Search

Copyright of Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Despite increased research on 'multiple hazards' and 'cascading effects', ambiguity remains concerning terminology. This paper reviews the literature to explore how these two concepts are defined in relation to critical infrastructures and their vital societal functions. Next, it investigates how the concepts are operationalised in Swedish disaster risk management. Findings indicate that regardless of a wealth of methodologies assessing multiple hazards and their cascading effects, these are rarely used by local planners, suggesting a gap between scientific approaches and practical implementation. Research mainly captures multiple hazards and cascading effects through technical parameters related to the severity of a hazard or the direct physical impacts on infrastructure. Less focus has been placed on the wider or knock‐on effects across sectors and how these translate into societal risk. Future research should move beyond traditional understandings of social vulnerabilities as only pre‐existing, to analyse how cascading effects on infrastructure and services can put new social groups at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributions to social capital, risk awareness, and preparedness constitute the parameters against which applications of digital technologies in the field of disaster risk management should be tested. We propose here an evaluation of four of these: mobile positioning data, social media crowdsourcing, drones, and satellite imaging, with an additional focus on acceptability and feasibility. The assessment is carried out through a survey disseminated among stakeholders. The frame of the analysis also grants the opportunity to investigate to what extent different methodologies to aggregate and evaluate the results, i.e., the Criteria Importance Through Criteria Correlation (CRITIC) model, the (Euclidean)-distance Criteria Importance Through Criteria Correlation (dCRITIC) model, the entropy model, the mean weight model, and the standard deviation model, may influence the preference of one technology over the others. We find that the different assumptions on which these methodologies rely deliver diverging results. We therefore recommend that future research adopt a sensitivity analysis that considers multiple and alternatives methods to evaluate survey results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributions to social capital, risk awareness and preparedness constitute the parameters against which applications of digital technologies in the field of disaster risk management should be tested. We propose here an evaluation of four of these, mobile positioning data, social media crowdsourcing, drones and satellite imaging, with an additional focus on acceptability and feasibility. The assessment is carried out through a survey disseminated among stakeholders. The frame of the analysis also grants the opportunity to investigate to what extent different methodologies to aggregate and evaluate the results, the CRITIC model, the dCRITIC model, the Entropy model, the Mean Weight model and the Standard Deviation model, may influence the preference of one technology over the others. We find that the different assumptions on which these methodologies rely deliver diverging results. We therefore recommend future research to be based on a sensitivity analysis that considers multiple and alternatives methods to evaluate survey results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces a participatory Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) methodology developed through the Resilience Increasing Strategies for Coasts – Toolkit (RISC-KIT) project and implemented in nine case studies in Europe. The purpose of the MCA was to bridge the disciplinary divide between engineering sciences and social sciences, facilitate the communication and dissemination of local coastal risk assessments and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) measures' evaluation to a broad range of actors. The process addressed the importance of integrating scientific knowledge with stakeholders’ knowledge to understand and assess the possible social, political and economic implications of different DRR measures, which could foster or hinder successful implementation. The paper discusses the methodological aspects and implementation of the approach which included visualizing risk reduction of DRR measures using paper-based cards to support interaction and negotiation among participants to select preferred strategic alternatives (SA), and a participatory MCA where stakeholders evaluated the SA against three (self-weighted) criteria: feasibility, acceptability and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects upon the experiences of testing the Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – toolKIT (RISC-KIT), an integrated approach composed of five different methodologies, in the municipality of Kristianstad, Sweden. The aim of this article is to highlight both the importance and complexities of integrated approaches in coastal management. The experiences documented through the case of Kristianstad highlight the benefits of combining hazard estimations and participatory approaches to understand risk, impacts of coastal hazards, and potential solutions; and the challenges of mainstreaming risk assessment approaches across contexts. We argue that integrated approaches can be effective for triggering local dialogue, disseminating information, and achieve greater ownership and local acceptance of Disaster Risk Reduction measures, but that involvement of local actors requires careful design and planning. The experiences documented when pilot-testing RISC-KITs integrated approach argue for increased co-production of knowledge in coastal management projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Barquet, K. 2015. Building a bioregion through transboundary conservation in Central America.Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography. Vol. 69, 265–276. ISSN 0029-1951. Proponents of transboundary conservation argue for the formation of a bioregional scale of governance. How such rescaling should be done remains an undiscussed issue. Through a study of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Central America and Si-A-Paz, a transboundary protected area in Nicaragua and Costa Rica, the author investigates how a transboundary scale of conservation is enacted. The study shows that in order to meet the conditions of a bioregion, actors involved in transboundary conservation in Central America produced accounts of social and ecological integrity that did not entirely match local narratives. Moreover, transboundary conservation provided actors with increased mobility across governance scales and sources of funding. In turn, this scalar mobility enhanced the power of already powerful actors in the area, helped states to attract international sources of funding, and empowered previously marginalized local groups at the expense of others. The author concludes that actors involved in transboundary conservation attempt to create new meanings of nature and understandings of society in order to produce a new scale of conservation. However, the study highlights the problems of matching discourses of nature to accounts of social unity, and underlines the political nature of scalar projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]