"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 constru...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of risk research 2017-09, Vol.20 (9), p.1095-1114 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1114 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1095 |
container_title | Journal of risk research |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Rossignol, Nicolas Turcanu, Catrinel Fallon, Catherine Zwetkoff, Catherine |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/13669877.2014.961522 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1926974346</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1926974346</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-cebda287b42e5d69a035f83f26d9c86b2f0e2ae197bdb07e19405d0bbabc49993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhk1poGmSf5CDSM_e6Gtlq5dQQtsUAr0052Eky4uCVnIlO8H_vlrc9pjTvIfnGZh5m-aa0R2jPb1lQindd92OUyZ3WrE95--acyaVaqVU7H3NFWlPzIfmYynPlLJeMH7ewM1DeiWYHVnTQl6WEF1GE9zdzWfyVHw8kAnz7K2fcPYpkjHl_5QPfl4JRgxr8YX4SNzR5YOLdiVTwBirftmcjRiKu_o7L5qnb19_3T-0jz-__7j_8tha0em5tc4MyPvOSO72g9JIxX7sxcjVoG2vDB-p4-iY7sxgaFeDpPuBGoPGSq21uGjEtjd4d3CQsvHwwiGh3_ISDoAWjAPOVQ-so11Pq_Vps6acfi-uzPCcllwPKsA0V7qTQqpKyY2yOZWS3QhT9kfMKzAKpwLgXwFwKgC2Aqp2t2k-1q8d8TXlMMCMa0h5zBitLyDe3PAH8zSNaw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1926974346</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>"How are you vulnerable?": Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles)</source><creator>Rossignol, Nicolas ; Turcanu, Catrinel ; Fallon, Catherine ; Zwetkoff, Catherine</creator><creatorcontrib>Rossignol, Nicolas ; Turcanu, Catrinel ; Fallon, Catherine ; Zwetkoff, Catherine</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9877</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1466-4461</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-4461</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.961522</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Case studies ; Cities ; Citizen participation ; Citizens ; Cultural factors ; Decision makers ; Droit, criminologie & sciences politiques ; Emergency Planning ; Emergency preparedness ; Experts ; Governance ; Law, criminology & political science ; Nuclear energy ; Participation ; participatory methods ; Political science, public administration & international relations ; Schools ; Science and technology ; science and technology studies ; Sciences politiques, administration publique & relations internationales ; Sciences sociales & comportementales, psychologie ; Social & behavioral sciences, psychology ; Sociologie & sciences sociales ; Sociology & social sciences ; Stakeholders ; STS ; Teachers ; Technology ; Vulnerability]]></subject><ispartof>Journal of risk research, 2017-09, Vol.20 (9), p.1095-1114</ispartof><rights>2014 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2014</rights><rights>2014 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-cebda287b42e5d69a035f83f26d9c86b2f0e2ae197bdb07e19405d0bbabc49993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-cebda287b42e5d69a035f83f26d9c86b2f0e2ae197bdb07e19405d0bbabc49993</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13669877.2014.961522$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2014.961522$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,882,27905,27906,59626,60415</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rossignol, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turcanu, Catrinel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallon, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwetkoff, Catherine</creatorcontrib><title>"How are you vulnerable?": Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning</title><title>Journal of risk research</title><description>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.</description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Citizen participation</subject><subject>Citizens</subject><subject>Cultural factors</subject><subject>Decision makers</subject><subject>Droit, criminologie & sciences politiques</subject><subject>Emergency Planning</subject><subject>Emergency preparedness</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Law, criminology & political science</subject><subject>Nuclear energy</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>participatory methods</subject><subject>Political science, public administration & international relations</subject><subject>Schools</subject><subject>Science and technology</subject><subject>science and technology studies</subject><subject>Sciences politiques, administration publique & relations internationales</subject><subject>Sciences sociales & comportementales, psychologie</subject><subject>Social & behavioral sciences, psychology</subject><subject>Sociologie & sciences sociales</subject><subject>Sociology & social sciences</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>STS</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Vulnerability</subject><issn>1366-9877</issn><issn>1466-4461</issn><issn>1466-4461</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhk1poGmSf5CDSM_e6Gtlq5dQQtsUAr0052Eky4uCVnIlO8H_vlrc9pjTvIfnGZh5m-aa0R2jPb1lQindd92OUyZ3WrE95--acyaVaqVU7H3NFWlPzIfmYynPlLJeMH7ewM1DeiWYHVnTQl6WEF1GE9zdzWfyVHw8kAnz7K2fcPYpkjHl_5QPfl4JRgxr8YX4SNzR5YOLdiVTwBirftmcjRiKu_o7L5qnb19_3T-0jz-__7j_8tha0em5tc4MyPvOSO72g9JIxX7sxcjVoG2vDB-p4-iY7sxgaFeDpPuBGoPGSq21uGjEtjd4d3CQsvHwwiGh3_ISDoAWjAPOVQ-so11Pq_Vps6acfi-uzPCcllwPKsA0V7qTQqpKyY2yOZWS3QhT9kfMKzAKpwLgXwFwKgC2Aqp2t2k-1q8d8TXlMMCMa0h5zBitLyDe3PAH8zSNaw</recordid><startdate>20170902</startdate><enddate>20170902</enddate><creator>Rossignol, Nicolas</creator><creator>Turcanu, Catrinel</creator><creator>Fallon, Catherine</creator><creator>Zwetkoff, Catherine</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>Q33</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170902</creationdate><title>"How are you vulnerable?": Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning</title><author>Rossignol, Nicolas ; Turcanu, Catrinel ; Fallon, Catherine ; Zwetkoff, Catherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-cebda287b42e5d69a035f83f26d9c86b2f0e2ae197bdb07e19405d0bbabc49993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Citizen participation</topic><topic>Citizens</topic><topic>Cultural factors</topic><topic>Decision makers</topic><topic>Droit, criminologie & sciences politiques</topic><topic>Emergency Planning</topic><topic>Emergency preparedness</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Law, criminology & political science</topic><topic>Nuclear energy</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>participatory methods</topic><topic>Political science, public administration & international relations</topic><topic>Schools</topic><topic>Science and technology</topic><topic>science and technology studies</topic><topic>Sciences politiques, administration publique & relations internationales</topic><topic>Sciences sociales & comportementales, psychologie</topic><topic>Social & behavioral sciences, psychology</topic><topic>Sociologie & sciences sociales</topic><topic>Sociology & social sciences</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>STS</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Vulnerability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rossignol, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turcanu, Catrinel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallon, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwetkoff, Catherine</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Université de Liège - Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBI)</collection><jtitle>Journal of risk research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rossignol, Nicolas</au><au>Turcanu, Catrinel</au><au>Fallon, Catherine</au><au>Zwetkoff, Catherine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>"How are you vulnerable?": Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning</atitle><jtitle>Journal of risk research</jtitle><date>2017-09-02</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1095</spage><epage>1114</epage><pages>1095-1114</pages><issn>1366-9877</issn><issn>1466-4461</issn><eissn>1466-4461</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/13669877.2014.961522</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1366-9877 |
ispartof | Journal of risk research, 2017-09, Vol.20 (9), p.1095-1114 |
issn | 1366-9877 1466-4461 1466-4461 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1926974346 |
source | Business Source Complete; Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles) |
subjects | Case studies Cities Citizen participation Citizens Cultural factors Decision makers Droit, criminologie & sciences politiques Emergency Planning Emergency preparedness Experts Governance Law, criminology & political science Nuclear energy Participation participatory methods Political science, public administration & international relations Schools Science and technology science and technology studies Sciences politiques, administration publique & relations internationales Sciences sociales & comportementales, psychologie Social & behavioral sciences, psychology Sociologie & sciences sociales Sociology & social sciences Stakeholders STS Teachers Technology Vulnerability |
title | "How are you vulnerable?": Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T07%3A59%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%22How%20are%20you%20vulnerable?%22:%20Using%20participation%20for%20vulnerability%20analysis%20in%20emergency%20planning&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20risk%20research&rft.au=Rossignol,%20Nicolas&rft.date=2017-09-02&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1095&rft.epage=1114&rft.pages=1095-1114&rft.issn=1366-9877&rft.eissn=1466-4461&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/13669877.2014.961522&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E1926974346%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1926974346&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |