Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 15–29 | Cite as

Purpose-Driven Public Sector Reform: The Need for Within-Government Capacity Build for the Management of Slope Stability in Communities in the Caribbean

  • Malcolm Anderson
  • Liz Holcombe
Article

ABSTRACT

This article stresses the importance of within-government capacity build as the optimal approach to minimizing landslide risk to the most vulnerable communities in the developing world. Landslide risk is an integrated issue that demands strong managerial leadership and multidisciplinary inclusion to develop structures that deliver sustainable improvements in the reduction of risk. The tension between projects demanding international technical and financial intervention and those capable of “within-country” solutions are examined. More particularly, the challenges of developing a management methodology capable of energizing inter-ministry collaboration to achieve community-level action is examined in the context of a recently established program of slope stability management in St. Lucia. The program, Management of Slope Stability in Communities (MoSSaiC), is shown to have successfully fostered not only extensive technical collaboration within government but also to have energized local communities in the shared mission of capacity build through their direct involvement in the management process.

Keywords

Slope stability Community Public-sector reform 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Government of St Lucia for partnering the project outlined in this article and for providing logistical support. Funding from ESRC is duly acknowledged.

Literature Cited

  1. Aleotti P., R. Chowdhury. 1999. Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 58:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson M. G. 1990. A feasibility study in mathematical modelling of slope hydrology and stability. Geotechnical Control Office Civil Engineering Services Department Hong Kong Report CE 23/90Google Scholar
  3. Anderson M. G., D. M. Lloyd. 1991. Using a combined slope hydrology–stability model to develop cut slope design charts. Proceedings. Institution Civil Engineers 91:705–718Google Scholar
  4. Anderson M. G., and E. A. Holcombe. 2004. Drainage prioritisation training course; MoSSaiC Training Manual 1.0. Poverty Reduction Fund, St LuciaGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson M. G., E. A. Holcombe. 2005. Management of slope stability in communities. Insight 6:35–39Google Scholar
  6. Anderson M.G., M. J. Kemp, D. M. Lloyd. 1988. Applications of soil water finite difference models to slope stability problems. Pages 525–530 in Proceedings. of the 5th. International Symposium on Landslides. Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson M. G., A. J. C. Collison, J. Hartshorne, D. M. Lloyd, A. Park. 1996. Developments in slope hydrology–.stability modelling for tropical slopes. In M. G. Anderson, S. M. Brooks, (eds.). Advances in hillslope processes, Wiley, Chichester Pages 799–821Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, M. G., M. J. Kemp, and D. M. Lloyd. 1997. Hydrological design manual for slope stability in the Tropics. Overseas Road Note 14. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Boehmer-Christiansen. 2002. Investing against climate change: Why failure remains possible. Environmental Politics 11:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caribbean Development Bank. 2001. CDB Press Release 2/01Google Scholar
  11. Crozier M. J., M. Glade. 2005. Landslide hazard and risk: issues, concepts and approach. In T. Glade, M. G. Anderson, M. Crozier, (eds.). Landslides: hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, Pages 1–40Google Scholar
  12. Dai F. C., C. F. Lee, Y. Y. Ngai. 2002. Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Engineering Geology 64:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dea D., I. Scoones. 2003. Networks of knowledge: how farmers and scientists understand soils and their fertility; a case study from Ethiopia. Oxford Development Studies 31:461–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dikau R., A. Cavallin, S. Jager. 1996. Databases and GIS for landslide research in Europe. Geomorphology 15:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emmanual, N. 2000. Landslide vulnerability analysis from the hillslopes around Castries. Master’s thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Fell R. 1994. Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31(2):261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fell R., D. Hartford. 1997. Landslide risk management. in D. Cruden, R. Fell, (eds.). Landslide risk assessment, Balkema, Rotterdam, Pages 51–109Google Scholar
  18. Gaiha R., K. Imai. 2004. Vulnerability, shocks and persistence of poverty: estimates for semi-arid rural South India. Oxford Development Studies 32:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geotechnical Control Office. 1980. CHASE cutslopes in Hong Kong: Assessment of stability by empiricism. Public Works Department, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  20. Glade T., M. G. Anderson, M. Crozier. (eds.). 2005. Landslides: Hazard and risk. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Gouldson A. 2004. Cooperation and the capacity for control: regulatory styles and the evolving influence of environmental regulations in the UK. Environment and Planning C 22:583–603Google Scholar
  22. Government of St. Lucia., 1997. St Lucia watershed and environmental management project. Final report Annex 6Google Scholar
  23. Hope S. K. R. 2004. The poverty dilemma in Africa: towards policies for including the poor. Progress in Development Studies 4:127–144Google Scholar
  24. Intermediate Technology and Development Group website http://www.itdg.org
  25. Janicke M., P. Kunig, M. Stitzel. 1999. Unwelpolitik: Ein Lern-und Arbeiutsbuch. Dietz-Verlag, BonnGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston, R., and Plummer, P. In press. Commentary: What is policy-orientated research? Environment and Planning A Google Scholar
  27. La Trobe, S., and P. Venton. 2003. Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The policy and practice of selected institutional donors. Unnumbered report. Tearfund, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd D. M., M. G. Anderson, A. N. Hussein, A. Jamaludin, P. I. Wilkinson. 2001 Preventing landslides on roads and railways: A new risk-based approach. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers 144:129–134Google Scholar
  29. Muller-Rommel F., H. Meyer. 2001. Social sciences and environmental sciences: A state of the art review. Environmental Politics 10:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sadek S., M. Bedran, I. Kaysi. 1999. GIS platform for multicriteria evaluation of route alignments. Journal of Transportation Engineering 125:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith C. L., J. Gilden. 2002. Assets to move watershed councils from assessment to action. Journal of the American. Water Resources Association 38:653–662Google Scholar
  32. Styles, K. A. 1989. Geotechnical Area Studies Programme Territory of Hong Kong. Report 12. Geotechnical Control Office, Honk KongGoogle Scholar
  33. Svedberg P. 2004. World income distribution: Which way? Journal of Development Studies 40:1–32Google Scholar
  34. Wadge G., A. P. Wislocki, E. J. Pearson, J. B. Whittow. 1993. Mapping natural hazards with spatial modelling systems. in P. M. Mather (ed.). Geographical information handling: Research and applications. Wiley, Chichester, Pages 239–250Google Scholar
  35. Wong, C. K. L. 1997. The new priority classification systems for slopes and retaining walls. Report 68. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  36. World Bank. 1996. Performance monitoring indicators handbook. Technical Paper 334. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. World Bank. 1999. World Bank Development Report 1999/2000. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  38. World Bank. 2003a. Global environment facility contributed $5 million for climate control in the Caribbean. News release 2003/298/LACGoogle Scholar
  39. World Bank. 2003b. Caribbean: Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change project. Report PID11475. World Bank, Washinton, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations