Advertisement

Participatory Decision-Making on Hazard Warnings

  • Gordon WooEmail author
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 19)

Abstract

There are many hazard situations where there is significant uncertainty over whether a dangerous event will actually materialize and threaten a populated region. In the presence of such uncertainty, hazard warnings may be issued to motivate a diverse range of mitigating actions that might reduce the risk of casualties should a major natural hazard event occur. Most of these possible actions involve the active cooperation of citizens in the region affected. Guidelines for the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process are identified, with a focus on key principles that provide a platform for participatory decision-making. These principles include the democratic right of citizens to information and choice; the need for basic training and education on risk issues to enable citizens to make more evidence-based decisions; the opportunities for governments to nudge rather than coerce citizens into taking actions; the scope for application of the precautionary principle; and the over-arching need for decisions to be rational, equitable and defensible.

Keywords

Storm Surge Public Participation Flash Flood Precautionary Principle Risk Mitigation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by European Union FP7 Seventh Framework Program for Research project No. 282862: REAKT.

References

  1. Argonne National Laboratory (2013) Crisis communication legal guide. Decision and Information Sciences Division. www.anl.gov/riskcomm
  2. Bolt BA (1988) Earthquakes. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Christian C (2013) 8 years ago, seemingly all of Houston evacuated ahead of Hurricane Rita. Houston Chronicle, 24 Sept 2013Google Scholar
  4. Disraeli B (1880) Endymion. Longmans and Green, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Hendrickx L, Vlek C, Oppewal H (1989) Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgment of risk. Acta Psychol 72(1):41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 64(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. King CS, Stivers C (1998) Government is us: public administration in an anti-government era. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Kramer C (2013) Nuclear fears and communicating information during a time of crisis. Course on security of nuclear and other radioactive materials during transport. Argonne National Laboratory, LemontGoogle Scholar
  10. Lomnitz C (1994) Earthquake prediction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. McCallum DB, Santos SL (1997) Comparative risk analysis for priority setting. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 3(6):1215–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy C, Gardoni P (2006) The role of society in engineering risk analysis: a capabilities-based approach. Risk Anal 26(4):1073–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Murphy C, Gardoni P (2007) Determining public policy and resource allocation priorities for mitigating natural hazards: a capabilities-based approach. Sci Eng Ethics 13(4):489–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Slovic P (2010) The feeling of risk. Earthscan, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  17. Smits G (2014) When the earth roars. Rowman and Littlefield, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Rail Safety and Standards Board (2009) Taking safe decisions. Part 2: the decision taking framework. RSSB publicationGoogle Scholar
  19. Thaler W, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  20. Woo G (2011) Calculating catastrophe. Imperial College Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Risk Management Solutions (RMS)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations