This paper explores the management of two types of risks which derive from the disruption of normal operations in technical installations: one is related to hazardous incidents, i.e. failures during the course of which substances rated as hazardous are emitted into the environment; the other is related to outages of critical infrastructures, which involve the unavailability of goods and services taken to be essential. Both risks are objects of political debate and administrative action in Germany. The practice of distributing informative brochures in the neighbourhood of a power plant serves as a starting point for a comparative exploration of approaches to handling risks associated with sites prone to hazardous incidents and with critical infrastructures. Starting from here, the paper addresses characteristic features of the practices applied in accordance with the two risk management approaches. The empirical basis comprises a variety of instruments, some more and some less binding, which seek to shape risk management practices, such as laws, recommendations or political strategies. The paper first addresses the federal level (and the influence of the European Union) before the scope is widened to include the other administrative levels, i.e. states and municipalities. The exploration first considers the ways used to designate the relevant facilities. While hazardous sites are bindingly identified at all levels on the basis of a common legal framework, determination of critical infrastructures is considered a context-dependent undertaking and is only partially regulated. Further, it is ascertained that the approaches divergently conceptualize the relations between the ‘source of risk’ and who or what is ‘at risk’. Physical distance (or proximity) is treated as paramount with regard to risks related hazardous incidents, whereas a functional relationship, i.e. a degree of dependency, is taken to be decisive in the context of critical infrastructures. Finally, the two approaches are shown to exhibit diverging attitudes to providing site-specific information to the public. The hazardousness of a site is designated to be public information but its criticality, on the contrary, is to remain classified. As expounded in the last section, these conceptional differences may lead to practical difficulties in civil protection operations.

中文翻译：

---

“亲爱的邻居……”对与危险事件和关键基础设施中断相关的风险管理方法的比较探索

本文探讨了对技术装置正常运行中断所产生的两类风险的管理：一类与危险事件有关，即在危险物质排放到环境过程中的故障；另一个与关键基础设施的中断有关，其中涉及被视为必不可少的商品和服务的不可用。这两种风险都是德国政治辩论和行政行动的对象。在发电厂附近分发信息手册的做法是比较探索处理与易发生危险事件的地点和关键基础设施相关风险的方法的起点。从这里开始，该文件阐述了根据两种风险管理方法所采用的做法的特点。经验基础包括各种工具，有些或多或少具有约束力，旨在塑造风险管理实践，例如法律、建议或政治策略。在将范围扩大到包括其他行政级别，即州和市政当局之前，本文首先讨论了联邦级别（以及欧盟的影响）。探索首先考虑用于指定相关设施的方式。虽然根据共同的法律框架在所有级别上对危险场所进行了具有约束力的识别，但关键基础设施的确定被认为是一项依赖于环境的工作，并且仅受到部分监管。更多，可以确定的是，这些方法在概念化“风险来源”与“面临风险”的人或事物之间的关系时存在分歧。对于与危险事件相关的风险而言，物理距离（或接近度）被视为最重要的，而功能关系，即一定程度的依赖性，在关键基础设施的背景下被视为决定性的。最后，这两种方法在向公众提供特定地点的信息方面表现出不同的态度。站点的危险性被指定为公共信息，但其重要性恰恰相反，是保密的。正如上一节所阐述的，这些概念上的差异可能会导致民事保护行动的实际困难。对于与危险事件相关的风险而言，物理距离（或接近度）被视为最重要的，而功能关系，即一定程度的依赖性，在关键基础设施的背景下被视为决定性的。最后，这两种方法在向公众提供特定地点的信息方面表现出不同的态度。站点的危险性被指定为公共信息，但其重要性恰恰相反，是保密的。正如上一节所阐述的，这些概念上的差异可能会导致民事保护行动的实际困难。对于与危险事件相关的风险而言，物理距离（或接近度）被视为最重要的，而功能关系，即一定程度的依赖性，在关键基础设施的背景下被视为决定性的。最后，这两种方法在向公众提供特定地点的信息方面表现出不同的态度。站点的危险性被指定为公共信息，但其重要性恰恰相反，是保密的。正如上一节所阐述的，这些概念上的差异可能会导致民事保护行动的实际困难。在关键基础设施的背景下被认为是决定性的。最后，这两种方法在向公众提供特定地点的信息方面表现出不同的态度。站点的危险性被指定为公共信息，但其重要性恰恰相反，是保密的。正如上一节所阐述的，这些概念上的差异可能会导致民事保护行动的实际困难。在关键基础设施的背景下被认为是决定性的。最后，这两种方法在向公众提供特定地点的信息方面表现出不同的态度。站点的危险性被指定为公共信息，但其重要性恰恰相反，是保密的。正如上一节所阐述的，这些概念上的差异可能会导致民事保护行动的实际困难。