Pub Date : 2023-05-08DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208144
Liwen Zhang, Qing’an Zhou
Abstract The process through which people and society begin to see and frame something as risky is complex. As risk communication practitioners play a critical role in fostering real-world risk governance, this study emphasizes the performative role of language in mobilizing symbolic resources to build and control risks from a communication standpoint. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was used to reveal patterns of how two events – the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine dispute – were covered by the Chinese media, and speculate about the relationship between risk communication practice and its wider geopolitical context. Results revealed different frames were used for the two events, and that ‘threat’ was most frequently used when addressing the Russia-Ukraine dispute, whereas ‘risk’ was adopted for most COVID-19-related articles. Two themes were generated when interpreting the discourse through a critical geopolitical approach: ‘From the COVID-19 Approach to the Political Systems’ and ‘China as a global Player through its peaceful Rise’. While China prefers to maintain peace in its interaction with other global actors, the Chinese government does not simply accept adversity, particularly when it comes to geopolitical conflicts derived from arbitrary ideological disagreements. The study adds to the current literature on the relationship between the practice and context of risk communication, as well as to the underrepresented regional online news coverage of risks and conflicts that focus on China.
{"title":"Covering conflicts and risks: Chinese newspapers’ peace-loving discourse and their use of risk language","authors":"Liwen Zhang, Qing’an Zhou","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2208144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2208144","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The process through which people and society begin to see and frame something as risky is complex. As risk communication practitioners play a critical role in fostering real-world risk governance, this study emphasizes the performative role of language in mobilizing symbolic resources to build and control risks from a communication standpoint. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was used to reveal patterns of how two events – the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine dispute – were covered by the Chinese media, and speculate about the relationship between risk communication practice and its wider geopolitical context. Results revealed different frames were used for the two events, and that ‘threat’ was most frequently used when addressing the Russia-Ukraine dispute, whereas ‘risk’ was adopted for most COVID-19-related articles. Two themes were generated when interpreting the discourse through a critical geopolitical approach: ‘From the COVID-19 Approach to the Political Systems’ and ‘China as a global Player through its peaceful Rise’. While China prefers to maintain peace in its interaction with other global actors, the Chinese government does not simply accept adversity, particularly when it comes to geopolitical conflicts derived from arbitrary ideological disagreements. The study adds to the current literature on the relationship between the practice and context of risk communication, as well as to the underrepresented regional online news coverage of risks and conflicts that focus on China.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"1020 - 1036"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45161732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-08DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208121
J. Fraser, Livia Mello, N. Kunz
Abstract Infrastructure projects increasingly encounter delays due to non-technical risks (NTR), those risks arising from interactions between business and external stakeholders with the potential to create future negative impacts on society and the environment. One sector where NTR is having a significant adverse impact is the global mining sector, where industry leaders rank NTRs as the leading cause of business risk. We investigate how NTRs are assessed during project pre-feasibility using semi-structured interviews with 20 respondents from major mining companies. We find four main factors contribute to the problem of NTR assessment: there is lack of clarity about what constitutes a NTR; there are different interpretations of how NTR is defined and evaluated; there are disciplinary silos within project teams that impede a holistic assessment of risk; and there is conflation between risk and root cause. These factors contribute to striking differences in perceptions of non-technical risks between professionals in project management versus their sustainability colleagues. A four step process is proposed to improve non-technical risk assessment, align project and sustainability professionals, and identify opportunities for mitigation measures. This work seeks to improve NTR management within mining, a sector that is under-represented in existing literature, by adding empirical research examining how project teams identify and assess non-technical risk and contributes to theory at the nexus of project management and sustainability.
{"title":"Lost in translation: inadequate non-technical risk assessment within major project teams in mining","authors":"J. Fraser, Livia Mello, N. Kunz","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2208121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2208121","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Infrastructure projects increasingly encounter delays due to non-technical risks (NTR), those risks arising from interactions between business and external stakeholders with the potential to create future negative impacts on society and the environment. One sector where NTR is having a significant adverse impact is the global mining sector, where industry leaders rank NTRs as the leading cause of business risk. We investigate how NTRs are assessed during project pre-feasibility using semi-structured interviews with 20 respondents from major mining companies. We find four main factors contribute to the problem of NTR assessment: there is lack of clarity about what constitutes a NTR; there are different interpretations of how NTR is defined and evaluated; there are disciplinary silos within project teams that impede a holistic assessment of risk; and there is conflation between risk and root cause. These factors contribute to striking differences in perceptions of non-technical risks between professionals in project management versus their sustainability colleagues. A four step process is proposed to improve non-technical risk assessment, align project and sustainability professionals, and identify opportunities for mitigation measures. This work seeks to improve NTR management within mining, a sector that is under-represented in existing literature, by adding empirical research examining how project teams identify and assess non-technical risk and contributes to theory at the nexus of project management and sustainability.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"711 - 724"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42537992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-05DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208142
J. C. S. Wong, J. Yang
Abstract Americans’ concerns about the risks of vaccination are rising in recent years. In the original piece that explicated the psychometric paradigm, vaccinations were rated as less dreaded and less unknown. However, in 2016, vaccinations were more dreaded and more unknown in the public eye. A national survey (N = 1025) conducted in August 2021 reflects this trend in risk perception of the COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals who report different risk perceptions based on the unknown and dread characteristics associated with the COVID-19 vaccines also report different behavioral intent toward the vaccines. Overall, these findings show unknown risk to have a more salient impact on participants’ risk perception that influence their vaccine-related decisions.
{"title":"Risk perception of the COVID-19 vaccines: revisiting the psychometric paradigm","authors":"J. C. S. Wong, J. Yang","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2208142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2208142","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Americans’ concerns about the risks of vaccination are rising in recent years. In the original piece that explicated the psychometric paradigm, vaccinations were rated as less dreaded and less unknown. However, in 2016, vaccinations were more dreaded and more unknown in the public eye. A national survey (N = 1025) conducted in August 2021 reflects this trend in risk perception of the COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals who report different risk perceptions based on the unknown and dread characteristics associated with the COVID-19 vaccines also report different behavioral intent toward the vaccines. Overall, these findings show unknown risk to have a more salient impact on participants’ risk perception that influence their vaccine-related decisions.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"697 - 709"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45864934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208128
Ingrid Glette-Iversen, Azadeh Seif, T. Aven
Abstract To handle the risks related to coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease, governments worldwide have adopted different policies and strategies. These policies and strategies build on various approaches and methods to assess and convey the risks. This paper looks more closely into these approaches and methods. We review and discuss practices in four countries (Norway, the UK, the US and Sweden), focusing on the approaches, methods and models used to assess and describe the risks related to COVID-19. The main aims are to present some current thinking, reveal differences and suggest areas for improvement. The paper concludes that current practices can be enhanced by incorporating ideas and approaches from contemporary risk science, particularly in relation to how to treat uncertainties and reflect degrees of knowledge.
{"title":"Characterizations of COVID-19 risk: review and suggestions for improvement of current practices","authors":"Ingrid Glette-Iversen, Azadeh Seif, T. Aven","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2208128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2208128","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To handle the risks related to coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease, governments worldwide have adopted different policies and strategies. These policies and strategies build on various approaches and methods to assess and convey the risks. This paper looks more closely into these approaches and methods. We review and discuss practices in four countries (Norway, the UK, the US and Sweden), focusing on the approaches, methods and models used to assess and describe the risks related to COVID-19. The main aims are to present some current thinking, reveal differences and suggest areas for improvement. The paper concludes that current practices can be enhanced by incorporating ideas and approaches from contemporary risk science, particularly in relation to how to treat uncertainties and reflect degrees of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"725 - 747"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44510441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2204859
T. Onifade
Abstract Risk notions mostly espoused by the world risk society and securitization theories have influenced the two major risk handling methods: risk analysis and risk governance. Engaging the risk notions, some scholars and policy makers have identified risk governance as superior to risk analysis. Risk analysis, considered the classical method, has technical parameters, leaving out important societal considerations. Risk governance, an emerging method, reaches beyond technical into societal parameters, so it is more holistic. This risk analysis-governance distinction prompts the question on what exactly risk governance adds to risk analysis. To answer the question, the article uses methodology and concepts in policy studies: qualitative methods, mainly a policy analysis of the 2013/2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak as a case study and synthesis of relevant bodies of literature, backed by secondary data from institutional and country sources; and the adaptive and integrative risk governance model of Klinke and Renn (2012) as a conceptual framework to guide the policy analysis. The claim is that, depending on the model, risk governance mainly adds components that incorporate multilevel and multistakeholder participation to enhance risk handling. The overall finding in support of this claim is that risk governance, as more entrenched in international risk handling, considerably allows both multistakeholder and multilevel participation under its components, while risk analysis, generally dominating national risk handling, does not allow substantial multistakeholder participation under its components, although it appears that it could considerably allow multilevel participation as well. Despite the additions of risk governance to risk analysis, as practiced, both methods fail to be as inclusive as possible, suggesting there is room for improvement to risk handling.
{"title":"Risk analysis versus risk governance: the case study of the Ebola Virus Disease","authors":"T. Onifade","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2204859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2204859","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Risk notions mostly espoused by the world risk society and securitization theories have influenced the two major risk handling methods: risk analysis and risk governance. Engaging the risk notions, some scholars and policy makers have identified risk governance as superior to risk analysis. Risk analysis, considered the classical method, has technical parameters, leaving out important societal considerations. Risk governance, an emerging method, reaches beyond technical into societal parameters, so it is more holistic. This risk analysis-governance distinction prompts the question on what exactly risk governance adds to risk analysis. To answer the question, the article uses methodology and concepts in policy studies: qualitative methods, mainly a policy analysis of the 2013/2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak as a case study and synthesis of relevant bodies of literature, backed by secondary data from institutional and country sources; and the adaptive and integrative risk governance model of Klinke and Renn (2012) as a conceptual framework to guide the policy analysis. The claim is that, depending on the model, risk governance mainly adds components that incorporate multilevel and multistakeholder participation to enhance risk handling. The overall finding in support of this claim is that risk governance, as more entrenched in international risk handling, considerably allows both multistakeholder and multilevel participation under its components, while risk analysis, generally dominating national risk handling, does not allow substantial multistakeholder participation under its components, although it appears that it could considerably allow multilevel participation as well. Despite the additions of risk governance to risk analysis, as practiced, both methods fail to be as inclusive as possible, suggesting there is room for improvement to risk handling.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"625 - 647"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49294201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-24DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2197616
B. Armstrong, D. Bhattachary, Alex Bogdan, Caitlin Connors, Laura Broomfield, J. Disson, R. Gillespie, Helen Heard, Alice John, Lucy King, Marfot Miah, Ely Mirzahosseinkhan, Michelle Patel, A. Rayner, Sophie Watson
Abstract The use of digital methods in social research has increased significantly, offering some benefits over traditional research methods, and some new challenges. The UK Food Standards Agency’s social science provides several case studies of how digital methods can be effectively utilized in practice. The agency has adopted various digital methods including web push surveys, online panels, online deliberative dialogue and citizen science platforms to gather data and gain insights into citizens’ attitudes and behaviours when it comes to the food system and food safety and standards. The implementation of these digital methods has allowed for more efficient data collection, and when applied with care and creativity can offer a high level of engagement and participation from the public. Furthermore, the use of citizen science platforms such as Zooniverse has allowed for the involvement of the general public in the research process, leading to increased public understanding and engagement with the research. The broad use of digital methods in social research as demonstrated by the UK Food Standards Agency’s social science highlights the utility of such methods for current and future research practices.
{"title":"Digital methods of social science in food regulation: case studies from the Food Standards Agency","authors":"B. Armstrong, D. Bhattachary, Alex Bogdan, Caitlin Connors, Laura Broomfield, J. Disson, R. Gillespie, Helen Heard, Alice John, Lucy King, Marfot Miah, Ely Mirzahosseinkhan, Michelle Patel, A. Rayner, Sophie Watson","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2197616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2197616","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The use of digital methods in social research has increased significantly, offering some benefits over traditional research methods, and some new challenges. The UK Food Standards Agency’s social science provides several case studies of how digital methods can be effectively utilized in practice. The agency has adopted various digital methods including web push surveys, online panels, online deliberative dialogue and citizen science platforms to gather data and gain insights into citizens’ attitudes and behaviours when it comes to the food system and food safety and standards. The implementation of these digital methods has allowed for more efficient data collection, and when applied with care and creativity can offer a high level of engagement and participation from the public. Furthermore, the use of citizen science platforms such as Zooniverse has allowed for the involvement of the general public in the research process, leading to increased public understanding and engagement with the research. The broad use of digital methods in social research as demonstrated by the UK Food Standards Agency’s social science highlights the utility of such methods for current and future research practices.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"855 - 865"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44760799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Since the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, President Zelensky has used his social networks to request international support. This research analyzes the audiovisual discourse of the hegemonic networks during the first 40 days of the humanitarian war crisis in the context of risk communication. The contribution of this research relates to the unveiling of a new era where social media platforms are no longer the underdog of traditional media. This paper analyzes the visual content of President Zelensky’s most followed social media profile, Instagram. This paper builds on previous work examining the political leaders of the most affected European countries during the first days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and how they enhanced the use of their social media profiles in order to communicate about the crisis. In contrast to the use of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, the audiovisual narrative created by the president of Ukraine optimized the social network’s resources and achieved an impactful and authentic approach to leadership during the first 40 days of crisis.
{"title":"Unmuting leadership: the impact of Zelensky’s social media strategy at the inset of the Ukrainian War","authors":"Sebastián Sánchez-Castillo, Esteban Galán-Cubillo, Lindsey Drylie-Carey","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2194900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2194900","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, President Zelensky has used his social networks to request international support. This research analyzes the audiovisual discourse of the hegemonic networks during the first 40 days of the humanitarian war crisis in the context of risk communication. The contribution of this research relates to the unveiling of a new era where social media platforms are no longer the underdog of traditional media. This paper analyzes the visual content of President Zelensky’s most followed social media profile, Instagram. This paper builds on previous work examining the political leaders of the most affected European countries during the first days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and how they enhanced the use of their social media profiles in order to communicate about the crisis. In contrast to the use of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, the audiovisual narrative created by the president of Ukraine optimized the social network’s resources and achieved an impactful and authentic approach to leadership during the first 40 days of crisis.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"610 - 624"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44431648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-12DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2197613
Domagoj Vrbos, Giorgia Zamariola, L. Maxim, Giulia Nicolini, Paul Ortega, J. Ramsay, Matthias Rasche, Claire Rogers, Luca Schombert, Anthony Smith, B. Gallani
Abstract The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) receives hundreds of requests for scientific risk assessments each year and publishes on average over 500 scientific outputs annually. To optimise the planning for its risk communications, the authors developed a two-phase approach for assessing incoming requests that follows the first two stages of the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework―Pre-Assessment (Screening) and Appraisal (Risk Perceptions and Social Concerns Assessment)―and is driven by use of social insights, analytics, and professional knowledge. During the Pre-Assessment phase requests from risk managers are pre-screened and filtered then processed using a checklist divided into sections on the characteristics of risks, knowledge/awareness of them, and the institutional and market context. A decision tree was developed to manage the combinations of factors needed to trigger preparation for future risk communications options. Use of the approach was implemented and refined at EFSA from 2019 to 2021. During the Appraisal phase, societal insights from social research, media analysis and social media listening are compiled to i) map the elements to consider for risk communication and ii) identify the overall sensitivity of the subject matter, taking into account concerns, expectations and risk perceptions. These assessments of risk perception and societal concerns have been developed for sensitive topics and potentially emerging issues with the aim of identifying risks that share similar characterises, in terms of level of knowledge and risk perception. These two stages provide mechanisms to identify topics and clusters of topics of interest for risk communication and to drive the subsequent development of communication objectives and strategies. This is expected to inform the eventual development of standardised communication responses on topics within specific clusters.
{"title":"Societal insights in risk communication planning – a structured approach","authors":"Domagoj Vrbos, Giorgia Zamariola, L. Maxim, Giulia Nicolini, Paul Ortega, J. Ramsay, Matthias Rasche, Claire Rogers, Luca Schombert, Anthony Smith, B. Gallani","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2197613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2197613","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) receives hundreds of requests for scientific risk assessments each year and publishes on average over 500 scientific outputs annually. To optimise the planning for its risk communications, the authors developed a two-phase approach for assessing incoming requests that follows the first two stages of the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework―Pre-Assessment (Screening) and Appraisal (Risk Perceptions and Social Concerns Assessment)―and is driven by use of social insights, analytics, and professional knowledge. During the Pre-Assessment phase requests from risk managers are pre-screened and filtered then processed using a checklist divided into sections on the characteristics of risks, knowledge/awareness of them, and the institutional and market context. A decision tree was developed to manage the combinations of factors needed to trigger preparation for future risk communications options. Use of the approach was implemented and refined at EFSA from 2019 to 2021. During the Appraisal phase, societal insights from social research, media analysis and social media listening are compiled to i) map the elements to consider for risk communication and ii) identify the overall sensitivity of the subject matter, taking into account concerns, expectations and risk perceptions. These assessments of risk perception and societal concerns have been developed for sensitive topics and potentially emerging issues with the aim of identifying risks that share similar characterises, in terms of level of knowledge and risk perception. These two stages provide mechanisms to identify topics and clusters of topics of interest for risk communication and to drive the subsequent development of communication objectives and strategies. This is expected to inform the eventual development of standardised communication responses on topics within specific clusters.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"841 - 854"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47956387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-12DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2197614
L. Frewer, Max Blanck, Stephan Bronzwaer, Laura Martino, Domagoj Vrbos, Y. Devos
Abstract This report summarises the main discussions, conclusions and recommendations of the ‘One Society’ track of the ‘ONE – Health, Environment & Society – Conference 2022’ (21st–24th June 2002; Brussels and online), which was organised by the European Food Safety Authority. The four themes in the One Society track focused on risk communication, social science, engagement, including collaboration, the EU research agenda, and open science: more specifically, their integration into our understanding of existing and emerging food safety risks within agri-food systems, and as part of the ‘One Health’ context. The conclusions suggested that understanding food safety risks within ‘One Health’ requires collaboration and co-production of risk assessment and research objectives, data, methodologies and translation into policy with all interested actors, including the general public. Furthermore, effective implementation of open science practices and inter-agency collaboration are key to ensuring that policy and governance conditions can be optimised within the context of the transdisciplinary research environment in which the ‘One Health’ concept is embedded. Among main outcomes, the ‘One Society’ track clearly highlighted the need to: i) realise the EU’s collaborative food safety knowledge ecosystem, as no single actor can master the level of complexity alone, ii) consistently apply an ‘audience-first’ approach and use participatory formats from science to policymaking; iii) dedicate resources to build bridges with research projects; and iv) make open science a reality and a ‘default’ principle for regulatory science.
{"title":"Summary of the ONE SOCIETY track > opportunities and challenges","authors":"L. Frewer, Max Blanck, Stephan Bronzwaer, Laura Martino, Domagoj Vrbos, Y. Devos","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2197614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2197614","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This report summarises the main discussions, conclusions and recommendations of the ‘One Society’ track of the ‘ONE – Health, Environment & Society – Conference 2022’ (21st–24th June 2002; Brussels and online), which was organised by the European Food Safety Authority. The four themes in the One Society track focused on risk communication, social science, engagement, including collaboration, the EU research agenda, and open science: more specifically, their integration into our understanding of existing and emerging food safety risks within agri-food systems, and as part of the ‘One Health’ context. The conclusions suggested that understanding food safety risks within ‘One Health’ requires collaboration and co-production of risk assessment and research objectives, data, methodologies and translation into policy with all interested actors, including the general public. Furthermore, effective implementation of open science practices and inter-agency collaboration are key to ensuring that policy and governance conditions can be optimised within the context of the transdisciplinary research environment in which the ‘One Health’ concept is embedded. Among main outcomes, the ‘One Society’ track clearly highlighted the need to: i) realise the EU’s collaborative food safety knowledge ecosystem, as no single actor can master the level of complexity alone, ii) consistently apply an ‘audience-first’ approach and use participatory formats from science to policymaking; iii) dedicate resources to build bridges with research projects; and iv) make open science a reality and a ‘default’ principle for regulatory science.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"883 - 894"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43492442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-10DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2197612
Domagoj Vrbos, B. Gallani
Abstract At the crossroads of fast-paced communication trends and the partnerships EFSA has forged with its peer organisations globally, social sciences evolved to become an integrated part of the organisation’s work - the topic also grew to become a salient part of the scientific programme of EFSA conferences. Organised every three to four years, the latter aim to bring together experts and stakeholders to discuss key food safety topics and share knowledge, data and expertise. Most recently, the ONE Conference held in Brussels 21-24 June 2022, offered the opportunity to do so as part of the session on ‘Putting science into context – the future of social sciences in risk analysis’. In this special issue, we wish to highlight some of the key points discussed and offer the opportunity for conference speakers, coming from organisations that inspired the evolution of social science at EFSA, to further elaborate the evidence-based approaches employed to strengthen communication and engagement in their work. We also welcome commentaries of established experts in this area on key conference takeaways and ways forward to continuously improve the application of humanities and social sciences in regulatory organisations working in the realm of food regulation, food safety and public health and nutrition.
{"title":"Introduction to the special issue","authors":"Domagoj Vrbos, B. Gallani","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2197612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2197612","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract At the crossroads of fast-paced communication trends and the partnerships EFSA has forged with its peer organisations globally, social sciences evolved to become an integrated part of the organisation’s work - the topic also grew to become a salient part of the scientific programme of EFSA conferences. Organised every three to four years, the latter aim to bring together experts and stakeholders to discuss key food safety topics and share knowledge, data and expertise. Most recently, the ONE Conference held in Brussels 21-24 June 2022, offered the opportunity to do so as part of the session on ‘Putting science into context – the future of social sciences in risk analysis’. In this special issue, we wish to highlight some of the key points discussed and offer the opportunity for conference speakers, coming from organisations that inspired the evolution of social science at EFSA, to further elaborate the evidence-based approaches employed to strengthen communication and engagement in their work. We also welcome commentaries of established experts in this area on key conference takeaways and ways forward to continuously improve the application of humanities and social sciences in regulatory organisations working in the realm of food regulation, food safety and public health and nutrition.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"837 - 840"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44374830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：