IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v9y2006i4p373-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Klinke
  • Marion Dreyer
  • Ortwin Renn
  • Andrew Stirling
  • Patrick Van Zwanenberg

Abstract

This paper develops a sequential model of precautionary risk regulation that contributes substantively and procedurally to the European Commission's position on precaution. At first, four concepts of precautionary policy are distinguished which are taken into account in the conceptualisation of the precautionary risk regulation. The paper then expounds the four key challenges of characterising, evaluating and managing risks: these are seriousness, uncertainty, complexity, and socio-political ambiguity. Subsequently, the architecture of the model of precautionary risk regulation is set out, which is characterised by the following three key stages: screening, appraisal, and management. It additionally includes a design, development and oversight function which ensures that the overall process is robust to changes in circumstances and to the perspective of all interested and affected parties. Afterwards five approaches to risk analysis are elaborated which are integrated in the formal decision analytic concept. They provide tools for assessing, evaluating, and managing serious, uncertain, complex and/or ambiguous risks and include different methods for selecting objectives, assessing and handling data, and finding the most appropriate procedure for balancing pros and cons.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Klinke & Marion Dreyer & Ortwin Renn & Andrew Stirling & Patrick Van Zwanenberg, 2006. "Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 373-392, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:373-392
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870600715800
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870600715800
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870600715800?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mags D. Adams, 2002. "The precautionary principle and the rhetoric behind it," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 301-316, October.
    2. Per Sandin & Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson & Christina Rudén & André Juthe, 2002. "Five charges against the precautionary principle," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 287-299, October.
    3. J. C. Hanekamp & G. Vera-Navas & S. W. Verstegen, 2005. "The historical roots of precautionary thinking: the cultural ecological critique and ‘The Limits to Growth’," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 295-310, June.
    4. Thomas Webler, 1999. "The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 55-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    RePEc Biblio mentions

    As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
    1. > Economic Development Technological Change, and Growth > Technological Change: Choices and Consequences > Technology Assessment

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    2. Finch, John & Geiger, Susi & Reid, Emma, 2017. "Captured by technology? How material agency sustains interaction between regulators and industry actors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 160-170.
    3. 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.
    4. Röckmann, Christine & van Leeuwen, Judith & Goldsborough, David & Kraan, Marloes & Piet, Gerjan, 2015. "The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-162.
    5. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Andy Stirling, 2016. "Precaution in the Governance of Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    8. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.

    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. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    2. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Natalie A Jones & Pascal Perez & Thomas G Measham & Gail J Kelly & Patrick D’Aquino & Katherine Daniell & Anne Dray & Nils Ferrand, 2008. "Evaluating Participatory Modeling: Developing a Framework for Cross-case Analysis," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    4. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    5. Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    6. Oliver Todt & José Luis Luján, 2014. "Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2163-2173, December.
    7. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    8. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    9. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    10. Hausken, Kjell, 2021. "The precautionary principle as multi-period games where players have different thresholds for acceptable uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    11. Wang, Jue & Aenis, Thomas & Hofmann-Souki, Susanne, 2018. "Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 364-371.
    12. Thomas Sedlin & Volker Beckmann & Rong Tan, 2020. "Public Participation and Airport Development: The Case of the Site Selection for Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-34, December.
    13. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne, 2025. "Reasonable Precaution or Unjust Discrimination? Applying a Lexical Utility Model of the Precautionary Principle to Moral Choices," Post-Print hal-04992277, HAL.
    14. Johan Eriksson & Mikael Karlsson & Marta Reuter, 2010. "Technocracy, Politicization, and Noninvolvement: Politics of Expertise in the European Regulation of Chemicals," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(2), pages 167-185, March.
    15. Hokstad, Per & Steiro, Trygve, 2006. "Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 100-111.
    16. Fabio Monteduro & Ilenia Cecchetti & Ylenia Lai & Veronica Allegrini, 2021. "Does stakeholder engagement affect corruption risk management?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 759-785, September.
    17. Zhu, Tiantian & Haugen, Stein & Liu, Yiliu & Yang, Xue, 2023. "A value of prediction model to estimate optimal response time to threats for accident prevention," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    18. Kjell Hausken, 2018. "Formalizing the Precautionary Principle Accounting for Strategic Interaction, Natural Factors, and Technological Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2055-2072, October.
    19. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    20. Alan Patterson & Craig McLean, 2018. "The regulation of risk: the case of fracking in the UK and the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 45-52.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:373-392. 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: 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.

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