Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England

Thaler, Thomas; Levin-Keitel, Meike

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007

Cited by 140 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…IBMs encourage the involvement of local communities and individual building owners in data collection and vulnerability reduction (Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016;.…”

Section: Cost Effectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is an essential aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and, if possible, quantifying physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators; however, in most of the cases, these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss, considering, in individual cases only, some structural characteristics of the affected buildings. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based methodology (IBM) for mountain hazards including debris flow ) is applied to a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol, where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results is challenging since both methodological approaches deal with vulnerability in a different way. However, it is still possible to highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and provide a preliminary "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment showing how the two approaches may be used in combination in the future.

show abstract

“…IBMs encourage the involvement of local communities and individual building owners in data collection and vulnerability reduction (Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016;.…”

Section: Cost Effectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has led to an increasing discussion on changes beyond that of vulnerability and natural hazards (Fuchs 2009;Giupponi and Biscaro 2015). This change has driven a transformation in the role of the state in terms of responsibility sharing and increased individual responsibilities for mitigation and adaptation (Adger et al 2013(Adger et al , 2016Thaler and Levin-Keitel 2016). Additionally, the transformation of responsibility has been encouraged with the implementation of the EU Floods Directive in 2007, such as the introduction of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFR), 1 insurance companies, or international risk-averse investors which request a re-thinking of the current financial distribution within hazard management (EC 2007;BMLFUW 2011BMLFUW , 2014PenningRowsell 2015;Husby et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allocation of risk and benefits—distributional justices in mountain hazard management

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As financing protection against mountain hazards becomes increasingly challenging and therefore investments have to be prioritized, dilemmas of justice emerge: some local governments and individuals benefit from natural hazard protection schemes, whereas others loose. Decisions on whom to protect often caused contradicting concepts of political understanding, which differ in interpretations of fair resource allocation and distribution. This paper analyses the impact of different philosophical schools of social justice on mountain hazard management in Austria. We used data from a spatially explicit, object-based assessment of elements at risk and compared potential distributional effects of three political jurisdictions. We found that-depending on the respective political direction-various local governments gain and others loose within the actual distributional system of mitigation strategies. The implementation of a utilitarian policy approach would cause that high income communities in hazard-prone areas would mainly benefit. Consequently, this policy direction would encourage the public administration to ignore their own failure in the past natural hazards management and prevention. On the other hand, following a Rawlsians approach mainly peripheral communities would gain from new policy direction who often show besides natural hazards problem mainly large socio-economic challenges. Finally, the most radical change would include the implementation of a liberalism policy, whereabouts the state only provides hazard information, but no further mitigation measures. These findings highlight the distributional consequences of future mountain hazard management strategies and point to the crucial selection of policy direction in navigating the selection of various adaptation schemes.

show abstract

“…There is evidence that this rise is likely to occur as the flooding in England and Wales in 2013/2014 is thought to be linked to human-induced climate change (Schaller et al, 2016). Furthermore, Bridgwater was used as a case study area by Thaler and Levin-Keitel (2016), who identified the area as having a low capacity to engage in flood risk management due to the lack of socioeconomic structures (i.e. cultural capital, income, and interest).…”

Section: The River Parrett Catchmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of multivariate social vulnerability methodologies: a case study of the River Parrett catchment, UK

Willis

Fitton

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR), there exists a proliferation of research into different ways to measure, represent, and ultimately quantify a population's differential social vulnerability to natural hazards. Empirical decisions such as the choice of source data, variable selection, and weighting methodology can lead to large differences in the classification and understanding of the "at risk" population. This study demonstrates how three different quantitative methodologies (based on Cutter et al., 2003;Rygel et al., 2006;Willis et al., 2010) applied to the same England and Wales 2011 census data variables in the geographical setting of the 2013/2014 floods of the River Parrett catchment, UK, lead to notable differences in vulnerability classification. Both the quantification of multivariate census data and resultant spatial patterns of vulnerability are shown to be highly sensitive to the weighting techniques employed in each method. The findings of such research highlight the complexity of quantifying social vulnerability to natural hazards as well as the large uncertainty around communicating such findings to stakeholders in flood risk management and DRR practitioners.

show abstract

Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England

Cited by 140 publications

References 33 publications

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Allocation of risk and benefits—distributional justices in mountain hazard management

A review of multivariate social vulnerability methodologies: a case study of the River Parrett catchment, UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About