White Paper on Risk Governance: Toward an Integrative Framework

  • Ortwin Renn
Part of the International Risk Governance Council Bookseries book series (IRGC, volume 1)

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.


Risk Management Risk Perception White Paper Risk Communication Risk Governance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amy, D.J., 1983, Environmental mediation: An alternative approach to policy stalemates, Policy Sciences 15, 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applegate, J., 1998, Beyond the usual suspects: The use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decisionmaking, Indiana Law Journal 73, 903.Google Scholar
  3. Armour, A., 1995, The citizen's jury model of public participation, in: O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse,Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 175–188.Google Scholar
  4. Baram, M., 1984, The right to know and the duty to disclose hazard information, American Journal of Public Health 74(4), 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, B., 1984, Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U., 1994, The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization, in: U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash (eds.), Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order,Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
  7. Beierle, T.C. and Cayford, J., 2002, Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions,Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Benz, A. and Eberlein, B., 1999, The Europeanization of regional policies: Patterns of multi–level governance, Journal of European Public Policy 6(2), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boholm, A., 1998, Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research, Journal of Risk Research 1(2), 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradbury, J.A., 1989, The policy implications of differing concepts of risk, Science, Technology, and Human Values 14(4), Fall, 380–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brehmer B., 1987, The psychology of risk, in W.T. Singleton and J. Howden (eds.), Risk and Decisions,Wiley, New York, pp. 25–39.Google Scholar
  12. British Broadcasting Company (BBC), 2002, Chronology of rail crashes, 10 May 2002. Online on Internet: (accessed on 2005–08–11).
  13. Brown, H. and Goble, R., 1990, The role of scientists in risk assessment, Risk: Issues in Health and Safety VI, 283–311.Google Scholar
  14. Bruijn, J.A. and ten Heuvelhof, E.F., 1999, Scientific expertise in complex decision-making processes, Science and Public Policy 26(3), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burns, W.J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., Renn, O. and Emani, S., 1993, Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making, Risk Analysis 13(6), 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chess, C, Dietz, T. and Shannon, M., 1998, Who should deliberate when?, Human Ecology Review 5(1), 60–68.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, W., 2001, Research systems for atransition toward sustainability, GAIA 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: (accessed on 2005–08–11).
  19. Coglianese, C, 1999, The limits of consensus, Environment 41(28), 28–33.Google Scholar
  20. Coglianese, C. and Lazer, D., 2003, Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals, Law and Society 37, 691–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooke, R.M., 1991, Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science,Oxford Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Covello, V.T., 1983, The perception of technological risks: A literature review, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 23, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cross, F.B., 1998, Facts and values in risk assessment, Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 59, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dienel, P.C., 1989, Contributing to social decision methodology: Citizen reports on technological projects, in: C. Vlek and G. Cvetkovich (eds.), Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 133–151.Google Scholar
  25. Douglas, M., 1990, Risk as a forensic resource, DEADALUS 119(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
  26. Drottz-Sjoberg, B.M., 1991, Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions, and Definitions, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  27. Dryzek, J.S., 1994, Discursive Democracy. Politics, Policy, and Political Science, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Durant, J. and Joss, S., 1995, Public Participation in Science, Science Museum, London.Google Scholar
  29. Environment Agency, 1998, Strategic Risk Assessment. Further Developments and Trials, R&D Report E70, Environment Agency, London.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.Google Scholar
  31. European Commission, 2001a, European Governance. A White Paper, EU, Brussels.Google Scholar
  32. European Commission, 2001b, European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide. White Paper, EU, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  33. European Commission, 2003, Final Report on Setting the Scientific Frame for the Inclusion of New Quality of Life Concerns in the Risk Assessment Process, EU, Brussels.Google Scholar
  34. Fiorino, D.J., 1990, Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms, Science, Technology, and Human Values 15(2), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fischhoff, B., 1985, Managing risk perceptions, Issues in Science and Technology 2(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
  36. Fischhoff, B., 1995, Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process, Risk Analysis 15(2), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B., 1978, How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences 9, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Functowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1992, Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science, in: S. Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, 251–273.Google Scholar
  39. Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R., 2001, Rethinking rationality, in: G. Gigerenzer and R. Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Dahlem Workshop Report,.(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  40. Goodwin, P. and Wright, G., 2004, Decision Analysis for Management Judgement, Wiley, London.Google Scholar
  41. Gosh, D. and Ray, M.R., 1997, Risk, ambiguity and decision choice: Some additional evidence, Decision Sciences 28(1), Winter, 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Graham, J.D. and Rhomberg, L., 1996, How risks are identified and assessed, in: H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic (eds.), Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  43. Graham, J.D. and Wiener, J.B., 1995, Risk vs. Risk, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  44. Greeno, J.L. and Wilson, J.S., 1995, New frontiers in environmental, health and safety management, in: R. Kolluru, S. Bartell, R. Pitblade and S. Stricoff (eds.), Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 3.1–2.17.Google Scholar
  45. Gregory, R.S., 2004, Valuing risk management choices, in: T. McDaniels and M.J. Small (eds.), Risk Analysis and Society. An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 213–250.Google Scholar
  46. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T. and Fields, D., 2001, Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: A new perspective for environmental negotiation, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(3), 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grossi, P. and Kunreuther, H. (eds.), 2005, Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Hajer, M. und Wagenaar, H., 2003, Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  49. Hammond, J., Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H., 1999, Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions, Havard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Hampel, J. and Renn, O. (eds.), 2000, Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit. Wahrnehmung und Bewer-tung einer umstrittenen Technologie, Second Edition, Campus, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  51. Hance, B.J., Chess, C. and Sandman, P.M., 1988, Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government, Environmental Communication Research Programme, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  52. Hattis, D., 2004, The conception of variability in risk analyses: Developments since 1980, in: T. McDaniels and M.J. Small (eds.), Risk Analysis and Society. An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 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.Google Scholar
  54. Ho, J.L.L., Keller, R. and Keltyka, P., 2002, Effects of probabilistic and outcome ambiguity on managerial choices, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(1), 47–74.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hohenemser, C., Kates, R.W. and Slovic, P., 1983, The nature of technological hazard, Science 220, 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. HSE, 2001, Reducing Risk — Protecting People, Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
  57. Hsee, C. and Kunreuther, H., 2000, The affection effect in insurance decisions, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20, 141–159.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. IAEA, 1995, Guidelines for Integrated Risk Assessment and Management in Large Industrial Areas, Technical Document: IAEA-TECDOC PGVI-CIJV, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
  59. IEC, 1993, Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Technological Systems, Report IEC-CD (Sec) 381 issued by the Technical Committee QMS/23, European Community, Brussels.Google Scholar
  60. IPCS and WHO, 2004, Risk Assessment Terminology, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  61. Jaeger, C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. and Webler, T., 2001, Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action, Earth-scan, London.Google Scholar
  62. Jasanoff, S., 1986, Risk Management and Political Culture, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  63. Jasanoff, S., 2004, Ordering knowledge, ordering society, in: S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, Routledge, London, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
  64. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., 1979, Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econo-metrica 47(2), 263–291.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Pidgeon, N.F. and Slovic, P., 2003, The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory, in: N.F. Pidgeon, R.K. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–46.Google Scholar
  66. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X. and Ratick, S., 1988, The social amplification of risk. A conceptual framework, Risk Analysis 8(2), 177– 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kasperson, R.E., Golding, D. and Kasperson, J.X., 1999, Risk, trust and democratic theory, in: Cvetkovich, G. and Löfstedt, R. (eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, Earthscan, London, pp. 22–41.Google Scholar
  68. Kasperson, R.E., Jhaveri, N. and Kasperson, J.X., 2001, Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis, in: J. Flynn, P. Slovic and H. Kunreuther (eds.), Risk Media and Stigma, Earthscan, London, pp. 9–27.Google Scholar
  69. Kates, R.W., Hohenemser, C. and Kasperson, J., 1985, Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  70. Keeney, R., 1992, Value-Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decision Making, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  71. Keeney, R. and McDaniels, T., 2001, A framework to guide thinking and analysis regarding climate change policies, Risk Analysis 6, December, 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kemp, R., 1998, Modern strategies of risk communication: Reflections on recent experience, in: R. Matthes, J. Bernhardt and M. Repacholi (eds.), Risk Perception, Risk Communication and Its Application to EMF Exposure, ICNRP 5/98, International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and World Health Organisation, Geneva, pp. 117–125.Google Scholar
  73. Kemp, R. and Greulich, T., 2004, Communication, Consultation, Community: MCF Site Deployment Consultation Handbook, Mobile Carriers Forum, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  74. Klinke, A. and Renn, O., 2002, A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management, Risk Analysis 22(6), December, 1071– 1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kolluru, R.V., 1995, Risk assessment and management: A unified approach, in: R. Kolluru, S. Bartell, R. Pitblade and S. Stricoff (eds.), Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 1.3–1.41.Google Scholar
  76. Kunreuther, H. and Heal, G., 2003, Interdependent security, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Special Issue on Terrorist Risks, 26(2/3), March/May, 231–249.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kunreuther, H., Novemsky, N. and Kahneman, D., 2001, Making low probabilities useful, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 103–120.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Laudan, L., 1996, The pseudo-science of science? The demise of the demarcation problem, in: L. Laudan (ed.), Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Theory, Method and Evidence, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 166–192.Google Scholar
  79. Lave, L., 1987, Health and safety risk analyses: Information for better decisions, Science 236, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  81. Liberatore, A. und Funtowicz, S., 2003, Democratizing expertise, expertising democracy: What does this mean, and why bother?, Science and Public Policy 30(3), 146–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  83. Löfstedt, R.E. and Vogel, D., 2001, The changing character of regulation. A comparison of Europe and the United States, Risk Analysis 21(3), 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C. and Welch, E., 2001, Risk as feelings, Psychological Bulletin 127, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lundgren, R.E., 1994, Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  86. Lyall, C. and Tait, J., 2004, Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance, in: C. Lyall and J. Tait (eds.), New Modes of Governance. Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  87. Mayo, D.G. and Hollander, R.D. (eds.), 1991, Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  88. Morgan, M.G., 1990, Choosing and managing technology-induced risk, in: T.S. Glickman and M. Gough (eds.), Readings in Risk, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
  89. Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M., 1990, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  90. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Lave, L. and Atman, C., 1992, Communicating risk to the public, Environmental Science and Technology 26(11), 2049–2056.Google Scholar
  91. Morgan, M.G., Florig, K., DeKay, M., Fischbeck, P., Morgan, K., Jenni, K. and Fischhoff, B., 2000, Categorizing risks for risk ranking, Risk Analysis 20(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J., 2002, Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, Cambridge University Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  93. National Research Council, Committee on Risk and Decision Making: Risk and Decision Making, 1982, Perspectives and Research, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  94. National Research Council, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, 1983, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  95. Nye, J.S. and Donahue, J. (eds.), 2000, Governance in a Globalising World, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  96. OECD, 2002, Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  97. OECD, 2003, Emerging Systemic Risks, Final Report to the OECD Futures Project, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  98. OECD, 2004, Large-Scale Disasters — Lessons Learned, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  99. Olin, S., Farland, W., Park, C., Rhomberg, L., Scheuplein, R., Starr, T. and Wilson, J., 1995, Low Dose Extrapolation of Cancer Risks: Issues and Perspectives, ILSI Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  100. O'Riordan, T. and Wynne, B., 1987, Regulating environmental risks: A comparative perspective, in: P.R. Kleindorfer and H.C. Kunreuther (eds.), Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond, Springer, Berlin, 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.Google Scholar
  102. Perritt, H.H., 1986, Negotiated rulemaking in practice, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5, Spring, 482–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Petts, J., 1997, The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility, and process, Public Understanding of Science 6(4), 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Pidgeon, N.F., 1998, Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: Why we do need risk perception research, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Pidgeon, N.F. and Gregory, R., 2004, Judgment, decision making and public policy, in: D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 604–623.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  107. Pinkau, K. and Renn, O., 1998, Environmental Standards. Scientific Foundations and Rational Procedures of Regulation with Emphasis on Radiological Risk Management, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  108. Plough, A. and Krimsky, S., 1987, The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context, Science, Technology, and Human Values 12, 78–85.Google Scholar
  109. Pollard, S.J.T., Duarte-Davidson, R., Yearsley, R., Twigger-Ross, C., Fisher, J., Willows, R. and Irwin, J., 2000, A Strategic Approach to the Consideration of ‘Environmental Harm’, The Environment Agency, Bristol.Google Scholar
  110. Ravetz, J., 1999, What is post-normal science, Futures 31(7), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Renn, O., 1998, Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges, Journal of Risk Research 1(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Renn, O., 2004a, Perception of risks, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 29(1), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Renn, O., 2004b, The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management, in: T.L. MacDaniels and M.J. Small (eds.), Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 289–366.Google Scholar
  114. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996, The new governance: Governing without government, Political Studies 44(4), 652–667.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1997, Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  116. RISKO, 2000, Mitteilungen für Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt: Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken, Bulletin 3, June, 2–3.Google Scholar
  117. Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O., 2000, Risk perception research — An introduction, in: O. Renn and B. Rohrmann (eds.), Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 11–54.Google Scholar
  118. Rosa, E.A., 1998, Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk, Journal of Risk Research 1, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Rosenau, J.N., 1992, Governance, order, and change in world politics, in: J.N. Rosenau and E.O. Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government. Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  120. Ross, L.D., 1977, The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process, in: L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10, Random House. New York, pp. 173–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L., 2000, Public participation methods: An evaluative review of the literature, Science, Technology and Human Values 25, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Shome, N., Cornell, C.A., Bazzurro, P. and Carballo, J.E., 1998, Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses, Earthquake Spectra 14(3), August, 469–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shrader-Frechette, K.S., 1991a, Risk and Rationality. Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  124. Shrader-Frechette, K.S., 1991b, Reductionist approaches to risk, in: D.G. Mayo and R.D. Hollander (eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 218–248.Google Scholar
  125. Shrader-Frechette, K.S., 1995, Evaluating the expertise of experts, Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 6, 115–126.Google Scholar
  126. Shubik, M., 1991, Risk, society, politicians, scientists, and people, in: M. Shubik (ed.), Risk, Organizations, and Society, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 7–30.Google Scholar
  127. Sjöberg, L., 1999, Risk perception in Western Europe, Ambio 28(6), 543–549.Google Scholar
  128. Skinner, D., 1999, Introduction to Decision Analysis, Second Edition, Probabilistic Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  129. Slovic, P., 1987, Perception of risk, Science 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Slovic, P., 1992, Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm, in: S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 153–178.Google Scholar
  131. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S., 1982, Why study risk perception?, Risk Analysis 2, June, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Slovic, P., Finucane, E., Peters, D. and MacGregor, R., 2002, The affect heuristic, in: T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (eds.), Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Boston, MA, pp. 397–420.Google Scholar
  133. Stein, R.S., 2003, Earthquake conversations, Scientific American 288(1), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, V., 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  135. Stirling, A., 1998, Risk at a turning point?, Journal of Risk Research 1(2), 97–109.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle 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: (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  137. Stirling A., 2003, Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences, in: F. Berkhout, M. Leach and I. Scoones (eds.), Negotiating Change, Edward Elgar, London, 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.Google Scholar
  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. and Wuttke, K., 2003, Environmental Standards. Combined Exposures and Their Effects on Human Beings and Their Environment, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  140. Stricoff, R.S., 1995, Safety risk analysis and process safety management: Principles and practices, in: R. Kolluru, S. Bartell, R. Pitblade and S. Stricoff (eds.), Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 8.3–8.53.Google Scholar
  141. Swiss Re, 1995, The Great Hanshin Earthquake: Trial, Error, Success, Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich.Google Scholar
  142. Thompson, M., Ellis, W. and Wildavsky, A., 1990, Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  143. Trustnet, 1999, A New Perspective on Risk Governance, Document of the Trustnet Network, EU, Paris. Online on Internet: (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  144. Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T. and Meyer, W.B., 1990, The Earth as Transformed by Human Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  145. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1974, Judgement under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases, Science 85, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1981, The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science 211, 453–458.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. UK Treasury Department, 2004, Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance, Draft for Consultation, HM Treasury Press, London. Online on Internet: (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  148. USEPA Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Exposure Factors Handbook, NTIS PB98-124217, EPA, Washington, DC. Online on Internet: (accessed on 2005-08-11).
  149. Uff, J., Cullen, W.D. and HSC, 2001, The Southall and Ladbroke Grove Joint Inquiry into Train Protection Systems, HSE Books, London.Google Scholar
  150. Van Asselt, M.B.A., 2000, Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  151. Van Asselt, M.B.A., 2005, The complex significance of uncertainty in a risk area, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 5(2/3/4), 125–158.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  154. Viklund, M., 2002, Risk Policy: Trust, Risk Perception, and Attitudes, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  155. Viscusi, W.K., 1994, Risk-risk analysis, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Vogel, D., 2003, Risk regulation in Europe and in the United States, in: H. Somsen (ed.), Yearbook of European Environmental Law, Volume 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  157. Von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W., 1984, Patterns of conflict about risk debates, Risk Analysis 4, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen), 2000, World in Transition: Strategies for Managing Global Environmental Risks, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  159. Webler, T., 1995, Right discourse in citizen participation. An evaluative yardstick, in: O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 35–86.Google Scholar
  160. Webler, T., 1999, The craft and theory of public participation: A dialectical process, Risk Research 2(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H. and Renn, O., 1991, The Group Delphi: A novel attempt at reducing uncertainty, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Wiener, J.B., 1998, Managing the iatrogenic risks of risk management, Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 9, 39–83.Google Scholar
  163. Wisdon, J. and Willis, R., 2004, See-Through Science. Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, Demos, London.Google Scholar
  164. Wolf, K.D., 2000, Die neue Staatsräson — zwischenstaatliche Kooperation als Demokratieproblem in der Weltgesellschaft. Plädoyer für eine geordnete Entstaatlichung des Regierens jenseits des Staates, Nomos, Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  165. Wolf, K.D., 2002, Contextualizing normative standards for legitimate governance beyond the state, in: J.R. Grote and B. Gbikpi (eds.), Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications, Leske und Budrich, Opladen, pp. 35–50.Google Scholar
  166. Wolf, K.D., 2005, Private actors and the legitimacy of governance beyond the state. Conceptional outlines and empirical explorations, in: A. Benz and I. Papadopoulos (eds.), Governance and Democratic Legitimacy: Transnational, European, and Multi-Level-Issues, Routledge, London, pp. 200–227.Google Scholar
  167. Wynne, B., 1992, Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement, in: S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 275–297.Google Scholar
  168. Wynne, B., 2002, Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out?, Current Sociology 50(30), 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Zürn, M., 2000, Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions, European Journal of International Relations 6(2), 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ortwin Renn
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StuttgartStuttgart, Germany and DIALOGIK gGmbHStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations