References of "Rossignol, Nicolas"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSiting Controversies Analysis: Framework and Method for Questioning the Procedure
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Parotte, Céline ULg; Joris, Geoffrey ULg et al

in Journal of Risk Research (in press)

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 ... [more ▼]

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 labelling, 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 inter-personal 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 in 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. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 27 (8 ULg)
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: 32 (11 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailRethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Delvenne, Pierre ULg; Turcanu, Catrinel

in Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (in press)

This paper draws on vulnerability analysis as it emerged as a complement to classical risk analysis, and it aims at exploring its ability of nurturing risk and vulnerability governance actions. An ... [more ▼]

This paper draws on vulnerability analysis as it emerged as a complement to classical risk analysis, and it aims at exploring its ability of nurturing risk and vulnerability governance actions. An analysis of the literature on vulnerability analysis allows us to formulate a threefold critique: first, vulnerability analysis has been treated separately in the natural and the technological hazards fields. This separation prevents vulnerability to unleash the full range of its potential, as it constraints appraisals into artificial categories and thus already closes down the outcomes of the analysis. Second, vulnerability analysis focused on assessment tools that are mainly quantitative, whereas qualitative appraisal is a key to assessing vulnerability in a comprehensive way and to informing policy-making. Third, a systematic literature review of case studies reporting on participatory approaches to vulnerability analysis allows us to argue that participation has been important to address the above, but it remains too closed down in its approach and would benefit from embracing a more open, encompassing perspective. Therefore, we suggest rethinking vulnerability analysis as one part of a dynamic process between opening-up and closing-down strategies, in order to support a vulnerability governance framework. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 36 (19 ULg)
Full Text
See detailSafety Governance in Practice: A Vulnerability Approach
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg

Scientific conference (2014, October 23)

Scientists in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to ... [more ▼]

Scientists in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain or improve the safety of the system considered. In this respect, the risk-based and the vulnerability-based approaches are different, yet complementary. After presenting the main forms taken by vulnerability approaches in the scientific literature, we elaborate on the potential of “opening-up” such an analysis through the use of a Science and Technology Studies (STS) vulnerability-based approach. We then present results from case studies concerning emergency planning, on the one hand, and an analysis of the perception of the REX system of SCK•CEN, on the other hand. We demonstrate how such an approach contributes to shed light on under-explored aspects of safety and provides a nuanced perspective on actual safety practices. As a conclusion, we propose further work directions to be followed. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 13 (0 ULg)
See detail'What is an incident?': Conceptual Boundaries under the Microscope
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg

Scientific conference (2014, September 04)

Within the context of a nuclear facility, how can an event be qualified as an incident or not, depending on different definitions, either formal or corresponding to actors' own representations? In this ... [more ▼]

Within the context of a nuclear facility, how can an event be qualified as an incident or not, depending on different definitions, either formal or corresponding to actors' own representations? In this presentation, we show how different those definitions are, and we elaborate on the reasons why such a focus on conceptual boundaries is interesting in the context of "incident reporting". [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 10 (0 ULg)
Peer Reviewed
See detailFormal Incident Reporting System: Putting Solidarity on Trial
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Claisse, Frédéric ULg

Conference (2014, September)

The practice of “incident reporting” is commonly recognized as an effective mean to reduce the vulnerability of “at risk” socio-technical systems (e.g. nuclear plants, large industrial facilities or ... [more ▼]

The practice of “incident reporting” is commonly recognized as an effective mean to reduce the vulnerability of “at risk” socio-technical systems (e.g. nuclear plants, large industrial facilities or hospitals), as it allow the concerned community to learn from past incidents. Indeed, it is assumed that collective resilience will be upgraded via the use of institutionalized Incident Reporting System (IRS), enabling the organization to improve the quality of the actions and reactions in case of deviation from normality, or to prevent such deviation. Yet, inductive analysis of what happens with those IRS in practice are not numerous. In this paper, we address this gap and display the results of semi-structured interviews conducted in a nuclear facility. During those interviews, participants were also requested to produce a mind map of the IRS they are concerned with. As a result, we show that safety is a matter of solidarities that are situated in specific contexts. To that regard, incident reporting is a practice of decomposition and recomposition of trusts and thus of solidarities. Reporting incidents consists in putting solidarity on trial, as the collective safety was threatened. We show that such open trial is often avoided because questioning solidarities is not always desirable in order to allow the group to continue functioning. Overall, we argue that informal reporting behaviors can also contribute to upgrade collective resilience without putting solidarities on trial. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 11 (1 ULg)
Peer Reviewed
See detailRepresentations of Incident Reporting as a Collective Learning Process
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Turcanu, Catrinel

Conference (2014, June)

In the context of vulnerability analysis, it is now widely aknowledged that social factors should be taken into account, alongside technical ones. Depending on the particular approach adopted, these ... [more ▼]

In the context of vulnerability analysis, it is now widely aknowledged that social factors should be taken into account, alongside technical ones. Depending on the particular approach adopted, these social factors are considered to influence “coping capacities”, “adaptive capacities” or “resilience”. The ability of a socio-technical system to learn from past incidents and accidents seems to have a positive influence on its vulnerability, as it increases its capacity to adapt properly in case of future unwanted envents. To that regard, incident reporting systems are of first importance as they are supposed to constitute a collective memory of past incidents, to initiate a collective share of information and to foster collective learning and adapations. Yet, the theoretical assumptions about the ability of a reporting system to imply collective learning have still to be demonstrated. This paper proposes a methodology addressing this issue. To do so, we conduct a number of semi-structured interviews in a nuclear facility with various types of actors (managers, lab responsibles, technical workers), and in different risk contexts. In addition, participants are requested to produce a mental map of the reporting system they are concerned with. These inputs are then analyzed following a “cross-case analysis” procedure in order to identify patterns of actors' representations of the reporting system, and to link these patterns to potential learning processes fostered by the system. This constitutes the first step of an inductive research process aiming to identify and characterize the link between reporting systems and collective learning. In the next steps, the link between the identified patterns of representations and collective learning processes will be tested quantitatively. The final aim being to elaborate ways to improve Incident Reporting Systems to improve collective learning. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 12 (0 ULg)
Full Text
See detailFirst conclusions from the Belgian stakeholder panel: FP 7 PREPARE, WG 3 “Consumer Goods”
Turcanu, Catrinel; Olyslaegers, Geert; Camps, Johan et al

Conference (2014, May)

Detailed reference viewed: 19 (1 ULg)
See detailStudying Vulnerability: Participation and Incident Reports
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg

Conference (2013, November 07)

Scholars in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain ... [more ▼]

Scholars in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain the safety of the system considered. Dealing with potential hazards, some researchers distinguish between the vulnerability approach and the risk approach. The risk based approach is focused on acquiring accurate probabilistic information about the events themselves. Yet, Sarewitz (2003: 806) reminds that “there are numerous cases in which accurate assessment of risk is impossible” and that “lack of experience with many phenomena and outcomes means that understanding the uncertainty of the uncertainty estimates is impossible”. Thus, beyond the risk-based approach, another perspective emerged: vulnerability analysis (VA). Vulnerability can be described as “the degree to which a system, subsystem, or system component is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard” (Turner et al. 2003: 8074). VA seems capable of overcoming the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations where knowledge about both probabilities and outcomes is incomplete or insufficient (Sarewitz 2003). The vulnerability approach and the classical risk analysis approach are thus based on different premises (Gilbert 2006): while risk analysis focuses on the hazard, VA focuses on the system under threat. From that starting point, we realized in order to analyse the state-of-the art in the field of vulnerability analysis, with particular emphasis on participatory approaches. The aims were: i) to study how the concept of vulnerability has been defined and used in different fields of application (e.g. natural and industrial hazards) and ii) to analyse whether the theoretical claim that participatory approaches to vulnerability analysis have the potential for great scientific and political outputs has been actually demonstrated in practice. Based on this study we formulate a threefold critique: first, VA has been treated separately in natural and technological hazards fields. This separation is unproductive for a fine-grained understanding of what vulnerability can provide as a concept, as it prevents vulnerability to unleash the full range of its potential. Second, VA focused on assessment tools that are mainly quantitative, whereas qualitative appraisal is a key to assess vulnerability in a comprehensive way and to inform policy-making. Third, a systematic literature review on participatory VA case studies allows us to argue that participation has been important to address the above, but it remains too closed down in its approach and would rather benefit from embracing a more opened, encompassing perspective. Therefore, we suggest re-thinking participatory VA as one part of a dynamic process between opening-up and closing-down strategies, in order to support a reflexive vulnerability governance framework. Doing so is not exempt of challenges, though. Since analytical reflection on vulnerability is to be transferred into practices of risk and vulnerability governance, taking into account the context in which governance agents need to take appropriate decisions is of primary importance. Thus, based on the conclusion of this presentation, the practical ways of realizing a reflexive vulnerability governance should now be explored. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 ULg)
Peer Reviewed
See detailIndustrial hazards and social factors: a question of vulnerability
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Turcanu, Catrinel

Conference (2013, October 09)

In order to analyze and try to mitigate the potential consequences of a hazard threatening a complex socio-technical system, the risk analysis framework is classically used. Many risk analysis models ... [more ▼]

In order to analyze and try to mitigate the potential consequences of a hazard threatening a complex socio-technical system, the risk analysis framework is classically used. Many risk analysis models recognize now widely the importance of integrating social aspects into the analysis. Another way to deal with potential consequences of hazards is to analyze the vulnerability of the system considered. This paradigm overcomes the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations when the knowledge about the probabilities and the outcomes is incomplete or insufficient. Studies in the literature considering natural hazards show that socio-economic factors are integrated more often and in a natural way in vulnerability analysis models. Nevertheless, it seems that such considerations are missing into models aiming at evaluating the vulnerability to an industrial hazard, especially at a very local level where the technical aspects seem to be predominant. What can we learn from the analysis of the models addressing vulnerability to natural hazards in terms of the integration of social factors? To answer this question, we realized a systematic literature review from scientific journal papers on vulnerability analysis published in the last two decades. We synthesize this review and we propose an integrated vulnerability analysis model; in order to test this model we use as a case-study the incident reports collected in a nuclear facility in Belgium. This confrontation allows us to highlight important factors to be taken into account for a vulnerability analysis conducted in such a context. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 42 (2 ULg)
Peer Reviewed
See detailHow are we vulnerable? Opening industrial hazards vulnerability analysis to participation
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Turcanu, Catrinel

Conference (2013, June 17)

The risk analysis framework has been the dominant theoretical framework used to address the uncertainty of a potential hazard bypassing the system's safeguards and protection. In essence, this involves ... [more ▼]

The risk analysis framework has been the dominant theoretical framework used to address the uncertainty of a potential hazard bypassing the system's safeguards and protection. In essence, this involves the evaluation of the probability and the magnitude of the consequences of the undesired events that can transform the hazard into actual damage. Despite the technical premises, the importance of integrating social aspects into the analysis is now recognized by an increasing number or risk analysis models. Another way to deal with potential consequences of hazards is to analyze the vulnerability of the system considered. This paradigm overcomes the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations when the knowledge about the probabilities and the outcomes is incomplete or insufficient On the one hand, studies in the literature show that socio-economic factors are often integrated in a participative way in vulnerability analysis models especially in the natural hazards research field. On the other hand, it seems that such considerations are rarely integrated in the models aiming at evaluating the vulnerability to an industrial hazard. What can we learn from the analysis of models addressing vulnerability to natural hazards in terms of the participatory integration of social factors? What could be the reasons to apply such participation tools in order to assess the vulnerability to industrial hazards? These are the questions we address in this contribution. To do so, we realized a systematic literature review from scientific journal papers on vulnerability analysis published in the last two decades. From this review, three main arguments can be found arguing for the use of participation for vulnerability analysis. Indeed, participation allows (1) context-based assessments, that may (2) foster the development of adaptative capacities (3) both for short and long-term. Based on those arguments, we identifiy possible paths to foster participation for context-based industrial vulnerability analysis. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 36 (2 ULg)
See detailLocal acceptance of windmills and lessons learned for nuclear projects
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Schröder, Jantinne

Conference (2013, May 31)

Detailed reference viewed: 24 (2 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailProjets éoliens en Région wallonne : quand le processus décisionnel met à mal l’acceptabilité locale.
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Parotte, Céline ULg; Fallon, Catherine ULg

Conference (2013, January 31)

Alors que l’énergie éolienne bénéficie du soutien de la population dans les pays européens (Wolsink, 2007b), de nombreuses études notent l’existence de groupes d’opposition structurés et actifs au niveau ... [more ▼]

Alors que l’énergie éolienne bénéficie du soutien de la population dans les pays européens (Wolsink, 2007b), de nombreuses études notent l’existence de groupes d’opposition structurés et actifs au niveau local, près des projets de parcs ou des parcs existants (Breukers & Wolsink, 2007). La Belgique et plus précisément la Région wallonne ne semblent pas déroger à ces observations. En effet, la population wallonne dans un récent sondage IPSOS (2010), montre un soutien relatif à l’énergie éolienne (86% des riverains d’un parc éolien se montrent favorables à l’énergie éolienne). Pourtant les promoteurs éoliens wallons et les décideurs publics font aussi état de façon paradoxal des limites de cette adhésion sociale par la rencontre de groupes d’opposants organisés ou des riverains des communes concernées capables d’influencer l’issue du projet. De là, on observe l’intérêt des différents acteurs pour le citoyen et son intégration dans le processus de décision. Ceci se traduit comme tel : l’intérêt du promoteur privé pour les citoyens résulte d’un constat d’échecs de projets précédemment introduits et de la volonté de voir les suivants acceptés. Par ailleurs, les pouvoirs publics aussi soulignent l’intérêt d’intégrer le citoyen dans le processus décisionnel. Aussi, le vade mecum réalisé sur initiative du ministère de la Région wallonne et le cadre de référence pour l’implantation d’éoliennes en Région wallonne de 2002 le promeuvent également : « une communication efficace et complète envers la population (est) un élément essentiel à la réussite d’un projet ». Dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche commandité par Electrabel en 2010, le Spiral (ULg) en collaboration avec le Centre Environnement et le Département de Psychologie, Cognition et Comportement (ULg), a eu l’occasion d’étudier les ressorts de l’acceptabilité locale en Région wallonne en vue de l’analyse et du développement d’outils adaptés permettant d’améliorer les processus décisionnels et de participation. Cette contribution se présentera en deux parties. Dans un premier temps, nous montrerons que le processus décisionnel en vigueur en Région Wallonne n’est pas étranger à l’acceptation difficile de certains projets de parc éolien. Le processus (au sens large, formel et informel) d’implantation d’un parc éolien est aux mains des promoteurs, de l’autorité politico-administrative et des citoyens. Chacun d’eux a des objectifs, une vision du projet et des discours qui leur sont propres. Pourtant, malgré leurs dynamiques propres, tous sont soumis à la même dynamique procédurale avec des armes parfois inégales. C’est précisément la manière dont les interactions, les rapports de forces entre ces entités se nouent et se jouent qui influencera l’issue du projet. Le processus tel qu’il est observé met en lui-même à mal le sentiment de justice procédurale des riverains, entendue comme le droit à un traitement équitable, comme le droit aux mêmes considérations que les autres dans le cadre d’une décision politique concernant la manière dont des biens et opportunités doivent être distribués (Kuehn, 2000). Dans un deuxième temps, nous présenterons les pistes de réflexion avancées par les acteurs de terrain pour construire un processus qui permette une meilleure appropriation. Les résultats de cette recherche empirique sont issus d’une combinaison de méthodes qualitatives mobilisées (38 entretiens semi-directifs, 4 focus group et un Atelier Scénario) dans le cadre d’un protocole précis. Quatre cas de projets d’implantation d’éoliennes répartis sur le territoire wallon et sélectionnés selon des critères bien établis ont pu être étudiés. En complément de l’analyse un grand nombre de documents issus des dossiers relatifs aux projets éoliens, disponibles aux administrations communales en question, dans la presse, sur Internet, quatre focus group (Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2007) avec les riverains concernés et des entretiens semi-directifs ont été menés avec les différentes parties prenantes aux projets de parc éolien (bourgmestres, échevins, promoteurs, riverains, responsables de coopératives, fonctionnaires régionaux, etc.). L’identification des structures et les caractéristiques institutionnelles génératrices de conflit a permis d’envisager la base de contenu de la réflexion de Atelier Scénario (Fung, 2007 ; Sintomer, 2007) avec l’ensemble des acteurs liés au processus décisionnel d’implantation de parc éolien en Région wallonne pour mieux envisager les améliorations à y apporter au travers de l’exercice de prospective. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 252 (22 ULg)
Full Text
See detailL’État et la gestion de la grippe A(H1N1)
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Thoreau, François ULg

in Revue Nouvelle (2012), 10

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (6 ULg)
Full Text
See detailRapport annuel du Projet SEE - Design participatif. Valorisation scientifique du projet
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Parotte, Céline ULg; Fallon, Catherine ULg

Report (2012)

Le projet SEE (Système d’Échanges Électroniques) a pour objectif général le développement d'un Système d'Échanges Électroniques sur base d'une collaboration entre différents partenaires universitaires et ... [more ▼]

Le projet SEE (Système d’Échanges Électroniques) a pour objectif général le développement d'un Système d'Échanges Électroniques sur base d'une collaboration entre différents partenaires universitaires et une entreprise privée. Dans ce cadre, le Spiral a pour vocation la mise en œuvre de méthodologies de recherche permettant de co-construire un système de vote électronique (dans le cadre des élections sociales) avec les futurs utilisateurs de celui-ci. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 53 (2 ULg)
See detailTesting e-participation : A case of e-voting system in Belgium
Rossignol, Nicolas ULg; Parotte, Céline ULg

Conference (2012, July)

E-participation has been increasingly used to enhance participation and deliberation, and ultimately the quality of democracy. In the case of the development of new technologies, participative design ... [more ▼]

E-participation has been increasingly used to enhance participation and deliberation, and ultimately the quality of democracy. In the case of the development of new technologies, participative design defenders underline the importance of integrating final users into the product elaboration process. In this case, e-participation tools permit not only to include a large number of future users but also to better incorporate their expectations. In Belgium, such participative approach has precisely been mobilized for the design of an e-voting system for trade unions’ elections. This case study provides thus a fertile field to test the assumption that e-participation effectively leads to a ‘better’ participation and deliberation. How is it a pertinent way to enhance democracy? How does it reflect the actual fears and expectations of users? What are the limits and potentialities of this participative approach? Based on this e-participation experience (Delphi method), i.e. an online qualitative survey submitted to 200 future users, we seek to give tentative answers to those questions. Overall, we demonstrate that this kind of method may produce fruitful participative inputs to e-voting system design. Nevertheless, final decision-making process leading to the adoption of the system remains complex and the e-participative input can display second-order issues. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (6 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailAction publique et responsabilité gouvernementale : la gestion de la grippe A(H1N1) en 2009
Thoreau, François ULg; Cheneviere, Cédric; Rossignol, Nicolas ULg

in Courrier Hebdomadaire du CRISP (2012), 2138-2139

Detailed reference viewed: 132 (49 ULg)