Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 81, Supplement 1, pp 69–88 | Cite as

Expert engagement in participatory processes: translating stakeholder discourses into policy options

  • JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
  • Anna ScolobigEmail author
  • Settimio Ferlisi
  • Leonardo Cascini
  • Michael Thompson
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper demonstrates an innovative role for experts in supporting participatory policy processes with an application to landslide risk management in the Italian town of Nocera Inferiore. Experts co-produce risk mitigation options based on their specialized knowledge taking account of local knowledge and values by directly coupling stakeholder discourses with option design. Drawing on the theory of plural rationality and based on a literature review, interviews and a public questionnaire, stakeholder discourses are elicited on the landslide risk problem and its solution. Armed with the discourses and in close interaction with stakeholders, experts provide a range of technical mitigation options, each within a given budget constraint. These options are subsequently deliberated in the participatory process with the intent of reaching compromise recommendations for landslide risk mitigation. As we show in an accompanying paper, “Compromise not consensus. Designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation” (this issue), the provision of multiple co-produced policy options enhances stakeholder deliberation by respecting legitimate differences in values and worldviews.

Keywords

Science–policy interface Landslide risk Usable knowledge Plural rationality Public participation Knowledge co-production 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the SafeLand Project (http://www.safeland-fp7.eu/Introduction.html), Grant Agreement: 226479. The paper reflects the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. Neither the European Community nor any member of the SafeLand Consortium is liable for any use of the information in this paper. We thank the 43 local stakeholders and the 18 participants to the participatory process in Nocera Inferiore who devoted their precious time to our interviews and meetings. Without them, our research work would not have been possible. The same gratitude goes to the numerous volunteers of the 7 local associations providing help to collect the questionnaires, as well as for the 373 survey respondents. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Giuseppe Sorbino and of Paolo Fabbricatore, leader of the local NGO “Montagna Amica” (Mountains’ friends). There are no words to describe their precious contribution to the research in Nocera Inferiore as well as to describe the deep sadness for their loss.

References

  1. Agrawala S, Broad K, Guston D (2001) Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Sci Technol Human Values 26:454–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck MB, Thompson M, Ney S, Gyawali D, Jeffrey P (2011) On governance for re-engineering city infrastructure. Eng Sustain 164(2):129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cascini L (2004) The flowslides of May 1998 in the Campania region, Italy: the scientific emergency management. Ital Geotech J 2:11–44Google Scholar
  4. Cascini L, Cuomo S, Guida D (2008) Typical source areas of May 1998 flow-like mass movements in the Campania region, Southern Italy. Eng Geol 96:107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa JE (1988) Rheologic, geomorphic, and sedimentologic differentiation of water floods, hyperconcentrated flows, and debris flows. In: Baker VR, Kochel RC, Patton PC (eds) Flood geomorphology. Wiley, New York, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  6. Coussot P, Meunier M (1996) Recognition, classification and mechanical description of debris flows. Earth Sci Rev 40:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias. Occasional paper of the Royal Anthropological Institute 35 (London). Reprinted in Douglas, in the active voice: 183–254. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dryzek J (1997) Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Durant J (1999) Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Sci Public Policy 26:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Environmental Agency (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000, Environmental issue Report, No. 22, Copenhagen http://www.eea.eu.int
  11. Ferlisi S, De Chiara G, Cascini L (2015) Quantitative risk analysis for hyperconcentrated flows in Nocera Inferiore (southern Italy). Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1784-9
  12. Fischoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 5(2):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:14033–14039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1993) Science for a post normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallie WB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gee JP (2011) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method, 3rd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gluckman P (2014) The art of science advice to government. Nature 507:163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guston D (1999) Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Soc Stud Sci 29:87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guston D (2000) Between politics and science: assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hannigan J (2012) Disasters without borders. The international politics of natural disasters. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Hungr O, Evans S, Bovis M, Hutchinson J (2001) A review of the classification of landslides of the flow type. Environ Eng Geosci 3:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingram D, Taylor P, Thompson M (2012) Surprise, surprise: from neoclassical economics to e-life. ASTIN Bull J Int Actuar Assoc 42:389–412Google Scholar
  24. Jasanoff S (2004) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leiss W (1995) Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice, working-paper series 95-2, Environmental Policy Unit—September 1995—School of Policy Studies, Queen’s UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Vari A, Ferencz Z (2003) Stakeholder views on flood risk management in Hungary’s Upper Tisza Basin. In: Linnerooth-Bayer J, Amendola A (eds) Special edition on flood risks in Europe. Risk Analysis 23: 581–601Google Scholar
  28. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Vari A, Thompson M (2006) Floods and fairness in Hungary. In: Verweij M, Thompson M (eds) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: governance, politics and plural perception. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  29. McNie E (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 20:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan RPC, Rickson RJ (1995) Slope stabilization and erosion control: a bioengineering approach. E & FN Spon, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Narasimhan H, Ferlisi S, Cascini L, De Chiara G, Faber MH (2015) A cost-benefit analysis of mitigation options for optimal management of risks posed by flow-like phenomena. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1755-1
  32. Ney S (2009) Resolving messy policy problems. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Pagano L (2009) The role of rainfall history on the interpretation of flowslide triggering in pyroclastic soils. In: Picarelli L, Tommasi P, Urciuoli G, Versace P (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on “Rainfall-induced landslides: mechanisms, monitoring techniques and nowcasting models for early warning systems”. Naples, 8–10 June 2009: 216–223, Studio Editoriale Doppiavoce, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  34. Pielke P Jr, Byerly R Jr (1998) Beyond basic and applied. Phys Today 51:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potter J (1996) Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction 1st ed. SAGE Publications LtsGoogle Scholar
  36. Raynor S, Malone EL (eds) (1998) Human choice and climate change (4 vols) Columbus. Battelle Press, OhioGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarewitz P, Pielke RA Jr (2007) The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 10:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz M, Thompson M (1990) Divided we stand. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Scolobig A, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Cascini L, Ferlisi S (2011) Design and testing: a risk communication strategy and a participatory process for choosing a set of mitigation and prevention measures, Deliverable 5.7, SafeLand Project—7th Framework Programme Cooperation Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Sub-Activity 6.1.3 Natural HazardsGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson M (2008) Organising and disorganising. Triarchy Press, AxminsterGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson M, Gyawali D (2006) Uncertainty revisited or the triumph of hype over experience. New introduction to the republished in Thompson M, Warburton M and Hatley T, Uncertainty on a Himalayan Scale. Lalitpur, Nepal: Himal BooksGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson M, Rayner S (1998) Risk and governance part 1: the discourses of climate change. Govern Opposit 33:139–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson M, Warburton M (1985) Decision making under contradictory certainties: how to save the Himalayas when you can’t find out what’s wrong with them. Appl Syst Anal 12:3–33Google Scholar
  44. Thompson M, Ellis RJ, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Boulder, Colorado-West ViewGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson M, Rayner S, Ney S (1998) Risk and governance part 2: policy in a complex and pluraly perceived world. Govern Opposit 33:330–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vaciago G, Rocchi G, Bianchini A (2012) Compendium of tested and innovative structural, non-structural and risk-transfer mitigation measures for different landslide types, deliverable 5.1—toolbox for landslide hazard and risk mitigation measures. SafeLand project—7th framework programme cooperation theme 6 environment (including climate change) Sub-Activity 6.1.3 Natural HazardsGoogle Scholar
  47. VanDine DF (1996) Debris flow control structures for forest engineering. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., Work. Pap. 08/1996. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/wp/wp22.htm (last access: 11 November 2013)
  48. Versace P, Altomare P, Serra M (2008) Interventi strutturali per la riduzione del rischio di colata. Il modello Sarno. In: Quaderni del CAMIlab, 3(3), November 2008, pp 1–22. http://www.camilab.unical.it/ricerca/pubblicazioni/PDF/Camilab_3.pdf (last access: 11 November 2013)
  49. Verweij M (2011) Clumsy solutions for a wicked world. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  50. Verweij M, Thompson M (eds) (2011) Clumsy solutions for a complex world (revised edition, in paperback). Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  51. Weber RP (1985) Basic content analysis. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
    • 1
  • Anna Scolobig
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Settimio Ferlisi
    • 3
  • Leonardo Cascini
    • 3
  • Michael Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Risk, Policy and Vulnerability ProgramInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.Climate Policy Group, Department of Environmental Systems ScienceSwiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)ZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations