Catherine Fallon

“How are you vulnerable?”: Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning

Scientists in many fields of research have developed models, theories, and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to imagine. Among the different perspectives, the science and technology studies (STS) vulnerability approach seems very promising. Relying on a constructivist paradigm, it is based on an inductive collection and analysis of a wide range of factors, with a particular focus on cultural factors and actual day-to-day practices. In this paper, we present the roots of this approach and we display findings based on three case studies exploring emergency planning in three different contexts (a city near a SEVESO plant, a school near a nuclear plant, and a city confronted to multiple catastrophic scenarios). The cases studies were realized by conducting three Focus Groups with different types of stakeholders (citizens, teachers, firemen, decision-makers, etc.). After presenting the results of the case studies, we discuss how stakeholders’ participation can inform such type of vulnerability analysis in the context of emergency planning. We argue that participation fosters a deep understanding of actual safety governance practices which allows innovative results to emerge as well as it initiates a learning process among the participants. It contributes to questioning the relations between decision-makers, experts, and citizens. It has the potential of bypassing the positivist and quantitative rationale of safety, and thus, of redefining the vulnerability governance. As a conclusion, we question the role of such STS vulnerability approach within the actual vulnerability governance.

Containment in Sierra Leone: the inability of a state to confront Ebola?

The present Ebola virus disease outbreak is spreading across west African nations with alarming rapidity. As of Sept 21, the total number of recorded cases has soared to 6263, with 2917 deaths. The situation is very likely to continue to worsen when the aff ected countries witness the exhaustion of their capacities to respond to a threat of this magnitude, and because massive international assistance is still sorely lacking on the ground. With the objective to put newly infected people into quarantine and to limit the virus’ spread, the government authorities of Sierra Leone decided to impose an unprecedented containment, ordering the nation’s 6·2 million inhabitants to stay at home for three full days, from Sept 19 to 21, with a patrol force of 7000 teams making door-to-door visits to detect possible Ebola victims. Although containment would at fi rst appear to be an easily enacted and economical strategy, its implementation has proven to be more complex, for several reasons. First, how can the entire population of a country, the territory of which extends over more than 70 000 km2, be confi ned while many services must be maintained? Decreeing such an obligation within even a smaller area can be diffi cult. Attempts to place the West Point slum in Morovia, Liberia into quarantine, at the end of August, exemplifi ed this diffi culty. Communication has a crucial role among the challenges presented by the size of the country. How could information be conveyed to the entire population, including the most remote rural areas, which haven’t been taken into account since the beginning of the outbreak? In order for the people to accept containment, it is necessary that they understand and accept the reasoning behind such measures. Moreover, containment eff orts are difficult to implement. Homes and shelters are of para mount importance. Consequently, in a country where access to basic infrastructure is far from widespread, can people truly be expected to remain confi ned in their homes for three days without needing to be resupplied with basic necessities such as water? In a country where more than half of the population lives on less than US

Siting Controversies Analysis: Framework and Method for Questioning the Procedure

1·25 per day, how can the government expect to contain all those for whom having food on the table at night depends on that day’s labour? How can containment be imposed on a rural population who are engaged in agricultural activities, in the middle of the crop harvest? Such practical issues transform into numerous preoccupations that make people apathetic to the authorities’ instructions. Mandating containment at such a large scale raises many questions. The purpose of these eff orts could well be to send a political message to reassure the population by creating the illusion that the authorities have the ability to control a major crisis on the scale of the current Ebola outbreak.

Gouvernance et politiques de santé: les chemins de la cohérence

Siting controversies are commonplace, as well against the construction of roads, railways, nuclear waste disposals, as against windfarms. Local citizens resist against siting decisions taken by the authorities, following a dynamics often quoted as ‘Not In My Back Yard’. Yet contested for its lack of analytical value, NIMBY is still used strategically by actors to qualify citizens as irrational and egoistic. Beyond this labeling, many factors are investigated to understand the dynamics behind siting controversies. In this paper, we focus on the impact of the legal procedure structuring the implantation of windfarms in the Walloon Region (Belgium), and its translations within different decision-making processes in specific case studies. To that regard, we consider the legal procedure as a ‘public policy instrument’. It is neither neutral nor natural, and carry values and interests. It organizes interpersonal relations between actors, and is potentially catalyzer of frustrations. In addition, this legal procedure is the object of translations within different contexts, including different actors participating to specific decision-making processes. The empirical approach of this paper is based on case studies data and on the use of an innovative methodology called ‘Open Process Workshop’. This methodology consists of a structured workshop with key stakeholders, during which the legal procedure is questioned. Overall, we demonstrate that the focus on the legal procedure – and its translations within different decision-making processes – allows systemic analysis providing deep understandings of controversies and reaffirming the interlinks between ‘the social’ and ‘the technical’ in such controversies. In addition, we argue that the methodology used fosters the production of innovative knowledge, mutual understanding, and collective learning between the participants.

Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization

Participation, intersectorialite, reseau et politiques locales sont des concepts-clefs mobilises par les pouvoirs publics dans le domaine de la promotion de la sante. Ces concepts sont mis en œuvre par les acteurs de terrain sans qu’il y ait necessairement une connaissance sur la maniere dont ceux-ci les comprennent.Une initiative participative organisee par le Centre Liegeois de Promotion de la Sante (Province de Liege, Belgique) a cependant permis de mettre en lumiere cette appropriation des concepts par les acteurs de terrain et de nourrir ainsi la reflexion pour tendre vers plus de coherence dans les politiques de sante.