Fulltext

Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe

Scolobig, Anna ; Komendantova, Nadejda ; Patt, Anthony ; Vinchon, Charlotte ; Monfort-Climent, Daniel ; Begoubou-Valerius, Mendy ; Gasparini, Paolo ; Di Ruocco, Angela

In: Natural Hazards, 2014, vol. 73, no. 3, p. 1523-1545

Add to personal list
    Title
    • Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe
    Author
    • Scolobig, Anna. Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
    • Komendantova, Nadejda. Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
    • Patt, Anthony. Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
    • Vinchon, Charlotte. French Geological Survey (BRGM), Orléans & Gourbeyre, France
    • Monfort-Climent, Daniel. French Geological Survey (BRGM), Orléans & Gourbeyre, France
    • Begoubou-Valerius, Mendy. French Geological Survey (BRGM), Orléans & Petit-Bourg, France
    • Gasparini, Paolo. Center for the Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (AMRA), Naples, Italy
    • Di Ruocco, Angela. Center for the Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (AMRA), Naples, Italy
    Document Type
    • Postprint
    OAI-PMH Identifier
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:325184
    Summary
    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.