Risk governance: Application to urban planning

Ortwin RENN, (Stuttgart Research Center of Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies at Stuttgart University (ZIRIUS), Stuttgart, GERMANY)
Andreas KLINKE (Department of Political Science and Environmental Policy Institute at Memorial University of Newfoundland, CANADA)
A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi
4 0
Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 5 - 19 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Risk governance: Application to urban planning

Öz:
Urban planning faces multiple risks: they range from natural disasters, fires, floods, building code violations to social risks such as vandalism, crime, social disorientation, and others. These risks often interact with each other and cannot be dealt with in isolation. As a means to identify, assess and manage multiple risks, concepts of "risk governance" have been developed that promise to provide integrative and comprehensive tools to deal with urban risks. The notion of risk governance pertains to the many ways in which multiple actors, individuals and institutions, public and private, deal with risks. It includes formal institutions and regimes and informal arrangements. The paper will first develop an adaptive and integrative model of risk governance and applies this model to the risks of urban planning. After a short summary of the roots of risk governance, key concepts, such as "simple, uncertain, complex and ambiguous risks will be discussed. The main emphasis will be on each of the five phases of risk governance: pre-assessment, interdisciplinary assessment, risk evaluation; risk management and risk communication
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Mimarlık
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abels, G. (2007), Citizen Involvement in Public Policymaking: Does It Improve Democratic Legitimacy and Accountability? The Case of pTA, Interdisciplinary Information Science, 13:1, pp. 103-116.
  • Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009), The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characteriz-ing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism, Risk Analysis, 29:4, pp. 587-600.
  • Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Doubleday, N. (2007), Adaptive Comanagement. Collaboration, Learning and Multilevel Governance (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press).
  • Arvai, J. L, Gregory, R. and McDaniels, T. (2001), Testing a Structured Decision Approach: Value-focused Thinking for Deliberative Risk Communication, Risk Analysis 21:6, pp.1065-1076.
  • Beierle, T.C. and Cayford, J. (2002), Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions (Washington: Resources for the Future).
  • Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M. (2006), Learning to Adapt: Organisational Adapta-tion to Climate Change Impacts, Climate Change, 78, pp. 135-156.
  • Brooks, M. and Adger, W.N. (2005), Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, in: Chopra, K., Leemans, R., Kumar, P. and Simons, H. (Eds.) Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, pp. 165-181 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  • Burns, W.J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., Renn, O., und 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, pp. 611-623.
  • Charnley, G. (2000), Democratic Science: Enhancing the Role of Science in Stakeholder-Based Risk Management DecisionMaking, Report of Health Risk Strategies (Washington, DC: Health Risk Strategies).
  • Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems, Academy of Management Review, 9:2, pp. 284-295.
  • Earle, T. C. and Cvetkovich, G. (1994), Risk Communication: The Social Construction of Meaning and Trust, in B. Brehmer and N. E. Sahlin (eds) Future Risks and Risk Management, pp. 243-267 (Amsterdam: Kluwer).
  • Feldman, M.S. (1989), Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press). Filar, J.A. and Haurie, A. (Eds.) (2010), Uncertainty and Environmental Decision Making (New York et al.: Springer).
  • Functowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1992), Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emer-gence of Post-Normal Science, in: Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 251-273 (Westport and London: Praeger).
  • Hagendijk, R. and Irwin, A. (2006), Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe, Minerva, 44, pp. 167-184.
  • HM Treasury (2005), Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance (London:www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/media/0/B/Managing_risks_to_ the_public.pdf; access: December 2012).
  • Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003), Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance, American Political Science Review, 97:2, pp. 233-243.
  • IRGC, International Risk Governance Council (2005), Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach, White Paper no 1, O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham (Geneva: IRGC).
  • Jasanoff, S. (2004), Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society, in: Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, pp. 13-45 (London: Routledge).
  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (Eds.) (2000), Choices, Values, and Frames (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  • Keeney, R. (1992), Value-focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
  • Keeney, R. and McDaniels, T. (2001), A Framework to Guide Thinking and Analysis Re-garding Climate Change Policies, Risk Analysis, 21:6, pp. 989-1000.
  • Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2002), A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies, Risk Analysis, 22:6, pp. 1071-1094.
  • Klinke, A. and Renn. O. (2010), Risk Governance. Contemporary and Future Challenges, in: Erisksson, J.; Gilek, M. and Ruden, Ch. (Eds.) Regulating Chemical Risks. European and Global Challenges, pp. 9-28 (Heidelberg: Springer).
  • Klinke, A. and Renn; O. (2012), Adaptive and Integrative Governance on Risk and Uncertainty, Journal of Risk Research , 15:3, pp. 273- 292.
  • Laudan, L. (1996), The Pseudo-Science of Science? The Demise of the Demarcation Problem, in: Laudan, L. (Ed.) Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Theory, Method and Evidence, pp. 166-192 (Boulder: Westview Press).
  • Löfstedt, R.E. (1997), Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Con-ceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems, Working Paper No. 92 (Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment).
  • Löftsedt, R. (2005), Risk Management in Post Trust Societies, (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
  • Luhmann, N. (1993), Risk: A Sociological Theory (Berlin: de Gruyter). Marti, K., Ermoliev, Y. and Makowski, M. (Eds.) (2010), Coping with Uncertainty. Robust Solutions (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer).
  • Nelson, T.E., Oxleay, Z.M. and Clawson, R.A. (1997), Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects, Political Behavior, 19:3, pp. 221-246.
  • Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J. and Smith, D. (2008), Shadow Spaces for Social Learning: A Relational Understanding of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change within Organisations, Environment and Planning A, 40, pp. 867-884.
  • Reese, S.D., Gandy Jr., O.H. and Grant, A.E. (Eds.) (2003), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Renn, O. (2008), Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (Earthscan: London).
  • Renn, O. and Klinke, A. (2013), Space Matters! Impacts for Risk Governance, in: Müller-Mahn, D. (Ed.) The Spatial Dimension of Risk. How Geography Shapes the Emergence of Riskscapes, pp. 1-21 (Milton Park and New York: Routledge).
  • Renn, O., Klinke, A. and van Asselt, M. (2011), Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis, AMBIO, 40(2), pp. 231-246.
  • Renn, O. and Walker, K. (2008a), Lessons Learned: A Re-Assessment of the IRGC Frame-work on Risk Governance, in: Renn, O. and Walker, K. (Eds.) The IRGC Risk Governance Framework: Concepts and Practice, pp. 331-367 (Heidelberg and New York: Springer).
  • Renn, O. and Walker, K. (Eds.) (2008b), The IRGC Risk Governance Framework: Concepts and Practice, (Heidelberg and New York: Springer).
  • Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000), Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation, Science, Technology and Human Values, 25:1, pp. 3-29.
  • Skelcher, C. (2005), Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance, Governance, 18:1, pp. 89-110.
  • Stirling A. (2003), Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences, in: Berkhout, F., Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (Eds.) Negotiating Change, pp. 33-76 (London: Edward Elgar).
  • Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Welp, M. (Eds.) (2006), Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management: Theory and Practice (Heidelberg and Berlin: Springer).
  • Underdal, A. (2009), Complexity and Challenges of Long-term Environmental Governance, Global Environmental Change, 20, pp. 386-393.
  • Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2000), Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer).
  • van Asselt, M.B.A. and Renn, O. (2011), Risk Governance, Risk Research, 1:4, pp. 431-449.
  • Waldrop, M.M. (1992), Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (London: Penguin Books).
  • Webster, D.G. (2009), Adaptive Governance: The Dynamics of Atlantic Fisheries Management (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).
  • Zahariadis, N. (2003), Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies (Washington: Georgetown University Press).
APA RENN O, KLINKE A (2014). Risk governance: Application to urban planning. , 5 - 19.
Chicago RENN Ortwin,KLINKE Andreas Risk governance: Application to urban planning. (2014): 5 - 19.
MLA RENN Ortwin,KLINKE Andreas Risk governance: Application to urban planning. , 2014, ss.5 - 19.
AMA RENN O,KLINKE A Risk governance: Application to urban planning. . 2014; 5 - 19.
Vancouver RENN O,KLINKE A Risk governance: Application to urban planning. . 2014; 5 - 19.
IEEE RENN O,KLINKE A "Risk governance: Application to urban planning." , ss.5 - 19, 2014.
ISNAD RENN, Ortwin - KLINKE, Andreas. "Risk governance: Application to urban planning". (2014), 5-19.
APA RENN O, KLINKE A (2014). Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 5 - 19.
Chicago RENN Ortwin,KLINKE Andreas Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 11, no.1 (2014): 5 - 19.
MLA RENN Ortwin,KLINKE Andreas Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.11, no.1, 2014, ss.5 - 19.
AMA RENN O,KLINKE A Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2014; 11(1): 5 - 19.
Vancouver RENN O,KLINKE A Risk governance: Application to urban planning. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2014; 11(1): 5 - 19.
IEEE RENN O,KLINKE A "Risk governance: Application to urban planning." A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, ss.5 - 19, 2014.
ISNAD RENN, Ortwin - KLINKE, Andreas. "Risk governance: Application to urban planning". A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 11/1 (2014), 5-19.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 2:28

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları