Public understanding of risk and risk governance

被引:15
|
作者
Klinke, Andreas [1 ]
机构
[1] Mem Univ Newfoundland, Environm Policy Inst, 20 Univ Dr, Corner Brook, NF A2H 5G5, Canada
关键词
Public understanding of risk; risk governance; deliberation; scientific literacy; knowledge; COMMUNICATION; PERCEPTION; POLICY;
D O I
10.1080/13669877.2020.1750464
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
The general public often fears the wrong risks and has a blind spot when it comes to global existential risks. People have divergent and emotive attitudes to risk rather than rational understanding. For this reason, public understanding of risk and risk governance promotes a non-tendentious and theory-neutral approach designed in a way so that laypersons can become aware of, make sound judgments about and take action in terms of risk. Public understanding refers to the creation of scientific literacy, sagacity, and decisional competence within a broad public. The public understanding encompasses two primary dimensions: knowledge and rationality. They empower the public's ability to adopt an impartial perspective which is essential to ensure the democratic formation of public opinion and political will. I argue that the public understanding can be established through the engagement of the public. I explore and conceptualize the generation and propagation of the public understanding of risk and risk governance through three elements of understanding: epistemic, ontological, and teleological. These elements constituting public understanding are produced by a tripartite functional differentiation of deliberative production, namely an interplay between scientific, associational and public deliberation within risk governance.
引用
收藏
页码:2 / 13
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Study on Collaborative Governance of Public Crisis from Perspective of Risk Society
    Wang, Yixing
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT INNOVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY (ICMIPP 2012), VOLS 1-6, 2012, : 2485 - 2488
  • [32] Risk assessment of vector-borne diseases for public health governance
    Sedda, L.
    Morley, D. W.
    Braks, M. A. H.
    De Simone, L.
    Benz, D.
    Rogers, D. J.
    PUBLIC HEALTH, 2014, 128 (12) : 1049 - 1058
  • [33] Multilevel governance of coastal flood risk reduction: A public finance perspective
    Bisaro, Alexander
    de Bel, Mark
    Hinkel, Jochen
    Kok, Sien
    Stojanovic, Tim
    Ware, Daniel
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2020, 112 : 203 - 212
  • [34] Public Governance in the Context of Global Turbulence: Risk-Reflexive Approach
    Aleinikov, A. V.
    Maltseva, D. A.
    VESTNIK SANKT-PETERBURGSKOGO UNIVERSITETA-FILOSOFIYA I KONFLIKTOLOGIYA, 2024, 40 (02): : 269 - 279
  • [35] Mapping the knowledge development and frontier areas of public risk governance research
    Lin, Xue
    Zhang, Haibo
    Wu, Hengqin
    Cui, Dongjin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2020, 43
  • [36] Study on the Risk Governance Mode of Public Security in Big Data Era
    Zhu Xiaoning
    Wu Xinsong
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (10TH), VOL II, 2014, : 887 - 892
  • [37] Analysis of Risk Governance Model from Social Public Security Perspective
    Zhou En-yi
    Jia Tao
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2013 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (9TH), VOL I, 2013, : 296 - 301
  • [38] Public Understanding of Risk and Benefit of Mifepristone A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Krishnamurti, Tamar
    White, Gianna
    Dewitt, Barry
    Mosley, Elizabeth
    Fischhoff, Baruch
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2025, 8 (02)
  • [39] Public understanding of the causes of high stroke risk in northeast Bulgaria
    Dokova, KG
    Stoeva, KJ
    Kirov, PI
    Feschieva, NG
    Petrova, SP
    Powles, JW
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2005, 15 (03): : 313 - 316
  • [40] Public understanding of risk in health impact assessment: a psychosocial approach
    Baldwin, Cathy
    Rawstorne, Patrick
    IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL, 2019, 37 (05) : 382 - 396