An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities

Ikeda, Saburo; Nagasaka, Toshinari

doi:10.1007/s13753-011-0006-7

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These functions of WebGIS can be applied to understand risks to allow communities to better prepare and respond to them [122,123]. Workshops of scenario-based risk communication with the local community are effective for enhancing the local capacity for handling DRM information platforms [124].…”

Section: Webgismentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews of Geospatial Information Technology and Collaborative Data Delivery for Disaster Risk Management

Miyazaki

Nagai

Shibasaki

2015

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the fact that geospatial information technology is considered necessary for disaster risk management (DRM), the need for more effective collaborations between providers and end users in data delivery is increasing. This paper reviews the following: (i) schemes of disaster risk management and collaborative data operation in DRM; (ii) geospatial information technology in terms of applications to the schemes reviewed; and (iii) ongoing practices of collaborative data delivery with the schemes reviewed. This paper concludes by discussing the future of collaborative data delivery and the progress of the technologies.

show abstract

Section: Webgismentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews of Geospatial Information Technology and Collaborative Data Delivery for Disaster Risk Management

Miyazaki

Nagai

Shibasaki

2015

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, escalating environmental change demands integrated disaster risk governance as the only approach that equips modern society against the increasing number and impact of disasters (Shi et al 2010;Jaeger 2010). Although relatively new as an area of knowledge, disaster risk governance has evolved to embrace innovative approache s to technology, communication, scale of policy implementation (Ikeda and Nagasaka 2011), and organizational structure (Aoki 2010;Aoki and Rothwell 2011).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fukushima fallout: Gauging the change in Japanese nuclear energy policy

Shadrina

2012

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Fukushima nuclear disaster is a special case: a major twin natural disaster (earthquake and tsunami) incited a large-scale technological disaster, which resulted in a serious nuclear accident. Because the various costs are so tremendous, this triple disaster has had a pervasive impact on all aspects of life in Japan. This article describes nuclear energy policy transformation in the aftermath of the Fukushim a disaster. The study draws on theoretical propositions of governance and disaster risk governance, and demonstrates that a vested interest perspective is important to understanding the results of Japan's energy policy before Fukushima. Safety, democracy, and openness were the fundamental principles of Japan's nuclear energy policy when the country decided to diversify its energy sources in the 1950s. But these basic premises were undermined by the vested interests that controlled policy administration and implementation as the nuclear energy industry developed. Analysis of Japan's recent nuclear energy policy transformation covers such dimensions as policy targets, policy issues such as safety, the fuel cycle, waste disposal, administrative structure, public awareness, and national and local policy considerations. The study identifies process deficiencies in Japan's post-Fukushima nuclear energy policy transformation and evaluates possible ways to eliminate defects through administrative reorganization and independent safety oversight.

show abstract

“…There is a vast literature on risk governance (see e.g., [14,17,18,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] and while we do not aim to summarize it, we provide in the Appendix A a selection of approaches and frameworks which we consider particularly relevant for the research presented in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-risk environments are characterized by domino effects that often amplify the overall risk. Those include chains of hazardous events and increasing vulnerability, among other types of correlations within the risk process. The recently developed methods for multi-hazard and risk assessment integrate interactions between different risks by using harmonized procedures based on common metrics. While the products of these assessments, such as multi-hazard and -risk indexes, maps, cascade scenarios, or warning systems provide innovative and effective information, they also pose specific challenges to policy makers and practitioners due to their novel cross-disciplinary aspects. In this paper we discuss the institutional barriers to the adoption of multi-risk approaches, summarizing the results of the fieldwork conducted in Italy and Guadeloupe and of workshops with disaster risk reduction practitioners from eleven European countries. Results show the need for a clear identification of responsibilities for the implementation of multi-risk approaches, as institutional frameworks for risk reduction remain to this day primarily single-risk centered. Authorities are rarely officially responsible for the management of domino effects between e.g., tsunamis and industrial accidents, earthquake and landslides, floods and electricity network failures. Other barriers for the implementation of multi-risk approaches include the limited measures to reduce exposure at the household level, inadequate financial capacities at the local level and limited public-private partnerships, especially in case of interactions between natural and industrial risks. Adapting the scale of institutions to that of multi-risk environments remains a major challenge to better mainstream multi-risk approaches into policy. To address it, we propose a multi-risk governance framework, which includes the phases of observation, social and institutional context analysis, generation of multi-risk knowledge and stakeholder engagement processes. Yet, more research is needed in order to test the framework and to identify the hallmark characteristics of effective multi-risk governance.

show abstract

An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities

Cited by 36 publications

References 8 publications

Reviews of Geospatial Information Technology and Collaborative Data Delivery for Disaster Risk Management

Reviews of Geospatial Information Technology and Collaborative Data Delivery for Disaster Risk Management

Fukushima fallout: Gauging the change in Japanese nuclear energy policy

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About