AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 231–246 | Cite as

Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis

  • Ortwin Renn
  • Andreas Klinke
  • Marjolein van Asselt
Article

Abstract

The term governance describes the multitude of actors and processes that lead to collectively binding decisions. The term risk governance translates the core principles of governance to the context of risk-related policy making. We aim to delineate some basic lessons from the insights of the other articles in this special issue for our understanding of risk governance. Risk governance provides a conceptual as well as normative basis for how to cope with uncertain, complex and/or ambiguous risks. We propose to synthesize the breadth of the articles in this special issue by suggesting some changes to the risk governance framework proposed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) and adding some insights to its analytical and normative implications.

Keywords

Ambiguity Communication Complexity Risk governance Science–policy interface Uncertainty 

References

  1. Assmuth, T. 2011. Policy and Science Implications of the Framing and Qualities of Uncertainty in Risks: Toxic and Beneficial Fish from the Baltic Sea. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0127-z.
  2. Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2009. The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism. Risk Analysis 29(4): 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2010. Risk Management and Governance. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beierle, T.C., and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  5. Benz, A., and B. Eberlein. 1999. The Europeanization of Regional Policies: Patterns of Multi-Level Governance. Journal of European Public Policy 6(2): 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouder, F., D. Slavin, and R. Löfstedt (eds.). 2007. The Tolerability of Risk. A New Framework for Risk Management. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, M., and W.N. Adger. 2005. Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity. In Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, ed. K. Chopra, R. Leemans, P. Kumar, and H. Simons, 165–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Daft, R.L., and K.E. Weick. 1984. Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries, G., I. Verhoeven, and M. Boeckhout. in press. Taming Uncertainty: The WRR Approach to Risk Governance. Journal of Risk Research, Special Issue Uncertainty, Precaution and Risk Governance.Google Scholar
  10. Dreyer, M., O. Renn, A. Ely, A. Stirling, E. Vos, and F. Wendler. 2009. Summary: Key Features of the General Framework. In Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, ed. M. Dreyer, and O. Renn, 159–166. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper. Report Number COM (2001) 428 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Filar, J.A., and A. Haurie (eds.). 2010. Uncertainty and Environmental Decision Making. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process. Risk Analysis 15(2): 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Functowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz. 1992. Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science. In Social Theories of Risk, ed. S. Krimsky, and D. Golding, 251–173. Westport and London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, T., M. Hermans, and M.B.A. van Asselt. in press. Risk Governance. In The Handbook on Risk Theory, ed. S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, M. Peterson, and P. Sandin. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, J., and R.O. Keohane. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy. An Analytical Framework. In Ideas and Foreign Policy. Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, ed. J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, 3–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garrelts, H., and H. Lange. 2011. Path Dependencies and Path Change in Complex Fields of Action: Climate Adaptation Policies in Germany in the Realm of Flood Risk Management. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0131-3.
  19. Gilek, M., B. Hassler, A.M. Jönsson, and M. Karlsson. 2011. Coping with Complexity in Baltic Sea Risk Governance. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0122-4.
  20. Halachmi, A. 2005. Governance and Risk Management: Challenges and Public Productivity. International Journal of Public Sector Management 18(4): 300–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammer, M., B. Balfors, U. Mörtberg, M. Petersson, and A. Quinn. 2011. Governance of Water Resources in the Phase of Change—A Case Study of the Implementation of the EU Water Framework in Sweden. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0132-2.
  22. Hassler, B. 2011. Accidental Versus Operational Oil Spills from Shipping in the Baltic Sea—Risk Governance and Management Strategies. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0128-y.
  23. Hellstroem, T. 2001. Emerging Technological and Systemic Risk: Three Cases with Management Suggestions. Contribution to the OECD International Futures Project on Emerging Systemic Risks. pp. 132. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. Hood, C., H. Rothstein, and R. Baldwin. 2002. The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Horlick-Jones, T. 1998. Meaning and Contextualization in Risk Assessment. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 59: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. HSE, Health and Safety Executive. 2001. Reducing RiskProtecting People. London: Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
  27. IRGC, International Risk Governance Council. 2005. Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. White Paper No. 1, Author O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
  28. IRGC, International Risk Governance Council. 2007. An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Policy Brief. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
  29. Irwin, I. 2008. STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 583–607. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. (eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Johannesson, K., K. Smolarz, M. Grahn, and C. André. 2011. The Future of Baltic Sea Populations—Local Extinctions or Evolutionary Rescue? AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0129-x.
  32. Jönsson, A.M. 2011. Framing Environmental Risks in the Baltic Sea—A News Media Analysis. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0124-2.
  33. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (eds.). 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Karlsson, M., M. Gilek, and O. Udovyk. 2011. Governance of Complex Socio-environmental Risks—The Case of Hazardous Chemicals in the Baltic Sea. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0126-0.
  35. Keeney, R.L. 2004. Framing Public Policy Decisions. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 4(2): 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keohane, R.O., and J.S. Nye. 2000. Introduction. In Governance in a Globalizing World, ed. J.S. Nye, and J.D. Donahue, 1–41. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions.Google Scholar
  37. Kern, K., and H. Bulkeley. 2009. Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks. Journal of Common Market Studies 3: 309–332.Google Scholar
  38. Kjaer, A.M. 2004. Governance. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Klinke, A., and O. Renn, O. 2002. A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based and Discourse-Based Management. Risk Analysis 22(6): 1071–1094.Google Scholar
  40. Klinke, A., and O. Renn. in press. Adaptive and Integrative Governance on Risk and Uncertainty. Risk Research. Google Scholar
  41. Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston: Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  42. Lidskog, R. 2008. Scientised Citizens and Democratised Science. Re-assessing the Expert-lay Divide. Journal of Risk Research 11(1): 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lidskog, R., Y. Uggla, and L. Soneryd. 2011. Making Transboundary Risks Governable: Reducing Complexity, Constructing Spatial Identity and Ascribing Capabilities. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0123-3.
  44. Linke, S., M. Dreyer, and P. Sellke. 2011. The Regional Advisory Councils: What is Their Potential to Incorporate Stakeholder Knowledge into Fisheries Governance? AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0125-1.
  45. Löfstedt, R.E. 1997. Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems. Working Paper No. 92, 67 pp. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
  46. Löfstedt, R.E. 2005. Risk Management in Post-trust Societies. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luhmann, N. 1993. Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  48. Lyall, C., and J. Tait. 2004. Shifting Policy Debates and the Implications for Governance. In New Modes of Governance. Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, ed. C. Lyall, and J. Tait, 3–17. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  49. Millstone, E., P., van Zwanenberg, C. Marris, L. Levidow, and H. Torgesen. 2004. Science in Trade Disputes Related to Potential Risks: Comparative Case Studies. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS).Google Scholar
  50. Nye, J.S., and J.D. Donahue (eds.). 2000. Governance in a Globalising World. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  51. OECD. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2003. Emerging Systemic Risks. Final Report to the OECD Futures Project. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  52. Pidgeon, N.F., W. Poortinga, G. Rowe, T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, and T. O’Riordan. 2005. Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate. Risk Analysis 25(2): 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pihlajamäki, M., and N. Tynkkynen. 2011. The Challenge of Bridging Science and Policy in the Baltic Sea Eutrophication Governance in Finland: The Perspective of Science. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0130-4.
  54. Rauschmayer, F., J. Paavola, and H. Wittmer. 2009. European Governance of Natural Resources and Participation in a Multi-Level Context: An Editorial. Environmental Policy and Governance 19(3): 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Renn, O. 2008. Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  56. Renn, O., and F. Keil. 2009. Was ist das Systemische an systemischen Risiken? GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 18(2): 97–99.Google Scholar
  57. Renn, O., and K. Walker. 2008. Lessons Learned: A Re-Assessment of the IRGC Framework on Risk Governance. In The IRGC Risk Governance Framework: Concepts and Practice, ed. O. Renn, and K. Walker, 331–167. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Renn, O., and P. Schweizer. 2009. Inclusive Risk Governance: Concepts and Application to Environmental Policy Making. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reese, S.R. 2007. The Framing Project: A Bridging Model for Media Research Revisited. Journal of Communication 57: 148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roca, E., G. Gamboa, and J.D. Tàbara. 2008. Assessing the Multidimensionality of Coastal Erosion Risks: Public Participation and Multicriteria Analysis in a Mediterranean Coastal System. Risk Analysis 28(2): 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodin, J. 2011. Fertility Intentions and Risk Management—Exploring the Fertility Decline in Eastern Europe During Transition. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0133-1.
  62. Rosa, E.A. 2003. The Logical Structure of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF): Metatheoretical Foundations and Policy Implications. In The Social Amplification of Risk, ed. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 47–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rosenau, J.N. 1992. Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics. In Governance Without Government. Order and Change in World Politics, ed. J.N. Rosenau, and E.-O. Czempiel, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosenau, J.N. 1995. Governance in the 21st Century. Global Governance 1(1): 13–43.Google Scholar
  65. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science. Technology and Human Values 225(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Skelcher, C. 2005. Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance. Governance 18(1): 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stern, P.C., and H.V. Fineberg. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. US National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  68. Stirling, A. 2003. Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences. In Negotiating Change, ed. F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones, 33–76. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  69. Stirling, A. 2004. Opening Up or Closing Down: Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology. In Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, ed. F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and B. Wynne, 218–231. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  70. Stirling, A. 2007. Risk Assessment in Science: Towards a More Constructive Policy Debate. EMBO Reports 8: 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stirling, A. 2008. Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science Technology Human Values 33(4): 262–294.Google Scholar
  72. US-National Research Council of the US-National Academies. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  73. van Asselt, M.B.A. 2007. Risk Governance: Over omgaan met onzekerheid en mogelijke toekomsten. Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht (inaugural lecture, in Dutch).Google Scholar
  74. van Asselt, M.B.A., and O. Renn. in press. Risk Governance. Journal of Risk Research, Special Issue: Uncertainty, Precaution and Risk Governance. Google Scholar
  75. Walls, J., T. O’Riordan, T. Horlick-Jones, and J. Niewöhner. 2005. The meta-governance of risk and new technologies: GM crops and mobile phones. Risk Research 8(7–8): 635–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. WBGU, German Advisory Council on Global Change. 2000. World in Transition: Strategies for Managing Global Environmental Risks. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  77. Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk. Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. WRR. 2009. Uncertain Safety: Allocating Responsibilities for Safety. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ortwin Renn
    • 1
  • Andreas Klinke
    • 2
  • Marjolein van Asselt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department for Social Sciences VUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Domain of ETH)DuebendorfSwitzerland
  3. 3.Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Technology and Society StudiesMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations