Mining in the Newspapers: Local and Regional Media Representations of Mineral Exploration and Mining in Finland, Germany, and Spain.

The understanding of public debates over mineral exploration and mining largely originates from exceptional situations such as mining accidents of conflicts. Less is known about how mining is portrayed and understood under more conventional settings. What storylines dominate the local day-to-day public debate? This article presents results from a comparative case study focusing on newspaper coverage of mineral exploration and mining in three European countries representing different geological and socio-economic contexts. Newspaper articles from the Geyer-Erzgebirge region in Germany, the Andalusia region in Spain, and Northern Finland are studied. The sample looks into the period between September 2018 and February 2020 and shows that regional newspapers report about mining issues relatively intensively even in the absence of major accidents or other media events causing peaks of attention. The tone of the articles is generally neutral to positive towards mining activities, reflecting the specific local settings, historical experiences, and future expectations. Despite the different contexts of the three countries, there were considerable similarities to the topics highlighted, including common themes of mining revival, mining events and social interaction, history of mining, and damages related to mining. Past, present, and future employment opportunities related directly or indirectly to the mining sector are key storylines. Another recurrent underlying theme is the need to balance environment and safety risks and socio-economic prosperity, typically covered through ordinary disputes among the mining sector, public authorities, regional non-governmental organizations, and local initiatives.

Risk Governance of Nanomaterials: Review of Criteria and Tools for Risk Communication, Evaluation, and Mitigation.

Nanotechnologies have been increasingly used in industrial applications and consumer products across several sectors, including construction, transportation, energy, and healthcare. The widespread application of these technologies has raised concerns regarding their environmental, health, societal, and economic impacts. This has led to the investment of enormous resources in Europe and beyond into the development of tools to facilitate the risk assessment and management of nanomaterials, and to inform more robust risk governance process. In this context, several risk governance frameworks have been developed. In our study, we present and review those, and identify a set of criteria and tools for risk evaluation, mitigation, and communication, the implementation of which can inform better risk management decision-making by various stakeholders from e.g., industry, regulators, and the civil society. Based on our analysis, we recommend specific methods from decision science and information technologies that can improve the existing risk governance tools so that they can communicate, evaluate, and mitigate risks more transparently, taking stakeholder perspectives and expert opinion into account, and considering all relevant criteria in establishing the risk-benefit balance of these emerging technologies to enable more robust decisions about the governance of their risks.

The distinction between risk and hazard: understanding and use in stakeholder communication.

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms "risk" and "hazard." The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four-fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders' perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.

Integrated risk assessment and risk governance as socio-political phenomena: a synthetic view of the challenges.

To call for integration in risk assessment and governance as a self-evident goal is deceptively easy. For more insight, we ask: what level and kind of integration and for what purposes is needed and sufficient? What opportunities and obstacles can be identified for integrative treatment of risks? What causes and impacts are there of developments in risk integration? To answer these questions we investigate the socio-political processes and factors surrounding integrated risk assessment and risk governance through a combination of literature reviews and original research. We emphasize regulatory assessment and governance of risks associated with chemicals in the EU, but we link them with other areas to better grasp options and problems in integration. We relate the problems to political factors and barriers in sector and vertical integration, including deviating interests, and further to conflicting information, concepts and mindsets. Risk assessment and risk governance involve varying notions of risks and knowledge, with tensions between stressor- or impact-oriented, exclusive or inclusive, positivist or relativist, and fixed or reflexive notions and approaches. These tensions influence the trajectories of integration between sectors, actors and regions, constraining the fulfillment of ideals of integrated governance. We conclude that risk assessment and governance can be integrated, harmonized and innovated to a limit only, but this limit is variable and flexible, and provides opportunities especially if attention is paid to the socio-political contexts, value choices and decision structures in each case. Generally, the results underline a reflexive approach whereby the meanings, framings and implications of risk integration are probed in open processes of deliberation and negotiation, as a learning process to transcend the formal and prescriptive modes of regulation and knowledge generation.