Strengthening Disaster Risk Governance to Manage Disaster Risk

Strengthening Disaster Risk Governance to Manage Disaster Risk presents the second principle from the UNISDR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015-2030. The framework includes discussion of risk and resilience from both a theoretical and governance perspective in light of the ideas that are shaping our common future and presents innovative tools and best practices in reducing risk and building resilience. Combining the applications of social, financial, technological, design, engineering and nature-based approaches, the volume addresses rising global priorities and focuses on strengthening the global understanding of risk governance practices, initiatives and trends.

Focusing on disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels, it presents both historic and contemporary issues, asking researchers and governments how they can use technological advances, risk and resilience metrics and modeling, business continuity practices, and past experiences to understand the disaster recovery process and manage risk.

• Follows the global frameworks for disaster risk reduction and sustainability, specifically the UNISDR Sendai Framework for DRR, 2015-2030
• Addresses lessons learned and future paths in disaster risk governance models
• Integrates public and private interests in risk governance
• Presents methodologies dealing with risk uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Jan 11, 2021
• ISBN: 9780128187517

Book preview

Peru

Introduction

José Manuel Mendesa; Gretchen Kalonjib; Rohit Jigyasuc; Alice Chang-Richardsd, a University of Coimbra, Centre for Social Studies, Faculty of Economics, Portugal, b Sichuan University - the Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute for Disaster Management and Reconstruction, c International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), Rome, Italy, d Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

Disaster risk governance is crucial for the implementation of effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies. Articulation of institutional arrangements and public policies needs to take place in a multi-stakeholder context which incorporates community participation and full involvement of both private and public sectors at different levels (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020). However, as Trias and Cook (2019) concluded, the challenge is for the national government to arrange for the convergence of institutional capacities to empower local governments, and this is particularly true for southeast Asian countries.

The centrality of risk governance may not be fully recognized in the discussion papers, reports and policy recommendations of many organizations, including the Global Risks Report 2020 of the World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum, 2020). Although that report addresses risks in an unsettled global landscape, striving for economic stability and social cohesion, it does not recognize the importance of risk governance as an integrative approach to institutional coordination for disaster management.

This book aims to fill this gap by suggesting a new approach which contributes to the mainstreaming of risk governance in DRR strategies. The main focus is on the relevance of disaster risk governance in managing complex risks while also governing the everyday aspects of life and encouraging socio-economic development (UNDRR, 2019a,b).

The book presents a selection of contributions presented at the 8th International Conference on Building Resilience in Lisbon in 2018. It is structured according to the second principle of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–2030, which is focused on Strengthening Disaster Risk Governance to Manage Disaster Risk. Therefore, the book includes discussion of risk and resilience from both a theoretical perspective, as well as innovative tools and good practices in reducing risk and building resilience. Combining the applications of social, financial, technological, urban planning, engineering and nature-based approaches, this volume addresses rising global priorities and focuses on building an improved understanding of risk governance trends, practices and initiatives.

The book is composed of 13 chapters. In the first chapter, Ortwin Renn proposes the concept of inclusive resilience as a new approach to risk governance. Renn works from the definition of resilience as the capability of a socio-technical system to cope with events that are uncertain and ambiguous. He further analyzes management styles according to three types of resilience: adaptive, coping and participative. For Renn, risk governance depends on the ability to resolve complexity, characterize uncertainty and handle ambiguity. The chapter details the characteristics of four different ways of processing risk information according to risk complexity, scientific uncertainty and socio-political ambiguity, specifically: instrumental processing, epistemic processing, reflective processing and participative processing. Renn highlights the need to understand both objective and subjective natures of resilience before arriving at an adequate definition of risk governance.

The second chapter, authored by Meghan Venable-Thomas, presents cases of promoting community resilience through art and culture to improve health and well-being. To work with marginalized groups and communities, the concept of cultural resilience is essential to be included in people-centered interventions for people to cope with oppression, violence and adverse socioeconomic conditions. Venable-Thomas presents an innovative approach of interpretative epistemological analysis in five community-based organizations in the United States chosen to implement and manage climate change and resilience through creative placemaking. The important conclusion from Venable-Thomas’ comparative analysis is that holistic community resilience must incorporate economic resilience and social capital, rather than just climate and cultural resilience. Also, she concludes by stressing the importance of attending to the structural and long-term tendencies in community disinvestment.

Rohit Jigyasu, in Chapter 3, addresses the importance of mainstreaming cultural heritage in disaster risk governance. The main argument is that the increased vulnerability of cultural heritage demands greater collaboration between agents in risk management, cultural heritage conservation and development, recurring also to traditional governance systems. Community engagement is crucial for achieving long-term sustainability and for governance based on the principles of collaboration, transparency, accountability and social justice. Rohit Jigyasu stresses the specificity of a governance approach that encompasses a broader perspective and mobilizes a great diversity of actors, mainly in matters concerning disaster risk governance for cultural heritage. The chapter ends with a discussion of the fundamental prerequisites for good governance and for mainstreaming cultural heritage in disaster risk governance.

In Chapter 4, Kinkini Hemachandra, Richard Haigh and Dilanthi Amaratunga analyze the role of higher education institutions in fostering multi-hazard early warning (MHEW) for coastal zones in Asia. The analysis is based on a thorough literature review emphasizing the crucial role of early warning for effective disaster preparedness, and planning for response and recovery. The authors identify 16 enablers of multi-hazard early warning for coastal resilience and aggregate them in three major categories, namely: policy, legislative and institutional arrangements; social and cultural considerations, and; technological arrangements. The first category directly addresses the main concern of the book related to risk governance. The strategic roles of higher education institutions in MHEW are discussed and three types of enablers are identified for these institutions: awareness and education; advocacy and evidence-based policy making, and; conducting research. The chapter ends with an analysis of the important role of regional cooperation for effective coastal resilience in Asia.

Felix Villalba-Romero and Champika Liyanage present and discuss in Chapter 5 the increased relevance of Disaster Risk Financing (DRF) to tackle disasters induced by climate change. The chapter relies on a literature review and addresses two research questions: what is DRF and what financial instruments can be used to implement DRF strategies? The authors conclude that the main objective of DRF is to achieve financial resilience by establishing financial strategies and appropriate financial instruments targeted to certain disasters. Also, the role of governments and private sectors in DRF and the challenges they face are analyzed. Villalba-Romero and Liyanage present five types of financial instruments: ex-post financing; ex-ante financing; traditional instruments; innovative risk financing mechanisms; and, finally, they propose an integrated approach for private and public sectors in DRF.

Chapter 6 by Jessica Lamond and Namrata Bhattacharya-Mis analyzes flood resilience in households and businesses in England from the property owners’ perspective. The chapter draws on a survey across several locations that suffer from frequent floods in England. Both for households and businesses the percentage of flood insurance uptake is high although differences arise due to terms of the contracts and exclusions. These differences depend on the type of property and past flood experience. The authors also discuss the emergence of Flood Reinsurance (Flood RE) and its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In contrast, homeowners tend to rely more on flood insurance while businesses are more proactive in taking measures to limit damage. The authors highlight the importance of adequate advice on risk assessment and management to mitigate flood impacts.

Emmanuel Raju in Chapter 7 compares the coordination processes between disaster recovery and response. Disaster recovery coordination emerges as an under-researched area. Raju uses the 2004 tsunami in Tamil Nadu, India as a case study to further his qualitative analysis. The main factors that influence different outcomes of disaster response and recovery coordination efforts include stakeholders’ mandates, level of engagement, type of information received and objective coordination. Raju suggests that disaster recovery coordination should be linked with a broader discussion on sustainable development.

In Chapter 8, Paula Villagra Carolina Quintana and Karla Figueroa study the role of regulatory frameworks in building community resilience. Villagra, Quintana and Figueroa compare the governance approach with the governability approach, using a case study of the coastal zones of Southern Chile. The author utilize a variety of methodologies, including content analysis, spatial analysis, semantic networks and resilience capacity maps. The results show that there is a positive correlation between regulatory orientation and resilience. In the studied areas, governance is more present than governability, and therefore territorial resilience is more dependent on formal institutions than community knowledge or expertise.

The objective of Qingqing Feng, S. Thomas Ng and Frank J. Xu in Chapter 9 is to provide a theoretical basis for the harmonization of policies toward regional resilience in Guandong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area in China. They identify policy instruments for regional resilience and evaluate them within a framework for adaptation and resilience policy analysis (FARP). Methodologically, hazards were identified through an online questionnaire and confirmed from interviews with selected participants. The authors emphasize the need to increase cross-city policy-making cohesiveness. They conclude by pointing out the main aspects for future research to address improvement of regional resilience in the studied areas.

Carlos Zeballos-Velarde proposes in Chapter 10 an integrated risk management model using participatory geographic information system (PGIS). The model is applied in the three phases of disaster risk management, namely: prospective, responsive and corrective phases, using the case study of city of Arequipa in Peru. Zeballos-Velarde describes the components of the different phases. The prospective management phase consisted of data compilation and analysis in GIS and the development of a district risk plan. The reactive phase resulted in the development of a geo application. The corrective management phase included a participatory workshop, the definition of critical sectors, an innovative drone survey and subsequent modeling, vulnerability calculation and model validation. Zeballos-Velarde concludes by highlighting the importance of community participation in all phases of disaster risk management.

In Chapter 11 Laura Cevallos-Merki and Jonas Joerin analyze the role of social capital in disaster recovery. Their case study is situated in the aftermath of the 2016 earthquake in Ecuador. By using quantitative and qualitative methodologies, they conclude that vertical social capital, which is trust and access to authority representatives, is positively correlated with post-disaster recovery satisfaction. On the other hand, social capital at the community and individual levels seem to have no correlation with level of recovery satisfaction. Collaboration in the studied areas was investigated along the lines of family networks and networks among friends and neighbors. These results led the authors to recommend strengthening of community trust and organization by creating and consolidating community-based organizations with the help and support from local councils.

Juan N. Urteaga-Tirado, Sandra Santa-Cruz, Graciela Fernández de Córdova and Marta Vilela advance in Chapter 12 an ex post methodology to analyze the influence of hazard mitigation plans in fostering local resilience. Their empirical context is coastal localities in Peru affected by El Niño heavy rainfalls in 2017. Their study includes an analysis of hazard mitigation plans at two levels. The first level is based on an extensive analysis structured along the application of four indices that are correlated with resilience variables. The second level is a comprehensive analysis based on reviews and interviews with selected actors from a sub-sample of the localities under study. The authors conclude that reduction of damages should be included in action plans and identification of the responsible persons at different levels is paramount for post-disaster reconstruction process.

The last chapter in this book is authored by Raymond Rodolfo and Mark Lapus. Their focus is on business continuity initiatives in DRR, using an example of oyster farmers in the Philippines. Their results are based on two semi-structured focus group discussions. They emphasized the importance of collaboration between community members, business sectors and government agencies to develop more sound and sustainable business practices as part of community resilience and DRR initiatives.

References

Clark-Ginsberg A.Disaster risk reduction is not everyone’s business: evidence from three countries. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101375.

Trias A., Cook A.Recalibrating disaster governance in ASEAN: implications of the 2018 Central Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami. Research report S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies; 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep20024?refreqid=excelsior%3Acbef07252179197ba26b3f39eaa6db0a.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Annual report. Geneva: UNDRR; 2019a.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR). Geneva: UNDRR; 2019b.

World Economic Forum.Global Risks Report 2020. Insight report 15th ed. Geneva: World Economic Forum, Marsh & McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group; 2020. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf.

Chapter 1: Inclusive resilience: A new approach to risk governance

Ortwin Renn    Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, Germany

Abstract

The risk governance framework suggested by the International Risk Governance Council understands resilience as a normative goal for risk management systems to deal with highly uncertain events or processes (surprises). The paper explores the connection between inclusiveness of risk governance based on multiple stakeholder involvement, and the need to enhance resilience. It distinguishes adaptive, coping and participative aspects of resilience. These three aspects correspond to: risk-informed (corresponding to adaptive capability); precaution-based (corresponding to coping capability) and discourse-based (corresponding to participative capability) styles of risk governance.

Keywords

Inclusive risk governance; Resilience; Stakeholder involvement; Public participation; Risk discourse

1: Introduction

The concept of resilience has been used in may disciplines for different notions of being able to respond adequately when the system is under stress. It has been widely applied in ecological research and denotes the resistance of natural ecosystems to cope with stressors (Holling, 1973). Resilience is focused on the ability and capacity of systems to resist shocks and to have the capability to deal and recover from threatening events (Rose, 2007; Jackson and Ferris, 2017). This idea of resistance and recovery can also be applied to social systems (Review in Norris et al., 2008; Adger, 2000). The main emphasis here is on organizational learning and institutional preparedness to cope with stress and disaster. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses this definition: Resilience is the ability of systems, infrastructures, government, business, and citizenry to resist, absorb, and recover from or adapt to an adverse occurrence that may cause harm, destruction, or loss [that is] of national significance (cited after Longstaff et al., 2010, p. 19). Hutter (2011) added to this analysis the ability of systems to respond flexibly and effectively when a system is under high stress from unexpected crisis. Pulling from an interdisciplinary body of theoretical and policy-oriented literature, Longstaff et al. (2010) regard resilience as a function of resource robustness and adaptive capacity.

The governance framework suggested by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC, 2017) depicts resilience as a normative goal for risk management systems to deal with highly uncertain events or processes (surprises). It is seen as a property of risk-absorbing systems to withstand stress (objective resilience) but also the confidence of risk management actors to be able to master crisis situations (subjective resilience).

In this chapter I explain the connection between inclusiveness of risk governance based on multiple stakeholder involvement, and the need to enhance resilience, understood here as the capability of a socio-technical system to cope with events that are uncertain and ambiguous (Renn and Klinke, 2016). This approach has been inspired by Lorenz (2010), who distinguishes adaptive, coping and participative aspects of resilience. I will use this classification to discern between three management styles which correspond to these three aspects of resilience. I have called them: risk-informed (corresponding to adaptive capability); precaution-based (corresponding to coping capability) and discourse-based (corresponding to participative capability).

2: Complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance

Understanding and managing risks is confronted with three major challenges: complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity (Klinke and Renn, 2019; Rosa et al., 2014, p. 130ff). Complexity refers to the difficulty of identifying and quantifying causal links between a multitude of potential candidates and specific adverse effects. Uncertainty denotes the inability to provide accurate and precise quantitative assessments between a causing agent and an effect. Finally, ambiguity denotes either the variability of (legitimate) interpretations based on identical observations or data assessments or the variability of normative implications for risk evaluation (judgment on tolerability or acceptability of a given risk).

In a case where scientific complexity is high and uncertainty and ambiguity are low, the challenge is to invite experts to deliberate with risk managers to understand complexity. Understanding the risks of oil platforms may be a good example of this. Although the technology is highly complex and many interacting devices lead to multiple accident scenarios most possible pathways to a major accident can be modeled well in advance. The major challenge is to determine the limit to which one is willing to invest in resilience.

The second route concerns risk problems that are characterized by high uncertainty but low ambiguity. Expanded knowledge acquisition may help to reduce uncertainty. If, however, uncertainty cannot be reduced (or only reduced in the long run) by additional knowledge, a precaution-based risk management is required. Precaution-based risk management explores a variety of options: containment, diversification, monitoring, and substitution. The focal point here is to find an adequate and fair balance between over cautiousness and insufficient caution. This argues for a reflective process involving stakeholders to ponder concerns, economic budgeting, and social evaluations.

For risk problems that are highly ambiguous (regardless of whether they are low or high on uncertainty and complexity), route 3 recommends a discourse-based management. Discourse management requires a participatory process involving stakeholders, especially the affected public. The aim of such a process is to produce a collective understanding among all stakeholders and the affected public about how to interpret the situation and how to design procedures for collectively justifying binding decisions on acceptability and tolerability that are considered legitimate. In such situations, the task of risk managers is to create a condition where those who believe that the risk is worth taking and those who believe otherwise are willing to respect each others’ views and to construct and create strategies acceptable to the various stakeholders and interests.

In essence: The effectiveness and legitimacy of the risk governance process depends on the capability of management agencies to resolve complexity, characterize uncertainty and handle ambiguity by means of communication and deliberation.

3: Instrumental processing involving governmental actors

Dealing with linear risk issues, which are associated with low scores for complexity, scientific uncertainty and socio-political ambiguity, requires hardly any changes to conventional public policy-making. The data and information regarding such linear (routine) risk problems are provided by statistical analysis; law or statutory requirements determine the general and specific objectives; and the role of public policy is to ensure that all necessary safety and control measures are implemented and enforced (Klinke and Renn, 2012). Traditional cost-benefit analyses including effectiveness and efficiency criteria are the instruments of political choice for finding the right balance between under- and over-regulation of risk-related activities and goods. In addition, monitoring the area is important to help prevent unexpected consequences. For this reason, linear risk issues can well be handled by departmental and agency staff and enforcement personnel of state-run governance institutions. The aim is to find the most cost-effective method for a desired regulation level. If necessary, stakeholders may be included in the deliberations as they have information and know-how that may help to make the measures more