This volume is intended to stimulate a change in the practice of decision support, advocating an interdisciplinary approach centred on both social and natural sciences, both theory and practice. It addresses the issue of analysis and management of uncertainty and risk in decision support corresponding to the aims of Integrated Assessment. A pluralistic method is necessary to account for legitimate plural interpretations of uncertainty and multiple risk perceptions. A wide range of methods and tools is presented to contribute to adequate and effective pluralistic uncertainty management and risk analysis in decision support endeavours. Special attention is given to the development of one such approach, the Pluralistic fRamework for Integrated uncertainty Management and risk Analysis (PRIMA), of which the practical value is explored in the context of the Environmental Outlooks produced by the Dutch Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM). Audience: This book will be of interest to researchers and practitioners whose work involves decision support, uncertainty management, risk analysis, environmental planning, and Integrated Assessment.

Physical safety is a core task of government. It is neither surprising nor unreasonable for government to be held accountable for hazardous substances, for food safety, for flood protection, for the spread of infectious diseases, or for the risks involved in new technologies. In 2011 the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations asked the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) to investigate the scope for the development of a generic risk policy in relation to physical safety. Do citizens and businesses take sufficient responsibility for physical safety? Could the government assume a smaller role, and what part could the business community play in this? In this report the WRR argues that in order to answer these questions a distinction needs to be made between incidents, damage, risk and uncertainty. In addition, the wrr recommends that the thinking about responsibility for safety should not be placed in the perspective of a failing government, but that the central focus should be on the ambition of good governance. Finally, the WRR suggests that thinking about safety from the perspective of damage offers a useful framework for thinking through and reassessing the distribution of responsibilities. Responsibility for preventing, limiting and dealing with damage can only be assigned in advance, not retrospectively.

Physical safety is a core task of government. It is neither surprising nor unreasonable for government to be held accountable for hazardous substances, for food safety, for flood protection, for the spread of infectious diseases, or for the risks involved in new technologies. In 2011 the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations asked the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) to investigate the scope for the development of a generic risk policy in relation to physical safety. Do citizens and businesses take sufficient responsibility for physical safety? Could the government assume a smaller role, and what part could the business community play in this? In this report the WRR argues that in order to answer these questions a distinction needs to be made between incidents, damage, risk and uncertainty. In addition, the wrr recommends that the thinking about responsibility for safety should not be placed in the perspective of a failing government, but that the central focus should be on the ambition of good governance. Finally, the WRR suggests that thinking about safety from the perspective of damage offers a useful framework for thinking through and reassessing the distribution of responsibilities. Responsibility for preventing, limiting and dealing with damage can only be assigned in advance, not retrospectively.

This volume is intended to stimulate a change in the practice of decision support, advocating an interdisciplinary approach centred on both social and natural sciences, both theory and practice. It addresses the issue of analysis and management of uncertainty and risk in decision support corresponding to the aims of Integrated Assessment. A pluralistic method is necessary to account for legitimate plural interpretations of uncertainty and multiple risk perceptions. A wide range of methods and tools is presented to contribute to adequate and effective pluralistic uncertainty management and risk analysis in decision support endeavours. Special attention is given to the development of one such approach, the Pluralistic fRamework for Integrated uncertainty Management and risk Analysis (PRIMA), of which the practical value is explored in the context of the Environmental Outlooks produced by the Dutch Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM). Audience: This book will be of interest to researchers and practitioners whose work involves decision support, uncertainty management, risk analysis, environmental planning, and Integrated Assessment.

This volume is intended to stimulate a change in the practice of decision support, advocating an interdisciplinary approach centred on both social and natural sciences, both theory and practice. It addresses the issue of analysis and management of uncertainty and risk in decision support corresponding to the aims of Integrated Assessment. A pluralistic method is necessary to account for legitimate plural interpretations of uncertainty and multiple risk perceptions. A wide range of methods and tools is presented to contribute to adequate and effective pluralistic uncertainty management and risk analysis in decision support endeavours. Special attention is given to the development of one such approach, the Pluralistic fRamework for Integrated uncertainty Management and risk Analysis (PRIMA), of which the practical value is explored in the context of the Environmental Outlooks produced by the Dutch Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM). Audience: This book will be of interest to researchers and practitioners whose work involves decision support, uncertainty management, risk analysis, environmental planning, and Integrated Assessment.

Physical safety is a core task of government. It is neither surprising nor unreasonable for government to be held accountable for hazardous substances, for food safety, for flood protection, for the spread of infectious diseases, or for the risks involved in new technologies. In 2011 the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations asked the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) to investigate the scope for the development of a generic risk policy in relation to physical safety. Do citizens and businesses take sufficient responsibility for physical safety? Could the government assume a smaller role, and what part could the business community play in this? In this report the WRR argues that in order to answer these questions a distinction needs to be made between incidents, damage, risk and uncertainty. In addition, the wrr recommends that the thinking about responsibility for safety should not be placed in the perspective of a failing government, but that the central focus should be on the ambition of good governance. Finally, the WRR suggests that thinking about safety from the perspective of damage offers a useful framework for thinking through and reassessing the distribution of responsibilities. Responsibility for preventing, limiting and dealing with damage can only be assigned in advance, not retrospectively.

Physical safety is a core task of government. It is neither surprising nor unreasonable for government to be held accountable for hazardous substances, for food safety, for flood protection, for the spread of infectious diseases, or for the risks involved in new technologies. In 2011 the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations asked the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) to investigate the scope for the development of a generic risk policy in relation to physical safety. Do citizens and businesses take sufficient responsibility for physical safety? Could the government assume a smaller role, and what part could the business community play in this? In this report the WRR argues that in order to answer these questions a distinction needs to be made between incidents, damage, risk and uncertainty. In addition, the wrr recommends that the thinking about responsibility for safety should not be placed in the perspective of a failing government, but that the central focus should be on the ambition of good governance. Finally, the WRR suggests that thinking about safety from the perspective of damage offers a useful framework for thinking through and reassessing the distribution of responsibilities. Responsibility for preventing, limiting and dealing with damage can only be assigned in advance, not retrospectively.

This volume is intended to stimulate a change in the practice of decision support, advocating an interdisciplinary approach centred on both social and natural sciences, both theory and practice. It addresses the issue of analysis and management of uncertainty and risk in decision support corresponding to the aims of Integrated Assessment. A pluralistic method is necessary to account for legitimate plural interpretations of uncertainty and multiple risk perceptions. A wide range of methods and tools is presented to contribute to adequate and effective pluralistic uncertainty management and risk analysis in decision support endeavours. Special attention is given to the development of one such approach, the Pluralistic fRamework for Integrated uncertainty Management and risk Analysis (PRIMA), of which the practical value is explored in the context of the Environmental Outlooks produced by the Dutch Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM). Audience: This book will be of interest to researchers and practitioners whose work involves decision support, uncertainty management, risk analysis, environmental planning, and Integrated Assessment.