Stakeholder Integration and Participatory Processes as Part of an Ecosystem-Based and Integrated Natural Hazard Risk Management

Abstract

Participatory processes have been receiving growing attention in recent decades, especially in the environmental field. There is no unique way for designing and managing a participatory process: different types of integrating stakeholders and communities have been applied, encompassing different scopes. Participatory processes become necessary when addressing complex environmental challenges, which require flexible and transparent approaches embracing diverse knowledge and values. Integrated risk management, including Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) measures, is one example of such a challenge, being a joint responsibility of public institutions at different levels of public management and of the private sector. The project GreenRisk4ALPs is an example of how including local experts can be translated into practice. A stakeholder network analysis was carried out, which provided the basis to select the stakeholders involved in the subsequent participatory processes and to identify conflicts and interests related to Eco-DRR. Building upon this analysis, Rapid Risk management Appraisal workshops were carried out in different study areas to jointly analyze the strengths and weaknesses related to current risk management practices. Overall, the involvement of stakeholders from the beginning allowed to respond to their needs contributing to the improvement of risk management strategies in the Alpine Region.

1. Introduction

Participation can be described as a process by which communities work together towards change [1]. More specifically, participation can be seen as the “process where public or stakeholder individuals, groups, and/or organizations are involved in making decisions that affect them, whether passively via consultation or actively via two-way engagement” [2].

In recent decades, there has been growing attention to community and stakeholder participation touching a wide range of applications such as watershed, ecosystem or forest management, agricultural development, environmental governance, and land use planning [3], and for assessing community and environmental needs, especially in the context of development projects [1, 4]. This growing interest in participatory processes is also reflected in a range of international agreements. Already in 1992, more than 150 states agreed at the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens [5]. Other agreements calling for public participation include, for example, the Earth Summit, the European Landscape Convention, the Aarhus Convention, and the European Water Framework Directive [3].

Participatory approaches’ purposes can vary, ranging from providing information and collecting inputs from stakeholders to negotiation and solving a problem or strengthening local capacity. Although participatory approaches did not originate as a method for research, they can also be used to produce detailed narratives of a certain topic in an interactive and collaborative manner, promoting learning and generating research data through a process of “guided discovery” [6]. Due to its application in diverse contexts for several decades, participation has acquired an ideological, social, political and methodological meaning, giving rise to a wide range of interpretations [4].

In this context, this chapter first provides an overview about the different types of participation, including their advantages and limitations (section 2). Section 3 goes more into detail about the participatory processes related to natural hazard risk management, while section 4 provides examples of participatory approaches adopted specifically within the Interreg Alpine Space project GreenRisk4ALPs [7]. Finally, some recommendations are given (section 5).

2. Types of participatory approaches, advantages and limitations

Participatory mechanisms vary greatly in form and aims, ranging from traditional (e.g., public meetings) to more innovative approaches (e.g., consensus conferences) and from instruments that collect responses of participants operating alone (e.g., surveys) to those involving participants interacting in groups (e.g., focus groups) [8]. The degree of participation can also vary, spanning from participants as passive recipients of information to engaging them in decision-making processes [9]. Moreover, also the people invited to participate vary: participatory approaches can be generally divided into methods with stakeholder involvement and methods with the involvement of the general public [10]. The distinction between public participation and stakeholder engagement is reflected in academic literature where stakeholders and citizens or the general public represent clearly differentiated entities [11, 12]. Stakeholders often represent sectorial or focused interests and shared preferences on a specific issue, while the general public generally represents the public good [12].

A necessary early step to be able to describe but also implement participatory methods is the definition and identification of stakeholders to involve [13, 14]. To achieve fair and socially representative processes, criteria have been developed. In the environmental field for instance, these criteria include classifications such as in individuals, groups and organizations who are affected by or can affect an environmental management issue and who may be interested in or impacted by it [11, 12, 15]. The practitioner is therefore required to investigate all the complex societal structures to determine who achieves the “stakeholder status” for the specific issue to be addressed within the engagement process [12].

Typologies have also been developed to classify the variety of existing participatory approaches. They can be based on different criteria: for instance, they can classify the different degrees of participation [16], the objectives for which participation is used or the direction of the communication flow [17]. These classifications can be used post-hoc as an evaluation tool to distinguish and categorize the form of participation that has occurred; on the other hand, they can be used a priori to design participatory methods on the basis of requirements set by the context and purpose of the work [18], by the available resources (e.g., time) and by the preference and expertise of those facilitating the process [9]. A good overview and classification for the field of land use management is provided in Reed et al. [2].

Among these typologies, one often-cited classification for assessing community participation that has been used for over 50 years, is Arnstein’s ladder [16]. The ladder mainly refers to citizens as the main actors to engage, but it can be adapted for other contexts. It consists of eight rungs representing a continuum of increasing stakeholder involvement ranging from “Non-participation” and passive dissemination of information (“Tokenism”) to active engagement (“Citizen Power”).

The ladder has been used in practice and academia and was adapted or integrated throughout the years. For example, the pyramid adapted from Arnstein shown in Figure 1 clarifies the increase in participation rights with each rung, but also shows that the obligation to assume responsibility for those increasingly involved at the same time [19]. Participatory processes are therefore more than pure communication processes; they are based on a mutual working relationship - the initiator or sponsor of the process is dependent on those involved and vice versa [19].

Figure 1.

Adapted “ladder of participation” [16]: levels of participation from the perspective of the process organizer and involved participants (source: [19]).

Within participatory approaches we can distinguish between two different phases. One is the participation of stakeholders within a research process, which aims towards solving practical problems by scientific methods and standards [20]. This participation phase, developing concrete solutions and measures for problem solving, must be planned before formulation and implementation of a specific policy output is approached. It is intended to ensure that state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative science-based information should be sufficiently included into the measures and solutions. The second phase is the participation of stakeholders within the formulation and implementation of a specific policy output. Here, participation should lead to decisions regarding the selection of concrete measures and solutions within a political program. Of course, both phases might be linked to each other or not.

Participation within the research process builds on the co-production models for scientific knowledge transfer. Here, researchers, experts, non-academic stakeholders and policy makers interact and influence the production and use of scientific knowledge [21]. The co-production models accept the fundamental differences between practice and science. Whereas science relies on the scientific truth and logic based on empirical evidence, political actors follow the principles of political rationality, which is based on interests, power and political ideologies [20]. Due to this different logic, doing research based on a participatory approach and in transdisciplinary teams is often recognized as a time and labor intensive process for all participants [22]. Additionally, the lack of training (for working in such team structures), the length of the participation in the research process and even competing disciplinary working cultures are further challenges [23, 24, 25]. In research projects, in which resources are very limited [26], neither transdisciplinary concepts of “mode 3 knowledge production” [27] nor concepts of “collaboratively framing the problem” [23] are easily able to bridge the world of science and the world of practice. Similarly, actors from practice may not be expected to be able to work while adhering to scientific methods and standards [28].

Another common criticism to participatory approaches is that participation of divergent stakeholder groups in knowledge transfer leads often to discourses dominated by the most powerful one [29], and that, therefore, those stakeholders suppress minority interests systematically [30]. Different authors [31, 32, 33] argue that participation has to be understood as an arena of negotiation of interests due to unbalanced power relations of stakeholders by means of strategic rationality. It needs to be noted that in complex and coupled human-natural systems, like sustainability, practical problems cannot be easily solved by involving non-academic stakeholders into the research process [33, 34, 35]. However, involving stakeholders into the research might be of high relevance for defining practical problems and related research topics or for data collection.

Participation of stakeholders within the formulation and implementation of a specific policy output is traditionally connected to trying to implement measures and solutions for practical problems within the particular political programs, by using a mixture of regulative, financial and informational instruments [35]. This might be based on the state-of-the-art scientific knowledge (also with participation of non-academic stakeholders) or not. Undoubtedly, participation of different stakeholder groups ensures more legitimation for decisions and measures [23]. This may be secured by the exchange of information, expressing opinions or articulating interests and has the potential to influence the outcome [36]. This potential influence depends on the degree of co-determination of stakeholders, ranging from pure information provision to participation in decision-making processes [37].

Depending on the degree of co-determination of involved stakeholders and on the complexity of mutual conflicts, it is still a challenge for any layperson participating in the process to have a realistic opportunity of finding a sufficient solution for its own problem and conflict. Indeed, participatory approaches are based on the principle of collaboration between conflicting parties, but this does not mean that those parties will abandon their objectives. At this point, a good reason for shifting one’s own interests towards a compromise is needed. Therefore, neither sophisticated (communication, mediation or moderation) techniques of experts nor the experience in the group building processes (by round tables) are enough for solving the current conflicts easily [38].

To conclude, there is no unique best way for designing and managing a participatory process: the chosen approach must reflect the specifics of the given situation and the needs of the parties involved. Moreover, several approaches can also be used simultaneously [3, 39].

3. Participation in ecosystem-based natural hazard risk management

Mountain areas face multiple challenges connected to the coexistence of natural hazards and the high presence of settlements in limited available space (i.e., valley bottoms). Natural hazards can affect society in various ways, impacting different stakeholders at different levels by directly damaging infrastructure or causing fatalities or indirectly by causing economic losses. Especially in the European Alps, the number of potentially exposed people is increasing, and the characteristics of natural hazards are changing due to climate change, modifying the different components of risk and posing increasing challenges to Alpine societies (see chapter [40] of this book).

Decision-making addressing complex and dynamic environmental challenges such as natural hazard risk management (NHRM) therefore requires flexible and transparent approaches embracing a diversity of knowledge and values. Rapidly changing risks are not manageable by one public institution alone or by a single discipline. The risk influencing factors are so vast and inter-dependent that many disciplines and institutions are required to deal with natural hazard and risk management. Therefore, integrated risk management is a joint responsibility of public institutions at different levels (e.g., national, regional and local) and of the private sector. Without combining participatory approaches in NHRM with strong financial, informational and regulative instruments, the success in reaching risk reduction targets will be limited, especially in protective forest management [41].

The importance of participatory approaches in the planning phase of (protective) forest management activities to achieve a sustainable use of this resource has been acknowledged by several authors and institutions such as the UN and the EU [42, 43, 44]. Integrating various stakeholders allows for the increase of public acceptance of policy decisions and to build an inclusive platform for constructive discussion. These aspects are even more important when dealing with forests and their management due to the multitude of conflicting interests and demands that are related to them [45, 46].

In addition to strong or weaker country specific regulative instruments affecting natural hazard management, for example, forest, flood protection or civil protection acts, many authorities increasingly prefer financial and informational instruments for solving practical issues. This is because regulative instruments and their rigorous implementation encounter resistance by recipients, especially in protective forest management [37, 47, 48]. However, even the usage of financial and informational instruments does not always lead to sufficient solutions to solving issues related to protective forests (e.g., sufficient regeneration, adequate forest maintenance or restoration). This deficiency can be overcome by newer participatory approaches that include all relevant stakeholders such as mountain farmers, outdoor recreationists or hunters, who have considerable influence on helping to reach the targets of protective forest policies [37, 47, 48]. Therefore, participatory approaches should be understood as an additional political instrument for involving important stakeholder groups into the policy making process.

4. Participatory approaches and scientific method in GreenRisk4ALPs

This section provides an overview on the participatory approaches and the scientific methods that were developed and applied within the GreenRisk4ALPs project, spanning from expert consultation and developing new science-based knowledge to stakeholder integration and the transfer of knowledge into practice.

4.1 Stakeholder network analysis and application in Austria

Within the framework of GreenRisk4ALPs, stakeholder network analyses were carried out in six Pilot Action Regions (PARs) as a first step to identify the relevant stakeholders to be included in the following activities. This section presents the outcomes for the Austrian PAR (municipalities of Vals and Gries am Brenner, Tyrol). The analysis consisted in the identification of the different administrative levels (local, regional, national) responsible for ecosystem-based NHRM and related topics.

Although the Austrian PAR covers an area of only 105 km² (which is approximately the size of one third of Munich), a total of 36 stakeholder groups dealing with NHRM was identified. Of these, 30% are located at the federal level (Austria), 25% at the federal state level (Tyrol), 10% in the political district (Innsbruck Land), and another 30% at the municipal level. Three points were taken particularly into account in the initial identification of these stakeholder groups, which were also relevant in the following activities (e.g., round tables, surveys, interviews or expert workshops):

• Some institutions have a hierarchical departmental structure (superior and subordinate departments) within their organization. For instance, the Landesforstdirektion Tirol (Tyrolean Forest Service) is subdivided into several departments and groups as well as in the Bezirksforstinspektionen (forestry offices at district level). When identifying relevant stakeholders, the umbrella organization (Landesforstdirektion), a subordinate department (Bezirksforstinspektion) or all experts of the respective institution that are somehow connected to the topic can be considered, depending on the question.

• Some stakeholders are organized at the federal level, but are fragmented into regional bodies, where they are also partly incorporated into regional institutions. For example, the Federal Agency for Water Management is an organizational unit within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management (BML), which is located in Vienna. The operational offices, however, are at the Hydrographic Service of the Austrian provinces (federal states) or in the administrative building of the districts.

• In terms of stakeholder groups, a distinction must be made between government institutions, non-governmental organizations, companies, associations, voluntary aid organizations, landowners and pure user groups (e.g., tourists). Of course, the power positions as well as decision-making and influence potentials of the different groups vary considerably.

It is therefore obvious that the understanding of administrative and official structures has the highest priority, as (not only) in Austria the distribution of responsibilities and competences is not always clear, which can lead to difficulties in fully identifying the relevant stakeholders.

After the most important stakeholders related to the project-relevant topics had been identified and listed, a network of their representatives was established (see Figure 2). This network helped to understand which stakeholders are in direct contact with other stakeholders, which stakeholders are possibly in a competitive relationship, or which had to be introduced among each other. This graphical representation of the stakeholders’ network helped to decide which stakeholders ultimately needed to be brought together to participate in the project. Here, the analysis unit is the relationship between two entities and not the entity itself, considering that the networks consist of connections measured through communications or exchanges among actors [49, 50]. Analyzing the stakeholder network allowed us to highlight strengths and weaknesses of social structures, providing relevant information to improve the governance processes. These results are useful whenever institutional stakeholders are involved in a participatory process aiming at a consensual agreement and to overcome possible conflicts of interests.

Figure 2.

Network of actors involved in (ecosystem-based) natural hazard risk management: exchange of information, influences and financial streams exemplified by the Austrian GreenRisk4ALPs Pilot Action Region.

More details about the stakeholder analyses conducted in the other PARs can be found in the GreenRisk4ALPs project report ‘Actors and networks for ecosystem-based risk management for the Alpine Space’ [50].

4.2 Steps of participatory processes and stakeholder integration activities

The following is a (chronologically sorted) summary of the events, site inspections, meetings, etc. that were held to achieve the best possible integration and participation of the relevant stakeholders in terms of the project objectives.

4.2.1 First round tables and questionnaire (January 2019)

As a kick-off for the stakeholder involvement process in the project, the mayors of the two municipalities that constitute the Austrian PAR were interviewed. A detailed questionnaire was answered by these political decision-makers and evaluated [50]. The questionnaires primarily served to summarize past natural hazard events and to identify expected future challenges in natural hazard and protective forest management.

4.2.2 Second round table (March 2019)

Based on the identification of stakeholders carried out in the network analysis, the project was presented to a wider audience, which was introduced to its objectives. Important issues (e.g., where the overpopulation of game is severely damaging protective forests locally) were addressed. During a lively discussion on the current status and the urgent challenges in the region, several topics were defined for further investigation within the framework of GreenRisk4ALPs, one of which was addressed by Plörer and Stöhr [51]. During this discussion, representatives of the stakeholder groups also recommended to include additional relevant actors. These stakeholders had already been identified in the stakeholder network analysis and therefore only needed to be contacted.

4.2.3 Site inspection (October 2019)

The site inspection resulted from the lively discussion at the second round table. The focus was on the massive impairment of specific protective forests caused by the high population of game and a prominent rock face from which boulders regularly endanger infrastructure. The present stakeholders showed great interest and the need to communicate the most pressing challenges of the community.

4.2.4 Interview at the Tyrolean Hunters’ Association (October 2019)

After controversial discussions about the general conflict between forest and game management, contact was made with the Tyrolean Hunters’ Association. An interesting exchange on highly relevant topics (e.g., ungulate browsing) took place. It was highlighted that the interests of various stakeholders naturally differ and that this can also influence the setting of objectives and goals of a project.

4.2.5 Expert round table (September 2020)

The expert round table had the aim to discuss and critically examine various modeling results generated within the framework of GreenRisk4ALPs with experts from various disciplines. Representatives from forest and natural hazard management were invited; most of them were already familiar with the project or had previously worked together. For various reasons, three stakeholders (more than half) canceled the meeting at short notice. This experience highlights the challenges underlying participatory approaches. Nevertheless, the discussion was very lively and the questions and technical input from the experts showed that the constant involvement of stakeholders is highly relevant for adaptations in every step of a project.

4.2.6 GreenRisk4ALPs Mountain Forest Conference (June 2021)

Stakeholders from all relevant areas were invited to a hybrid event (both online and on-site) at the end of the project [52]. The decision support tools developed in the project - which were based on stakeholder inputs, among others - were presented to practitioners, policy makers, scientists and to the general public. Finally, the extent to which stakeholders and practitioners can practically use new findings and tools from science was discussed. The indispensable feedback from practitioners and the realization by scientists that there is still a long way to go to understand the gaps that exist in practice were important discussion points during this final GreenRisk4ALPs event.

To summarize, a lively participation was quickly achieved at the beginning of the project. Helpful follow-up events involving additional stakeholders and the definition and concretization of local objectives in the context of the project GreenRisk4ALPs could be generated.

4.3 Stakeholder interests, ecosystem services and stakeholder roles

Within the GreenRisk4ALPs project, further analyses regarding stakeholders were conducted to better plan the participatory processes and to pinpoint potential actors’ interests and possible conflicts between them. In this context, conflicts were defined as a result of different interests in ecosystem services (ES), which cannot be fulfilled simultaneously [20].

Ecosystem services are “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” [53]. In regard to NHRM in the Alpine Space we used an ES classification with four classes [53]: (i) regulating services such as green prevention measures entailing the maintenance, afforestation or reforestation of protective forests; (ii) provisioning services such as wood or game provision; (iii) supporting services such as biodiversity or habitats; and (iv) cultural services such as outdoor recreation, esthetics of cultural landscapes or tourism.

Out of these four classes we selected 12 ES relevant for NHRM in the Alpine Space [54]. They provided a first link to individual or collective actors that might be affected by the ES provision. This ES perspective builds up necessarily on actors who have a stake in the issue of NHRM. This NHRM issue is linked to the achievement of their goals, objectives or conditions to which specific ES can contribute [55]. In this context, actors can be divided in two groups: users and regulators. Users can be defined as the actors who benefit from ES and, for instance, include protective forest owners, hunters, environmental actors and citizens. Regulators on the other hand include different levels of the administrative system and subordinate agencies (e.g., federal state agencies for agriculture or forestry). Both, users and regulators can benefit or influence ES in different ways: (i) by direct use, primarily by harvesting, consuming and even producing services [56] or (ii) by indirect influence exerted through the decision-making system (for instance by elections) [57]. Governmental actors themselves are responsible (by their mandate) for the public task of managing, maintaining, restoring or distributing ES related to natural hazards risks. These tasks become constitutive for the social role of regulators and link them to various collective actors, whose specific goals, objectives or conditions result in a variety of ES-related interests. Regulator’s influence is visible directly in the ecosystems and their services or indirectly as a consequence of changing the behavior of users (which is more frequent), that is, by providing subsidies for forest management or enforcing regulations on hazard zone plans. Normally, regulators receive their mandate as a result of formal institutional settings [58]. The social role which an actor has influences the formation of its interests and limits the available sources and/or political instruments to enforce the own interests in decision-making processes.

Figure 3 shows the area affected by three natural hazards, snow avalanches, rockfall and shallow landslides, and reflects the ES approach adapted for the GreenRisk4ALPs project. It reveals the two different social roles of actors – user (red) and regulator (blue) - and possible ways of actors’ influence on NHRM. The role of science is not visualized but it includes the provision of innovative NHRM strategies to regulators and/or users. They can accept (or reject) the scientific information and, after merging it with their existing knowledge and experiences, new knowledge emerges [59], which is used to enforce their own interests.

Figure 3.

Stakeholder (actor) roles in natural hazard risk management.

4.4 Rapid Risk management Appraisal

Building up on the information gained from the stakeholder analysis, roundtables with local experts were organized in the framework of the project. Among the different roundtables, a series of workshops was organized, applying a specific method developed within the project, the Rapid Risk management Appraisal (RRA).

The RRA is a participatory tool which aims to identify the strengths and the points for improvement in the field of NHRM in the different PARs for the implementation of future risk reduction measures. Consequently, this tool aims at supporting municipalities to increase their resilience to natural disasters.

The RRA uses local knowledge through the involvement of local experts in a short (few hours to half-day), collaborative workshop. This way, qualitative information as well as detailed knowledge on local particularities can be collected in a short time frame within a group setting. The personal information exchange which takes place through such a participatory approach also fosters mutual learning and information exchange among experts with a diverse technical background. The results gained from this participatory exercise can serve as a starting point for a more in-depth analysis, providing also a more specific direction in which to focus the detailed spatially explicit risk assessment and scientific research in general.

The selection of participants to the RRA workshop aimed to provide both technical and applied expertise within the field of risk management (e.g., geology department, torrent and avalanche control experts, but also foresters, civil protection engineers, land use planners and municipality technicians). Moreover, the technical expertise covered a range of gravitational natural hazards addressed by the project.

The RRA approach follows a series of steps, adapted from the ISO standard 31,000 for risk management [60]. The standard focuses on providing guidelines for the management of risks. Although it mainly addresses organizations and industries, it can be customized and applied to different activities, including decision-making at all levels. ISO31000 is here applied as a general framework to guide the collection of information and the discussion during the workshop. The three steps are the following: risk identification (1), risk analysis (2), and risk evaluation (3).

4.4.1 Step 1: risk identification

This step aims at identifying the two natural hazards which are the most relevant from a risk perspective for each PAR. Thus, the focus of this step is discussing about damages and losses that the different hazards have caused in the past and which are likely to damages cause in the future. The indirect consequences caused by such events (i.e., impact on reputation, interruption of activities) are also addressed. Consequently, this step provides information about the general sensitivity to natural hazards starting from the lessons we can learn from the past and moving on to potential and future risks. Maps are also used to visualize the areas mentioned by the different experts. If available, maps can include past natural hazard events or hazard zone plans.

4.4.2 Step 2: risk management analysis

The risk management analysis step builds on the previous discussion and represents the core of the RRA. The aim of this step is therefore to analyze risk management practices in place in the PAR, related to the two previously selected natural hazards. In order to cover all risk management activities, questions are structured following the integrated risk management cycle steps [61]. The adopted measures should therefore cover the preparedness, the response and the recovery phases [62].

The selected questions, which constitute this step of the RRA are divided in eight categories and are listed in the GreenRisk4ALPs project report “Preparation for risk analysis and strategy workshops” [63]. Each of the questions is presented together with three possible answers which correspond to different scenarios of expert satisfaction. The first scenario describes the case in which the participants perceive the specific risk management practice as a best practice or if they are highly satisfied with its quality or implementation. On the contrary, the third scenario, foresees a low expert satisfaction and ample room for improvement. The second scenario provides the intermediate or average case, where experts see space for desirable improvements. Along with the three scenarios, discussion points such as concrete best practice examples from the European Alps are listed to provide examples or comparisons to which experts could refer to during the discussion. The different experts are asked to answer and discuss each question in detail, explaining how each risk management-related practice functions in their PAR, considering the differences and similarities for the selected natural hazards. Finally, experts are asked to come to an agreement and to select one of the three proposed scenarios.

Furthermore, different scores are attributed to the three scenarios. The maximum number of points is assigned to the best practice scenario (scenario one); on the contrary, the least is given in case some points are missing and an improvement is considered as necessary (scenario three). The full answer, the selected scenarios and the respective points are all recorded and used in the risk management evaluation step. An example of a question, the scenarios and respective discussion points are provided below (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

An example of a question of the RRA, including scenarios on which the experts should agree on, and possible discussion points attributed to each scenario. On the left, also the points assigned to each scenario are reported.

4.4.3 Step 3: risk management evaluation

The points assigned in the previous steps are used to generate a spider chart. For this scope, the assigned points are inserted in an Excel Sheet and the average for each category is then calculated.

The spider chart, called here Risk Management Profile, allows one to easily compare different natural hazards and various study areas (see Figure 5). The larger the area of the polygon (different color lines for each hazard), the more the activities in the field of risk management are considered as best practices by the participants.

Figure 5.

Example of a Risk Management Profile: a spider chart that allows to compare the risk management capacities in place related to different natural hazards.

The spider chart is presented and discussed with the participants as a final step of the workshop. By presenting the Risk Management Profile, the participants receive an immediate picture which summarizes the risk management practices addressed during the half-day RRA workshop. This way, the strengths in risk management can be underlined and entrance points for improvement can be summarized.

Finally, after the execution of the RRA workshops in the different study areas, the results from different PARs are compared, considering not only the profile but also the fully recorded answers. Best practices or strengths which arise from the analysis of the results of one PAR could be transferred or proposed to PARs presenting specific weaknesses. This way, one PAR can learn from the risk management of the others and a more successful ecosystem-based strategy can be proposed. The final results of the RRA activity are presented in the respective project report [64].

4.5 Levels of participation achieved

The involvement of local actors in participatory processes can be placed on different rungs or steps of the “ladder or pyramid of participation” (section 2, Figure 1); therefore, different levels of participation were achieved throughout the project GreenRisk4ALPs.

Since the project focused primarily on the modeling of natural hazards and on the respective risk identification, many activities described in the previous sections belong to the consultation level of participation. Participants were asked to bring in questions and comments to provide a solid basis and knowledge for the development of decision support tools (see also chapters [65, 66] of this book).

On the other hand, participatory processes such as the Rapid Risk management Appraisal belong to the “Participation” rung of the pyramid or ladder. Participants were indeed asked to actively support the process, contributing their own ideas and perceptions on current risk management practices and on potential ways for future improvements.

A higher level of participation (e.g., Empowerment) could be achieved beyond the project if the involved local experts use the RRA or other project outputs to improve the risk managament in practice.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

As highlighted in the introduction, environmental issues are best addressed by involving affected citizens and stakeholders [5]. Regarding the stakeholder analysis and involvement in the project GreenRisk4ALPs, not all citizens or the general public could be involved [10], but - as described in section 3 - all relevant public institutions and private stakeholders were considered. The example of the Austrian Pilot Action Region was used to show what a stakeholder network analysis in this region might look like and which specific characteristics may have to be considered.

For a stakeholder network analysis, it is important to become familiar with the administrative and political structures in the region of interest. This is particularly challenging in a country such as Austria, where the division of administration and legislation often differs between the provinces.

When involving stakeholders (e.g., through roundtables or interviews), it is essential that they are not given the impression of being pitted against each other. Such situations were also relevant during the GreenRisk4ALPs project. Even if all possible stakeholders should not be brought together at the same table from the beginning, it is important that all stakeholders who are identified as relevant are involved during a project. In this context, clear, unambiguous and comprehensive communication is essential. This is how results can be successfully achieved in projects with the need for stakeholder involvement. It should be considered that transparent and integrative participatory processes are the central prerequisite for integrating research results in practice, for any necessary political solution strategy, and for the implementation of transnational management programs [19].

If new methods are developed during a project, they can ideally be applied and tested during stakeholder involvement activities. One example is the Rapid Risk management Appraisal, which can contribute to the potential generation of risk management plans in the context of specially tailored workshops. The Protective Forest Assessment Tool (FAT) is another GreenRisk4ALPs decision support tool [67, 68], which can offer stakeholders support for decision-making in NHRM. The development of FAT was guided by feedback from the involved stakeholders throughout the project, which highlights that the involvement of stakeholders from the beginning allows to respond and to tailor the outputs to their needs.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the stakeholders who dedicated their expertise and time. This work was conducted in the context of the GreenRisk4ALPs project (ASP635), which has been financed by Interreg Alpine Space programme, one of the 15 transnational cooperation programs covering the whole of the European Union (EU) in the framework of European Regional policy.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.