This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
In the presence of a global pandemic (COVID-19), the relentless pressure on global decision-makers is to ensure a balancing of health (reduce mortality impacts), economic goals (income for livelihood sustenance), and environmental sustainability (stabilize GHG emissions long term). The global energy supply system is a dominant contributor to the GHG burden and deeply embedded in the economy with its current share of 85%, use of fossil fuels has remained unchanged over 3 decades. A unique approach is presented to harmonizing the goals of human safety, economic development, and climate risk, respectively, through an operational tool that provides clear guidance to decision-makers in support of policy interventions for decarbonization. Improving climate change performance as an integral part of meeting human development goals allows the achievement of a country’s environmental, social, and economic well-being to be tracked and monitored. A primary contribution of this paper is to allow a transparent accounting of national performance highlighting the goals of enhancing human safety in concert with mitigation of climate risks. A measure of a country’s overall performance, combined as the Development and Climate Change Performance Index (DCI), is derived from two standardized indexes, the development index H and the Climate Change Performance Index CCPI. Data are analyzed for 55 countries comprising 65 percent of the world’s population. Through active management and monitoring, the proposed DCI can illustrate national performance to highlight a country’s current standing, rates of improvement over time, and a historical profile of progress of nations by bringing climate risk mitigation and economic well-being into better alignment.
Jatin Nathwani; Niels Lind; Ortwin Renn; Hans Schellnhuber. Balancing Health, Economy and Climate Risk in a Multi-Crisis. Energies 2021, 14, 4067 .
AMA StyleJatin Nathwani, Niels Lind, Ortwin Renn, Hans Schellnhuber. Balancing Health, Economy and Climate Risk in a Multi-Crisis. Energies. 2021; 14 (14):4067.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJatin Nathwani; Niels Lind; Ortwin Renn; Hans Schellnhuber. 2021. "Balancing Health, Economy and Climate Risk in a Multi-Crisis." Energies 14, no. 14: 4067.
A symbolic image of the need for integrating the curiosity-driven (brown), goal-oriented (green), and catalytic (yellow) research concepts into the continuous process of transformational policymaking (grey). [Adopted from Shutterstock, image licensed to the author for free use] The code of this chapter is 01101001 01100010 01001000 01100100 01110010 01111001.
Ortwin Renn. Transdisciplinary Approaches to Understand and Facilitate Transformations Towards Sustainability. Integrated Science 2021, 127 -144.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. Transdisciplinary Approaches to Understand and Facilitate Transformations Towards Sustainability. Integrated Science. 2021; ():127-144.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2021. "Transdisciplinary Approaches to Understand and Facilitate Transformations Towards Sustainability." Integrated Science , no. : 127-144.
The need to cope with future challenges posed by major transformations such as digitalization and sustainable development has led to several approaches to establish new concepts and methods of science and research. Scientific studies are supposed to provide background knowledge, to facilitate the desired transformations towards a sustainable future and to help resolving complex problems that accompany societies in transition. Concepts such as transformative, transdisciplinary or co-creative approaches elucidate the direction in which scientific research strives for its new role(s). Based on the discussion of these concepts and their different roots, the article proposes a modular concept for a transdisciplinary scientific approach combining and integrating curiosity driven research with goal oriented (advocacy) knowledge generation and catalytic, process-oriented expertise. This integration promises to address some of the deficits of the existing concepts and is particularly suitable for future studies comprising orientation, strategies and reflection for designing policies for transformations.
Ortwin Renn. Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach. Futures 2021, 130, 102744 .
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach. Futures. 2021; 130 ():102744.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2021. "Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach." Futures 130, no. : 102744.
Digitalisation can drive the sustainable transformation of society and industry. Many of the opportunities are, however, closely linked with risks. The use of a systemic risk-benefit perspective can help with the review and categorisation of the major impacts and trade-offs regarding the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. The dynamics and uncertainties of digitalisation are complex ‐ to make digitalisation a sustainable success, all involved actors should be engaged in a co-design process to develop a governance structure that is in line with sustainability.
Ortwin Renn; Grischa Beier; Pia-Johanna Schweizer. The opportunities and risks of digitalisation for sustainable development: a systemic perspective. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 2021, 30, 23 -28.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn, Grischa Beier, Pia-Johanna Schweizer. The opportunities and risks of digitalisation for sustainable development: a systemic perspective. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 2021; 30 (1):23-28.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn; Grischa Beier; Pia-Johanna Schweizer. 2021. "The opportunities and risks of digitalisation for sustainable development: a systemic perspective." GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 30, no. 1: 23-28.
Andreas Klinke; Ortwin Renn; Robert Goble; Guest Special Issue Editors. Prologue: The “Brave New World” of Social Sciences in Interdisciplinary Risk Research. Risk Analysis 2021, 41, 407 -413.
AMA StyleAndreas Klinke, Ortwin Renn, Robert Goble, Guest Special Issue Editors. Prologue: The “Brave New World” of Social Sciences in Interdisciplinary Risk Research. Risk Analysis. 2021; 41 (3):407-413.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAndreas Klinke; Ortwin Renn; Robert Goble; Guest Special Issue Editors. 2021. "Prologue: The “Brave New World” of Social Sciences in Interdisciplinary Risk Research." Risk Analysis 41, no. 3: 407-413.
Insights from complexity science can be applied to the analysis of social processes in heterogeneous societies. Many features that characterize and influence complex structures in nearly every domain of nature, technology, and society can be derived from simple modeling processes in physics and chemistry. If one applies these features to the structure of social risks, a number of insights are gained that can be subject to further empirical analysis. In particular, they add—to the well‐known steering mechanisms of hierarchy, competition, and cooperation—the contribution of self‐organization, the effect of which is underestimated in almost all theories of social science. But in view of the crises facing modern democracy, such as migration and populism, it is precisely this mechanism of dynamic structure generation that is decisive for an effective and fair risk governance. In this article, we analyze the threat to societal diversity and coherence on the basis of complexity science.
Ortwin Renn; Klaus Lucas. Systemic Risk: The Threat to Societal Diversity and Coherence. Risk Analysis 2021, 1 .
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn, Klaus Lucas. Systemic Risk: The Threat to Societal Diversity and Coherence. Risk Analysis. 2021; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn; Klaus Lucas. 2021. "Systemic Risk: The Threat to Societal Diversity and Coherence." Risk Analysis , no. : 1.
Systemic risks are characterized by high complexity, multiple uncertainties, major ambiguities, and transgressive effects on other systems outside of the system of origin. Due to these characteristics, systemic risks are overextending established risk management and create new, unsolved challenges for policymaking in risk assessment and risk governance. Their negative effects are often pervasive, impacting fields beyond the obvious primary areas of harm. This article addresses these challenges of systemic risks from different disciplinary and sectorial perspectives. It highlights the special contributions of these perspectives and approaches and provides a synthesis for an interdisciplinary understanding of systemic risks and effective governance. The main argument is that understanding systemic risks and providing good governance advice relies on an approach that integrates novel modeling tools from complexity sciences with empirical data from observations, experiments, or simulations and evidence‐based insights about social and cultural response patterns revealed by quantitative (e.g., surveys) or qualitative (e.g., participatory appraisals) investigations. Systemic risks cannot be easily characterized by single numerical estimations but can be assessed by using multiple indicators and including several dynamic gradients that can be aggregated into diverse but coherent scenarios. Lastly, governance of systemic risks requires interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral cooperation, a close monitoring system, and the engagement of scientists, regulators, and stakeholders to be effective as well as socially acceptable.
Ortwin Renn; Manfred Laubichler; Klaus Lucas; Wolfgang Kröger; Jochen Schanze; Roland W. Scholz; Pia‐Johanna Schweizer. Systemic Risks from Different Perspectives. Risk Analysis 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn, Manfred Laubichler, Klaus Lucas, Wolfgang Kröger, Jochen Schanze, Roland W. Scholz, Pia‐Johanna Schweizer. Systemic Risks from Different Perspectives. Risk Analysis. 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn; Manfred Laubichler; Klaus Lucas; Wolfgang Kröger; Jochen Schanze; Roland W. Scholz; Pia‐Johanna Schweizer. 2020. "Systemic Risks from Different Perspectives." Risk Analysis , no. : 1.
Policy advice for dealing with the Corona Crisis has been focusing on two major concepts: resilience and sustainability. The paper explores the relationship between the two terms, illustrates the various concepts that are associated with each term, and suggests an integrative approach that is based on the ideal of maintaining critical services for reaching humane living conditions for present and future generations based on fair distribution rules and inclusive governance processes.
Ortwin Renn. The Call for Sustainable and Resilient Policies in the COVID-19 Crisis: How Can They Be Interpreted and Implemented? Sustainability 2020, 12, 6466 .
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. The Call for Sustainable and Resilient Policies in the COVID-19 Crisis: How Can They Be Interpreted and Implemented? Sustainability. 2020; 12 (16):6466.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2020. "The Call for Sustainable and Resilient Policies in the COVID-19 Crisis: How Can They Be Interpreted and Implemented?" Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6466.
Zusammenfassung In demokratischen Gesellschaften sind weitreichende Politikmaßnahmen wie zur Energiewende oder zum Klimaschutz auf eine breite Legitimation im politischen Raum angewiesen. Je komplexer die Materie ist, desto schwieriger ist es, den notwendigen Grundkonsens für eine ambitionierte Klimapolitik zu erzielen. Legitimation ist dabei nicht nur auf eine überzeugende und den Werten und Interessen der gesellschaftlichen Akteure entsprechende Kommunikation angewiesen, sondern vor allem auch auf eine aktive Beteiligung der Akteure und der betroffenen Bürger*innen an der Gestaltung und Umsetzung klimapolitischer Maßnahmen. Für den Bereich Klimaschutz ist dabei eine Kombination aus analytischen, vor allem wissenschaftlichen Expertisen, und deliberativen, auf Argumenten aufbauenden Abwägungsprozessen zwischen konfligierenden Werten und Interessen besonders geeignet, um der Komplexität des Themas gerecht zu werden und gleichzeitig die pluralen Werte und Abwägungskriterien zu berücksichtigen. Solche analytisch-deliberativen Prozesse setzen eine Prozessstruktur voraus, in der organisierte Interessengruppen gemeinsam mit Repräsentanten der betroffenen Bürgerschaft die Ausgangssituation definieren, das Für und Wider von Lösungsoptionen diskutieren und zu einer möglichst gemeinsam getragenen Empfehlung an die legitimen politischen Entscheidungsträger*innen gelangen.
Dr. Dr. H.C. Ortwin Renn. Bürgerbeteiligung in der Klimapolitik: Erfahrungen, Grenzen und Aussichten. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen 2020, 33, 125 -139.
AMA StyleDr. Dr. H.C. Ortwin Renn. Bürgerbeteiligung in der Klimapolitik: Erfahrungen, Grenzen und Aussichten. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen. 2020; 33 (1):125-139.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDr. Dr. H.C. Ortwin Renn. 2020. "Bürgerbeteiligung in der Klimapolitik: Erfahrungen, Grenzen und Aussichten." Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen 33, no. 1: 125-139.
Systemic risks are a product of profound and rapid technological, economic and social changes associated with three major transformations. They are characterized by high complexity, trans-boundary effects, stochastic relationships, and nonlinear cause-effect patterns with tipping points and often associated with less public attention than they deserve. The full range of sys-temic risks from natural hazards to cybersecurity will be used to illustrate these characteristics and their implications. Due to these characteristics, systemic risks are overextending established risk management and creating new, unsolved challenges for policy making in risk governance. Their negative effects are often pervasive, impacting fields beyond the obvious primary areas of harm. The paper relates to an integrative risk concept including evaluation criteria, different risk classes and corresponding management strategies for the handling of systemic risks. The paper argues that a deliberative approach is needed for risk management and policy making in risk governance to prevent, mitigate or control systemic risks.
Ortwin Renn. New challenges for risk analysis: systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research 2020, 24, 127 -133.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. New challenges for risk analysis: systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research. 2020; 24 (1):127-133.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2020. "New challenges for risk analysis: systemic risks." Journal of Risk Research 24, no. 1: 127-133.
The COVID-19 outbreak was neither unpredictable nor unforeseen, yet it blind-sided policymakers when it emerged, leading to unprecedented global restrictions on human activity and almost certainly triggering the first global economic contraction since WWII. This paper considers the key factors in the eruption of the crisis, as well as the lessons that should be learned from it. The paper begins with an outline of COVID-19’s spread, highlighting six key drivers that have determined its severity: the exponential pace of transmission, global interconnectedness, health-sector capacity, wider state capacity, the economic impact of suppression measures, and fragilities caused by the 2008 financial crisis. The paper then proceeds by considering the steps that have been taken in response to five key challenges, corresponding to elements of the IRGC risk governance framework: technical assessment, risk perception, evaluation, management and communication. While acknowledging that only tentative conclusions can be drawn at this early stage, the paper ends with a series of ten recommendations designed to increase preparedness for future crises.
Aengus Collins; Marie-Valentine Florin; Ortwin Renn. COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned. Journal of Risk Research 2020, 23, 1073 -1082.
AMA StyleAengus Collins, Marie-Valentine Florin, Ortwin Renn. COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned. Journal of Risk Research. 2020; 23 (7-8):1073-1082.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAengus Collins; Marie-Valentine Florin; Ortwin Renn. 2020. "COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned." Journal of Risk Research 23, no. 7-8: 1073-1082.
The chapter addresses the subject energy policies involving decisions under uncertainty. It assumes that collectively binding decisions cannot be steered exclusively by governmental actors in the traditional top-down approach. Rather, political decisions need the input from various and heterogeneous actors, thus enabling button-up governance. The chapter emphasizes the need for a combination of assessment and dialogue, which the US-Academy of Sciences termed the “analytic–deliberative” approach. Participatory processes are needed in this concept that integrates technical expertise, rational decision-making, cultural values, and social preferences. For this purpose, it is helpful to distinguish five major theoretical approaches of how to conceptualize participation in public policy making. The chapter will briefly introduce these perspectives. The analysis will focus on a variety of concepts of participation and their embeddedness in different political cultures. The crucial issue of inclusion (who, what, to which degree of commitment) and closure (rules of deliberation and decision-making) will be discussed in the lights of different concepts. A major emphasis here will be on the issue of shaping energy policies.
Ortwin Renn; Pia-Johanna Schweizer. Inclusive governance for energy policy making: conceptual foundations, applications, and lessons learned. The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions 2020, 39 -79.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn, Pia-Johanna Schweizer. Inclusive governance for energy policy making: conceptual foundations, applications, and lessons learned. The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions. 2020; ():39-79.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn; Pia-Johanna Schweizer. 2020. "Inclusive governance for energy policy making: conceptual foundations, applications, and lessons learned." The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions , no. : 39-79.
Many teams have developed a wide range of numerical or categorical indicators of progress in the implementation of the SDG targets. But these indicators cannot identify why target goals have not been accomplished, whether or how they do or do not do justice to the social and cultural context in which they are applied, and how newly emerging social dynamics affect indicators. Nor do they provide means for resolving conflicting values and making balanced trade-offs. Our starting point in examining why we have not been successful in progressing towards sustainability is that the sustainability conundrum is primarily a societal, rather than an environmental problem. Our present emphasis is to maintain our way of life while minimizing its impact, hoping that such a minimization strategy would make the world more sustainable. Reducing for example the extent of pollution but keeping the same industries alive would not be sufficient for a transformation towards sustainability. Instead we should ask “How did we come to this point and what practices, in our societies and in our science, need to change to make progress towards sustainability?” To answer these questions, one needs to go much further back than usual in the history of western societies to identify the societal, scientific, technological and environmental co-evolutionary dynamics that have brought us to the current conundrum. And the fact that most societal challenges are of the “wicked” kind, as well as the need to decide among many societal options and many future pathways that may lead to positive results require that we seriously engage in using “Complex Systems” approaches. It is up to our scientific community to identify these pathways, and we need to move fast!
Ortwin Renn; Ilan Chabay; Sander Van Der Leeuw; Solène Droy. Beyond the Indicators: Improving Science, Scholarship, Policy and Practice to Meet the Complex Challenges of Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 578 .
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn, Ilan Chabay, Sander Van Der Leeuw, Solène Droy. Beyond the Indicators: Improving Science, Scholarship, Policy and Practice to Meet the Complex Challenges of Sustainability. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (2):578.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn; Ilan Chabay; Sander Van Der Leeuw; Solène Droy. 2020. "Beyond the Indicators: Improving Science, Scholarship, Policy and Practice to Meet the Complex Challenges of Sustainability." Sustainability 12, no. 2: 578.
Risk governance is used to refer to a body of scholarly ideas and concepts for collective decision making involving uncertain consequences of events or actions. The risk governance concept developed by the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva provides guidance for constructing comprehensive assessment and management strategies to cope with risk. Its crafters integrate three types of scientific input: classic, curiosity-driven research; strategic, goal-oriented research: and catalytic, process-related investigations. In this paper, I demonstrate how these three knowledge pools can assist risk assessors and managers to improve their understanding of complex risk situations.
Ortwin Renn. Risk Governance: From Knowledge to Regulatory Action. Knowledge and Space 2020, 93 -111.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. Risk Governance: From Knowledge to Regulatory Action. Knowledge and Space. 2020; ():93-111.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2020. "Risk Governance: From Knowledge to Regulatory Action." Knowledge and Space , no. : 93-111.
In this article, I aim to delineate the genesis and analytical scope of risk governance. Risk governance pertains to the various ways in which many actors, individuals and institutions, public and private, deal with risks surrounded by uncertainty, complexity and/or ambiguity. The ambition is that risk governance provides a conceptual as well as normative basis for how to deal responsibly with complex risks. I propose to synthesize the body of scholarly ideas and proposals on the governance of risks in a set of management regimes: the combination of risk-based, precautionary and discourse-based management regimes. This set of regimes should be read as a synthesis of what needs to be seriously considered in organizing structures and processes to govern risks and to include stakeholders in the assessment and evaluation of risks.
Ortwin Renn. Systemic Risks: Common Characteristics and Approaches for Improving Resilience. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific 2019, 97 -114.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. Systemic Risks: Common Characteristics and Approaches for Improving Resilience. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. 2019; ():97-114.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2019. "Systemic Risks: Common Characteristics and Approaches for Improving Resilience." Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific , no. : 97-114.
Decision-makers face multiple challenges when they are exposed to options that involve uncertain outcomes that affect plural values and preferences. There are four strategies to deal with such wicked problems: risk–risk comparisons, risk–benefit balancing methods, special decision rules or principles (such as ALARA, “i.e., as low as reasonably achievable, or precaution), and involvement of stakeholders and the public in deliberative decision-making exercises. All these strategies have their strength and problems. However, when decisions are faced with high complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, a discourse that at the same time is epistemic, reflective and participatory promises to be most effective. Epistemic includes formal methods of assessing risks and benefits, reflective includes the trade-offs between under- and over-protection and participatory reflects the need for public preferences if the values behind a decision are contested.
Ortwin Renn. Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Trade-Offs Between Environmental Health and Other Risks. Encyclopedia of Environmental Health 2019, 10 -16.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Trade-Offs Between Environmental Health and Other Risks. Encyclopedia of Environmental Health. 2019; ():10-16.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2019. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Trade-Offs Between Environmental Health and Other Risks." Encyclopedia of Environmental Health , no. : 10-16.
Risk governance has in recent years become a commonly used concept in relation to the understanding, assessment, management and communication of risk or risk problems, including so-called systemic risks. Substantial scientific work has been conducted to establish a proper foundation for this concept and its applications. Nonetheless, there are still some issues that remain to be clarified, for example how to best characterise risks and risk problems that need risk governance approaches. The purpose of the present article is to provide new insights into the risk governance concept by critically examining some common definitions and uses of key terms. In particular, the article seeks to shed new light on the interpretation of risk-problem classes: simple, complex, uncertain and ambiguous. A set of recommendations is presented on how to improve current risk governance theories and practices, including a suggestion for a modified risk-problem classification system.
Terje Aven; Ortwin Renn. Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks. Journal of Risk Research 2019, 23, 1121 -1134.
AMA StyleTerje Aven, Ortwin Renn. Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks. Journal of Risk Research. 2019; 23 (9):1121-1134.
Chicago/Turabian StyleTerje Aven; Ortwin Renn. 2019. "Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks." Journal of Risk Research 23, no. 9: 1121-1134.
Das Kopernikus-Projekt ENavi hat im Forschungsschwerpunkt Transformation des Stromsystems untersucht, wie der Stromsektor zur Erreichung der Klimaziele beitragen kann. Aktuell gilt es, den Kohleausstieg ökonomisch effizient und ökologisch zu organisieren. Seine Ergebnisse hat das Team der von der Bundesregierung eingesetzten Kommission für Wachstum, Strukturwandel und Beschäftigung (,,Kohlekommission“) präsentiert.
Michael Pahle; Claudia Zabel; Ottmar Edenhofer; Ulrich Fahl; Manfred Fischedick; Kai Hufendiek; Michèle Knodt; Andreas Löschel; Gunnar Luderer; Steffi Ober; Robert Pietzcker; Ortwin Renn; Sabine Schlacke; Frank Sensfuß. Interdisziplinärer Synthesebericht zum Kohleausstieg: ENavi informiert die Kohlekommission. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 2019, 28, 61 -62.
AMA StyleMichael Pahle, Claudia Zabel, Ottmar Edenhofer, Ulrich Fahl, Manfred Fischedick, Kai Hufendiek, Michèle Knodt, Andreas Löschel, Gunnar Luderer, Steffi Ober, Robert Pietzcker, Ortwin Renn, Sabine Schlacke, Frank Sensfuß. Interdisziplinärer Synthesebericht zum Kohleausstieg: ENavi informiert die Kohlekommission. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 2019; 28 (1):61-62.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMichael Pahle; Claudia Zabel; Ottmar Edenhofer; Ulrich Fahl; Manfred Fischedick; Kai Hufendiek; Michèle Knodt; Andreas Löschel; Gunnar Luderer; Steffi Ober; Robert Pietzcker; Ortwin Renn; Sabine Schlacke; Frank Sensfuß. 2019. "Interdisziplinärer Synthesebericht zum Kohleausstieg: ENavi informiert die Kohlekommission." GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 28, no. 1: 61-62.
Globalisierung, Digitalisierung und nachhaltige Entwicklung: Der Wandel der Welt geht einher mit Konflikten und Widersprüchen zwischen diesen Transformationen. Wie können demokratisch verfasste Gesellschaften mit solchen Konflikten konstruktiv umgehen? Transdisziplinäre Ansätze integrieren prozess-, sach- und strategiebezogenes Wissen und führen im Idealfall zu einer Konfliktlösung.In light of the three major global transformations of globalization, digitalization and sustainabilization scientific research faces new challenges and targets. Scientific studies are supposed to provide background knowledge, to facilitate the desired transformations and to offer assistance for resolving the conflicts and tensions that arise in the course of these three transformations. Concepts such as transformative, transdisciplinary or co-creative research elucidate the direction in which scientific research finds its new role(s). Based on the discussion of these concepts that are central to the readership of GAIA, the article analyzes a new modular concept for a transdisciplinary scientific approach combining and integrating classic curiosity-driven research with goal-oriented (advocacy) knowledge and catalytic, process-oriented expertise. This integration leads to a process of co-creation aimed at merging different knowledge pools and providing orientation for collective action.
Ortwin Renn. Die Rolle(n) transdisziplinärer Wissenschaft bei konfliktgeladenen Transformationsprozessen. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 2019, 28, 44 -51.
AMA StyleOrtwin Renn. Die Rolle(n) transdisziplinärer Wissenschaft bei konfliktgeladenen Transformationsprozessen. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 2019; 28 (1):44-51.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtwin Renn. 2019. "Die Rolle(n) transdisziplinärer Wissenschaft bei konfliktgeladenen Transformationsprozessen." GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 28, no. 1: 44-51.
In diesem Kapitel wird Partizipation in der Energiewende, also die Beteiligung von Einzelpersonen, Institutionen und anderen Akteuren an Planungsverfahren, Energiewende-Strategien, konkreten Umsetzungsmaßnahmen und an Energieanlagen selbst behandelt. Die Beteiligungsformen werden differenziert in politische und soziale Partizipation (z. B. Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung), bürgerschaftliches Engagement und materiell-finanzielle Partizipation (z. B. Bürgerenergie) sowie Optionen der direkten Demokratie (z. B. Referenden) und Arrangements partizipativer Governance (z. B. Klimaschutzrat) dargestellt. Näher betrachtet werden das Warum von Partizipation und die Effekte von Beteiligung. Abschließend werden Transformationen von Beteiligungsarten und -verhalten der vergangenen Jahre werden diskutiert.
Jörg Radtke; Ortwin Renn. Partizipation und bürgerschaftliches Engagement in der Energiewende. Dezentrale Energiewende 2019, 283 -316.
AMA StyleJörg Radtke, Ortwin Renn. Partizipation und bürgerschaftliches Engagement in der Energiewende. Dezentrale Energiewende. 2019; ():283-316.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJörg Radtke; Ortwin Renn. 2019. "Partizipation und bürgerschaftliches Engagement in der Energiewende." Dezentrale Energiewende , no. : 283-316.