Search

Despite considerable efforts and progress in increasing resilience to natural hazards, the adverse socio-economic impacts of extreme weather events continue to increase globally. As climate change progresses, disaster risk management needs alignment with adaptation measures. In this perspective paper, we discuss emerging complications in disaster risk management during recent events from an interoperability perspective. We argue that a lack of interoperability between data and models, information and communication, and governance are barriers to successful integrated disaster risk management and climate adaptation. On this basis, we take a detailed look at the challenges involved and suggest that trans-disciplinary knowledge co-production is key to promoting interoperability between these components. Finally, we outline a framework for enabling knowledge co-production to enhance risk governance by improving ways of facilitating trans-disciplinary stakeholder engagement and draft a novel open-source federated data infrastructure, which allows stakeholders to consolidate and connect relevant data sources, models and information products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Probabilistic seismic hazard estimates are a key ingredient of earthquake risk mitigation strategies and are often communicated through seismic hazard maps. Though the literature suggests that visual design properties are key for effective communication using such maps, guidelines on how to optimally design hazard maps are missing from the literature. Current maps use color palettes and data classification schemes which have well-documented limitations that may inadvertently miscommunicate seismic hazard. We surveyed the literature on color and classification schemes to identify design criteria that have empirical support for communicating hazard information. These criteria were then applied to redesign the seismic hazard map for Germany. We established several communication goals for this map, including essential properties about moderate-hazard seismic regions and a critical hazard threshold related to the German seismic building codes. We elucidate our redesign process and the selection of new colors and classification schemes that satisfy the evidence-based criteria. In a mixed-methods survey, we evaluate the original and redesigned seismic hazard maps, finding that the redesign satisfies all the communication goals and improves users' awareness about the spatial spread of seismic hazard relative to the original. We consider practical implications for the design of hazard maps across the natural hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Probabilistic seismic hazard estimates are a key ingredient of earthquake risk mitigation strategies and are often communicated through seismic hazard maps. Though the literature suggests that visual design properties are key for effective communication using such maps, guidelines on how to optimally design hazard map are missing from the literature. Current maps use color palettes and data classification schemes which have well-reported limitations that may inadvertently miscommunicate seismic hazard. We surveyed the literature on color and classification schemes to identify design criteria that have empirical support for communicating hazard information. These criteria were then applied to redesign the seismic hazard map for Germany. We isolated several communication goals for this map, including essential properties about moderate-hazard seismic regions and a critical hazard threshold related to the German seismic building codes. We elucidate our redesign process and the selection of new colors and classification schemes that satisfy the evidence-based criteria. In a mixed-methods survey, we evaluate the original and redesigned seismic hazard maps, finding that the redesign satisfies all the communication goals, and improves users' awareness about the spatial spread of seismic hazard, relative to the original. We consider practical implications for the design of hazard maps across the natural hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic risks are characterized by high complexity, multiple uncertainties, major ambiguities, and transgressive effects on other systems outside of the system of origin. Due to these characteristics, systemic risks are overextending established risk management and create new, unsolved challenges for policymaking in risk assessment and risk governance. Their negative effects are often pervasive, impacting fields beyond the obvious primary areas of harm. This article addresses these challenges of systemic risks from different disciplinary and sectorial perspectives. It highlights the special contributions of these perspectives and approaches and provides a synthesis for an interdisciplinary understanding of systemic risks and effective governance. The main argument is that understanding systemic risks and providing good governance advice relies on an approach that integrates novel modeling tools from complexity sciences with empirical data from observations, experiments, or simulations and evidence‐based insights about social and cultural response patterns revealed by quantitative (e.g., surveys) or qualitative (e.g., participatory appraisals) investigations. Systemic risks cannot be easily characterized by single numerical estimations but can be assessed by using multiple indicators and including several dynamic gradients that can be aggregated into diverse but coherent scenarios. Lastly, governance of systemic risks requires interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral cooperation, a close monitoring system, and the engagement of scientists, regulators, and stakeholders to be effective as well as socially acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article distinguishes between two types of risks: conventional and systemic risks. Conventional risks can be contained in space and time, follow linear cause–effect relationships and can be addressed with effective and pointed interventions into the cause–effect chain. Systemic risks, however, are characterized by high complexity, transboundary effects, stochastic relationships, nonlinear cause–effect patterns with tipping points, and are often associated with less public attention than they require. The article addresses the reasons why systemic risks seem to be attenuated in public perception. The article goes on to consider how the social amplification of risk framework is useful in the context of systemic risks and describes needed extensions of that framework. It identifies practical tools for assessing the significance of perceptions for systemic risk situations. Finally, it argues that a graphic representation and simulation of evolving systemic risks and potential countermeasures as well as a participatory deliberative approach of inclusive risk governance are suitable governance strategies for preventing, mitigating, or managing systemic risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A survey of members of a scientific society focused on risk analysis suggests substantial support for seeing their scientific society pursue the communication goal of "trying to ensure that policymakers consider scientific evidence." Support for pursuing this goal was largely predicted by researchers' beliefs that it was ethical for the society to pursue the goal, that it would be satisfying to see their society pursue the goal, and the belief that the society could have a positive impact on society by pursuing the goal. Normative beliefs about pursuing the goal and organizational efficacy beliefs were not good predictors of goal support. Goal support was measured using a direct measure of perceived goal importance as well as measures focused on the degree to which respondents wanted their society to put resources into providing members with opportunities to pursue the goal and the amount of funding that members thought the society should devote to pursuing the goal. The theory underlying the work argues that we can treat science communicators' choices about communication goals, objectives, and tactics as "planned behaviors" and thus study them using traditional behavior change models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past half century, it has become commonplace for environmental managers and policy makers to engage the public in decision making, a set of diverse activities known collectively as public participation. Despite widespread support for public participation, there is no explicit consensus on the purpose of this practice. In this study, we developed and tested a first‐of‐its‐kind quantitative measure of public participation goals among a sample of the U.S. public. Survey data indicate a classification of four participation goals' orientations: functionalist‐deliberative, instrumental, emancipatory, and coercive. A subsequent survey with a separate sample of the public explored the antecedents and consequences of these goal orientations. Regression analyses reveal that four common dimensions of the Schwartz Value Survey (altruism, egoism, traditionalism, and openness to change) are significant predictors of these goal orientations. For example, altruistic values predict adherence to emancipatory participation goals, while egoism (i.e., self‐interest) is associated with a coercive goal orientation. In turn, preferences for public participation goals are predictors of respondents' levels of satisfaction with two common public participation techniques, public hearings and public advisory boards. Instrumental participation goals are associated with greater satisfaction with public hearings, but a functionalist‐deliberative goals' orientation predicts satisfaction with advisory boards. This study has implications for the effective design and implementation of public participation programs and indicates a need for greater study of public participation goals among practitioners and participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern societies are confronted with 'systemic risks' which challenge conventional risk analysis and management. The phrase 'systemic risks' denotes risk phenomena which are exceedingly complex and interdependent. Systemic risks originate in tightly coupled systems. They are characterised by cascading effects, tipping points and non-linear developments. Furthermore, compared to their potential impacts, they often lack proportional public awareness and adequate policies. Conventional risk management struggles with these challenges. Yet many threats to modern society, such as financial crises and the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, match these attributes. This article investigates the concept of systemic risks and raises questions for governance. The concept of inclusive risk governance serves as a guiding principle. In particular, the article draws on the Risk Governance Framework by the International Risk Governance Council to address the challenges of systemic risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digitalisation can drive the sustainable transformation of society and industry. Many of the opportunities are, however, closely linked with risks. The use of a systemic risk-benefit perspective can help with the review and categorisation of the major impacts and trade-offs regarding the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. The dynamics and uncertainties of digitalisation are complex – to make digitalisation a sustainable success, all involved actors should be engaged in a co-design process to develop a governance structure that is in line with sustainability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]