208
Dreyer and colleagues furthermore concluded that it is a huge challenge to organise such transnational citizen involvement in an effective and fair manner. As mentioned above, together with participation, increased transparency in decision-making
processes is vital for refl exive governance. In practice however this transparency is
seen in relation to well-organised stakeholders and representatives of different
organisations and generally does not include the common citizen.
Our main argument in this chapter is that risk communication to the public (particularly in its dialogic form) is a necessary element in refl exive governance, which
in turn is a key requirement for serious implementation of EAM and a move towards
a more sustainable marine environment. We also argue that wide public acceptance
of general risk policies and their underlying principles is a necessary condition in
order to successfully implement such measures and that there is a need to focus on
the role of the public. To better understand the forms and consequences of public
involvement and risk communication, this chapter analytically focuses on institutional arrangements and arenas for public risk communication with a main focus on
the news media given its ability to infl uence frames and agendas. These are some of
the main factors that shape the relationship between the general public and policymakers in the fi eld of political communication (cf. Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999 ;
Schulz 2004 ; Strömbäck 2008 ).
9.1.2 Aim and Questions
Against this background, the overarching purpose of this chapter is to describe and
discuss conditions for risk communication in relation to the fi ve main environmental risks in BSR, with a particular focus on communication with and to the larger
public. We also suggest possible pathways to encourage aspects of risk communication that facilitate refl exive governance and implementation of EAM . We will
empirically explore the following questions:
1. What are the existing institutional arrangements and procedures of risk communication at the regional (Baltic Sea) level? What forms of communication can we
identify (linear vs. dialogue, formal vs. informal, etc.)?
2. What is the role of public risk communication in environmental risk governance
of BSR, and how can this communication be understood and characterised?
3. What role can be ascribed to different kinds of news media ? What is the role of
framing , arenas and agendas?
The empirical data used for analysis in this chapter is drawn from fi ve case studies, which were conducted in the RISKGOV project. The case studies analyse the
governance of the marine environmental risks of eutrophication (Haahti et al. 2010 ),
invasive alien species (IAS) (Lemke et al. 2010 ), overfi shing (Sellke et al. 2010 ), oil
discharges (Hassler et al. 2010 ) and chemical pollution (Udovyk et al. 2010 ) with
respect to three governance dimensions, one of which is ‘processes of stakeholder
A.M. Jönsson et al.
Dreyer and colleagues furthermore concluded that it is a huge challenge to organise such transnational citizen involvement in an effective and fair manner. As mentioned above, together with participation, increased transparency in decision-making
processes is vital for refl exive governance. In practice however this transparency is
seen in relation to well-organised stakeholders and representatives of different
organisations and generally does not include the common citizen.
Our main argument in this chapter is that risk communication to the public (particularly in its dialogic form) is a necessary element in refl exive governance, which
in turn is a key requirement for serious implementation of EAM and a move towards
a more sustainable marine environment. We also argue that wide public acceptance
of general risk policies and their underlying principles is a necessary condition in
order to successfully implement such measures and that there is a need to focus on
the role of the public. To better understand the forms and consequences of public
involvement and risk communication, this chapter analytically focuses on institutional arrangements and arenas for public risk communication with a main focus on
the news media given its ability to infl uence frames and agendas. These are some of
the main factors that shape the relationship between the general public and policymakers in the fi eld of political communication (cf. Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999 ;
Schulz 2004 ; Strömbäck 2008 ).
9.1.2 Aim and Questions
Against this background, the overarching purpose of this chapter is to describe and
discuss conditions for risk communication in relation to the fi ve main environmental risks in BSR, with a particular focus on communication with and to the larger
public. We also suggest possible pathways to encourage aspects of risk communication that facilitate refl exive governance and implementation of EAM . We will
empirically explore the following questions:
1. What are the existing institutional arrangements and procedures of risk communication at the regional (Baltic Sea) level? What forms of communication can we
identify (linear vs. dialogue, formal vs. informal, etc.)?
2. What is the role of public risk communication in environmental risk governance
of BSR, and how can this communication be understood and characterised?
3. What role can be ascribed to different kinds of news media ? What is the role of
framing , arenas and agendas?
The empirical data used for analysis in this chapter is drawn from fi ve case studies, which were conducted in the RISKGOV project. The case studies analyse the
governance of the marine environmental risks of eutrophication (Haahti et al. 2010 ),
invasive alien species (IAS) (Lemke et al. 2010 ), overfi shing (Sellke et al. 2010 ), oil
discharges (Hassler et al. 2010 ) and chemical pollution (Udovyk et al. 2010 ) with
respect to three governance dimensions, one of which is ‘processes of stakeholder
A.M. Jönsson et al.