scholarly journals A framework for profiling the characteristics of risk governance in natural hazard contexts

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 2207-2229 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Walker ◽  
F. Tweed ◽  
R. Whittle
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Specific Work ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Full Diversity ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
And Control

Abstract. The observed moves over recent decades away from government towards a broader practice of "governance" is as relevant to the handling of natural hazards as it is to other societal concerns. Key characteristics of this change include the emergence of multi-level governance processes and the "hollowing out" of the nation state; shifts away from the exercise of centralised authority towards the involvement and collaboration of a multiplicity of actors specific to each policy area; the creation of new forms of authority and control; and changing distributions of responsibilities between the state and other actors. However, the extent to which these shifts have taken place across the full diversity of national contexts in Europe, and can be observed specifically in relation to the governance of natural hazards, is very much open to judgement and debate. In this paper, we propose a framework for profiling risk governance in relation to key characteristics identified in both the general governance literature and in more specific work on risk governance. This framework can be flexibly applied in relation to a specific hazard and national/regional context and enables qualitative profiling across a spectrum of eight governance characteristics. Past trends and likely future changes can also be represented. We discuss the formulation of this framework as well as illustrating how it can be used in a process of discussion and debate about risk governance issues. We provide examples of the ways in which the profiling approach can enable comparison between risk governance contexts and approaches, and how it can be used in a variety of potential settings.

scholarly journals A framework for profiling the characteristics of risk governance in natural hazard contexts

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Walker ◽  
F. Tweed ◽  
R. Whittle
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
Governance Practice ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Progressive Reforms ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
And Control

Abstract. Over recent decades there have been moves away from traditional forms of government towards broader practices of "governance". These moves are as relevant to the handling of natural hazards as they are to other societal concerns. Key characteristics of such changes include the emergence of multi-level governance processes, shifts away from the exercise of centralised authority towards the involvement and collaboration of a multiplicity of actors, the creation of new forms of authority and control, and changing distributions of responsibilities between the state and other actors. However, the extent to which these shifts have taken place across the varied national contexts in Europe and can be observed specifically in relation to the governance of natural hazards is not at all clear. Such developments may also be evaluated in different ways; where some might see progressive reforms, others might see damaging undermining of established arrangements. In this paper, we propose a risk governance profiling framework that can be used to draw out the key characteristics of the ways in which natural hazards are governed in a particular governance setting. The framework can be flexibly applied in relation to a specific hazard and national, regional or local context, and enables qualitative profiling across a spectrum of eight key governance characteristics. Past trends and likely future changes can also be represented. We discuss the formulation of this framework as well as giving examples of profiles for different hazards in different parts of Europe. We suggest ways in which comparisons can be made between governance profiles, providing a stimulus and focus for debate and discussion around the trends of change in governance practice that have been, and are continuing, to take place.

Risk Governance of Limited-Notice or No-Notice Natural Hazards

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle ◽  
Dale Dominey-Howes
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Early Warning Systems ◽  
Global South ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Tsunami Warning ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Warning Systems ◽  
Global North

The second priority of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 stresses that, to efficiently manage risk posed by natural hazards, disaster risk governance should be strengthened for all phases of the disaster cycle. Disaster management should be based on adequate strategies and plans, guidance, and inter-sector coordination and communication, as well as the participation and inclusion of all relevant stakeholders—including the general public. Natural hazards that occur with limited-notice or no-notice (LNN) challenge these efforts. Different types of natural hazards present different challenges to societies in the Global North and the Global South in terms of detection, monitoring, and early warning (and then response and recovery). For example, some natural hazards occur suddenly with little or no warning (e.g., earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, snow avalanches, flash floods, etc.) whereas others are slow onset (e.g., drought and desertification). Natural hazards such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and floods may unfold at a pace that affords decision-makers and emergency managers enough time to affect warnings and to undertake preparedness and mitigative activities. Others do not. Detection and monitoring technologies (e.g., seismometers, stream gauges, meteorological forecasting equipment) and early warning systems (e.g., The Australian Tsunami Warning System) have been developed for a number of natural hazard types. However, their reliability and effectiveness vary with the phenomenon and its location. For example, tsunamis generated by submarine landslides occur without notice, generally rendering tsunami-warning systems inadequate. Where warnings are unreliable or mis-timed, there are serious implications for risk governance processes and practices. To assist in the management of LNN events, we suggest emphasis should be given to the preparedness and mitigation phases of the disaster cycle, and in particular, to efforts to engage and educate the public. Risk and vulnerability assessment is also of paramount importance. The identification of especially vulnerable groups, appropriate land use planning, and the introduction and enforcement of building codes and reinforcement regulations, can all help to reduce casualties and damage to the built environment caused by unexpected events. Moreover, emergency plans have to adapt accordingly as they may differ from the evacuation plans for events with a longer lead-time. Risk transfer mechanisms, such as insurance, and public-private partnerships should be strengthened, and redevelopment should consider relocation and reinforcement of new buildings. Finally, participation by relevant stakeholders is a key concept for the management of LNN events as it is also a central component for efficient risk governance. All relevant stakeholders should be identified and included in decisions and their implementation, supported by good communication before, during, and after natural hazard events. The implications for risk governance of a number of natural hazards are presented and illustrated with examples from different countries from the Global North and the Global South.

Natural Hazards Governance in China

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Sim ◽  
Jun Lei Yu
Keyword(s):  
Natural Disasters ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Volcanic Eruptions ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Social Organizations

China is a vast country frequently impacted by multiple natural hazards. All natural disasters have been reported in China, except volcanic eruptions. Almost every region in China is threatened by at least one type of natural hazard, and the rural areas are most vulnerable, with fewer resources and less developed disaster protective measures as well as lower levels of preparedness. In the first 30 years since its establishment in 1949, the Chinese government, hindered by resource constraints, encouraged local communities to be responsible for disaster response. As the country’s economy grew exponentially, after it opened its doors to the world in the late 1970s, China’s natural hazard governance (NHG) system quickly became more top-down, with the government leading the way for planning, coordinating, directing, and allocating resources for natural disasters. The development of China’s NHG is linked to the evolution of its ideologies, legislation system, and organizational structures for disaster management. Ancient China’s disaster management was undergirded by the ideology that one accepted one’s fate passively in the event of a disaster. In contemporary China, three ideologies guide the NHG: (a) passive disaster relief characterized by “help oneself by engaging in production”; (b) active disaster management characterized by “emergency management”; and (c) optimized disaster risk governance characterized by “multiple stakeholders working together.” Meanwhile, the NHG legislation and systems have become more open, transparent, and integrated one over time. Evidenced by the unprecedented growth of social organizations and private companies that engaged in disaster-related activities during and after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, discussions on integrating bottom-up capacities with the top-down system have increased recently. The Chinese government started purchasing services from social organizations and engaging them in building disaster model communities (officially known as “Comprehensive Disaster Reduction Demonstration Communities”) in recent years. These are, potentially, two specific ways for social organizations to contribute to China’s NHG system development.

Natural Hazards and Risk Management

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljubica Mamula-Seadon
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Forthcoming Article ◽  
Late 20Th Century

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article. Natural hazards risk management has developed in conjunction with broader risk management theory and practice. Thus, it reflects a discourse that has characterized this field, particularly in the last decades of the 20th century. Effective implementation of natural hazards risk management strategies requires an understanding of underlying assumptions inherent to specific methodologies, as well as an explication of the process and the challenges embodied in specific approaches to risk mitigation. Historical thinking on risk, as it has unfolded in the last few hundred years, has been exemplified by a juxtaposition between positivist and post-positivist approaches to risk that dominated the risk discourse in the late 20th century. Evolution of the general concept of risk and the progress of scientific rationality modified the relationship of people to natural hazard disasters. The epistemology, derived from a worldview that champions objective knowledge gained through observation and analysis of the predicable phenomena in the world surrounding us, has greatly contributed to this change of attitude. Notwithstanding its successes, the approach has been challenged by the complexity of natural hazard risk and by the requirement for democratic risk governance. The influence of civic movements and social scientists entering the risk management field led to the current approach, which incorporates values and value judgments into risk management decision making. The discourse that generated those changes can be interpreted as positivist vs. post-positivist, influenced by concepts of sustainability and resilience, and generating some common principles, particularly relevant for policy and planning. Examples from different countries, such as New Zealand, illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the current theory and practice of natural hazards risk management and help identify challenges for the 21st century.

Involving People in Informal Settlements in Natural Hazards Governance Based on South African Experience

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Political Ecology ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Informal Settlements ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Community Members ◽  
African Experience ◽  
The Face ◽  
Transformative Approach

Natural hazard governance in countries in the Global South is shifting from a state-centered approach, which has predominantly focused on disaster risk management, with limited involvement of citizens, and a disaster response to a hazard event, to an approach which is more participatory, inclusive and proactive. This emerging approach aims to be transformative, as it draws on the knowledge and skills of multiple actors, including community members; focuses on risk reduction and adaptation; and builds new models of participatory risk governance at the local and city scale. Progressive legislation has played a major role in supporting this evolution toward a more transformative approach to natural hazard governance, which recognizes the political economy and political ecology of risk. This includes acknowledging the vulnerability of communities in particular contexts, and the need to address development deficits to build resilience in the face of natural hazards. However, a significant gap exists between progressive legislation and policy, and implementation. Informal settlements experience some of the worst impacts of natural hazards due to their exposure, vulnerability, and social and political marginalization. However, they are also resilient and adaptive, developing innovative approaches in partnership with the state and other actors, to plan for and respond to natural hazards. Empirical research on particular case studies where these shifts in governance are evident, is necessary to explore the opportunities for and barriers to transformative, participatory natural hazard governance in cities in the South.

Natural Hazards Governance in South Africa

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. van Niekerk ◽  
G.J. Wentink ◽  
L.B. Shoroma
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Political Will ◽  
New Era ◽  
Local Government Level ◽  
Government Level

Disaster and natural hazard governance has become a significant policy and legislative focus in South Africa since the early 1990s. Born out of necessity from a dysfunctional apartheid system, the new emphasis on disaster risk reduction in the democratic dispensation also ushered in a new era in the management of natural hazards and their associated risks and vulnerabilities. Widely cited as an international best practice in policy and law development, South Africa has led the way in natural hazard governance in sub-Sahara Africa as well as in much of the developing world. Various practices in natural hazard governance in South Africa are alluded to. Particular attention is given to the disaster risks of the country as well as to the various natural hazards that drive this risk profile. Statutory and legislative aspects are discussed through a multisectoral approach, and by citing a number of case studies, we show the application of natural hazard governance in South Africa. Certain remaining challenges are highlighted that are faced by the South Africa government such as a lack of political will at the local government level, deficits in risk governance, difficulties in resource allocation, a lack of intergovernmental relations, and a need for enhanced community participation, ownership, and decision making.

Natural Hazards Governance in Cuba

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique A. Castellanos Abella ◽  
Benjamin Wisner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Disaster Risk Reduction ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Early Warning Systems ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Disaster Reduction ◽  
Local Risk

Natural hazard governance in Cuba elicits widely differing commentaries. While some experts praise it as an extension of state commitment to social welfare, others debate the ethics, necessity, and utility of forced evacuation. However, many disaster experts are unaware of the long-term development of disaster reduction in the country—how Cuban risk governance has evolved in a unique geopolitical and social environment. Mass mobilization to prepare for military invasion and prior response to hurricane disaster provided the foundation for Cuba’s contemporary focus on disaster risk reduction. A pragmatic analysis of the development of natural hazard governance in Cuba and its components reveals key factors for its success in protecting lives. Deployment of local risk management centers, nationwide multi-hazard risk assessment, and early warning systems are recognized as important factors for the effectiveness of disaster reduction in the country. The number of scientific organizations collecting data and carrying out research is also a factor in the reduction of disaster impact and increases the level of resiliency. Over time, an increasing number of organizations and population groups have become involved in risk governance. Risk communication is used as a tool for keeping popular risk perception at an effective level, and for encouraging effective self-protection during hazard events. The continuous development and improvement of a multilateral framework for natural hazards governance is also among the important components of disaster risk reduction in Cuba. However, the economic crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the long-lasting U.S. government blockade have been constraints on economic development and disaster risk reduction. These geopolitical and macroeconomic realities must be recognized as the main causes of the large economic losses and slow recovery after a natural hazard impact. Nevertheless, disaster recovery is carried out at the highest level of management with the goal of reducing vulnerability as much as possible to avoid future losses. Despite economic losses due to natural disasters, Cuban governance of natural hazards is evaluated as a success by most organizations and experts worldwide.

scholarly journals The Next Normal for Marketing — The Dynamics of a Pandemic, Provisioning Systems, and the Changing Patterns of Daily Life

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
Roger A. Layton ◽  
Christine Domegan
Keyword(s):  
Daily Life ◽  
Social Mechanisms ◽  
Individual Values ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Supply Networks ◽  
Edge Of Chaos ◽  
Self Organized ◽  
Changing Patterns ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
And Control

Pandemics, climate warming, growing inequality, and much more bring crises that change the patterns of daily life in human communities, directly impacting the provisioning systems that form in a community to meet the needs and wants of individuals, groups, and entities for goods, services, experiences, ideas. Provisioning systems sometimes begin as leadership initiated top-down, authoritarian prescriptive supply networks, public and private. Sometimes, they originate as bottom-up, self-organized, innovative, open choice, often informal, exchange based networks, and mostly, over time, they emerge as untidy self-organized multi-level diverse assemblages of both. The diversity of provisioning systems in a community enables crisis resilience, but limits efficiency and control. The provisioning systems that form in these ways are complex, multi-level, non-linear evolutionary systems, often unpredictable, and lacking direction. Balancing a desire for stability and an appetite for diversity, innovation, and change in shaping a provisioning system is like walking a narrow corridor on the edge of chaos. Achieving balance, avoiding slipping into chaos, rests on the management of a set of complex social mechanisms. These embrace delivery mechanisms where value is produced and consumed through complex infrastructures; stakeholder action fields where trust, collaboration, cooperation, compromise, competition, or conflict are in play; technology evolution mechanisms where innovation and the recombination of existing technologies occur at all levels; and value exchange fields where community and individual values shift in response to crisis and change. Recovery from crisis is not an event, it is a complex, continuing process, often unpredictable, often unequal in outcomes, but walking a narrow corridor is episodic, uncertain and in the end possible. This is the next normal for marketing.

scholarly journals ‘Mind the Gap’: Reconnecting Local Actions and Multi-Level Policies to Bridge the Governance Gap. An Example of Soil Erosion Action from East Africa

Land ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 352
Author(s):  
Claire Kelly ◽  
Maarten Wynants ◽  
Linus K. Munishi ◽  
Mona Nasseri ◽  
Aloyce Patrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soil Erosion ◽  
Policy Integration ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Institutional Processes ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
Design And Testing ◽  
Erosion Action

Achieving change to address soil erosion has been a global yet elusive goal for decades. Efforts to implement effective solutions have often fallen short due to a lack of sustained, context-appropriate and multi-disciplinary engagement with the problem. Issues include prevalence of short-term funding for ‘quick-fix’ solutions; a lack of nuanced understandings of institutional, socio-economic or cultural drivers of erosion problems; little community engagement in design and testing solutions; and, critically, a lack of traction in integrating locally designed solutions into policy and institutional processes. This paper focusses on the latter issue of local action for policy integration, drawing on experiences from a Tanzanian context to highlight the practical and institutional disjuncts that exist; and the governance challenges that can hamper efforts to address and build resilience to soil erosion. By understanding context-specific governance processes, and joining them with realistic, locally designed actions, positive change has occurred, strengthening local-regional resilience to complex and seemingly intractable soil erosion challenges.

The Construction of Engineering Projects Environmental Performance Auditing

2013 ◽  
Vol 834-836 ◽  
pp. 2045-2048
Author(s):  
Xiao Ning Qu
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Performance ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Engineering Project ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
Social Audit ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Performance Auditing ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Engineering Projects

The Environmental performance auditing is one professional audit that auditing the environmental performance of engineering project. We construct a multi-level auditing network in the whole process of project. That network can be divided into government audit, social audit and internal audit. And with which we predict, evaluate and control the impact on environmental effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document