Risk, Society and Environmental Policy: Risk Governance in a Complex World

Sellke, Piet; Renn, Ortwin

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8730-0_17

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, our study objective was to map and explain stakeholders' perception of potential risks and challenges associated with integrating PtG in the biogas value chain, and of the governance options to control identified risks. To our knowledge, the present investigation is the first to address this topic, filling this literature gap, by prompting a discussion of the findings based on the theories of risk perception and risk governance [50][51][52][53].…”

Section: Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proposed risk governance mechanism comprises the following stages: (i) preliminary assessment, describing risk characteristics based on inputs from relevant stakeholders and framing the risk issue and the approach to its governing for the following steps; (ii) multisectoral risk appraisal, integrating professionals from diverse disciplines to understand the scope of risks and potential consequences; (iii) risk characterization and evaluation and classification according to their tolerability or acceptability after considering both expert recommendations and people's concerns; and (iv) risk management, which takes place once data from previous steps have been studied and decisions are made regarding control options, performance monitoring, and feedback [51][52][53].…”

Section: Increasing Risk Awareness and Stakeholder Engagement Throughmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides stakeholder integration, the efficiency of a risk governance framework is also subject to the dexterity of organizations managing risks-i.e., those in charge of risk control in a specific context-to adequately administer support resources such as (i) institutional and financial agency (e.g., structures and instruments for problem-solving and to operationalize intentions, leadership appointment, and legitimation and readiness of a system for prompt execution), (ii) technological assets (e.g., compilation of data, digital devices, and information programs), and (iii) available skills and social capital (e.g., abilities, know-how, and scientific networks) [50,52,53].…”

Section: Increasing Risk Awareness and Stakeholder Engagement Throughmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integrating power-to-gas in the biogas value chain: analysis of stakeholder perception and risk governance requirements

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: When integrating power-togas (PtG) in the biogas sector (BGS), it is essential to consider how risk is perceived and handled since it influences technology uptake, acceptance, and legitimacy. In this study, we aimed to identify factors that determine how risks are managed in the BGS grounded on stakeholders' perceptions of environmental and safety risks, and the socio-political, technological, and economic challenges associated with the adoption of PtG in this industry. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 experts located throughout Germany. They represented relevant institutions associated with the development of the BGS and PtG. Participants included expert stakeholders from science, industry, associations, and politics. The interview data were assessed by the use of thematic qualitative text analysis, followed by inductive reasoning, based on holistic and axial coding of the transcribed interviews. Results: The participants predominantly trusted existing regulations to ascertain that environmental and safety risks from this energy concept are under control. The expert stakeholders were convinced that except for farm-based biogas facilities, there is adequate know-how in the BGS to appropriately manage risks of biogas and PtG technologies and thus prevent potential negative externalities. Furthermore, they were inclined to identify sociopolitical challenges, such as public criticism of biogas, and missing financial incentives as the most relevant matters to the development and adoption of PtG in this sector. The interviewees mainly identified politicians as responsible actors to handle identified risks and challenges. Such risk rationalities are characterized as hierarchist in the cultural theory of risk perception.

show abstract

Section: Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Increasing Risk Awareness and Stakeholder Engagement Throughmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Increasing Risk Awareness and Stakeholder Engagement Throughmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating power-to-gas in the biogas value chain: analysis of stakeholder perception and risk governance requirements

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…International Risk Governance Council (IRGC, 2006) has developed a Risk Governance Framework, in order to evaluate in what way human settlements defines the risks, how they react to risks and how stakeholders can be integrated into the process efficiently. According to risk governance framework some of the highlighted topics are; to bring together different groups of actors in risk policy decisions and practices, to evaluate risk perceptions of individuals and groups, and to identify socio-cultural risk concerns (Sellke & Renn, 2010). Based on risk governance literature, in this study three components of participatory risk governance included as the steps of (a) risk communication, (b) risk assessment and (c) risk management.…”

Section: Phase 3: Strengtheningt With Participatory Risk Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participatory approach has been studied in the risk mitigation literature within the risk governance framework (Renn & Klinke, 2014). The risk governance framework, which is defined as the management of the wide effects of the risks in an integrated way, combines risk communication, risk assessment, and risk management steps, which were examined individually in the previous studies (Sellke & Renn, 2010). International Risk Governance Council (IRGC, 2006) has developed a Risk Governance Framework, in order to evaluate in what way human settlements defines the risks, how they react to risks and how stakeholders can be integrated into the process efficiently.…”

Section: Phase 3: Strengtheningt With Participatory Risk Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience Through Participatory Planning for the Integrated Ecological Risks in Düzce

Aydın

Tezer²,

Türkay

et al. 2018

Resilience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to develop an integrated spatial planning methodology with a participatory planning approach for building resilient settlements against complex ecological risk factors. Düzce Province is selected as a case study because of its complex ecological characteristics as witnessed many times in past. The methodology consists of four phases. (1) The first phase of the methodology joins the ecological planning aims. In the (2) second phase, ecosystem services (ES) integrated land suitability maps was produced by combining natural hazard risks and landscape vulnerabilities with the risk of degradation of valuable ES. The (3) third phase, is participatory risk governance approach, which consists of three components namely, (a) risk communication, (b) risk assessment, (c) risk management that conducted between the local and regional stakeholders within the multi-scale approach. In the (4) fourth phase, comprehensive outputs for spatial risk mitigation was provided by the integration of ecological risk synthesis and participatory planning findings. Results show that participants prioritized earthquake, landslide, and flood as the highest natural hazard risks and erosion, habitat vulnerability, and water infiltration as the highest ecological vulnerability risks respectively. Results of risk governance analysis show that, at macroscale, central government institutions have the highest responsibility predominantly for proactive roles. At mesoscale local institutions of central governance have mainly reactive responsibilities. Thus, this integrated ecological risk assessment methodology can contribute to the decision-making process of ecological risk mitigation plans in a more comprehensive way through a multi-spatial and temporal scale approach. Moreover, this method can be applied in other provinces. However, in order to disseminate the results of participatory risk governance at provincial level, participation level and diversity should be increased in future studies.

show abstract

Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance

Sellke

Dreyer

Linke

2016

MARE Publication Series

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter analyses environmental governance through a case study of fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea and investigates the problems, challenges and opportunities for improving sustainability in this sector. Fisheries management in the Baltic Sea is politically and culturally complex, institutionally fragmented and confronted with serious environmental problems, such as recent shifts in cod stocks. The central challenge is therefore to establish a regionally based, ecologically sustainable and socio-economically viable fi sheries governance system for the Baltic Sea. Our analysis is focused on how past and current reform processes of fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea have been able to move away from the pathdependent and highly ineffective management system linked to EU's Common Fisheries Policy towards new regional arrangements and procedures that address environmental problems in the Baltic on par with the social and economic challenges. We fi rst describe existing governance structures for fi sheries management in the Baltic Sea and their role in procedures of knowledge production, policy advice and decision-making. We then examine how the different governance actors (i.e. scientists, stakeholders, policymakers) address key issues such as the framing of the 'overfi shing problem', the handling of uncertainty in the interactions of risk assessment and risk management and the role of stakeholder participation and communication. The chapter concludes by emphasising the need for an improved understanding of how scientifi c developments and connected uncertainty problems, policy constraints and stakeholder perspectives can be brought together for improving the biological, ecological and socio-economic sustainability of Baltic Sea fi sheries governance.

show abstract

Risk, Society and Environmental Policy: Risk Governance in a Complex World

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Integrating power-to-gas in the biogas value chain: analysis of stakeholder perception and risk governance requirements

Integrating power-to-gas in the biogas value chain: analysis of stakeholder perception and risk governance requirements

Resilience Through Participatory Planning for the Integrated Ecological Risks in Düzce

Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About