Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe

被引:0
|
作者
Anna Scolobig
Nadejda Komendantova
Anthony Patt
Charlotte Vinchon
Daniel Monfort-Climent
Mendy Begoubou-Valerius
Paolo Gasparini
Angela Di Ruocco
机构
[1] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA),Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program
[2] Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH),Human
[3] French Geological Survey (BRGM),Environment Systems Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science
[4] French Geological Survey (BRGM),Human
[5] Center for the Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (AMRA),Environment Systems Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science
[6] Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH),undefined
来源
Natural Hazards | 2014年 / 73卷
关键词
Natural hazard governance; Technical and institutional capacities; Stakeholder cooperation and communication; Qualitative evaluation tool; Comparative analysis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1523 / 1545
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe
    Scolobig, Anna
    Komendantova, Nadejda
    Patt, Anthony
    Vinchon, Charlotte
    Monfort-Climent, Daniel
    Begoubou-Valerius, Mendy
    Gasparini, Paolo
    Di Ruocco, Angela
    [J]. NATURAL HAZARDS, 2014, 73 (03) : 1523 - 1545
  • [2] Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling
    Jochen Schmidt
    Iain Matcham
    Stefan Reese
    Andrew King
    Rob Bell
    Roddy Henderson
    Graeme Smart
    Jim Cousins
    Warwick Smith
    Dave Heron
    [J]. Natural Hazards, 2011, 58 : 1169 - 1192
  • [3] Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling
    Schmidt, Jochen
    Matcham, Iain
    Reese, Stefan
    King, Andrew
    Bell, Rob
    Henderson, Roddy
    Smart, Graeme
    Cousins, Jim
    Smith, Warwick
    Heron, Dave
    [J]. NATURAL HAZARDS, 2011, 58 (03) : 1169 - 1192
  • [4] Living in a Multi-Risk Chaotic Condition: Pandemic, Natural Hazards and Complex Emergencies
    Hariri-Ardebili, Mohammad Amin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 17 (16) : 1 - 16
  • [5] A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment
    Gallina, Valentina
    Torresan, Silvia
    Critto, Andrea
    Sperotto, Anna
    Glade, Thomas
    Marcomini, Antonio
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2016, 168 : 123 - 132
  • [6] Multi-risk scenarios, knowledge and environmental design for the northern periphery or Naples
    Verde, Sara
    [J]. TECHNE-JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY FOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 23 : 146 - 155
  • [7] Multi-risk interpretation of natural hazards for settlements of the Hatay province in the east Mediterranean region, Turkey using SRTM DEM
    A. C. Demirkesen
    [J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2012, 65 : 1895 - 1907
  • [8] Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal
    Mukhopadhyay, Anirban
    Hazra, Sugata
    Mitra, Debasish
    Hutton, C.
    Chanda, Abhra
    Mukherjee, Sandip
    [J]. NATURAL HAZARDS, 2016, 80 (03) : 1495 - 1513
  • [9] A distributed framework for multi-risk assessment of natural hazards used to model the effects of forest fire on hydrology and sediment yield
    Bovolo, C. Isabella
    Abele, Simon J.
    Bathurst, James C.
    Caballero, David
    Ciglan, Marek
    Eftichidis, George
    Simo, Branislav
    [J]. COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES, 2009, 35 (05) : 924 - 945
  • [10] Review article: Current approaches and critical issues in multi-risk recovery planning of urban areas exposed to natural hazards
    Mohammadi, Soheil
    De Angeli, Silvia
    Boni, Giorgio
    Pirlone, Francesca
    Cattari, Serena
    [J]. NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2024, 24 (01) : 79 - 107