Risk analysis versus risk governance: The case study of the Ebola Virus Disease

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

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 (Citation2012) 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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)625-647
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Risk Research
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 May 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Thanks to Memorial University, particularly the Environmental Policy Institute, and subsequently, University of British Columbia and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support during the study. Thanks to Andreas Klinke, Gabriela Sabau and Stephen Decker for comments that have helped shape the paper. Thanks also to the editors and anonymous referees. My research assistants and former students, Oluwaseyi Awosiyan and Belizario Carballo, also provided valuable research support. The usual caveat applies.

Funding Information:
A previous draft of this paper was presented at the University of Prince Edward Island Multidisciplinary Research Conference in 2015 and Memorial University Environmental Policy Research Workshop in 2015. That draft appeared in the proceedings of the former conference and was submitted as a research paper to the latter workshop, but the current draft is however considerably different. Thanks to Memorial University, particularly the Environmental Policy Institute, and subsequently, University of British Columbia and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support during the study. Thanks to Andreas Klinke, Gabriela Sabau and Stephen Decker for comments that have helped shape the paper. Thanks also to the editors and anonymous referees. My research assistants and former students, Oluwaseyi Awosiyan and Belizario Carballo, also provided valuable research support. The usual caveat applies.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Risk analysis versus risk governance: The case study of the Ebola Virus Disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this