3. Research Design
4.1. Institutional Barriers to Multi-Risk Governance
4.2. Multi-Risk Governance Framework
- Observation of hazard and risk interactions, with a focus on the identification of cascades and associated effects;
- Analysis of the social and institutional context, including stakeholder engagement and the creation of forums/hubs to discuss, make decisions and set priorities for actions regarding multi-risk issues;
- Generation of multi-risk knowledge, including the use of different methods and tools (such as multi-risk assessment, hazard correlation matrix and risk migration matrix, etc.; e.g., [5,8,39] in order to provide a preliminary scientific background for the following phase of multi-risk knowledge co-production and decision-making;
- Stakeholder process, aimed at designing and selecting multi-risk management/reduction options; implementing the chosen options, and evaluating them.
4.2.1. Phase 1: Observation of Hazard and Risk Interactions
4.2.2. Phase 2: Social and Institutional Context Analysis
4.2.3. Phase 3: Multi-Risk Knowledge Generation
4.2.4. Phase 4: Stakeholder Process
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. (Selected) Risk Governance Definitions and Features
|Study||Problem Definition||Definition of Risk Governance||Major Features|
|||There is a need to better accommodate conflicting or diverse interests and take co-operative actions in policy making.||The sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs.||It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.|
|||Contemporary risk crises show the need to incorporate societal concerns as well as non standard knowledge in the governance of risk.|
These crises cannot be fully understood nor managed with traditional risk assessment tools.
|The sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is often related to the precautionary principle, combining the idea of ´sound science´ with public participation.||The full realisation of governance enquires a shift of mentality, broad changes in professional and institutional practices, and the design and implementation of new participatory instruments and procedures.|
|||Policy problems such as handling conflict in environmental, transport, ageing and health policy are becoming increasingly messy and new governance approaches are needed to identify clumsy solutions.||Effective governance approaches allow to identify clumsy solutions, i.e., creative combinations of four opposing ways of organizing and thinking.||Clumsy governance solutions emerge from compromises among the four forms of social solidarity: individualism, hierarchy, fatalism and egualitarianism.|
|||Risk governance framework is needed to address complexity in identification and quantification of causal links, uncertain assumptions, assertions and predictions as well as interpretative and normative ambiguity of justifications for different threats.||It is a systematic approach to decision and policy-making processes on natural and technological risks based on principles of cooperation, participation and effective risk management in public and private policies.||Evaluation of risk management options should be done in cooperation between experts and decision-makers, where evidence comes from experts and relative weights on decision criteria from politically legitimised decision-makers. Risk communication should deal with the nature of risks, their context and source as well as societal concerns.|
|||Risk governance is needed as an essential element to guarantee an integrated approach for natural risk reduction.||It refers to actions, processes, traditions, networks and institutions by which decisions are taken and implemented.||It includes the phases of pre-assessment, risk appraisal (tolerability, acceptability, judgement), risk evaluation, risk management and communication.|
|||Limited understanding of processes which lead to improvement or deterioration of natural resources because of use of different languages and concepts to describe complex social-ecological systems.||It is a framework to organise findings and knowledge generated by different disciplines and stakeholders. Governance systems are understood as organizations and rules that govern social-ecological systems and interactions with subsystems and their components.||Focus on relationship among multiple levels of complex systems at different spatial and temporal scales. Bottom-up approach by involving expertise of stakeholders.|
|||Limitation of traditional analytical models and methodological tools to understand complex perspective on issues of environmental change.||Resilience and governance as fundamental issues of change and stability, adaptation and design, hierarchy and self-organization in multilevel governance systems. This includes also such elements as human-environmental interactions, vulnerability resulting from mal-adaptations and innovation capacity as integral parts of a given governance system.||To govern processes of complex change, complexity in the external world shall be matched by complexity in governance systems. Institutional and organisational diversity is the most effective way to cope with complexity.|
|||The need of current frameworks to address multiple risks.||Governance includes capacities of systems at different levels, from local to global, to deal with several risks. It entails risk policy and politics.||Governance structures at different levels.|
|||Reduction of cumulative impact on ecosystems, which requires co-evolution between science, policy and practice. Major pillars: long-term social-ecological changes, resilience of ecosystems, driving forces and points of challenges.||Multi-level governance is needed to adequately support operational application of ecosystem approach. Experimentation and innovation at local and regional levels as well as establishing science-based learning platforms are key pre-requisites.||Movement towards a new governance regime, combining bottom-up pilot initiatives for diffusion of innovation within the existing governance framework and top-down approach, which enables EU legislation to stimulate innovations.|
|||Complexity, uncertainty and socio-political ambiguity are three key challenges that governance should address.||Risk governance denotes both the institutional structure and the policy process that guide and restrain collective activities of a group-society to regulate, reduce or control risk problems.||It includes steps of pre-estimation, interdisciplinary risk estimation, risk characterisation and evaluation, risk management, monitoring and control.|
- The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Available online: http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2017).
- Komendantova, N.; van Erp, N.; van Gelder, P.; Patt, A. Individual Perceptual and Cognitive Barriers to Multi-Hazard Management; MATRIX: Laxenburg, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, J. Megacities and natural disasters: A comparative analysis. GeoJournal 1999, 49, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The official Report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission; The National Diet of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
- Mignan, A.; Komendantova, N.; Scolobig, A.; Fleming, K. Multi-risk assessment and governance. In Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management; Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H., Eds.; World Sci. Press & Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2017; Chapter 14; pp. 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komendantova, N.; Scolobig, A.; Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Monfort, D.; Fleming, K. Multi-risk approach and urban resilience. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2016, 7, 114–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scolobig, A.; Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Komendantova, N.; Patt, A.; Di Ruocco, A.; Gasparini, P.; Monfort, D.; Vinchon, C.; Bengoubou-Valerius, M.; Mrzyglocki, R.; et al. From multi-risk assessment to multi-risk governance: Reccomendations for future directions. In Understanding Risk: The Evolution of Disaster Risk Assessment Since 2015; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 163–167. [Google Scholar]
- Mignan, A.; Wiemer, S.; Giardini, D. The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: Part I. A generic multi-risk approach. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 1999–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kappes, M.; Keiler, M.; von Elverfeldt, K.; Glade, T. Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: A review. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 1925–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kappes, M.S.; Gruber, K.; Frigerio, S.; Bell, R.; Keiler, M.; Glade, T. The multirisk platform: The technical concept and application of a regional-scale multihazard exposure analysis tool. Geomorphology 2012, 151–152, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallina, V.; Torresan, S.; Critto, A.; Sperotto, A.; Glade, T.; Marcomini, A. A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 168, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sperotto, A.; Molina, J.L.; Torresan, S.; Critto, A.; Marcomini, A. Reviewing bayesian networks potentials for climate change impacts assessment and management: A multi-risk perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 202, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marzocchi, W.; Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Giardini, P.; Mastellone, M.; Di Ruocco, A. Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: A case study in Italy. Nat. Hazards 2012, 62, 551–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klinke, A.; Renn, O. Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. J. Risk Res. 2011, 15, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Scolobig, A.; Ferlisi, S.; Cascini, L.; Thompson, M. Expert engagement in participatory processes: Translating stakeholder discourses into policy options. Nat. Hazards 2016, 81, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renn, O.; Klinke, A. Risk governance and resilience: New approaches to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. In Risk Governance: The Articulation of Hazard, Politics and Ecology; Paleo, U.F., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 19–41. [Google Scholar]
- Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. In The Final Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction; A/CONF. 206/6; UNISDR: Kobe, Japan, 2005; pp. 18–22.
- Renn, O. Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, 1st ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Our Global Neighborhood; Commission on Global Governance: London, UK, 1995.
- De Marchi, B. Risk governance and the integration of scientific and local knowledge. In Risk Governance: The Articulation of Hazard, Politics and Ecology; Paleo, U.F., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 19–41. [Google Scholar]
- De Marchi, B. Public participation and risk governance. Sci. Public Policy 2003, 30, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). An Introduction to the Risk Governance Framework; International Risk Governance Council: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, M. Organizing and Disorganizing: A Dynamic and Non-Linear Theory of Institutional Emergence and Its Implications, 1st ed.; Triarchy Press: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Paleo, U.F. Risk Governance: The Articulation of Hazard, Politics and Ecology, 1st ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, M.; Rayner, S. Risk and governance part 1: The discourses of climate change. Gov. Oppos. 1998, 33, 139–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bevir, M. Key Concepts in Governance, 1st ed.; SAGE Books: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Biermann, F. Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikeda, S.; Nagasaka, T. An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2011, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biesbroek, G.R.; Termeer, C.A.M.; Klostermann, J.M.; Kabat, P. Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013, 19, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Concept Note: Improving the Management of Emerging Risks: Risks from New Technologies, System Interactions, and Unforeseen or Changing Circumstances; International Risk Governance Council (IRGC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
- Kaufmann, D. Governance Matters; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Bakkour, D.; Enjolras, G.; Thouret, J.C.; Kast, R.; Mei, E.T.W.; Prihatminingtyas, B. The adaptive governance of natural disaster systems: Insights from the 2010 mount merapi eruption in indonesia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 13, 167–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scolobig, A.; Komendantova, N.; Patt, A.; Vinchon, C.; Monfort, D.; Bengoubou-Valerius, M.; Gasparini, P.; Di Ruocco, A.; Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Wenzel, F. Synthesis: Benefits and Barriers to Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation, with Policy Recommendations for Decision-Support; MATRIX: Laxenburg, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Scolobig, A.; Vinchon, C.; Komendantova, N.; Bengoubou-Valerius, M.; Patt, A.; Gasparini, P.; Di Ruocco, A.; Baills, A.; Revellière, A. Social and Institutional Barriers to Effective Multi-Hazard Decision Making; MATRIX: Laxenburg, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Marzocchi, W.; Di Ruocco, A.; Tyagunov, S.; Vorogushyn, S.; Fleming, K.; Desramaut, N. Scenarios of Cascade Events; MATRIX: Laxenburg, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Monfort, D.; Lecacheux, S.; French, S. West Indies Test Site; MATRIX: Laxenburg, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Scolobig, A.; Komendantova, N.; Patt, A.; Vinchon, C.; Monfort-Climent, D.; Begoubou-Valerius, M.; Gasparini, P.; Di Ruocco, A. Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in naples and guadeloupe. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 1523–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mignan, A.; Danciu, L.; Giardini, D. Considering Large Earthquake Clustering in Seismic Risk Analysis. Nat. Hazards 2016, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patt, A.G.; Weber, E.U. Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischhoff, B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 1995, 15, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fischhoff, B. The sciences of science communication. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, 21–22 May 2012; pp. 14033–14039. [Google Scholar]
- Otway, H.; Wynne, B. Risk communication: Paradigm and paradox. Risk Anal. 1989, 9, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasperson, R. Four questions for risk communication. J. Risk Res. 2014, 17, 1233–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M. More questions than answers: A response to “four questions for risk communication” by Roger Kasperson (2014). J. Risk Res. 2014, 17, 1241–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marchi, B. Uncertainty in environmental emergencies: A diagnostic tool. J. Conting. Crisis Manag. 1995, 3, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verweij, M.; Thompson, M. Clumsy Solutions for A Complex World: Governance, Politics, and Plural Perceptions, 1st ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, M. Wicked environmental problems. In The Companion to Environmental Studies; Hulme, M., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993, 25, 739–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J. Post-Normal Science. 2013. Available online: http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2017).
- De Dianous, V.; Fiévez, C. Aramis project: A more explicit demonstration of risk control through the use of bow-tie diagrams and the evaluation of safety barrier performance. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 130, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Norio, O.; Ye, T.; Kajitani, Y.; Shi, P.; Tatano, H. The 2011 eastern japan great earthquake disaster: Overview and comments. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2011, 2, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, J.C.; Malamud, B.D. Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard methodologies. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2016, 7, 659–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, J.C.; Malamud, B.D. Anthropogenic processes, natural hazards, and interactions in a multi-hazard framework. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2017, 166, 246–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumasaki, M.; King, M.; Arai, M.; Yang, L. Anatomy of cascading natural disasters in japan: Main modes and linkages. Nat. Hazards 2016, 80, 1425–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lofstedt, R.; Bouder, F.; Wardman, J.; Chakraborty, S. The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in europe. J. Risk Res. 2011, 14, 409–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, O. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale, 1st ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Corfee-Morlot, J.; Cochran, I.; Hallegatte, S.; Teasdale, P.J. Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy. Clim. Chang. 2011, 104, 169–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adachi, T.; Ellingwood, B. Serviceability of earthquake-damaged water systems: Effects of electrical power availability and power backup systems on system vulnerability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008, 93, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, J.; Malamud, B. Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52, 680–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Komendantova, N.; Mrzyglocki, R.; Mignan, A.; Khazai, B.; Wenzel, F.; Patt, A.; Fleming, K. Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: Feedback from civil protection stakeholders. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 8, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Nadim, F.; Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Mignan, A.; Fleming, K.; Luna, B. A three-level framework for multi-risk assessment. Georisk 2015, 9, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mignan, A.; Scolobig, A.; Sauron, A. Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: A pilot study. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2016, 25, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paté-Cornell, E. On “black swans” and “perfect storms”: Risk analysis and management when statistics are not enough. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1823–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jasanoff, S. The idiom of co-production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order; Sheila, J., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Jasanoff, S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, 1st ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Gluckman, P. The art of science advice to government. Nature 2014, 507, 163–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pielke, R. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Scolobig, A.; Linnerooth Bayer, J.; Ferlisi, S.; Cascini, L. Design and Testing: A Risk Communication Strategy and A Deliberative Process for Choosing a Set of Mitigation and Prevention Measures; IIASA: Laxenburg, Austria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duit, A.; Galaz, V.; Eckerberg, K.; Ebbesson, J. Governance, complexity, and resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 495–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Österblom, H.; Gårdmark, A.; Bergström, L.; Müller-Karulis, B.; Folke, C.; Lindegren, M.; Casini, M.; Olsson, P.; Diekmann, R.; Blenckner, T.; et al. Making the ecosystem approach operational—Can regime shifts in ecological- and governance systems facilitate the transition? Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 1290–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Risk assessment and land use planning||Consideration of cascading effects and interactions between risks and inclusion in risk zoning and land use planning;|
Comparison and ranking of different risks;
Identification of the highest risk in terms of potential impacts (derived by multi-risk assessment);
Standardization across risk fields.
|Emergency management||Development of multi-hazard and -risk scenarios in order to manage emergency situations in real time;|
Better preparedness due to knowledge of cascading effects.
|Risk mitigation||Better identification of action priorities;|
Evidence on increased expected losses due to risk interactions;
Cost reduction and improvement in the efficiency of mitigation measures.
|Institutional capacities||Improved cooperation and coordination between agencies acting at different levels in different risk sectors.|
|Public private sector partnerships||Enhanced cooperation and communication between public and private sector;|
Need for new responsibility sharing mechanisms in the case of households exposed to multiple risks (insurance).
|Institutional/policy analysis||Desk study of legal, regulatory, and policy documents (Naples and Guadeloupe).||To provide a description of the institutional and regulatory framework for risk governance within different natural hazard contexts;|
To identify comparable sets of governance characteristics across hazards and countries.
|Interviews and focus groups||Semi-structured and in-depth interviews; focus group with a total of 44 participants (Naples and Guadeloupe).||To identify the social and institutional barriers to effective decision-making in the case of multiple hazards;|
To propose initial options for overcoming multiple hazards;
To provide feedback on the results of the institutional analysis.
|Workshops||Three interdisciplinary workshops with participants at national and local levels from 11 countries;|
Naples (20 participants);
Guadeloupe (32 participants);
Bonn (21 participants).
|To present the new multi-hazard and multi-risk assessments and scenarios developed within the MATRIX project;|
To discuss the barriers to and benefits of implementing multi-risk assessment in the test sites and receive feedback from a wider audience in order to identify results applicable to other multi-risk environments.
|Feedback||In-depth interviews with and questionnaires submitted to workshop participants (Naples and Guadeloupe).||To collect feedback on the workshops’ results;|
To collect feedback on the recommendations for decision support developed by the research team in the previous research phases.
|Single risk centred regulation and institutional frameworks|
|Different goals and priorities of the agencies in charge of hazard management|
|Unsatisfactory public private partnership|
|Different responsibilities for risk reduction at household level|
|Lack of interagency communication|
|Lack of capacities at the local level|
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).