[The role and significance of trust for successful institutional risk communication]. / Vertrauen als Grundlage einer erfolgreichen institutionellen Risikokommunikation.

The success of institutional crisis and risk communication is based on an open and dialogue-oriented communication policy as well as on a congruence between the expectations of all parties involved and their fulfillment. Central to communication with other actors and with the population is a mutual relationship of trust. This paper describes factors that are instrumental in determining whether and to what extent institutions can establish a basis of trust and credibility. It discusses how trustworthy risk communication can succeed even in times of crisis.Successful risk communication is tied to a process that conveys credibility and competence through openness of results, convincing communication of scientific evidence, the inclusion of plural values and criteria, and the synthesis of system and orientation knowledge. Given the uncertainty of knowledge and the confusion of communication processes in society, this task is not easy to accomplish. Despite these difficulties, institutions of risk assessment and regulation can build trust and perpetuate it over time through skillful coalition-building with organizations and groups with high trust potential, transparent, open-ended forms of communication, and the involvement of stakeholders and affected individuals in risk management.

Systemic Risks from Different Perspectives.

Systemic risks are characterized by high complexity, multiple uncertainties, major ambiguities, and transgressive effects on other systems outside of the system of origin. Due to these characteristics, systemic risks are overextending established risk management and create new, unsolved challenges for policymaking in risk assessment and risk governance. Their negative effects are often pervasive, impacting fields beyond the obvious primary areas of harm. This article addresses these challenges of systemic risks from different disciplinary and sectorial perspectives. It highlights the special contributions of these perspectives and approaches and provides a synthesis for an interdisciplinary understanding of systemic risks and effective governance. The main argument is that understanding systemic risks and providing good governance advice relies on an approach that integrates novel modeling tools from complexity sciences with empirical data from observations, experiments, or simulations and evidence-based insights about social and cultural response patterns revealed by quantitative (e.g., surveys) or qualitative (e.g., participatory appraisals) investigations. Systemic risks cannot be easily characterized by single numerical estimations but can be assessed by using multiple indicators and including several dynamic gradients that can be aggregated into diverse but coherent scenarios. Lastly, governance of systemic risks requires interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral cooperation, a close monitoring system, and the engagement of scientists, regulators, and stakeholders to be effective as well as socially acceptable.

Systemic Risk: The Threat to Societal Diversity and Coherence.

Insights from complexity science can be applied to the analysis of social processes in heterogeneous societies. Many features that characterize and influence complex structures in nearly every domain of nature, technology, and society can be derived from simple modeling processes in physics and chemistry. If one applies these features to the structure of social risks, a number of insights are gained that can be subject to further empirical analysis. In particular, they add-to the well-known steering mechanisms of hierarchy, competition, and cooperation-the contribution of self-organization, the effect of which is underestimated in almost all theories of social science. But in view of the crises facing modern democracy, such as migration and populism, it is precisely this mechanism of dynamic structure generation that is decisive for an effective and fair risk governance. In this article, we analyze the threat to societal diversity and coherence on the basis of complexity science.

Social Perception of Systemic Risks.

The article distinguishes between two types of risks: conventional and systemic risks. Conventional risks can be contained in space and time, follow linear cause-effect relationships and can be addressed with effective and pointed interventions into the cause-effect chain. Systemic risks, however, are characterized by high complexity, transboundary effects, stochastic relationships, nonlinear cause-effect patterns with tipping points, and are often associated with less public attention than they require. The article addresses the reasons why systemic risks seem to be attenuated in public perception. The article goes on to consider how the social amplification of risk framework is useful in the context of systemic risks and describes needed extensions of that framework. It identifies practical tools for assessing the significance of perceptions for systemic risk situations. Finally, it argues that a graphic representation and simulation of evolving systemic risks and potential countermeasures as well as a participatory deliberative approach of inclusive risk governance are suitable governance strategies for preventing, mitigating, or managing systemic risks.

International Scientific Collaboration Is Needed to Bridge Science to Society: USERN2020 Consensus Statement.

Scientific collaboration has been a critical aspect of the development of all fields of science, particularly clinical medicine. It is well understood that myriads of benefits can be yielded by interdisciplinary and international collaboration. For instance, our rapidly growing knowledge on COVID-19 and vaccine development could not be attained without expanded collaborative activities. However, achieving fruitful results requires mastering specific tactics in collaborative efforts. These activities can enhance our knowledge, which ultimately benefits society. In addition to tackling the issue of the invisible border between different countries, institutes, and disciplines, the border between the scientific community and society needs to be addressed as well. International and transdisciplinary approaches can potentially be the best solution for bridging science and society. The Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN) is a non-governmental, non-profit organization and network to promote professional, scientific research and education worldwide. The fifth annual congress of USERN was held in Tehran, Iran, in a hybrid manner on November 7-10, 2020, with key aims of bridging science to society and facilitating borderless science. Among speakers of the congress, a group of top scientists unanimously agreed on The USERN 2020 consensus, which is drafted with the goal of connecting society with scientific scholars and facilitating international and interdisciplinary scientific activities in all fields, including clinical medicine.

The Coming of Age of Risk Governance.

Proposed as an advanced conceptualization of how to handle risk, risk governance begins with the critique and expansion of the traditional idea and standard practices of risk analysis. In developments over the last two decades, proponents of a more integrative approach on governing risks have moved further away from distinct conceptions of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication and toward the processes and institutions that guide, restrain, and integrate collective activities of handling risk. In early formulations of what risk governance entails, the superiority of the interplay between risk evaluation and risk management over linear and simple deductions from risk assessment to risk management was established precisely by developing a distinctive rationality of how to proceed. Later, the International Risk Governance Council recaptured this distinctive rationality that institutionalized processes should embody the interplay of the assessment of risks and related concerns, their sociopolitical appraisal, and the logical inference for risk management. Recently, this approach has been refined and augmented toward an integrative and adaptive concept of risk governance and toward a postnormal conception of risk governance. Main characteristics are a new concept of differentiated responsibility and deliberation in which expertise, experience, and tacit knowledge are integrated, forming the core of legitimate political risk decision making.

Radiation risks and uncertainties: a scoping review to support communication and informed decision-making.

Although radiation protection is challenged by many uncertainties, there is no systematic study investigating the definitions and types of these uncertainties. To address this gap, in this paper we offer a scoping review to comprehensively analyse, for the first time, peer-reviewed scientific articles (n = 33) related to uncertainties in the following radiation exposure situations: nuclear emergencies, decommissioning of nuclear/radiological installations and long-term radiological exposure situations (e.g. naturally occurring radioactive materials). The results suggest that firstly, there is no agreement regarding definitions of uncertainty, which is mainly defined based on its sources, types or categories rather than by its meaning. Secondly, different actors are faced with different types of uncertainties. Uncertainties of the scientific community are mostly data and methodology-driven (e.g. dose-response relationships), those of the decision-makers are related to the likely consequences of decision options and public reactions, while laypeople's uncertainties are mainly related to the trustworthiness of experts or the emotional potential of specific risk exposures. Furthermore, the majority of articles focus on the uncertainties of the scientific community, while those of the information receivers (i.e. decision-makers and laypeople) receive much less consideration. Finally, there was no difference in types of uncertainties across the different risk-related study areas analysed (radiation versus other risks). Based on these findings, we provide some preliminary recommendations regarding research on uncertainty related to radiation protection, as well as communication practices.

Two Types of Vigilance Are Essential to Effective Hazard Management: Maintaining Both Together Is Difficult.

Flexibility and adaptability are key capabilities for coping with persistent and pervasive uncertainties. The systematic organization of these capabilities is often called "adaptive management"; it is key to effective hazard management and important in risk governance. Vigilance is a requirement for effective adaptation. However, two distinct types of vigilance are necessary. Type 1 vigilance directly supports adaptive management. It is vigilance when you know what you are looking for: warning signals, filling gaps in knowledge, making sure that systems are working, etc. Vigilance of another sort, type 2 vigilance, is needed to address the surprises and institutional failures that are not part of orderly adaptive planning. Type 2 vigilance is vigilance when you don't know what to look for: observing and reflecting on confusing signals, anomalies, unacknowledged responsibilities, and surprises. The two types of vigilance require different institutional capabilities, and hence may work against each other in practice. Type 1 vigilance requires focus and a strong, knowledge-based organizing framework. Type 2 vigilance, in contrast, requires defocusing and a questioning approach to both observations and concepts. This dilemma, coupled with demands for flexibility, is a severe challenge for organizations. There are a variety of actions and arrangements at various levels of societal organization that could maintain and enhance vigilance in managing hazards. Necessary, however, is the societal and institutional recognition that vigilance of more than one type is an essential part of hazard management and the commitment to follow through. Maintaining vigilance requires effort and must be an ongoing process.

Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies.

Various emerging technologies challenge existing governance processes to identify, assess, and manage risk. Though the existing risk-based paradigm has been essential for assessment of many chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear technologies, a complementary approach may be warranted for the early-stage assessment and management challenges of high uncertainty technologies ranging from nanotechnology to synthetic biology to artificial intelligence, among many others. This paper argues for a risk governance approach that integrates quantitative experimental information alongside qualitative expert insight to characterize and balance the risks, benefits, costs, and societal implications of emerging technologies. Various articles in scholarly literature have highlighted differing points of how to address technological uncertainty, and this article builds upon such knowledge to explain how an emerging technology risk governance process should be driven by a multi-stakeholder effort, incorporate various disparate sources of information, review various endpoints and outcomes, and comparatively assess emerging technology performance against existing conventional products in a given application area. At least in the early stages of development when quantitative data for risk assessment remain incomplete or limited, such an approach can be valuable for policymakers and decision makers to evaluate the impact that such technologies may have upon human and environmental health.

A Risk Radar driven by Internet of intelligences serving for emergency management in community.

Today, most of the commercial risk radars only have the function to show risks, as same as a set of risk matrixes. In this paper, we develop the Internet of intelligences (IOI) to drive a risk radar monitoring dynamic risks for emergency management in community. An IOI scans risks in a community by 4 stages: collecting information and experience about risks; evaluating risk incidents; verifying; and showing risks. Employing the information diffusion method, we optimized to deal with the effective information for calculating risk value. Also, a specific case demonstrates the reliability and practicability of risk radar.

An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC reports on climate change.

Few global threats rival global climate change in scale and potential consequence. The principal international authority assessing climate risk is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Through repeated assessments the IPCC has devoted considerable effort and interdisciplinary competence to articulating a common characterization of climate risk and uncertainties. We have reviewed the assessment and its foundation for the Fifth Assessment Reports published in 2013 and 2014, in particular the guidance note for lead authors of the fifth IPCC assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Our analysis shows that the work carried out by the ICPP is short of providing a theoretically and conceptually convincing foundation on the treatment of risk and uncertainties. The main reasons for our assessment are: (i) the concept of risk is given a too narrow definition (a function of consequences and probability/likelihood); and (ii) the reports lack precision in delineating their concepts and methods. The goal of this article is to contribute to improving the handling of uncertainty and risk in future IPCC studies, thereby obtaining a more theoretically substantiated characterization as well as enhanced scientific quality for risk analysis in this area. Several suggestions for how to improve the risk and uncertainty treatment are provided.

The distinction between risk and hazard: understanding and use in stakeholder communication.

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms "risk" and "hazard." The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four-fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders' perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.

A decision-analysis tool for benefit-risk assessment of nonprescription drugs.

A decision analysis tool is proposed for regulatory assessment of nonprescription drugs. The tool is based on evaluation of each of the drug's potential benefit and risk attributes identified using a value-tree framework. The decision tool is designed as two-factor, two-stage instrument. Each attribute is independently assessed based on both the frequency of occurrence and clinical impact of the attribute. Frequency and clinical impact are scored on a 0-3 scale where a 0 score means no occurrence or no clinical impact, and a 3 means high frequency of occurrence or high clinical impact. The tool is initially used early in drug development to facilitate communication amongst stakeholders and to identify important data gaps. After new data are generated during the development program the tool is used again across the same attributes to yield a final benefit-risk assessment. In both the early assessment and subsequent evaluation use of the Group-Delphi technique and a benefit-risk trade-off heuristic may yield more consistent and coherent outputs. The tool allows regulators to maintain flexibility with respect to how final decisions are made, yet allows specificity and transparency during the evaluation. Further modifications can be incorporated to address drug-specific requirements or regulatory preferences.

The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards.

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust--or lack of trust--in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.

On the risk management and risk governance of petroleum operations in the Barents Sea area.

In this article, we discuss issues of risk management and risk governance with respect to petroleum operations in the Barents Sea area. We will focus on the decision problems related to whether or not to open the Barents Sea for petroleum activities in special vulnerable areas. We will explore to what extent the International Risk Governance Council risk governance framework provides valuable insights for and assistance to the decisionmaker and other stakeholders (including the industry and NGOs). The study covers issues related to risk assessment and appraisal, risk acceptance and tolerability, the use of the precautionary principle, risk perception, stakeholder involvement, risk communication, and risk management. The overall aim of the article is to point to areas where the risk governance could have been and can be improved for these and similar decision problems.

Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis.

The term governance describes the multitude of actors and processes that lead to collectively binding decisions. The term risk governance translates the core principles of governance to the context of risk-related policy making. We aim to delineate some basic lessons from the insights of the other articles in this special issue for our understanding of risk governance. Risk governance provides a conceptual as well as normative basis for how to cope with uncertain, complex and/or ambiguous risks. We propose to synthesize the breadth of the articles in this special issue by suggesting some changes to the risk governance framework proposed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) and adding some insights to its analytical and normative implications.