Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-09T06:16:41.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Participation, precaution and reflexive governance for sustainable development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Andy Stirling
Edited by
W. Neil Adger  and
Andrew Jordan
Andy Stirling
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
W. Neil Adger
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Andrew Jordan
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access

Summary

Precaution, participation and sustainability

Preoccupations with issues of precaution and participation are two of the most important elements in current discussions of the terms ‘governance’ and ‘sustainable development’. They represent two of the principal forms in which the sustainability agenda might be seen most tangibly to have penetrated the ways in which society at large is governed. Recently, a series of pressing policy challenges surrounding the development of new science and technology have raised difficult questions about the role of precaution and participation in the governance of innovation. Surprisingly, however, there remains relatively little attention to the interlinkages between the issues of sustainability, precaution and participation. Academic and policy discussions alike remain largely segregated. It is in this regard that the work of Tim O'Riordan has – until recently – been rather unusual, in that he has tended to address all three topics in an integrated way and with equal vision and vigour (O'Riordan and Cameron, 1994; O'Riordan et al., 2000; O'Riordan, 2001; O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann, 2002).

This chapter seeks to build on his contributions by exploring some of the conceptual and policy implications of the links between these themes, while pointing towards possible future orientations. It begins by exploring some important general characteristics of ‘sustainability’ as a high-profile concept in contemporary governance discourses. In particular, it will be argued that there exist three quite distinct ways in which the concept of sustainability can be understood: substantively – as a set of publicly deliberated goals; normatively – as a social process; and instrumentally – as a means discursively to support and justify narrow sectional interests.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Governing Sustainability , pp. 193 - 225
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,AEBC (Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission) 2004. Annual Report 2002–3. London: Department of Trade and Industry. URL: www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/reports/2003_report.pdf.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. 2000. Reflexive Methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Amendola, A., Contini, S. and Ziomas, I. 2002. ‘Uncertainties in chemical risk assessment: results of a European benchmark exercise’, Journal of Hazardous Materials 29: 347–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
,BBSRC (Biological and Biotechnology Research Council) 1994. UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology: Final Report. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Berlinski, D. 1976 On Systems Analysis: An Essay Concerning the Limitations of some Mathematical Models in the Social, Political Biological Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blair, T. 2003. ‘Response to Questions, 10th November 2003’, House of Commons Hansard, Column 14 W [cited 15 April 2005]. URL: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031110/text/31110w04.htm#31110w04.html_spmin1.Google Scholar
Bohmann, J. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. 1986. Politics, Economics and Welfare: An Elementary Introduction to Social Choice. Brighton, UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquand, L. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Brooks, H. 1986. ‘The typology of surprises in technology, institutions and development’, in Clark, W. C. and Munn, R. E. (eds.) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 325–48.Google Scholar
Brown, W. 2002. ‘The prevalence of inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 12: 369–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J., Stirling, A. C., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K. and Williamson, S. 2007. ‘Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions’, Public Understanding of Science 16: 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, D. and Cothern, C. 2000. Introduction to Risk Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Science-based Decision Making. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes.Google Scholar
,CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. COM (2000) 1 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
,CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 2001. White Paper on Governance (section II). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. URL: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf.Google Scholar
,CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 2004. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. URL: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00550185.pdf.
Collingridge, D. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Collingridge, D. 1982. Critical Decision Making: A New Theory of Social Choice. London, UK: Pinter.Google Scholar
Coote, A. and Lenaghan, J. 1997. Citizen's Juries: Theory into Practice. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
,CSF (Chemicals Stakeholder Forum UK) 2004. Fifth Annual Report: 2005. London, UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Davies, G., Burgess, J., Eames, M., Mayer, S., Staley, S., Stirling, A. and Williamson, S. 2003. Deliberative Mapping: Appraising Options for Closing ‘The Kidney Gap’. Final Report to the Wellcome Trust. URL: www.deliberative-mapping.org.uk.Google Scholar
,DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) 2005. What is a Sustainable Community?London: Department of Communities and Local Government. URL: www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1139866.Google Scholar
Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Gough, C., Guimarães, Pereira A. and Rota, E. 1998. The Ulysses Voyage: The ULYSSES Project at the JRC. EUR 17760EN. Ispra, Italy: Joint Research Centre. URL: http://zit1.zit.tu-darmstadt.de/ulysses/tutorial.htm.Google Scholar
,DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 2002. Science for Sustainability: DEFRA Agency Review. London, UK: Department for Environment and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
,DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 2004. Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket. London: HMSO. URL: www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/indicators/sdiyp/sdiyp 04a4.pdf.Google Scholar
Dobson, A. 1996. ‘Environmental sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology’, Environmental Politics 5: 401–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. 2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. and Niemeyer, S. 2003. ‘Pluralism and consensus in political deliberation’, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, 28–31 August, 2003.
,ECFESD (European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development) 2000. Sustainable Governance: Institutional and Procedural Aspects of Sustainability. Brussels: European Commission. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/forum/governance_en.pdf.Google Scholar
,ESTO (European Science and Technology Observatory) 1999. On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk. Volume I: Synthesis Study. EUR19056 EN. Report to the EU Forward Studies Unit. Seville: European Science and Technology Observatory. URL: ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur19056IIen.pdf.Google Scholar
Faber, M. and Proops, J. 1994. Evolution, Time, Production and the Environment. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Farman, J. 2001. ‘Halocarbons, the ozone layer and the precautionary principle’, in Gee, D., Harremoës, P., Keys, J., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Vaz, S. and Wynne, B. (eds.) Late Lesson from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1898–2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, pp. 76–82.
Fiorino, D. J. 1990. ‘Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values 15: 226–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fisher, E. 2001. ‘Is the precautionary principle justiciable?’ Journal of Environmental Law 13: 317–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, E. 2002. ‘Precaution, precaution everywhere: developing a common understanding of the precautionary principle in the European Community’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 9: 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, E. and Harding, R. (eds.) 1999. Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle. Sydney: Federation Press.
Forster, M. 1999. ‘How do simple rules fit to reality in a complex world?’ Minds and Machines 9: 543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, D., Harremoës, P., Keys, J., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Vaz, S. and Wynne, B. (eds.). 2001. Late Lesson from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1898–2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Giddens, A. 1976. The New Rules of Sociological Method. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. London, UK: Heineman.Google Scholar
Grove-White, R., Macnaghton, P., Mayer, S. and Wynne, B. 1997. Uncertain World. Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1968. Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. London, UK: Heineman.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Hood, C. 2002. ‘Managing risk and managing blame: a political science approach’, in Weale, A. (ed.) Risk, Democratic Citizenship and Public Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
Horlick-Jones, T. 1996. ‘The problem of blame’, in Hood, C. and Jones, D. (eds.) Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk Management. London, UK: UCL Press, pp. 34–47.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. 1994. ‘The social construction of precaution’, in O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London, UK: Earthscan, pp. 117–25.
Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen Science: a Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2003. ‘Technologies of humility: citizens’ participation in governing science', Minerva 41: 223–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaulin, L., Kieffer, M., Didrit, O. and Walter, É. 2001. Applied Interval Analysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P., Santillo, D. and Stringer, R. 1998. Risk Assessment and Reality: Recognizing the Limitations. Exeter University.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. and O'Riordan, T. 2003. ‘An ever more sustainable union? Integrating economy, society and environment in a rapidly enlarging Europe’, in Koutrakou, V. (ed.) Contemporary Issues and Debates in EU Policy: The EU and Internal Relations. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, pp. 149–61.Google Scholar
Joss, S. and Durrant, J. 1995. Public Participation in Science: the Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London, UK: Science Museum.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. 1978. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1921. A Treatise on Probability. London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Knight, F. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Leib, E. 2004. Deliberative Democracy in America: A Proposal for a Popular Branch of Government. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Levidow, L., Carr, S., Schomberg, R. and Wield, D. 1998. ‘European biotechnology regulation: framing the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop’, Science, Technology and Human Values 22: 472–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, R. 1995. ‘Galloping Gertie and the precautionary principle: how is environmental impact assessment assessed?’ in Wakeford, T. and Walters, N. (eds.) Science for the Earth. Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 197–236.Google Scholar
Lloyd, L. 2000. ‘The tyranny of the L-shape curve’, Science and Public Affairs February, 14–15. URL: www.the-ba.net/the-ba/News/ReportsandPublications/ScienceAndPublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Loasby, B. 1976. Choice, Complexity and Ignorance: An Inquiry into Economic Theory and the Practice of Decision Making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H. (1957) ‘An axiomatic treatment of utility’, in Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H. (eds.) Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York: Wiley, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
MacKay, A. 1980. Arrow's Theorem: The Paradox of Social Choice: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Economics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. 1988. Q Methodology. London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadowcroft, J., Farrell, K. N. and Spangenberg, J. 2005. ‘Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union’, International Journal of Sustainable Development 8: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Misztal, B. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. M., Henrion, M. and Small, M. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. (ed.) 2000. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. London, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.
Murcott, S. 1997. Sustainable Development: A Meta-Review of Definitions, Principles, Criteria Indicators, Conceptual Frameworks and Information Systems. Annual Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Feb 13–18. URL: www.sustainableliving.org/appen-b.htm.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. 2001. Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
,NRC (National Research Council) 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Research Council Committee on Risk Characterisation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
,OED (Oxford English Dictionary) 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, J. 2002. Creating Better Futures: Scenario Planning as a Tool for a Better Tomorrow. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Riordan, T. (ed.) 2001. Globalism, Localism and Identity: Fresh Perspectives on the Transition to Sustainability. London, UK: Earthscan.
O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.) 1994. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London, UK: Earthscan.
O'Riordan, T. and Stoll-Kleemann, S. (eds.) 2002. Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting Beyond the Protected. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
O'Riordan, T., Cameron, J. and Jordan, A. (eds.) 2000. Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London, UK: Cameron and May.
,PDSB (Public Debate Steering Board) 2003. GM Nation: The Findings of the Public Debate. London, UK: Department of Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Pellizzoni, L. 2001. ‘The myth of the best argument: power deliberation and reason’, British Journal of Sociology 52: 59–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellizzoni, L. 2003. ‘Uncertainty and participatory democracy’, Environmental Values 12: 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1997. ‘The idea of public reason revisited’, University of Chicago Law Review 64: 767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds.) 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRef
Renn, O., Dreyer, M., Klinke, A., Losert, C., Stirling, A., Zwanenberg, P., Muller-Herold, U., Morosini, M. and Fisher, E. 2003. The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union. Stuttgart, Germany: Centre of Technology Assessment in Baden-Wuerttemberg.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1993. Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. 1996. ‘Uncertainty and technological change’, in Landau, R., Taylor, T. and Wright, G. (eds.) The Mosaic of Economic Growth. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rowe, W. 1994. ‘Understanding uncertainty’, Risk Analysis 14: 743–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltelli, A. 2001. Sensitivity Analysis for Importance Assessment. Ispra, Italy: Joint Research Centre. URL: www.ce.ncsu.edu/risk/pdf/saltelli.pdf.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H. 2000. ‘The precautionary principle: a European perspective’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6: 445–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandin, P., Peterson, M., Ove Hansson, S., Rudén, C. and Juthe, A. 2002. ‘Five charges against the precautionary principle’, Journal of Risk Research 5: 287–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,SBI (Sustainable Business Initiative) 2005. Sustainable Business Initiative, Prospectus. San Jose, CA: Sustainable Business Initiative. URL: www.sustainablebusiness.org/index.html.Google Scholar
Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, A. 1997. The Problem of Trust. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
,SRP 2003. GM Science Review Panel First Report. London: Department for Trade and Industry, July 2003. URL: www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#first.Google Scholar
,SRP 2004. GM Science Review Panel Second Report, London: Department for Trade and Industry, January 2004. URL: www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm#second.Google Scholar
Steier, F. 1991. Research and Reflexivity. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 1997. ‘Multi-criteria mapping: mitigating the problems of environmental valuation?’ in Foster, J. (ed) Valuing Nature: Economics, Ethics and Environment. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 186–210.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 1999. ‘Risk at a turning point?’ Journal of Environmental Medicine 1: 119–26.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, A. 2003. ‘Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences’, in Berkhout, F., Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (eds.) Negotiating Environmental Change. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar, pp. 33–76.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 2005. ‘Opening up or closing down: analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology’, in Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds.) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London, UK: Zed Books, pp. 218–31.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 2006. ‘Uncertainty, precaution and sustainability: towards more reflective governance of technology’, in Voss, J. and Kemp, R. (eds.) Sustainability and Reflexive Governance. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar, pp. 225–72.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 2007. ‘A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society’, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4: 707–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stirling, A. and Mayer, S. 2001. ‘A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 529–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundqvist, T., Soderholm, P. and Stirling, A. 2004. ‘Electric power generation: valuation of environmental costs’, in Cleveland, C. J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Energy Volume 2. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 229–43.Google Scholar
Taverne, D. 2005. The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. and Warburton, M. 1985. ‘Decision making under contradictory certainties: how to save the Himalayas when you can't find what's wrong with them’, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis12, 3–34.Google Scholar
Thornton, J. 2000. Pandora's Poison: On Chlorine, Health and a New Environmental Strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tickner, J. 1998. ‘A commonsense framework for operationalizing the precautionary principle’, paper presented to Wingspread Conference on Strategies for Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Racine, WI.
,UKCEED (United Kingdom Centre for Economy, Environment and Development) 1999. Final Report of Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste Management. Cambridge: UKCEED.Google Scholar
,UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) 1992. Final Declaration of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
,UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) 1997. Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
,United Nations 2002. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. United Nations, Division for Sustainable Development, New York. URL: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isdms2001/isd-ms2001isd.htm.Google Scholar
,United Nations General Assembly (2000) Millennium Development Declaration. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/2, 18 September 2000. URL: www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf.Google Scholar
,USDA (US Department of Agriculture) 2000. The Role of Precaution in Food Safety Decisions: Remarks Prepared for Under Secretary for Food Safety, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Zwanenberg, P. and Stirling, A. 2004. ‘Risk and precaution in the US and Europe’, Yearbook of European Environmental Law 3: 43–57.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 2000. ‘The WTO vote: the wrong whipping boy’, American Prospect 11: 14.Google Scholar
Voss, J. and Kemp, R. (eds.) 2006) Sustainability and Reflexive Governance. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.CrossRef
Werner, R. 2004. Designing Strategy: Scenario Analysis and the Art of Making Business Strategy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (ed.) 1988. Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London, UK: Sage.
Wynne, B. 1992. ‘Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm’, Global Environmental Change 2: 111–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. 2001. ‘Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs’, Science as Culture 10: 445–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. 2002. ‘Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out?’ Current Sociology 50: 459–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×