Author
Abstract
Much of the risk science literature, in an increasingly complex world, suggests a transition from conventional risk management to risk governance. Risk governance, which highlights the multiplicity of actors and interactions among them, requires a new holistic, inclusive, and adaptive approach to managing systemic risks that cannot be addressed by traditional risk assessment and management schemes. Although nuclear risks have long been characterized as typical examples of systemic risks, the established framework of nuclear risk management has not necessarily been oriented toward risk governance. This study aims to analyze the features and challenges of the nuclear safety principles and safety goals from the risk governance perspective. The analysis shows that while the structure of existing safety goals focuses on reactor safety and quantifiable factors under the licensee’s control, it is silent on the factors that are difficult to quantify and beyond the licensee’s control. The structure of the responsibility and management framework for nuclear safety has systematically oriented the practice of risk assessment and management toward a circumscribed and compartmentalized approach. To overcome these challenges, this study presents a new conceptual framework for hybrid safety goals, reflecting the perspectives of risk governance and disaster studies. The hybrid safety goals consist of the goals for ‘artefacts’ to address reactor safety, and the goals for ‘area’ to reduce local vulnerability. The goals for ‘artefacts’ prioritize preciseness, quantitativeness, and practicality, whereas the goals for ‘area’ emphasize inclusivity and adaptability, which play a catalytic role in the collaborations between nuclear practitioners and local actors. The significance and future challenges of hybrid safety goals are discussed, particularly in terms of control and responsibility.
Suggested Citation
Shin-etsu Sugawara, 2025.
"Addressing “beyond control”: nuclear safety goals in the age of risk governance,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3-4), pages 231-246, April.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:28:y:2025:i:3-4:p:231-246
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2024.2368188
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:taf:jriskr:v:28:y:2025:i:3-4:p:231-246. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.