Journal article – Variability in the framing of risk issues

What is this?

Vaughan, E & Seifert, M 1992, ‘Variability in the framing of risk issues‘, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 119-35.

Why is it interesting?

Abstract: Decision making about environmental and public health risks has become a frequent source of social conflict in society, often resulting in major obstacles to effective risk management and disruptions in the policy process. Individuals vary not only in policy preferences and responses to environmental hazards, but also in underlying belief and value systems that influence several aspects of the environmental decision-making process. In particular, variability in the framing of risk issues can exacerbate conflict, leading to differences in which perspectives are judged legitimate or valid, what solutions are seen as reasonable, and what type of information is seen as useful or relevant. In many controversies, groups have differed systematically in framing risk issues: as scientific or economic vs. fairness and equity questions, in terms of what at-risk population is highlighted, and in focusing primarily on potential gain or loss as the result of a decision.

Report – Risk, responsibility and regulation – Whose risk is it anyway? (UK)

What is this?

Better Regulation Commission 2006, Risk, responsibility and regulation – Whose risk is it anyway?, Better Regulation Commission, UK.

Why is it interesting?

There is a sense that the current public debate around risk places an over reliance on Government to manage all risks, at the cost of eroded personal responsibility. Contradictory pressures on those in the regulation business – they are criticised both for intervening and failing to act – have served to emphasise classic regulation as the default response. It is time to step back, explore these dynamics and think differently about the interaction of risk and regulation.” (p. 3)

“The relationship between risk, responsibility and regulation is rapidly emerging as an important theme of policy development. In it lies great opportunity, not only to reduce dramatically the burdens of regulation on society but also to reinforce national qualities of self-reliance, resilience and a spirit of adventure. But there is also a danger that if the relationship is unbalanced, we slip into a cycle of increased regulation to meet the demands of increased risk aversion.” (p. 5)

“We want to challenge the easy assumption that governments can and should manage all risks. We want to see a new understanding between government, regulators, the media and the public that we all share a responsibility for managing risk and that, within the right circumstances, risk can be beneficial and should be encouraged.” (p. 5)

Journal article – New social directions in UK flood risk management: moving towards flood risk citizenship?

What is this?

Nye, M, Tapsell, S & Twigger-Ross, C 2011, ‘New social directions in UK flood risk management: moving towards flood risk citizenship?’, Journal of Flood Risk Management, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 288-97.

Why is it interesting?

Abstract: This paper explores the evolution of a more sociotechnical variety of flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) in the UK that emphasises community engagement and personal or community level responsibility for flood risk planning, awareness and resilience alongside more traditional, centrally managed structural and technical measures. Specifically, it explores three interlocking drivers of the social turn in UKFCRM: (i) the need to adapt to climate change and address the lessons from associated high profile flood events; (ii) pressures to integrate FCRM with the sustainable development agenda; and (iii) a broader trend towards a ‘civic model’ in UK environmental policy-making and delivery. The paper also explores the practical impact and manifestation of these drivers in current FCRM planning and delivery frameworks, and suggests several critical pathways for a deeper embedding of the approach.