The concept of inclusive risk governance is based on a normative belief that the integration of knowledge and values can best be accomplished by involving those actors in the decision-making process that are able to contribute all the respective knowledge as well as the variability of values necessary to make effective, effi cient, fair and morally acceptable decisions about risk. In the risk arena the major actors are governments, the economic sector, scientifi c communities and representatives of civil society. The paper addresses the conceptual issues of how to integrate the contributions of the different actor groups in risk governance. Who and what is or should be included in the deliberations, and how is closure accomplished or reached in such settings? The main thesis in the paper is that these two questions can only be answered in the context of six underlying concepts of deliberation in democratic societies.

Systemic risks are characterized by high complexity, multiple uncertainties, major ambiguities, and transgressive effects on other systems outside of the system of origin. Due to these characteristics, systemic risks are overextending established risk management and create new, unsolved challenges for policymaking in risk assessment and risk governance. Their negative effects are often pervasive, impacting fields beyond the obvious primary areas of harm. This article addresses these challenges of systemic risks from different disciplinary and sectorial perspectives. It highlights the special contributions of these perspectives and approaches and provides a synthesis for an interdisciplinary understanding of systemic risks and effective governance. The main argument is that understanding systemic risks and providing good governance advice relies on an approach that integrates novel modeling tools from complexity sciences with empirical data from observations, experiments, or simulations and evidence‐based insights about social and cultural response patterns revealed by quantitative (e.g., surveys) or qualitative (e.g., participatory appraisals) investigations. Systemic risks cannot be easily characterized by single numerical estimations but can be assessed by using multiple indicators and including several dynamic gradients that can be aggregated into diverse but coherent scenarios. Lastly, governance of systemic risks requires interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral cooperation, a close monitoring system, and the engagement of scientists, regulators, and stakeholders to be effective as well as socially acceptable.

Purpose Systemic risks originate in tightly coupled systems. They are characterised by complexity, transboundary cascading effects, non-linear stochastic developments, tipping points, and lag in perception and regulation. Disasters need to be analysed in the context of vulnerabilities of infrastructure, industrial activities, structural developments and behavioural patterns which amplify or attenuate the impact of hazards. In particular, disasters are triggered by chains of events that often amplify and also multiply damages. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The paper applies the concept of systemic risks to disasters more precisely to the combination of natural and human-induced disasters. The paper refers to the International Risk Governance Council’s Risk Governance Framework and applies this framework to the systemic aspects of disaster risks. Findings The paper maps out strategies for inclusive governance of systemic risks for disaster prevention and mitigation. Furthermore, the paper highlights policy implications of these strategies and calls out for an integrated, inclusive and adaptive management approach for the systemic aspects of disaster risks. Originality/value The paper fulfils the identified need to analyse disaster risks in the context of vulnerabilities of infrastructure, industrial activities, structural developments and behavioural patterns which amplify or attenuate the impact of hazards.

No abstract

The article distinguishes between two types of risks: conventional and systemic risks. Conventional risks can be contained in space and time, follow linear cause–effect relationships and can be addressed with effective and pointed interventions into the cause–effect chain. Systemic risks, however, are characterized by high complexity, transboundary effects, stochastic relationships, nonlinear cause–effect patterns with tipping points, and are often associated with less public attention than they require. The article addresses the reasons why systemic risks seem to be attenuated in public perception. The article goes on to consider how the social amplification of risk framework is useful in the context of systemic risks and describes needed extensions of that framework. It identifies practical tools for assessing the significance of perceptions for systemic risk situations. Finally, it argues that a graphic representation and simulation of evolving systemic risks and potential countermeasures as well as a participatory deliberative approach of inclusive risk governance are suitable governance strategies for preventing, mitigating, or managing systemic risks.