Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation

11277 16 47545 2 127028 document 47545 Compromise not consensus.pdf application/pdf 7526e644931298dadd8471c41b2f4c3a MD5 766866 2016-04-04 06:37:43 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/11277/1/Compromise%20not%20consensus.pdf 11277 1 1 application/pdf text en public cc_by

Compromise not consensus.pdf

accepted 47546 2 127031 document 47546 lightbox.jpg image/png 9b2967a98ca725cadcd327d63bca94ce MD5 44404 2016-04-04 06:38:11 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/11277/2/lightbox.jpg 11277 2 2 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from text to thumbnail_lightbox en public

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/47545 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/47545 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/47545 archive 351 disk0/00/01/12/77 2016-01-15 08:52:28 2021-08-27 17:24:49 2016-01-15 08:52:28 article show Scolobig A. 1919 Thompson M. 862 Linnerooth-Bayer J. 1354 Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation pub iis_rsp prog_risk prog_rpv participatory processes; theory of plural rationality; contested terrain; consensus or compromise; clumsy solution With the escalating costs of landslides, the challenge for local authorities is to develop institutional arrangements for landslide risk management that are viewed as efficient, feasible and fair by those affected. For this purpose, the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process is mandated by the European Union as a way of improving its perceived legitimacy and transparency. This paper report on an analytical-deliberative process for selecting landslide risk mitigation measures in the town of Nocera Inferiore in southern Italy. The process was structured as a series of meetings with a group of selected residents and several parallel activities open to the public. The preparatory work included a literature/media review, semi-structured interviews carried out with key local stakeholders and a survey eliciting residents' views on landslide risk management. The main point of departure in the design of this process was the explicit elicitation and structuring of multiple worldviews (or perspectives) among the participants with respect to the nature of the problem and its solution. Rather than eliciting preferences using decision analyticl methods (e.g. utility theory or multi-criteria evaluation), this process built on a body of research - based on the theory of plural rationality - that has teased out the limited number of contending and socially constructed definitions of problem-and-solution that are able to achieve viability. This framing proved effective in structuring participants' views and arriving at a 'compromise' recommendation (not, as is often aimed for, a 'consensus') on measures for reducing landslide risk. Experts played a unique role in this process by providing a range of policy options that corresponded to the different perspetives held by the participants. 2016 published Springer 10.1007/s11069-015-2078-y XJ-15-371 [doi:10.1007/s11069-015-2078-y] 2607 306 182 public Natural Hazards 81 S1 45-61 TRUE 1573-0840 Living with landslide risk in Europe: Assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies (SAFELAND, FP7 226479) FALSE yes info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/226479/EU/Living with landslide risk in Europe: Assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies/SAFELAND info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess