References of "Zwetkoff, Catherine"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detail“How are you Vulnerable?”: Using Participation for Vulnerability Analysis in Emergency Planning
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Turcanu, Catrinel; Fallon, Catherine ULg et al

in Journal of Risk Research (in press)

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 ... [more ▼]

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. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (7 ULg)
Full Text
See detailSocio-Political Processes and Plan Management in Controversial Settings Applied to the Plan for Long-Term Management of Type B & C Waste: Summary Report
Fallon, Catherine ULg; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Van Berendoncks, Kris et al

Report (2013)

This report is the result of research conducted by the universities of Liège and Antwerp over the course of a year. This research project, subdivided into five axes, aims to identify the conditions ... [more ▼]

This report is the result of research conducted by the universities of Liège and Antwerp over the course of a year. This research project, subdivided into five axes, aims to identify the conditions conducive to a realistic, effective and socially acceptable process to translate an action plan (the Waste Plan) into a specific implementation project that would ikely still be subject to arbitration and negotiation. Moreover, each axis of research aims to answer a particular question in order to address the issue from five different perspectives — theoretical, legal, media, societal and international:  Axis 1, “The decision-making process: from plan to project”, provides a theoretical discussion of the legitimacy of the decision-making process for B&C nuclear waste management.  Axis 2, “Evaluation of the Process of Societal Consultation about the Waste Plan”, sheds light on the expectations expressed in public consultation and on the successive stages of consultation that have already been implemented.  Axis 3, “Analysis of the Media Coverage of the 2010-2011 Waste Plan”, examines the visibility of the Waste Plan and the way it is treated in the media, as well as the actors and rhetoric occupying centre stage on the media scene.  Axis 4, “International Decision-Making Comparison”, explores decision trajectories developed in other countries (France, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland) in order to identify which lessons learned there can be transposed to the Belgian setting.  Axis 5, “Societal Support for the Solution for B&C Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in Law”, focuses on the legal and institutional framework of the decision-making process. This report is a synthesis of all the reports listed above. In this context, a dual perspective is adopted: prospective and retrospective. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 98 (20 ULg)
See detailGestion des déchets B&C: le processus décisionnel; du Plan Déchets au projet
Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Fallon, Catherine ULg; Parotte, Céline ULg

Report (2013)

Ce rapport de recherche porte sur le scénario du processus décisionnel en matière de gestion des déchets B&C en rapport avec la traduction du Plan Déchets en projet d’implantation. Cette traduction ... [more ▼]

Ce rapport de recherche porte sur le scénario du processus décisionnel en matière de gestion des déchets B&C en rapport avec la traduction du Plan Déchets en projet d’implantation. Cette traduction implique une contextualisation du plan « théorique » sous forme de projet - sélection du site d’implantation, mise en œuvre (chantier matériel et immatériel) et fonctionnement en routine. Elle pose la question de la construction sociale de la légitimité du plan existant et celle du projet à venir. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 45 (1 ULg)
Peer Reviewed
See detailLe programme participatif et son évaluation procédurale. Le projet plan Déchets pour la gestion à long terme des déchets conditionnés de haute activité et/ou de longue durée de vie
Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Parotte, Céline ULg

in Brunet, Sébastien; Fallon, Catherine; Claisse, Frédéric (Eds.) La participation à l'épreuve (2013)

« Tournant délibératif », « impératif participatif » : aujourd’hui, nombreux sont les citoyens, décideurs et chercheurs qui voient dans la participation un moyen d’approfondir et de revitaliser le ... [more ▼]

« Tournant délibératif », « impératif participatif » : aujourd’hui, nombreux sont les citoyens, décideurs et chercheurs qui voient dans la participation un moyen d’approfondir et de revitaliser le processus démocratique. Cependant, les dispositifs concrets qui visent à associer à un même processus (de connaissance ou de décision) des parties prenantes aux intérêts divergents relèvent encore largement de l’expérimentation. Qu’est-ce qui fait le succès ou l’échec d’une expérience participative ? Selon quels critères l’évaluer ? Comment concevoir des dispositifs qui « tiennent » ? Davantage qu’une défense des mérites de la participation, cet ouvrage en propose une mise à l’épreuve, à travers une série de retours d’expériences. Centrés, d’une part, sur l’exploration de controverses et, d’autre part, sur l’évaluation de politiques publiques, les chapitres décrivent les défis méthodologiques auxquels des chercheurs ont été confrontés pour intégrer des publics hétérogènes au processus de décision et faire émerger des représentations essentielles à la compréhension de phénomènes politiques et sociaux. L’ouvrage invite ainsi à une meilleure appréhension de cette aventure participative passionnante mais incertaine, à travers des approches de chercheurs partageant une expérience et une culture méthodologique commune. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (5 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailRenouveler la gestion du risque par l’ouverture à un système de vigilance ? Le cas de la fièvre catarrhale ovine
Fallon, Catherine ULg; Piet, Grégory ULg; Thiry, Etienne ULg et al

in VertigO : la Revue Electronique en Sciences de l'Environnement (2012), 12(3),

This contribution proposed by a multidisciplinary group of veterinary and political scientists gives an analysis of the transformations of an epidemiosurveillance system dedicated to animal diseases, when ... [more ▼]

This contribution proposed by a multidisciplinary group of veterinary and political scientists gives an analysis of the transformations of an epidemiosurveillance system dedicated to animal diseases, when confronted to new emerging threats in the wake of global changes, within the frame of risk management. The research field refers to the emergence of bluetongue virus serotype 8 in 2006 in Belgium. This research is complemented with the results of a recent survey based on Delphi method involving relevant public servants and scientists, which showed that most of the means proposed by the authorities are based on the logic of known risk management. However we can identify attempts for renewal and organisational learning, especially with the proposal of a new vigilance system. This system develops two dimensions (prevention and anticipation of the catastrophe) and tries to accommodate the surveillance system reactivity against uncertain events. Finally the article draws two drivers for change, by admitting the persistence of unavoidable uncertainty and by recognising the importance for opening up expert knowledge. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 36 (10 ULg)
See detailHandling complex risks issues in the domain of environment and health - SCOPE
Torfs, Rudi; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Fallon, Catherine ULg et al

Report (2011)

This research report has its origin in the notion that classical risk assessment paradigms no longer suffice to deal with complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. Risk assessment was developed as a ... [more ▼]

This research report has its origin in the notion that classical risk assessment paradigms no longer suffice to deal with complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. Risk assessment was developed as a scientific tool to tackle uncertain consequences of human activities by organizing, evaluating, integrating and presenting scientific information to inform decision-making. Over the years, this type of risk assessment has proved effective in protecting public health and the environment from major environmental hazards with high relative risks. In the modern „risk society‟ classical risk assessment fails to handle complex risks characterized by radical uncertainty and a plurality of legitimate perspectives and values. Public authorities have to deal with issues/risks were facts are uncertain and values are contested. To answer to the increased demands of policymakers and the public for guidance on risk management new processes for the governance of these risks need to be developed. Weberian bureaucratic structures and forms of cooperation are working in a logic of specialisation of work, where distribution of information and knowledge, structures of decisions and allocation of responsibilities are organised ab initio in a stable organisational frame. Such a structure is not capable of resisting to the emergence of new risks which are often not identified as such at start and require a more integrative form of assessment, integrating inter-disciplinary collaboration on a specific policy problem that is complex, uncertain, perhaps unlimited in temporal and spatial scale, and interlinked with other phenomena. If the frame of reflexivity (Beck, 2003) is adopted, we thus have to recognise that a global mastering of these risks is not possible. What is now requested is the settlement of conditions for another type of open debate. Experiments in new forms of public participation in the management of technological developments (like e.g. citizen panels on long-term storage of nuclear waste1, or on cars and health2) already inspired the public administrators in their search for new procedural forms of decision making in areas of uncertainty. For a certain category of risks inclusion of the public, next to industrial stakeholders, organised environmental interest groups and governmental agencies and administrations is warranted, to integrate different opinions and values and to develop adequate policies. Network governance should be developed, where stakeholders are invited to speak up and where power structures are reconsidered and flattened. Here the authorities are recommended to exercise their capacities not as a centre of knowledge and top-down decision, but as a facilitator for communication and collaboration within networking structures, mobilising numerous experts and stakeholders, including the population itself (Gilbert, 2002), to develop new options which are socially acceptable and technically efficient (Fallon et al., 2008a & b). This requires a different mindset where the plurality of frames and fluidity of boundaries; the need for contextualisation; the construction of unstable temporary networks, the plurality of rationalities and the inherent uncertainties, social and technical (Callon, 1986) of the issues considered. As uncertainties are recognised, scientists are not anymore expected to close the controversy but rather to contribute to the technical quality of the process. The public decision-making process (DMP) should be designed to organise the conditions for an optimal tradeoff between scientific soundness and social acceptability of decisions, in a context where the precautionary principle is relevant. The key issue, framing or “structuring the research questions”, is a method for deciding how to manage scientific uncertainty. From literature review and past studies, we posit that a better quality DMP could be achieved by using tools for an integrated and comparative risk assessment and management. These approaches rely on interdisciplinary risk assessment – relevant soft and hard sciences are engaged together into the knowledge production process rather than mobilized side by side. Concretely, it involves designing the steps or sequences of the process and selecting/developing/adapting risk assessment and management tools. More specific, within the environment and health arena there is limited experience with these new concepts of integrated assessments (Briggs, 2008). Therefore case studies on various environment and health issues were performed to evaluate current integrated risk assessment practices, multi-level precautionary approaches and communication of complex risks. Different tools as Delphi, scenario workshop, etc. were used to analyse the issues at stake. The development of an integrated approach in risk assessment requires cooperation across policy domains and hierarchical structures. In the field of air pollution a science-policy workshop confirmed that in the domain of air quality policy, public servants communicate well with researchers from scientific institutions. The protagonists in Flemish air quality policy have a common scientific background and are technical experts. This observation puts into question a common discourse postulating that there is a „communication problem' or 'gap' between 'researchers' and 'policymakers'. This discourse as a description of a state of affairs does not suit empirical reality, and needs to be reformulated in more precise terms. If there is a communication gap, it is not to be situated between public administration („policymakers‟) and researchers („scientists‟), who share the same overall concerns, but between public administrations and ministerial cabinets. The analysis of risks related to electromagnetic fields (EMF), showed how the precautionary principle is reinterpreted differently at each different political level (European, Belgian, Wallonia, Regional) in order to better integrate the local institutional and political environment. In most cases, when this principle is put at the foreground, its use is mainly symbolic and incantatory. When implementing policies it does not seem to respond to some precautionary approach, but rather to the institutional dynamics which characterise each political level. We observed the reinforcement of the European role in the field of health & environment: in attempts to underline institutional cooperation at the federal level in Belgium and to reinforce the authority of the regional government on the Walloon territory. From this case study it is learnt that the new deliberative spaces to be developed should not be embedded in the dominant institutional structures. A structure such as promoted in the wake of "Technology assessment" (Delvenne, 2011) is capable of conciliating production of knowledge and uncertainties (the science pole) with the plurality of social perceptions (the civic pole) and the specific dynamics of the relevant polity (the political pole). New deliberative spaces should be capable of developing the basis for integrated and comparative approach for emerging issues with due attention to its political and institutional dimensions, while maintaining enough distance with the dominant frames and logics. Recently the Flemish administration on Environment, Nature & Energy proposed a note (framework) to deal with uncertain risks. The proposed framework will be tested in a pilot study for potential risks related to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, and can later be extended to other risks. In a case study on Bisphenol-A (BPA), multi-level political communication was analysed. Political decisions were taken without socio-technical debate (Callon, 1986). The BPA issue was not very high on the social or political agenda in Belgium. There was no crisis, no strong pressure form NGO's. The question was managed first by the European authorities (EFSA & European Commission). The Belgian institutions were waiting for the European position. As the political decision did not encounter a strong contestation from the industry, this was an easy step for the political authorities, in Belgium and at the European level, to symbolically address the issue while avoiding considering the real uncertainties. When the decision was taken to ban the use of BPA in polycarbonate baby bottles, it was a political decision taken with the support of the scientific bodies (Superior Health Council) but without being embedded in any social debate (what about risks related to the chemicals which may substitute BPA?). It meant that the whole of uncertainties on the extent of risks related to the multiple exposures to different endocrine disruptors could not be put at the foreground in a public socio-technical debate. These case studies on the interplay with science, policy and stakeholders, on the framing of an environmental health policy problem, and on the management of complex risks (air pollution, EMF, BPA) contribute to recommendations on their governance. The question then becomes: is it possible to organize a precautionary decision making process to deal with different legitimate frames and the necessary trade-offs when considering policy alternatives? Concretely it is advised to pay attention to the role of a focal point in the process, potentially taken up by public administrations, to the co-production, availability and organisation of knowledge and information, and to the progress of the process. Above all it is important to set up a platform for issue framing and problem definition to highlight key factors that need to be assessed: - Examine the policy and stakeholder learning network related to a specific issue, with special attention to policy domains that are affected by or are affecting the environmental and health issue at stake. Specify who has interests in the issue and who should be involved. An efficient stakeholder network analysis is important for the further progress of the DMP. define who is allowed to take part in the process across different policy areas - Examine the information database before setting up a more integrative approach, both from a scientific (including uncertainties) and technical (alternatives, CBA analysis) point of view and from the side of concerned stakeholders. Policy makers acquire information from different inputs from science, stakeholder organisations, socio-economic actors and the public at large, as well as from administrations and staff members, and are conscious of the structural and constitutional constraints. It is clear that a balanced process of information gathering that is transparent, contributes to better decision making. - Initiate and manage the process: find out who will carry the process, set up a series of interactions between administrations, between administrations and cabinets, between administrations and research, between administrations, research and the public. Usable and meaningful available information on the issue should be communicated clearly to all stakeholders. It is innovative to look at how stakeholders increase their knowledge through different inputs and through communication, information and interaction. - Iterate where needed: information gained in one dialogue should be fed back into other fora. An equilibrium between acceptability – tolerability – uncertainty should be established. - Move forward / conclude. In the total policy cycle the conclusion or decision may be revised, when (1) monitoring of implementation and following evaluation is considered as negative; (2) new knowledge / experience / issues have to take into account. - Ensure an efficient and socially appropriate allocation of the resources and an adequate management of residual risks. Last but not least, in a precautionary approach it is also required, to contribute to the public trust in the decision making process and to construct social acceptance of the final decision. Generally, a precautionary decision making process should be considered as a double-pronged learning dynamics: on one side, the authorities are required to better take into account the multiple frames which abound in our pluralist societies when organising the conditions of political trade-offs for the governance of risks. On the other side, the citizens should have the possibility to, not only understand, but also adopt the decision and its consequences and to conform to its implementation. It is important to develop specific communication processes to successfully implement these two faces of a precautionary approach in the governance of risks, while ensuring this dual learning process. New procedures are currently developed which could support the communication dynamics for promoting multiple frames and comparing openly different alternatives (e.g. open process workshop; atelier scenarios; Delphi). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 87 (17 ULg)
See detailAgir collectivement maintenant et demain : la société du risque comme vecteur de changement
Fallon, Catherine ULg; Joris, Geoffrey ULg; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg

in Delwit P.; Jacquemain, Marc (Eds.) Engagements actuels, actualité des engagements (2010)

Detailed reference viewed: 79 (14 ULg)
See detailAn Integrated Assessment Frame as Science Policy Interface for Decisions on (Environment-Related) Risks - SCOPE - Report Phase 1
TORFS, RUDI; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Fallon, Catherine ULg

Report (2009)

Classical risk assessment paradigms no longer suffice to deal with complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. Therefore, new approaches to prevent, control, communicate, and deal with the causes of these ... [more ▼]

Classical risk assessment paradigms no longer suffice to deal with complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. Therefore, new approaches to prevent, control, communicate, and deal with the causes of these risks and with public anxieties about risks are necessary. In phase 1 we analyzed the available concepts to integrate risk and economical assessment with social aspects in one framework, and discussed the relevant criteria that need to be considered in order to develop a final risk assessment framework. Furthermore, still in phase 1, empirical work was performed in the form of case studies to analyze and define a framework, or to select criteria. We are in the process of reviewing, selecting, and testing tools and instruments that can be used in this appraisal framework, to go from concepts to practice. To grasp the full complexity of controversial, uncertain and immature risks, to cope with different values and views, and to develop a good communication we consider the appraisal framework as a procedural decision making process. It requires a more participative approach as the legal rational approach does not deliver adequate public management tools for handling these issues. We propose a sequential model, going through a series of steps, that can be used both in cases of strategic planning and management, and in the management of local projects usually related to siting conflicts. In each phase of the model integrated assessment tools and methods can be applied up to the point where consensus or a clear representation of different values and views (ideal in very uncertain and ambiguous problems), or an optimal balance between different criteria (in more simple cases) is achieved. All together our Appraisal Framework [is shaped] as a process, structuring and supporting the decision-making process. • To promote and organize a mutual learning of all actors entering into the policy cycle spiralling up through the different phases. • In the context of local siting conflicts, local contamination issues and urban planning topics (all with very close relationships with individuals), including regional, global E&H issues (food, climate, air, transport…) It’s a policy cycle, focused around a certain problem, organised to formulate and evaluate policy options, with stakeholders involved at different phases and steps of the process. Here the AF is structured as a learning network composed of all the players entering into the decision-making process at different stages. The quality of the decision making process can be appreciated either on the basis of its outcomes or on the process itself. Our framing falls under the latter. It also rests on the procedural equity feeling and its impact on the acceptability of the effects of the decision (Joss S. and Brownlea A., 1999). Such an approach opens the way to a greater legitimacy of decisions whose substantive effects or outcomes are essentially dubious – a fortiori in the context of the precaution. It encourages a reflection on the manner of combining the opening of the decision-making process through participative methods with others meta-tools such as strategic management, integrated and comparative approach of the risk, or the evaluative method. These meta-tools structure the participative step, giving it objectives, precise questions and ad hoc means. It contributes to the technical quality of the decision and to its social acceptability, particularly when it is the product of a decision-making process which the actors consider precautionary and adapted to the context of great scientific uncertainty. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 27 (2 ULg)
See detailLe projet politique dans la société du risque : quand l’expertise s’entrouvre
Fallon, Catherine ULg; Joris, Geoffrey ULg; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg

Conference (2008, May 09)

Le recours au principe de précaution (Ewald 1996) en tant que mode de gestion publique des choix technologiques (Roany 2004), s’inscrit dans un contexte décisionnel en évolution, marqué par une ... [more ▼]

Le recours au principe de précaution (Ewald 1996) en tant que mode de gestion publique des choix technologiques (Roany 2004), s’inscrit dans un contexte décisionnel en évolution, marqué par une incertitude multidimensionnelle quant aux conséquences environnementales, économiques, sociales, politiques ou encore éthiques des innovations technologiques (Kooiman 1993 ; Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe 2001, Grossman 2006). L’utilisation de ce principe fonde une demande croissante d’ouverture du processus décisionnel qui se traduit par une offre participative accrue, offre en laquelle certains voient la promesse ou le moyen de concrétiser la société de « gouvernance » (Barber 1984 ; Fishkin 1995 ; Beierle, Cayford 2002 ; Willis, Dekay, Morgan, Florig, Fischbeck 2004 ; Sjöberg 2004 ; Larceneux 2005 ; Tabara 2005, Faget 2006). Il ne s’agirait plus seulement de combler l’ignorance des citoyens quant à une question particulière, mais d’articuler l’expertise à la concertation sociale pour construire un référentiel global de sécurité partagé sur base d’une co-orientation des participants au dialogue. On assiste bien, sous le mot d’ordre de précaution, à deux changements concomitants, le premier affectant les critères d’acceptabilité sociale des choix technologiques, le second transformant les processus de construction et de mise en œuvre de la décision ¬ lesquels deviennent, en soi, une source de légitimation sociale (Groux 2005 ; Pidgeon, Poortinga, Rowe, Jones, Walls, O’Riordan 2005). De nouveaux processus délibératifs sont ainsi mis à l’agenda politique et scientifique, créant des enjeux inédits et, jusqu’à présent, peu étudiés. Dans cette nouvelle configuration, la construction de l’acceptabilité sociale des choix technologiques passe par l’organisation d’un dialogue entre politiques, scientifiques, partenaires socio-économiques (stakeholders) et grand public. Ce dialogue porte notamment sur l’application du principe de précaution, non pas comme référentiel d’action substantif, définissant le contenu de la décision, mais comme ensemble de règles procédurales structurant le processus décisionnel de manière telle qu’il puisse être qualifié de « précautionneux » par l’ensemble des acteurs concernés. Une argumentation scientifique n’étant plus suffisante, dans un tel cadre, pour justifier une décision politique, un nouveau cadre décisionnel doit être proposé : le choix se porte actuellement sur des procédures participatives dans laquelle les acteurs concernés, dont les citoyens, co-créeraient un référentiel commun de sécurité. L’élaboration des politiques publiques requiert dès lors une ouverture des champs d’expertise au de nouveaux acteurs. L’exercice de l’autorité revient à animer un enchevêtrement d’interdépendances dont la richesse tient précisément à la capacité à opérer en commun, individuellement et en groupe dans des univers faiblement structurés, des situations à forte turbulence. La tâche n’est pas aisée car elle revient à admettre, au moins à titre provisoire, la relativité et l’absence de hiérarchie des savoirs, le droit de toutes les parties prenantes à prendre la parole, à débattre, y compris de données et d’analyses scientifiques pour participer à une redéfinition collective de la problématique (Gilbert C., 2002). Dans une telle stratégie de communication, l’art impose de s’adresser de façon adéquate aux différents groupes concernés, sans écarter aucun d’entre eux. Il s’agit de créer de nouveaux espaces d’expertise, ouverts à des stakeholders diversifiés, des forums capables de rendre citoyens et gestionnaires conscients de la nécessité d’une ouverture multidimensionnelle. Or les structures traditionnelles permettent rarement de telles intrusions. Le nouvel enjeu des administrateurs est de proposer des options à la fois techniquement efficaces et socialement acceptables. La nouvelle réticulation des structures administratives ne peut résulter d’un simple changement cosmétique mais demande une réflexion stratégique et organisationnelle d’ampleur (Groux J., 2006). C’est le prix à payer pour améliorer les performances instrumentales et axiologiques, c’est-à-dire, augmenter l’efficacité de la planification tout en améliorant son inscription dans la société. Les responsables publics ne manqueront pas de dénoncer le surcoût d’une telle approche et la distribution des moyens de la puissance publique. Sur base d’une approche pragmatique et contextualisée de deux récents conflits environnementaux en Belgique (installation d’antennes GSM et décontamination des sols pollués), les auteurs proposent de développer une analyse de l’action publique en terme de projet, présentant comment à chaque étape de celui-ci, depuis les études exploratoires jusqu’à la conception du projet, sa mise en œuvre et son exploitation, des acteurs différents sont mobilisables, autour d’objectifs différents. Ensembles ils contribuent à créer un univers sécurisant et coopératif, où les incertitudes et insécurités ne sont pas résolues mais au moins construites voire régulées. Quels sont les critères qui permettent de mettre en évidence un processus de modernisation réflexive ? (Beck et al, 2003) Le processus doit s’inscrire dans une logique temporelle, accepter la fluidité des frontières et des identités co-construites et reconnaître la pluralité des rationalités et les limites d’incertitudes. Le dispositif mis en place doit favoriser l’émergence d’une dynamique d’apprentissage. Les deux cas de figure analysés s’inscrivent dans des référentiels politiques différents et leur confrontation permet de mettre en évidence des propriétés spécifiques en matière de processus d’identification des acteurs légitimes, de négociation des règles d’ouverture, d’organisation et de structuration des lieux de rencontre sociale et de construction de centres de référence. Les auteurs proposent d’inscrire l’analyse de l’expertise et des experts qui lui donnent vie dans une perspective sociale concrète en rendant justice à la dynamique temporelle trop souvent négligée. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 91 (24 ULg)
See detailAgir collectivement maintenant et demain : la société du risque comme vecteur de changement
Fallon, Catherine ULg; Joris, Geoffrey ULg; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg

Conference (2008, April 25)

Le vocable de la « Société du Risque » permet de désigner la transformation systémique des sociétés occidentales post-industrielles où l’individualisation radicale des comportements et des choix ... [more ▼]

Le vocable de la « Société du Risque » permet de désigner la transformation systémique des sociétés occidentales post-industrielles où l’individualisation radicale des comportements et des choix accompagne une transformation majeure sur le plan démographique et socio-économique . Dans les pays industrialisés, la différentiation accrue des modèles sociaux, des styles de vie et des modes de participation provoque une crise des modalités de socialisation via les instances de régulation sociale et engendre de nouvelles demandes sociales. Les citoyens ont accès à de plus en plus d’informations et exigent des gouvernants d’être plus écoutés, voire à participer directement au processus de formation de la décision politique, mettant à mal les structures traditionnelles de représentation. Les nouveaux médias et Internet jouent ici aussi un rôle majeur, puisqu’ils permettent de construire rapidement et à peu de frais des réseaux locaux ou alternatifs voire globaux, bien différents des canaux institutionnels. Ces nouveaux réseaux peuvent contribuer à former de nouvelles bases de mobilisation collective fluides et ponctuelles. Face à ces transformations sociales, le système politico-administratif peine à s’adapter et à assurer la légitimation de ses actions. Les pouvoirs publics sont appelés à définir de nouveaux cadres de gestion de l’espace public, plus réflexifs, capables d’aligner les acteurs non seulement sur l’action entreprise proprement dite mais également sur les instruments publics mobilisés, tout en s’inscrivant dans les lignes de force de la globalisation. Les questions propres à la « Société du Risque » contribuent à remodeler et élargir l’espace spatio-temporel pour la gestion des conséquences des risques modernes. Une partie croissante des décisions de régulations politiques, par exemple dans le domaine de la définition des normes d’environnement, est prise à un niveau supranational, le plus souvent européen, espace politique original qui tend à bouleverser les formes d’engagement et à générer de nouveaux instruments structurant les interactions aux différents niveaux de responsabilité. Notre contribution propose d’approfondir certaines dimensions mises en avant dans le paradigme de la « Société du Risque » pour les confronter aux nouvelles pratiques d’engagement collectif et de régulation publique observées au cours des dernières années en Région wallonne, pour tester dans quelle mesure le questionnement propre à la modernité réflexive peut contribuer à l’intelligibilité des transformations socio-politiques actuelles. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 20 (4 ULg)
Full Text
See detailUsing stakeholders’ expertise in EMF and soil contamination to improve the management of public policies dealing with modern risk: when uncertainty is on the agenda
Fallon, Catherine ULg; Joris, Geoffrey ULg; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg

in Martorell, S.; Guedes Soares, C.; Barnett, J. (Eds.) Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory and Applications (2008)

In Western societies, public decision-making processes have to deal with both industrial and modern risks. Industrial risks are managed by the traditional public decision-making process (DMP) based on ... [more ▼]

In Western societies, public decision-making processes have to deal with both industrial and modern risks. Industrial risks are managed by the traditional public decision-making process (DMP) based on strong scientific knowledge foundations and trusted institutions. Management of modern risks has to fit within the same institutional settings, even though those risks should be replaced in another political framework because of their specific features (spatio-temporal scale, great scientific uncertainty, invisibility…). We propose two case studies from Belgium, one on soil contamination and one on electromagnetic fields in relation to antennas siting issues, that will help identify and discuss what are the variables that have to be taken into account in order to design new ways of dealing with such modern risks, fostering efficient management and social acceptance. What is at stake is the development of new methodologies for the actors in the policy networks to agree with some appraisal framework. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 76 (12 ULg)
Peer Reviewed
See detailLa politique de sûreté dans les organisations
Eggermont, Gilbert; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Brunet, Sébastien ULg et al

(2007)

Detailed reference viewed: 66 (8 ULg)
Full Text
See detailSUIT deliverable 4.3b - St-Leonard Revitalisation Plan case study: Test of focus groups as participative post-evaluation method
Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg; Ruelle, Christine ULg

Report (2004)

This aim of this research was to test the use of focus groups as a participative post-evaluation method. This document presents a case study of the use of the focus group method to assess in a relative ... [more ▼]

This aim of this research was to test the use of focus groups as a participative post-evaluation method. This document presents a case study of the use of the focus group method to assess in a relative rapid way the outcomes effects of a Revitalisation Plan in a derelicted urban neighbourhood of the city of Liège, Belgium. This exploratory research is part of the SUIT European Project dealing with active conservation of urban cultural heritage. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 46 (4 ULg)
Full Text
See detailSUIT deliverable 4.2 - Internal report on the application of EIA to cultural heritage & Guillemins extended case study analysis
Ruelle, Christine ULg; Teller, Jacques ULg; Vanderheyden, Emmanuel et al

Report (2002)

This research was made under the SUIT European project and consisted of carrying out an extended case study analysis (the Guillemins station project in Liège, Belgium), through extensive monitoring and ... [more ▼]

This research was made under the SUIT European project and consisted of carrying out an extended case study analysis (the Guillemins station project in Liège, Belgium), through extensive monitoring and post-evaluation of the decision-making process, which was compared to the EIA directive as well as to the different stakeholders’ wishes and views. This task was mainly intended at providing transferable key lessons in order to fine-tune the future SUIT guidance on integrated EA procedure. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 66 (8 ULg)
Full Text
See detailEtude sur la question de l'information du public en matière de biotechnologies modernes
Brunet, Sébastien ULg; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULg

Report (2000)

Le domaine des biotechnologies modernes représente un secteur en pleine expansion qui dispose d’un potentiel considérable tant sur le plan de ses implications scientifiques et innovations technologiques ... [more ▼]

Le domaine des biotechnologies modernes représente un secteur en pleine expansion qui dispose d’un potentiel considérable tant sur le plan de ses implications scientifiques et innovations technologiques que sur le plan de ses applications économiques. En outre, le génie génétique, discipline scientifique fondamentale pour le développement des biotechnologies modernes, se présente comme un instrument puissant de transformation de la société. A titre d’illustration, on peut penser aux nouvelles possibilités d’identification des individus en fonction de leur carte génétique, du dépistage de certaines maladies génétiques, et de la modification des processus de production alimentaire2. Ce type de changement, dont les biotechnologies modernes forment un des éléments les plus visibles, suscite aujourd’hui de nombreuses discussions et commentaires au sein de nos sociétés. Dans cette perspective, des initiatives sont entreprises par les pouvoirs publics afin de jeter des ponts entre les différents acteurs des mondes scientifique, économique et de la société civile. Pour cette dernière, on retrouve en autres, des associations de protection des consommateurs, des mouvements environnementaux et des associations professionnelles pour ne citer que les plus connus. Dans ce contexte, et compte tenu des dispositions réglementaires en vigueur, l’administration scientifique – Service de Biosécurité et Biotechnologie (SBB) -, notamment chargée de la gestion des dossiers de demande de mise sur le marché d’organismes génétiquement modifiés – OGM-, a pour mission de mettre sur pied un système d’information du public dans le domaine des biotechnologies modernes. Cette étude, à l’instigation du SBB, a pour principal objectif de fournir un accompagnement de type sociopolitique à la mise en oeuvre de ce système d’information du public. L’argumentation qui sera développée au cours de ce travail examine la problématique des biotechnologies modernes à la lumière du concept de risque. Il s’agit plus précisément de détailler une approche novatrice de ce concept qui insiste sur les dimensions fondamentalement politiques du développement technologique. Cette analyse permet d’appréhender la question du rôle des pouvoirs publics quant à l’information des citoyens dans le domaine des biotechnologies modernes, et d’apporter un éclairage original sur la problématique. Au cours de ce travail, il sera question, tout d’abord, de définir et de s’accorder sur le contenu même du concept de biotechnologies modernes. Ensuite, on proposera une mise en perspective historique du développement des biotechnologies modernes qui se terminera par une description de la situation contemporaine. Nous présenterons par la suite les fondements qui étayent la prise en charge par l’administration scientifique du ministère de la santé publique d’une mission d’information des citoyens en matière de biotechnologies modernes. Quelques supports informatifs seront esquissés au cours du chapitre IV. Cependant, cette approche classique du rôle des pouvoirs publics en termes d’information sera remise en question avec le concept de risque moderne qui fera l’objet du chapitre V. Il s’agira par la suite de préciser quelles sont les implications politiques, sociales et institutionnelles de cette mise en perspective. Enfin, on proposera quelques idées ou pistes de réflexion concrètes quant à la problématique de l’organisation d’une information des citoyens dans le domaine des biotechnologies par les pouvoirs publics, et plus précisément, par l’administration scientifique chargée de cette mission : le Service de Biosécurité et Biotechnologie du Ministère de la Santé Publique. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 18 (2 ULg)