Brief Communication: The dark side of risk and crisis communication: legal conflicts and responsibility allocation

Scolobig, Anna

doi:10.5194/nhess-15-1449-2015

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of incomplete flood hazard maps neglecting hazard sources and/or underestimating the real hazard may lead to wrong decisions (Scolobig, 2015). The present study shows the importance of considering flood duration in riverine flood hazard analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Analysis of exposure to vector-borne diseases due to flood duration, for a more complete flood hazard assessment: Llanos de Moxos, Bolivia

Gomez

Kure

Udo

et al. 2017

Ribagua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flood hazard is usually assessed based on the hydrodynamic characteristic of flood (water depth and velocity); however, in riverine floodplains, flood events last for several days. In such cases, the long exposure to flood water may cause additional health problems. Nevertheless, usually flood hazard studies do not consider possible hazards due to flood duration. This paper presents a flood hazard assessment methodology for considering flood duration and exposure to vectorborne diseases, and compares flood hazard maps that include and neglect flood duration. Results from a two-dimensional hydrodynamic flood simulation combined with entomological concepts identify any mosquito-breeding pools. Proximity analyses based on mosquito flying range define the areas exposed to mosquitos; hence, to vector-borne diseases. Results were compared with the probability of mosquito occurrence, showing that solely the consideration of flood depth hazard leads to a false flood hazard assessment, under-predicting the flood hazard. Important cities and areas initially considered safe zones may be exposed to health hazards, due to flood duration. Inclusion of flood duration improves flood hazard assessment; hence, improves flood management plans. Maximum flood depth for oviposition (MFDO) and minimum flood duration (MFD) are important variables for defining mosquito-breeding pools. MFDO is the most uncertain variable. Discussion includes advantages in flood hazard assessment and present methodological limitations.Análisis de exposición a enfermedades vectoriales por la duración de inundación para una evaluación más completa de amenazas por inundación: Llanuras de Moxos, Bolivia RESUMENLas amenazas por inundaciones generalmente son evaluadas en base a las características hidrodinámicas de la inundación: profundidad y velocidad. Sin embargo, en planicies de inundación, las inundaciones pueden llegar a durar varios días. En tales casos la exposición prolongada al agua inundada puede generar problemas de salud. Sin embargo, generalmente los estudios de inundación no consideran las amenazas debido a la duración de la inundación. El presente artículo presenta una metodología para evaluar amenazas de inundación considerando la duración de la inundación y la exposición a enfermedades transmitidas por vectores, y realiza una comparación entre mapas de amenaza por inundación, tanto incluyendo y sin incluir duración. Los resultados de una simulación hidrodinámica de dos dimensiones fueron combinados con conceptos de entomología, a fin de identificar criaderos de mosquitos. Luego, se realizó un análisis de proximidad basado en sus distancias de vuelo, a fin de identificar las zonas expuestas a mosquitos; y por lo tanto, expuestas a enfermedades vectoriales. Los resultados fueron comparados con la probabilidad de ocurrencia de mosquitos. Considerar solo la profundidad de inundación hace subestimar las amenazas por inundación. Importantes zonas urbanas que inicialmente eran consideradas como zonas seguras pueden estar expuestas a amenazas ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Analysis of exposure to vector-borne diseases due to flood duration, for a more complete flood hazard assessment: Llanos de Moxos, Bolivia

Gomez

Kure

Udo

et al. 2017

Ribagua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientific experts, who lack clarity regarding their advisory and decision-making responsibilities, may feel the need to express their personal views on what action should be taken by decision-makers, overstepping their scientific advisory role. a Oppenheimer 2012, 2014;Bretton et al 2015;Scolobig 2015;OECD 2015. Voight 1996Peterson 1996;US/NRC 1996;McGuire and Kilburn 1997;Paton et al 1998Paton et al , 1999WBGU 2000;Francis and Oppenheimer 2004;Solana et al 2008;Aspinall 2011;Donovan and Oppenheimer 2012;Hincks et al 2014;Jolly and Cronin 2014;Doyle et al 2015;Komorowski et al 2015;Papale 2017.…”

Section: Background -Historical Evidence Of Interface Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All stakeholders at the interface (and not just volcanologists) should have clear roles, responsibilities, resources and rights to guide their actions and interactions (Simoncini 2014;UN/ISDR 2015;Bretton et al 2015;Scolobig 2015), and these should be driven by and reflect the stakeholder-negotiated contextualisation practices to which reference has already been made. Stakeholders should also value and accept the principles they have negotiated so that no stakeholder is tempted or pressurised to bend or ignore them, or the legal mandates upon which they are based.…”

Section: Hazard Assessorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 2 - quality standards for volcanic hazard assessments

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextualisation is the critical process of interactions between volcanologists and risk governance decision-makers and specifically the tailoring of hazard assessments to ensure they are driven by the needs of decision-makers. Quality assurance standards for the contextualisation of the analysis and communication of volcanic hazards do not formally exist. For volcanologists this governance lacuna creates a foreseeable and avoidable managerial hazard. This is the second of two papers that together investigate the interface between the scientific treatment of volcanic hazards and the governance of volcanic risks. Both papers are principally concerned with issues of risk governance and their focus is hazard communication by volcanologists at this hazard-risk interface (the interface) during periods of volcanic unrest. In our first paper "Hazard communication by volcanologists: Part 1 -Framing the case for contextualisation and related quality standards in volcanic hazard assessments", (Bretton et al, J Appl. Volcanol. DOI 10.1186/ s13617-018-0077-x, 2018) we investigated the perceived qualities of more 'socially robust' hazard assessments and argued that the working practices of contextualisation must be more methodical.In this paper, we focus on the actual process of contextualisation and argue that quality assurance standards need to be devised and adopted by volcanologists undertaking hazard assessments that are robust enough to bear legal scrutiny. Such standards are necessary: (1) to facilitate a more structured approach to contextualisation; (2) to preserve the core values of traditional scientific methodologies; (3) to address a working assumption that, in the absence of effective regulation, the 'equilibrium of contextualisation' may be unduly influenced by the demands of decisionmakers; and (4) to mitigate the managerial risks related to volcanologists assuming responsibility for contextualisation. Our initial literature review reveals the realities of contextualisation in the absence of effective regulation and identifies many of the foreseeable practical challenges historically faced by volcanic hazard assessors. We investigate and characterise these challenges in order to develop quality standards tailored for practical use. In addition, we present new empirical data acquired from a survey of 33 experienced volcanologists, 18 of whom were selected for one-to-one semi-structured interviews. The survey captures a snapshot of working practices and related sentiments that might indicate whether a more structured approach to contextualisation would find favour amongst volcanologists and, if so, what principles of contextualisation would be most acceptable. This evaluation of published evidence and new data permits us to identify seven aspects of volcanic hazard assessments relevant to quality assurance -the methods and status of hazard analyses, and the delivery, content, status, perception and advice content of hazard communications. Our proposed quality standards and related proto-type code of practice to...

show abstract

“…By decision making we mean the stakeholder process resulting in the wanted to know who allowed the homes to be built in such dangerous areas, why the residents had not been appropriately informed about the risk and why no proper flood warnings were issued [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Warning System Options for Landslide Risk: A Case Study in Upper Austria

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores warning system options in the landslide-prone community of Gmunden/Gschliefgraben in Upper Austria. It describes stakeholder perspectives on the technical, social, economic, legal and institutional characteristics of a warning system. The perspectives differ on issues such as responsibility allocation in decisions regarding warnings, technologies used for monitoring and forecasting, costs and financial aspects, open data policies and the role of the residents. Drawing on the theory of plural rationality and based on a desk study and interviews, stakeholder perspectives and discourses on the warning system problem and its solution were elicited. The perspectives formed the basis for the specification of three technical policy options for a warning system in Gschliefgraben: a minimal-cost and cost-effective system; a technical-expert system; and a resident-centered system. The case demonstrates the importance of accounting for a plurality of values and preferences and of giving voice to competing discourses in communities contemplating warning systems or other public good policies. This paper concludes that understanding the different and often conflicting perspectives and technical policy options is the starting point for formulating an agreed compromise for an effective warning system. We describe the compromise solution in an accompanying paper included in this Special Issue.

show abstract

Brief Communication: The dark side of risk and crisis communication: legal conflicts and responsibility allocation

Cited by 16 publications

References 42 publications

Analysis of exposure to vector-borne diseases due to flood duration, for a more complete flood hazard assessment: Llanos de Moxos, Bolivia

Analysis of exposure to vector-borne diseases due to flood duration, for a more complete flood hazard assessment: Llanos de Moxos, Bolivia

Hazard communication by volcanologists: part 2 - quality standards for volcanic hazard assessments

Warning System Options for Landslide Risk: A Case Study in Upper Austria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About