Can public participation help managing risks from natural hazards?
Introduction
The management of natural hazards poses numerous challenges to decision makers in developing as well as developed countries. Naturally, state budgets are restricted, thus full protection cannot be achieved by any means. Avoiding catastrophes by settling in non dangerous areas implies in most cases considerable opportunity costs: in less developed areas people are dependent on settling close to e.g. water catchment areas since they cannot afford other infrastructure arrangements. In more developed countries, potential resettling areas become more and more scarce. Relocation of housing and respective infrastructure, at least within the region, to less endangered areas is thus no option and in many cases, inhabitants would equally be reluctant to leave their familiar environment. The questions that arise in the latter case are: what protection level do we want to achieve? What remaining risk do we accept? How do we allocate our budgets? Above all, the question is: who is to decide on these issues?
Public sector decision making in democratic societies is very often in dispute. Inefficiencies do not result only from spending budgets lavishly and unnecessarily expanding bureaucratic structures, but also from people’s preferences being misaligned with their governments. Since privatisation can only be a solution for some state affairs, there is a strong need for the research of models and tools that can decrease these inefficiencies in public good provision. The theory of public choice centres its analysis, in contrast to traditional output-oriented concepts in economics, on the process of decision making (Mueller, 2003, Buchanan, 1987a, Brennan and Buchanan, 1985). The state is seen as a cooperative organisation between politicians and the governed people, whereby the latter have to decide on the way decisions should be taken in order to achieve effective outcomes. Public good decisions can be taken along different lines of decision making, e.g. by the market, by experts, by state representatives or the public itself, so for each decision context the most effective mechanism must be chosen.
Following this line of analysis, the present paper first reviews the applicability of the market and the state (through its representative bodies) as decision mechanisms for the installation of protective measures against natural catastrophes. The weaknesses of these two mechanisms that can be drawn from the analysis lead us to the hypothesis that direct representation of public preferences in the decision processes for protective measures could serve as an improvement in efficiency and effectiveness in their provision. Hence, the potential of direct preference representation in the form of public participation will be analysed. A decision aiding tool, namely Multi Criteria Analysis will be proposed as an integrative model for structuring direct preference representation in a democratically organised decision making framework.
Section snippets
How do we decide on protective measures against natural hazards?
On the one hand, decision rules need to enhance the outcome efficiency of allocation decisions for state budgets, especially for non-market goods for which prices are not readily available. Furthermore, decision structures are needed that best reflect people’s preferences within reason of decision making costs, which, among others, means finding the most adequate degree of centralisation and thus the number of federal levels in a democracy and/or decision rules that would ideally fit the fiscal
Theoretical foundations of participation
Public participation in many industrialised countries has seen a steady increase over the last decades. Especially for environmental issues, advantages have been recognised in many areas of public decision making in Europe. Public participation is mentioned in several high profile research reports and consequently national laws as well EU core directives (e.g. Dodgson et al., 2000, European Commission, 1998). Participation in this context is more than a mere voting procedure, e.g. in public
Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA): a synthesis of outcome and process oriented approaches
Economics can provide decision makers with results and advice in the form of decision support tools, such as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Extensively applied (i.e. measuring all effects for society), this outcome-oriented tool can indeed offer strong arguments for the prioritisation of allocation decisions. In practice, it often dispenses if valuation processes are found to be too time and money consuming, which makes the instrument less valuable since it can be methodologically flawed (see for
Discussion
As outlined in this paper, participation and respective structuring instruments such as MCA could serve as a decision mechanism, especially in situations, such as safety issues in the environment in general and natural hazard risks in particular, where uncertainty in decisions is coupled with a high degree of conflict among the affected interest groups. It can serve not only for conflict resolution, but also as an instrument complementing other decision mechanisms in terms of a win–win
Conclusions
Public participation in various government decisions, especially concerning the environment or future planning is nothing new as such. Nonetheless, analysing its suitability for certain decision contexts along the process analytic approach from political economics could increase its appropriate use and efficiency. We have deduced that, for certain public good issues, participation seems suitable. Among these are highly conflicting situations with a significant degree of uncertainty, where
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments. Financial support by the Hypo Bank Tirol, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK•CEN, Mol, is gratefully acknowledged.
References (54)
- et al.
Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory
Ecological Economics
(2005) - et al.
Aggregation of dispersed consequences for constructing criteria: the evaluation of flood risk reduction strategies
European Journal of Operational Research
(2003) - et al.
Assigning priorities for maintenance, repair and refurbishment in managing a municipal housing stock
European Journal of Operational Research
(2002) - et al.
Conflict dissolution in the public sector: a case-study
European Journal of Operational Research
(2001) - et al.
Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emissions abatement studies with MCDA: the Peruvian case
European Journal of Operational Research
(2004) - et al.
Integrated ecological, economic, and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands
Ecological Economics
(2004) - et al.
A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island
Energy Policy
(2005) - et al.
On the governmental use of Multi-Criteria Analysis
Ecological Economics
(2007) Investigating public decisions about protecting wetlands
Journal of Environmental Management
(2002)- et al.
Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis
Ecological Economics
(1997)
Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment
European Journal of Operational Research
Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree River basin
Land Use Policy
Social multicriteria-evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences
European Journal of Operational Research
Ranking the sites for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in Croatia
International Transactions on Operational Research
A multi-criteria evaluation of diseases in a study for public-health planning
European Journal of Operational Research
The quality of stakeholder-based decisions
Risk Analysis
What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach
Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy
Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics
A multi-criteria analysis was carried out to help choose between a surface and a deep repository for low-level radioactive waste
Nuclear Engineering International
The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy
The constitution of economic policy
American Economic Review
Constitutional Economics
The New Palgrave
Constitutional Economics
The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy
Deliberation and democratic legitimacy
Cited by (26)
Landslide mitigation strategies in southeast Bangladesh: Lessons learned from the institutional responses
2021, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionTesting the value of public participation in Germany: Theory, operationalization and a case study on the evaluation of participation
2016, Energy Research and Social ScienceA paradigm quantitative approach for a regional risk assessment and management in a few landslide prone hamlets along the windward slope of Western Ghats, India
2014, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionCitation Excerpt :The government should give a proactive status to the GSI and should promote the organization by not restricting the activity to hazard evaluation but also promote carrying out risk assessment directly. Moreover, mitigation strategies are often costly and pose numerous challenges to decision-makers, in both developing and developed countries [30] on whether to implement them or not. The legislation is often complex and the budgets restricted [31,32], particularly in developing countries.
Landslide risk management - A brief overview and example from Sweden of current situation and climate change
2013, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionCitation Excerpt :For assessments of non-physical actions, such as increasing awareness, however, we regard a qualitative and semi-quantitative assessments by experts and stakeholders more relevant. Such an assessment shall preferably be done through a structured stakeholder participant MCA process as previously suggested [28,87]. There are several aspects that could be improved by providing checklists, guides, guidelines and external expert advises, by improving the existing databases, by providing common structures for documentation and inter- and intra-municipal co-operation and for including land owners and other relevant stakeholders in the municipal risk management and planning process.
The COST 731 Action: A review on uncertainty propagation in advanced hydro-meteorological forecast systems
2011, Atmospheric ResearchCitation Excerpt :Others have studied how best to represent risk-aversion (LiCalzi and Sorato, 2006) while Geiger (2000) also studied low probability, high-impact risks. The value of public participation, particularly in comparison with technical experts, in decision making is illustrated by Gamper and Turcanu (2009). Uncertainty estimates of decision variables, i.e. quantities whose values are set by a risk manager or policy maker, may be viewed as important only to the extent that they contribute to good-decision making (Cox, 1999).