Download Mountain Risks

THE MOUNTAIN-RISKS RESEARCH PROJECT: CHALLENGES IN RISK GOVERNANCE
T. Glade
(1),
S. Greiving
(2)
, R. McInnes
(3)
and the ‘Mountain-Risks’ research team
(1) Department of Geography and Regional Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Contact:
Thomas Glade,
Email: [email protected]
Stefan Greiving,
[email protected]
(2) Faculty of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
(3) Isle of Wight Center for the Coastal Environment, Ventnor, United-Kingdom
 THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF RISK
 THE RISK GOVERNANCE APPROACH
Risk is a multi-faceted term which may be interpreted differently according to
individual and social contexts. Risk can be divided into two distinct
dimensions:
- The “factual” dimension which comprises physically measurable
outcomes. This factual dimension is represented by the assessment of
hazards – and often expressed as a monetary value, e.g. €/m2/year.
- The “socio-cultural” dimension, which includes how a particular risk is
viewed when values and emotions come into play (e.g. whether a risk
is judged acceptable, tolerable or intolerable by society, how
vulnerable a society is).
Risk governance can be defined as process by which risk information is
collected, analysed and communicated and management decisions are taken.
The term “governance” refers to the capacity of actors, social groups and
institutions to build an organisational consensus, to agree on the contribution of
each partner and on a common vision. Risk governance seems to be most
important for those risks which are related with a high uncertainty of
probability/magnitude or a serious level of ambiguity, such as mountain
processes. Consensus and acceptability of decision-making has to be seen as
crucial for success of any risk management strategy. Measures based on
mandatory decisions of public administration as well as measures private
stakeholders are responsible for, need to be accepted for their implementation.
These measures imply evacuation orders, building protection works or risk
awareness.
 The applicability of governance principles will be tested for different risk
settings in mountain areas (avalanches, landslides, rock falls, flash floods).
Access to real risk management measures will be analysed by involving
provincial and local planners.
 Stakeholders will be empowered to the project via training courses
(stakeholder workshops, intensive courses in each case study area with
participants from all social groups + local administration) in order to:
- improve effectiveness and efficiency;
- minimize side-effects;
- improve inter- and intra-generational justice;
- guarantee legal and political implementability.
A Marie Curie Research & Training Network
Mountain Risks: 2007-2010
 THE RISK GOVERNANCE APPROACH
Uncertainty and ambiguity are the main challenges that characterise the
dealing with risks in society.
- Uncertainty reduces the strength of confidence in an estimated cause
and effect chain. Uncertainty may be related to the occurrence, to the
magnitude as well as the consequences of a hazardous effect. In
social contexts, resiliency is an appropriate objective to deal with
uncertainty.
- Ambiguity denotes the variability of legitimate interpretations based on
identical observations. Ambiguity exists due to differences in criteria or
norms to interpret or judge a given situation.
A socially widely accepted development path should be pursued in order to
resolve value conflicts and assure fair treatment of concerns and visions. In
particular the management of risks has become increasingly politicised and
contentious. Importantly, it is definitions of risk that affect risk policy and
moreover, defining risk is an exercise in power in view of existing ambiguity.
Trust, or better the lack of it, has to be understood as central how disparities
between "real" and "perceived" risk might engender public discourse.
The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining
trust, and the complex, socio-political nature of risk call for a new approach.
More public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision-making is
needed for more legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions
and consequent actions.
Fig. 1: An example of unadjusted risk
governance in Iceland where an oil
station is built at the termination of a
debris-flow gully.
Fig. 2: Example of advice for homeowners in areas
of instability (from McInnes, Life-EC Project).
G3: high hazard
G2: moderate hazard
G1: low hazard
Fig. 3: Example of some of the physical
impacts of climate change on a developed
coastal zone that can be easily understand by
stakeholders (McInnes, 2006).
Fig. 4: Example of risk governance (Planning
policy) in a coastal area affected by landslide
hazards (McInnes, 2006).
 RISK GOVERNANCE & MOUNTAIN-RISKS
Within the Mountain-Risks project, risk governance principles will be considered
in order to create resilient communities facing mountain risks.
• More effective risk management measures and advances in knowledge
transfer are required and those must incorporate lessons from past
disasters.
• The legal framework in general and the planning system in particular of
each country will be considered as relevant for risk governance.
• Attention has also to be paid to the given differences in characteristics of
the several risk types. The message has to be still in scientific accurate
terms, but in an understandable manner to the target group.
• Results will be presented applying modern visualization tools such as
web-based applications, fly-through imagery and scenario modelling
procedures. The geo-information will be adapted to these needs without
loosing scientific accuracy.
• It is envisaged to deliver not only final results, but also accompanied by
uncertainty and reliability measures. In particular this information is
needed by responsible target groups in order to support their decision
making progress.
R3: Area with specific restrictions
R2: Area with low restrictions
R1: Area without specific restrictions
Fig. 5: Example of a legal risk map in France using the PPR Methodology (Plan de
Prevention des Risques Naturels). Map are respectively the inventory of the major
stakes, the hazard map and the regulation measures map.
The following themes will be addresses by the project:
 Incorporate the lessons learnt from past disasters in the management;
 Identify legal aspects, risk cultures and insurance possibilities;
 Communicate the information, educate the practitioners and the
population, and involve all stakeholders in decision-making;
 Establish practical thresholds for acceptable and tolerable risks;
 Provide a framework for the use of geo-information at all levels and
define the potentiality of modern visualization tools.
Fig. 6: Example of symbols used in France for the
prevention of major risks, and the communication
to the public.