Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

Multi-risk environments are characterized by domino effects that often amplify the overall risk. Those include chains of hazardous events and increasing vulnerability, among other types of correlations within the risk process. The recently developed methods for multi-hazard and risk assessment integrate interactions between different risks by using harmonized procedures based on common metrics. While the products of these assessments, such as multi-hazard and -risk indexes, maps, cascade scenarios, or warning systems provide innovative and effective information, they also pose specific challenges to policy makers and practitioners due to their novel cross-disciplinary aspects. In this paper we discuss the institutional barriers to the adoption of multi-risk approaches, summarizing the results of the fieldwork conducted in Italy and Guadeloupe and of workshops with disaster risk reduction practitioners from eleven European countries. Results show the need for a clear identification of responsibilities for the implementation of multi-risk approaches, as institutional frameworks for risk reduction remain to this day primarily single-risk centered. Authorities are rarely officially responsible for the management of domino effects between e.g., tsunamis and industrial accidents, earthquake and landslides, floods and electricity network failures. Other barriers for the implementation of multi-risk approaches include the limited measures to reduce exposure at the household level, inadequate financial capacities at the local level and limited public-private partnerships, especially in case of interactions between natural and industrial risks. Adapting the scale of institutions to that of multi-risk environments remains a major challenge to better mainstream multi-risk approaches into policy. To address it, we propose a multirisk governance framework, which includes the phases of observation, social and institutional context analysis, generation of multi-risk knowledge and stakeholder engagement processes. Yet, more research is needed in order to test the framework and to identify the hallmark characteristics of effective multi-risk governance

Brief Communication: The dark side of risk and crisis communication: legal conflicts and responsibility allocation

Inadequate, misinterpreted, or missing risk and crisis communication may be a reason for practitioners, and sometimes science advisors, to become the subjects of criminal investigations. This work discusses the legal consequences of inadequate risk communication in these situations. After presenting some cases, the discussion focuses on three critical issues: the development of effective communication protocols; the role, tasks, and responsibilities of science advisors; and the collateral effects of practitioners' defensive behaviours. For example, if the avoidance of personal liability becomes a primary objective for practitioners, it may clash with other objectives, such as the protection of vulnerable communities or the transparency of decision making. The conclusion presents some ideas for future research on the legal aspects of risk communication

Chapter 3-20: From multi-risk assessment to multi-risk governance: Recommendations for future directions

Disasters caused by natural hazards can trigger chains of multiple natural and man-made hazardous events over different spatial and temporal scales. Multi-hazard and multi-risk assessments make it possible to take into account interactions between different risks. Classes of interactions include triggered events, cascade effects, and the rapid increase of vulnerability during successive hazards. Recent research has greatly increased the risk assessment community's understanding of interactions between risks. Several international sets of guidelines and other documents now advocate adopting an all-hazard approach to risk assessments. Nevertheless, barriers to the application of multirisk assessment remain. The challenges for the development of multi-risk approaches are related not only to the applicability of results, but also to the link between risk assessment and decision making, the interactions between science and practice in terms of knowledge transfer, and more generally to the development of capacities at the local level. So far, research has focused on the scientific aspects of risk assessment. But the institutional aspects, such as the issues arising when multi-risk assessment results need to be implemented within existing risk management regimes, are also important, though they have received less attention. The project described here focused on the institutional context of disasters, which includes a variety of elements ranging from sociopolitical to governance components. It looked at how to maximize the benefits arising from, and overcome the barriers to, the implementation of a multihazard and multi-risk assessment approach within current risk management regimes. Working at two test sites, one in Naples and one in Guadeloupe, the research team engaged with local authorities and practitioners to better understand how to effectively implement the results of multi-risk assessment. Among the hazards considered were earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, tsunamis, wildfires, cyclones, and marine inundation. Beside the practitioners working in the two test sites, risk and emergency managers from 11 countries also provided feedback. In total, more than 70 practitioners took part in the research

2nd CapHaz-Net Regional Hazard Workshop: Social capacity building for Alpine hazards

The Alpine Space is a trans-national territory inhabited by 13 million people and comprising the territory of 8 countries, 83 regions and about 6,200 communities. It is characterised by a great variety in terms of natural hazard exposure. Floods, avalanches, debris flows, landslides, forest fires threaten the entire Alpine Space and are triggered by both natural and anthropogenic factors. The work described in this report focuses on this space and aims at bringing together and confronting different perspectives on the theme of social capacity building. It summarises the results of one of the work packages (WP8) of the CapHaz-Net project, which aims at identifying social capacities that contribute to making European societies more resilient to the impacts of natural hazards. More precisely the work presented here links previous project findings (related both to central topics and specific social capacities) to the practice of alpine hazards management in Europe, underlining potentials for enhancement of resilience both in this region and in Europe as a whole. This report is based on the preparatory work and the results of the Alpine Regional Hazard Workshop that took place in Gorizia (North Eastern Italy) on 4th and 5th April 2011. The main objectives were to provide an overview of existing institutional frames and the respective policy context at the regional scale, to better understand how social capacity building and preparedness strategies for Alpine hazards work in practice and to foster interdisciplinary and cross country dialogue between scientists and practitioners. This was done by taking into account strengths and weaknesses of existing tools and approaches and by analysing the potential for transferring best practices to different regional and hazard contexts. To bridge the gap between research and practice both theoretical knowledge and practical experiences were taken into account. The workshop started from a description of the main characteristics of alpine hazards. Then the focus shifted on operational risk management in four different countries of the alpine arch (Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia and Italy) and finally on practices for risk mitigation in two Italian case studies (Vipiteno/Sterzing in the Trentino Alto Adige region and Malborghetto-Valbruna in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region). The SWOT methodology was used as a heuristic tool for organizing the available insights and the participants' discussion. Natural sciences, historical perspectives as well as legal analysis have contributed to broadening and detailing the social capacity concept and more precisely to characterising and further specifying each particular capacity. Practitioners in the field of alpine hazards in different countries and residents of the two case study area also contributed by presenting and discussing their views and perspectives about prevention, mitigation, emergency management and recovery from natural disasters

Multiple hazards and risk perceptions over time: the availability heuristic in Italy and Sweden under COVID-19

The severe impact of global crises, such as COVID-19 and climate change, is plausibly reshaping the way in which people perceive risks. In this paper, we examine and compare how global crises and local disasters influence public perceptions of multiple hazards in Italy and Sweden. To this end, we integrate information about the occurrence of hazardous events with the results of two nationwide surveys. These included more than 4000 participants and were conducted in two different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to low (August 2020) and high (November 2020) levels of infection rates. We found that, in both countries, people are more worried about risks related to experienced events. This is in line with the cognitive process known as the availability heuristic: individuals assess the risk associated with a given hazard based on how easily it comes to their mind. Epidemics, for example, are perceived as less likely and more impactful in Italy compared to Sweden. This outcome can be explained by cross-country differences in the impact of, as well as governmental responses to, COVID-19. Notwithstanding the ongoing pandemic, people in both Italy and Sweden are highly concerned about climate change, and they rank it as the most likely threat

The co-production of scientific advice and decision making under uncertainty: Lessons from the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, Italy

On 22 October 2012 seven members of the Italian Major Risk Commission were found guilty of 29 persons manslaughter and of 4 injuries in relation with the earthquake that hit L'Aquila, a town in Central Italy, in the year 2009. The members were verdict to six years in prison for violating their obligations to adequately analyse seismic risk and to provide clear, correct and complete information, which might have saved many people's life. The case has not been concluded jet and so far the debate focused on the scientific, legal and communicative aspects of the verdict, while the institutional ones, including the co-production of scientific advice and decision making, received less attention. We argue that the presence of deep epistemic uncertainty coupled with responsibility overlaps of scientists-turned-decision-makers, is fundamental to understanding the event and the legal aftermath. Another relevant institutional aspect is the concern of the national and local authorities that the population would over-react to anything other than a reassuring message. We discuss the consequences of this framing of the emergency management problem in terms of public control rather than public safety. As risk science continues to grapple with the challenge of communicating uncertain information to decision-makers and citizens, it becomes more important to understand the co-production processes that shape how scientific advice is used for decisions on the ground

Policy and finance innovation for nature-based solutions

The European Commission is investing considerably in nature-based solutions to position Europe as a leader for ‘innovation with nature’. While ambition is growing, implementation remains problematic. Lack of expertise and knowledge, limited evidence on effectiveness and co-benefits, stakeholder conflicts, and grey measure path dependency represent formidable obstacles to the adoption and implementation of nature-based solutions (NBS). To address these areas, research done under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 PHUSICOS Innovation Action Project has four recommendations to promote innovation in the NBS sector

A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria

During a participatory process in Gmunden, Austria, the organizational and responsibility-sharing arrangements for a landslide warning system proved to be contested issues. While questions on the warning system technology and the distribution of information, including the alarm for evacuation, could be resolved with the support of experts, controversies arose on the financial and legal responsibilities that ensure long-term and effective monitoring for the protection of the landslide-prone community. This paper examines how responsibilities can be shared among the residents, experts, and public authorities during the design and operation of landslide warning systems. In particular, we discuss the outcome and implications of three stakeholder workshops where participants deliberated on warning-system options that, in turn, were based on a discourse analysis of extensive stakeholder interviews. The results of the case study show that an end-user orientation requires the consideration of stakeholder worldviews, interests, and conflicts. Paradoxically, the public did not fully support their own involvement in the maintenance and control of the warning system, but the authorities promoted shared responsibility. Deliberative planning does not then necessarily lead to responsibility sharing, but it proved effective as a platform for information and for shared ownership in the warning syste