Cited by 217Risk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and ResiliencePublic Administration and Political Analysis

Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty

Klinke, Andreas, Renn, Ortwin·2012·Journal of Risk Research

Abstract

The article will conceptualize procedural mechanisms and structural configurations of risk governance with adaptive and integrative capacity in a general and comprehensive manner in order to better grasp the dynamics, structures, and functionality of risk-handling processes. Adaptive and integrative risk governance is supposed to address challenges raised by three characteristics that result from a lack of knowledge and/or competing knowledge claims about the risk problem: complexity, scientific uncertainty, and socio-political ambiguity. Adaptive and integrative capacity are broadly seen as the ability of politics and society to collectively design and implement a systematic approach to organizational and policy learning in institutional settings that are conducive to resolve cognitive, evaluative and normative problems, and conflicts of risks. For this purpose, we propose a risk governance model that augments the classical model of risk analysis (risk assessment, management, communication) by including steps of pre-estimation, interdisciplinary risk estimation, risk characterization and evaluation, risk management as well as monitoring and control. This new risk governance model also incorporates expert, stakeholder and public involvement as a core feature in the stage of communication and deliberation. A governance decision tree finally allows a systematic step-by-step procedure for the more inclusive risk-handling process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13669877.2011.636838

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Stakeholders hold different degrees of risk knowledge, perception, and tolerance to risk.

    “Stakeholders hold different degrees of risk knowledge, perception, and tolerance to risk (Klinke & Renn, 2012); WWR governance can account for these varying risk cultures.”

    From Scientists' warning on extreme wildfire risks to water supply (2021) · cites this paper as Klinke & Renn, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klinke, A., & Renn, O.
Affiliations
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • University of Stuttgart (DE)
Corresponding author
Klinke, Andreas
Venue
Journal of Risk Research
Published
2012-03
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
273-292
ISSN
  • 1366-9877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-4461
OpenAlex
W1989993615
Cited by
217
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 1
FWCI
34.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Risk Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
risk governance, adaptive governance, integrative governance, scientific uncertainty, risk communication, stakeholder engagement, citizen participation, risk characterization, risk management, risk monitoring and control, policy learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review