- Email: [email protected]
Social involvement in environmental governance: The relevance of quality assurance processes in forest planning
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Social involvement in environmental governance: The relevance of quality assurance processes in forest planning
MARK
⁎
Serafin Corrala, , Maria Cristo Monagasb a Departamento de Economía Aplicada y Métodos Cuantitativos, Facultad de Economía, Empresa y Turismo, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Guajara, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain b Departamento de Economía Aplicada y Métodos Cuantitativos, Facultad de Economía, Empresa y Turismo, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Guajara, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Environmental governance Conflict situations Quality assurance Participatory techniques Social sensitivity analysis
Socio-environmental policy issues are characterized by inherent scientific uncertainty, ignorance and frequently by social discrepancies. Lack of recognition of the complexity and uncertainty of environmental issues has given rise to problems that have cast doubt on the adequacy of the science for policy model and traditionally employed evidence-based policy, thus leading to a crisis in science. In this context, there is a need for quality assurance procedures to assess policies and measures resulting from decision-making in environmental governance issues. Involving quality assurance in decision-making processes recognizes the different types of uncertainty related to an issue and the limits of problem-solving analysis. This approach requires participatory methodological frameworks in which stakeholders analyze the robustness of the assessment process used as well as the validity of assessment results. The approach considers governance as being a relative term depending on the historical, social, economic, political, environmental and cultural context in which it is developed. A participatory methodology is applied to an assessment of forest track alternatives on the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands). In this study, a social sensitivity analysis explores the social validity of this assessment through the concept of quality understood as ‘fitness for use’. Such a methodology facilitates processes of dialogue and consensus needed in decision-making in conflictive situations. As a result this methodology should serve as a reference for other places with similar situations.
1. Introduction Natural resource management processes have been characterized by uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes and urgent decisions (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). Likewise, forest management often concerns large areas, long time horizons and multiple stakeholders, which complicates planning processes and increases the uncertainty involved in it (Kangas and Kangas, 2004; Acosta and Corral, 2015). The uncertainty that characterizes environmental systems is also amplified when conflicts among stakeholders with opposing interests are present (Corral Quintana, 2004; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Funtowicz and De Marchi, 2000; Giampietro et al., 2006a). These circumstances greatly hinder the application of traditional scientific methodologies to tackle environmental governance issues, since available knowledge often consists of a mixture of (partial) knowledge, assumptions, and ignorance. The traditional model of science for policy was initially based on technocratic decision support systems (DSS) Guimarães and Corral
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Corral), [email protected] (M.C. Monagas).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.017 Received 10 August 2016; Received in revised form 5 July 2017; Accepted 7 July 2017 0264-8377/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(2002), —such as the Integrated Assessment Models, which emerged in the mid-1980s (van der Sluijs, 1997). They were an example of a ‘simplified' way of addressing issues, as they did not recognize complexity and uncertainty (Guimarães and Corral, 2002; Guimarães Pereira et al., 2005). Although they formally presented a multidisciplinary and integrated approach to environmental issues, several authors have highlighted their limitations when acting as tools for environmental decision-making (see for example Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis, 2007; Saltelli and Funtowicz, 2015; Sarewitz, 2000). In general, these authors argue that DSS are ‘plagued' with assumptions and simplifications, telling us very little about the issues they are considering. In particular, they are seen as ineffective tools offering a perception of illusory and deceptive knowledge and precision (Pilkey and PilkeyJarvis, 2007). Such an inadequate response by traditional ‘applied' science to complex problems that concern society has generated a crisis of legitimacy and confidence in decision-making systems (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). This, in turn, has given rise to a governance crisis,
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
referred to in works such as those by Funtowicz (2002), Giampietro et al. (2006b) or in the White Paper on European Governance (CEC, 2001). Given these circumstances, where uncertainty and ignorance are present and clashes between different interests occur; science has sought solutions that allow the participation of society (Ravetz, 2004). Thus, in recent decades, approaches that support decision-making and integrate tools through which stakeholders can be part of the planning process have proliferated, implying a combination of knowledge that should facilitate better understanding of natural resource governance issues (see for instance, the reviews carried out by Acosta and Corral, 2017; Díaz-Balteiro and Romero, 2008; Kangas and Kangas, 2005). Relying solely on formal scientific knowledge to make decisions is short-sighted: public perspectives can also help frame the issues. This is not to say that ‘citizen’ science or ‘indigenous technical knowledge’ is better than formal science; simply that engendering a wider range of perspectives can help cope with uncertainty. Although, the integration of social actors undoubtedly enriches planning processes, there are still key dimensions of uncertainty in the knowledge base of complex environmental problems that need to be addressed. These include technical (inexactness), methodological (unreliability), epistemological (ignorance), and societal (social robustness) ones (Van Der Sluijs et al., 2005). Authors such as Ravetz (2002), Pereira and Quintana (2009) or Saltelli and Giampietro (2016) explain the need to guarantee quality in political decision-making processes. In the last decades, quality control processes have been considered a fundamental practice for industrial activity, with quality being perceived as essential to satisfy the needs and expectations of the users. However, despite the mentioned uncertainties related to socio-environmental issues, quality assurance procedures in decision-making have not been encouraged (Corral Quintana, 2009). This is in spite of these procedures helping to reveal the robustness of assessment processes and their results. Often quantitative uncertainty and sensitivity assessment methods are used to evaluate the robustness of technical dimensions of assessment processes. Thus, uncertainty mainstream methods such as Monte Carlo analysis, subjective probability, or Bayesian are not suitable for environmental and societal issues because the main problem of these issues is that unquantifiable uncertainties dominate the quantifiable ones (Van Der Sluijs et al., 2008). Nevertheless, in situations where conflicting interests prevail, it is not enough to deal just with uncertainties of a technical nature (those related to the information available, the variables used and the model applied). In these cases, the legitimacy of the planning process is affected by epistemological and social uncertainties, putting this process into dispute and hampering decision-making. On the contrary to manufacturing processes of products and services in which quality guidelines and standards can be designed by experts, the inherent uncertainty in socio-environmental decision issues requires more extended processes. Thus, the involvement of stakeholders should be viewed as a quality assurance step in decision processes to ensure higher quality and identify alternative courses of action (CEC, 2001). This paper proposes a quality assurance methodology to explore the robustness of assessment processes and environmental planning in conflictive situations by involving different stakeholders. Furthermore, the results and conclusions are presented from the application of this approach to a case of integrated assessment of forest track management on the island of Tenerife.
Fig. 1. Social sensitivity analysis approach for socio-environmental issues.
sensitivity analysis (see Mowrer et al., 1996). Thus, the proposed methodology is based on inclusionary processes with the most relevant stakeholders discussing the main characteristics of the assessment process and its outcomes. This is known as Social Sensitivity Analysis (SSA). Therefore, participatory techniques are implemented, in which stakeholders assess the robustness of the process, the methods applied and the results obtained from a forest track planning assessment to achieve social validation of that assessment (see Fig. 1). This methodology will allow the robustness of the procedures and processes used to be analyzed. In this sense, although not all results are accepted by all stakeholders (as it is discussed in the next section), “their generation process is an open and transparent process in which the views of all parties are included” (Corral Quintana, 2004, p .193). Since social values are involved in so many planning processes (Munda, 2008), social sensitivity analysis (SSA) is needed. The main idea behind SSA is to return the planning assessment results to stakeholders, so that they can deal with complex issues in which they defend different/strong positions, even, on occasions, irreconcilable ones. SSA should not, however, be seen as a mere process of informing or consulting citizens, two of the lowest rungs on Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969). It is a means to climb further up the ladder to levels of citizen power or at least to assess the degree of social acceptance of any policies or measures to be carried out. Furthermore, in cases of strong opposite interest among stakeholders the initial assessment can be used as an excuse to promote a reflexive dialogue among the stakeholders about the issues at hand. As Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) point out, the problem solving dynamics in Post Normal Science involve the inclusion of a growing pool of legitimate participants in the process of ensuring the quality of scientific output. It is in this context that the concept of an extended peer community arises: ‘Recent experience has shown the need for important modifications in the process of quality assurance, such as changes to the traditional, largely informal, procedures of collegial peer review, in order to take into account the emergence of new forms of science, the increased competitiveness of the research enterprise, the impact of new technologies, and the inclusion of new stakeholders. Collegial peer review is being rapidly transformed to review by an “extended peer community” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2015, p. 680). Consequently, quality in this context of complexity and high uncertainty is not linked to quantitative indicators, or to previously agreed standards. In this case, the interpretation of quality is built on the experience of the ‘relevant community', not limited to the scientific community, or to a group of professional experts, but it is extended from the traditional peer review carried out by colleagues to an extended peer community, covering all groups with interests or affected by the issue in question, and ultimately the society. The quality thus understood is defined from: a) cognitive factors – knowledge of each of the parts –, b) axiological factors – set of values, which are made explicit – and c) procedural factors-ways of acting to solve the issue at hand. This interpretation of quality has, therefore, a multidimensional character, fruit of the dynamic interaction of
2. Method The proposed quality assurance process aims to explore the robustness of environmental governance, mainly natural resource planning processes, often characterized by systemic uncertainty and disagreements among stakeholders. The most commonly used technical approach to measure quantitative aspects of uncertainty, is known as 711
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
unlikely to be effectively implemented given the opposition and controversy.
different factors, which implies that it can be represented by a combination of attributes. It has a versatile character with the existence of feedback, so its interpretation is variable. There is also a purpose-oriented character, thus ‘fitness for use', in the context of complex problem solving, is defined as the ability or aptitude of a process to respond to certain requirements, that is, to contribute to the search for solutions. Thus, it is important to emphasize that the characteristics described for quality at this level, coincide with the characteristics attributed to the environmental governance itself. Focusing on the idea of quality as ‘fitness for use', it is constructed from a basic pattern, in our case, from a series of attributes desirable for the governance of natural resources. Fitness for use is a common denominator from which different perspectives allow the concept of quality to be molded and contextualized to apply a ‘basic model' or ‘starting pattern’ (Corral Quintana, 2009). This exercise of exploring the quality of a complex problem, allows those aspects inherent in the complexity itself to “surface”, which must be analyzed or discussed. SSA is essentially a social validation of assessment results (Corral Quintana, 2004; Hernández González and Corral Quintana, 2016; Hernández-González and Corral, 2017; Corral and Hernandez, 2017) that explores the robustness of the assessment and the feasibility of the results obtained according to stakeholders’ knowledge. “The term SSA refers to the most frequently applied sensitivity analysis aimed at testing the robustness of the results of a model or system in the presence of uncertainty, as well as at understanding the relationships between input and output variables in a system or model. This validation process is carried out through the involvement of stakeholders” (Hernández González and Corral Quintana, 2016, p. 206). SSA is performed using different inclusive techniques (i.e. focus groups, citizen-juries …) in which stakeholders through dialogue can debate not only the issue framing, the information used, the assessment procedure but also the results. In addition, with this type of process, stakeholders may have the opportunity to reach consensus situations that would not have been otherwise possible (Corral and Hernandez, 2017). In this sense, Pereira, Corral Quintana and Funtowicz (2005) suggest the tools used in decision-making should be understood as conceptual tools to develop debates, dialogues and discussions among social partners or as coined by these authors: TIDDD (Tool to Inform Debates, Dialogues & Deliberations). Through these tools not only is knowledge provided to generate and organize discussion processes, but also to complement the knowledge with the information arising from the process. In fact, the potential benefits of stakeholders’ engagement in environmental governance are various (Giering, 2011): (a) ownership of policies, (b) better decisions in terms of sustainability and the inclusion of community values, (c) credibility of public agencies, and (d) faster planning implementation. This is what Susskind and Elliott (1983) described more than thirty years ago as “coproduction”. Jones (2011) focused on these processes highlighting accessibility problems and then identifying potential solutions, through the implementation of focus groups and stimulus materials. These are generally carried out through the implementation of different social techniques and participatory approaches such as interviews, questionnaires and more inclusive tools, such as citizen juries or focus groups. In addition, SSA aims at diminishing the technocratic nature of assessment processes in decision-making. It not only allows stakeholders to track the information obtained at the beginning of the assessments, but also all the way through to the results of the assessment. This situation gives the planning processes a feeling of proximity and transparency, thereby contributing to people’s confidence in the results Thus, SSA allows stakeholders to be linked from the beginning to the end in environmental planning processes, thereby helping to respond to conflicts among users. For example, Garmendia and Gamboa (2012) detected when analyzing the results of an assessment exercise on the alternatives that one of the alternatives given priority in technical analysis was the least valued by stakeholders. Therefore, it would be
3. Case study The proposed methodology is applied to an integrated assessment of policy alternatives to address problems of regulating forest track use on the island of Tenerife. The island has 2000 km of forest tracks and a network of 200 kilometers that have been established for vehicle circulation for recreational purposes, with restrictions depending on the characteristics of the vehicles. Over the years, the local population has changed its use and view of the island’s forests. People have reduced their use of forest resources as economic inputs, while gradually increasing their need for areas of leisure activities. For example, García Mesa (2011) highlights that between 1950 and 1960; the banana sector required forest pine needles to protect bananas during transport. Additionally, it was common to use the forest to provide wood for fuel until the 1970s, when demand declined with the arrival of butane and with the abandonment of farming. Nowadays, the forest has become a place for recreation, where sporting and educational activities are carried out instead of the traditional practices of providing raw materials. According to Quirantes González et al. (2011), the majority of people who visit forests come from urban areas attracted by the natural, ecological and scenic characteristics of forests. The increase in the number of visitors to forest areas has also involved a significant rise in the use of motorized means of transport −with a current rate of 4500 permits per year and an annual growth rate of 20% This has produced a deterioration in the land surface, implying not only environmental degradation but a substantial increase in maintenance costs – both economic and human resource ones – according to Tenerife’s Island Government: the body responsible for the forest planning and management on the island (Cabildo de Tenerife, 2011). The integrated assessment carried out was based on the combination of three approaches: Institutional Analysis (IA), Participatory Techniques (PT) and Multi-criteria Assessment methods (MA). Initially, IA was conducted with the dual purpose of first identifying the most relevant stakeholders and providing an initial view about perceptions and positions, and secondly, to detect likely problems related to the case (Corral Quintana, 2004; Acosta and Corral, 2015; Corral-Quintana et al., 2016). It was based on a historical review and analysis of the past 15 years of press articles, as well as interviews with several experts in the field. As a result, the most relevant stakeholders involved in the process were revealed together with their positions and mechanisms of interaction. Through the application of several PT (two rounds of questionnaires and 15 interviews were carried out), stakeholders raised several forest tracks management issues, mainly related to the activities of motor vehicles in the forest environment, and the existing conflicts between vehicle users and non-vehicle users concerning issues such as speed or noise. Together, a set of assessment alternatives (see Table 1) and criteria (see Table 2) were elicited from such involvement processes. The assessment of alternatives was carried out by means of pairwise comparison with respect to each assessment criterion generating a ranking of alternatives using the NAIADE multi-criteria method Table 1 Forest alternatives. Source: Acosta and Corral (2015). Alternatives Traffic circulation restricted to emergencies Unrestricted traffic circulation. One-way systems Pre-paid traffic circulation charge Do not do anything; hereafter known as “BAU.”
712
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
this result, since almost 90% of these criteria considered the alternative as being “very good”, “good” or “moderate.” As Acosta and Corral (2015) point out, given these results: Should the best-positioned alternative in the ranking (“pre-paid charge for traffic circulation”) be implemented? If so, it is likely that the number of vehicles using the forest would decrease, since having to pay would lead to some individuals deciding not to use their vehicles in the forest. This would, in turn, lead to a reduction in pollution (noise, exhaust fumes, and dust), contributing to the conservation of the forest environment. On the other hand, it is a decision that would not be well received by some segments of the population, as discussed in the next section.
Table 2 Forest Assessment Criteria. Source: Acosta and Corral (2015). Dimensions
Forest planning alternatives
Environmental
Effects on erosion Effects on landscapes and aesthetics Oxygenation Emission of pollutants Particles and dust in the air Effects on the water cycle Introduced/threatened species
Socio-economic
Economic cost Effects on employment Effects on other productive activities (leisure, services, quad bike sales,…) Effects on agriculture Environmental awareness Accessibility Maintaining traditions Functionality and state of recreational areas Opportunities to do leisure, sport, health activities… For traffic circulation State of forest tracks Accessibility of emergency services Evacuation during fires Evacuation during other emergencies
Institutional
4. Results of the social sensitivity analysis The resulting ranking of alternatives was based on the best scientific and social knowledge available. However, this does not imply acceptance by all stakeholders. In fact, due to the evident tensions existing among stakeholders among those in favor of regulating the access to forest tracks and those asking for free access (Acosta and Corral, 2015), the assessment of the different policy alternatives is not enough to understand the political issues in hand. In order to carry out the SSA; a participatory focus groups was selected. This technique allows qualitative data to be obtained through group discussions (Morgan, 1997). Given the large number of groups involved in the initial study (28 in total), and considering that, according to some authors, focus groups require a small number of participants, that is between 6 and 12 participants, as several authors suggest (Aigneren, 2002; Escobar and Bonilla-Jimenez, 2009; Calvente and Rodríguez, 2000), it was decided to reduce the number of participants. To do this, two criteria were taken into account to form the groups: (1) inviting those who could nourish the process the most, (2) representing all the stakeholder collectives. Finally, there were 11 participants representing each of the collectives (see Table 3). The focus group discussion initially addressed the results of the ranking of alternatives. Since both alternatives and criteria had emerged from surveys conducted in the first phase of the assessment (Acosta and Corral, 2015), participants in the focus group only knew about the information that each had contributed in the aforementioned surveys, therefore they were unaware of the proposals of other participants. Initially, all alternatives were well received by all stakeholders, agreeing that the best alternative was “Traffic circulation by a pre-paid charge” (E) in those specific areas where users receive a service, such as enjoying specific activities or unique landscape areas. This result agrees with that obtained both in the first analysis. The ‘Pre-paid traffic charge’ option was considered the best alternative and some politicians were in favor of a variant of this alternative. However, the proposed payment of 50 cents or even one euro, which the majority of tourists would pay to gain access to a forest environment on the island, was considered unacceptable by Tenerife’s residents, since the prevalent local opinion is that they should not have to pay for something they own. Due to this reticence about access payment, a combination of a prepaid traffic charge with the alternative of maintaining the current situation for residents should also be taken into consideration by
Time period of actions Social acceptance
(Munda, 1995; JRC, 1996; Corral et al., 2015). Such assessment depends on the number of criteria in favor of a specific alternative and the intensity of the preference for each criterion. Thus, the final ranking is based on the degree of credibility, whereby one alternative is much better, better, approximately equal, equal, worse or much worse in relation to another alternative. Fig. 2 shows the ranking of alternatives from the best ranked to the worst, according to the selected assessment criteria. Regarding the assessment results, the best alternative was E, corresponding to traffic circulation by pre-paid charge. Alternatives A (BAU: maintain current situation) and B (Traffic circulation restricted to emergencies) were the next best ones in the ranking, both at the same level. Finally, alternatives C (Unrestricted traffic circulation) and D (one-way system on forest tracks) were located at the bottom of the ranking. The majority of the environmental criteria favored alternative E (pre-paid charge for traffic circulation); in fact, approximately 90% of these criteria were assessed as being “good.” Regarding alternative A, identified as “BAU: maintain current situation,” the socio-environmental criteria supported its position in the ranking. At the same position as A is alternative B, with environmental criteria also favoring
Table 3 List of groups that participated in the focus-group. Source: Corral and Acosta (2017)
Fig. 2. Ranking of forest alternatives assessment. Source: Acosta and Corral (2015)
713
Collective groups
Number of participants
Public managers Users (with motor vehicles) Users (without motor vehicles) Surveillance, security, emergency and rescue Private companies
2 1 2 3 3
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
scientists and, therefore, should be collectively assessed through a new social contract between the scientific community and society. In view of the results, performing a social validation of forest alternatives is very interesting. While sensitivity analysis ensures the technical robustness of the alternatives’ assessment, it is through social sensitivity analysis that the discussion of the results with stakeholders leads to the discovery of new aspects of the problem and possibly unexpected actions. For example, in the present case, during the debate on forest management, stakeholders proposed completely new alternatives. Similarly, these participatory assessment processes foster knowledge sharing, thereby overcoming misinformation and helping to reach consensus, all generated through dialogue between stakeholders. Additionally, through validation, understanding among stakeholders is facilitated, approaching positions and achieving compromise solutions. Thus, during discussions on the forest alternatives, those attending the focus group considered the same alternative as the initial assessment to be relevant. This situation of consensus was unthinkable at the beginning of this investigation, because during the interviews and surveys conflicts between different collectives were perceived. Development of social sensitivity analysis has allowed this consensus to emerge, reducing the marked divergence between views perceived earlier in the process. As an example of this disparity, one can mention the widespread perception held in initial interviews among the forest sports collective that does not make use of motor vehicle. This collective felt that the noise and speed of some of the vehicles disturbed the quality of visits to the forest environment. These conflicts have been reduced through dialogue generated during the development of focus groups. Finally, although the purpose of the focus group was not to make decisions on the implementation of alternatives, managers have witnessed the widespread demand and interest of participants in forest track planning. This will help give them the notion of how to continue addressing forestry issues so as to avoid, as far as possible, rejections by the population (such as in this case study, the resolution governing the motorized traffic by forest tracks Tenerife, which was perceived negatively by respondents). In conclusion, the development of quality assurance procedures, such as social sensitivity analysis, is essential for validating the results of an assessment process. Without this type of analysis, it can be said that assessments are marked by a technocratic character, an aspect this study has sought to avoid since the beginning. Moreover, when issues affecting society are being dealt with, the participation of stakeholders should be allowed. A key benefit of this approach is the greater consensus of views among the different collectives that has been made possible through dialogue. In addition, quality assurance not only contributes to the transparency of the decision-making process, but also conveys confidence to the people involved. Thus, in cases of natural resource planning, the use of social sensitivity analysis provides a greater strength to policy-making assessment. Such analysis not only makes the process more transparent, but can also promote more stable decisions. Framing the evaluation process as a quality assurance one where at each level an extended community intervenes in order to ensure that the outcomes are fit for use does not seem an unviable proposal. The real challenge is the implementation of such quality checks as part of institutional practices.
decision-makers. The joint implementation of these alternatives would increase the monetary contribution to the conservation of the forest environment on the island and contribute to the more peaceful coexistence of different forest stakeholder communities. In addition, the collective “Monitoring, Security, Emergency and Rescue” (part of the surveillance group) proposed the establishment of “mixed” alternatives to consider different forest activities and/or different forest areas. This might help adapt alternatives to new situations and demands by society. In this sense, the “Public Managers” group proposed a new joint alternative to consider the “BAU” alternative (which was ranked second in the initial ranking) whenever there were reviews of existing regulations to adapt to changes and new needs the forest system. This new proposal, “BAU” with regulatory review, was welcomed and supported by all the groups present. In addition, all stakeholders agreed on the importance of disclosure and information on forest regulations due to the population's lack of awareness in this area, as well as on promoting awareness campaigns on the importance of forests in the education system. Thus, in relation to the alternatives, all agreed to implement an alternative “BAU” when contemplating regulatory reviews so that any review would have to adapt to the changes and new needs of the forest system. However, there was a clear division between stakeholders, as groups “Sport (using motor vehicle)", ‘Business’ and “Sport” (without using vehicles motor) gave priority to the alternative” Improving surveillance and access control”, while the other groups “Managers” and “Monitoring, Security, Emergency and Rescue” favored prioritizing the alternative “Delineate the areas of use”. Despite this division in the focus group, there was a willingness of participants to improve the development of all activities through dialogue with the other groups and to share their needs in the forest environment. 5. Conclusions This paper has discussed the need to recognize the complexity and uncertainty of science used as a support for political decision-making, and hence the need to incorporate quality analysis approaches into governance processes. Therefore social quality assurance procedures should be applied to validate the results derived from assessment processes of public policy alternatives. Assessment processes used in natural resource governance usually involve systemic uncertainty and strong opposing interests. Some methods used to support environmental decision-making are based on assumptions and simplifications of reality, that is, on the search for ‘panaceas', which in some cases lead to the adoption of decisions under conditions of ‘hypocognition'. However, these issues cannot be analyzed in isolation from the social context in which they occur. They are influenced by interests, perspectives, opinions, knowledge and different perceptions (Corral Quintana, 2009). The development of quality assurance procedures for planning processes aims at recognizing the different types of uncertainty related to the issue and the limits of the problem-solving analysis. Additionally, quality assurance provides policy processes with a level of transparency considered essential when dealing with conflictive policy issues where different opinions, perceptions, and interests are at stake. When developing forest planning processes or similar processes in which decisions are taken that may affect stakeholders; it is necessary to apply methodologies that allow society to participate in these processes. In particular, technical sensitivity analysis is necessary but not sufficient in these situations, where conflict may occur. When a mixture of (partial) knowledge, assumptions, and ignorance are involved, science should look for solutions to overcome these limitations by means of public participation. Therefore, sensitivity analysis should be expanded to include approaches where the decision-making processes become relevant. For instance, who decides in a DSS assessment the criteria to assess a range of alternative options? Who decides the direction of these criteria? Clearly, these are decisions that are beyond
References Acosta, M., Corral, S., 2015. Participatory multi-criteria assessment of forest planning policies in conflicting situations: the case of tenerife. Forests 6 (11), 3946–3969. Acosta, M., Corral, S., 2017. Multicriteria decision analysis and participatory decision support systems in forest management. Forests 8 (4), 116. Aigneren, M. (2002), La técnica de recolección de información mediante los grupos focales. Revista Electrónica La Sociología En Sus Escenarios, N°6. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35 (4), 216–224. Commission of the European Communities (CEC), (2001), European Governance: A White
714
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
Part A: Pol. Pract. 89, 201–214. Hernández-González, Y., Corral, S., 2017. An extended peer communities’ knowledge sharing approach for environmental governance. Land Use Policy 63, 140–148. JRC. (1996). NAIADE manual and tutorial-versión 1.0. ENG. ispra site: Joint research centre of the european commission. Jones, P., 2011. Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 2, 29–41. Kangas, A.S., Kangas, J., 2004. Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. For. Pol. Econ. 6 (2), 169–188. http://dx.doi.org.accedys2.bbtk.ull.es/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00083-7. Kangas, J., Kangas, A., 2005. Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. For. Ecol. Manag. 207, 133–143. Morgan, D.L., 1997. The Focus Group Guidebook. Sage publications, London. Mowrer, H.T., Czaplewski, R.L., Hamre, R., 1996. In: Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences: Second International Symposium. Fort collins, CO, USA, may 21–23, 1996. (USDA forest service, rocky mountain research station, general technical report RM-GTR-277, p. 728). Munda, G., 1995. Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment: Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag. Munda, G., 2008. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Springer. Pereira, Â.G., Quintana, S.C., 2009. 3 pillars and 1 beam: quality of river basin governance processes. Ecol. Econ. 68 (4), 940–954. Pilkey, O.H., Pilkey-Jarvis, L., 2007. Useless arithmetic. Why Environmental Scientist Can’t Predict the Future. Columbia University Press, New York. Quirantes González, F., Núñez Pestano, J.R., García Mesa, D.A., Viña Brito, A., 2011. Los Montes de Tenerife a Través de su Historia. Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Spain. Ravetz, J. (2002). Dealing with uncertainty in numbers. Draft paper. Retrieved from nusap.net. Ravetz, J., 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 36 (3), 347–357. Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S., 2015. Evidence-based policy at the end of the Cartesian dream. In: Guimarães Pereira, Â., Funtowicz, S. (Eds.), Science, Philosophy and Sustainability. Routledge, London and New York. Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., 2016. The fallacy of evidence-based policy. In: Benessia, A., Funtowicz, S., Giampietro, M., Guimarães Pereira, Â., Ravetz, J., Saltelli, A., Strand, R., van der Sluijs, J. (Eds.), The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, AZ, pp. 31–70. Sarewitz, D., 2000. Science and environmental policy: an excess of objectivity. In: Hall, U.S.R.P. (Ed.), Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy and the Claimes of Community, pp. 79–98. Sluijs, J.V.D., 1997. Anchoring amid uncertainty. On the Management of Uncertainties in Risk Assessment of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Universiteit Utrecht. Susskind, L., Elliott, M., 1983. Paternalism, conflict, and coproduction: learning from citizen action and citizen participation in western Europe. In: Susskind, L., Elliott, M., associates, a (Eds.), Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Wester Europe. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New York pp. 3–34. Van Der Sluijs, Jeroen P, Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., Risbey, J., 2005. Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in modelbased environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Anal. 25 (2), 481–492. Van Der Sluijs, J., Douguet, J.M., O’Connor, M., Pereira, Â.G., Quintana, S.C., Maxim, L., Ravetz, J.R., 2008. Qualité de la connaissance dans un processus délibératif. Nat. Sci. Soc. 16 (3), 265–273.
Paper, COM(2001) 428, Brussels, 25 July 2001. Available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm. Cabildo de Tenerife Resolución R0000319624 de 14 de abril de 2011. Área de Sostenibilidad, Territorio y Medio Ambiente. Servicio Administrativo de Medio Ambiente. 2011. Calvente, M.G., Rodríguez, I.M., 2000. El grupo focal como técnica de investigación cualitativa en salud: Diseño y puesta en práctica. Atención Primaria 25 (3), 181–186. Corral Quintana S. (2004). Una metodología integrada de exploración y comprensión de los procesos de elaboración de políticas públicas (Universidad de La Laguna). Corral Quintana, S., 2009. A quality assurance framework for policy-making: proposing a quality assurance assistant tool (QAAT). Science for Policy. New Challenges, New Opportunities. Corral, S., Acosta, M., 2017. Social sensitivity analysis in conflictive environmental governance: a case of forest planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 65, 54–62. Corral, S., Hernandez, Y., 2017. Social sensitivity analyses applied to environmental assessment processes. Ecol. Econ. 141, 1–10. Corral, S., Legna-de la Nuez, D., de Lara, D.R.M., 2015. Integrated assessment of biofuel production in arid lands: Jatropha cultivation on the island of Fuerteventura. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 41–53. Corral-Quintana, S., Legna-de la Nuez, D., Legna Verna Hernández, C.J.H., RomeroManrique de Lara, D., 2016. How to improve strategic decision-making in complex systems when only qualitative information is available. Land Use Policy 50, 83–101. Díaz-Balteiro, L., Romero, C., 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For. Ecol. Manag. 255, 3222–3241. Escobar, J., Bonilla-Jimenez, F.I., 2009. Grupos focales: Una guía conceptual y metodológica. Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos De Psicología 9 (1), 51–67. Funtowicz, S., De Marchi, B. (2000). Ciencia posnormal, complejidad reflexiva y sustentabilidad. la complejidad ambiental. México, Siglo, Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R., 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. Ecol. Econ. Sci. Manage. Sustain. 10, 137. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R. (1993). La ciencia posnormal: Ciencia con la gente Icaria editorial. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 2015. Peer review and quality control. In: In: Wright, J.D. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of The Social & Behavioral Sciences Vol. 17. Oxford, pp. 680–684. García Mesa, D.A. Los Aprovechamientos Forestales en la Segunda Mitad del Siglo XX; Quirantes González, F., Núñez Pestano, J.R., Eds.; Historia de los montes de Tenerife: La Laguna, Spain, 2011. Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., 2012. Weighting social preferences in participatory multicriteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management. Ecol. Econ. 84, 110–120. Giampietro, M., Allen, T.F.H., Mayumi, K., 2006a. Science for governance: the implications of the complexity revolution. Interfaces Between Sci. Soc. 82–99. Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Munda, G., 2006b. Integrated assessment and energy analysis: quality assurance in multi-criteria analysis of sustainability. Energy 31 (1), 59–86. Giering, S. (2011). Public participation strategies for transit Transportation Research Board. Guimarães Pereira, Â., Corral Quintana, S., Funtowicz, S., 2005. GOUVERNe: new trends in decision support for groundwater governance issues. Environ. Modell. Softw. 20 (2), 111–118. Guimarães, A., Corral, S., 2002. From technocratic to participatory decision support systems: responding to the new governance initiatives. J. Geogr. Inf. Decis. Anal. 6 (2), 95–107. Hernández González, Y., Corral Quintana, S., 2016. An integrated assessment of alternative land-based passenger transport policies: a case study in Tenerife. Transp. Res.
715
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Social involvement in environmental governance: The relevance of quality assurance processes in forest planning
MARK
⁎
Serafin Corrala, , Maria Cristo Monagasb a Departamento de Economía Aplicada y Métodos Cuantitativos, Facultad de Economía, Empresa y Turismo, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Guajara, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain b Departamento de Economía Aplicada y Métodos Cuantitativos, Facultad de Economía, Empresa y Turismo, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Guajara, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Environmental governance Conflict situations Quality assurance Participatory techniques Social sensitivity analysis
Socio-environmental policy issues are characterized by inherent scientific uncertainty, ignorance and frequently by social discrepancies. Lack of recognition of the complexity and uncertainty of environmental issues has given rise to problems that have cast doubt on the adequacy of the science for policy model and traditionally employed evidence-based policy, thus leading to a crisis in science. In this context, there is a need for quality assurance procedures to assess policies and measures resulting from decision-making in environmental governance issues. Involving quality assurance in decision-making processes recognizes the different types of uncertainty related to an issue and the limits of problem-solving analysis. This approach requires participatory methodological frameworks in which stakeholders analyze the robustness of the assessment process used as well as the validity of assessment results. The approach considers governance as being a relative term depending on the historical, social, economic, political, environmental and cultural context in which it is developed. A participatory methodology is applied to an assessment of forest track alternatives on the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands). In this study, a social sensitivity analysis explores the social validity of this assessment through the concept of quality understood as ‘fitness for use’. Such a methodology facilitates processes of dialogue and consensus needed in decision-making in conflictive situations. As a result this methodology should serve as a reference for other places with similar situations.
1. Introduction Natural resource management processes have been characterized by uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes and urgent decisions (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). Likewise, forest management often concerns large areas, long time horizons and multiple stakeholders, which complicates planning processes and increases the uncertainty involved in it (Kangas and Kangas, 2004; Acosta and Corral, 2015). The uncertainty that characterizes environmental systems is also amplified when conflicts among stakeholders with opposing interests are present (Corral Quintana, 2004; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Funtowicz and De Marchi, 2000; Giampietro et al., 2006a). These circumstances greatly hinder the application of traditional scientific methodologies to tackle environmental governance issues, since available knowledge often consists of a mixture of (partial) knowledge, assumptions, and ignorance. The traditional model of science for policy was initially based on technocratic decision support systems (DSS) Guimarães and Corral
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Corral), [email protected] (M.C. Monagas).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.017 Received 10 August 2016; Received in revised form 5 July 2017; Accepted 7 July 2017 0264-8377/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(2002), —such as the Integrated Assessment Models, which emerged in the mid-1980s (van der Sluijs, 1997). They were an example of a ‘simplified' way of addressing issues, as they did not recognize complexity and uncertainty (Guimarães and Corral, 2002; Guimarães Pereira et al., 2005). Although they formally presented a multidisciplinary and integrated approach to environmental issues, several authors have highlighted their limitations when acting as tools for environmental decision-making (see for example Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis, 2007; Saltelli and Funtowicz, 2015; Sarewitz, 2000). In general, these authors argue that DSS are ‘plagued' with assumptions and simplifications, telling us very little about the issues they are considering. In particular, they are seen as ineffective tools offering a perception of illusory and deceptive knowledge and precision (Pilkey and PilkeyJarvis, 2007). Such an inadequate response by traditional ‘applied' science to complex problems that concern society has generated a crisis of legitimacy and confidence in decision-making systems (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). This, in turn, has given rise to a governance crisis,
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
referred to in works such as those by Funtowicz (2002), Giampietro et al. (2006b) or in the White Paper on European Governance (CEC, 2001). Given these circumstances, where uncertainty and ignorance are present and clashes between different interests occur; science has sought solutions that allow the participation of society (Ravetz, 2004). Thus, in recent decades, approaches that support decision-making and integrate tools through which stakeholders can be part of the planning process have proliferated, implying a combination of knowledge that should facilitate better understanding of natural resource governance issues (see for instance, the reviews carried out by Acosta and Corral, 2017; Díaz-Balteiro and Romero, 2008; Kangas and Kangas, 2005). Relying solely on formal scientific knowledge to make decisions is short-sighted: public perspectives can also help frame the issues. This is not to say that ‘citizen’ science or ‘indigenous technical knowledge’ is better than formal science; simply that engendering a wider range of perspectives can help cope with uncertainty. Although, the integration of social actors undoubtedly enriches planning processes, there are still key dimensions of uncertainty in the knowledge base of complex environmental problems that need to be addressed. These include technical (inexactness), methodological (unreliability), epistemological (ignorance), and societal (social robustness) ones (Van Der Sluijs et al., 2005). Authors such as Ravetz (2002), Pereira and Quintana (2009) or Saltelli and Giampietro (2016) explain the need to guarantee quality in political decision-making processes. In the last decades, quality control processes have been considered a fundamental practice for industrial activity, with quality being perceived as essential to satisfy the needs and expectations of the users. However, despite the mentioned uncertainties related to socio-environmental issues, quality assurance procedures in decision-making have not been encouraged (Corral Quintana, 2009). This is in spite of these procedures helping to reveal the robustness of assessment processes and their results. Often quantitative uncertainty and sensitivity assessment methods are used to evaluate the robustness of technical dimensions of assessment processes. Thus, uncertainty mainstream methods such as Monte Carlo analysis, subjective probability, or Bayesian are not suitable for environmental and societal issues because the main problem of these issues is that unquantifiable uncertainties dominate the quantifiable ones (Van Der Sluijs et al., 2008). Nevertheless, in situations where conflicting interests prevail, it is not enough to deal just with uncertainties of a technical nature (those related to the information available, the variables used and the model applied). In these cases, the legitimacy of the planning process is affected by epistemological and social uncertainties, putting this process into dispute and hampering decision-making. On the contrary to manufacturing processes of products and services in which quality guidelines and standards can be designed by experts, the inherent uncertainty in socio-environmental decision issues requires more extended processes. Thus, the involvement of stakeholders should be viewed as a quality assurance step in decision processes to ensure higher quality and identify alternative courses of action (CEC, 2001). This paper proposes a quality assurance methodology to explore the robustness of assessment processes and environmental planning in conflictive situations by involving different stakeholders. Furthermore, the results and conclusions are presented from the application of this approach to a case of integrated assessment of forest track management on the island of Tenerife.
Fig. 1. Social sensitivity analysis approach for socio-environmental issues.
sensitivity analysis (see Mowrer et al., 1996). Thus, the proposed methodology is based on inclusionary processes with the most relevant stakeholders discussing the main characteristics of the assessment process and its outcomes. This is known as Social Sensitivity Analysis (SSA). Therefore, participatory techniques are implemented, in which stakeholders assess the robustness of the process, the methods applied and the results obtained from a forest track planning assessment to achieve social validation of that assessment (see Fig. 1). This methodology will allow the robustness of the procedures and processes used to be analyzed. In this sense, although not all results are accepted by all stakeholders (as it is discussed in the next section), “their generation process is an open and transparent process in which the views of all parties are included” (Corral Quintana, 2004, p .193). Since social values are involved in so many planning processes (Munda, 2008), social sensitivity analysis (SSA) is needed. The main idea behind SSA is to return the planning assessment results to stakeholders, so that they can deal with complex issues in which they defend different/strong positions, even, on occasions, irreconcilable ones. SSA should not, however, be seen as a mere process of informing or consulting citizens, two of the lowest rungs on Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969). It is a means to climb further up the ladder to levels of citizen power or at least to assess the degree of social acceptance of any policies or measures to be carried out. Furthermore, in cases of strong opposite interest among stakeholders the initial assessment can be used as an excuse to promote a reflexive dialogue among the stakeholders about the issues at hand. As Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) point out, the problem solving dynamics in Post Normal Science involve the inclusion of a growing pool of legitimate participants in the process of ensuring the quality of scientific output. It is in this context that the concept of an extended peer community arises: ‘Recent experience has shown the need for important modifications in the process of quality assurance, such as changes to the traditional, largely informal, procedures of collegial peer review, in order to take into account the emergence of new forms of science, the increased competitiveness of the research enterprise, the impact of new technologies, and the inclusion of new stakeholders. Collegial peer review is being rapidly transformed to review by an “extended peer community” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2015, p. 680). Consequently, quality in this context of complexity and high uncertainty is not linked to quantitative indicators, or to previously agreed standards. In this case, the interpretation of quality is built on the experience of the ‘relevant community', not limited to the scientific community, or to a group of professional experts, but it is extended from the traditional peer review carried out by colleagues to an extended peer community, covering all groups with interests or affected by the issue in question, and ultimately the society. The quality thus understood is defined from: a) cognitive factors – knowledge of each of the parts –, b) axiological factors – set of values, which are made explicit – and c) procedural factors-ways of acting to solve the issue at hand. This interpretation of quality has, therefore, a multidimensional character, fruit of the dynamic interaction of
2. Method The proposed quality assurance process aims to explore the robustness of environmental governance, mainly natural resource planning processes, often characterized by systemic uncertainty and disagreements among stakeholders. The most commonly used technical approach to measure quantitative aspects of uncertainty, is known as 711
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
unlikely to be effectively implemented given the opposition and controversy.
different factors, which implies that it can be represented by a combination of attributes. It has a versatile character with the existence of feedback, so its interpretation is variable. There is also a purpose-oriented character, thus ‘fitness for use', in the context of complex problem solving, is defined as the ability or aptitude of a process to respond to certain requirements, that is, to contribute to the search for solutions. Thus, it is important to emphasize that the characteristics described for quality at this level, coincide with the characteristics attributed to the environmental governance itself. Focusing on the idea of quality as ‘fitness for use', it is constructed from a basic pattern, in our case, from a series of attributes desirable for the governance of natural resources. Fitness for use is a common denominator from which different perspectives allow the concept of quality to be molded and contextualized to apply a ‘basic model' or ‘starting pattern’ (Corral Quintana, 2009). This exercise of exploring the quality of a complex problem, allows those aspects inherent in the complexity itself to “surface”, which must be analyzed or discussed. SSA is essentially a social validation of assessment results (Corral Quintana, 2004; Hernández González and Corral Quintana, 2016; Hernández-González and Corral, 2017; Corral and Hernandez, 2017) that explores the robustness of the assessment and the feasibility of the results obtained according to stakeholders’ knowledge. “The term SSA refers to the most frequently applied sensitivity analysis aimed at testing the robustness of the results of a model or system in the presence of uncertainty, as well as at understanding the relationships between input and output variables in a system or model. This validation process is carried out through the involvement of stakeholders” (Hernández González and Corral Quintana, 2016, p. 206). SSA is performed using different inclusive techniques (i.e. focus groups, citizen-juries …) in which stakeholders through dialogue can debate not only the issue framing, the information used, the assessment procedure but also the results. In addition, with this type of process, stakeholders may have the opportunity to reach consensus situations that would not have been otherwise possible (Corral and Hernandez, 2017). In this sense, Pereira, Corral Quintana and Funtowicz (2005) suggest the tools used in decision-making should be understood as conceptual tools to develop debates, dialogues and discussions among social partners or as coined by these authors: TIDDD (Tool to Inform Debates, Dialogues & Deliberations). Through these tools not only is knowledge provided to generate and organize discussion processes, but also to complement the knowledge with the information arising from the process. In fact, the potential benefits of stakeholders’ engagement in environmental governance are various (Giering, 2011): (a) ownership of policies, (b) better decisions in terms of sustainability and the inclusion of community values, (c) credibility of public agencies, and (d) faster planning implementation. This is what Susskind and Elliott (1983) described more than thirty years ago as “coproduction”. Jones (2011) focused on these processes highlighting accessibility problems and then identifying potential solutions, through the implementation of focus groups and stimulus materials. These are generally carried out through the implementation of different social techniques and participatory approaches such as interviews, questionnaires and more inclusive tools, such as citizen juries or focus groups. In addition, SSA aims at diminishing the technocratic nature of assessment processes in decision-making. It not only allows stakeholders to track the information obtained at the beginning of the assessments, but also all the way through to the results of the assessment. This situation gives the planning processes a feeling of proximity and transparency, thereby contributing to people’s confidence in the results Thus, SSA allows stakeholders to be linked from the beginning to the end in environmental planning processes, thereby helping to respond to conflicts among users. For example, Garmendia and Gamboa (2012) detected when analyzing the results of an assessment exercise on the alternatives that one of the alternatives given priority in technical analysis was the least valued by stakeholders. Therefore, it would be
3. Case study The proposed methodology is applied to an integrated assessment of policy alternatives to address problems of regulating forest track use on the island of Tenerife. The island has 2000 km of forest tracks and a network of 200 kilometers that have been established for vehicle circulation for recreational purposes, with restrictions depending on the characteristics of the vehicles. Over the years, the local population has changed its use and view of the island’s forests. People have reduced their use of forest resources as economic inputs, while gradually increasing their need for areas of leisure activities. For example, García Mesa (2011) highlights that between 1950 and 1960; the banana sector required forest pine needles to protect bananas during transport. Additionally, it was common to use the forest to provide wood for fuel until the 1970s, when demand declined with the arrival of butane and with the abandonment of farming. Nowadays, the forest has become a place for recreation, where sporting and educational activities are carried out instead of the traditional practices of providing raw materials. According to Quirantes González et al. (2011), the majority of people who visit forests come from urban areas attracted by the natural, ecological and scenic characteristics of forests. The increase in the number of visitors to forest areas has also involved a significant rise in the use of motorized means of transport −with a current rate of 4500 permits per year and an annual growth rate of 20% This has produced a deterioration in the land surface, implying not only environmental degradation but a substantial increase in maintenance costs – both economic and human resource ones – according to Tenerife’s Island Government: the body responsible for the forest planning and management on the island (Cabildo de Tenerife, 2011). The integrated assessment carried out was based on the combination of three approaches: Institutional Analysis (IA), Participatory Techniques (PT) and Multi-criteria Assessment methods (MA). Initially, IA was conducted with the dual purpose of first identifying the most relevant stakeholders and providing an initial view about perceptions and positions, and secondly, to detect likely problems related to the case (Corral Quintana, 2004; Acosta and Corral, 2015; Corral-Quintana et al., 2016). It was based on a historical review and analysis of the past 15 years of press articles, as well as interviews with several experts in the field. As a result, the most relevant stakeholders involved in the process were revealed together with their positions and mechanisms of interaction. Through the application of several PT (two rounds of questionnaires and 15 interviews were carried out), stakeholders raised several forest tracks management issues, mainly related to the activities of motor vehicles in the forest environment, and the existing conflicts between vehicle users and non-vehicle users concerning issues such as speed or noise. Together, a set of assessment alternatives (see Table 1) and criteria (see Table 2) were elicited from such involvement processes. The assessment of alternatives was carried out by means of pairwise comparison with respect to each assessment criterion generating a ranking of alternatives using the NAIADE multi-criteria method Table 1 Forest alternatives. Source: Acosta and Corral (2015). Alternatives Traffic circulation restricted to emergencies Unrestricted traffic circulation. One-way systems Pre-paid traffic circulation charge Do not do anything; hereafter known as “BAU.”
712
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
this result, since almost 90% of these criteria considered the alternative as being “very good”, “good” or “moderate.” As Acosta and Corral (2015) point out, given these results: Should the best-positioned alternative in the ranking (“pre-paid charge for traffic circulation”) be implemented? If so, it is likely that the number of vehicles using the forest would decrease, since having to pay would lead to some individuals deciding not to use their vehicles in the forest. This would, in turn, lead to a reduction in pollution (noise, exhaust fumes, and dust), contributing to the conservation of the forest environment. On the other hand, it is a decision that would not be well received by some segments of the population, as discussed in the next section.
Table 2 Forest Assessment Criteria. Source: Acosta and Corral (2015). Dimensions
Forest planning alternatives
Environmental
Effects on erosion Effects on landscapes and aesthetics Oxygenation Emission of pollutants Particles and dust in the air Effects on the water cycle Introduced/threatened species
Socio-economic
Economic cost Effects on employment Effects on other productive activities (leisure, services, quad bike sales,…) Effects on agriculture Environmental awareness Accessibility Maintaining traditions Functionality and state of recreational areas Opportunities to do leisure, sport, health activities… For traffic circulation State of forest tracks Accessibility of emergency services Evacuation during fires Evacuation during other emergencies
Institutional
4. Results of the social sensitivity analysis The resulting ranking of alternatives was based on the best scientific and social knowledge available. However, this does not imply acceptance by all stakeholders. In fact, due to the evident tensions existing among stakeholders among those in favor of regulating the access to forest tracks and those asking for free access (Acosta and Corral, 2015), the assessment of the different policy alternatives is not enough to understand the political issues in hand. In order to carry out the SSA; a participatory focus groups was selected. This technique allows qualitative data to be obtained through group discussions (Morgan, 1997). Given the large number of groups involved in the initial study (28 in total), and considering that, according to some authors, focus groups require a small number of participants, that is between 6 and 12 participants, as several authors suggest (Aigneren, 2002; Escobar and Bonilla-Jimenez, 2009; Calvente and Rodríguez, 2000), it was decided to reduce the number of participants. To do this, two criteria were taken into account to form the groups: (1) inviting those who could nourish the process the most, (2) representing all the stakeholder collectives. Finally, there were 11 participants representing each of the collectives (see Table 3). The focus group discussion initially addressed the results of the ranking of alternatives. Since both alternatives and criteria had emerged from surveys conducted in the first phase of the assessment (Acosta and Corral, 2015), participants in the focus group only knew about the information that each had contributed in the aforementioned surveys, therefore they were unaware of the proposals of other participants. Initially, all alternatives were well received by all stakeholders, agreeing that the best alternative was “Traffic circulation by a pre-paid charge” (E) in those specific areas where users receive a service, such as enjoying specific activities or unique landscape areas. This result agrees with that obtained both in the first analysis. The ‘Pre-paid traffic charge’ option was considered the best alternative and some politicians were in favor of a variant of this alternative. However, the proposed payment of 50 cents or even one euro, which the majority of tourists would pay to gain access to a forest environment on the island, was considered unacceptable by Tenerife’s residents, since the prevalent local opinion is that they should not have to pay for something they own. Due to this reticence about access payment, a combination of a prepaid traffic charge with the alternative of maintaining the current situation for residents should also be taken into consideration by
Time period of actions Social acceptance
(Munda, 1995; JRC, 1996; Corral et al., 2015). Such assessment depends on the number of criteria in favor of a specific alternative and the intensity of the preference for each criterion. Thus, the final ranking is based on the degree of credibility, whereby one alternative is much better, better, approximately equal, equal, worse or much worse in relation to another alternative. Fig. 2 shows the ranking of alternatives from the best ranked to the worst, according to the selected assessment criteria. Regarding the assessment results, the best alternative was E, corresponding to traffic circulation by pre-paid charge. Alternatives A (BAU: maintain current situation) and B (Traffic circulation restricted to emergencies) were the next best ones in the ranking, both at the same level. Finally, alternatives C (Unrestricted traffic circulation) and D (one-way system on forest tracks) were located at the bottom of the ranking. The majority of the environmental criteria favored alternative E (pre-paid charge for traffic circulation); in fact, approximately 90% of these criteria were assessed as being “good.” Regarding alternative A, identified as “BAU: maintain current situation,” the socio-environmental criteria supported its position in the ranking. At the same position as A is alternative B, with environmental criteria also favoring
Table 3 List of groups that participated in the focus-group. Source: Corral and Acosta (2017)
Fig. 2. Ranking of forest alternatives assessment. Source: Acosta and Corral (2015)
713
Collective groups
Number of participants
Public managers Users (with motor vehicles) Users (without motor vehicles) Surveillance, security, emergency and rescue Private companies
2 1 2 3 3
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
scientists and, therefore, should be collectively assessed through a new social contract between the scientific community and society. In view of the results, performing a social validation of forest alternatives is very interesting. While sensitivity analysis ensures the technical robustness of the alternatives’ assessment, it is through social sensitivity analysis that the discussion of the results with stakeholders leads to the discovery of new aspects of the problem and possibly unexpected actions. For example, in the present case, during the debate on forest management, stakeholders proposed completely new alternatives. Similarly, these participatory assessment processes foster knowledge sharing, thereby overcoming misinformation and helping to reach consensus, all generated through dialogue between stakeholders. Additionally, through validation, understanding among stakeholders is facilitated, approaching positions and achieving compromise solutions. Thus, during discussions on the forest alternatives, those attending the focus group considered the same alternative as the initial assessment to be relevant. This situation of consensus was unthinkable at the beginning of this investigation, because during the interviews and surveys conflicts between different collectives were perceived. Development of social sensitivity analysis has allowed this consensus to emerge, reducing the marked divergence between views perceived earlier in the process. As an example of this disparity, one can mention the widespread perception held in initial interviews among the forest sports collective that does not make use of motor vehicle. This collective felt that the noise and speed of some of the vehicles disturbed the quality of visits to the forest environment. These conflicts have been reduced through dialogue generated during the development of focus groups. Finally, although the purpose of the focus group was not to make decisions on the implementation of alternatives, managers have witnessed the widespread demand and interest of participants in forest track planning. This will help give them the notion of how to continue addressing forestry issues so as to avoid, as far as possible, rejections by the population (such as in this case study, the resolution governing the motorized traffic by forest tracks Tenerife, which was perceived negatively by respondents). In conclusion, the development of quality assurance procedures, such as social sensitivity analysis, is essential for validating the results of an assessment process. Without this type of analysis, it can be said that assessments are marked by a technocratic character, an aspect this study has sought to avoid since the beginning. Moreover, when issues affecting society are being dealt with, the participation of stakeholders should be allowed. A key benefit of this approach is the greater consensus of views among the different collectives that has been made possible through dialogue. In addition, quality assurance not only contributes to the transparency of the decision-making process, but also conveys confidence to the people involved. Thus, in cases of natural resource planning, the use of social sensitivity analysis provides a greater strength to policy-making assessment. Such analysis not only makes the process more transparent, but can also promote more stable decisions. Framing the evaluation process as a quality assurance one where at each level an extended community intervenes in order to ensure that the outcomes are fit for use does not seem an unviable proposal. The real challenge is the implementation of such quality checks as part of institutional practices.
decision-makers. The joint implementation of these alternatives would increase the monetary contribution to the conservation of the forest environment on the island and contribute to the more peaceful coexistence of different forest stakeholder communities. In addition, the collective “Monitoring, Security, Emergency and Rescue” (part of the surveillance group) proposed the establishment of “mixed” alternatives to consider different forest activities and/or different forest areas. This might help adapt alternatives to new situations and demands by society. In this sense, the “Public Managers” group proposed a new joint alternative to consider the “BAU” alternative (which was ranked second in the initial ranking) whenever there were reviews of existing regulations to adapt to changes and new needs the forest system. This new proposal, “BAU” with regulatory review, was welcomed and supported by all the groups present. In addition, all stakeholders agreed on the importance of disclosure and information on forest regulations due to the population's lack of awareness in this area, as well as on promoting awareness campaigns on the importance of forests in the education system. Thus, in relation to the alternatives, all agreed to implement an alternative “BAU” when contemplating regulatory reviews so that any review would have to adapt to the changes and new needs of the forest system. However, there was a clear division between stakeholders, as groups “Sport (using motor vehicle)", ‘Business’ and “Sport” (without using vehicles motor) gave priority to the alternative” Improving surveillance and access control”, while the other groups “Managers” and “Monitoring, Security, Emergency and Rescue” favored prioritizing the alternative “Delineate the areas of use”. Despite this division in the focus group, there was a willingness of participants to improve the development of all activities through dialogue with the other groups and to share their needs in the forest environment. 5. Conclusions This paper has discussed the need to recognize the complexity and uncertainty of science used as a support for political decision-making, and hence the need to incorporate quality analysis approaches into governance processes. Therefore social quality assurance procedures should be applied to validate the results derived from assessment processes of public policy alternatives. Assessment processes used in natural resource governance usually involve systemic uncertainty and strong opposing interests. Some methods used to support environmental decision-making are based on assumptions and simplifications of reality, that is, on the search for ‘panaceas', which in some cases lead to the adoption of decisions under conditions of ‘hypocognition'. However, these issues cannot be analyzed in isolation from the social context in which they occur. They are influenced by interests, perspectives, opinions, knowledge and different perceptions (Corral Quintana, 2009). The development of quality assurance procedures for planning processes aims at recognizing the different types of uncertainty related to the issue and the limits of the problem-solving analysis. Additionally, quality assurance provides policy processes with a level of transparency considered essential when dealing with conflictive policy issues where different opinions, perceptions, and interests are at stake. When developing forest planning processes or similar processes in which decisions are taken that may affect stakeholders; it is necessary to apply methodologies that allow society to participate in these processes. In particular, technical sensitivity analysis is necessary but not sufficient in these situations, where conflict may occur. When a mixture of (partial) knowledge, assumptions, and ignorance are involved, science should look for solutions to overcome these limitations by means of public participation. Therefore, sensitivity analysis should be expanded to include approaches where the decision-making processes become relevant. For instance, who decides in a DSS assessment the criteria to assess a range of alternative options? Who decides the direction of these criteria? Clearly, these are decisions that are beyond
References Acosta, M., Corral, S., 2015. Participatory multi-criteria assessment of forest planning policies in conflicting situations: the case of tenerife. Forests 6 (11), 3946–3969. Acosta, M., Corral, S., 2017. Multicriteria decision analysis and participatory decision support systems in forest management. Forests 8 (4), 116. Aigneren, M. (2002), La técnica de recolección de información mediante los grupos focales. Revista Electrónica La Sociología En Sus Escenarios, N°6. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35 (4), 216–224. Commission of the European Communities (CEC), (2001), European Governance: A White
714
Land Use Policy 67 (2017) 710–715
S. Corral, M.C. Monagas
Part A: Pol. Pract. 89, 201–214. Hernández-González, Y., Corral, S., 2017. An extended peer communities’ knowledge sharing approach for environmental governance. Land Use Policy 63, 140–148. JRC. (1996). NAIADE manual and tutorial-versión 1.0. ENG. ispra site: Joint research centre of the european commission. Jones, P., 2011. Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 2, 29–41. Kangas, A.S., Kangas, J., 2004. Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. For. Pol. Econ. 6 (2), 169–188. http://dx.doi.org.accedys2.bbtk.ull.es/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00083-7. Kangas, J., Kangas, A., 2005. Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. For. Ecol. Manag. 207, 133–143. Morgan, D.L., 1997. The Focus Group Guidebook. Sage publications, London. Mowrer, H.T., Czaplewski, R.L., Hamre, R., 1996. In: Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences: Second International Symposium. Fort collins, CO, USA, may 21–23, 1996. (USDA forest service, rocky mountain research station, general technical report RM-GTR-277, p. 728). Munda, G., 1995. Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment: Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag. Munda, G., 2008. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Springer. Pereira, Â.G., Quintana, S.C., 2009. 3 pillars and 1 beam: quality of river basin governance processes. Ecol. Econ. 68 (4), 940–954. Pilkey, O.H., Pilkey-Jarvis, L., 2007. Useless arithmetic. Why Environmental Scientist Can’t Predict the Future. Columbia University Press, New York. Quirantes González, F., Núñez Pestano, J.R., García Mesa, D.A., Viña Brito, A., 2011. Los Montes de Tenerife a Través de su Historia. Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Spain. Ravetz, J. (2002). Dealing with uncertainty in numbers. Draft paper. Retrieved from nusap.net. Ravetz, J., 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 36 (3), 347–357. Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S., 2015. Evidence-based policy at the end of the Cartesian dream. In: Guimarães Pereira, Â., Funtowicz, S. (Eds.), Science, Philosophy and Sustainability. Routledge, London and New York. Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., 2016. The fallacy of evidence-based policy. In: Benessia, A., Funtowicz, S., Giampietro, M., Guimarães Pereira, Â., Ravetz, J., Saltelli, A., Strand, R., van der Sluijs, J. (Eds.), The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, AZ, pp. 31–70. Sarewitz, D., 2000. Science and environmental policy: an excess of objectivity. In: Hall, U.S.R.P. (Ed.), Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy and the Claimes of Community, pp. 79–98. Sluijs, J.V.D., 1997. Anchoring amid uncertainty. On the Management of Uncertainties in Risk Assessment of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Universiteit Utrecht. Susskind, L., Elliott, M., 1983. Paternalism, conflict, and coproduction: learning from citizen action and citizen participation in western Europe. In: Susskind, L., Elliott, M., associates, a (Eds.), Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Wester Europe. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New York pp. 3–34. Van Der Sluijs, Jeroen P, Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., Risbey, J., 2005. Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in modelbased environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Anal. 25 (2), 481–492. Van Der Sluijs, J., Douguet, J.M., O’Connor, M., Pereira, Â.G., Quintana, S.C., Maxim, L., Ravetz, J.R., 2008. Qualité de la connaissance dans un processus délibératif. Nat. Sci. Soc. 16 (3), 265–273.
Paper, COM(2001) 428, Brussels, 25 July 2001. Available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm. Cabildo de Tenerife Resolución R0000319624 de 14 de abril de 2011. Área de Sostenibilidad, Territorio y Medio Ambiente. Servicio Administrativo de Medio Ambiente. 2011. Calvente, M.G., Rodríguez, I.M., 2000. El grupo focal como técnica de investigación cualitativa en salud: Diseño y puesta en práctica. Atención Primaria 25 (3), 181–186. Corral Quintana S. (2004). Una metodología integrada de exploración y comprensión de los procesos de elaboración de políticas públicas (Universidad de La Laguna). Corral Quintana, S., 2009. A quality assurance framework for policy-making: proposing a quality assurance assistant tool (QAAT). Science for Policy. New Challenges, New Opportunities. Corral, S., Acosta, M., 2017. Social sensitivity analysis in conflictive environmental governance: a case of forest planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 65, 54–62. Corral, S., Hernandez, Y., 2017. Social sensitivity analyses applied to environmental assessment processes. Ecol. Econ. 141, 1–10. Corral, S., Legna-de la Nuez, D., de Lara, D.R.M., 2015. Integrated assessment of biofuel production in arid lands: Jatropha cultivation on the island of Fuerteventura. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 41–53. Corral-Quintana, S., Legna-de la Nuez, D., Legna Verna Hernández, C.J.H., RomeroManrique de Lara, D., 2016. How to improve strategic decision-making in complex systems when only qualitative information is available. Land Use Policy 50, 83–101. Díaz-Balteiro, L., Romero, C., 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For. Ecol. Manag. 255, 3222–3241. Escobar, J., Bonilla-Jimenez, F.I., 2009. Grupos focales: Una guía conceptual y metodológica. Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos De Psicología 9 (1), 51–67. Funtowicz, S., De Marchi, B. (2000). Ciencia posnormal, complejidad reflexiva y sustentabilidad. la complejidad ambiental. México, Siglo, Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R., 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. Ecol. Econ. Sci. Manage. Sustain. 10, 137. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R. (1993). La ciencia posnormal: Ciencia con la gente Icaria editorial. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 2015. Peer review and quality control. In: In: Wright, J.D. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of The Social & Behavioral Sciences Vol. 17. Oxford, pp. 680–684. García Mesa, D.A. Los Aprovechamientos Forestales en la Segunda Mitad del Siglo XX; Quirantes González, F., Núñez Pestano, J.R., Eds.; Historia de los montes de Tenerife: La Laguna, Spain, 2011. Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., 2012. Weighting social preferences in participatory multicriteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management. Ecol. Econ. 84, 110–120. Giampietro, M., Allen, T.F.H., Mayumi, K., 2006a. Science for governance: the implications of the complexity revolution. Interfaces Between Sci. Soc. 82–99. Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Munda, G., 2006b. Integrated assessment and energy analysis: quality assurance in multi-criteria analysis of sustainability. Energy 31 (1), 59–86. Giering, S. (2011). Public participation strategies for transit Transportation Research Board. Guimarães Pereira, Â., Corral Quintana, S., Funtowicz, S., 2005. GOUVERNe: new trends in decision support for groundwater governance issues. Environ. Modell. Softw. 20 (2), 111–118. Guimarães, A., Corral, S., 2002. From technocratic to participatory decision support systems: responding to the new governance initiatives. J. Geogr. Inf. Decis. Anal. 6 (2), 95–107. Hernández González, Y., Corral Quintana, S., 2016. An integrated assessment of alternative land-based passenger transport policies: a case study in Tenerife. Transp. Res.
715