholm A. Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research. 1998;1(2):135–163. doi: 10.1080/136698798377231. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bradbury J.A. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1989;14(4):380–399. doi: 10.1177/016224398901400404. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brehmer B. The psychology of risk. In: Singleton W.T., Howden J., editors. Risk and Decisions. New York: Wiley; 1987. pp. 25–39. [Google Scholar]
  12. British Broadcasting Company (BBC), 2002, Chronology of rail crashes, 10 May 2002. Online on Internet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465475.stm (accessed on 2005–08–11).
  13. Brown H., Goble R. The role of scientists in risk assessment. Risk: Issues in Health and Safety. 1990;VI:283–311. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bruijn J.A., ten Heuvelhof E.F. Scientific expertise in complex decision-making processes. Science and Public Policy. 1999;26(3):151–161. doi: 10.3152/147154399781782428. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Burns W.J., Slovic P., Kasperson R.E., Kasperson J.X., Renn O., Emani S. Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis. 1993;13(6):611–623. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01323.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chess C, Dietz T., Shannon M. Who should deliberate when? Human Ecology Review. 1998;5(1):60–68. [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark W. Research systems for atransition toward sustainability. GAIA. 2001;10(4):264–266. [Google Scholar]
  18. Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2001, Procedural Manual: Twelfth Edition,UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO, Rome. Online on Internet: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y2200E/y2200e07.htm (accessed on 2005–08–11).
  19. Coglianese C. The limits of consensus. Environment. 1999;41(28):28–33. [Google Scholar]
  20. Coglianese C., Lazer D. Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law and Society. 2003;37:691–730. doi: 10.1046/j.0023-9216.2003.03703001.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cooke R.M. Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford: Oxford Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  22. Covello V.T. The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1983;23:285–297. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(83)90032-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cross F.B. Facts and values in risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety. 1998;59:27–45. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00116-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dienel P.C. Contributing to social decision methodology: Citizen reports on technological projects. In: Vlek C., Cvetkovich G., editors. Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1989. pp. 133–151. [Google Scholar]
  25. Douglas M. Risk as a forensic resource. DEADALUS. 1990;119(4):1–16. [Google Scholar]
  26. Drottz-Sjoberg B.M. Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions, and Definitions. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dryzek J.S. Discursive Democracy. Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  28. Durant J., Joss S. Public Participation in Science. London: Science Museum; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  29. Environment Agency . Strategic Risk Assessment. Further Developments and Trials. London: Environment Agency; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  30. European Commission/Health & and Consumer Protection Directorate General, Directorate C, 2000, Scientific Opinions: First Report on the Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures, EU, Brussels.
  31. European Commission . European Governance. A White Paper. Brussels: EU; 2001a. [Google Scholar]
  32. European Commission . European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide. White Paper. Luxembourg: EU; 2001b. [Google Scholar]
  33. European Commission . Final Report on Setting the Scientific Frame for the Inclusion of New Quality of Life Concerns in the Risk Assessment Process. Brussels: EU; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fiorino D.J. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1990;15(2):226–243. doi: 10.1177/016224399001500204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Fischhoff B. Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and Technology. 1985;2(1):83–96. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis. 1995;15(2):137–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences. 1978;9:127–152. doi: 10.1007/BF00143739. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Functowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S., Golding S., Golding D., editors. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992. pp. 251–273. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gigerenzer G., Selten R. Rethinking rationality. In: Gigerenzer G., Selten R., editors. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Dahlem Workshop Report. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001. pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  40. Goodwin P., Wright G. Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. London: Wiley; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gosh D., Ray M.R. Risk, ambiguity and decision choice: Some additional evidence. Decision Sciences. 1997;28(1):81–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01303.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Graham J.D., Rhomberg L. How risks are identified and assessed. In: Kunreuther H., Slovic P., editors. Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sage; 1996. pp. 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  43. Graham J.D., Wiene J.B. Risk vs. Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  44. Greeno J.L., Wilson J.S. New frontiers in environmental, health and safety management. In: Kolluru R., Bartell S., Pitblade R., Stricoff S., editors. Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. pp. 3.1–2.17. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gregory R.S. Valuing risk management choices. In: McDaniels T., Small M.J., editors. Risk Analysis and Society. An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 213–250. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gregory R., McDaniels T., Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: A new perspective for environmental negotiation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2001;20(3):415–432. doi: 10.1002/pam.1001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Grossi P., Kunreuther H., editors. Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk. New York: Springer; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hajer M., Wagenaar H. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hammond J., Keeney R., Raiffa H. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Cambridge, MA: Havard Business School Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hampel J., Renn O., editors. Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit. Wahrnehmung und Bewer-tung einer umstrittenen Technologie. Second. Frankfurt/Main: Campus; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hance B.J., Chess C., Sandman P.M. Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hattis D. The conception of variability in risk analyses: Developments since 1980. In: McDaniels T., Small M.J., editors. Risk Analysis and Society. An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 15–45. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hattis, D. and Kennedy, D., 1990, Assessing risks from health hazards: An imperfect science, in: T.S. Glickman and M. Gough (eds.), Readings in Risk, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 156–163.
  54. Ho J.L.L., Keller R., Keltyka P. Effects of probabilistic and outcome ambiguity on managerial choices. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2002;24(1):47–74. doi: 10.1023/A:1013277310399. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Hohenemser C., Kates R.W., Slovic P. The nature of technological hazard. Science. 1983;220:378–384. doi: 10.1126/science.6836279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. HSE . Reducing Risk — Protecting People. London: Health and Safety Executive; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hsee C., Kunreuther H. The affection effect in insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2000;20:141–159. doi: 10.1023/A:1007876907268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. IAEA . Guidelines for Integrated Risk Assessment and Management in Large Industrial Areas. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  59. IEC . Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Technological Systems. Brussels: European Community; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  60. IPCS. WHO . Risk Assessment Terminology. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jaeger C., Renn O., Rosa E., Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action. London: Earth-scan; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  62. Jasanoff S. Risk Management and Political Culture. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jasanoff S. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S., editor. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge; 2004. pp. 31–54. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econo-metrica. 1979;47(2):263–291. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E., Pidgeon N.F., Slovic P. The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In: Pidgeon N.F., Kasperson R.K., Slovic P., editors. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. pp. 13–46. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown H.S., Emel J., Goble R., Kasperson J.X., Ratick S. The social amplification of risk. A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis. 1988;8(2):177–187. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kasperson R.E., Golding D., Kasperson J.X. Risk, trust and democratic theory. In: Cvetkovic G., Löfstedt R., editors. Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan; 1999. pp. 22–41. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kasperson R.E., Jhaveri N., Kasperson J.X. Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis. In: Flynn J., Slovic P., Kunreuther H., editors. Risk Media and Stigma. London: Earthscan; 2001. pp. 9–27. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kates R.W., Hohenemser C., Kasperson J. Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  70. Keeney R. Value-Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  71. Keeney R., McDaniels T. A framework to guide thinking and analysis regarding climate change policies. Risk Analysis. 2001;6:989–1000. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.216168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kemp R. Modern strategies of risk communication: Reflections on recent experience. In: Matthes R., Bernhardt J., Repacholi M., editors. Risk Perception, Risk Communication and Its Application to EMF Exposure. Geneva: International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and World Health Organisation; 1998. pp. 117–125. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kemp R., Greulich T. Communication, Consultation, Community: MCF Site Deployment Consultation Handbook. Melbourne: Mobile Carriers Forum; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  74. Klinke A., Renn O. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management. Risk Analysis. 2002;22(6):1071–1094. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Kolluru R.V. Risk assessment and management: A unified approach. In: Kolluru R., Bartell S., Pitblade R., Stricoff S., editors. Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. pp. 1.3–1.41. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kunreuther H., Heal G. Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2003;26(2/3):231–249. doi: 10.1023/A:1024119208153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Kunreuther H., Novemsky N., Kahneman D. Making low probabilities useful. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2001;23:103–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1011111601406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Laudan L. The pseudo-science of science? The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Laudan L., editor. Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Theory, Method and Evidence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1996. pp. 166–192. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lave L. Health and safety risk analyses: Information for better decisions. Science. 1987;236:291–295. doi: 10.1126/science.3563509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Leiss, W., 1996, Three phases in risk communication practice, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue, H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic (eds.), Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85–94.
  81. Liberatore A., Funtowicz S. Democratizing expertise, expertising democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy. 2003;30(3):146–150. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780551. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Löfstedt R.E. Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  83. Löfstedt R.E., Vogel D. The changing character of regulation. A comparison of Europe and the United States. Risk Analysis. 2001;21(3):393–402. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.213121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Loewenstein G., Weber E., Hsee C., Welch E. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;127:267–286. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Lundgren R.E. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  86. Lyall C., Tait J. Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. In: Lyall C., Tait J., editors. New Modes of Governance. Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2004. pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mayo D.G., Hollander R.D., editors. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  88. Morgan M.G. Choosing and managing technology-induced risk. In: Glickman T.S., Gough M., editors. Readings in Risk. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1990. pp. 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  89. Morgan M.G., Henrion M. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  90. Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., Lave L., Atman C. Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science and Technology. 1992;26(11):2049–2056. [Google Scholar]
  91. Morgan M.G., Florig K., DeKay M., Fischbeck P., Morgan K., Jenni K., Fischhoff B. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis. 2000;20(1):49–58. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., Atman C.J. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  93. National Research Council, Committee on Risk and Decision Making: Risk and Decision Making . Perspectives and Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  94. National Research Council, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health . Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  95. Nye J.S., Donahue J., editors. Governance in a Globalising World. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  96. OECD . Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management. Paris: OECD; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  97. OECD . Emerging Systemic Risks. Paris: OECD; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  98. OECD . Large-Scale Disasters — Lessons Learned. Paris: OECD; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  99. Olin S., Farland W., Park C., Rhomberg L., Scheuplein R., Starr T., Wilson J. Low Dose Extrapolation of Cancer Risks: Issues and Perspectives. Washington, DC: ILSI Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  100. O'Riordan T., Wynne B. Regulating environmental risks: A comparative perspective. In: Kleindorfer P.R., Kunreuther H.C., editors. Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond. Berlin: Springer; 1987. pp. 389–410. [Google Scholar]
  101. Paquet, G., 2001, The new governance, subsidiarity, and the strategic state, in: OECD (ed.), Governance in the 21st Century, OECD, Paris, pp. 183–215.
  102. Perritt H.H. Negotiated rulemaking in practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1986;5:482–95. doi: 10.2307/3323257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Petts J. The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility, and process. Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6(4):359–381. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/6/4/004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Pidgeon N.F. Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: Why we do need risk perception research. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 1998;59:5–15. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00114-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Pidgeon N.F., Gregory R. Judgment, decision making and public policy. In: Koehler D., Harvey N., editors. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell; 2004. pp. 604–623. [Google Scholar]
  106. Pidgeon, N.F, Hood, C.C., Jones, D.K.C., Turner, B.A. and Gibson, R., 1992, Risk perception, in: Royal Society Study Group (eds.), Risk Analysis, Perception and Management, The Royal Society, London, pp. 89–134.
  107. Pinkau K., Renn O. Environmental Standards. Scientific Foundations and Rational Procedures of Regulation with Emphasis on Radiological Risk Management. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  108. Plough A., Krimsky S. The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1987;12:78–85. [Google Scholar]
  109. Pollard S.J.T., Duart-Davidson R., Yearsley R., Twigge-Ross C., Fisher J., Willows R., Irwin J. A Strategic Approach to the Consideration of ‘Environmental Harm’. Bristol: The Environment Agency; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  110. Ravetz J. What is post-normal science. Futures. 1999;31(7):647–653. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00024-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Renn O. Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research. 1998;1(1):49–71. doi: 10.1080/136698798377321. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Renn O. Perception of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance. 2004a;29(1):102–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0440.2004.00275.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Renn O. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management. In: MacDaniels T.L., Small M.J., editors. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004b. pp. 289–366. [Google Scholar]
  114. Rhodes R.A.W. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies. 1996;44(4):652–667. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. Rhodes R.A.W. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  116. RISKO Mitteilungen für Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt: Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken. Bulletin. 2000;3:2–3. [Google Scholar]
  117. Rohrmann B., Renn O. Risk perception research — An introduction. In: Renn O., Rohrmann B., editors. Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. pp. 11–54. [Google Scholar]
  118. Rosa E.A. Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research. 1998;1:15–44. doi: 10.1080/136698798377303. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Rosenau J.N. Governance, order, and change in world politics. In: Rosenau J.N., Czempiel E.O., editors. Governance without Government. Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ross L.D. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz L., editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Random House; 1977. pp. 173–220. [Google Scholar]
  121. Rowe G., Frewer L. Public participation methods: An evaluative review of the literature. Science, Technology and Human Values. 2000;25:3–29. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  122. Shome N., Cornell C.A., Bazzurro P., Carballo J.E. Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra. 1998;14(3):469–500. doi: 10.1193/1.1586011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  123. Shrade-Frechette K.S. Risk and Rationality. Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1991a. [Google Scholar]
  124. Shrader Frechette K.S. Reductionist approaches to risk. In: Mayo D.G., Hollander R.D., editors. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991b. pp. 218–248. [Google Scholar]
  125. Shrader Frechette K.S. Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment. 1995;6:115–126. [Google Scholar]
  126. Shubik M. Risk, society, politicians, scientists, and people. In: Shubik M., editor. Risk, Organizations, and Society. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991. pp. 7–30. [Google Scholar]
  127. Sjöberg L. Risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio. 1999;28(6):543–549. [Google Scholar]
  128. Skinner D. Introduction to Decision Analysis. Second Edition. London: Probabilistic Publishers; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  129. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Slovic P. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S., Golding D., editors. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992. pp. 153–178. [Google Scholar]
  131. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis. 1982;2:83–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  132. Slovic P., Finucane E., Peters D., MacGregor R. The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D., editors. Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 397–420. [Google Scholar]
  133. Stein R.S. Earthquake conversations. Scientific American. 2003;288(1):72–79. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0103-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Stern P.C., Fineberg V. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  135. Stirling A. Risk at a turning point? Journal of Risk Research. 1998;1(2):97–109. doi: 10.1080/136698798377204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Stirling, A., 1999, On ‘Science' and ‘Precaution' in the Management of Technological Risk, Volume I: Synthesis Study, Report to the EU Forward Studies Unit by European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO), EUR19056 EN, IPTS, Sevilla. Online on Internet: ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur19056IIen.pdf (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  137. Stirling A. Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In: Berkhout F., Leach M., Scoones I., editors. Negotiating Change. London: Edward Elgar; 2003. pp. 33–76. [Google Scholar]
  138. Stirling, A., 2004, Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds.), Science and Citizens Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed, pp. 218–231.
  139. Streffer C., Bücker J., Cansier A., Cansier D., Gethmann C.F., Guderian R., Hanekamp G., Henschler D., Pöch G., Rehbinder E., Renn O., Slesina M., Wuttke K. Environmental Standards. Combined Exposures and Their Effects on Human Beings and Their Environment. Berlin: Springer; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  140. Stricoff R.S. Safety risk analysis and process safety management: Principles and practices. In: Kolluru R., Bartell S., Pitblade R., Stricoff S., editors. Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. pp. 8.3–8.53. [Google Scholar]
  141. Swiss Re. The Great Hanshin Earthquake: Trial, Error, Success. Zurich: Swiss Reinsurance Company; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  142. Thompson M., Ellis W., Wildavsky A. Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  143. Trustnet, 1999, A New Perspective on Risk Governance, Document of the Trustnet Network, EU, Paris. Online on Internet: www.trustnetgovernance.com (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  144. Turner B.L., Clark W.C., Kates R.W., Richards J.F., Mathews J.T., Meyer W.B. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  145. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;85:1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. UK Treasury Department, 2004, Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance, Draft for Consultation, HM Treasury Press, London. Online on Internet: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  148. USEPA Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Exposure Factors Handbook, NTIS PB98-124217, EPA, Washington, DC. Online on Internet: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12464 (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  149. Uff J., Cullen W.D. The Southall and Ladbroke Grove Joint Inquiry into Train Protection Systems. London: HSE Books; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  150. Van Asselt M.B.A. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  151. Van Asselt M.B.A. The complex significance of uncertainty in a risk area. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management. 2005;5(2/3/4):125–158. doi: 10.1504/IJRAM.2005.007164. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  152. Van der Sluijs, J.P., Risbey, J.S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J.R., Funtowicz, S.O., Corral Quintana, S., Guimaraes Pereira, A., De Marchi, B., Petersen, A.C., Janssen, P.H.M., Hoppe, R. and Huijs, S.W.F., 2003, RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication, Report No. NWS-E-2003-163, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Utrecht and Bilthoven.
  153. Van der Sluijs, J.P., Janssen, P.H.M., Petersen, A.C., Kloprogge, P., Risbey, J.S., Tuinstra, W. and Ravetz, J.R., 2004, RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Tool Catalogue for Uncertainty Assessment, Report No. NWS-E-2004-37, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Utrecht and Bilthoven.
  154. Viklund M. Risk Policy: Trust, Risk Perception, and Attitudes. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  155. Viscusi W.K. Risk-risk analysis. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1994;8:5–18. doi: 10.1007/BF01064084. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  156. Vogel D. Risk regulation in Europe and in the United States. In: Somsen H., editor. Yearbook of European Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  157. Von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. Patterns of conflict about risk debates. Risk Analysis. 1984;4:55–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1984.tb00131.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  158. WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) World in Transition: Strategies for Managing Global Environmental Risks. Berlin: Springer; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  159. Webler T. Right discourse in citizen participation. An evaluative yardstick. In: Renn O., Webler T., Wiedemann P., editors. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995. pp. 35–86. [Google Scholar]
  160. Webler T. The craft and theory of public participation: A dialectical process. Risk Research. 1999;2(1):55–71. doi: 10.1080/136698799376989. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  161. Webler T., Levine D., Rakel H., Renn O. The Group Delphi: A novel attempt at reducing uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1991;39:253–263. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(91)90040-M. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  162. Wiener J.B. Managing the iatrogenic risks of risk management. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment. 1998;9:39–83. [Google Scholar]
  163. Wisdon J., Willis R. See-Through Science. Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  164. Wolf K.D. Die neue Staatsräson — zwischenstaatliche Kooperation als Demokratieproblem in der Weltgesellschaft. Plädoyer für eine geordnete Entstaatlichung des Regierens jenseits des Staates. Baden-Baden: Nomos; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  165. Wolf K.D. Contextualizing normative standards for legitimate governance beyond the state. In: Grote J.R., Gbikpi B., editors. Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications. Opladen: Leske und Budrich; 2002. pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  166. Wolf K.D. Private actors and the legitimacy of governance beyond the state. Conceptional outlines and empirical explorations. In: Benz A., Papadopoulos I., editors. Governance and Democratic Legitimacy: Transnational, European, and Multi-Level-Issues. London: Routledge; 2005. pp. 200–227. [Google Scholar]
  167. Wynne B. Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In: Krimsky S., Golding D., editors. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1992. pp. 275–297. [Google Scholar]
  168. Wynne B. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology. 2002;50(30):459–477. doi: 10.1177/0011392102050003010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  169. Zürn M. Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations. 2000;6(2):183–221. doi: 10.1177/1354066100006002002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Global Risk Governance are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES