IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i11p1969-1982.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Mei Ling Wong

Abstract

This article focuses on the fluid nature of risk problems and the challenges it presents to establishing acceptability in risk governance. It introduces an actor‐network theory (ANT) perspective as a way to deal with the mutable nature of risk controversies and the configuration of stakeholders. To translate this into a practicable framework, the article proposes a hybrid risk governance framework that combines ANT with integrative risk governance, deliberative democracy, and responsive regulation. This addresses a number of the limitations in existing risk governance models, including: (1) the lack of more substantive public participation throughout the lifecycle of a project; (2) hijacking of deliberative forums by particular groups; and (3) the treatment of risk problems and their associated stakeholders as immutable entities. The framework constitutes a five‐stage process of co‐selection, co‐design, co‐planning, and co‐regulation to facilitate the co‐production of collective interests and knowledge, build capacities, and strengthen accountability in the process. The aims of this article are twofold: conceptually, it introduces a framework of risk governance that accounts for the mutable nature of risk problems and configuration of stakeholders. In practice, this article offers risk managers and practitioners of risk governance a set of procedures with which to operationalize this conceptual approach to risk and stakeholder engagement.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Mei Ling Wong, 2015. "The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 1969-1982, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:11:p:1969-1982
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12429
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lofstedt, Ragnar, 2003. "Risk communication: pitfalls and promises," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 417-435, July.
    2. Mark Elam & Göran Sundqvist, 2009. "The Swedish KBS project: a last word in nuclear fuel safety prepares to conquer the world?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7-8), pages 969-988, December.
    3. Terje Aven & Enrico Zio, 2014. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1164-1172, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antoienette Wärnbäck & Linda Soneryd & Tuija Hilding-Rydevik, 2013. "Shared Practice and Converging Views in Nuclear Waste Management: Long-Term Relations between Implementer and Regulator in Sweden," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(9), pages 2212-2226, September.
    2. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    3. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    4. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    5. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.
    6. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    7. Martínez-Galán Fernández, Pablo & Guillén López, Antonio J. & Márquez, Adolfo Crespo & Gomez Fernández, Juan Fco. & Marcos, Jose Antonio, 2022. "Dynamic Risk Assessment for CBM-based adaptation of maintenance planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    8. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    9. Hund, Lauren & Schroeder, Benjamin, 2020. "A causal perspective on reliability assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    11. Bożena Babiarz, 2018. "Aspects of Heat Supply Security Management Using Elements of Decision Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    12. Tine Bizjak & Davor Kontić & Branko Kontić, 2022. "Practical Opportunities to Improve the Impact of Health Risk Assessment on Environmental and Public Health Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Hoseyni, Seyed Mojtaba & Di Maio, Francesco & Zio, Enrico, 2019. "Condition-based probabilistic safety assessment for maintenance decision making regarding a nuclear power plant steam generator undergoing multiple degradation mechanisms," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Afraz, Muhammad Fawad & Bhatti, Sabeen Hussain & Ferraris, Alberto & Couturier, Jerome, 2021. "The impact of supply chain innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    15. Victor Cardenas, 2024. "Financial climate risk: a review of recent advances and key challenges," Papers 2404.07331, arXiv.org.
    16. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    17. Mohammad Yazdi, 2019. "A review paper to examine the validity of Bayesian network to build rational consensus in subjective probabilistic failure analysis," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Jonas Steel & Lode Godderis & Jeroen Luyten, 2018. "Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    19. Nikolaos Argyris & Valentina Ferretti & Simon French & Seth Guikema & Gilberto Montibeller, 2019. "Advances in Spatial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 1-8, January.
    20. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Thai, Vinh V., 2021. "An Operational Risk Analysis Model for Container Shipping Systems considering Uncertainty Quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    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:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:11:p:1969-1982. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.