The present work addresses the problem of lack of coordination between policies and actors with joint competence for risk management, i.e., civil protection, spatial planning, and sectoral planning (e.g., forest policy in the case of forest fire risk). Spatial planning in particular is assigned a minor or no role at all though it might perfectly operate as the coordinating policy platform; the reason is that spatially relevant analysis and policy guidance is an omnipresent component of the risk management cycle. However, disconnected risk relevant policies turning a blind eye to spatial planning might cause several adverse repercussions: Breaks in the response-preparedness-prevention-remediation chain (which should function as a continuum), minimal attention to prevention, risk expansion and growth instead of mitigation, lack of synergies between involved actors as well as duplicated or even diverging measures and funding. The authors bear witness to the above suggestions by examining three cases of European (regional and local) risk management systems faced with failures when confronting natural hazards (floods and forest fires).

The article decodes and analyzes the standard functions of social and socialecological systems when they manage their own vulnerability. The author acknowledges these as ''Resilience functions'' or ''Operational Resilience''. For this purpose, she follows a ''Vulnerability Actor'' (V Actor)-based approach. V Actor is considered as a system faced with multiple hazards, carrying various vulnerability facets (physical, economic, institutional, etc.) and attempting to transform, transfer, rearrange them in time and space so as to achieve Actor's own persistence. It is these processes of vulnerability re-arrangement that are identified by the author as Resilience functions and which change the vulnerability not only of the V Actor performing resilience but also others'. Performance of Resilience functions presupposes attraction and employment of resources by the Actor, not only own, current and inherent but also other resources to be found in spatial and temporal scales external to or beyond the Actor but which the Actor can appeal to. This attraction most probably leads to deprivation of others of the necessary resources for their persistence, recovery, etc. When somebody' vulnerability is reduced sometimes somewhere, it is most probable that others elsewhere are encumbered with extra vulnerability, currently or in the future. Hence, what resilience can only do is vulnerability re-arrangement, re-setting and management. The proposed systemic approach is documented on current state of art regarding interactions between vulnerability and resilience to hazards and on empirical evidence from the international experience of responses to natural hazards.Keywords Vulnerability to hazards Á Resilience Á Spatio-temporal change of vulnerability Á Vulnerability management Á Sustainability of socio-ecological systems Á Multi-hazard vulnerability assessment

The paper focuses on the example of a local island community in Greece, to illustrate the difficulties of effective consensus building, in support of sustainable policies. In the first section the issue of sustainability and the importance of participation are discussed, before moving to a brief outline of the nature of participation and its sources since the 1960s. It follows an analysis of the epistemological framework of consensus building process which is considered as the most integrated and sophisticated version of participatory planning. This analysis serves as a background for judging the appropriateness of consensus building for the resolution of an environmental problem harassing a Greek island community. It is about the problem of water availability and management in the small Aegean island of Leros. The paper shows how illegal practices in the use of water, administrative fragmentation and confusion over knowledge of the problem and its solutions lead to divisions in the stakeholder groups and to obstacles in the way of participation. The intrinsic problems embedded in Greek (and probably not alone) society and political culture, which prevent collective action and participation, account in part for the anticipated risk of unwelcome, illegitimate outcomes of a potential consensus building process. Nevertheless, if communicative planning is to gain universal acceptance, it should first resolve some critical theoretical and practical shortcomings related to its normative, ethical and philosophical assumptions.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The present paper attempts to prove that social resilience to environmental risks should be considered as a potential mechanism of transfer of vulnerability from one social actor to another and/or transformation of vulnerability to one risk to vulnerability to another. This means that social resilience should not be treated always as a desirable attitude; it is desirable under certain conditions only. Design/methodology/approach -Widespread views are challenged by alleging both theoretical knowledge and empirical outcomes. By carrying out insights to the epistemological roots of the concept resilience, its use in the domains of ecology, social and behavioural sciences, and actual experiences of resilience processes to risks in Greece, the author re-integrates resilience analysis in the context of systemic understanding of society, the environment and interrelations between the two. Findings -The paper introduces a clear dissociation of individualized from collective resilience and evidences that these two forms may come in conflict. Besides it indicates that assessment of resilience impacts on vulnerability is possible only by taking into account the systemic interconnections between community actors, on the one hand, and between environmental, natural and socio-economic risks, on the other. The paper provides a methodological approach to the identity of a resilience process, an approach based on the determinant factors of resilience: the agency performing the process, the utilized resources, the stimulus and modus operandi, spatial and temporal range of the process and impacts on several aspects of vulnerability. Practical implications -Acknowledgement of social resilience to risks as a mechanism of transfer and/or transformation of vulnerability entails radical changes in planning philosophy. Planning should focus more on keeping the effects of individualized resilience within the constraints of the wider community interest and environmental sustainability objectives, i.e. vulnerability reduction for all and vis-à -vis all risk aspects. Originality/value -The paper reverses widespread optimism about social resilience to environmental risks as a universally positive p...