The expert-public interface in municipal waste management decision making: exploring opinions from stakeholder groups

Local authorities need to find more effective ways to engage communities because public participation in collection schemes and acceptance of municipal waste facilities are integral to delivering effective waste strategies. The technical expertise politicians relied on in the past, to produce cost-effective and environmentally sound solutions, no longer provides sufficient justification to approve waste facilities. A new conceptualization of the relationship between science and politics, whereby there is some balance in the use of expert and local knowledge, is required to legitimize waste policy decisions. This paper aims to develop a better understanding of what happens at the interface between ‘expert' and ‘public' in municipal waste management decision making. It establishes opinions on the extent to which public values and preferences may be considered in practice in order to avoid or resolve controversial issues by gaining public consent.

Framework for an analytical-deliberative process for municipal waste management decision making.

Local authorities need to find more effective ways to involve stakeholders and communities in decision-making since public acceptance of municipal waste facilities is integral to delivering effective waste strategies. This study explores the potential for adopting an analytical-deliberative process in a UK waste management context. It addresses questions of perception, interests, the decision context, the means of engagement and the necessary resources and capacity for adopting an iterative decision process. A mixed methods approach was used to gather empirical data through combined interviews and questionnaires with local authorities, waste industry experts, government officials and regulators, environmental campaigners and other community groups. The main output from the research is an empirical framework which captures and builds on theories of public involvement and the experiences of practitioners, and is intended to offer guidance for integrating analysis and deliberation in different waste management situations. The framework includes guidelines for greater inclusivity in decisions on contentious technologies or where there are high levels of uncertainty regarding the outcome of decisions. The empirical findings reveal that one of the more fundamental challenges to adopting an analytical-deliberative process in a UK waste management context is creating effective dialogue in a regulatory culture where participatory democracy is not the dominant political ideology. This appears to be more significant at the strategic planning level, where past institutional assumptions about public ignorance and incompetence may still hold, posing important methodological challenges to adopting analytical-deliberative processes. At the facility planning stage, there is greater awareness (among local authorities) of the benefits of analytical-deliberative structures. These benefits are associated with greater opportunities for trading-off impacts to the local community, thus addressing concerns around perceptions of social equity, fairness and legitimacy of the decision process. Overall, the research reveals the importance of engaging different stakeholders early in the decision process, specifically where issues are contentious or uncertain, to obtain a better understanding of decision needs and establish appropriate rules for successful public involvement

How Governance Regimes Shape the Implementation of Water Reuse Schemes

The governance dimensions of water reuse scheme development and operation, such as policies and regulatory frameworks, and public involvement and stakeholder collaboration, can serve to both facilitate and constrain wider adoption of water reuse practices. This paper explores the significance and underlying structure of the key governance challenges facing the water reuse sector in Europe. It presents empirical evidence from interviews and focus group sessions conducted at four water reuse schemes: an indirect potable reuse scheme at Torreele (Belgium), the urban reuse of treated municipal wastewater at the London Olympic Park (United Kingdom) and at Sabadell (Spain), and the reuse of agro-industrial effluent for irrigation at Capitanata (Italy). The findings underscore the importance of clarity in policy arrangements around water reuse, as well as of the financial competitiveness of reuse projects compared to alternative water supply options. Operators of water reuse schemes expressed a preference for water quality standards, which focus on appropriateness for use rather than over-emphasise the waters’ origin so that unnecessary treatment and costs can be avoided. Positive public support was widely acknowledged as an important factor in the success or failure of water reuse schemes. We conclude that constructive institutional relationships underpin many of the challenges faced by reuse scheme operators and that greater emphasis should be given to building confidence and gaining trust in water service providers through early identification of how governance regimes shape the viability of new scheme

The expert-public interface in municipal waste management decision making: exploring opinions from stakeholder groups

Local authorities need to find more effective ways to engage communities because public participation in collection schemes and acceptance of municipal waste facilities are integral to delivering effective waste strategies. The technical expertise politicians relied on in the past, to produce cost-effective and environmentally sound solutions, no longer provides sufficient justification to approve waste facilities. A new conceptualization of the relationship between science and politics, whereby there is some balance in the use of expert and local knowledge, is required to legitimize waste policy decisions. This paper aims to develop a better understanding of what happens at the interface between ‘expert’ and ‘public’ in municipal waste management decision making. It establishes opinions on the extent to which public values and preferences may be considered in practice in order to avoid or resolve controversial issues by gaining public consent

Developing Communities of Practice: the role of a Centre for Excellence in fostering staff communities

Communities of practice (CoPs) are increasingly seen as 'an efficient tool for creating and sharing knowledge among professionals' (Cremers and Valkenburg, 2008: 333). In this paper we discuss some of the approaches, taken by the Centre for Promoting Learner Autonomy (CPLA) to develop communities of practice. CPLA is a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in a post-1992 HE institution in the North of England. The CETL aims to foster learner autonomy through support for innovation, scholarship and strategic development. An important element of the strategy is the development of Communities of Practice. For instance, many of the strategic initiatives of the CETL have emerged as either CoPs or similar 'sites' for fostering a sense of community (either exclusively among staff or between staff and students). On the other hand, other strategic initiatives have not developed into CoPs. This is a reflective paper that discusses our attempts to develop, support and grow Communities of Practice amongst staff of the University. While student communities are undoubtedly being fostered as well, this paper focuses exclusively on staff communities, primarily because the remit of the CETL concerns supporting staff in their efforts to foster learner autonomy among their students

Analysis of critical thinking skills across an international, cross-institutional student group

Academic programmes implicitly require critical thinking, and increasingly the requirement for critical thinking is explicit as part of autonomous and inquiry based learning. Because of the different cultural and learning backgrounds across a global student group, there is not a single, uniform understanding of and approach to critical thinking. This presentation describes research conducted to explore engineering students conceptualisation of critical thinking, with a view to using the findings to contribute to improved design of academic programmes. Research subjects were a cross-institutional, global group of masters level engineering students; the investigation spanned two separate academic cohorts each in two different institutions. A set of attributes giving evidence of critical thinking was determined from the literature (Castle, Colucciello and Profetto-McGrath). A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to provide insights into emerging themes. Focus groups were used to identify key themes, and questionnaires will be used to further explore those themes and confirm initial findings. Statistical measures of analysis such as variance and correlation of ranks will highlight similarities and differences in how groups of students conceptualise critical thinking. The preliminary research has confirmed an inconsistent development of critical thinking attribute

Public involvement in local waste strategy development and facility planning: exploring opinions from stakeholder groups

Stakeholders and communities need to be given an early opportunity to shape local waste policy in order to encourage the swift planning, development and acceptance of alternative technologies needed to meet imminent statutory targets to divert materials from landfill. Some local authorities in the UK are testing more participatory methods such as citizen juries and consensus panels but these one-off exercises have to date not been capitalized upon in building experiences and expertise. This paper presents preliminary findings from a qualitative study that explores the socio-technical nature of the municipal waste problem and establishes stakeholders' opinions on the mode or level of participation appropriate for decisions on the treatment and disposal of residual wast

Assessing the Impact of Voluntary Certification Schemes on Future Sustainable Coffee Production

Coffee production faces major sustainability issues and consumers increasingly look to choose certified coffee as awareness grows. While consumers’ understanding of sustainability issues is limited, independent voluntary certification schemes such as Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, and certified organic—three high-profile schemes—can play a role in future-proofing coffee production through standard-setting. These schemes can also inform consumers about sustainability issues from economic, environmental, and social perspectives, thus driving up demand for sustainably grown coffee, and supporting an enabling environment for farmers and coffee-producing countries to improve the status quo. Sustainably grown coffee ensures that farmers sustain production while protecting the environment and the income that farmers rely on to maintain their livelihood. Based on a thematic analysis and synthesis of previous studies, this paper examines the social, economic, and environmental effects of voluntary certification schemes for coffee production. It evaluates the current state of coffee production and explores how certification schemes can be effective in encouraging more sustainable practices among producers. Three major voluntary certification schemes are evaluated to identify the impacts on producers, including key barriers and enablers to comply with sustainability standards and to determine how fit-for-purpose certification schemes are in assuring future sustainable coffee production

Strategic risk appraisal. Comparing expert- and literature-informed consequence assessments for environmental policy risks receiving national attention

Strategic risk appraisal (SRA) has been applied to compare diverse policy level risks to and from the environment in England and Wales. Its application has relied on expert-informed assessments of the potential consequences from residual risks that attract policy attention at the national scale. Here we compare consequence assessments, across environmental, economic and social impact categories that draw on ‘expert’- and ‘literature-based’ analyses of the evidence for 12 public risks appraised by Government. For environmental consequences there is reasonable agreement between the two sources of assessment, with expert-informed assessments providing a narrower dispersion of impact severity and with median values similar in scale to those produced by an analysis of the literature. The situation is more complex for economic consequences, with a greater spread in the median values, less consistency between the two assessment types and a shift toward higher severity values across the risk portfolio. For social consequences, the spread of severity values is greater still, with no consistent trend between the severities of impact expressed by the two types of assessment. For the latter, the findings suggest the need for a fuller representation of socioeconomic expertise in SRA and the workshops that inform SRA output

Integrating horizon scanning and strategic risk prioritisation using a weight of evidence framework to inform policy decisions

Poor connection between data on emerging issues and credible policy decisions continues to challenge governments, and is only likely to grow as demands on time and resources increase. Here we summarise recent efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation approaches to better connect emerging issues to the political discourse on environmental and food-related issues. Our categorisation of insights including potential future risks and opportunities to inform policy discussions has emerged from a structured three-year programme of horizon scanning for a UK pan-governmental futures partnership led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Our efforts to integrate horizon scanning and risk prioritisation, utilising a qualitative weight of evidence framework, has created a systematic process for identifying all signals of potential future change with significant impact for the strategic mission and underlying values of policy actors. Our approach encourages an exploration of factors out of the control of organisations, recognising that resilience depends on the flexibility of management strategies and the preparedness to deal with a variety of unexpected outcomes. We discuss how this approach addresses key cultural and evaluative challenges that policy actors have had in embedding horizon scanning in evidence-based policy processes, and suggest further developments to build confidence in the use of horizon scanning for strategic planning