Department of Geosciences
University of Fribourg
Master thesis
How do permafrost experts conceive risk in the
Swiss Alps?
GG.0317
Einführung in die
Geophysik TP
Blockkurs
31. 03. – 03. 04. 2014
Jutta Heinonen
April 2016
Supervised by:
Prof. Christian Hauck, Department Geosciences, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Dr. Olivier Ejderyan, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (ETH), Switzerland
PROGRAMM &
INFORMATIONEN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5
1. INTRODUCTION
6
2. STATE OF THE ART
11
2.1. The conception of risk
2.1.1. Risk as an interdisciplinary concept
2.1.2. Risk and risk perception in social sciences
11
11
13
2.2. Mountain permafrost in Switzerland
17
2.3. Natural hazards and risk assessment in Switzerland
2.3.1. Framing the management of natural hazards in Switzerland
2.3.2. Defining risk and risk assessment in practice
19
19
22
3. METHODOLOGY
26
3.1. Content Analysis
26
3.2. Qualitative Content Analysis: beyond counting words
27
3.3. Proceeding steps
3.3.1. Sampling technique
3.3.2. Data collection: semi-structured interviews
3.3.3. Data processing
29
29
30
32
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWS
35
4.1. Motivation for doing permafrost research in Switzerland
4.1.1. Proximity
4.1.2. Curiosity / personal interest
4.1.3. Populated mountains
35
35
36
38
4.2. Relevance of the study sites
4.2.1. The aim influences the choice of the study sites
4.2.2. Relevance of TEMPS study sites
40
40
41
4.3. TEMPS and communication of scientific knowledge
42
4.3.1. Collaboration within the permafrost community, example of the TEMPS project
42
4.3.2. Communication and use of scientific knowledge by non-experts
45
4.3.3. Uncertainty: limits of scientific knowledge giving credibility to scientific results?
47
4.4. Risk related to permafrost
4.4.1. Permafrost as leading to natural hazards
4.4.2. Scientific results as solid basis for risk assessment
4.4.3. Risks and challenges when working on mountain permafrost
2
49
49
51
53
4.5. Strategies of justification: inside the permafrost research community and
with respect to risk (as vehicle)
4.5.1. Part of a community vs. own identity
4.5.2. Fun vs. Science
4.5.3. Working together vs. working alone
4.5.4. Risk is the reason to do research
4.5.5. Risky, but interesting
55
56
59
62
63
64
5. RISK: A TOOL OF POWER
67
6. CONCLUSION
69
7. LITERATURE
71
8. APPENDIX
76
3
Abstract
In permafrost areas, changing climate has an impact on ground thermal conditions
(PERMOS, 2016). In the Swiss Alps, where permafrost covers around five percent of
the territory, a thawing of the permafrost and, consequently, an increase of the active
layer thickness, can be problematic. The terrain might in some places become unstable
and this has the potential to trigger natural hazards such as landslides, debris flows or
rock falls (Gruber and Haeberli, 2009). Natural hazards are particularly critical in
populated and tourist areas.
The main goal of this study is to get a better understanding of how experts, working in
the permafrost domain, conceive the evolution of permafrost in the Swiss Alps and the
risk it might trigger. In order to answer this question, this Master thesis draws on semistructured and open-ended interviews conducted with several experts from the
permafrost research community. With the social scientific perspective and using
Qualitative Content Analysis as a method of analysis, the interviews were
systematically studied. Findings suggest that there are many factors, which come into
play in the conception of risk related to the evolution of permafrost in Switzerland. It
appeared that there are some strategies of justification inside the research community
and with respect to risk. Moreover, this work states that the notion of risk is much more
than an end state of natural and social processes. Risk can also become a tool of
power that can be minimized or highlighted depending on the purpose it has.
Keywords: risk conception, permafrost thawing, Swiss Alps, Qualitative Content
Analysis, power relationships
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude for all the people, who helped me in the conception
of this Master thesis:
-
Christian Hauck and Olivier Ejderyan for their time and precious advices.
-
The five interviewees, who agreed to answer to my questions, and for their
relevant information. Without your contribution, this work would never have
been possible.
-
Brianna Rick for the English correction of this thesis.
-
Benno Staub, Samuel Python, Adrian Wicki, David Schwery, Franziska Ruef
and Alexandre Vaira for helping me with practical problems.
-
My friends, family and Pierre for their precious support.
5
1. Introduction
With the particular topography and the climate, Switzerland is prone to permafrost
areas at these latitudes (Nötzli and Gruber, 2005). According to the Federal Office for
the Environment (FOEN), five percent of the Swiss territory is covered by permafrost
(FOEN, 2016). This thermal phenomenon is defined as ground material which is
permanently frozen for more than one year (PERMOS, 2016; Nötzli and Gruber, 2005;
Gruber and Haeberli, 2009) and it occurs mainly in cold regions, e.g. at high altitude –
over 2400 m.a.s.l. in Switzerland (Keller et al., 1998) – or at high latitudes. The
measurement of the active layer thickness provides information on the evolution of
permafrost. Located on top of the permafrost, this layer reacts strongly to short-term
temperature variations occurring at ground surface. There are two main parameters
influencing permafrost behaviour: air temperature and the occurrence of snow cover at
a specific time (Zenklusen Mutter and Phillips, 2012). Depending on the month and
extreme weather conditions, the active layer can show strong variations. It thaws in
summer, reaching a depth of 0.5 to around 10m, and during wintertime it refreezes
completely again (Gruber and Haeberli, 2009; PERMOS, 2016).
In Switzerland, the presence of permafrost was discovered by accident during several
alpine constructions at the beginning of last century (Haeberli et al., 2011). However,
permafrost research is a young area of investigation. It was only in the 70s that the
behaviour and the evolution of permafrost started to be methodologically observed
(Nötzli et al., 2004). The relevance of permafrost research expanded with the increase
of big hazardous events in mountain areas. In the 1990s, Wilfried Haeberli noticed that
the permafrost belt shifted higher in the Swiss mountains and claimed that this
phenomenon might be mainly related to global warming (Haeberli et al. 1993). Rock fall
events at Matterhorn and Dent Blanche in 2003 were – among others – a trigger to
investigate permafrost behaviour more carefully. Since then, a lot of activities have
begun. Empirical-statistical models, such as PERMAKART, were developed to
generate a permafrost map (Keller et al., 1998). This map intends to assess the
distribution of permafrost on the Swiss territory and is available on the Federal Office
for Environment website. Additionally, the concept of a national permafrost-monitoring
network, PERMOS, was supported in 1997. After a 6-years pilot phase from 2000 to
2006, PERMOS started officially in 2007 (PERMOS, 2016). Today this network collects
and documents long-term data from several permafrost sites in the Swiss Alps. The
6
results achieved are published every second year in the report “Permafrost in
Switzerland”.
More recently, an interdisciplinary Sinergia project called TEMPS (The Evolution of
Mountains Permafrost in Switzerland) funded by the Swiss National Science
Foundation was conducted between November 2011 and April 2015. This project
aimed to improve the understanding of mountain permafrost vulnerability to climate
change by creating plausible evolution scenarios of the permafrost at different study
sites. Analysing the observations collected by PERMOS and integrating them in
permafrost models, this research group seeked to propose a better understanding of
the evolution of permafrost in Switzerland. To achieve this, scientists from several
institutes tried to find out the main elements influencing permafrost states and to model
permafrost behavior at different field sites in the Swiss Alps. The final symposium with
results, discussions and an excursion took place from February 4 – 6, 2015 (TEMPS,
2016).
According to the results presented in the TEMPS project, ground temperatures
measured until now show an increase of the active layer thickness for the last five
years and the models predict a continuation of this trend (PERMOS, 2016). This signal
should not be taken lightly in Switzerland. Indeed, an increase of the active layer might
lead to a destabilisation of the terrain and the release of ground material (Harris et al.,
2001; Nötzli and Gruber, 2005; Haeberli et al, 2011), which could trigger natural
hazards. Depending on where and when ground material is moving, it can potentially
have dangerous consequences and destroy transport networks or other high-mountain
infrastructures.
In Switzerland, it has been observed that human vulnerability towards natural hazards
is increasing for two main reasons (FOEN, 2015a). Firstly, humans are building more
and more on the Swiss territory. In this way, anthropic infrastructures are reaching risky
areas. Secondly, natural hazards are occurring more often. Climate scenario
projections report that, if no action is taken, the mean air temperature will rise of 2.7°C
to 4.8°C (compared to values between 1980 and 2009) by the end of this century
(FOEN, 2015a). The impacts of such a temperature increase on the alpine climate and
mountain permafrost are yet difficult to predict.
Form a practical point of view, natural hazards are often linked with the notion of risk.
Broadly defined by authorities, risk is the measure of the importance granted to safety
(PLANAT, 2009). In Switzerland, the federal authorities are supporting a more
7
responsible culture of risk with the principle of integrated risk management (Fig.1). This
stepwise process can be presented in a cycle with the most important measures to be
taken in case of hazardous event. The aim of this strategy is to be prepared for
catastrophic events in order to minimize the damages and the threat. In Switzerland,
permafrost thaw is an important component to take into consideration when assessing
natural hazards. Landslides, debris flows or rock falls can become dangerous when
reaching people beneath. This will be particularly problematic in populated and tourist
areas such as in Switzerland.
Figure 1 Cycle representing the principle of integrated risk management and the most important
measures to be taken in case of hazardous event (FOEN, 2016).
With regard to permafrost research, some study sites are difficult to access and the
occurrence of hazardous events might be dangerous. With this statement, the following
question may appear: which role does risk play in permafrost research? To answer
that, the present work is an investigation about how risk is perceived and conceived by
people working in the permafrost domain. Psychometric paradigm research on risk
perception has shown that general public’s perception of risk is distorted by other
factors (beliefs, personal experiences, memories…) (Aven and Renn, 2009). In
contrast, the risk perception of experts, “people with a qualified education and
experience in a given area of expertise” (Sjönberg, 2002), is free from such distortion
(Aven and Renn, 2009). However, nowadays, social scientists may argue that our
knowledge is conditioned by decisions (Lane, 2001) and even scientific facts are
socially constructed (Renn, 2008; Demeritt, 1996; Aven and Renn, 2009; Jasanoff,
8
1998, Brace and Geoghegan, 2010). In her direction, Sheila Jasanoff argues that
“uncertainty, ignorance and indeterminacy are always present” for scientists. They
have to deal with the uncertainty arising from their results, especially in the domain of
climate change, where forecasting the climatic evolution is a tricky challenge.
Consequently, there might be factors that influence the conception of risk even in
expert groups, such as the scientific community (Jasanoff, 1998). The knowledge that
scientists are producing is not false or erroneous. It is contextualized in practices,
which might give a specific conception of risk. And it is precisely this issue that is highly
interesting and should be explored further.
The debate about how people are conceiving risk, which is a concept and social
construction, lies at the boundary between physical and social sciences. This Master
thesis is an attempt to answer a question related to physical geography by means of
methods commonly used in human geography. Thus, it will be possible to understand
the role of risk in the domain of research and thus to find out how different experts in
the permafrost domain conceive the risk related to permafrost thawing.
Two research questions are formulated as follows:
(1) How would different permafrost experts conceive permafrost in the Swiss Alps?
How should the evolution of permafrost in the Swiss Alps be understood according to
the experts?
(2) What is the conception of risk by different permafrost experts? According to the
experts, when does permafrost thawing become a risk in the Swiss Alps?
In order to answer the research questions, semi-structured interviews conducted with a
few experts in the permafrost domain provide the raw data. In a second step, these
interviews were analyzed by means of Qualitative Content Analysis. The results
present interesting outcomes, which suggest that there are many factors influencing
the risk when related to permafrost research. The Qualitative Content Analysis
demonstrates that there are some strategies of justification inside the research
community and with respect to risk. More interestingly, risk seems to be much more
than an end state of natural and social processes. Apparently, it can also become a
tool of power that can be minimized or highlighted depending on the purpose that risk
has.
9
This work is structured into six chapters. After this short introduction, the context of the
research is presented. The state of the art is divided into three sub-chapters: (2.1.)
concept of risk with a particular focus on the social scientific perspective; (2.2.)
mountain permafrost in Switzerland and (2.3.) how risk and risk assessment is
managed in Switzerland.
The third chapter is dedicated to the approach and the methodology used to answer
the research questions. It shows the key points of Qualitative Content Analysis and the
advantages compared to a simple Content Analysis method. Furthermore the different
steps of the analysis are presented with all the details about the way in which this
research was conducted: data collection, sampling and data processing.
The results are presented in the fourth chapter. This part contains the main themes
emerging from the raw data provided by the interviews as well as some relevant
passages coming from the unstructured interviews to answer the research questions.
In chapter five, risk is presented as a tool of power and this gives a broader scope to
the topic and some perspectives for future studies. Finally, the conclusion summarizes
the major points discussed in this research.
10
2. State of the art
This second chapter presents a concise introduction in the topics related to the
research question of this Master thesis. It is separated into three sub-chapters: (2.1.)
concept of risk with a particular focus on the social scientific perspective; (2.2.)
mountain permafrost in Switzerland and (2.3.) how risk and risk assessment is
managed in Switzerland.
2.1. The conception of risk
2.1.1. Risk as an interdisciplinary concept
To begin the subchapter, it is meaningful to make clear the distinction between hazard
and risk. Hazard is, by definition, the potential that an event causes harm to people or
to what they esteem (Renn, 2008a). For example, the occurrence of a debris flow is a
hazard. It can potentially reach a village in the mountains, but it can also flow in a
remote valley. A hazard can evolve into risk only when there is a high probability that
the hazard can harm people. According to Renn, risk can be defined by three main
components: (1) negative outcomes that have an influence on people; (2) the
probability of the development of the event (uncertainty); and (3) a particular context in
which the risk appears.
The scientific groundwork to explain and accept risk has not been provided at the
moment. One reason for this is that risk has multiple characters. According to Ortwin
Renn’s article, Concepts of Risk: An Interdisciplinary Review published in the inter- and
transdisciplinary journal GAIA (2008a, 2008b), the notion of risk is related to the
context in which it is handled. In the review, he presents the main disciplinary
approaches that are commonly used for explaining and interpreting risk. Summarizing
Renn’s claims, this subchapter presents the potential that risk has to be treated in
many divergent disciplines.
A. Risk seen in the natural and technical sciences
The main idea in natural and technical sciences is to anticipate the possible harm to
people or what they value. The probability of the occurrence of risk can be estimated
with the average of the events. Models are often used to represent causal relationships
11
and thus possible outcomes. Technical risk analysis is often used to avoid or change
the elements leading to the undesirable results.
Social scientists, such as Baruch Fishhoff, Paul Slovic and Ortwin Renn, have criticized
the technical analysis of risk. They defend that the way people see a negative outcome
is related to personal values and choices. Moreover, social scientists claim that models
give the same weight for magnitude and probabilities. Thus, models are not able to
grasp the difference between these two components, even if people could prefer one of
them. Nevertheless, technical risk analysis helps decision makers to evaluate the
expected potential damages. At the moment, it seems to be the best tool to predict the
occurrence of risk. But the scientific community has to put more effort in order to
improve the technique for risk assessment (Renn, 2008a).
B. The economic approach
In the economic disciplines, the conception of risk is very similar to the one in natural
and technical sciences. The main difference in the economic approach is the shift from
the risk as harm to people or what they value into “utilities”. Economists define utility as
the unit to “the degree of satisfaction, or dissatisfaction associated with a possible
action or transaction” (Renn, 2008a). This shift from the anticipated physical harm into
predicted utility has two main functions and advantages: (1) all kind of outcomes can
be measured; (2) utilities give the same unit of comparison between different sorts of
profit. The economic perspective of risk is a consistent tool in those cases where
resolutions have to be reached by individuals (e.g. decision-makers).
C. The psychological approach
With this perspective, risk is linked to subjective experience, understanding and
preferences. Risk takes the form of a “semantic image”. Risk as an inevitable threat or
a personal stimulation (e.g. testing the own capacities to excel a risky situation) are just
two examples of the figure that risk can take in people’s imagination. The association of
such semantic images with the context in which risk occurs can increase the effect of
risk on people’s perception. “risk perception differ considerably among social and
cultural groups” (Renn, 2008a). This fact leads to further practical questions: if the
perception of risk differs among individuals, who’s perception should be applied in risk
assessment? The psychological point of view of risk brings relevant information for
grasping risk, but this perspective stays limited in the appropriateness.
12
D. The social and cultural approach
From the social and cultural point of view, risk or unwanted event is defined as a social
construction (Renn, 2008a). Social values are influencing the outcomes coming from a
risky event. Thus, forecasting risky event by mean of probability calculation is
senseless because the perception of the social group and their values have to be
considered. In order to overcome this problem, social scientists have developed a few
theoretical approaches (e.g. the systems of theory approach of Luhmann or the postmodern perspective by Foucault).
Choice of the adequate approach
These four approaches in risk conception are somehow limited and insufficient,
because in our society, risk appears as possible physical harm as well as social
reaction towards this possible harm. The divergence between the four approaches
presented in the conception of risk can potentially lead to conflicts. In order to bridge
this gap, Renn suggests to open the discussion between the different stakeholders. A
further tool would be to work with an interdisciplinary approach (Renn, 2008b).
Now that the background of the multiple facet of risk is set, it is time to take the
adequate direction for answering the research question. The current work concentrates
on the fourth approaches presented above, namely risk and its perception in social
sciences. In the following subchapter, the main trends and a few studies on risk and
risk perception are presented in order to get a sufficient background in what has
already been done in this topic.
2.1.2. Risk and risk perception in social sciences
Research on risk perception originates from several empirical studies conducted on the
assessment of probability and decision-making processes (Slovic et al., 1982). The
main discovery was that people try to make sense of the uncertain world by using a
“small set of mental strategies”. Since then the research on risk perception has been
grounded in basic cognitive psychology.
In the 80s, technological risks became a matter of concern and the focus turned to the
creation of quantitative representations of risk attitudes and perceptions. To do so
researchers used psychophysical scaling methods and multivariate analysis. In 1978,
Fischhoff and his colleagues, a group of American social psychologists, led a study
about how people (general public and expert) perceive riskiness. The experiment’s
13
subjects were asked to give their opinion on several sets of hazardous activities,
substances and technologies. The results showed that people respond to hazards in
many different ways. However, the perception of the general public seems to be more
sensitive to factors such as beliefs, personal experiences, dread, and new versus old
risk. In contrast, expert’s judgement is free from such influences. Their judgement
seemed to be under the influence of the same biases as those of laypersons only when
experts were asked to give their opinion about topics beyond their knowledge or
experience (Slovic et al, 1982). The researchers argued that such an inquiry on the
understanding of risk perception is worthwhile in informing policy. The authors wrote:
Psychometric knowledge may not ensure wise or effective decisions,
but lack of such knowledge certainly increases the probability that wellintentioned policies will fail to meet their goals.
(Slovic et al, 1982: 89)
Since then, the psychometric paradigm, based on the distinction between expert and
general public knowledge, grew in power and became a norm in US policy. Admitting
that technical risk assessment and political risk management should be clearly
separated, this doctrine offers the potential to centralize the control of risk management
by adequate and specific authorities. As a following, scientists, as experts having the
know-how, were used to support political positions on specific topics. This argument
was strongly supported in the United States by a renowned federal judge Justice
Stephen Breyer. In his opinion, the solution for reducing the vulnerability of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be to create a sort of “superagency”,
whose mission would be to “bring a degree of uniformity and rationality to decision
making in highly technical areas” (Jasanoff, 1998).
The relationship between science and politics has been largely discussed (Maasen and
Weigart, 2005). Moreover, it has been widely accepted that the main objective of the
psychometric paradigm is to “inculcate true or rational beliefs about risk in place of
false or irrational ones” (Jasanoff, 1998). As a follow-up, research on social
construction of science and risk and on the public understanding of science have
criticised the dissymmetry exposed in the psychometric paradigm. Using the principle
of symmetry, which suggests that all kinds of affirmations judged to be true or false
should be analysed in the same way, research in the sociology of scientific knowledge
(SSK) shows that lay and expert knowledge about risk is constructed by interests and
14
power. Inspired by the social construction and social theory literature, Jasanoff
distinguishes three different models for risk perception – realist, constructivist and
discursive model – and thereby three different perceptions of risk (Jasanoff, 1998).
The realist model, based on the positivist theory of knowledge, defines risk as the
output of natural and social processes, which can be measured and controlled “to the
extent that science permits”. Experts, who by definition have a specialized education
and experience in a given area of expertise (Jasanoff, 1998), are the only source of
accurate knowledge. Thus, scientific knowledge stemming from experts’ education and
experience should be applied in political decision-making (Maasen & Weigart 2005).
According to the constructivist model, knowledge about risk is constructed and shaped
by social processes. It rejects the paradigm advocated by realists and positivists
presenting science as an independent form of qualitative characteristics. Social
constructivists support that risk perception is biased by societal judgments. This
perception of risk originates from expert and lay knowledge and both have the right to
be supported. Thus all stakeholders can take part in risk management.
The discursive model considers also that social processes construct knowledge about
risk. But what distinguishes the third model from the second one is the authoritative
dimension of the knowledge. In other words, this model points out the importance of
professional languages and analytic practices regarding issues about risk. This kind of
authoritative knowledge stems from the discourse of people or institutions qualified as
experts. According to Jasanoff, a discourse “is first and foremost a specialized
language (…) that serves to allocate power in society” (Jasanoff, 1998). Thus, through
discourses about risk, some people are empowered as experts, whereas others are
rejected for being incompetent or unimportant. However, in the meantime, discourses
about risk influence experts to conceive risk in a particular way.
In 2002, Sjöberg criticises the widely accepted statement (that experts perceive risk as
annual fatalities and technical risk estimates, whereas lay people’s perception is
distorted by qualitative characteristic), which he describes as a myth “transmitted from
one generation of researchers to the next without sufficient concern about how solid its
empirical basis is”. The author raises the issue about the difference between experts
and the general public when talking about risk perception. This issue remains poorly
explained in many studies. Reporting on a study that experts conducted on a large
group of subjects about nuclear waste, he states that there is no ground for stating that
15
experts’ and non-experts’ risk perception has a completely different basis. He pointes
out that there are other factors, such as country differences, which influence risk
perception (Sjöberg, 2002).
In spite of the results shown in the SSK studies, researches in social science studies
have accentuated the special power of scientific knowledge to persuade others. Since
the Enlightenment, it has been widely admitted that science reveals the truth about the
surrounding world. Scientific fact is objective knowledge about the nature as it is. Thus,
“claims to knowledge are claims to power”. With their special status, scientists have
“silenced other voices interested in environmental matters” (Demeritt, 1996). The
power of scientific knowledge tends to take priority over general public knowledge
(Jasanoff, 2010).
It has been seen that, in the social sciences, the notion of risk can be analyzed from
different points of view and that there are lots of debates surrounding the issue on risk
and risk perception. Through the research questions – how do permafrost experts
conceive risk in the Swiss Alps? – the use of the social scientific perspective with the
discursive model presented by Jasanoff makes sense. According to this model, a
discourse (i.e. knowledge and claims) is a specialized language that is socially
constructed and used to assign power in society. This Master thesis assumes that
experts’ discourses create power relationships in the scientific community, but these
are not made intentionally. Thus, through the analysis of this specialized language
some social patterns, which are shaping the permafrost community, emerge. The
outcome of the study is presented in the results and discussed in the fifth chapter of
this work. Before that, the next subchapter presents the context in which risk is
analyzed: mountain permafrost in Switzerland.
16
2.2. Mountain permafrost in Switzerland
Permafrost is, by definition, ground material that remains under 0°C during two or more
years (PERMOS, 2016; Nötzli and Gruber, 2005; Gruber and Haeberli, 2009).
According to this purely thermal definition, every ground material can be permafrost
under specific climatic conditions. Today, it occurs in regions at high latitude and high
altitude. Generally, permafrost areas are subject to seasonal thaw. During this period of
time, the temperature at the surface of the ground exceeds 0°C and the material
directly below the surface thaws. Ground material, which is prone to such seasonal
thawing, is called the active layer and it can reach a thickness of 0.5 to around 10
meters (Gruber and Haeberli, 2009; PERMOS, 2016).
In Switzerland, the discovery of permafrost goes back to the first years of the 20th
century, when alpine constructions – such as the construction of the Grande Dixence
dam – took place (Haeberli et al., 2011). In spite of these initial sparse observations,
permafrost research remains a young area of investigation. It was only in the 70s that
the behaviour and the evolution of permafrost started to be methodologically observed
(Nötzli et al., 2004). A pioneer, taking a closer look to the patterns influencing mountain
permafrost and also the problems it induced in Swiss Alpine areas, was Wilfried
Haeberli. This scientist was one of the first to highlight the importance of
communicating the experience between scientists and technicians in the improvement
of high mountain constructions, mitigation structures and environmental care (Haeberli,
1992). If no attention is paid, when building on permafrost ground, the mountain
infrastructures can be deformed or even damaged. Such problems can be solved with
appropriate technical solutions (Bommer et al., 2010).
In the 1990s, permafrost experts noticed that the permafrost belt shifted to higher
altitudes in the mountains. At that time, this observation was taken as a signal of the
occurring climate change due to increasing release of the anthropogenic greenhouse
gases and global warming (Haeberli et al. 1993). They claimed the following:
17
Permafrost reactions to atmospheric warming generally take place in
the form of: (1) active layer thickening with thaw settlement in
supersaturated materials (immediate response; time scale in years); (2)
disturbance of temperature distribution at depth (heat flow reduction;
intermediate response; time scale in years to decades); (3) basal
melting of permafrost with thaw settlement in supersaturated materials
(final response with a delay of several decades; lasting decades,
centuries or even millennia).
(Haeberli et al. 1993: 170)
Mountain permafrost – permafrost taking place in mountain regions – is characterized
by its high spatial variability through components such as the elevation, the orientation,
the subsurface material, the water availability and the snow cover (Gruber and
Haeberli, 2009). Data on mountain permafrost are often only few and scattered. The
reason for this is the access to the monitoring site that can be complicated and even
expensive. Moreover the comprehension and the prediction of mountain permafrost
spatial patterns are extremely complex (Gruber and Haeberli, 2009). In order to better
understand the phenomena related to permafrost, scientists combine two major
techniques: monitoring and modeling. The first one, the monitoring technique, can be
separated into direct methods (e.g. temperature measurements) and indirect methods
(e.g. geophysical techniques). The second one, modeling, allows the analysis of
processes related to permafrost and it can also be used as indicator for the future
evolution of the permafrost (Hauck et al., 2012).
Today, mountain permafrost is carefully investigated in Switzerland by six university
institutes that collect data and sustain permafrost study sites. The coordination and the
reporting of the results are accomplished by PERMOS. This national permafrostmonitoring network was created in the later 1990s and has the task to collect and
document long-term data from several permafrost sites in the Swiss Alps. This data
serves also to predict and model future evolution of permafrost. As an example, the
Sinergia project called TEMPS used the data collected by PERMOS. The Swiss
National Science Foundation that gives money for fundamentally scientific projects,
which provide an improvement for Science, funded this project. TEMPS was intended
to give probable scenarios of the evolution of permafrost by analysing PERMOScompiled data and running the data in permafrost oriented models (SNFN, 2015;
TEMPS, 2016).
18
Mountain permafrost is highly relevant for scientific as well as for practical issues (i.e.
natural hazards). Indeed a warming of the permafrost has the potential to change the
regime of natural hazards (Gruber and Haeberli, 2009) and, in a highly populated
country like Switzerland, such phenomena have to be considered. Thus spatial and
temporal modelling of permafrost areas is also an important tool for long-term planning
of mountain infrastructures. Furthermore this data can be used to find out where
natural hazards could occur in the future. In the same topic, the next subchapter
focuses on, how natural hazards and risk are managed in Switzerland.
2.3. Natural hazards and risk assessment in Switzerland
2.3.1. Framing the management of natural hazards in Switzerland
As an Alpine country, Switzerland has always been threatened by natural hazards,
such as debris-flows, rockfalls and landslides. However, the frequency of these natural
hazards in mountain areas has increased during the last years with changing climate
conditions (FOEN, 2015a). In Switzerland, there are three main organizations
responsible for the management of natural hazards: the Federal Office for Environment
(FOEN), the National Platform for Natural Hazards (PLANAT) and the Swiss Federal
Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL). Since June 2014,
Switzerland’s Environmental Protection Act (EPA) mandates the publication of a report
every four years concerning the state of the environment in Switzerland. This
publication should communicate factually based information about the state of the
Swiss environment and provides a basis for future environmental policies (FOEN,
2015b). According to the first report “Environment Switzerland 2015”, the risk induced
by natural hazards is rising in Switzerland. This phenomenon is manly explained by the
combination of two factors: the expansion of built-up areas (1) and changing climate
(2).
Land-use and transport infrastructures have been strongly increasing in Switzerland
during the past years (FOEN, 2015b). Today, these constructions are more and more
reaching critical regions, which were previously avoided because of higher risk.
Moreover, this expanding building leaves no place for dangerous events. With big
hazardous events, like the Randa rockslide in 1991, it became obvious to Swiss
19
authorities that mitigation measures are no longer sufficient to insure security. Spatial
planning with respect to natural hazards is needed (OFAT, OFFEE and OFEFP, 1997).
In 1991, the revision of the Federal Act on Forest (ForA) and the law on watercourses
management (LACE) integrated several aspects related to natural hazards. Six years
later,
the
first
guidelines
on
natural
hazards
were
published
providing
recommendations on hazard map building and their use in landscape planning. Since
then, hazard maps have become a prerequisite for the application of the law on the
spatial planning. These maps define the conditions for the use of a defined zone and
they give an idea on residential areas, which can potentially be reached by natural
hazards such as floods, avalanches, landslides and rock falls (FOEN, 2016).
Additionally, these maps show danger zones with different levels of danger illustrated
by colors (red, blue, yellow, yellow and white, white). The hazard maps should be
regularly updated and an adequate application of them (avoiding hazards zones)
should ensure security and lower damage costs. By 1 January 2014, over 90% of the
hazard maps assembled by cantons were finished and two-thirds of the communes had
included them in their land-use plans (FOEN, 2015b).
Recently, the benefits of planning based on risk have been described in the synthetic
report called “Aménagement du territoire fondé sur les risques” (PLANAT, ARE and
OFEV, 2014). It shows that planning, which takes into consideration the type, the
intensity and the vulnerability of land-use, is an applicable approach. The Federal
Office for the Environment claims in his report that it has been demonstrated that
landscape planning has definitely the potential to reduce the risks (PLANAT, ARE and
OFEV, 2014).
The second determining factor playing a role in natural hazard occurrence is climate
change. The air temperature increase occurring during the past decades is raising the
limit of the zero degree in mountain regions. As a result, many glaciers have begun to
melt in a drastic way and permafrost has been thawing. In Switzerland, where
mountains are densely populated and infrastructures are implanted in frozen ground,
permafrost thaw presents a non-negligible risk. The degradation of ground ice
reshapes the surface of mountain relief and causes negative impacts on mountain
infrastructures, which become unstable (Bommer et al., 2010).
Climate models are predicting an increase in air temperature for the next decades and
consequently a deep thawing of ground ice (Scherler et al., 2013; Delaloye et al.,
2012). Higher temperatures during the summer period will boost the risk of forest fires
destroying efficient forest, which acts as a natural protection against natural hazards
(FOEN, 2016). Strong precipitation events and the melting of glaciers will bring more
20
water in the system. Loose material can then easily be set in motion, leading potentially
to rockfalls and debris-flows (FOEN, 2015b).
Despite the risk prevention measures and the amount invested in it, the damage of
events related to natural hazards are still increasing (FOEN, 2015b). The past 20 years
have shown that hazard prevention is not sufficient. There is not one best way to be
completely protected from natural hazards, but risks and damages can be greatly
reduced by combining different prevention strategies. This is the reason why the
federal authorities have developed other strategies in order to minimize the risks and
the costs.
Nowadays, the federal authorities are supporting a more responsible culture of risk.
This idea, called “integrated risk management”, seeks to predict in advance the
repercussions of natural hazards. This method includes all the factors involved in the
process of risk management and combines the different mitigation measures (e.g.
prevention, response towards the events and regeneration of the past infrastructures).
The report “Environment Switzerland 2015” clearly states the priorities in natural
hazard management.
The current priorities for action in natural hazard management include
renovating and adapting existing protective structures, increasing
protective forest maintenance, controlling the spread of built-up area,
developing warning and alerting systems, and increasing the general
public’s awareness of natural hazards by providing better information
(individual prevention, how to act in the case of a hazard occurring,
reducing the vulnerability of buildings).
(FOEN, 2015b: 96)
The last point mentioned in this quotation is a central aspect in the idea of “responsible
culture of risk” lead by the federal authorities. Public awareness towards natural
hazards can be improved by providing better available information. Thus a new portal,
www.naturgefahren.ch, has been created by the federal agencies 1 responsible for
natural hazards. This portal is available to the public and provides the most information
on potential hazards (e.g. thunderstorms, floods, forest fires, avalanches and
1
The federal agencies responsible for natural hazards consists of the Federal Office for Environment, MeteoSchweiz,
the Federal Office for Civil Protection, the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL with
the WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF and the Swiss Seismological Service. These institutions are
grouped under the Steering Committee Intervention in Natural Hazards (LAINAT).
21
earthquakes). Thereby the federal authorities can advise people how to behave during
such potentially dangerous events.
All these strategies (e.g. mapping and communication) for the integrated risk
management are based on a better understanding of the situation led by experts.
Precise scientific knowledge gives better predictions about the occurrence of natural
hazards and thus minimizes risk, for example by applying appropriate mitigation
measures.
2.3.2. Defining risk and risk assessment in practice
In Switzerland, there are technical guidelines, which define risk and its intensity. The
“Guide du concept de risque” serves as a reference and gives clear standards of
security in questions concerning global risk management (PLANAT, 2009).
The guide defines risk as follow:
Sur le plan général, le risque caractérise la possibilité qu’une
conséquence indésirable (…) se produise. Le risque peut donc être
défini comme la mesure de l’importance accordée à la sécurité (…). Le
risque se caractérise par : la fréquence ou la récurrence d’un
événement dangereux, et l’ampleur des dommages, déterminée par
le nombre de personnes et les valeurs matérielles qui sont exposés à
un
événement
dangereux
au
moment
où
celui-ci
se
produit
effectivement, et par la vulnérabilité des personnes et des biens
considérés. En l’occurrence, ces biens peuvent avoir des dimensions
économiques, écologiques ou sociales.
(PLANAT, 2009: 3)
The guide defines risk in a broad sense as a measure resulting from two main
components: the frequency and the extent of damages. Thus, risk can be assessed
quantitatively with mathematical models based on hypothesis and experts’ estimations.
22
Densité d
4
Grandeur de lévénement
(p. ex. niveau T)
2 Notion de risque et paramètres le décrivant
b)
(b)
Densité de probabilité p
Densité de probabilité p
a)
(a)
Fonction de densité de probabilité
Probabilité que l'ampleur T*
d'un événement soit atteinte
ou dépassé = «récurrence»
du scénario T*
Fonction de densité de probabilité
Grandeur de lévénement
(p. ex. niveau T)
Probabilité que l'ampleur d'un
événement se suite entre T* et
T1 = «récurrence» du scénario
Grandeur de l'événement
(p. ex. niveau T)
b)
Densité de probabilité p
F IG .frequency
2.1: Représentationin
de laarécurrence
(a) et de la fréquence
(b) dans
une fonction de
(b) 2 Graph showing (a) recurrence and (b)
Figure
probability
density
function
ofdensité
an de probabilité (selon [13])
Fonction de2009).
densité de probabilité
event (PLANAT,
Les risques consécutifs à des dangers naturels sont définis comme la valeur des dommages atProbabilité que l'ampleur d'un
événement se suite entre T*
et
tendus.
Le risque peut être exprimé en valeur des dommages attendus par unité de temps (p. ex.
T1 = «récurrence» du scénario
francs par an) ou par événement.
Figure 2 shows the recurrence and frequency in a probability density function of an
event. Recurrence can be defined as the period of time when a threshold value (e.g. a
specific water level reached in case of floods) is reached and triggers damage (Fig.
2.2du
Formule
du risque
5
2.2 Formule
risque
5
2.2 Formule
du risque
5
version
d’évaluation
févrierprobability
2009
2a). Frequency of an eventGrandeur
cande be
determined within
the
same
density
l'événement
function of an event. Different scenarios
can
(p. ex. niveau
T) be drawn from the event occurring in the area
function
Different
scenarios
drawn
from
the event
occurring
the
1
beyond
T*:ofa an
firstevent.
scenario
between
T* and Tcan
, a be
second
one
between
T1 and
T2 and ainthird
F IG . 2.1: Représentation de la récurrence (a) et de la fréquence (b) dans une fonction de densité de probabilité (selon [13])
2.2
Formule du risque
2.2 beyond
Formule
dumaxrisque
2.2 T2T*:
Formule
du 2b).
risque
area
scenario
between T* and T1, a second one between T1 and T2
one
between
anda Tfirst
(Fig.
Les risques consécutifs à des dangers naturels sont définis comme la valeur des dommages attendus. Le risque peut être exprimé en valeur des dommages
unité de temps (p. ex.
2 attendus parmax
francs par an) ou par événement.
and aisthird
one
between
T and
T
(Fig.
2b).
There
a risk
when
anunobject
is exposed
to aque
danger
whenest
itdes
canactions
beà damaged
to its
Un un
risque
ou
dommage
neque
survient
lorsqu’un
objet
exposé
des
actionsdue
dangereuses,
et
Un risque
ne survient
lorsqu’un
objet and
estobjet
exposé
dangereuses,
et
Unou
risquedommage
ou un dommage
ne survient
que lorsqu’un
est àexposé
à des actions
dangereuses,
et
There
is qu’il
asubir
risk
when
object
is exposed
to
athese
danger
and La
when
it can
be
damaged
peut
subiran
desrisk
dommages
en
raison
de sa
vulnérabilité.
formule
du risque
qui synthétise
vulnerability.
The
following
formula
summarizes
interactions.
qu’il peut
des
dommages
en
raison
sa vulnérabilité.
La
formule
du
risque
synthétise
qu’il
peut
subir
des dommages
ende
raison
de sa vulnérabilité.
La formule
duqui
risque
qui synthétise
ces interactions
peut être exprimée
par l’équation
suivante :
ces
interactions
peut
être
exprimée
par
l’équation
suivante
:
due to its
The
formula summarizes
these interactions.
cesvulnerability.
interactions peut
êtrefollowing
exprimée risk
par l’équation
suivante :
= p · p j · Ai · vi, j
Ri, j = pRj i,·Rjpi,=
i,jj ·pAj i··jpvi,i,jji,· A
i · vi, j
=
R
j
i,
j
∑
R j = ∑RRR
i,=
j
R
version d’évaluation février 2009
∑ i i, j
i
R=∑
[NV/an
francs/an]
R = ∑R
ou
francs/an]
Rj=
R jR j [NV/an
ououfrancs/an]
∑ [NV/an
i
j
R
pj
pi, j
Ai
vi, j
j
j
j
(2.2)
(2.1)
(2.1)
(2.2)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.3)
(2.3)
(2.1)
[NV/year or Swiss francs/year]
Rcollective
risque
collectif,
tous
scénarios
objets
i [francs/an
NV/an]
= R risque
somme
desomme
tous
lesde
scénarios
j eti objets
[francs/an
ouNV/year
NV/an]
risk, collectif,
sum
of all the
scenarios
j and
objects
[ Swiss
francs/year
or
]NV/an]
= =collectif,
risque
somme
de
tous
lesles
scénarios
j etjiet
objets
i [francs/an
ouou
p j = = probabilité
probabilité
j [-]
= p probabilité
duthe
scénario
jscénario
of
scenario
j[-]
[-]
dudu
scénario
j [-]
j probability
=
probabilité
que
l’objet
i
soit
exposé
j [-]
p
i,
j
= pi,probabilité
quethe
l’objet
soit
exposé
au
scénario
jscénario
[-]
probability
that
object
i is exposed
to
the
scenario
j [-] j [-]
que il’objet
i soit
exposé
auau
scénario
j = probabilité
A
=
valeur
de
l’objet
i
[francs]
i = of
= Aivaleur
de
l’objet
[francs]
value
the
object
i [Swissi [francs]
francs]
valeur
de il’objet
vulnérabilité
de
l’objet
i en
fonction
j [-]
vvulnerability
i, j = = vulnérabilité
= v vulnérabilité
de
l’objet
i
en
fonction
du
scénario
jscénario
of the object
i depending
on
the
scenario
j[-]
[-]
de l’objet
i en
fonction
dudu
scénario
j [-]
i, j
Les
formules
montrent
qu’à
dangerosité
égale,
il peut
résulter
risques
différents
vulLes formules
montrent
qu’à
dangerosité
égale, ilégale,
peut
résulter
des
risques
différents
du fait de
vulLes
formules
montrent
qu’à
dangerosité
il peut
résulter
desdes
risques
différents
dudu
faitfait
dede
vulnérabilités
différentes.
Même
grandeurs
sont
quantifiées
dans
l’application
du
concept
(PLANAT,
nérabilités
différentes.
Même siMême
ces
grandeurs
ne sont pas
quantifiées
dans l’application
du concept
nérabilités
différentes.
si si
cesces
grandeurs
nene
sont
paspas
quantifiées
dans
l’application
du2009)
concept
de
risque,
ou
qu’elles
ne
le
sont
que
partiellement
en
fonction
du
degré
de
détail
nécessaire,
il faut
de risque,
qu’elles
ne le sont
partiellement
en fonction
du degrédudedegré
détaildenécessaire,
il faut il faut
de ou
risque,
ou qu’elles
ne que
le sont
que partiellement
en fonction
détail nécessaire,
toujours
être
conscient
différents
relations
lorsqu’on
évalue
risques.
toujourstoujours
être
conscient
de ces différents
facteursfacteurs
etfacteurs
relations
lorsqu’on
évalue des
risques.
être
conscient
dede
cesces
différents
et et
relations
lorsqu’on
évalue
desdes
risques.
InInthis
formula,
objects
(i)
can
be
people,
material
objects
or
both.
The
priority
is
to
this formula, objects (i) can be people, material objects or both. The priority given
is given
people and secondly to material objects, which are grouped in different categories (i.e.
to people2.3
and secondly
to material
objects,
which are grouped in different categories
Personnes
objets
menacés
2.3 Personnes
et objets
menacés
2.3
Personnes
etetobjets
menacés
buildings,
special
objects,
transport
infrastructures,
ropeways, agriculture, green areas and
(i.e. buildings, special objects, transport infrastructures, ropeways, agriculture, green
forests). In order to determine the costs of the global risk (R), it is necessary to give a
principe,
dans
une
analyse
on
considère
objets
qui
entrent
manière
signifiareas
and
forests).
In
order
to
determine
theoncosts
the
global
risk
itdeisde
necessary
EnEn
principe,
une
analyse
desdes
risques,
considère
lesles
objets
qui
entrent
manière
signifiEn principe,
dans
unedans
analyse
des
risques,
onrisques,
considère
lesof
objets
qui
entrent
de(R),
manière
signifipecuniarycative
value
to
all
kind
of
objects,
even
to
personal
injuries
sustained
by
people
cative
dans
décision
concrète
relative
aux
mesures
de
sécurité
nécessaires.
Un
événement
peut
la la
décision
concrète
relative
aux
mesures
deto
sécurité
nécessaires.
Un
événement
peut
cative
la dans
décision
concrète
relative
aux
de
sécurité
nécessaires.
Un événement
peut by
to
givedans
a pecuniary
value
to
all kind
ofmesures
objects,
even
personal
injuries
sustained
concerner
soit
des
personnes,
soit
des
objets,
soit
les
deux.
La
stratégie
PLANAT
«Dangers
(PLANAT,
2009).
concerner
des personnes,
des soit
objets,
lesLa
deux.
La stratégie
PLANAT
«Dangers
na-naconcerner
soit dessoit
personnes,
soit dessoit
objets,
les soit
deux.
stratégie
PLANAT
«Dangers
naturels»
Suisse
[56]
donne
la
priorité
à
la
vie
humaine
;
la
protection
des
biens
matériels
vient
people
(PLANAT,
2009).
Suisse
[56]ladonne
la priorité
la vie humaine
; la protection
desmatériels
biens matériels
turels» turels»
Suisse [56]
donne
priorité
à la vie àhumaine
; la protection
des biens
vient envient enen
second
lieu.
Elle
aborde
cependant
aussi
impératifs
sécurité
infrastructures,
biens
lieu.
Elle
aborde
cependant
lesles
impératifs
dede
sécurité
desdes
infrastructures,
desdes
biens
second second
lieu.
Elle
aborde
cependant
aussi lesaussi
impératifs
de sécurité
des
infrastructures,
des biens
Beyond the
quantitative
definition
of
risk
as
“the
probability
of
harm
arising
from
more
or
less
culturels,
des
collectivités
politiques
et
des
systèmes
socio-économiques.
culturels,
des collectivités
politiques
et des systèmes
socio-économiques.
culturels,
des collectivités
politiques
et des systèmes
socio-économiques.
determinable
physical,
biological
or
social
causes”,
Sheila
Jasanoff
argues
that ont
riskdonc
is une
Lespersonnes
personnessusceptibles
susceptiblesd’être
d’êtreblessées
blessées
outuées
tuéeslors
lorsd’un
d’unévénement
événement
naturel
23oulors
Les personnes
Les
ontune
donc une
susceptibles d’être blessées
ou tuées
d’un événement
naturel naturel
ont donc
particulière.
y lieu
a lieu
de
traiter
spécialement
personnes
blessées
et
les
coûts
subprimarily
a importance
social
construct.
isdeaspécialement
creation
of les
thepersonnes
human
mind
concerning
importance
particulière.
Il Il
ydearisk
traiter
spécialement
lesles
personnes
blessées
et a
lesthought
coûts
subimportance
particulière.
Il y aThus,
lieu
traiter
blessées
et les coûts
subséquents,
lesquels
peuvent
être
considérables
dans
certaines
circonstances.
priori,
peut
lesquels
être
considérables
dans
certaines
circonstances.
AA
priori,
onon
nene
peut
séquents,
lesquels
peuvent
être
considérables
dans certaines
circonstances.
priori,
on
ne peut
and
idea.séquents,
Risk
should
bepeuvent
seen
as
the
expression
of profound
beliefsA and
cultural
values,
pas attribuer de valeur pécuniaire aux dommages corporels subis par des personnes. Cependant,
Beyond the quantitative definition of risk as “the probability of harm arising from more
or less determinable physical, biological or social causes”, Sheila Jasanoff argues that
risk is primarily a social construct. Thus, risk is a creation of the human mind
concerning a thought and idea. Risk should be seen as the expression of profound
beliefs and cultural values, which differ from one cultural setting to another. The
concept of risk serves as the basis for modern environmental regulation (Jasanoff,
1999). It has a power. It gives meaning to acts and deeds. According to Jasanoff, in the
current industrial society, risk has become a central concept. Indeed, the main aim of
most environmental authorities is to reduce the occurrence of damages. Agencies in
charge of the application of environmental laws have to justify their activity with risk
assessment. The Swiss “Guide du concept de risque” defines the concept of risk as
follow:
Aujourd’hui le concept de risque est un instrument qui permet de faire
une présentation transparente de procédures au sein d’un réseau
complexe de spécialistes, d’institutions et de partenaires, et de justifier
de manière tout à fait claire les dépenses de sécurité.
(PLANAT, 2009: 1)
In practice, risk assessment is usually executed by means of quantitative tools and
scientists are requested to provide reliable methods for identifying and representing
risk to the population (Jasanoff, 1999). Thus, scientists are taking the role of expert,
who by definition has “a qualified education and experience in a given area of
expertise” (Sjönberg, 2002). This relationship between science and politics or the role
of science for advising politics has been a widely discussed topic. According to Maasen
and Weigart (2005), science obeys the code of truth and should generate accurate
knowledge, whereas politics and political authorities are governed by the code of
power. Considering these characteristics, in knowledge-based culture, there are many
interactions taking place between science and politics. They are working together to
produce indubitable understanding of nature (Jasanoff, 2010). In this way, politics have
the power for building norms and setting baseline conditions to justify actions.
Acknowledging that risk is (1) a concept (i.e. something conceived / created) and (2)
that beliefs are based on values, one may ask is it accurately possible to define the
conception of risk and who has the right to declare its conception to be the right one.
Experts? Lay people?
24
Now that the context of this Master thesis is set, the taken perspective can be
disclosed. In this respect, where decision-making and risk management are shaped by
and based on scientific knowledge and expert perception of risk, the current work
investigates how experts conceive risk. More precisely, the issue is how they conceive
the risk of permafrost thaw in Switzerland. However, it will not compare experts’ risk
perception to the lay one. The emphasis will rather be on the different conception of
risk among the different experts from the same community (i.e. permafrost community):
whether (1) those, who are producing scientific knowledge, or those (2), who are
applying the scientific knowledge to specific case studies.
25
3. Methodology
So far, it has been made clear that, in this work, experts’ conception of risk is studied in
social scientific fashion with the discursive model presented by Jasanoff (Jasanoff,
1998). This third chapter shows the methodology used in this Master thesis. First, it
presents what is meant by Content Analysis. Then, in a second step, Qualitative
Content Analysis is defined and it is made clear why especially this approach was
chosen to answer the research question. Finally, the proceeding steps (i.e. data
collection, sampling and data processing) are exposed.
3.1. Content Analysis
Content Analysis is one of many other approaches used to examine different kinds of
documents (Bryman, 2008). It is known to be a research technique, which can be
applied to various media data. The main purpose of this approach is to describe
objectively, systematically and quantitatively the manifest content in communication
rather than to produce data. Berelson defines Content Analysis as “an approach to the
analysis of documents and texts that seeks to quantify content in terms of
predeterminated categories and in a systematic and replicable manner” (quoted in
Mayring, 2000).
The very first use of Content Analysis took place already in the 7th century with the
attempt to analyze text documents by counting the word-frequency in the Old
Testament. Since then, Content Analysis has been used to interpret several kinds of
language materials such as dream analyses by Freud or newspaper analyses by
Speed in 1893 (Mayring, 2014). As a result to that, Content Analysis became widely
used in communication research (e.g. newspapers, television and other mass media).
Today, it is used in many different forms of communications, such as visual images,
radio and television programs, lyrics and popular songs (Bryman, 2008). In this Master
thesis, the documents that will be analyzed are transcripts of unstructured interviews
and the focus will be placed on the interviewee’s own conception and point of view.
There are two kinds of content, which can be analyzed: manifest content and latent
content. The first one is what is apparent and what is clearly about. The second one,
latent content, refers to what is beneath the superficial indicators of content. These two
sets of contents are interesting to investigate in the context of interviewing. Indeed,
26
interviews are a social interaction, where both, the interviewee as well as the
interviewer, are a part of the interaction (Myers and Newman, 2007). Moreover, such
discussions take place in an artificial setting, meaning that the interviewee is asked to
give (create) opinions under a certain time pressure. The interviewer does not only
gather data but he or she is also actively creating knowledge (Meyers and Newman,
2007). Thus, in interviews, there is also a latent content, which might be analyzed.
The main qualities of Content Analysis are being objective and systematic. In this
approach, objectivity means that there is transparency in the attribution of the raw
material / data to categories. Being systematic refers to the fact that there are certain
rules in doing the analysis. Both qualities allow anyone to use this approach and to get
the same results and researcher’s personal biases can be erased (Bryman, 2008). In
this way, it is a transparent research method and it means that the coding method is
easy to replicate in other contexts.
3.2. Qualitative Content Analysis: beyond counting words
As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, Content Analysis is based on a
quantitative research approach (Bryman, 2008). Rules are clearly specified in order to
create categories by means of quantitative accounts from the raw data. According to
Philipp Mayring (2014), Qualitative Content Analysis is an approach that seeks to keep
the advantages of a Quantitative Content Analysis in a more qualitative text
interpretation. Indeed, in Qualitative Content Analysis, the most relevant point is why a
special vocabulary is used in a precise context and not the frequency of a particular
word. Thus, this approach combines qualitative as well as quantitative methods. First,
the qualitative phase consists of reasoning and attributing categories to text passages.
The characteristics of the language are analyzed with a special focus on the context
and its meaning. This process allows themes and categories to emerge from the data.
Then, the quantitative step concentrates on the text passages and the category
frequencies. It shows which words are the most used and how often (Mayring, 2014).
According to Mayring (2000), Qualitative Content Analysis has two main advantages
compared to using a simple Content Analysis. First, it is a way of gaining information
directly from the participants without imposing predefined categories from theoretical
background. This offers a richer understanding of the phenomenon. Secondly,
27
Qualitative Content Analysis is an empirical approach, which has a methodological
basis for a controlled analysis of texts. The largest challenge would be failing to identify
the key categories (Mayring, 2000).
The application of Qualitative Content Analysis occurs in a stepwise process, which
can occur in two different ways / approaches developed by Mayring (2014): (1)
deductive category application (Fig. 3a) and (2) inductive category development (Fig.
3b). The choice of the adequate approach depends on the research question, the state
of science in the field and the aim of the study. In this thesis, the inductive category
development (Fig. 3b) seems to be the most adequate for two main reasons: (1) the
existing theory and literature on the research topic are limited and (2) the aim of this
thesis is to describe a phenomenon. According to Mayring, inductive category
development aims to assign categories directly from the material itself and without
theoretical consideration (Mayring, 2014).
The inductive category development can be compared to the conventional content
analysis described by Hsieh and Shannon (2005). It aims to describe a phenomenon
and to develop concepts and/or building of models. This strategy differs from other
qualitative methods such as grounded theory method (GTM) or phenomenology. Even
though the initial analytical procedure is the same, the GTM and phenomenology seek
to produce a theory or multiple understandings of lived experiences while conventional
procedure of content analysis derives categories directly from the data (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005).
28
the points of discovery and extracting and processing them.
In accordance with the type of structuring (see below), the results of this run-through must then be
summarized and analyzed.
This general description of a structuring content analysis can be shown in a procedural model as
follows:
a)
b)
Step 1
Research question, theoretical background
80
Step 1
Research question, theoretical background
Step 2
Definition of the category system (main
categories and subcategories) from theory
Step 2
Establishment of a selection criterion,
category definition, level of abstraction
Step 3
Definition of the coding guideline (definitions, anchor examples and coding rules)
Step 3
Working through the texts line by line, new
category formulation or subsumption
Step 4
Revision of categories and rules
after 10 - 50% of texts
Step 4
Material run-through, preliminary codings,
adding anchor examples and coding rules
Step 5
Final working through the material
Step 5
Revision of the categories and coding
guideline after 10 - 50% of the material
Step 6
Building of main categories if useful
Step 6
Final working through the material
Step 7
Intra-/Inter-coder agreement check
Step 7
Analysis, category frequencies and
contingencies interpretation
Step 8
Final results, ev. frequencies, interpretation
Figure
16: Steps
of deductive
Figure
3 (a)
Step
model category
of theassignment
deductive category application
and
(b) step
model
of the inductive
Figure 14: Steps
of inductive
category
development
category development by Mayring (Mayring, 2014).
Within the logic of content analysis, the level or theme of categories to be developed must be
defined previously. There has to be a criterion for the selection process in category formation. This
3.3. Proceeding steps
In this work, Qualitative Content Analysis was used as an approach to answer the
research question. This chapter shows in details each step of the research: which tools
have been used to get raw data, which sample was used, and how data was
processed.
3.3.1. Sampling technique
As already mentioned in the second chapter, Jasanoff’s discursive model was chosen
to answer the research question concerning the conception of risk related to permafrost
research in Switzerland. Thus, this work assumed that experts in permafrost have a
discourse (e.g. a specialized language), which can be analyzed. In order to access to
29
experts in permafrost, a purposive sampling was used. It means that individuals with
pertinent characteristics are chosen for the study. According to Anderson, purposive
sampling may be used to produce the most variation within a sample. Furthermore,
considering that qualitative research requires more detailed and intensive work on the
data, the sample should be rather small (Anderson, 2010). To do this, the sample of
the interviewees was chosen according to two main criteria of selection: (1) they are
experts in permafrost issues and (2) they are dealing with permafrost. Thus, in this
work, an expert is defined as a person having certain knowledge about permafrost
issues and working in this domain.
The interviewees were contacted either by e-mail or by asking them in person, and
finally five experts accepted to be interviewed. Three subjects were from the
permafrost research group (involved in the TEMPS project) and the two others were
from the practical permafrost part. Because of the two different parts, the interview
guides had to be adapted (see Appendix). For privacy reasons, the interviewees have
been named as Interviewee with a number. The entire interview will not appear in the
appendix, but the most relevant passages have been selected and highlighted in the
fourth part (Chapter 4. Results and the analysis of the interviews).
There are many people working with permafrost: scientists, practitioners doing applied
research and practitioners as decision-makers. In this Master thesis, scientists are
defined as mainly working in universities and research institutes. They have time to try
and develop new ideas and methods. On the other side, practitioners doing applied
research are mainly working in engineering offices producing hazard maps or building
defense structures. Their task is for example to create hazard maps by modeling what
is occurring at a specific site. They want to understand which phenomenon is taking
place. Is permafrost thawing? Is temperature rising? How far is the sediment mass
going to travel? Decision-makers are placed in the practitioners group even if their
function is slightly different. They have to decide if the road should be closed or not, if
the village should be evacuated or not. Decision-makers at higher positions may decide
about financing issues, which amount will be given to the Cantons, how much to the
research institutes and what they are required to do with it.
3.3.2. Data collection: semi-structured interviews
For this thesis, five semi-structured interviews have been conducted. The choice of this
kind of interviewing was clear with regards to the research question. Indeed, the
30
purpose is not to get a general idea about risk, but to grasp the particular
understanding of each interviewee on how he/she conceives risk. Therefore each
specific issue, which could emerge from the discussion, has to be taken into account
and be explored. The freedom offered by semi-structured interviews allows a
discussion of more specific issues (Myers and Newman, 2007).
According to Myers and Newman (2007), unstructured and semi-structured interviews
are lead with an incomplete script. In other words, the interviewer prepares a few
questions in advance and uses them as a guideline. There is a need to have wellprepared guiding questions in order to frame the discussion properly during the
interview. In this thesis, the interview guide has been created with questions to cover a
fairly specific topic. The relevant questions were grouped into four main themes: (1) the
interviewee’s background and interest in permafrost research; (2) the permafrost study
sites; (3) the communication of scientific knowledge and (4) the risk related to
permafrost thaw. The interview guide was structured in a way that offered flexibility to
jump from one question to another during the interview. The questions were formulated
according to the research question and it was possible for the interviewee to discuss
freely about an issue (see interview guides in the Appendix).
It has to be kept in mind that an interview occurs in a specific context. Interviewing is a
social interaction, where the interviewer is part of the interaction. It occurs in artificial
settings, where the interviewee is asked to give an opinion under time pressure. As
Meyers and Newman argue, the interviewer does not only gather data but he or she is
“also actively constructing knowledge”. This is why one must not forget that the
interviewer may influence the interviewee’s responses by using a specific vocabulary.
There is a technic called mirroring which is widely used to overcome this problem of
influencing the interviewees. Mirroring consist of “taking the words and phrases the
subjects use in constructing a subsequent question or comment: mirroring their
comments. This allows the researcher to focus on the subjects’ own and uses their
language rather that imposing yours” (Meyers and Newman, 2007).
All the interviews conducted in this work were recorded after interviewees’ agreement.
Furthermore, a few notes were taken by hand. The interviewees had the choice to
speak in their mother tongue. Thus, the Interviewees could express themselves in the
most confortable way for them. In the end, four interviews were conducted in English
and one in German. The different passages of each interview presented in this work
are kept in the original language.
31
3.3.3. Data processing
Transcription
Since interview transcripts are a conversion of spoken language converted into textual
form, there is a need to have clear transcription rules. According to Mayring, there are
several transcription systems to write out oral data in a textual form. In Jasanoff’s
discursive model, emphasize is placed on the wording of the speaker. For this reason,
in this work, all the interviews have been recorded and thus allow a pure verbatim
protocol (Mayring, 2014). This means that the audio files were transcribed word for
word. In this work, the software called f4 was used for the transcription of the
interviews.
Data analysis
Figure 4 Example of the identification and the highlighting of the main information with the
software Nvivo (QSR International, 2016).
The first step of data analysis in qualitative research consists of reading through the
sources (in this case, the interviews), which will be used for the analysis. This is a
relevant step in order to get a broad overview of what has been discussed. After that,
the coding – a way to manage data (Bryman, 2008) – can begin. This procedure
consists of “selecting source content and defining it as belonging to a specific node
(topic or research subject)” (NVivo10, 2016) that at the end gives an inventory of the
main information and themes emerging from the interviews (Fig. 4). In this work, the
coding was conducted manually with the popular software called NVivo (QSR
International, 2016) in an inductive category formation manner (Mayring, 2014). Thus,
the data was processed word by word and with a specific criterion of definition in order
32
to get nodes/categories – “containers that lets you gather source content relating to
themes, people, places, organizations or other areas of interest” (NVivo10, 2016). In
order to avoid getting submerged by the large amounts of data and not lose the tread,
the research questions were kept in focus.
To give one example, the comment of Interviewee 5 concerning the sensitivity of
permafrost sites was coded with all of the nodes showed under the citation.
Interviewee 5: At other sites, it’s not that… sensitive. For example at
very ice rich sites, rock glaciers for example. Also there we see a
reaction to the last four to five years, which have been very warm. But
it’s not… you would need many more warm years to really have a
strong impact on permafrost. But we see reactions, which means the
permafrost is directly connected to these air temperatures, rising air
temperatures. And for rock glaciers, for example, this is more a
question of where are they located, is this a steep slope… Is there a
hazard potential due to… due to increased velocities and stuff like
that… like the rock glaciers in the Matter valley.
Ice rich sites (rock glaciers, for example) need more warm years to
have a strong impact on permafrost.
The reactions of permafrost are very consistent with the mean air
temperature evolution.
For rock glacier, the question is more: is there a hazard potential?
After the analysis of the first two interviews, the nodes/categories were revised in order
to ensure that the reliability of the process is respected and the research questions are
answered.
When the coding process was applied for all the interviews, the nodes were efficiently
organized in a hierarchy. More general topics were named under “parent nodes” and
placed at the top of the hierarchy. Then, more precise topics were put under “child
nodes” located below a parent node (Fig. 5). All categories/nodes can be found in the
appendix of this work. Organizing the nodes/categories in a hierarchical manner allows
themes and concepts to be derived from the data (Mayring, 2014).
33
Figure 5 Nodes/categories are organized in a hierarchical manner under parent nodes and child
nodes. Here this step was accomplished with Nvivo (QSR International, 2016).
In the final stage, the categories created were sorted into clusters in order to highlight
relationships between the different categories. Then, the most striking examples were
selected from the raw data for illustrating the most relevant aspects of each category.
Finally, the outcome of the data analysis is presented in the next chapters.
34
4. Results and analysis of the interviews
The following section delivers the most relevant results coming from the five interviews
conducted with permafrost experts. The results are presented in four major themes,
which were discussed during the interviews: (1) interviewees’ background; (2) study
sites; (3) TEMPS and communication of scientific knowledge; (4) risk of permafrost.
Each theme is developed according to what the interviewees related.
4.1. Motivation for doing permafrost research in Switzerland
What triggers interest in permafrost? Why do people study permafrost and why
precisely in Switzerland? For the interviewees, working on permafrost is clearly a
matter of interest. All of them studied geography or geology at the university and
worked there as assistant or did their PhD. Thus it can be said that all the interviewees,
considered as experts in permafrost, have a “scientific background”.
Besides the scientific background, there are other motivations to work on mountain
permafrost in Switzerland. The experts are doing permafrost research in Switzerland
even if they could do it somewhere else in the world. Three following motivations for
studying permafrost in Switzerland were mentioned: (1) proximity, (2) personal interest
and (3) populated mountains.
4.1.1. Proximity
Three interviewees out of five mentioned that proximity is an important factor for doing
permafrost research in Switzerland. Interviewee 1 said "Why doing research so far if
you have it just in front of your door?" Indeed, the special topography and climate in
Switzerland make that there are permafrost areas at these latitudes (Nötzli and Gruber,
2005). The distances between the cities and the mountains are small. Field sites are
not far and the access is quite easy. In Switzerland everything is more or less close,
and for doing research it is an advantage.
35
Interviewee 5: (…) When you are living in Switzerland, you just can go
there every week and that’s much easier to do fieldwork in this… with
these constraints. So you do not depend on one time in year and you
have more than one chance to get good data or to… you can go there
more often and that’s something, I appreciate.
Proximity is an opportunity to go to a specific field site several times in a limited period.
If there is a technical problem, it can be managed back home and go to the field the
next day (Interviewee 5). This possibility offers some flexibility and does not require the
planning of a large field campaign. Depending on where the investigation area is
located, it can be reached by foot, by car, by cable car or even by helicopter. Moreover,
it could be argued that proximity makes the data more reliable. Indeed, doing many
measures at the same places, on the same profiles, enables a check of the data.
4.1.2. Curiosity / personal interest
Besides proximity, personal interest was another motivation reported by all
interviewees. To illustrate this motivation factor, Interviewee 2 explained that she was
given the opportunity to work somewhere else than in Switzerland. So she responded
to her boss:
Interviewee 2: (…) And I said "But we don't understand what's
happening here yet. So, why go all down there (in the Antarctica)?"
3
(Laugh) "When we don't yet know, why Piz Kesch loses 150'000m in
the middle of winter.” You know. So I think, I want to try to understand
processes properly before I go... looking at... yeah.
There is clearly a wish to understand the processes happening in the own mountains. It
is interesting to note that even if the processes are general, they have a local
importance. Changes occurring in a familiar landscape are intriguing. ”The permafrost
is interesting where there is an element at risk, where you have problems below, or it is
also interesting for scientific reason.” (Interviewee 3) Thus for scientists, changes – and
in this case changes in permafrost – are scientifically interesting. Meaning the physical
processes which are hidden behind are intriguing.
Interviewee 1 explained that in the current stage of climate change, scientists have to
treat complete process changes. This means that the climate is changing and it has an
36
impact on the ground. As it is well known, there is an interaction between the
atmosphere and the ground, and this generates processes on the ground surface.
Natural hazards are caused by surface changes, which are produced by atmospheric
changes (Nötzli et al., 2004). For scientists, these kinds of changes at and in the
ground are scientifically interesting. If the interaction between the atmosphere and the
ground is understood, then there is the possibility to understand how natural hazards
occur.
The response generated by permafrost processes is not always trivial (PERMOS,
2013) and this is the reason why it is important to keep an extensive overview on the
whole system and the processes present. Thus experts working on permafrost have to
treat complete processes in a given system, even if there are still some phenomena
that cannot be explained. To give one example, Interviewee 2 mentioned the rock fall
at Piz Kesch occurring in wintertime 2014. This is quite exceptional because mostly
rock falls occur in July, during melt season (Nötzli et al., 2004). "Why did it fall down in
February? And not in July?” (Interviewee 2). It is important to understand what kind of
changes are occurring and why. Are these changes due to anthropogenic climate
change due to human activities or is it just the natural variability?
Doing research is the most common way for trying to understand, analyze and study
process changes. Research is often part of a project and good investigations need
decades of data. In climate sciences, long-term data is a clear indicator to produce a
trend. However, for the moment, permafrost monitoring data series are not long
enough to perform accurate trend analysis or create predictions for the future, because
the time-series data are not yet covering 30 years (Interviewee 2). This means that
today, scientists working on permafrost issues can calculate trends, but these trends
cannot necessarily say anything regarding a potentially ongoing climatic trend.
However scientists can at least monitor more intensively some places where
permafrost is reacting faster to climatic changes and where it can potentially trigger
natural hazards. This topic will be discussed later in the results in the subchapter 4.4.
Risk related to permafrost.
37
4.1.3. Populated mountains
All the experts interviewed told that Switzerland is an interesting place to study
because there are highly populated mountains. The following passage illustrated this
claim.
Interviewer: What’s your opinion on why is permafrost so important to
investigate here in Switzerland?
Interviewee 3: Well, we have mountains. We have climate, which
makes that we have permafrost areas. And we have persons living in
Switzerland. And these persons are exposed to risk, to the hazard what
gives the risk. And that’s why we are dealing.
According to most of the interviewees, events such as rock falls and debris flows seem
to occur more often. It is clear that if these things would occur in the middle of nowhere,
it would not interest anyone. A rock glacier collapsing in some remote area would not
be noticed. But here, in Switzerland, these events matter because the country has
heavily populated mountains. Lots of people go there in their free time: skiing, hiking,
biking, etc. There is a potential risk to harm people. Lives can be in danger.
Populated mountains as a motivation for doing permafrost research are a relevant
claim with regards to the research question of this thesis. There is an interest to do
research on permafrost in Switzerland because of the highly populated mountains.
Furthermore, risk is a justification for doing research at places where it is risky,
dangerous.
Additionally, there are some places, which are famous and very touristic. Places where
the flow of tourists coming from all over the word is very intense and people are
potentially exposed to risk. The interviewee 2 mentioned this point.
Interviewee 2: (…) If you have a lot more people in one place. And I
mean this is the case in Zermatt for example. If you think of all the
people taking the train up the valley or the car to Täsch. And what can
come down on both sides... If that increases then... yeah... you have to
sort of be careful that you have it under control.
Thus one of the reasons for doing permafrost research in Switzerland is a question of
security. Even if it is risky to go to the mountains, people in Switzerland will not stop
38
going there. Moreover, the Swiss government has the duty to give a certain security for
the citizens in official areas (Interviewee 3). This means that when people are in the
transportation networks, at home or at work, the government has to guaranty a certain
level of safety. To accomplish this, programs are mobilized and money is provided for
scientific research. Processes induced by permafrost thaw (such as debris flows or
rock falls) have to be considered, because they can have dangerous consequences.
For hazard specialists working at the Swiss Confederation, the final aim is to know
where it is dangerous and which kind of hazards are acting there. Then they can take
measures for prevention by closing roads or, if necessary, evacuating some high-risk
areas in order to reduce the occurrence of damages.
The Federal Office for Environment deals with natural hazards and scientific results
contributing to the risk assessment. Agencies in charge of the application of
environmental laws have to justify their activity with risk assessment and to formulate
technical guidelines. Scientific results are the basis for formulating such documents. In
Switzerland, this is the “Guide du concept de risque”, which describes what are the
objectives and which probability of risky event the Federal Office for Environment can
accept (PLANAT, 2009). This sort of supremacy of science will be discussed more
precisely in the section entitled 4.3. Communication and use of scientific knowledge by
non-experts.
Even though permafrost research is interesting and meaningful in Switzerland, all the
interviewees agreed on the fact that the problems, which people are facing here, are
nothing in comparison to permafrost issues in other places in the world. In northern
regions, for example, almost all the infrastructures are built on permafrost ground and
are potentially unstable (Osterkamp et al., 1997). Moreover Interviewee 3, working at
the Federal Office for Environment, claimed that according to the statistics of the
damages, the damage costs and the risk due to permafrost events are not very high in
comparison to flood problems.
The claim saying that the problems related to permafrost degradation in Switzerland
are nothing in comparison to permafrost issues in other places in the world could
highlight three rhetorical strategies for the conception of risk. First, risk is important to
localize a potential harm. Risk with regards to permafrost is related to places where
permafrost is thawing and people can be harmed. This harm is higher in other places
than in Switzerland. Secondly, risk with regards to permafrost thaw is not so important
on a “national” cost level. Costs related to flooding problems are much more expensive.
39
Finally, risk related to permafrost thaw is relevant for the contribution to research on a
worldwide relevant topic.
4.2. Relevance of the study sites
4.2.1. The aim influences the choice of the study sites
The choice of the study site is different from one interviewee to another. It can be said
that the study site is linked to the purpose of the work that the expert is conducting or
according to the goal of the institute they are working for. Interviewees 2, 3 and 4 are
mainly working with practical issues, which means that their study sites are often
located near buildings or infrastructures on permafrost. This is not always the case for
experts working in research institutes. For scientist the main goal is to understand the
mechanism: how does permafrost terrain evolve. “… that's more to understand what's
happening…” (Interviewee 2).
There are study sites that are monitored for practical issues and others, which are
investigated for purely scientific purposes. Interviewee 4 explained that study sites with
practical issues are chosen according to places, where there is a potential harm (an
interest for human beings).
Interviewee 4: “Wenn keine Gefahr besteht und kein Schadenpotenzial
vorhanden ist, dort gibt es keine Risiken. Und wenn keine Risiken
vorhanden ist, muss man auch nichts machen.“
On the other hand, in scientific research, the choice of a precise study site is related to
several factors. First of all, the relevance of the study sites is related to the amount of
measured data at a specific study site. All the three interviewees working in research
institutes mentioned the relevance of the permafrost monitoring site Murtèl Corvatsch.
The relevance of this site relies on the fact that it is one of the first sites in Switzerland
where boreholes were drilled and that it has a long time-series data. The quantity and
quality of already existing data was also a prerequisite for Interviewee 5. She explained
that in her expertise, geophysical methods (i.e. methods that permit to visualize the
subsurface structures without disturbing the ground), she needs the information coming
from boreholes. It means that her study sites are chosen according to the presence of
40
a borehole or other previous measures she could use. Indeed geophysical methods
(such as Electrical Resistivity Tomography and seismic reflection) provide additional
information and it makes sense to go to sites where other people have worked before.
Secondly the relevance of a study site is often associated with interesting physical
mechanisms. Interviewee 2 illustrates this by using the example of the study site
Ritigraben in the Matter Valley. At this site, a fast moving rock glacier located above a
gully exists. With the debris coming from the top of the mountain and accumulating on
the rock glacier, the whole lobe of rock is “a bomb waiting to go”. It is scientifically
interesting to observe this process (Interviewee 2). This impressive and interesting
phenomenon is not only relevant for its physical mechanism but also for the hazardous
outcome. Indeed, the debris flow can potentially reach the villages of Grächen and StNiklaus in the valley.
Finally, other factors influencing the choice of a study site were mentioned. Interviewee
2 said that some monitoring sites were inherited form other institutes or, in some
special cases, boreholes have been drilled due to the presence of a drilling machine.
Interviewee 2 reported that organizing a hole to be drilled is expensive. Thus if a drilling
machine is already in the mountains, they can benefit from the occasion and ask to drill
an additional borehole nearby.
4.2.2. Relevance of TEMPS study sites
Regarding the choice of the study sites used in the TEMPS project, the scientists
choose monitoring sites that already exist because of the long-term measurements
(Interviewee 1, 2 and 5). This was the main criterion because of the aim of the TEMPS
project, which was to “analyze and integrate (these) high-mountain observations with
model simulations using a dynamic process-oriented permafrost model” (SNFN, 2015).
For this reason, most of the sites in the TEMPS project are related to PERMOS
monitoring sites (Interviewee 1 and 2). There are other criteria in the choice of specific
study sites for the TEMPS project, which depend on the aim of each subproject. For
example, the subproject TEMPS C addresses kinematics and dynamics of rock
glaciers. Therefore, moving rock glaciers is the main criterion for the choice of a
TEMPS study site (Interviewee 2).
41
According to Interviewee 5, many sites related to the TEMPS project are sensitive to air
temperature changes. The reaction during the last warm years is quite homogenous at
more or less all sites. However some study sites are reacting slowly and others more
directly. For example, ice-rich sites (e.g. rock glaciers) need more warm years to result
in a strong impact on permafrost (Interviewee 5).
4.3. TEMPS and communication of scientific knowledge
4.3.1. Collaboration within the permafrost community, example of the
TEMPS project
Climate is changing and thus conditions in permafrost are changing or at least they will
change in the future (Hauck et al., 2012; Delaloye et al., 2012). Several events
occurring during the extreme hot summer 2003 were the trigger for more research
projects on permafrost. People became more aware that there is a need to do longterm and target monitoring of the most critical zones. Research projects start and
receive money when they address an interesting topic or important events are
happening. According to Interviewee 3, the Federal Office for Environment sometimes
needs some results from a specific case study in order to approve projects in the area.
The Federal Office for Environment needs information and scientists are providing it.
There is an exchange between research institutes and the Swiss authority. This
collaboration is warmly appreciated by the researcher. The interviewees working in
research projects reported often that they wanted to contribute to something useful, or
that they hope their results are useful for someone: “I don't want to do research which,
you know, sort of lands in dusty piles somewhere” (Interviewee 2).
Within the interviewed expert, all are concerned by the topic of TEMPS Interviewees 2
and 5 were completely involved in the TEMPS project. Interviewee 1 did some
measures for a few study sites related to the project. The other two experts did not
know that much about the project. The aim of a SNSF Sinergia project like TEMPS is to
work together for the same purpose by exchanging scientific knowledge (SNFN, 2015).
The TEMPS-project is a “nice challenge” and a chance to work with different people
(with different backgrounds) together for the same goal. “It’s an opportunity to connect
different parts” (Interviewee 1). Indeed, over 20 scientists from several institutes were
42
involved in the project. Working with other people on the same topic offers the
possibility to learn from each other. Interviewee 2 reported a pertinent example of
working together.
Interviewee 2: I think it's very good that we're working together. I think.
Interviewer: Why?
Interviewee 2: Because we need to really open our view to other
methods of thinking and working and... dealing with... data for example.
I would do something different with data then somebody else will. You
know. There is a lot of different things where we can learn from each
other.
(…) One nice example is on Corvatsch. Our laser scans and then the
areal photogrammetry from Isabelle. Basically we wouldn't have
combined... We wouldn't have done anything at Corvatsch if we hadn't
had TEMPS, you know. And now it's really good to see, to compare
these two measurements systems and see that they really confirm what
the other system is saying. (…) So that's a positive thing.
In fact, there is great potential to be able to produce accurate and interesting results
through permafrost research. According to Interviewee 2, there is a lot of data (e.g.
borehole, geophysical data, meteo data, laser scans,…) available and people working
within the project seem to get on well together. However, working together is not
always an easy task. This fact is not special to the permafrost community. It occurs in
many other disciplines as well. To achieve interdisciplinarity there is a need of an
efficient exchange of knowledge. The different specialists need to stay in touch and
keep communication open about the obtained results by publishing papers together in
scientific journals. Basically, a common work requires more effort from each partner,
keeping the relation active (Interviewee 2). Nevertheless, each person tends to have
his or her own dynamic and own interest. This is illustrated in the following passage,
where Interviewee 2 gives her opinion about working on a project with different
partners from other institutes.
Interviewee 2: (…) I mean you can see now with the conference. It's not
always easy with several people bringing different ideas and wishes
and I don't know what. (…) If you do something with so many people is
a bit more difficult.
43
It came up from the interviews that the main difference between scientists and
practitioners is the kind of research they are conducting. Scientists are doing scientific
research whereas the practitioners are conducting applied research. Scientists have
the opportunity to try and test some basic principles, which could be used in the
practice. Thus purely scientific research on permafrost is led by universities and
research institutes. They are paid to do research and this is the reason why it is
important that scientific knowledge is communicated. Interviewee 4 judged that this
communication has to be transparent and very close between the different institutes as
well as with the practitioners. All interviewees affirmed that research and practice are
working together and that there is communication between scientists and practitioners.
According to Interviewee 2, practitioners want to have solutions for their current
questions and problems. They do not have the money or a few years’ time to test
things. In other words, practitioners need to have a system and methods that work. In
this same direction, Interviewee 4 told that private companies try to apply basic
principles resulting from academic-based research. If the research question is
complicated and cannot be solved by themselves, they turn to research institutes to
find a solution (Interviewee 4). Furthermore, if an issue needs to be investigated more
deeply in a certain direction, then the research can be implemented in a project
(Interviewee 3).
As presented in the Introduction, one opportunity to bring practitioners and scientists to
the same table was the TEMPS Symposium (TEMPS, 2016). During this event, the
newest results and methods of the TEMPS project as well as of invited international
permafrost experts were presented. Practitioners can afterwards use these results and
methods for their own purposes. Such a kind of meeting offers the possibility for
practitioners to be informed of the state of the research on permafrost and the newest
tools used for permafrost research. Moreover scientists are confronted with problems
coming from practice. This kind of meeting is also a way to keep communication open
between scientists and practitioners.
However, most of the interviewees told that research institutes are communicating their
results to practitioners anyway. Even if meetings such as the TEMPS Symposium
would not take place, the communication of the scientific knowledge would still occur.
Interviewee 2 reported that at the SLF they publish yearly reports, which presents the
results in a comprehensible manner. In this way, practitioners understand the main
results quickly. The presented results have to be clear and concise. Practitioners do
not want to spend too much time trying to understand the results, because they have to
44
react depending on what the results are showing. Is the permafrost warming,
disappearing or staying stable?
4.3.2. Communication and use of scientific knowledge by non-experts
The communication of scientific knowledge was a matter of concern in all the
discussions with the experts. The main issues were about the communication of
scientific knowledge to non-experts. Should scientific knowledge be communicated to
the public? And if yes, then, when and how should the communication be done?
According to most of the interviewees, the general population is interested in scientific
results when an important and impressive natural hazard event happens. But as soon
as the event is over or stops, the interest disappears quite quickly. However the
process (thawing permafrost) is ongoing. Is it a duty to inform general people (nonexperts) about the state of permafrost? Here the opinion of the interviewees differs.
Interviewee 1 told that it is a duty to communicate scientific knowledge. It is meaningful
to do this transfer of knowledge.
Interviewee 1: I think as a researcher, you have also a certain
responsibility for the society. Because if you know something, that
maybe something is dangerous, and then you should tell the people.
Of course the results should be presented in an understandable way taking into
account the background of the non-experts. In this way, there is a greater chance that
the public understands correctly what the scientists want to communicate. This
communication to the general public is a challenging task for the scientists, because
each person has their own way of understanding or interpreting the same information.
In the other hand, Interviewee 4 did not share the opinion of Interviewee 1. He told that
it is not a duty to inform the general people about complex scientific knowledge. The
so-called non-experts do not use this knowledge and they do not have the know-how to
understand what it is about. Interviewee 4 gave the example of reading the IPCC
report. The general public cannot properly understand such kind of report for two main
reasons. First of all, the IPCC report is long (more than a thousand pages) and
complicated. Secondly, the general public does not have the know-how to understand
it. Therefore there is a need to have an intermediary level, which is reached by
specialized offices in Switzerland. The Media Service of the FOEN brings the
45
complexity down and communicates the scientific information in an understandable
way for the general public.
Furthermore, Interviewee 4 claimed clearly that highly precise scientific results are just
important for scientific community and not necessary for the population. This opinion is
showed in the next passage.
Interviewee 4: Aber als ein solches Symposium (meaning the TEMPS
symposium) oder ein Forschungsprojekt die Resultate in der Urform an
die breite Öffentlichkeit das bringt nichts. Das verwirrt nur.
Interviewee 4 argued that if the general public would use the highly precise scientific
knowledge, it could be misunderstood. Moreover non-expert people (e.g. politicians or
organizations) can use scientific knowledge tendentiously or to persuade people to do
something. It is widely admitted that if decisions or claims are science-based, these
decisions justify themselves with “true” knowledge (Maasen and Weingart, 2005).
Scientific results are published usually with a certain uncertainty range and this range
is clearly declared (Interviewee 4). However non-experts may have a specific vision of
the situation and want to promote a certain response. They pick some single aspects
from the scientific results or push the results to one extreme of the range, depending
on the aim they have. Interviewee 4 illustrates this claim with the following example.
Interviewee 4: (...) Wenn ein Politiker irgend ein Ziel erreichen will, der
sagt ja der Klimaerwärmung wird in den nächsten 20 Jahren plus 4,5
Grad sein. Dabei ist das beim Grenzwert oder bei der Bandbreite den...
ein IPCC-Bericht zum Beispiel gibt die obere Grenze. Er sagt nicht,
dass die untere Grenze nur 1 Grad ist. Er will ja möglichst
dramatisieren, dann geht er an diese... auf diese Seite.
Such kind of misuse of scientific knowledge for persuasion or power can frustrate
scientists, who want primarily “to produce honest research and to produce results with
a certain uncertainty” (Interviewee 1).
Experts in permafrost and other domains know that they cannot expect the general
public to recognize biased data. This is the reason why scientists and other experts
have to keep communicating the results and clearly show the uncertainty ranges of the
results they are giving.
46
4.3.3. Uncertainty: limits of scientific knowledge giving credibility to
scientific results?
In natural sciences, scientific knowledge is directly related to known processes.
However there are processes which are not yet known and thus are uncertain. How do
permafrost experts conceptualize uncertainty and who do they deal with this
uncertainty? According to all the interviewees, there is not much uncertainty in the
observed raw data (e.g. borehole temperatures, geophysical data, meteo data, laser
scans,…). Scientists can state that the temperature is raising so much and the rock
glaciers are moving so and so far for the moment. This uncertainty lies in the precision
of the instrument, which is quite small for temperature measurements for example
(Interviewee 2). Where the uncertainty emerges, it is when experts model a
phenomenon that cannot be observed directly or build scenarios of possible natural
hazards in future (Interviewee 1).
Uncertainty in scientific results depends on the domain in which experts are working.
For example in geophysics, as Interviewee 5 explained, the uncertainty is not often
quantifiable because it is an indirect method. Without a direct method (e.g. borehole
temperature) nearby, there is no ground truth. However, by monitoring the geophysical
data, it can be compared to other data throughout time and therefore give a tendency.
Thus scientists can at least today predict and communicate which places are most
likely to be problematic in the future.
Interviewee 5: Using monitoring data and having the experience from so
many different methods at all these sites, we still can say we are
somehow convinced that in principle our messages are somehow
reliable. Of course you cannot give detailed numbers.
In the domain of natural hazards, Interviewee 3 explained that uncertainty is assumed
to be everywhere. In order to apply countermeasures, the risk has to be analyzed and
calculated by means of different scenarios. The building of these scenarios is closely
linked with the uncertainties. This uncertainty is defined by two parameters: the
intensity (or the amplitude) and the probability (Interviewee 3). The statistical
distribution of the intensity of a modelled phenomenon gives a range in area of where
the hazardous event can occur. The same is true for the probability. Again, the
bandwidth gives an idea of the probability of occurrence of a hazardous event. The
application of a countermeasure has three main criteria: the economical, the technical
47
and the environmental aspects. If these criteria are not satisfied, then other techniques
(such as the monitoring of a specific area) have to be considered. In natural hazards,
the objectives are statistically determined (e.g. the size of a retention dam). If the
objectives are too high (e.g. costs for the building of the dam), it is likely that some
areas cannot be free of risk. For example, if some people are going through remote
areas, then it has to be accepted that these people cannot be protected from hazards.
All the interviewees claimed that uncertainty is a problem, because it is the unknown
component. However all the experts assured that they are aware of the uncertainty and
they try to consider it. For example, as seen above, practitioners try to integrate
uncertainty in their standard processes when building scenarios. Even if there is this
uncertainty, the results can still produce important information. If experts declare clearly
the uncertainty range, the general public has a better chance to properly understand
scientific results. As Interviewee 4 explained, uncertainty is stated and clearly defined
in their results.
Interviewee 4: Unsicherheiten muss man klar deklarieren und sagen.
Unsere Messungen zeigen ein Wert von so viel, hat aber die
Unsicherheit von plus minus so und so viel. (...) Das ist unsere
Aufgabe, dass wir den Kunden die Unsicherheiten haargenau erklären.
Most of the interviewees judged that the uncertainty range is the major problem today
in the communication between research community and the general public.
Sometimes, experts cannot understand why people do not understand the uncertainty
range in science. What is so difficult? Maybe it is the kind of supremacy given to
science. Science is guided by the truth and thus the results should be exact. There is
no place for uncertainty. Or are there other factors, such as social values, personal
experience and contextual factors, which could interfere with the understanding of
scientific knowledge?
48
4.4. Risk related to permafrost
4.4.1. Permafrost as leading to natural hazards
All the interviewees reported that permafrost has been thawing little by little during the
past years. As it was mentioned previously in the subchapter Choice of the study sites,
permafrost experts have noticed a quite homogenous trend at all the sites during the
last years. However, according to Interviewee 2 and 3, rock glaciers have been moving
faster in the last ten years. This phenomenon might be related to the climate change
(PERMOS, 2013; Delaloye et al., 2008; Delaloye et al., 2012). However to confirm this
hypothesis more investigations are needed.
For the moment, in case of hazardous events, there are good evacuation plans and
mitigation measures built against rock falls and debris flows (PLANAT, 2009).
Unfortunately, many hazardous events cannot be stopped and there is no way to hold
the material up at the top of the mountain. Furthermore, Interviewee 2 pointed out the
following question: what can be done with the material coming down from the
mountain? For example, in places equipped with a retention dam, the sediments have
to be rapidly removed after an event. In this way, the dam is fully ready to stop the next
event. If this is not done, the material left becomes a springboard for the next event and
the consequences could be dramatic (Interviewee 2). Moreover, many of my
interviewees pointed out that permafrost thaw can trigger secondary processes
downstream. These have to be considered because they can have dangerous
consequences. This fact is mentioned by Interviewee 4, in the following passage.
Interviewee 4: Wenn eine Gemeinde kommt und sagt "Ok, jetzt hätten
wir einen Felssturz aus dem Permafrost. Was kann passieren?" Dann
müssen wir die richtigen Schlüsse ziehen und sie so beraten, dass man
diese sekundäre Prozesse im Griff hat. Aber das wissen wir. Da haben
wir die Kenntnisse und da sind wir bereit die Gemeinden richtig zu
beraten.
Interviewee 3 illustrated the impact that permafrost thaw can have on secondary
processes with the example of the rock avalanche of Randa 1991. The rock avalanche
blocked the valley and, at the same time, the Vispa river. This resulted to flooding in
Randa. People had to build a new channel to lower the water and let the Vispa go
49
downwards. In this example, the trigger was a geological process and the secondary
process was a hydrological problem.
It came up from the interviews that the presence of human beings in risky areas is the
key factor for the implementation of mitigation measures. And thus if there is no danger
or potential damages downstream, there is no risk and no need to do something. This
statement was clearly declared by Interviewee 4 in the following section.
Interviewee 4: (...) Überall wo Gletscher und Permafrost gefährliche
Naturprozesse verursachen, sind wir als Berater tätig. Und werden uns
auch
entsprechend
noch
anstrengen
weitere
solche
Kontakte
aufzubauen.
Interviewer: Und Sie haben "gefährliche" gesagt. Ist es nur wenn es
gefährlich ist dann...
Interviewee 4: Ja. Sonst... Wenn keine Gefahr besteht und kein
Schadenpotenzial vorhanden ist, dort gibt es keine Risiken. Und wenn
keine Risiken vorhanden ist, muss man auch nichts machen. Wir
messen nicht einfach zum Spass irgendwo. (…) Wir machen Sachen,
die effektiv eine Relevanz zum... zur menschlichen Tätigkeit haben.
If some mountain sidewalls collapse in the middle of nowhere, there is no need to do
anything. People are not in danger. In some remote places, there can be a problem
with the mountain paths, but these can be remade or redirected. Even at the scree
cones and at the landslide scarp, there is no problem according to Interviewee 4.
Most of the interviewed experts agreed on the point that the consequence of thawing
permafrost is ground instability. In some regions, no significant activity will occur. But in
other permafrost thaw can potentially trigger natural hazards that can reach the
civilization. There are several types of natural hazards, which can be released by
thermal perturbation of the ground (e.g. debris flows from screes; rock falls;
destabilization of mountain infrastructures; debris flows from rock glaciers) (Gruber and
Haeberli, 2009; Nötzli and Gruber, 2005; Haeberli, 1992). Debris flows from rock
glacier pose an additional problem because of the presence of ice. When this ice which
melt due to thermal conditions, there is water in the system and the loose rocky
material can be released (Haeberli, 1992). This is the reason why the evolution of
50
permafrost morphologies and more precisely rock glaciers – with respect to risk – has
to be monitored.
People exposed to hazard determine risk. However the risk is not the same
everywhere. Indeed the probability of risk increases with several factors such as
number of people exposed, infrastructures, transportation lines, elevation differences
and degradation of glaciers and permafrost (Interviewees 2 and 3). Interviewee 3 told
that, at the Federal Office for the Environment, the risk is calculated with the number of
people exposed to natural hazard. Furthermore there is the elevation difference
between the mountain peak and the valley bottom that increases the potential and the
energy in the material coming from permafrost or glaciers which is moving down
towards the valley. And in a very busy valley with lot of people travelling (like in the
Matter Valley) the potential of risk increases drastically.
According to Interviewee 3, the intensity of the hazardous event is also an important
factor of risk. He illustrates the difference of permafrost creep intensity bringing the
example for two well-known touristic spots: Matter Valley and the Saas Valley. The
permafrost is creeping faster in the first one than in the latter one (i.e. the intensity is
higher in the Matter Valley). Touristic places with lot of transportation activity in the
valley are particularly vulnerable to the risk. This explains also the fact why there are a
lot of investigations occurring in those places, as Interviewee 3 observed.
4.4.2. Scientific results as solid basis for risk assessment
Risk is an obvious consequence of natural and social processes. To cite Jasanoff
(1998) “It (risk) can be mapped, measured, and controlled, at least to the extent that
science permits.” Steep slopes and warming permafrost combined with people passing
or living in the valley constitutes the issue, which is presented to the specialists dealing
with risk assessment. How to formulate suitable objectives in risk assessment?
Risk assessment is linked to science because scientific results are the basis of
formulating acceptable objectives in risk assessment (Interviewee 3). When a
hazardous event happens, scientific results can be used to explain the mechanism and
to show where these hazardous events might trigger risk. Scientific research can help
to understand why this event occurred at this specific place and how it will likely
happen in the future. Thus society and decision-makers can use scientific results.
51
According to Interviewee 3, at the Federal Office for the Environment, there are
technical guidelines for risk assessment, which are formulated by the laws and orders.
These guidelines serve to formulate the objectives and to say what is legally
acceptable.
Interviewee 3 reported that if a municipality is directly in danger, the funding is clearly
regulated. The Federal Office for the Environment gives subsidies to the Canton to
finance projects for mitigation measures against natural hazards. The biggest part of
the financing comes from the Confederation and the Canton (about 80% of the
amount). The municipality or the owner pays the rest. The amount of people in a risky
area is a motivation to give money for mitigation measures. For example highly touristic
areas are clearly in need to have ensured security to the people being there. Also cable
car stations have a permanent need for safe foundations.
In risk assessment, if experts are calculating the risk or if they are doing
countermeasures, they have to consider the uncertainty (Interviewee 3). When the
uncertainty of the hazard is big, then they tend to take rather big safety margins to add
a level of reserve to be on the safe side. This would be the ideal case. However
Interviewee 3 listed four main criteria for risk assessment: the technical criterion,
political criterion, ecological criterion and the economical one. If one of those criteria is
not satisfied, another solution has to be found. For example, the dimension of the
retention dam can be changed, permafrost monitoring can be performed, the road can
be deviated or a tunnel can be build. Interviewee 3 told that in some cases objectives
have to be lowered in order to satisfy the objectives. Normally countermeasures are
made if somebody is exposed to a hazard. However, as already discussed in the
subchapter 4.3.3., sometimes experts working in natural hazard domain have to accept
and admit that some people are going through the hazard zones, because those
people cannot be protected from the risk of a hazardous event.
It is clear that it is not possible to lower the risk to zero. When the risk is too high,
practitioners have to look to a solution. Even, in some cases, they have to accept that
some persons are going through hazard zones and cannot be protected. But is this
ethically acceptable? Interviewee 3 explained that the Swiss government takes the
responsibility to give a certain security to the citizens and this stops when people are
going in the mountains. As soon as people go beyond the official area, like the
transportation networks, the Swiss authority does not ensure people’s security.
52
Like discussed earlier in this chapter, there is no way to hold the material up at the top
of the mountain. There are some events such as rock fall or debris flow, which cannot
be stopped. In this situation, other solutions have to be found. According to Interviewee
2, the best way to avoid risk is defensive. There should be a good plan B. People going
to the mountains have to be aware of what could come down in order to not get
surprised. Generally a debris flow or a landslide does not happen immediately. This
means that there are precursors, things that happen before a hazardous event.
As mentioned in the subchapter 4.3.3., uncertainty is a problem. But experts working
on permafrost are not neglecting it as they try to integrate it to their standard process.
Interviewee 2 gave the example when there are buildings on permafrost. In this case,
people have to be aware that the foundation can become unstable if temperatures get
warmer. For this reason experts in practical issues give recommendations when
building on permafrost (Bommer et al., 2010).
4.4.3. Risks and challenges when working on mountain permafrost
As noticed previously, risk related to mountain permafrost is clearly an issue in
Switzerland. However four interviewees among five minimized the risk in permafrost
research. Either they said that the risk is not bigger at the permafrost sites than
somewhere else (e.g. taking the plane or crossing the road). Or they argued that there
is a risk at their sites, but there are other sites where the risk much more bigger.
Interviewee 3 mentioned that people working on permafrost on steep rock walls are
much more exposed to risk as he is.
Interviewee 3: The guys who are working on the Matterhorn site are
exposed. It’s exposed there. So, I hope that there is everything ok for
the years that they go. But that’s one site… That’s not so easy there,
yeah. (…) When they are dealing there for one day, two days and you
can have blocs that come down. Yeah, that’s a hot place.
If people are prepared, pay attention to the environment and are aware about what
could happen, then they are not surprised and the risk is lowered (Interviewee 1, 2 and
5). In private companies people working in the mountains are even trained to work
there (Interviewee 4). In the same direction, Interviewee 5 told that generally she
knows her sites and she does not feel unsecure. She knows her study site and she is
going to her study sites only when it is safe.
53
Interviewer: Do you think there is a risk when working in permafrost
areas?
Interviewee 5: So. That cannot be answered generally. So, there are
areas with more or less no risk. (…) It’s not a big risk at most of the
sites. But it’s definitely… you should be aware of the… of the presence
of risks.
Jasanoff already discussed such kind of affirmation, declaring that people worry less in
general about the risk they are able to control (Jasanoff, 1998). All of the interviewees
told that when people are working on permafrost, then they have to know the
mountains very well. Moreover they have to be aware that, if they are alone and
something happens, nobody can help them.
Most of the interviewees told that, they do not go to the field, if the risk is too high. This
was also the claim of Interviewee 4 who told that they have specialists (e.g. mountain
guides) who are estimating if it is possible to go to the study site or not. If the risk of
landslide or rock fall is too high in the site, the experts will not go there. There are other
solutions to inspect the site (e.g. working from the helicopter) depending on what
should be investigated on the site (Interviewee 4).
Experts working on permafrost have to pay attention to the environment, while getting
to the study sites. The risk to be hit by a rock or to fall down exists and mostly is
calculable. Of course something can happen, but most of the interviewees told that with
enough attention and care there is no big risk. Nevertheless, even the best experts are
not safe from a hazardous event. Few interviewees related some unpleasant
experiences with hazardous events. There were also stories about dangerous events
such as the one shared by Interviewee 2. At the end, she conclude:
54
Interviewee 2: (…) So then I said never again. I mean sorry but this is
just... We go in January or February when it's really cold. And when the
avalanche is bombed. I'm not going without bombing. And then it should
be more or less ok. (laughing) It's just crazy I mean, isn't. Makes a lot
more expensive as well. But better than killing yourself.
Interviewer: But you are still going so...
Interviewee 2: Yeah. In winter. Which... I think I can live with that risk,
but I couldn't live with the summer risk anymore. It was too much. Yeah.
Even if the data might give interesting results, all the interviewees agreed on the fact
that own security comes first. Experts do not go to the field if they estimate the risk to
be too high. Interviewee 2 said that this is a shame for the scientific results because
there are periods without measurements in the time-series data.
4.5. Strategies of justification: inside the permafrost research
community and with respect to risk (as vehicle)
Emergence of patterns shaping the permafrost community
This research is based on the discursive model, which considers that knowledge about
risk is constructed and shaped by social processes (Jasanoff, 1998). With this basis,
the aim of this chapter is to identify the main patterns shaping the permafrost
community.
In this Master thesis, the interviewees were selected according to a precise
characteristic: their expertise in the permafrost domain. Analyzing the discourse of
each interviewee, it came up that the interviewees wanted to justify themselves
according to this label of expert, which was given to them. The patterns serving to
justify themselves can be sorted into two main groups:
-
justification inside the permafrost research community. There, the main
distinction occurs between scientists and practitioners. But there is also a
differentiation in what each expert is doing and for which purpose. This
justification inside the scientific community might create tensions (4.5.1. part of
the community vs. own identity; 4.5.2. fun vs. science; 4.5.3. working together
vs. working alone).
55
-
justification of permafrost research with respect to risk. In this group, the
notion of risk will be more developed as a mean for justifying the job of the
experts (4.5.4. risk is the reason to do research; 4.5.5. risky, but interesting).
All the patterns explored in this analysis are shaping the permafrost research
community. This chapter 4.5. intends to give a broader scoop to these patterns and to
grasp which message is beyond the discourse of the experts in permafrost.
4.5.1. Part of a community vs. own identity
“We have a certain knowledge”
Analyzing the interviews, it came up that each expert is presenting him or herself as
belonging to the permafrost research community. Each expert wants to contribute to
the community by bringing something new and unique as seen in the following passage
coming from Interviewee 2.
Interviewee 2: (…) And we found it very interesting to think - you know
- maybe we can discover permafrost in the western Alps. Because I
come from... I went to university in Lausanne. And lots of
investigations were been done in the Engadine, from Martin Hoelzle
for example or people like that. But no one really was doing anything
in Valais or Vaud. And so we decided we'd start looking for permafrost
and seeing if we can find active rock glacier and all that kind of thing.
So it was more like a hobby, because we did this at the weekends.
(Laugh) And went measuring. And and it became kind of "more-thana-hobby", more an obsession. (Laugh)
There is a real need and will to have an identity. All the interviewees are proud of what
they brought to the community. Scientist or practitioner, most of the experts are
pioneers in mountain permafrost domain or were first to discover something. This can
be illustrated in the following example coming from Interviewee 4.
56
Interviewee 4: (...) ich hab auch die ganzen Ausaperungen, wie
verschwindet der Schnee in einem Permafrostgebiet. Bleibt er länger
liegen und so weiter... Hab auch Ausaperungsmuster aufgenommen.
Ich hab erstmals – hat vorher noch niemand gemacht – eine
automatische Kamera. Oder. Das ist das was gab es damals und nicht
Digitalkameras, die automatisch Bilder machen. Sondern ich habe
eine
mechanische
Kamera
gehabt
mit
einer
Datenrückwand
programmierbar. Und die hat dann jeden Tag eine Aufnahme
gemacht, ein Diapositiv. Ich musste alle 36 Tage auf den Berg steigen
und den Film wechseln. Und diese Bilder wurden ausgewertet. Wir
haben erstmals Schrägaufnahmen von Fotos orthorektifiziert. Also
fotogrammetrisch
entzerrt
damit
man
quantitativ
eine
Ausapperungsfläche bestimmen konnte.
Furthermore, it can be said that experts are proud to be a part of this expert
community. Being an expert, they have experience and a certain knowledge about a
very specific domain. This puts the experts at a pivotal and even a higher position.
Scientist or practitioner, they have a solution to specific problems. Moreover, scientific
knowledge is the basis to understand basic processes and everything seems to be
under control as soon as it is calculated, measured or modeled. “I have no fear from
uncertainties” (Interviewee 1). As expert, they know the uncertainty range. They are
used to uncertainties. It is quite usual that scientific results have an uncertainty range.
Each has his own job…
Nevertheless, even if each expert identifies his/herself to the permafrost research
community, they want to distinguish themselves from each other. The experts want to
have an own identity and be someone special in the community. They justify the
importance of their current job. Here, the interviews showed that the main distinction
came between scientists and practitioners. This aspect can be pointed out in the
following section coming from Interviewee 4.
Interviewee 4: (...) Wir machen angewandte Forschung, entwickeln
neue Methoden, die direkt angewandte werden können. Und eine
Hochschule hat eben die Möglichkeit irgendwelche Grundlagen
auszuprobieren und sie erforschen, die "nicht-unmittelbar" in der Praxis
verwendet werden. Und das muss auch so sein. Forschungsinstitute
müssen Sachen erforschen, die im ersten Moment keinen Sinn,
unmittelbaren Sinn, ergeben. Rein um eine Grundlage zu verstehen.
Das ist die Aufgabe der Universitäten. Und das umzusetzen in der
57
Praxis und anzuwenden, das ist unsere Aufgabe. Und die Forschung
muss immer wieder neue Ideen entwickeln, neue Zusammenhänge
erarbeiten und herausfinden. Und das gibt dann die Zusammenarbeit
zwischen Forschung und Anwendung. Oder, deshalb sind wir natürlich
sehr interessiert was die Forschern immer wieder neues ausdenken.
Und wir adaptieren das dann, übernehmen eine Idee und setzen das in
der Praxis ein
The next quotation comes from Interviewee 2, who is working at a research institute but
also working very tight with practitioners or on practical issues.
Interviewee 2: So I think that's the sort of practical side that I like. That
it's maybe useful to someone that we are doing this. (laughing)
Interviewer: And so what do you mean by practical?
Interviewee 2: For example developing avalanche defence structures,
which now have to be built like that. We have guidelines and... Swiss
guidelines, which we developed based on our measurements and so
we know that... yeah... If people are going to built something on
permafrost they gonna use our guidelines and that's like a practical
step forward you know. Cause we hope that what we say they should
do and it’s the right thing... (laughing) Or we have the book "Bauen im
Permafrost" (building on permafrost) and also there we have all kinds
of tips and... you know not recipes but like what you should do if you
are building on permafrost. (…). I don't want to do research, which you
know sort of lands in dusty piles somewhere. Yeah.
The final goal is slightly different between practitioners and scientists. Practitioners
work only with concrete practical issues. They are mainly interested in when and where
hazardous events triggered by permafrost thaw will occur in the future. Will it generate
a hazardous event or potential risk to people? Whereas scientists want to contribute to
science by bringing something new to science or even for practical issues (e.g.
Interviewee 2). Scientists will be more interested in how and why these events
triggered by permafrost thaw arise. They are more focusing on scientific publications.
58
4.5.2. Fun vs. Science
The second pattern, which emerged from the interviews, is fun and science. These two
concepts are in conflict several times in the discourse of the experts. To take an
example, in the following quotation, Interviewee 2, a scientist working in a research
institute, presents her job as something exciting and impressive using words such as
“interesting”, “cool”, “amazing”. The passion Interviewee 2 has in her job can be
imagined. She is trying to promote and give an interesting and impressing picture of
permafrost research.
Interviewee 2: And Corvatsch is very interesting because this is one of
the first sites that was drilled in Switzerland, you know. It's... well it is
the longest. Longest borehole data. And it's just such an amazing rock
glacier. Very aesthetic block rock glacier. It looks sort of perfect you
know. And... that's more to understand what's happening ummm...
because we have a scan of the head wall how much material is
coming in there. And then we saw these really cool things on our
scans that there are really big rocks falling down. Really big ones. And
they are jumping pffff... I don't know... maybe one or two kilometres
and they are doing jumps, which are like 50 meters long every time
and leaving holes, you know. And you can see all these on the laser
scan. So you got this whole... feeding the rock glacier from behind
ummm... system that you can watch there. Although the rock glacier
is a bit boring. It's sort of... very slow. But the whole thing is
interesting. Because it's... You can see the whole system from top to
bottom.
In comparison to the next passage coming from Interviewee 4, the job seems to be
more professional. This expert, working in a private office, explains where and when
they are working. Interviewee 4 goes where there is a risk, where particular people are
asking to go there because there is a risk. It can be said that practitioners are paid to
find solutions, where there is a potential of danger.
Interviewee 4: Also, überall wo Gletscher und Permafrost gefährliche
Naturprozesse verursachen, sind wir als Berater tätig. Und werden
uns auch entsprechend noch anstrengen weitere solche Kontakte
aufzubauen.
Interviewer: Und Sie haben "gefährliche" gesagt. Ist es nur wenn es
59
gefährlich ist dann...
Interviewee 4: Ja. Sonst... Wenn keine Gefahr besteht und kein
Schadenpotenzial vorhanden ist, dort gibt es keine Risiken. Und wenn
keine Risiken vorhanden ist, muss man auch nichts machen. Wir
messen nicht einfach zum Spass irgendwo.
Interviewer: Ich weiss es nicht. Forschung.
Interviewee 4: Nein. Wir sind kein Forschungsinstitut, oder. Das ist...
das ist der Unterschied zwischen der Privatwirtschaft und der
Forschung. Eine Universität, die können irgendwo im Gebirge etwas
messen und um Grundlagen zu erarbeiten. Das machen wir nicht. Wir
machen nichts zum Spass. Wir arbeiten nur im Auftrag irgendeiner
Firma, eines Staates, wo ein Problem besteht und das Problem gelöst
werden muss. (...) Und wenn das nicht besteht, wenn irgendwo im
Himalaya ein Gletscher droht abzustürzen in ein unbewohntes Tal,
dann ist das wissenschaftlich all interessant. Aber es interessiert uns
nicht. Also deshalb wir machen Sachen, die effektive eine Relevanz
zum... zur menschlichen Tätigkeit haben.
There is a difference in several aspects. First, there is a distinction in the way the two
experts are expressing their selves and the words they use. Interviewee 2 speaks very
enthusiastically using the wording “…these really cool things…”. Interviewee 2 seems
to have fun in her job, but also it seems that she would like to impress. On the other
side, Interviewee 4 seems to be more self-confident and speaks more calm and is
relaying to facts. Moreover, Interviewee 4 makes a clear distinction between the aims
in private companies and in research institutes. “Das ist... das ist der Unterschied
zwischen der Privatwirtschaft und der Forschung. Eine Universität, die können
irgendwo im Gebirge etwas messen und um Grundlagen zu erarbeiten. Das machen
wir nicht. Wir machen nichts zum Spass.“ (Interviewee 4) At this point, the question
would be: might then others (i.e. scientists) measure just for fun? Is measuring or even
the work at universities not taken seriously?
This conflict between fun and science can also be noticed in the account of Interviewee
3, as seen in the following quotation.
60
Interviewer: And really in your opinion, what’s the motivation to go in
these risky places?
Interviewee 3: Facts, interest… Well, some of my colleagues – me
also sometimes – like to be in the mountains in general. And you are
in the mountains and you feel good in the mountains. So, you can go
for your private time, but can go also for your job. So, that’s the
combination. That’s maybe also one motivation. But for me… for me,
when I’m going it’s the interest of nature and process.
There is a tension between the beginning and the end of the quotation. First
Interviewee 3 says that he likes to go to the mountains, the part with this free (private)
time and fun. Then, at the end he says that actually, he is going there for interest of
nature and the processes. It can be supposed that: if you are going to the mountains
for your job or during your job time, then it should be for the interest of the nature and
the processes.
He says that the possibility to do a job, which you would also do during your free time,
is a nice combination. Furthermore, it seems to be one of the reasons for working in
this domain. But at the same time he does not say directly that he goes there for his
free time. As if the combination work and fun would not be well seen in the scientific
community or in his job/institution for which he works. There is a tension between fun
(private time) and science (job).
At this point, it would be interesting to analyze what could be meant with fun? If you are
having fun in your job, are you losing some of your credibility? Or is a work done with
pleasure seen as unprofessional or senseless? Some experts might agree on this
argument thatthe work is not taken seriously when enjoying the work or having fun. On
the other hand, it could be argued that a job, which is made with pleasure and passion
could be qualitatively better.
What are these interviewees trying to focus on? The message seems to be clear:
scientists have pleasure in their job whereas practitioners do not work for fun.
Practitioners are professionals. This distinction between a job done with fun/passion
and job done professionally could be also a way to justify ones position in the
permafrost community (as discussed in the previous subchapter). This tension between
fun and science can be seen as a further pattern distinguishing scientists from
practitioners. Scientists seem to be more fascinated by the phenomena and want to
understand the processes. “It became more than a hobby. An obsession.” (Interviewee
2). Whereas practitioners seems to be more focused on the purpose of their job,
61
facts,… The tension fun-science between experts could also be a gap between
scientists and practitioners. It could be the reason for collaborations that are not always
functioning without tensions. The point here is not a matter of competitiveness, but
more the lack of accepting each other’s specialization and motivation.
4.5.3. Working together vs. working alone
People in the permafrost research community are working together. Many examples
came up from the interviews and these were showed in the results of this work. In the
TEMPS project, several scientists worked together for the same purpose. The
collaboration can also work beyond the group of scientists. Interviewee 4 explained
during his interview that practitioners are sometimes collaborating with scientists too.
“The collaboration could be even more intense”
According to Interviewee 2, the collaboration within the TEMPS project is not working
as good as it could be. When people are working together, there are several
constraints: get along with other people, keeping in touch, seeing each other, keeping a
schedule, sharing results from the work done. Each stakeholder has different goals,
interests or even obligations. For example, scientists from universities or ETH have all
kind of administrative obligations, teaching, marking exams etc. Moreover (in
comparison to practitioners) they have to publish scientific papers, which can be cited
in the literature. There is a conflict in what should be done together and what not.
Interviewer: I wanted also to move to TEMPS a little bit. And more
precisely, what's your role in TEMPS?
Interviewee 2: I see it as we... Because we have these nice sites with
good data. I think the whole aim of TEMPS it's a Sinergia Project,
right. And "Sinergia" meaning " we should all work together. Which
hasn't always worked very well. Because... Some... Some people just
have their own dynamics, you know. So it's not always easy to
collaborate although we should be doing so. And I hope... I think I
think we're gonna get some good results, but I think the collaboration
could be even more intense between the Swiss partners, you know.
It was mentioned by almost all the interviewees that some people get along better
together than others. It is difficult to work with so many people, but it is an advantage to
62
work jointly, because they could learn from each other and TEMPS was a quite good
motivation and opportunity to work collectively (interesting results for research – papers
– and also practitioners). Furthermore, this collaboration is needed and appreciated
from the side of the practitioners (Interviewee 3 and 4). There are at least three main
reasons for that. First, scientists are receiving money to conduct research. Secondly,
practitioners are profiting of the results coming from the scientific side. Finally
practitioners and scientists work together for specific issues where more specific
scientific knowledge is needed. Interviewee 4 mentioned this in the next passage.
Interviewee 4: Ja ja, wir haben sehr viele Forschungsarbeiten, wo wir
eng mit den Hochschulen zusammenarbeiten. Also gerade zu Beispiel
in Zermatt bei den Bergbahn. Da haben wir sehr viele Projekte, wo wir
direkt mit der ETH zusammenarbeiten. Und da wird ein Teil der
Grundlagenforschung wird durch die ETH abgedeckt und den anderen
Teil machen wir.
Interviewer: Eben. Ich wollte auch fragen, wie würden Sie diese
Beziehung zwischen Forschern und Praktikern beschreiben?
Interviewee 4: Anwendern. Ja ja, das ist... Das muss ganz eng sein.
Interviewer: Es muss, aber ist es?
Interviewee 4: Ja, es ist nicht immer. Aber ich gebe mir Mühe. Die
Kontakte zur Hochschule, zu den Professoren, zu halten damit man
weiss was wird...
How to have better collaboration between scientists and even with practitioners? The
TEMPS project was a nice attempt to cross the gap. However the collaboration within
this project could have been “more intense”. Meaning there is still a gap or tensions
between the scientists. One reason could be a question of fame, a will to discover
something new in permafrost domain. It could be argued that there is competition
between research institutes or different scientists.
4.5.4. Risk is the reason to do research
It seems to be that people in the mountains have become more aware about
permafrost, because of natural hazards happening more often and it is occurring on
63
their doorstep (it is a problem in the mountains). Moreover, according to Interviewee 2,
the awareness of the impact of climate change on permafrost has clearly increased,
during the last years. Most people in Switzerland know what permafrost is. The fact
that ordinary people know about permafrost seems to be related to hazardous events
happening more and more, and also to the implication of the media. Indeed, as soon as
a natural hazard costs some money or lives are in danger, then it comes immediately
to the media. Why are the mountains loosing material? Is a bigger volume going to
collapse? When will be the next rock fall event? Where are the hot spots, the
dangerous places?
What do experts think about this question concerning permafrost and climate change?
According to most of the interviewed experts, the consequences of thawing permafrost
with respect to risk could be natural hazards that reach the civilization. At the Federal
Office for Environment, they have to assess if hazards are occurring or if there is an
incident can occur in an inhabited place. Furthermore, the Federal Office for
Environment is formulating technical guidelines with standards, which have to be
followed. Scientific results are the basis to formulate these standards, which give an
idea of what to do and what to pay. The Confederation gives subsidies for building
mitigation measures against hazards. There is a need to assess the risk at the
catchment areas. In other words, there is a need to do something if there is a risk for
the population. Risk is the reason to invest money in permafrost research.
Interviewee 3: But when you are in these transportation networks –
official things – or at your house at home or at work, we should have a
certain level of security. And that’s where we are active. That’s why
we have a program and why this money is possible to be spent for
permafrost activities also.
4.5.5. Risky, but interesting
It came up from the interviews that most of the permafrost study sites are not
dangerous for people working there. The expert often argued that the real danger is
related to the occurrence of hazardous events which could happen downstream and
reach populations. Sometimes the experts talked about risk with respect to themselves.
The most noticeable case came from Interviewee 2, who narrated a few risky
experiences.
64
Interviewee 2: (…) And we started walking down and suddenly these
rocks started coming down. And really really big ones. And it was just
incredible. It was... And Robert is very fast and sort of coordinated. He
ran away. And I didn't make it that quickly and I was standing in the
middle of all these flying rocks. And I was very lucky and I'd stay very
calm. Turned round and I looked at them "Ok. That was ok. That's..."
"Prrrr..." And then afterwards, I was just like a pudding. My legs were
"prrr..." shaking like this, you know.
The way, how the Interviewees spoke about risk and how they conceived it, was very
different. It appeared that Interviewee 2, 3 and 4 were much more able to speak about
the thematic of risk than Interviewees 1 and 5. The two latters did not want to
pronounce on the issue. This silence can also be interpreted as a signal. Why are
some experts more “comfortable” and open to speak about the topic of risk? There
could be two reasons for this observation. The first reason could be that if one wants to
have a close relation with practitioners or decision makers, then one has to emphasize
the risk. If there is no risk at a specific place, there is no need to do anything (e.g.
implement mitigation structures or to take safety measures) and there is no interest
from the practical side. The second reason could be that if it is difficult for somebody to
define himself through the scientific domain, one has to position itself more towards
risk. One witness for this is the expertise each interviewee assign to oneself.
Interviewees 1 and 5 describe their domain of expertise as purely scientific, whereas
Interviewee 2, 3 and 4 emphasized less on the scientific aspect of their current job.
One further point, which was noticed, was that Interviewee 2 spoke much more about
the risk than the other experts. It could be that this person is more sensitive than the
other experts. But it could be also that Interviewee 2 works at field sites with higher
risk. Even if hazardous events are avoided, for scientists such events are very
interesting for scientific reasons. Sites with changes can be fascinating and sometimes
impressive. This can be illustrated by Interviewee 2 in the following passage.
Interviewee 2: And Ritigraben I thing is very relevant because it's a
rock glacier that's above a gully. And it's coming in quite quickly... sort
of... on the top it's moving 2 meters per year. So... and there haven't
been any major debris flows in that gullies since the mid 90'. And so
this is like a bomb waiting to go. And this is material coming in. You
can imagine it's like a sort of conveyor belt bringing rock rock rock
65
right. And it's piling up in the top of this very steep gully. And some
point it's gonna rain really hard on that and it's just gonna go
"whoush"! And the whole lobe will go down. So that's interesting
waiting for it to happen, you know. (laughing) I hope nothing happens
to anyone on the bottom. But yeah... That's... That makes that one
interesting.
In sum, it can be argued that risk is minimized or amplified depending on the aim of the
experts’ job. From the scientists’ point of view, it is not an advantage to have a risk at
the study site. If the risk would be dominant, it could be prohibited to go to the site.
Their aim is to understand basic processes. Bring certain knowledge, something that
was not discovered before. On the contrary, for practitioners, risk is the reason of their
job. They have a job because of problems related to permafrost. It is also interesting for
them because there is an element at risk (people exposed to hazards in the houses, on
the roads, on the railway…). If there would be no risk, they would not investigate there.
Their job is to find solutions to practical issues. In other words, it could be defended
that scientists would prefer to not speak a lot about risk. Whereas, in the meantime, for
practitioners it is more beneficial to talk about risk.
66
5. Risk: a tool of power
The results of this Master thesis showed the multiple facets of how experts conceive
permafrost in Switzerland and the risk related to it. These can be explained by social
interactions present in the permafrost research community. It is interesting and worth
trying to understand how and by what these social processes are influenced in this
quite young research community. Keeping into focus the aim of this Master thesis (i.e.
how do experts construct and conceive risk), the following chapter concentrates on the
power relationships created by experts’ or institutions’ discourses and their purpose.
Thus, this work could give a social scientific dimension to the permafrost research
community.
It has been seen that the management of risk and natural hazard occurs in a very
precise manner (Chapter 2.3. Natural hazards and risk assessment in Switzerland). It
is comparable to the technical risk analysis perspective presented in chapter 2.1. This
perspective is widely acknowledged to be the best and the most objective way to
predict and evaluate risk (Renn, 2008a). Indeed, decision-makers at the Federal Office
also use such kind of tool for Environment. There, risk is calculated with the number of
people exposed to natural hazard and it seems to be a well-established method. The
technical guidelines are the witnesses for the use of technical risk analysis in
Switzerland. But this perspective misses the point, as risk remains a mental
representation of possible physical harm and social reaction towards it. So, in order to
answer the research questions, it was necessary to adopt another perspective, namely
the social scientific one. Using the discursive model by Jasanoff (Jasanoff, 1998)
saying that social processes construct knowledge, it was possible to highlight power
relationships and several strategies by interviewing experts. Such power relationships
do not only occur inside the permafrost research community, but also with respect to
risk. Therefore, it can be argued that power relations are influenced by the notion of
risk and thus risk is more than an end state of natural and social processes, which can
be measured and controlled. Risk is also a tool of power in social relation. Risk enables
one person or an institution to take or keep a position within a community. This
behaviour occurs by having knowledge about risk or by asserting to be able to manage
it. In this respect, the realist model as well as the constructivist model do not fit to the
current work.
67
It is worth to have a closer look on the kind of power relationships, which manifest in
the discourse of the experts. On one side there are the scientists, who possess a
scientific knowledge. These persons know the best the mechanisms that are occurring
in permafrost areas. They have the opportunity to test new approaches and get the
most precise information on the evolution of permafrost. In this group, power could be
illustrated as the scientific knowledge.
On the other side, there are the practitioners, who have to treat practical issues related
to the consequences coming from the evolution of permafrost. These experts have to
find solutions against potential danger. For them, the power could be the potential harm
to people or to infrastructures. In others words, risk plays a more explicit role in their
discourse (as seen in the results).
The results show that, experts from both “groups” support an exchange of knowledge
between scientists and practitioners. In other words, it could be argued that
practitioners claim that there is need of objective and accurate measurements and
results coming from science in order to take the right decisions against dangerous
events or risk. In turn, scientists could argue that they need more money to conduct
more measurements and thus get more precise data.
Nevertheless, one has to keep in mind that this Master thesis is exploratory and more
studies should be conducted in this direction in order to validate the results presented
in this work. For further studies, it would be worthy to expand the investigation a larger
group of experts. Indeed, the number of interviews is rather small in this Master thesis.
68
6. Conclusion
The special topography and the climate in Switzerland make that there are permafrost
areas at these latitudes (Nötzli and Gruber, 2005). In this respect, Switzerland has
always been threatened by natural hazards. With changing climate conditions, the
frequency of debris-flows, rockfalls and landslides in mountain areas has increased
during the last years. It is clear that if these events would occur far from civilisation, it
would not necessarily be considered. However, in Switzerland where people are living
in the mountains, there is a potential to harm people. Moreover, in the touristic places
like Zermatt, the potential of risk is even higher because of the large number of people.
But how do experts in the permafrost research community evaluate the evolution of
permafrost? Is there a risk in the Swiss Alps? These were the research questions of
this Master thesis.
First, it has been seen that there is a clear distinction between hazard and risk. Hazard
is, by definition, the potential that an event causes harm to people or to what they
esteem (Renn, 2008a) whereas risk can stem from a hazard if this has the potential to
harm people. Thus, risk has multiple characters and its definition is strongly related to
the context in which it is handled (Renn 2008a, 2008b). According to the research
question, the social and cultural perspective was used. Different permafrost experts
(e.g. scientists and practitioners) were interviewed and the raw data was analyzed with
Qualitative Content Analysis as theoretical framework.
The analysis of the interviewees showed that the most relevant factors for doing
permafrost research mentioned by the interviewees were: proximity and populated
mountains. Indeed, proximity was designed as a matter of convenience and factor of
reliability in permafrost research. Whereas populated mountains was more reported to
be the reason for doing permafrost research. Study sites are often chosen according to
the aim of the work and they are mostly near mountain infrastructures.
Additionally, it came up that there is an exchange of knowledge between scientists, but
also between research institutes and the practitioners. Even if the collaboration seems
not be always easy, it is warmly appreciated from both sides. Research projects such
as the SNF-Sinergia project TEMPS are opportunities to bridge the gap and bring
practitioners and scientist at the same table. Scientists are confronted with problems
69
coming from practice and practitioners are informed about the state of the research on
permafrost.
With regard to risk, all the experts agreed on the fact that permafrost thaw could lead to
natural hazards, which can then potentially become a risk. However, experts said that,
in Switzerland, the risk is well managed and under control. For the moment, there are
good evacuation plans and mitigation measures built against potential rockfalls and
debris flows. However, many hazardous events cannot be stopped and there is no way
to hold the material up at the top of the mountain. This means that specific
investigations are needed as well as long-term monitoring of permafrost.
Moreover, the results of this work reveled that there are many factors, which come into
play in the conception of the evolution of permafrost in Switzerland and the risk when
related to permafrost research. It has been noticed in the discourses of the
interviewees that there are some strategies of justification inside the research
community (1) as well as with respect to risk (2). In the first case, it seems to be
important to each expert to be someone important in the permafrost research
community. However, there are some tensions inside the community. One example
was the difference of working for fun and working for Science that seems to occur
between scientists and practitioners. The gap between scientists and practitioners was
explained as a matter of lack of accepting each other’s specialization and motivation.
In the second case (strategies of justification with respect to risk), it came up that risk is
much more than an end state of natural and social processes. In social relations (such
as in research communities), risk is also a tool of power. Depending on the purpose of
the expert, risk can be minimized or highlighted. With this respect, it has been noticed
that practitioners seems to insist more on the risk than scientists.
To conclude, the conception of risk is not a trivial issue. This work showed that risk can
be analyzed from many different points of view. Moreover, depending on how risk is
presented, it can be a means of pressure in social relations. It was interesting to
determine, how power relationships can emerge in a young research community such
as the permafrost one.
70
7. Literature
Aven and Renn (2009), “On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain”,
Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1 – 11
Brace, C. and Geoghegan H. (2010), “Human geographies of climate change:
Landscape, temporalities, and lay knowledge”, Progress in Human Geography, 35(3),
284 – 302
Bommer, C., Phillips, M. and Arenson, L.U. (2010), “Practical Recommendations for
Planning, Constructing and Maintaining Infrastructure in Mountain Permafrost”,
Permafrost Periglacial Process, 21: 97-104.
Bryman, A (2008), “Social Research Methods”, Oxford University Press, Third Edition.
Delaloye, R., Morard, S., Barboux, C., Abbert, D., Gruber, V., Riedo, M. and Gachet S.
(2012), “Rapidly moving rock glaciers in Mattertal”, Publikation zur Jahrestagung der
Schweizerischen Geomorphologischen Gesellschaft, 29, 21-31.
Delaloye, R., Perruchoud, E., Avian, M., Kaufmann, V., Bodin, X., Hausmann, H.,
Ikeda, A., Kääb, A., Kellerer-Pirklbauer, A., Krainer, K., Lambiel, C., Mihajlovic, D.,
Staub, B., Roer, I. and Thibert, E. (2008), “Recent interannual variations of rock glacier
creep in the European Alps”, In: Kane, D.L., Hinkel, K.M. (Eds.), 9th International
Conference on Permafrost Fairbanks, Alaska, pp. 343–348.
Demeritt, D. (1996), “Social Theory and the Reconstruction of Science and
Geography”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 21,
No. 3, 484 – 503
FOEN (2016), “Office fédéral de l’environnement OFEV; Thème Dangers naturels”,
Bern,
Federal
Office
for
Environment,
www.bafu.admin.ch/naturgefahren/index.html?lang=fr (consulted in January, 2016)
FOEN (2015a). “Changements climatiques”, Bern, Federal Office for Environment,
Retrieved 02.06.2015 from www.bafu.admin.ch/klima/13877/14398/index.html?lang=fr
71
FOEN (2015b), “Environment Switzerland 2015”, Bern, Federal Office for Environment
Gruber, S. and Haeberli, W. (2009), “Chapter 3: Mountain permafrost”, Permafrost
Soils, 16, 33 – 44
Haeberli, W., Noetzli, J., Arenson, L., Delaloye, R., Gärtner-Roer, I., Gruber, S.,
Isaksen, K., Kneisel, C., Krautblatter, M. and Phillips M. (2011), “ Mountain permafrost:
development and challenges of a young research field.”, Journal of Glaciology, 56, 1 –
16
Harris, C., Haeberli, W., Vonder Mühll, D. and King L. (2001), “Permafrost Monitoring in
the High Mountains of Europe: the PACE Project in its Global Context”, Permafrost and
periglacial processes, 12, 1 – 11
Hauck C., Collet, C., Delaloye, R., Hilbich, C., Hoelzle, M., Huss, M. and Salzmann N.
(2012), “The potential of new measurement and modelling techniques in alpine
cryosphere and geomorphology research”, Geographica Helvetica, 1 – 2, 26 – 37
Hsieh, H-F and Shannon, S. E. (2005), “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content
Analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, 15: 1277 – 1288
Hoffmann-Riem, H. and Wynne, B. (2002), “In risk assessment, one has to admit
ignorance”, Nature, Vol. 416, 14 March 2002
Jasanoff, S. (2010), “New Climate for Society”, Theory Culture Society, Vol. 27, 233253
Jasanoff, S. (2007), “Technologies of humility”, Nature, Vol. 450, 1 November 2007
Jasanoff, S. (1999), “The Songlines of Risk”, Environmental Values, Vol. 8, 135-152
Jasanoff, S. (1998), “The Political science of risk perception”, Reliability Engineering
and System Safety, 59: 91 – 99
Keller, F., Frauenfelder, R., Gardaz, J.-M., Hoelzle, M., Kneisel, C., Lugon, R., Phillips,
M., Reynard, E. and Wenker, L. (1998), “Permafrost map of Switzerland”,
72
PERMAFROST – Seventh International Conference (Proceedings), Yellowknife
(Canada), Collection Nordicana No 55, 557 – 562
Kenner, R., Phillips, M., Danioth, C., Denier, C., Thee, P. and Zgraggen A. (2011),
“Investigation of rock and ice loss in a recently deglaciated moutain rock wall using
terrestrial laser scanning: Gemsstock, Swiss Alps”, Cold Regions Science and
Technology, 67: 157-164.
Laforest, J. (2009), “Safety Diagnosis Tool Kit for Local Communities. Guide to
Organizing Semi-Structured Interviews With Key Informants”, Institut national de santé
publique du Québec, Quebec, Vol. 11.
Lane, S (2001), “Constructive comments on D Massey ‘Space-time, “science” and the
relationship between physical geography and human geography’, Trans Inst Br Geogr,
New Series, Vol. 26, 243-256
Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (2005), “Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel
Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making”, Chapter 1: What’s new in
scientific advice to politics?, Sociology of the Sciences, vol. 24, 1 – 19
Madden, R. (2010), “Being ethnographic. A Guide to the Theory and Practice of
Ethnography.”, Chapter 1: “Definitions”, Methods and Applications, London: SAGE. 15
– 35
Massey, D. (1999), “Space-time, ‘science and the relationship between physical
geography and human geography”, Trans Inst Br Geogr, New Series, Vol. 24, 261-276
Mayring, Ph. (2000), “Quantitative Content Analysis”, FQS: Forum Qualitative Social
Research, 1 (2): www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386
(consulted in November 2014)
Myers, M. D. and Newman M. (2007), “The qualitative interview in IS research:
Examining the craft”, Information and Organization, 17, 2 – 26
Nötzli, J. and Gruber, S. (2005), “Alpiner Permafrost – ein Überblick”, Jahrbuch des
Vereins zum Schutz der Bergwelt (München), 70. Jahrgang, 111 – 121
73
Nötzli, J., Gruber, S. and Hoelzle, M. (2004), “Permafrost und Felsstürze im
Hitzsommer 2003”, GEOforum actuel, 20, 11 – 14
NVivo10 (2016), http://help-nv10.qsrinternational.com/desktop/welcome/welcome.htm
(consulted in March 2016)
OFAT, OFFEE and OFEFP (1997), “Recommandations 1997, Prise en compte des
dangers dus aux mouvements de terrain dans le cadre des activités de l’aménagement
du territoire”, Berne, Office fédéral de l’aménagement du territoire, Office fédéral de
l’économie des eaux, Office fédéral de l’environnement, des forêts et du paysage
Osterkamp, T. E., Esch, D. C. and Romanovsky V. E. (1997), “Chapter 10:
Permafrost”, Implication of Global Change in Alaska and the Bering Sea Region,
Proceeding of a Workshop University of Alaska Fairbanks June 1997
PERMOS (Swiss Permafrost Monitoring Network) (2016). www.permos.ch (consulted
in January 2016)
PERMOS (2013), “Permafrost in Switzerland 2008/2009 and 2009/2010”, Glaciological
Report (Permafrost), No. 10/11, Nötzli, J. (eds).
Pidgeon N. and Fischhoff B. (2011), “The role of social and decision sciences in
communicating uncertain climate risks”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 1, 35 – 41
Plate-forme nationale “Dangers naturels” PLANAT (2009), “Guide du concept de
risque”, Stratégie “Dangers naturels” Suisse, Réalisation du plan d’action PLANAT
2005 – 2008
PLANAT, ARE and OFEV (2014), “Aménagement du territoire fondé sur les risques.
Rapport de synthèse de deux planifications test au niveau du plan d’affectation
communal”, Berne, Plate-forme nationale « dangers naturels », Office fédéral du
développement territorial, Office fédéral de l’environnement
QSR International (2016), www.qsrinternational.com (consulted in February 2016)
Renn, O. (2008a), “Concepts of Risk: An Interdisciplinary Review – Part 1: Disciplinary
Risk Concepts”, GAIA, 17/1, 50 – 66
74
Renn, O. (2008b), “Concepts of Risk: An Interdisciplinary Review – Part 2: Integrative
Approaches”, GAIA, 17/2, 196 – 204
Renn, O. (1998), “The role of risk perception for risk management”, Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 59: 49 – 62
Scherler, M., Hauck, C., Hoelzle, M. and Salzmann, N. (2013), “Modeled sensitivity of
two alpine permafrost sites to RCM-based climate scenarios”, Journal of geophysical
research: earth surface, Vol. 118, 1 – 15
Sjöberg, L. (2002), “The Allegedly Simple Structure of Experts’ Risk Perception: An
Urban Legend in Risk Research”, Science Technology & Human Values, 27: 443 – 459
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1982), “Why Study Risk Perception?”,
Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, No 2, 83 – 93
Sinergia, SNFN (2015): http://p3.snf.ch/project-136279 (consulted in December 2015)
TEMPS
(The
Evolution
of
Mountains
Permafrost
in
Switzerland)
(2016):
http://www.temps-symposium.ch/index.php?language=en (consulted in January 2016)
Wildavsky, A. (1979), “No risk is the highest risk of all”, American Scientist, Vol. 67, 32
– 37
Zenklusen Mutter, E. and Phillips M. (2012), “Active Layer Characteristics At Ten
Borehole Sites In Alpine Permafrost Terrain, Switzerland”, Permafrost and Periglacial
Processes, Vol. 23, 138 – 151
75