IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i3p171-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public participation and risk governance

Author

Listed:
  • Bruna De Marchi

Abstract

‘Risk governance’ is by now a widely used expression, combining two concepts that are apparently separate, but belong instead to spheres of investigation and practical interest that are strictly intertwined and partially overlapping. Many discussions about technological innovation or development occur nowadays in the public arena and are broadly framed, including considerations about health, safety, environment, distributional and ethical issues, thus touching on the interests and values of many stakeholders. Many opportunities are emerging for incorporating societal concerns as well as ‘non-standard’ knowledge in the governance of risks. Yet the full realisation of a kind of participative governance is enormously difficult: it requires a shift of mentality, broad changes in professional and institutional practices, and the design and implementation of new instruments and procedures. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:171-176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780434
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan Corfee-Morlot & Ian Cochran & Stéphane Hallegatte & Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale, 2011. "Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 169-197, January.
    2. Victor Pelaez, 2005. "Science And Governance In The National Systems Of Innovation Approach," Working Papers 0010, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    3. Philipp Preuner & Anna Scolobig & JoAnne Linnerooth Bayer & David Ottowitz & Stefan Hoyer & Birgit Jochum, 2017. "A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Volker Stein & Arnd Wiedemann, 2016. "Risk governance: conceptualization, tasks, and research agenda," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(8), pages 813-836, November.
    5. Stephen Whitfield, 2013. "Uncertainty, ignorance and ambiguity in crop modelling for African agricultural adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 325-340, September.
    6. Anna Scolobig & Nadejda Komendantova & Anthony Patt & Charlotte Vinchon & Daniel Monfort-Climent & Mendy Begoubou-Valerius & Paolo Gasparini & Angela Ruocco, 2014. "Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 73(3), pages 1523-1545, September.
    7. Torgersen, Helge & Bogner, Alexander & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2013. "The Power of Framing in Technology Governance: The Case of Biotechnologies (ITA-manu:script 13-01)," ITA manu:scripts 13_01, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    8. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    9. Nicolas Rossignol & Pierre Delvenne & Catrinel Turcanu, 2015. "Rethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 129-141, January.
    10. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    11. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    12. Daniel Kpienbaareh & Rachel Bezner Kerr & Isaac Luginaah & Jinfei Wang & Esther Lupafya & Laifolo Dakishoni & Lizzie Shumba, 2020. "Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Martin Mullins & Martin Himly & Isabel Rodríguez Llopis & Irini Furxhi & Sabine Hofer & Norbert Hofstätter & Peter Wick & Daina Romeo & Dana Küehnel & Kirsi Siivola & Julia Catalán & Kerstin Hund-Rink, 2023. "(Re)Conceptualizing decision-making tools in a risk governance framework for emerging technologies—the case of nanomaterials," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 3-15, March.
    14. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Scira Menoni & Reimund Schwarze, 2020. "Recovery during a crisis: facing the challenges of risk assessment and resilience management of COVID-19," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 189-198, June.
    16. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:171-176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.