Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe (original) (raw)

Abstract

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.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 2

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 3

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 4

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 5

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 6

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 7

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 8

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

1. In Italy, the phases are risk assessment and prevention; monitoring, early warning and prediction; emergency management and relief; recovery and reconstruction. In France, the phases are hazard assessment; prevention/preparedness; monitoring; advice on alert; alert; crisis management.
2. As mentioned above (see Sect. 4.1), it is important to note that subsidiarity is the guiding principle for emergency management in Italy, but not for hazard, exposure and vulnerability assessment, warning system, or reconstruction and risk mitigation measures. The stakeholders’ evaluation concerning the governance level summarize the role of different authorities across disaster phases and are meant to be complementary to the evaluations regarding decision support tools and stakeholder cooperation and coordination.
3. In this distinction, it is included a geographical dimension for the Guadeloupe case: high-intensity events as earthquakes, volcano eruptions or cyclones impacts a huge part of the territory in contrast to moderate-intensity/high-frequency events like landslides, which are in general more local.

References

• Alberico I, Petrosino P, Lirer L (2011) Volcanic hazard and risk assessment in a multi-source volcanic area: the example of Naples city (Southern Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1057–1070
  Article Google Scholar
• Assmuth T, Hilden M, Benighaus C (2010) Integrated risk assessment and risk governance as socio-political phenomena: a synthetic view of the challenges. Sci Total Environ 408:3943–3953
  Article Google Scholar
• Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London
  Google Scholar
• Beniston M, Stoffel M, Hill M (2011) Impacts of climatic change on water and natural hazards in the Alps: can current water governance cope with future challenges? Examples from the European “ACQWA” project. Environ Sci Policy 14:734–743
  Article Google Scholar
• Benn S, Dunphy D, Martin A (2009) Governance of environmental risk: new approaches to managing stakeholder involvement. J Environ Manag 90:1567–1575
  Article Google Scholar
• Bevir M (2009) Key concepts in governance. Sage, London
  Google Scholar
• Bevir M, Trentmann F (2007) Introduction: consumption and citizenship in the new governance. In: Bevir M, Trentmann F (eds) Governance, consumers and citizens: agency and resistance in contemporary politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
  Chapter Google Scholar
• Biermann F (2007) Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global environmental change. Hum Policy Dimens 17:3–4
  Google Scholar
• Biermann F (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 10:277–298
  Google Scholar
• Biesbroek G, Termeer C, Klostermann J, Kabat P (2013) Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9457-z
• Bodin O, Crona B (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational pattern make a difference? Glob Environ Change 19:366–374
  Article Google Scholar
• Boholm A, Corvellec H, Karlsson M (2012) The practice of risk governance: lessons from the field. J Risk Res 15:1–20
  Article Google Scholar
• Bovaird T, Loofler E (2003) Evaluating the quality of public governance: indicators, models and methodologies. Int Rev Admin Sci 69:313–328
  Article Google Scholar
• Bovens M, ‘t Hart P (1996) Understanding policy fiascoes. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
  Google Scholar
• Calvet L, Grislain-Letremy C (2011) L’assurance habitation dans les départements d’Outre-mer: une faible souscription. ÉCONOMIE ET STATISTIQUE No 447, 2011 57
• Cash D, Borck J, Patt A (2006) Countering the ‘loading dock’ approach to linking science and decision making: a comparative analysis of ENSO forecasting systems. Sci Technol Human Values 31:465–494
  Article Google Scholar
• Citta’ della Scienza (2008) Methodology management of natural disasters, MEDRISK—Mediterranean Risk Management del “PROGRAMME INTERREG III B ARCHIMED”
• Commission on global governance (1995) Our global neighborhood. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  Google Scholar
• De Marchi B (2003) Public participation and risk governance. Sci Public Policy 30(3):171–176
  Article Google Scholar
• De Marchi B (2007) Not just a matter of knowledge. The Katrina debacle. Environ Hazards 7:141–149
  Google Scholar
• De Marchi B (2013) Risk Governance and the integration of scientific and local knowledge. In: Fra Paleo U (ed) Risk Governance. The articulation of hazard, politics and ecology. Springer, Berlin (forthcoming)
  Google Scholar
• De Marchi B, Scolobig A (2009) Dilemmas in land use planning in flood prone areas. In: Samuels P, Huntington S, Allsop W, Harrop J (eds) Flood risk management: research and practice. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, London, p 204
  Google Scholar
• Dieperink C, Green C, Hegger D, Driessen P, Bakker M, Van Rijswick M, Crabbé A (2013) Flood Risk Management in Europe: governance challenges related to flood risk management (report no D1.1.2), STAR-FLOOD Consortium, Utrecht, The Netherlands
• Dipartimento risorse agricole (2012) Piano antincendio boschivo. Regione Campania
• Directive 2007/60/EC (2007), Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Off J Eur Union L288:27–34. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/. Accessed 22 May 2013
• Djalante R, Holley C, Thomalla F (2011) Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2:1–14
  Article Google Scholar
• Fish R, Ioris A, Watson N (2010) Integrating water and agriculture management: collaborative governance for a complex policy problem. Sci Total Environ 408:5623–5630
  Article Google Scholar
• Garcia-Aristizabal, A, Marzocchi W, Di Ruocco A (2013) Probabilistic framework for multi-hazard assessment. Deliverable 3.4, Matrix project, New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe, European Commission 7th Framework Programme
• Handmer J, Dovers S (2007) Handbook of disaster and emergency policies and institutions. Earthscan, London
  Google Scholar
• Ikeda S, Nagasaka T (2011) An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2:1–9
  Article Google Scholar
• IRGC International Risk Governance Council (2008) An introduction to the risk governance framework. IRGC, Geneva
  Google Scholar
• IRGC International Risk Governance Council (2009) Risk governance deficits: an analysis and illustration of the most common deficits in risk governance. IRGC, Geneva
  Google Scholar
• ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2009) Global Assessment Review 2009. ISDR, Geneva
  Google Scholar
• ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2011) Global Assessment Review 2011. ISDR, Geneva
  Google Scholar
• Jessop B (1998) The rising of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. Int Soc Sci J 50:44–45
  Article Google Scholar
• Jessop B (2003) Governance and metagovernance: on reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In: Bang HP (ed) Governance as social and political communication. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 101–116
  Google Scholar
• Kaufmann D (1999) Governance matters. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2196. Washington, DC
• Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Ziodo-Lobaton P (1999) Aggregating governance indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2195. Washington, DC
• Kuhlicke C, Steinführer A, Begg C, Luther J, Tapsell S, McCarthy S, Walker G, Supramaniam M, Di Masso M, Scolobig A, Komac B, Bianchizza C, Lemkow L, Pellizzoni L, Zorn M, Buchecker M, Brundl M, Wachinger G, Renn O (2012) Toward more resilient societies in the field of natural hazards: lessons learnt in the CapHaz-Net project. http://caphaz-net.org/outcomesresults/CapHazNet_Del%2010.3_final.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2013
• Linke S, Jentoft S (2012) A communicative turnaround: shifting the burden of proof in European fisheries governance. Mar Policy. 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.011
• Luhmann N (1990) Risiko und Gefahr. Springer, Munchen
  Google Scholar
• Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone M, Di Ruocco A (2012) Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat Hazards 62:551–573
  Article Google Scholar
• Memon P, Kirk N, Selsky J (2011) Limits to ecological modernization as a framework for sustainable fresh water governance. Land Use Policy 28:534–541
  Article Google Scholar
• Monfort D, Lecacheux S (2013) West Indies test site. Deliverable 3.4, Matrix project, New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe, European Commission 7th Framework Programme Technical Report D7.4, MATRIX project
• Monfort D, Réveillère A, Lecacheux S, Muller H, Grisanti L, Baills A, Bertil D, Sedan O, Tinard P (2013) Observed and estimated economic losses in Guadeloupe (French Antilles) after Les Saintes Earthquake (2004) Application to risk comparison EGU General Assembly 2013, Vienna Austria
• National Diet of Japan (2012) The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. National Diet of Japan
• OECD, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009) International futures project on risk management policies, Review of the national Civil Protection System (Italy). OECD publishing. http://www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda. Accessed 22 Aug 2010
• Peek et al (2012) Understanding the global earthquake model (GEM’s) potential beneficiaries: a study of earthquake risk reduction activities, needs and barriers. Research report, Pavia, Italy, GEM foundation
• Regione Campania (2008) Identification of natural and man made induced disasters, MEDRISK—Mediterranean Risk Management “PROGRAMME INTERREG III B ARCHIMED”
• Renn O (2008) Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London
  Google Scholar
• Rhodes R (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Polit Stud XLIV:652–667
  Article Google Scholar
• Rhodes R (1997) Understanding Governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham
  Google Scholar
• Scolobig A, Vinchon C, Komendantova N, Bengoubou-Valerius M, Patt A, Gasparini P, Di Ruocco A, Baills A, Revellière A (2013) Social and institutional barriers to effective multi-hazard and multi-risk decision making and governance, Deliverable 6.3, Matrix project, New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe, European Commission 7th Framework Programme,134 pp. http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/
• Sharma U, Scolobig A, Patt A (2012) The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy. Nat Hazards 64:1357–1371
  Article Google Scholar
• UN/ISDR (2005) Hyogo Framework for action 2005–2015: ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. United Nations Development Programme, Geneva http://www.undp.org/bcpr/whats_new/rdr_english.pdf, 09/03/07. Accessed 21 May 2013
• van Asselt M, Renn O (2011) Risk governance. J Risk Res 14:431–449
  Article Google Scholar
• van Kersbergen K, Van Waarden F (2004) Governance as a bridge between disciplines: cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. Eur J Polit Res 43(2):143–171
  Article Google Scholar
• Verweij M, Thompson M (eds) (2006) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: governance, politics, and plural perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
  Google Scholar
• Walker G, Whittle R, Medd W, Watson N (2010) Risk governance and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP2 Report, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster. http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP2_Risk-Governance2.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2013
• Walker G, Tweed F, Whittle R (2013) A framework for profiling the characteristics of risk governance in natural hazard contexts. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 1:2207–2229. doi:10.5194/nhessd-1-2207-2013
  Article Google Scholar
• Woo G (2011) Calculating catastrophe. Imperial College Press, London
  Book Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper was supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme through the MATRIX project—New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe [FP7/2007–2013] under Grant Agreement No 265138. The paper reflects the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. Neither the European Community nor any member of the MATRIX Consortium is liable for any use of the information in this paper. We wish to thank all the colleagues and persons who provided us with professional advice and collaboration. We are grateful to all of them and especially to the interviewees who spent their precious time discussing with us the complex architecture of risk governance in Naples and Guadeloupe. We also thank Kathryn Platzer (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis), Kevin Fleming (German Research Center for Geosciences), and the two anonymous reviewers for helping us to further clarify the text.

Author information

Author notes

1. Anna Scolobig
   Present address: Human-Environment Systems Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Universitätstrasse 22 CHN J72.2, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

Authors and Affiliations

1. Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
   Anna Scolobig, Nadejda Komendantova & Anthony Patt
2. Human-Environment Systems Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland
   Nadejda Komendantova & Anthony Patt
3. French Geological Survey (BRGM), Orléans & Gourbeyre, France
   Charlotte Vinchon & Daniel Monfort-Climent
4. French Geological Survey (BRGM), Orléans & Petit-Bourg, France
   Mendy Begoubou-Valerius
5. Center for the Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (AMRA), Naples, Italy
   Paolo Gasparini & Angela Di Ruocco

Authors

1. Anna Scolobig
2. Nadejda Komendantova
3. Anthony Patt
4. Charlotte Vinchon
5. Daniel Monfort-Climent
6. Mendy Begoubou-Valerius
7. Paolo Gasparini
8. Angela Di Ruocco

Corresponding author

Correspondence toAnna Scolobig.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scolobig, A., Komendantova, N., Patt, A. et al. Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe.Nat Hazards 73, 1523–1545 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1152-1

Download citation

• Received: 21 August 2013
• Accepted: 16 March 2014
• Published: 25 March 2014
• Issue date: September 2014
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1152-1

Keywords