Content uploaded by Kristian Krieger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristian Krieger on May 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Resilience and risk studies
... The concept is not easy to define according to many academics (e.g. Manyena 2006;Furedi 2008;Krieger 2016), but several influential attempts exist nevertheless. For instance, in its integrated emergency management programme, the United Kingdom's Cabinet Office (2011,14) understands by infrastructure resilience "the ability of assets, networks, and systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from a disruptive event". ...
... A resilient energy system can speedily recover from shocks and can provide alternative means of satisfying energy service needs in the event of changed external circumstances. (UKERC 2011, 7) Psychologists also advanced the concept of individual resilience from the 1940s onwards (Krieger 2016) and systems ecology drew on the concept in the 1970s (Lindseth 2011). Literatures on risk assessment and risk perception have separated anticipation of potential but known threats from resilience to recover from both expected and unexpected threats for a number of decades (Douglas & Wildavsky 1982 ;Hood et al 1992) -although the two strategies are often blurred in policy term definitions (e.g. ...
Energy risk and security have become topical matters in Western and international policy discussions; ranging from international climate change mitigation to investment in energy infrastructures to support economic growth and more sustainable energy provisions. As such, ensuring the resilience of more sustainable energy infrastructures against disruptions has become a growing concern for high-level policy makers. Drawing on interviews, participant observation, policy analysis, and survey research, this book unpacks the work of the authorities, electricity companies, and lay persons that keeps energy systems from failing and helps them to recover from disruptions if they occur. The book explores a number of important issues: the historical security policy of energy infrastructures; control rooms where electricity is traded and maintained in real time; and electricity consumers in their homes. Presenting case studies from Finland and Scandinavia, with comparisons to the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union at large, Making Electricity Resilient offers a detailed and innovative analysis of long-term priorities and short-term dynamics in energy risk and resilience. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of energy policy and security, and science and technology studies.
... At this communityor 'We'level, risk and crisis management efforts thus recognise that disasters and catastrophes, along with individual resilience to such events, are shaped by social processes, and so using decentralised mechanisms can be helpful in identifying and addressing local community vulnerabilities as well as building social capital to help facilitate collective responses (Finucane et al. 2020). Decentralisation does not mean abdicating responsibility, but rather requires communication and co-ordination with local representatives working together with key stakeholder groups and local community leaders, to listen to concerns, learn from experiences and take different viewpoints into consideration (Krieger 2016). This helps to enable mutual understanding, connectedness and shared sense-making as a crisis situation unfolds and takes a new track. ...
Good leadership is widely regarded as a crucial component of risk and crisis management and remains an enduring theme of more than 40 years of inquiry into emergencies, disasters, and controversies. Today, the question of good leadership has come under the spotlight again as a key factor shaping how successfully nations have dealt with the COVID-19 global health crisis. Amidst plummeting levels of public trust, the worst recession of the G7, and the highest death toll in Europe, the UK’s pandemic leadership response has faced especially stern accusations of incompetence and culpability for what has been described as the most catastrophic science policy failure for a generation. Addressing these issues, this paper argues for the adoption of a more pluralised UK leadership approach for handling COVID-19. Particularly, it is contended that as COVID-19 is a multifaceted problem that presents many varied and distributed challenges, UK leadership should employ a differentiated range of strategic mechanisms and processes to help improve substantive understandings and decision-making, support collective resilience, and build adaptive capacities as the crisis continues. The paper accordingly identifies and elaborates thirteen strategies, drawing on lessons and insights from the risk and crisis management field, that are proposed to serve as a useful heuristic to help guide UK pandemic leadership in this endeavour. To illustrate the value and application of each strategy, examples are provided of noteworthy leadership responses to COVID-19 observed internationally thus far, as well as leadership problems that have hampered the UK’s pandemic response. In conclusion, it is suggested that in as far as the conduct expected of leaders during a pandemic, or any other crisis, should maintain and be reflective of democratic values and standards of legitimacy, these strategies may also provide broadly applicable normative criteria against which leadership performance in handling COVID-19 may be judged as crisis ready.
... Advocates of a positive view of risk recognise 'that understanding and managing risk lies at the heart of the challenges we face today in business, government and civil society' (Madge and Barker, 2007: 8) and suggest that learning to take calculated risks is an important undertaking for children 'to grow into competent and confident adults who have a measured view of society and its challenges' (Madge and Barker, 2007: 45). Children's engagement in beneficial risk-taking can support the development of physical, cognitive, social and emotional skills ( Brussoni et al., 2015;Farmer et al., 2017;Gill, 2007;Little and Wyver, 2008;Madge and Barker, 2007;Sandseter and Kennair, 2011), as well as increase children's inherent risk management skills and aid in the development of key life dispositions such as perseverance, resilience and creativity ( Brussoni et al., 2015;Dweck, 2012;Gill, 2007;Jones, 2007;Krieger, 2016;Madge and Barker, 2007;Simmons and Ren, 2009;Stephenson, 2003;Tovey, 2007). Acknowledging the benefits, commentators now promote an 'as safe as necessary' approach that balances risk with potential benefits ( Ball et al., 2012;Brussoni et al., 2012;Gill, 2007) ...
Children’s engagement in risk-taking has been on the agenda for early childhood education for the past 10–15 years. At a time when some say the minority world has become overly risk averse, early childhood education aims to support confident, competent and resilient children through the inclusion of beneficial risk in early childhood education. The concept of risk is a complex phenomenon. Beneficial risk is engaging in experiences that take a person outside of their comfort zone and include outcomes that may be beneficial to learning, development and life satisfaction. To date, research on beneficial risk in early childhood has focused on children’s risk-taking in outdoor play. This focus has led to a predominant conceptualisation of beneficial risk in early childhood as an outdoor physical play activity for children. In this article, the authors problematise this conceptualisation. Drawing on both broad and early childhood education specific literature, the authors explore the current discourse on risk in both childhood and early childhood education. The authors identify the development of the current conceptualisation of risk as an experience for children within play, outdoors and as a physical activity, and highlight the limitations of this conceptualisation. The authors argue that for risk-taking to be in line with the predominantly holistic approach of early childhood education, a broad view of risk is needed. To achieve this broad view, the authors argue for a re-conceptualisation of risk that encompasses a wide range of risk experiences for both children and educators. The authors suggest further research is needed to expand our understanding of beneficial risk in early childhood education. They propose further research will offer a significant contribution to the early childhood sector.
This chapter explores in detail one reason for the neglect of disaster risk reduction by discussing existing research on people’s distorted perception of risks in the context of natural hazards. To that end, the chapter analyses the factual ability to reduce the impact of natural hazards, specifically floods and earthquakes, and how laypersons perceive such capacities. The analysis demonstrates a discrepancy between the people’s perception of risks and the reduction of risks from natural hazards, and the scientific facts about the extent to which humankind can protect life and property from natural hazards. To explain this discrepancy, the analysis additionally presents how the culturally conditioned relationship between natural hazards and psychological phenomena distorts the perception of risks associated with natural hazards. In doing so, the chapter provides knowledge about risk distortions that are relevant for designing measures to mitigate the risks.
The concept of resilience has been commonly recognized as a new leitmotif of security governance in the European Union. In the aftermath of the so-called 'migration crisis' , resilience has spilled over migration and border management, promoting the notions of resilient Schengen and broadly understood tech-nologization of border management, to name a few. This trend has been only strengthened during the COVID-19 pandemic and the most recent border and refugee crises on the EU eastern border, which have mainstreamed the notions of anticipation, preparedness, and the ability to withstand shocks and disturbances external to the EU as a whole. Building on these developments, this article discusses how anticipatory governance interlocks with resilience within the newly proposed EU migration crisis management framework. In doing so, it provides a more nuanced picture of the EU's post-2015 and 2016 approach to human mobility, asylum, and border protection. Such a take will also allow us to see how exactly the EU has adapted to new migratory circumstances, while conceptualizing the uncertainties related to increased migratory flows and operationalizing specific anticipatory and resilience-centered policy responses.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.