Structure, Process, and Agency in the Evaluation of Risk Governance
Risk governance is an approach adopted to understand and comprehensively handle the complexity of the decision-making processes involved in risk production and reduction. In this chapter, it is argued that the evaluation of risk governance may go beyond the measurement of performance and advancement in disaster risk reduction—it can also act to increase social learning and risk awareness, to reach consensus over the equitable distribution of risks and to negotiate a preferred level of risk. Thus, participatory evaluation is proposed to increase the exchange and sharing of the different concerns, knowledges, interests, and values of societal players. Finally, an evaluation framework based on a mixed hierarchical and networked structure of criteria, components, and the dimensions of risk governance is advanced to complete the evaluation system. In this framework, criteria should measure not just policy development but also organizational structure, as well as the role of societal actors and the intervention of formal and informal arrangements.
KeywordsDisaster Risk Public Participation Disaster Risk Reduction Participatory Evaluation Risk Governance
Copy editing of this chapter has been made possible with the financial support of the Government of Extremadura and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the grant GR10071 awarded to the research group on Geospatial Engineering and Urban Heritage of the University of Extremadura.
- Balkin, J.M. 2004. Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. New York University Law Review 79(1): 1–55.Google Scholar
- Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2002. Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
- Brand, R., and A. Karvonen. 2007. The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 3(1): 21–31.Google Scholar
- Buck, T. 2013. Spain’s indignados switch focus to workaday struggles. Financial Times, 17/05/2013. Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/342f1cee-bcaf-11e2-9519-00144feab7de.html#axzz2iXkInUGC.
- Burby, R.J., and P.J. May. 2009. Command or cooperate? Rethinking traditional central governments’ hazard mitigation policies. In Building safer communities. Risk governance, spatial planning, and responses to natural hazards, ed. U. Fra.Paleo, 34–43. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Burton, I., R.W. Kates, and G.F. White. 1993. The environment as hazard, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Cardona, O.D. 2006. A system of indicators for disaster risk management in the Americas. In Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, ed. J. Birkmann, 189–209. New York: UNU Press.Google Scholar
- DARA. 2011. Análisis de capacidades y condiciones para la reducción del riesgo de desastres. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panamá y República Dominicana. Informe sumario. Madrid: DARA.Google Scholar
- de Boer, H., J. Enders, and U. Schimank. 2008. Comparing higher education governance systems in four European countries. In Governance and performance of education systems, ed. N.C. Soguel and P. Jaccard, 35–54. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- deLeon, P. 1992. The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review 52(125–1): 29.Google Scholar
- EC (European Commission). 2001. European governance: A white paper. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/white_paper/en.pdf.
- Estrella, M., and J. Gaventa. 1998. Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A literature review, IDS working paper no. 70. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
- Fra.Paleo, U. 2009. On exposure to natural hazards: Revisiting a neglected primal action. In Building safer communities. Risk governance, spatial planning, and responses to natural hazards, ed. U. Fra.Paleo, 61–78. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Fra.Paleo, U. 2014. Principles for the measurement and evaluation of risk governance. In Earthquake hazard impact and urban planning, ed. M. Bostenaru, I. Armas, and A. Goretti. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Gonsalves, J.F., IIRR, and J. Gaventa. 2000. Preface. In Learning from change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation, ed. M. Estrella, xi–xiii. Londres: IDS. Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
- Greene, J. 2006. Evaluation, democracy, and social change. In The Sage handbook of evaluation, ed. I.F. Shaw, J. Greene, and M. Mark, 118–140. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- House, E. 1991. Evaluation and social justice: Where are we? In Evaluation and education: At quarter century, ed. M.W. McLaughlin and D.C. Phillips, 233–247. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 2010. Indicators of disaster risk management. Program for Latin America and the Caribbean Summary Report. Washington, DC: IDB.Google Scholar
- ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2005. Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. A/CONF.206/6. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf.
- Johansen, R. 1988. Groupware. Computer support for business teams. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2010. The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues, World Bank policy research working paper no. 5430. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution – World Bank.Google Scholar
- Keen, M., V.A. Brown, and R. Dyball. 2005. Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future. London: EarthScan.Google Scholar
- Kushner, S. 2001. Culture, standards, and program qualities. In Vision of quality: How evaluators define, understand and represent program quality, ed. A.P. Benson, D.M. Hinn, and C. Lloyd, 121–134. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
- MacDonald, B. 1976. Evaluation and the control of education. In Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications, ed. D. Tawney, 125–136. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Mathison, S. 1996. The role of deliberation in evaluation. Annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta, November 1996.Google Scholar
- May, B., and R. Plummer. 2011. Accommodating the challenges of climate change adaptation and governance in conventional risk management: Adaptive collaborative risk management (ACRM). Ecology and Society 16(1): 47.Google Scholar
- McCarthy, D. 2009. A critical systems approach to socio-ecological systems: Implications for social learning and governance. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
- McKnight, K.M., and L. Sechrest. 2004. Program evaluation. In Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 3: Behavioral assessment, ed. S.N. Haynes and E.M. Heiby, 246–266. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Mileti, D.S., T.E. Drabek, and J.E. Haas. 1975. Human systems in extreme environments: A sociological perspective. Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, B. 1997. Resource and environmental management. Toronto: Longman.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, T. 2003. An operational framework for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction, Disaster studies working paper 8. London: Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, B. (ed.). 2004. Resource and environmental management in Canada: Addressing conflict and uncertainty, 3rd ed. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Nordhaus, W.D. 1994. Expert opinion on climate change. American Scientist 82: 45–51.Google Scholar
- Quarantelli, E. 1991. Patterns of sheltering and housing in American disasters, Preliminary paper no. 170. Newark: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
- Renn, O. 2004. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise. Participation and discourse in risk management. In Risk analysis and society: An interdisciplinary characterization of the field, ed. T.L. McDaniels and M.J. Small, 289–366. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rice, S.E., and S. Patrick. 2008. Index of state weakness in the developing world. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Roorda, N., C. Rammel, S. Waara, and U. Fra.Paleo. 2009. AISHE 2.0 Manual. Assessment instrument for sustainability in higher education. http://www.slideshare.net/NRoorda/aishe-20-manual.
- Saward, M. 1992. Co-optive politics and state legitimacy. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
- Simpson, D.M., and M. Katirai. 2006. Indicator issues and proposed framework for a disaster preparedness index (DPi), Working paper 06–03. Louisville: Center for Hazards Research and Policy Development, University of Louisville.Google Scholar
- Springett, J., and N. Wallerstein. 2008. Issues in participatory evaluation. In Community based participatory research for health: Process to outcomes, 2nd ed, ed. M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, 199–220. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
- Stivers, C. 1990. Active citizenship and public administration. In Refounding public administration, ed. G.L. Wamsley, R.N. Bacher, C.T. Goodsell, P.S. Kronenberg, J.A. Rohr, C.M. Stivers, O.F. White, and J.F. Wolf, 246–273. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- UNISDR. 2010. The 10 essentials for making cities resilient. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/toolkit/essentials.
- Weibelzahl, S. 2005. Problems and pitfalls in evaluating adaptive systems. In Fourth workshop on the evaluation of adaptive systems, ed. S. Weibelzahl, A. Paramythis, and J. Masthoff, 57–64. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- Worthen, B.R., J.R. Sanders, and J.L. Fitzpatrick. 1997. Program evaluation. Alternative approaches and practical guidelines, 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar