Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards

2013 Edition
| Editors: Peter T. Bobrowsky

Risk Governance

  • Stefan GreivingEmail author
  • Thomas Glade
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4_298


Modern social systems are characterized by complex patterns of interdependencies between actors, institutions, functional activities, and spatial organizations. Controlling, managing, or even steering the complex, fragmented, and often competing societal interests is beyond the capacity of the state as an agent of authority. This is important for dealing with risks, in particular in cases of high uncertainty and ambiguity (Klinke and Renn, 2002).

The term “governance” in its widest sense can be understood as the following. At the national level, it characterizes the structure and processes for collective decision making involving governmental and non-governmental actors (Nye and Donahue, 2000). At the global level, “governance embodies a horizontally organized structure of functional self-regulation encompassing state and non-state actors bringing about collectively binding decision without superior authority” (see Rosenau, 1992; Wolf, 2002).

This understanding can also be...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Armaş, J., and Avram, E., 2009. Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Natural Hazards, 50(2), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audit Commission, 2000. Management Paper on Target the Practice of Performance Indicators. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Dubreuil, G. H., Bengtsson, G., Bourrelier, P. H., Foster, R., Gadbois, S., and Kelly, G. N., 2002. A report of TRUSTNET on risk governance – lessons learned. Journal of Risk Research, 5(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission, 2001. European Governance – A White Paper. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission, 2007. Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Brussels: European commission.Google Scholar
  6. European Communities, 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.Google Scholar
  7. European Communities, 2007. DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the European Union L 288/27.Google Scholar
  8. Fuchs, S., 2009. Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria – paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuchs, S., Heiss, K., and Hübl, J., 2007. Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 7, 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gambetta, D. (ed.), 2000. Can We Trust Trust?. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. University of Oxford – Department of Sociology, 213–217. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/gambetta213-237.pdf.
  11. Greiving, S., Fleischhauer, M., and Wanczura, S., 2006. Management of natural hazards in Europe: the role of spatial planning in selected EU Member States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(5), 739–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IRGC – International Risk Governance Council, 2005. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
  13. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-1015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, Tech. Report, World Conference on Disaster Reduction.Google Scholar
  14. Klinke, A., and Renn, O., 2002. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, 22, 1071–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Löfstedt, R., 2005. Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Houndmills.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nye, J. S. Jr., and Donahue, J. d. (eds.), 2000. Governance in a globalizing world. Cambridge, Mass: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  17. Paton, D., Millar, M., and Johnston, D., 2001. Community resilience to volcanic hazard consequences. Natural Hazards, 24(2), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenau, J. N., 1992. Governance, order, and change in world politics. In Rosenau, J. N., and Czempiel, E. O. (eds.), Governance Without Government. Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Slovic, P., 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689–701.Google Scholar
  20. Soil Thematic Strategy, 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection [SEC(2006)620] [SEC(2006)1165].Google Scholar
  21. Wanczura, S., Fleischhauer, M., Greiving, S., Fourman, M., Sucker, K., d’Andrea, A., 2007. Analysis of recent EU, international and national research and policy activities in the field of risk governance. Del. 1.1 MIDIR Project.Google Scholar
  22. WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change, 2000. World in Transition: Strategies for Managing Global Environmental Risks. Annual Report 1998. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Weiland, U., 1999. Indikatoren einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung – vom Monitoring zur politischen Steuerung? In Weiland, U. (ed.), Perspektiven der Raum- und Umweltplanung – angesichts Globalisierung, Europäischer Integration und Nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung, pp. 245–262.Google Scholar
  24. Wolf, K. D., 2002. Contextualizing normative standards for legitimate governance beyond the state. In Grote, J. R., and Gbikpi, B. (eds.), Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Spatial Planning, Institute of Spatial PlanningTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Regional ResearchUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria