Multi-risk approach in centralized and decentralized risk governance systems: Case studies of Naples, Italy and Guadeloupe, France

Komendantova N, Scolobig A, & Vinchon C (2013). Multi-risk approach in centralized and decentralized risk governance systems: Case studies of Naples, Italy and Guadeloupe, France. International Relations and Diplomacy 1 (3): 224-239.

[img]
Preview
Text
1049452014011482571833.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (416kB) | Preview

Abstract

Recent multi-hazard disasters, such as 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and tsunami, 2011 Tohoku earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe and 2013 Super Typhoon Haiyan, showed the need for a multi-risk approach, which takes into consideration multiple risks and interdependencies between them. The first attempts to provide assessment of natural hazards based on multi-risk approach (MRA) exist in science. Also at the level of the European policy-making process, several strategic guidelines were developed to address multi-risk issues. However, MRA is more than assessment of risks for a given territory, it also includes the processes of knowledge transfer from science to policy and implementation of risk mitigation measures in frames of existing governance systems. The European Union is characterized by the multiple levels of governance and variety of risk governance systems, marked by different degree of centralization and decentralization of the decision-and policy-making processes. In this paper we present some results about the impacts of decentralization or centralization on implementation of MRA, with a focus on two case studies, Naples (Italy) and Guadeloupe (France). The methodology of research included several rounds of interactions with stakeholders from practice, such as interviews, workshops, and round table discussions. The results show that both governance systems have their own strengths and weaknesses. Elements of decentralized governance can favour creation of local multi-risk commissions and elements of centralized governance can lead to improvement of interagency communication and creation of inter-agency environment. However, both governance systems suffer from such deficiencies as lack of financial, technical, and institutional capacities at local level. Further research is needed to understand how implementation of MRA can be strengthened through multi-risk platforms. However, MRA cannot be a subsidiary to a single risk approach and both approaches have to be pursued.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Natural hazards; Risk governance; Institutional framework
Research Programs: Risk & Resilience (RISK)
Risk, Policy and Vulnerability (RPV)
Bibliographic Reference: International Relations and Diplomacy; 1(3):224-239 (December 2013)
Related URLs:
Depositing User: IIASA Import
Date Deposited: 15 Jan 2016 08:48
Last Modified: 13 Sep 2016 13:42
URI: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/10307

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Phone: (+43 2236) 807 0 Fax:(+43 2236) 71 313