Search

Starting from a general understanding that experience of hazards is important in motivating protective response, this paper reports a novel study to understand the relationship between householder experience, understanding and response to two natural hazards - flooding and sea-level rise - in three contrasting high-risk areas of England. It presents a generic Individual Understanding and Response Framework (IURF) as a simple but potentially valuable means of comparing hazards and expressing the dynamic processes that appear to heighten or attenuate understanding and drive or constrain responses to specific natural hazards. The IURFs confirm the complexity of factors underlying householder understanding and response. Even in high-risk areas a lack of recent direct personal experience of flood events serves to attenuate understanding and to constrain motivation to take personal action. For sea-level rise, as yet a largely 'unknown' hazard in the local context, perceived responsibility to act is transferred to others. Social networks are confirmed as important local sources of information often more important than the official. People evaluate potential protection or mitigation measures in terms of their efficacy, cost and implementation barriers. The paper concludes with discussion of the communication and engagement implications for communities at risk from natural hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a new discussion of how people learn through deliberative processes, drawing upon empirical analysis of a novel public engagement process for urban river restoration. Such critical evaluation is rare and yet will be crucial to both theoretical development and learning about engagement practice, not least in a policy area subject to strong regulatory drivers for public participation. The analysis supports two important learning mechanisms – the use of ‘gatekeepers’ of knowledge, interests and values, and the privileging of narrative. It provides new evidence of instrumental and communicative learning about shared priorities and criteria for effective river restoration that evolved through the deliberative process and directly informed the restoration scheme. It is important to question whether and how such site or context-specific learning might inform other restoration schemes. Finally, the paper questions the often ignored issue of expert learning, not least the issue of the link between individual and organizational learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the findings of a study into the effectiveness of a more proactive community involvement program in the siting of waste facilities in Hampshire, England. Opportunities and barriers to public involvement in waste management strategy development; Consensus-building approaches.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.