Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions

Burgess, Jacquelin; Stirling, Andy; Clark, Julian; Davies, Gail; Eames, Malcolm; Staley, Kristina; Williamson, Suzanne

doi:10.1177/0963662507077510

Cited by 147 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Horlick-Jones et al 2007) and we have highlighted promising models and practices such as mental mapping, deliberative mapping or different forms of stakeholder dialogue for the context of natural hazards (e.g. Kolkman et al 2005;Kenyon 2007;Scolobig et al 2008;Burgess et al 2007). However, such ways of working have not been trialled extensively in the natural hazards field.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking social capacities and risk communication in Europe: a gap between theory and practice?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although both improved risk communication and the building of social capacities have been advocated as vital ways to increase societies' resilience towards natural hazards across the world, the literature has rarely examined the ways in which these two concepts may integrate in theory and practice. This paper is an attempt to address this gap in a European context. It begins with a conceptual discussion that unites the literature on risk communication with the literature on social capacity building. We then use the insights from this discussion as a basis to conduct a review of 60 risk communication practices from across Europe. This review indicates a gap between theory and practice because, whilst the literature highlights the importance of integrated and coordinated communication campaigns featuring both a one-way transfer and a two-way dialogue between the public, stakeholders and decision-makers, the majority of the communication practices reviewed here appear to be relatively disparate initiatives that rely on one-way forms of communication. On the basis of these findings, we conclude by making some recommendations for the way in which such practices could be improved in order to be more supportive of social capacities across Europe. Keywords Risk communication Á Capacity building Á Participation Á Warning Á PreventionElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking social capacities and risk communication in Europe: a gap between theory and practice?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…as for any IA process. However, the assessment would ideally be undertaken using a workshop-based analytic-deliberative approach (see, for example, Burgess et al, 2007;Fish et al, 2011;Karjalainen et al, 2013) that draws on modelling where possible. At this stage, the composition of the workshop team is critical as it needs to include representatives of affected communities, decision-makers, and also socio-ecological system experts who can be called upon to comment on the likely implication of interventions on particular scenarios, and to identify the key variables that are likely to control socio-ecological outcomes.…”

Section: Combining the Parts -Impact Assessment For Building Resilienmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

Bond

Morrison‐Saunders

Gunn

et al. 2015

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of continuing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment (IA) prediction, the case is made that existing IA processes are based on false 'normal' assumptions that science can solve problems and transfer knowledge into policy. Instead, a 'post-normal science' approach is needed that acknowledges the limits of current levels of scientific understanding. We argue that this can be achieved through embedding evolutionary resilience into IA; using participatory workshops; and emphasizing adaptive management. The goal is an IA process capable of informing policy choices in the face of uncertain influences acting on socio-ecological systems. We propose a specific set of process steps to operationalise this post-normal science approach which draws on work undertaken by the Resilience Alliance. This process differs significantly from current models of IA, as it has a far greater focus on avoidance of, or adaptation to (through incorporating adaptive management subsequent to decisions), unwanted future scenarios rather than a focus on the identification of the implications of a single preferred vision. Implementing such a process * corresponding author 2 would represent a culture change in IA practice as a lack of knowledge is assumed and explicit, and forms the basis of future planning activity, rather than being ignored.

show abstract

“…EIA-driven integrated assessment and objectives-led integrated assessment are not currently interdisciplinary; in order to rise to this interdisciplinary challenges, they would need to embrace different patterns of working, perhaps using analytic-deliberative approaches to engender cross-discipline engagement and understanding (see, for example Burgess et al, 2007;Chilvers, 2007;, although these are known to be resource intensive.…”

Section: Interdisciplinaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards sustainability assessment follow-up

Morrison‐Saunders

Pope

Bond

et al. 2014

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oThis paper conceptualises what sustainability assessment follow-up might entail for three models of sustainability assessment: EIA-driven integrated assessment, objectives-led integrated assessment and the contribution to sustainability model. The first two are characterised by proponent monitoring and evaluation of individual impacts and indicators while the latter takes a holistic view based around focused sustainability criteria relevant to the context. The implications of three sustainability challenges on follow-up are also examined: contested time horizons and value changes, trade-offs, and interdisciplinarity. We conclude that in order to meet these challenges some form of adaptive follow-up is necessary and that the contribution to sustainability approach is the best approach.

show abstract

Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions

Cited by 147 publications

References 44 publications

Linking social capacities and risk communication in Europe: a gap between theory and practice?

Linking social capacities and risk communication in Europe: a gap between theory and practice?

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

Towards sustainability assessment follow-up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About