Participation in Flood Risk Management and the

Report
PARTICIPATION IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
AND THE POTENTIAL OF CITIZEN
OBSERVATORIES:
A GOVERNANCE ANALYSIS
Uta Wehn, Maria Rusca, Jaap Evers (all UNESCO-IHE) and
Vita Lanfranchi (K-Now)
Context
• Evolution of flood risk management towards integrated FRM and
non-structural measures
• Recognition: importance of stakeholder participation in decision
making (incl. in FRM) – Aarhus Convention, Water Framework Directive,
Flood Directive
• But extent of achieving this?
• Potential of citizen observatories to reach goal of greater citizen
participation?
Content
• Citizen participation - concepts
• Current institutional set up –
empirical results for WeSenseIt case studies
• Potential for citizen participation via citizen observatories
• Conclusions
Citizen participation - concepts
citizen
• Citizens
• Citizen scientists
• Volunteers
• Trained volunteers
• (Scientific) Experts
• Emergency services
• Local authorities
• Regional organisation
National organisation
Regional organisation
Local authorities
Emergency services
Private sector
(Scientific) Experts
Trained volunteers
national organisation
Volunteers
Citizen scientists
Citizens
• National organisation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Private sector
Participants in decision making
technical expertise
• Technical expertise
• Deliberate & negotiate
• Aggregate & bargain
• Express preferences
social sensor
• Human sensor
• Listen as spectator
Social sensor
Listen as spectator
Human sensor
Express preferences
Develop preferences
Aggregate & bargain
Deliberate & negotiate
Technical expertise
• Social sensor
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Develop preferences
Communication & decision
mode
• Direct authority
individual education
• Co-govern
• Communicative influence
Individual education
Communicative influence
Advise/Consult
Co-govern
Direct authority
• Individual education
•
•
•
•
•
• Advise/Consult
Authority & Power
direct authority
Adjusted Democracy Cube:
citizen participation in
decision making on
individ.
flood risk management education
national organisation
direct
authority
8
citizen
Based on Fung (2006)
The disaster cycle
(Prevention/protection)
Source: Alexander (2002)
CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL SET UP
– EMPIRICAL RESULTS FROM WeSenseIt
CASE STUDIES
Citizen participation during
mitigation (Doncaster, UK)
Awareness raising (schools,
communities)
Community meetings:
• set agenda/learn from communities
• change values /manage expectations
(flood causes & response)
Strategy consultations
Implementation of flood risk schemes:
• citizens provide supporting info on
location for implementation schemes
(flood w. walk about & reporting)
Citizen participation during
response (Doncaster, UK)
Command along well-establihsed
route, multi-agency effort &
coordination
Role for citizen participation in
DM this phase: limited;
Own home evacuation: citizens’
own decision
Social media use by authorities:
emergency services to counter
rumours
Citizen participation in flood risk management
– Doncaster Case Study
Current institutional set up
• On paper (de jure), formal institutions require citizen participation (in
FRM), but de facto importance given to these and extent of their
implementation varies in the three cases
• Implementation of formal institutions: limited when examining in
detail a) the respective roles and types of interactions between
citizen and authorities and b) the impact of citizen participation on
decision making throughout the different phases of disaster cycle
• Different perceptions of the role of citizens, combined with the
different strategies adopted by the three countries in response to the
EU directives
Potential for citizen participation
via citizen observatories
Citizen observatory
• Observations of citizens - and not just those of scientists and
professionals - can form an integral part of data collection (and
even decision making)
• Enables citizen involvement by collecting data via innovative
combination of easy-to-use sensors and monitoring technologies
(incl. social media) as well as harnessing citizens’ collective
intelligence
Potential for citizen participation
via citizen observatories
• These cases do not yet present strong ICT-enabled participation
(eParticipation) (Wehn and Evers, 2014)
• Local patterns of participation have emerged in the cases
-> citizen observatories are likely to take specific ‘shapes and sizes’
in the three locations.
• Different perceptions of the role of citizens, combined with the
different strategies adopted by the three countries in response to the
EU directives seem to call for different set ups of citizen
observatories.
Potential for citizen participation
via citizen observatories (CO)
• Dutch case: participation is done ad hoc (depending on the project
context)
• CO may present opportunity for local authorities and citizens to
develop more regular and fitting means of citizen participation and
raise awareness on FRM.
• UK case: reliance on regular and intense face-to-face contact with
(mostly older and less technology-savvy) members of the
communities
• CO may help to bridge participation gap (largely generational) by
involving previously unengaged segments of the communities such
as the Digital Natives and their parents.
Conclusions
Conclusions
• (WeSenseIt) citizen observatories may not be a panacea
for citizen participation
• They might serve to support locally-defined governance
goals and objectives – and to change those goals by....
• …providing a platform
a) to increase citizens’ awareness about water-related risks
b) for citizens to demand and take on a stronger role in
managing water-related risks
Contact
Dr. Uta Wehn: [email protected]
Presented by
Dr. Simon McCarthy, Flood Hazard Research Centre
Middlesex University London

similar documents