14 Susanne Hanger-Kopp et al.
are the Cultural Theory of Risk (CT) of Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) and
Beck’s Risk Society (1986).
Taylor- Gooby and Zinn (2006) highlight that economic, psychological, and
sociological approaches are increasingly overlapping. They also emphasise the
potential for cross- disciplinary fertilisation, particularly across psychological and
sociological approaches but also with economics. This leaves bridging the gap
between positivist and constructivist thinking. We find middle ground following
a critical realist approach (Bhaskar, 2008; Sayer, 2000), where we create space
for subjective risk perceptions and assessment, recognising the importance of
concern (Fischhoff, Hope, and Watson, 1990) while conceding that within this
social realm there are certain risks and assessments that can be considered
objective, in the sense of a common understanding across stakeholder groups.
An interdisciplinary framework for assessing risks and
uncertainties
The simplest common denominator to define risk across all these disciplinary
approaches would describe it as the probability, chance, or potential for a
negative outcome, impact, or consequence. Any further specifications of risk
will always be context specific. Indeed, Fischhoff, Hope, and Watson claim that:
the definition of risk, like that of any other key term in policy issues, is
inherently controversial. The choice of definition can affect the outcome of
policy debates, the allocation of resources among safety measures, and the
distribution of political power in society.
(Fischhoff, Hope, and Watson, 1990, p. 30)
In this book, we are interested in the risks associated with low- carbon transition pathways – or more precisely in the risks associated with the policy choices
which constitute the foundation of such transition pathways – by promoting or
mobilising the necessary transitions, principally with energy pathways. Frequently, such risks are termed as policy risks. Figure 2.1 illustrates how policy
risk consists of two fundamental categories, which we call ‘implementation risk’
and ‘consequential risk’.
• Implementation risk refers to the potential for diverse causes to affect the
design, implementation, or success of a given policy; it introduces potential
failure of policy implementation to the idea of barriers or challenges.
• Consequential risk refers to the potential for a certain policy to cause
diverse negative consequences. Any anticipated consequential risk may
become a cognitive barrier to the implementation of a pathway, i.e. an
implementation risk.
Making this distinction explicit, and thus highlighting the importance of clearly
describing ‘cause’ in addition to ‘likelihood’ and ‘effect’ for any given risk,
are the Cultural Theory of Risk (CT) of Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) and
Beck’s Risk Society (1986).
Taylor- Gooby and Zinn (2006) highlight that economic, psychological, and
sociological approaches are increasingly overlapping. They also emphasise the
potential for cross- disciplinary fertilisation, particularly across psychological and
sociological approaches but also with economics. This leaves bridging the gap
between positivist and constructivist thinking. We find middle ground following
a critical realist approach (Bhaskar, 2008; Sayer, 2000), where we create space
for subjective risk perceptions and assessment, recognising the importance of
concern (Fischhoff, Hope, and Watson, 1990) while conceding that within this
social realm there are certain risks and assessments that can be considered
objective, in the sense of a common understanding across stakeholder groups.
An interdisciplinary framework for assessing risks and
uncertainties
The simplest common denominator to define risk across all these disciplinary
approaches would describe it as the probability, chance, or potential for a
negative outcome, impact, or consequence. Any further specifications of risk
will always be context specific. Indeed, Fischhoff, Hope, and Watson claim that:
the definition of risk, like that of any other key term in policy issues, is
inherently controversial. The choice of definition can affect the outcome of
policy debates, the allocation of resources among safety measures, and the
distribution of political power in society.
(Fischhoff, Hope, and Watson, 1990, p. 30)
In this book, we are interested in the risks associated with low- carbon transition pathways – or more precisely in the risks associated with the policy choices
which constitute the foundation of such transition pathways – by promoting or
mobilising the necessary transitions, principally with energy pathways. Frequently, such risks are termed as policy risks. Figure 2.1 illustrates how policy
risk consists of two fundamental categories, which we call ‘implementation risk’
and ‘consequential risk’.
• Implementation risk refers to the potential for diverse causes to affect the
design, implementation, or success of a given policy; it introduces potential
failure of policy implementation to the idea of barriers or challenges.
• Consequential risk refers to the potential for a certain policy to cause
diverse negative consequences. Any anticipated consequential risk may
become a cognitive barrier to the implementation of a pathway, i.e. an
implementation risk.
Making this distinction explicit, and thus highlighting the importance of clearly
describing ‘cause’ in addition to ‘likelihood’ and ‘effect’ for any given risk,