Understanding the Warning Process Through the Lens of Practice: Emancipation as a Condition of Action–Some Lessons from France

Chapter

Abstract

Above and beyond the instruments, technical and procedural, which can be implemented to plan an EWS, it is useful to consider warning as an action process from the perspective of its practical implementation by the actors on the ground. In this case, it appears that the actors – however well-intentioned – often encounter a problem that seems insuperable: in risk situations, they have to manage and consider an ever-growing number of ‘things’ (or entities) that can literally ‘paralyse’ action. The number of entities to take into account in fact proves much larger than just the components of the EWS and represents a real headache for the people involved. Through an in-depth analysis of the practices of the actors in the flash flood warning process in the Vidourle catchment, this chapter identifies a strategy for managing this – the detour – which illustrates ‘emancipation’ practices.

Keywords

Action Environment Action Context Operational Player Weather Forecaster Procedural Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter relies on a doctoral research funded by Région Rhône-Alpes, Cluster Environnement. Thanks to UMR Pacte-Territoires and RCC Research Group, I benefited of a great work at translation by John Crisp. The final text owes much to the sharp comments and suggestions from the reviewers, may they find here the expression of my gratitude.

References

  1. Carlile P (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13(4):442–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chateauraynaud F, Torny D (1999) Les sombres précurseurs: une sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque. EHESS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Coeur D (2007) Etude Historique de l’aménagement de la basse vallée du Vidourle. Technical report, Syndicat Interdépartemental d’Améngement du Vidourle (SIAV)Google Scholar
  4. Conein B, Jacopin E (1994) Action située et cognition, le savoir en place. Sociologie du travail 36(4):475–500Google Scholar
  5. Corradi G, Gherardi S, Verzelloni L (2010) Through the practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Manag Learn 41(3):265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Créton-Cazanave L (2009) Warning! The use of meteorological information during a flash-flood warning process. Adv Sci Res 3:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Créton-Cazanave L (2010) Penser l’alerte par les distances. Entre planification et émancipation, l’exemple du processus d’alerte aux crues rapides sur le bassin versant du Vidourle. PhD thesis, Institut de Géographie Alpine, Université de GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  8. Créton-cazanave L (2011) Acculturation as part of the warning process. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I (eds) Handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction, Chapter 40. Routledge, New York, p 776Google Scholar
  9. Créton-cazanave L, Lutoff C (2013) Stakeholders’ issues for action during the warning process and the interpretation of forecasts’ uncertainties. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 13(6):1469–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Créton-Cazanave L, Lutoff C, Soubeyran O (2009) Alerte aux crues rapides: de l’utilité d’une nouvelle approche. In: Pletier A, Becerra S (eds) Risques et environnement: recherches interdisciplinaires sur la vulnérabilité des sociétés, L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 483–494Google Scholar
  11. Dankers R, Feyen L (2008) Climate change impact on flood hazard in Europe: an assessment based on high-resolution climate simulations. J Geophys Res 113(D19):D19105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Fornel M, Quéré L (1999) l’écologie des activités sociales: l’écologie des activités sociales. Raisons pratiques (10)Google Scholar
  13. Dedieu F (2007) La sécurité civile dans la tempêete. Autopsie organisationnelle de la catastrophe du 27 décembre 1999. Thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Institut d’Etudes Politiques, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Dedieu F (2009) Warnings and catastrophes: the 1999 storm, a treacherous risk. Sociologie du travail 51(3):379–401CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Demeritt D (2012) The perception and use of public weather services by emergency and resilience professionals in the UK. Report to the Met Office Public Weather Services …Google Scholar
  16. Demeritt D, Nobert S, Cloke H, Pappenberger F (2010) Challenges in communicating and using ensembles in operational flood forecasting. Meteorol Appl 17(2):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demeritt D, Nobert S, Cloke HL, Pappenberger F (2013) The European flood alert system and the communication, perception, and use of ensemble predictions for operational flood risk management. Hydrol Process 27(1):147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demeritt D, Wainwright J (2005) Models, Modelling and Geography. In: Castree N, Rogers A, & Sherman D (Eds.), Questionning Geography, Blackwell, p. 330Google Scholar
  19. Field C, Barros V, Stocker T, Dahe Q, Qin D, Dokken D, Ebi K, Mastrandrea M, Mach K, Plattner GK, Allen S, Tignor M, Midgley P (eds) (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. García C (2012) Designing and implementing more effective integrated early warning systems in mountain areas: a case study from Northern Italy. Revue de géographie alpine/Journal of Alpine Research (100-1)Google Scholar
  21. Gaussen I (1968) Sommières, promenade à travers son passé. s. nGoogle Scholar
  22. Huntington H (1998) Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 51(3):237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lascoumes P, Le Galès P (2004) Gouverner par les instruments. Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences politiquesGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour B (1985) Les “vues” de l’esprit. Une introduction à l’anthropologie des sciences et des tehniques. Culture technique (14):5–29Google Scholar
  25. Lussault M (2007) L’homme spatial. La construction sociale de l’espace humain. Seuil, Coll. La couleur des idées, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Lussault M (2013) L’Avènement du Monde. Essai sur l’habitation humaine de la Terre. Seuil, La Couleur des IdéesGoogle Scholar
  27. Nachi M (2006) Introduction à la sociologie pragmatique: vers un nouveau “style” sociologique? Armand Colin, Collection Cursus-SociologieGoogle Scholar
  28. Nobert S, Demeritt D, Cloke H (2010) Informing operational flood management with ensemble predictions: lessons from Sweden. J Flood Risk Manag 3(1):72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quéré L (1997) La situation toujours négligée? Réseaux 15(85):163–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruin I, Lutoff C, Créton-Cazanave L, Anquetin S, Borga M, Chardonnel S, Creutin JD, Gourley J, Gruntfest E, Nobert S, Thielen J (2012) Toward a space-time framework for integrated water and society studies. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(10):ES89–ES91Google Scholar
  31. Sorensen JH (2000) Hazard warning systems: review of 20 years of progress. Nat Hazard Rev 1(2):119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soulé B (2011) Post-crisis analysis of an ineffective Tsunami alert: the case of 27 February 2010 Maule earthquake (Chile). DisastersGoogle Scholar
  33. Thévenot L (2006) L’action au pluriel: sociologie des régimes d’engagement. Éditions La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. Vinet F (2007) Approches nationales de la prévention des risques et besoins locaux: le cas de la prévision et de l’alerte aux crues dans le Midi méditerranéen. Géocarrefour 82(1–2):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weick K (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster. Adm Sci Q (38):628–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chercheur associée UMR Pacte-TerritoiresUniversité de Grenoble, Labex Futurs Urbains (LATTS/LEESU/Lab’Urba)Université Paris EstFrance

Personalised recommendations