Next Article in Journal
Assessment by Portable Gamma Spectrometry of External Gamma Radiation Hazard due to Granitic Materials and Indoor Space Typology
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Slope Sensitivity to Landslides by a Transdisciplinary Approach in the Framework of Future Development: The Case of La Trinité in Martinique (French West Indies)
Previous Article in Journal
Landscape Pattern Detection in Archaeological Remote Sensing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Slope Stability Assessment Using Trigger Parameters and SINMAP Methods on Tamblingan-Buyan Ancient Mountain Area in Buleleng Regency, Bali
Article Menu
Issue 4 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Geosciences 2017, 7(4), 129; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7040129

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

1
Climate Policy Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
2
Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
3
Institute of Geophysics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 7 November 2017 / Revised: 3 December 2017 / Accepted: 6 December 2017 / Published: 12 December 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Hazards and Risks Assessment)
Full-Text   |   PDF [505 KB, uploaded 13 December 2017]   |  

Abstract

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 multi-risk 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. View Full-Text
Keywords: multi-risk approach; domino effects; institutional barriers; governance; stakeholder engagement; multi-risk policy multi-risk approach; domino effects; institutional barriers; governance; stakeholder engagement; multi-risk policy
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Scolobig, A.; Komendantova, N.; Mignan, A. Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy. Geosciences 2017, 7, 129.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Geosciences EISSN 2076-3263 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top