References of "Cornélis, Bernard"
Bookmark and Share    
See detailHandling complex risks issues in the domain of environment and health - SCOPE
Torfs, Rudi; Zwetkoff, Catherine ULiege; Fallon, Catherine ULiege et al

Report (2011)

This research report has its origin in the notion that classical risk assessment paradigms no longer suffice to deal with complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. Risk assessment was developed as a ... [more ▼]

This research report has its origin in the notion that classical risk assessment paradigms no longer suffice to deal with complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. Risk assessment was developed as a scientific tool to tackle uncertain consequences of human activities by organizing, evaluating, integrating and presenting scientific information to inform decision-making. Over the years, this type of risk assessment has proved effective in protecting public health and the environment from major environmental hazards with high relative risks. In the modern „risk society‟ classical risk assessment fails to handle complex risks characterized by radical uncertainty and a plurality of legitimate perspectives and values. Public authorities have to deal with issues/risks were facts are uncertain and values are contested. To answer to the increased demands of policymakers and the public for guidance on risk management new processes for the governance of these risks need to be developed. Weberian bureaucratic structures and forms of cooperation are working in a logic of specialisation of work, where distribution of information and knowledge, structures of decisions and allocation of responsibilities are organised ab initio in a stable organisational frame. Such a structure is not capable of resisting to the emergence of new risks which are often not identified as such at start and require a more integrative form of assessment, integrating inter-disciplinary collaboration on a specific policy problem that is complex, uncertain, perhaps unlimited in temporal and spatial scale, and interlinked with other phenomena. If the frame of reflexivity (Beck, 2003) is adopted, we thus have to recognise that a global mastering of these risks is not possible. What is now requested is the settlement of conditions for another type of open debate. Experiments in new forms of public participation in the management of technological developments (like e.g. citizen panels on long-term storage of nuclear waste1, or on cars and health2) already inspired the public administrators in their search for new procedural forms of decision making in areas of uncertainty. For a certain category of risks inclusion of the public, next to industrial stakeholders, organised environmental interest groups and governmental agencies and administrations is warranted, to integrate different opinions and values and to develop adequate policies. Network governance should be developed, where stakeholders are invited to speak up and where power structures are reconsidered and flattened. Here the authorities are recommended to exercise their capacities not as a centre of knowledge and top-down decision, but as a facilitator for communication and collaboration within networking structures, mobilising numerous experts and stakeholders, including the population itself (Gilbert, 2002), to develop new options which are socially acceptable and technically efficient (Fallon et al., 2008a & b). This requires a different mindset where the plurality of frames and fluidity of boundaries; the need for contextualisation; the construction of unstable temporary networks, the plurality of rationalities and the inherent uncertainties, social and technical (Callon, 1986) of the issues considered. As uncertainties are recognised, scientists are not anymore expected to close the controversy but rather to contribute to the technical quality of the process. The public decision-making process (DMP) should be designed to organise the conditions for an optimal tradeoff between scientific soundness and social acceptability of decisions, in a context where the precautionary principle is relevant. The key issue, framing or “structuring the research questions”, is a method for deciding how to manage scientific uncertainty. From literature review and past studies, we posit that a better quality DMP could be achieved by using tools for an integrated and comparative risk assessment and management. These approaches rely on interdisciplinary risk assessment – relevant soft and hard sciences are engaged together into the knowledge production process rather than mobilized side by side. Concretely, it involves designing the steps or sequences of the process and selecting/developing/adapting risk assessment and management tools. More specific, within the environment and health arena there is limited experience with these new concepts of integrated assessments (Briggs, 2008). Therefore case studies on various environment and health issues were performed to evaluate current integrated risk assessment practices, multi-level precautionary approaches and communication of complex risks. Different tools as Delphi, scenario workshop, etc. were used to analyse the issues at stake. The development of an integrated approach in risk assessment requires cooperation across policy domains and hierarchical structures. In the field of air pollution a science-policy workshop confirmed that in the domain of air quality policy, public servants communicate well with researchers from scientific institutions. The protagonists in Flemish air quality policy have a common scientific background and are technical experts. This observation puts into question a common discourse postulating that there is a „communication problem' or 'gap' between 'researchers' and 'policymakers'. This discourse as a description of a state of affairs does not suit empirical reality, and needs to be reformulated in more precise terms. If there is a communication gap, it is not to be situated between public administration („policymakers‟) and researchers („scientists‟), who share the same overall concerns, but between public administrations and ministerial cabinets. The analysis of risks related to electromagnetic fields (EMF), showed how the precautionary principle is reinterpreted differently at each different political level (European, Belgian, Wallonia, Regional) in order to better integrate the local institutional and political environment. In most cases, when this principle is put at the foreground, its use is mainly symbolic and incantatory. When implementing policies it does not seem to respond to some precautionary approach, but rather to the institutional dynamics which characterise each political level. We observed the reinforcement of the European role in the field of health & environment: in attempts to underline institutional cooperation at the federal level in Belgium and to reinforce the authority of the regional government on the Walloon territory. From this case study it is learnt that the new deliberative spaces to be developed should not be embedded in the dominant institutional structures. A structure such as promoted in the wake of "Technology assessment" (Delvenne, 2011) is capable of conciliating production of knowledge and uncertainties (the science pole) with the plurality of social perceptions (the civic pole) and the specific dynamics of the relevant polity (the political pole). New deliberative spaces should be capable of developing the basis for integrated and comparative approach for emerging issues with due attention to its political and institutional dimensions, while maintaining enough distance with the dominant frames and logics. Recently the Flemish administration on Environment, Nature & Energy proposed a note (framework) to deal with uncertain risks. The proposed framework will be tested in a pilot study for potential risks related to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, and can later be extended to other risks. In a case study on Bisphenol-A (BPA), multi-level political communication was analysed. Political decisions were taken without socio-technical debate (Callon, 1986). The BPA issue was not very high on the social or political agenda in Belgium. There was no crisis, no strong pressure form NGO's. The question was managed first by the European authorities (EFSA & European Commission). The Belgian institutions were waiting for the European position. As the political decision did not encounter a strong contestation from the industry, this was an easy step for the political authorities, in Belgium and at the European level, to symbolically address the issue while avoiding considering the real uncertainties. When the decision was taken to ban the use of BPA in polycarbonate baby bottles, it was a political decision taken with the support of the scientific bodies (Superior Health Council) but without being embedded in any social debate (what about risks related to the chemicals which may substitute BPA?). It meant that the whole of uncertainties on the extent of risks related to the multiple exposures to different endocrine disruptors could not be put at the foreground in a public socio-technical debate. These case studies on the interplay with science, policy and stakeholders, on the framing of an environmental health policy problem, and on the management of complex risks (air pollution, EMF, BPA) contribute to recommendations on their governance. The question then becomes: is it possible to organize a precautionary decision making process to deal with different legitimate frames and the necessary trade-offs when considering policy alternatives? Concretely it is advised to pay attention to the role of a focal point in the process, potentially taken up by public administrations, to the co-production, availability and organisation of knowledge and information, and to the progress of the process. Above all it is important to set up a platform for issue framing and problem definition to highlight key factors that need to be assessed: - Examine the policy and stakeholder learning network related to a specific issue, with special attention to policy domains that are affected by or are affecting the environmental and health issue at stake. Specify who has interests in the issue and who should be involved. An efficient stakeholder network analysis is important for the further progress of the DMP. define who is allowed to take part in the process across different policy areas - Examine the information database before setting up a more integrative approach, both from a scientific (including uncertainties) and technical (alternatives, CBA analysis) point of view and from the side of concerned stakeholders. Policy makers acquire information from different inputs from science, stakeholder organisations, socio-economic actors and the public at large, as well as from administrations and staff members, and are conscious of the structural and constitutional constraints. It is clear that a balanced process of information gathering that is transparent, contributes to better decision making. - Initiate and manage the process: find out who will carry the process, set up a series of interactions between administrations, between administrations and cabinets, between administrations and research, between administrations, research and the public. Usable and meaningful available information on the issue should be communicated clearly to all stakeholders. It is innovative to look at how stakeholders increase their knowledge through different inputs and through communication, information and interaction. - Iterate where needed: information gained in one dialogue should be fed back into other fora. An equilibrium between acceptability – tolerability – uncertainty should be established. - Move forward / conclude. In the total policy cycle the conclusion or decision may be revised, when (1) monitoring of implementation and following evaluation is considered as negative; (2) new knowledge / experience / issues have to take into account. - Ensure an efficient and socially appropriate allocation of the resources and an adequate management of residual risks. Last but not least, in a precautionary approach it is also required, to contribute to the public trust in the decision making process and to construct social acceptance of the final decision. Generally, a precautionary decision making process should be considered as a double-pronged learning dynamics: on one side, the authorities are required to better take into account the multiple frames which abound in our pluralist societies when organising the conditions of political trade-offs for the governance of risks. On the other side, the citizens should have the possibility to, not only understand, but also adopt the decision and its consequences and to conform to its implementation. It is important to develop specific communication processes to successfully implement these two faces of a precautionary approach in the governance of risks, while ensuring this dual learning process. New procedures are currently developed which could support the communication dynamics for promoting multiple frames and comparing openly different alternatives (e.g. open process workshop; atelier scenarios; Delphi). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 162 (18 ULiège)
See detailGLIMMER – Global-Local Information Merging for Maturing Emergency Response
Binon, Kris; Brunet, Sébastien ULiege; Cornélis, Bernard et al

Report (2008)

Un guide, d’accord... mais pour quoi faire ? Nous tous sommes quotidiennement exposés à une variété inimaginable de risques. Au niveau individuel, ces risques sont liés à notre constitution personnelle, à ... [more ▼]

Un guide, d’accord... mais pour quoi faire ? Nous tous sommes quotidiennement exposés à une variété inimaginable de risques. Au niveau individuel, ces risques sont liés à notre constitution personnelle, à nos activités, à nos relations sociales, et à nos biens matériels et immatériels. Ce n'est que lorsqu'ils se concrétisent que nous en subissons les effets, par exemple respectivement: allergie, chute à ski, divorce, panne de gsm ou trou de mémoire. À ces risques touchant la sphère privée, s'ajoutent les risques touchant tout ou partie de la société. Ces derniers proviennent soit de la société ellemême ou de ses composantes (e.g. pollution atmosphérique, émeute), soit de l'environnement naturel (e.g. tremblement de terre). 2. Pour les risques concernant la société, les autorités publiques ont mis en oeuvre une série de politiques pour rencontrer les attentes et besoins de la population. En cas de sinistres, l’intervention d’acteurs organisés (services d'incendie, de secours, de police, cellule de crise,...) permet de répondre aux situations d'urgence. De façon à améliorer cette réponse, des plans d'intervention et d'urgence sont établis. Ces plans trouvent leur fondement dans une démarche pro-active: l'analyse de risques. Le nombre des risques étant quasiment infini, il importe d’opérer des choix. Les objectifs de ce guide sont multiples : - aider les acteurs des cellules de sécurité à travailler ensemble; - proposer des moyens permettant d’opérer un choix à bon escient; - contribuer à la prise de décisions rationnelles en matière de planification; - favoriser les échanges entre les autorités territoriales et avec les entreprises privées; - ... 3. La démarche suivie par le projet GLIMMER repose sur l'apprentissage organisationnel. Cela implique d'une part le partage d'expériences, mais aussi de franchir des paliers avec l'ensemble des autorités publiques. Ce manuscrit est l'embryon d'un manuel plus développé. Vu la demande des autorités locales de commencer leur travail d'analyse de risques avec la présente méthode, le comité d'accompagnement a décidé de mettre à leur disposition ce guide qui contient le coeur de la méthode élaborée. Des bribes d'une version ultérieure peuvent donc apparaître de temps à autre dans ce document. 4. Cette première version du guide est divisée en quatre parties principales. La première partie vise à replacer le guide dans un contexte général (celui de la gestion des risques et de la planification) et particulier (celui la mise en place de cellules de sécurité). La deuxième partie a pour objectif de fournir un cadre théorique. Il s’agit principalement de rendre compréhensible des concepts parfois flous, polysémiques ou mal maîtrisés et de constituer un cadre de référence commun. La troisième partie n’a pour autre ambition que de fournir une aide à la mise en place des cellules de sécurité et à leur bon fonctionnement. La quatrième partie est dédiée aux méthodes d'analyse de risques. Enfin, le guide est agrémenté d’annexes dans lesquelles se trouvent outils, renseignements utiles, etc. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 88 (10 ULiège)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA conceptual tool for successful participation
Cornélis, Bernard; Brunet, Sébastien ULiege; Delvenne, Pierre ULiege et al

Poster (2007, June 19)

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (2 ULiège)
See detailCoRTECS – Community and Region Training for Emergency and Crisis Situation
Brunet, Sébastien ULiege; Caps, Cindy; Claus, Tine et al

Report (2006)

Chaque année, la Direction Générale Centre de Crise (DGCC) organise une recherche scientifique d’une durée de 12 mois sur un thème précis en rapport avec ses missions1. Cette année, le thème de la ... [more ▼]

Chaque année, la Direction Générale Centre de Crise (DGCC) organise une recherche scientifique d’une durée de 12 mois sur un thème précis en rapport avec ses missions1. Cette année, le thème de la recherche est l’implication des Communautés et des Régions dans la planification d’urgence et la gestion de crise (CoRTECS Communities and Regions Training for Emergency and Crisis Situation). Cette recherche est menée par l’équipe SPIRAL de l’Université de Liège. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 43 (5 ULiège)
See detailVers une méthodologie continue d’identification des risques
Cornélis, Bernard; Brunet, Sébastien ULiege

Conference (2005)

Detailed reference viewed: 13 (2 ULiège)
See detailFederal Risk Inventory, Survey and Knowledge building (FRISK)
Cornélis, Bernard; Brunet, Sébastien ULiege; Juprelle, Pol

Report (2004)

1. Introduction Le projet FRISK (Federal Risk Inventory, Survey and Knowledge building) est une recherche commanditée par le Centre Gouvernemental de Coordination et de Crise (CGCCR) ou centre de crise ci ... [more ▼]

1. Introduction Le projet FRISK (Federal Risk Inventory, Survey and Knowledge building) est une recherche commanditée par le Centre Gouvernemental de Coordination et de Crise (CGCCR) ou centre de crise ci-après. Cette recherche s’inscrit dans une démarche constructive et prospective. Ses objectifs sont multiples et ambitieux : - établir une méthodologie permettant de reproduire la démarche ; - inventorier de manière exhaustive les dangers et risques auxquels la société actuelle est exposée ; - évaluer la fréquence de ces menaces ; - ainsi que leurs conséquences et impacts sur la population belge ; - classer (regrouper en famille et donner une priorité) aux risques ; - consulter les membres et les partenaires du CGCCR pour connaître leur évaluation ; - analyser les différentes approches ; - prendre en compte la perception de la population ; - s’inspirer d’études et de travaux similaires, belges et internationaux ; - inscrire cette étude dans le cadre de la définition d’une situation de crise conformément aux AR du 18 avril 1988 (création du CGCCR) et du 31 janvier 2003 (définition phase 4). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 137 (1 ULiège)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe OSIRIS Project (Optical Systems for Interferometric-Photogrammetric Relief Investigation and Scanning). Development of a device for 3D numerical recording of archaeological and epigraphic documents by optoelectronic processes
Laboury, Dimitri ULiege; Renotte, Yvon ULiege; Tilkens, Bernard et al


Detailed reference viewed: 128 (10 ULiège)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEstablishment of a geographic data dictionnary : a case study of UrbIS 2 ©, the Brussels regional government GIS
Pantazis, Dimos; Cornélis, Bernard; Billen, Roland ULiege et al

in Computers, Environment & Urban Systems (2002), 26(1), 3-17

Detailed reference viewed: 39 (2 ULiège)
Peer Reviewed
See detailDéveloppement d'un système de relevé numérique des documents archéologiques en trois dimensions par des procédés optoélectroniques
Laboury, Dimitri; Renotte, Yvon; Tilkens, Bernard et al

Poster (2001, November)

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 ULiège)
Full Text
See detailLa cartographie des risques et les risques de la cartographie
Cornélis, Bernard; Billen, Roland ULiege

in Hupet, P. (Ed.) Risque et systèmes complexes : les enjeux de la communication (2001)

Detailed reference viewed: 214 (5 ULiège)
Peer Reviewed
See detailProjet de développement d'un système de relevé numérique des documents archéologiques en trois dimensions par des procédés optoélectroniques
Laboury, Dimitri; Baré, Marie; Renotte, Yvon et al

Poster (2000, November)

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 ULiège)
Full Text
See detailLa géométrie de la spatiocarte : corrections et validations, Spatiocartographie
Cornélis, Bernard; Billen, Roland ULiege

in Bulletin de la Société Géographique de Liège (2000), (38(1)), 25-43

Detailed reference viewed: 38 (8 ULiège)
Peer Reviewed
See detailAn algorithm for the fusion of hill shading with satellite maps
Donnay, Jean-Paul ULiege; Cornélis, Bernard

in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Fusion of Earth Data (2000)

Detailed reference viewed: 25 (0 ULiège)
Peer Reviewed
See detailLa rédaction cartographique des spatiocartes
Donnay, Jean-Paul ULiege; Cornélis, Bernard

in Bulletin de la Société Géographique de Liège (2000), 38

Detailed reference viewed: 24 (1 ULiège)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPolish – Belgian co-operation. Development of an educational photogrammetric software
Ewiak, Irek; Billen, Roland ULiege; Cornélis, Bernard et al

in Proceedings of the ISPRS 2000 (2000)

Detailed reference viewed: 34 (5 ULiège)