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

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 reports 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 analytical 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 perspectives held by the participants.     

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

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 reports 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 analytical 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 perspectives held by the participants.

     

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

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.     

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

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.

     

The ACPI Project, Element 1: Initializing a Coupled Climate Model from Observed Conditions

A problem for climate change studies with coupled ocean-atmosphere models has been how to incorporate observed initial conditions into the ocean, which holds most of the `memory' of anthropogenic forcing effects. The first difficulty is the lack of comprehensive three-dimensional observations of the current ocean temperature (T) and salinity (S) fields to initialize to. The second problem is that directly imposing observed T and S fields into the model results in rapid drift back to the model climatology, with the corresponding loss of the observed information. Anthropogenic forcing scenarios therefore typically initialize future runs by starting with pre-industrial conditions. However, if the future climate depends on the details of the present climate, then initializing the model to observations may provide more accurate forecasts. Also, this ～ 130 yr spin up imposes substantial overhead if only a few decades of predictions are desired. A new technique to address these problems is presented. In lieu of observed T and S, assimilated ocean data were used. To reduce model drift, an anomaly coupling scheme was devised. This consists of letting the model's climatological (pre-industrial) oceanic and atmospheric heat contents and transports balance each other, while adding on the (much smaller) changes in heat content since the pre-industrial era as anomalies. The result is model drift of no more than 0.2 K over 50 years, significantly smaller than the forced response of 1.0 K. An ensemble of runs with these assimilated initial conditions is then compared to a set spun up from pre-industrial conditions. No systematic differences were found, i.e., the model simulation of the ocean temperature structure in the late 1990s is statistically indistinguishable from the assimilated observations. However, a model with a worse representation of the late 20th century climate might show significant differences if initialized in this way.     

Do red giant stars pulsate in high overtones?

About 30 photometrically variable red giant stars have periods less than 10 d, as determined by the compilers of the Hipparcos Catalogue from Hipparcos photometric measurements. These periods, when combined with estimates of the radii and masses of these stars, and with pulsation theory, imply that these stars are pulsating in very high overtones. We present several pieces of evidence which suggest that the periods may be spurious, as a result of the particular aliasing properties of the Hipparcos photometry. We conclude that the evidence for high-overtone pulsation in red giant stars is equivocal.     

Pressure, volume, temperature states within the VC-2B corehole, Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Two different instruments were used over a 17.5 month period to make high-resolution temperature measurements in the VC-2B corehole. The first tool transmits data to the surface and has a 300°C limitation imposed by the logging cable; the second tool has a design capability of 400°C and stores data in an onboard computer. The pressure in the corehole was calculated from an assumed equation of state that accounts for the NaCl dissolved in the borehole fluids. The maximum thermodynamic state achieved in VC-2B (136 bars, 295°C) occurred at a bottom hole depth of 1.76 km. Temperature data and the equation of state were used to calculate the pressure within a closed vessel withdrawn from the corehole. These calculations support experimental observations that fluid sampling devices used in VC-2B leak and return anomalously large amounts of fluid to the surface. The extension of the methods used herein to the investigation of subseafloor systems that approach the critical point of sea water is discussed.