Search

This document is an editorial titled "Enabling people-centered risk communication for geohazards" published in the journal Frontiers in Earth Science. The editorial discusses the challenges of communicating science about natural hazards to the public and stakeholders in order to reduce the impact of these hazards. It highlights the difficulties of communicating in the presence of uncertainty and limited resources, and emphasizes the need for two-way and people-centered risk communication. The editorial also provides a summary of 13 articles included in the research topic, which cover various aspects of risk communication for geohazards, including tsunami risk perception, earthquake early warning systems, social media strategies, misinformation, and citizen science. The articles analyze these challenges and propose innovative solutions to improve risk communication. [Extracted from the article]

High-impact weather events cause considerable social and economic harm, with these effects likely to increase as climate change drives extremes and population growth leads to commensurate growth in exposure. As part of the World Meteorological Organization's World Weather Research Programme, the 10-year High-Impact Weather (HIWeather) Project facilitates global cooperation and collaboration to improve weather prediction, forecasting, and warning. As part of this, the HIWeather Citizen Science Project identifies and promotes activities which involve citizens in the warning value chain, from "sensors" where they passively provide data, through to "collaborators" where they are involved in designing, running, interpreting, and applying the research. As well as benefitting global efforts to reduce societal impacts of weather and other natural hazards, citizen science also encourages hazard awareness and scientific literacy and interest. This editorial introduces the HIWeather Citizen Science Project special issue, summarizing the three papers in this issue in the broader context of high-impact weather and citizen science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as “levee effect", “safe development paradox" or “safety dilemma". In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During a participatory process in Gmunden, Austria, the organizational and responsibility-sharing arrangements for a landslide warning system proved to be contested issues. While questions on the warning system technology and the distribution of information, including the alarm for evacuation, could be resolved with the support of experts, controversies arose on the financial and legal responsibilities that ensure long-term and effective monitoring for the protection of the landslide-prone community. This paper examines how responsibilities can be shared among the residents, experts, and public authorities during the design and operation of landslide warning systems. In particular, we discuss the outcome and implications of three stakeholder workshops where participants deliberated on warning-system options that, in turn, were based on a discourse analysis of extensive stakeholder interviews. The results of the case study show that an end-user orientation requires the consideration of stakeholder worldviews, interests, and conflicts. Paradoxically, the public did not fully support their own involvement in the maintenance and control of the warning system, but the authorities promoted shared responsibility. Deliberative planning does not then necessarily lead to responsibility sharing, but it proved effective as a platform for information and for shared ownership in the warning system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a pilot study involving high school teachers in natural sciences. The aim was to foster critical thinking about cascading hazards via the use of reasoned imagination. Cascading phenomena can lead to extreme catastrophes and are thus a challenge for disaster prevention and management. Design/methodology/approach – Following a presentation listing some known cascading phenomena, the participants completed a questionnaire consisting of a blank hazard correlation matrix (HCM) and some open-ended questions. The HCM qualitatively described possible interactions between 16 different perils selected from a large spectrum of natural, technological and socio-economic hazards. Findings – Most participants were able to describe cascading phenomena within the HCM by reducing them into sets of one-to-one interactions. Based on their experience and imagination, the participants foresaw additional interactions that were not discussed, never observed but are scientifically plausible. The majority of the respondents reported that they learnt something new and wanted to learn more about cascading hazards. Originality/value – The HCM is especially effective in translating complex hazard scenarios into basic interactions and vice versa. Being imaginative (here via the use of reasoned imagination) and accessible, the HCM could be used as basis for transformative learning in the education of the public and of practitioners on the role of cascading hazards in catastrophes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European Union directives as well as national legislation are placing great emphasis on the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in the governance of risks from natural hazards. This should help decision makers formulate better policies. However, to date, there is little information on stakeholders' perspectives with respect to landslide risk governance. This paper addresses the gap by reporting on research in Nocera Inferiore, Italy. The research is based on a documentary analysis, 43 semi-structured interviews and a survey submitted to 373 residents. The political instability, the unfairness of national funding allocation across municipalities and the residents' lack of knowledge about risk assessment and emergency planning are some of the main barriers to effective risk governance. Moreover, there are divergent, sometimes even opposite, stakeholders' views on several issues, such as the relevance of illegal development in risky areas. The results highlight the importance of addressing these divergent views and including the plurality of voices as a prerequisite for inclusive risk governance. The research provided essential background information for a participatory process, which was designed to support decisions on landslide risk mitigation measures in Nocera Inferiore (Linnerooth-Bayer et al. this issue). The methodology will be of more general interest to researchers and policymakers intent upon including stakeholder perspectives in natural risk governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Landslides represent a major threat to human life, property and the environment. Landslide hazard and risk assessments seek to inform the policy and practice of landslide hazard risk management, for example, by identifying high-risk areas so that appropriate policy and private actions could be taken in terms of preventive and mitigative measures. We examine whether a decentralized risk assessment system leads to better assessment outcomes compared to a centralized risk assessment system. The paper is based on a comparative study of two countries-India and Italy-and their responses to landslide risk. Our results indicate a causal relationship between decentralization and three outcomes. First, decentralization appears to be conducive to the more rapid and more complete assessment of risks in local places, through mapping at an appropriate scale. Second, decentralization appears to foster greater and more transparent communication of risk assessment products, such as maps. Third, decentralization appears to lead to a more open, and at times contentious, public discourse over how to interpret and respond to the information contained in the risk assessments and maps. However, in practice, decentralization faces serious institutional resistance. Our analysis does not preclude other risk assessment outcomes or competing explanations for differences in risk assessment and management outcomes. Rather, it provides an understanding of the direction in which the institutional change may be driven for bringing about more effective risk assessments and their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The low risk awareness of the residents living in flood-prone areas is usually considered among the main causes of their low preparedness, which in turns generates inadequate response to natural disasters. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by reporting on the results of a sociological research in four communities exposed to flood risk in the Eastern Italian Alps. The research design included semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key local stakeholders and a standardized questionnaire submitted to 400 residents. Results revealed that residents felt both slightly worried about flood risk and slightly prepared to face an event. Considerable differences were found between the evaluations of individual subjects as opposed to overall communities. There was also a clear discrepancy between the actual adoption of household preparatory measures and the willingness to take self-protection actions. Overall, the risk awareness was significantly higher among those residents who had been personally affected by a flood in the past, were living in isolated (vs. urban) communities, in the most risky areas or had a lower level of trust in local authorities. The improvement of residents' knowledge about their environment and the residual risk seemed to be crucial to increase risk awareness, and the same was true for the strengthening of local support networks to foster preparedness. The link between risk awareness and preparedness was not at all straightforward. Results revealed instead the complexity of residents' perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and decisions about risk-related issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an increasing demand for a new paradigm to improve flood-mitigation decision processes that calls for risk-reduction strategies at several levels. This demand may gain ground only if dialogue is encouraged among different perspectives, disciplines, and knowledge types. The aim of this paper is to explore new methods to improve flood-mitigation decision processes. A growing body of evidence suggests that the involvement of the local actors is a key aspect in successful decision making. Following this premise, we analyze a recent case of controversy in flood mitigation in Malborghetto-Valbruna (Northern Italy), using social multicriteria evaluation (SMCE) and social actors' narrative analysis. Six alternatives are defined and the different positions adopted by the local actors are described. The different narratives of the actors are also analyzed to allow the identification of improvement routes for a more accurate SMCE of flood-mitigation alternatives. Thus, this case study suggests that the analysis of narratives is a useful tool to complement SMCE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaption involve a variety of different stakeholders from various professional backgrounds, with often divergent concerns, and sometimes competing agendas. Their activities may also be carried out within different organizational frameworks, which in turn would vary from country to country. Such complexity calls for forums where these groups can meet in order to understand, reconcile different views, and potentially assist each other in meeting their respective goals.One way such discussions may take place involves the use of "serious games", or table-top, role-playing, scenario-based exercises. A series of such exercises were developed within the context of the 2016-2018 Horizon 2020-funded ESPREssO project (Enhancing Synergies for disaster Prevention in the EurOpean Union). The exercises, termed RAMSETE (Risk Assessment Model Simulation for Emergency Training Exercise), were designed to be carried out during Think Tank meetings where three challenges identified as being at the centre of the ESPREssO project were to be dealt with, namely: (1) the integration of DRR and CCA policy, (2) reconciling issues arising between the science and policy/legal spheres, and (3) the management of transboundary crises.In these exercises, participants are assigned roles within a game-like framework where they had to interact and negotiate with each other in order to deal with the presented scenario. These scenarios were primarily concerned with the selection of an optimal set of policies for dealing with the challenge (i.e., natural hazard or hazards) in question. Sometimes an operational element was included in the exercise, however, the primary focus was policy, and not to train for or test response protocols. Likewise, the actual choices made by the players were not the first concern, but rather the motivation behind their decisions.The participating stakeholders generally found the exercises to be useful for framing discussions on the issues of concern, while their problem-solving character was appreciated and enjoyed. The exercises (and the Think Tanks as a whole) provided a forum for the stakeholders to openly discuss and objectively challenge ideas, policies and processes in a manner they would not normally do in their daily activities, while doing so with other professionals who they would not necessarily be in frequent contact with. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]