Risk Governance Dilemmas and Democratization: Public Trust, Risk Perception and Public Participation in Risk Decision-Making

Author:

Gattinger MonicaORCID

Abstract

AbstractRisk scholars and practitioners are grappling with how best to govern risk in the face of growing calls and rationales for democratization. The centrality of public trust to effective risk governance, the fragmentation of perceptions of risk and growing expectations for public involvement in risk decision-making, all characterize risk governance in the twenty-first century. This chapter frames challenges to reforming risk decision-making as risk governance dilemmas. Effective risk governance requires confronting differences in expert and public perceptions of risk successfully, engaging the public meaningfully and fostering public trust in decisions. All three objectives can challenge fundamental epistemological, cultural and ontological underpinnings of risk governance. Understanding the reasons why this is the case (and why not), carefully disentangling causes and effects, and providing case studies of real-world efforts to address the dilemmas, lays the groundwork for informed reform of risk governance arrangements. There are no simple answers to the questions raised by the above three dilemmas. There is much to be learned about the strengths—and limitations—of opening risk decision-making processes to public participation. In addition to presenting the risk governance dilemmas running through the volume, this chapter presents @Risk, the research project on which this edited volume is based and provides an overview of the volume’s chapters.

Publisher

Springer International Publishing

Reference76 articles.

1. Ahmed, R. (2015). Intercultural Competence in Healthcare. In J. M. Bennett (Ed.), Sage Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence (pp. 487–490). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

2. Atkins, D., Siegel, J., & Slutsky, J. (2005). Making Policy When the Evidence Is in Dispute. Health Affairs, 24(1), 102–113.

3. Browne, K. (2016, May 13). Vaccine Injury Compensation and the Common Good (Impact Ethics post). Retrieved from https://impactethics.ca/2016/05/13/vaccine-injury-compensation-and-the-common-good/.

4. Camargo Jr., K., & Grant, R. (2015). Public Health, Science, and Policy Debate: Being Right Is Not Enough. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 232–235.

5. Chafe, R., Levinson, W., & Hébert, P. C. (2011). The Need for Public Engagement in Choosing Health Priorities. CAMJ, 183(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101517.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3