Anna Scolobig

The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: findings from case studies in an Alpine Region

The low risk awareness of the residents living in flood-prone areas is usually considered among the main causes of their low preparedness, which in turns generates inadequate response to natural disasters. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by reporting on the results of a sociological research in four communities exposed to flood risk in the Eastern Italian Alps. The research design included semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key local stakeholders and a standardized questionnaire submitted to 400 residents. Results revealed that residents felt both slightly worried about flood risk and slightly prepared to face an event. Considerable differences were found between the evaluations of individual subjects as opposed to overall communities. There was also a clear discrepancy between the actual adoption of household preparatory measures and the willingness to take self-protection actions. Overall, the risk awareness was significantly higher among those residents who had been personally affected by a flood in the past, were living in isolated (vs. urban) communities, in the most risky areas or had a lower level of trust in local authorities. The improvement of residents’ knowledge about their environment and the residual risk seemed to be crucial to increase risk awareness, and the same was true for the strengthening of local support networks to foster preparedness. The link between risk awareness and preparedness was not at all straightforward. Results revealed instead the complexity of residents’ perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and decisions about risk-related issues.

Expert engagement in participatory processes: translating stakeholder discourses into policy options

This paper demonstrates an innovative role for experts in supporting participatory policy processes with an application to landslide risk management in the Italian town of Nocera Inferiore. Experts co-produce risk mitigation options based on their specialized knowledge taking account of local knowledge and values by directly coupling stakeholder discourses with option design. Drawing on the theory of plural rationality and based on a literature review, interviews and a public questionnaire, stakeholder discourses are elicited on the landslide risk problem and its solution. Armed with the discourses and in close interaction with stakeholders, experts provide a range of technical mitigation options, each within a given budget constraint. These options are subsequently deliberated in the participatory process with the intent of reaching compromise recommendations for landslide risk mitigation. As we show in an accompanying paper, “Compromise not consensus. Designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation” (this issue), the provision of multiple co-produced policy options enhances stakeholder deliberation by respecting legitimate differences in values and worldviews.

The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy

Landslides represent a major threat to human life, property and the environment. Landslide hazard and risk assessments seek to inform the policy and practice of landslide hazard risk management, for example, by identifying high-risk areas so that appropriate policy and private actions could be taken in terms of preventive and mitigative measures. We examine whether a decentralized risk assessment system leads to better assessment outcomes compared to a centralized risk assessment system. The paper is based on a comparative study of two countries—India and Italy—and their responses to landslide risk. Our results indicate a causal relationship between decentralization and three outcomes. First, decentralization appears to be conducive to the more rapid and more complete assessment of risks in local places, through mapping at an appropriate scale. Second, decentralization appears to foster greater and more transparent communication of risk assessment products, such as maps. Third, decentralization appears to lead to a more open, and at times contentious, public discourse over how to interpret and respond to the information contained in the risk assessments and maps. However, in practice, decentralization faces serious institutional resistance. Our analysis does not preclude other risk assessment outcomes or competing explanations for differences in risk assessment and management outcomes. Rather, it provides an understanding of the direction in which the institutional change may be driven for bringing about more effective risk assessments and their use.

Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe

Technical and institutional capacities are strongly related and must be jointly developed to guarantee effective natural risk governance. Indeed, the available technical solutions and decision support tools influence the development of institutional frameworks and disaster policies. This paper analyses technical and institutional capacities, by providing a comparative evaluation of governance systems in Italy and France. The focus is on two case studies: Naples and Guadeloupe. Both areas are exposed to multiple hazards, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, tsunamis, fires, cyclones, and marine inundations Cascade and conjoint effects such as seismic swarms triggered by volcanic activity have also been taken into account. The research design is based on a documentary analysis of laws and policy documents informed by semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders at the local level. This leads to the identification of three sets of governance characteristics that cover the key issues of: (1) stakeholders and governance level; (2) decision support tools and mitigation measures; and (3) stakeholder cooperation and communication. The results provide an overview of the similarities and differences as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the governance systems across risks. Both case studies have developed adequate decision support tools for most of the hazards of concern. Warning systems, and the assessment of hazards and exposure are the main strengths. While technical/scientific capacities are very well developed, the main weaknesses involve the interagency communication and cooperation, and the use and dissemination of scientific knowledge when developing policies and practices. The consequences for multi-risk governance are outlined in the discussion.

Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation

With the escalating costs of landslides, the challenge for local authorities is to develop institutional arrangements for landslide risk management that are viewed as efficient, feasible and fair by those affected. For this purpose, the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process is mandated by the European Union as a way of improving its perceived legitimacy and transparency. This paper reports on an analytical-deliberative process for selecting landslide risk mitigation measures in the town of Nocera Inferiore in southern Italy. The process was structured as a series of meetings with a group of selected residents and several parallel activities open to the public. The preparatory work included a literature/media review, semi-structured interviews carried out with key local stakeholders and a survey eliciting residents’ views on landslide risk management. The main point of departure in the design of this process was the explicit elicitation and structuring of multiple worldviews (or perspectives) among the participants with respect to the nature of the problem and its solution. Rather than eliciting preferences using decision analytical methods (e.g. utility theory or multi-criteria evaluation), this process built on a body of research—based on the theory of plural rationality—that has teased out the limited number of contending and socially constructed definitions of problem-and-solution that are able to achieve viability. This framing proved effective in structuring participants’ views and arriving at a compromise recommendation (not, as is often aimed for, a consensus) on measures for reducing landslide risk. Experts played a unique role in this process by providing a range of policy options that corresponded to the different perspectives held by the participants.

The co-production of risk from a natural hazards perspective: science and policy interaction for landslide risk management in Italy

AbstractDespite continuing technological advancement in hazard and vulnerability assessment, risk modelling and hazard mitigation techniques, losses to disasters associated with natural hazards continue and in some cases are increasing across Europe and worldwide. This paper focuses on the need to bridge the gap between technical solutions and the sociopolitical contexts in which these are produced, to better understand and create more effective risk management regimes. We do so with application of the science–policy co-production frame to landslide risk management in Italy. The methodology deployed included a desk study informed by semi-structured interviews carried out with selected key stakeholders at national, regional and municipal level. We propose a normative and analytical framework for transferring co-production into natural hazard research by presenting a matrix identifying four contexts within which co-production may unfold. The matrix is based on two axes, which distinguish between innovation and its absence in science and policy domains. We examine several examples of co-production, such as the water–soil integrated approach to risk management or the implementation of hazard/risk assessment. The results highlight that the insulation of science from the institutional context within which knowledge is produced and used is a very problematic issue. This often hinders the implementation of desirable policies and undermines the effectiveness of interventions. Moreover, innovation in science and policy does not automatically result in successful solutions for landslide risk management. Finally, results confirm the utility of co-production but also highlight methodological challenges associated with the introduction of this new conceptual paradigm into the well-structured communities of scientists and policy-makers.

Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: a pilot study

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a pilot study involving high school teachers in natural sciences. The aim was to foster critical thinking about cascading hazards via the use of reasoned imagination. Cascading phenomena can lead to extreme catastrophes and are thus a challenge for disaster prevention and management. Design/methodology/approach – Following a presentation listing some known cascading phenomena, the participants completed a questionnaire consisting of a blank hazard correlation matrix (HCM) and some open-ended questions. The HCM qualitatively described possible interactions between 16 different perils selected from a large spectrum of natural, technological and socio-economic hazards. Findings – Most participants were able to describe cascading phenomena within the HCM by reducing them into sets of one-to-one interactions. Based on their experience and imagination, the participants foresaw additional interactions that were not discussed, never observed but are...

Multi-risk approach and urban resilience

Purpose Urban resilience is becoming increasingly important due to increasing degree of urbanization and a combination of several factors affecting urban vulnerability. Urban resilience is also understood as a capacity of a system to prepare, respond and recover from multi-hazard threats. The purpose of multi-risk approach (MRA) is to take into consideration interdependencies between multiple risks, which can trigger a chain of natural and manmade events with different spatial and temporal scales. The purpose of this study is to understand correlation between multi-risk approach and urban resilience. Design/methodology/approach To increase urban resilience, MRA should also include multi-risk governance, which is based on understanding how existing institutional and governance structures, individual judgments and communication of risk assessment results shape decision-making processes. Findings This paper is based on extensive fieldwork in the test studies of Naples, Italy and Guadeloupe, France, the historical case study analysis and the stakeholders’ interviews, workshops and focus groups discussions. Originality/value Multi-risk is a relatively new field in science, only partially developed in social and geosciences. The originality of this research is in establishment of a link between MRA, including both assessment and governance, and urban resilience. In this paper, the authors take a holistic and systemic look at the MRA, including all stages of knowledge generation and decision-making. Both, knowledge generation and decision-making are reinforced by behavioural biases, different perceptions and institutional factors. Further on, the authors develop recommendations on how an MRA can contribute to urban resilience.

Chapter 14: Multi-Risk Assessment and Governance

Multi-risk assessment involves the inclusion of hazard and risk interactions within the modeling of the disaster risk chain. These interactions include more than one disastrous event at the same time, cascading events, and how changes in exposure and vulnerability arise over time, including as a result of previous events. At a first glance, multi-risk assessment appears to be a better means of approaching disaster risk reduction actions. However, it is hindered by a lack of knowledge about the fundamental physical processes involved, difficulties in comparing hazards and risks of different types and, especially, the topic of this chapter, barriers within risk governance for the successful implementation of necessary risk mitigation actions. Such barriers include a lack of standardization in terminology, a deficiency in expertise in the range of disciplines that are relevant to multi-risk reduction planning, inadequate resources, and biases and barriers in communication between the relevant public and private actors, as well as between researchers and policy-makers. This chapter details some of the social, institutional and scientific barriers that are associated with the full consideration of multi-risk governance, and provides some suggestions as to how these may be overcome.

Understanding Institutional Deadlocks in Disaster Risk Reduction: The Financial and Legal Risk Root Causes in Genova, Italy

Many countries, regions and towns around the world experience lack of action or delayed actions in the implementation of disaster risk reduction measures. One of the common causal explanations is the insufficient funding available to reduce risk, especially at the local level. However, so far few studies have provided an in-depth analysis of the root causes of these deadlocks in disaster risk reduction. This paper analyses risk root causes in Genova, a town situated in North West Italy and exposed to high impact weather events. The town has experienced an increase in the intensity of flood events in the past 50 years, causing casualties, evacuations, displacements and severe damage. Decisions about flood risk mitigation progressively became a highly contested issue, especially because of the delays in reinforcing the banks of the Bisagno river and the city’s flood defences. The causes of these delays are not to be found in the lack of technical solutions, but rather in the socio-political and institutiona...