Multi-risk approach and urban resilience

Komendantova, Nadejda; Scolobig, Anna; García, Alexander; Monfort, Daniel; Fleming, Kevin

doi:10.1108/ijdrbe-03-2015-0013

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We provide a detailed table comparing cities' definitions and scope of resilience work in the Silva et al, 2012;Ernstson et al, 2010;Meerow, 2017;Paterson et al, 2017;Spaans and Waterhout, 2017;Zaidi and Pelling, 2015 Well-defined roles and responsibilities Clarifying both the roles and responsibilities of agencies and individuals working on urban resilience plans is needed for action and coordination Medd and Marvin, 2005;Olazabal and Pascual, 2016;Razafindrabe et al, 2014;van der Jagt et al, 2017;Wamsler and Brink, 2013 Innovation, learning and feedback Effective governance must be adaptive, engaging in continuous learning and assessment. Resilience work is iterative, so refocusing and including feedback to understand implementation successes and challenges is important Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016;Frantzeskaki and Tillie, 2014;Khazai et al, 2018;McPhearson et al, 2015;Wagenaar and Wilkinson, 2015 Systems approach Resilience must focus on urban challenges from a systems perspective, linking environmental, social and economic issues to fully address vulnerabilities and reduce risks da Silva et al, 2012;Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2015;Komendantova et al, 2016 Knowledge coproduction and trust For ...…”

Section: Clear Definition Vision and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments

Fastiggi

Meerow²,

Miller

2020

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes how urban resilience governance is structured and coordinated in 20 North American cities (19 US and one Canadian) based on interviews with city officials. This co-produced research evolved out of conversations with city officials in Portland, Oregon, who were interested to learn how other cities were organising resilience work. Interviews focused on emerging definitions, organisational structures, internal and external coordination efforts, and practitioners’ insights. The paper includes a descriptive summary of how cities are structuring and coordinating resilience efforts. Additionally, we discuss how current trends in resilience coordination can inform future directions for urban resilience scholarship. We compare what practitioners view as key success factors against six commonly theorised characteristics for effective resilience governance. Overall, we find considerable overlap in lessons from theory and practice, including the benefits of a systems approach, the need for a clear definition of resilience, strong leadership, and stakeholder engagement. Practitioners use resilience to diagnose the overall health of their cities. Additionally, practice tends to emphasise limitations such as political turnover, trade-offs between centralised and dispersed organisation, and the need to carefully diagnose and scope resilience work, whereas the academic literature calls for multi-level and cross-scale governance and feedbacks and more transformative action. Given these insights, we highlight opportunities for new resilience scholarship, including analysing the benefits of the diagnostic phase of resilience planning, evaluating resilience goals to determine the best departmental fit, and understanding local barriers and trade-offs to adopting a broad systems approach.

show abstract

Section: Clear Definition Vision and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments

Fastiggi

Meerow²,

Miller

2020

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…perspective. This requires a multihazard holistic approach, recognized as a key guiding principal in many risk reduction frameworks at both global (e.g., United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), 2015) and regional (e.g., Komendantova et al, 2016) scales. In the context of this review, multihazards are defined as hazards that share a common physical mechanism, described by one or more planetary-scale teleconnections, occurring in different regions around the globe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlations Between Extreme Atmospheric Hazards and Global Teleconnections: Implications for Multihazard Resilience

Steptoe

Jones

Fox

2018

Reviews of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occurrences of concurrent extreme atmospheric hazards represent a significant area of uncertainty for organizations involved in disaster mitigation and risk management. Understanding risks posed by natural disasters and their relationship with global climate drivers is crucial in preparing for extreme events. In this review we quantify the strength of the physical mechanisms linking hazards and atmosphere‐ocean processes. We demonstrate how research from the science community may be used to support disaster risk reduction and global sustainable development efforts. We examine peer‐reviewed literature connecting 16 regions affected by extreme atmospheric hazards and eight key global drivers of weather and climate. We summarize current understanding of multihazard disaster risk in each of these regions and identify aspects of the global climate system that require further investigation to strengthen our resilience in these areas. We show that some drivers can increase the risk of concurrent hazards across different regions. Organizations that support disaster risk reduction, or underwrite exposure, in multiple regions may have a heightened risk of facing multihazard losses. We find that 15 regional hazards share connections via the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, with the Indian Ocean Dipole, North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Southern Annular Mode being secondary sources of significant regional interconnectivity. From a hazard perspective, rainfall over China shares the most connections with global drivers and has links to both Northern and Southern Hemisphere modes of variability. We use these connections to assess the global likelihood of concurrent hazard occurrence in support of multihazard resilience and disaster risk reduction goals.

show abstract

“…Available scientific evidence on multi-risk policies and governance frameworks is also limited [5][6][7]. One of the reasons is that it is difficult for disaster risk reduction stakeholders to recognize the added value of adopting a multi-risk over the single-risk governance approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction states that "disaster risk reduction practices need to be multi-hazard and multi-sectoral-based, inclusive and accessible in order to be efficient and effective" [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Consideration of interactions between risks can make a great difference not only to hazard, risk and vulnerability assessment but also to the related decision-making processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

2017

Self Cite

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

Multi-risk approach and urban resilience

Cited by 36 publications

References 37 publications

Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments

Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments

Correlations Between Extreme Atmospheric Hazards and Global Teleconnections: Implications for Multihazard Resilience

Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About