Understanding practical challenges to risk and vulnerability assessments: the case of Swedish municipalities

Abstract

Assessing risks and vulnerabilities in the multifaceted context of a municipality is challenging. There is a plethora of methods and tools to support this task. However, to achieve successful outcomes from Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (RVAs), merely applying theoretically and technically rigorous methods is far from enough; the question of how a method is implemented in a practical context is crucial for reaching intended outcomes. In this paper, we broaden the scope, from a strict consideration of technical and methodological matters, to a presentation of the more elusive challenges in accomplishing RVAs that are actually useful in a local context. We conduct and contrast two independent studies that were aimed at identifying general challenges in achieving a successful RVA process in Swedish municipalities. Based on the findings, we argue that there is a need for a considerably increased focus on municipal practices and on the implementation of methods in the practical context. Knowledge and understanding of such practical challenges are pivotal for efforts aimed at both developing methods for RVA and improving the entire RVA process.

Evaluating what matters: an evaluation tool for vulnerability risk assessments in local climate change adaptation planning

“…Table 4 also indicates that the researcher had difficulty with improving their understanding of the community in VRA #5 and #6. Cedergren et al (2019) says that usually those leading the VRA do not have detailed knowledge of the day-to-day life of communities and as a result, this person (or group of persons) has limited ability to assess what the main risks and vulnerabilities are and, consequently, to produce a risk assessment with a high degree of validity. This has a potential to contributing to what Freudenburg (1996) terms 'blind spots' which are a result of the researcher's preconceived ideas and existing frames of reference.…”

Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety

“…The justification is that the number of events that can occur is considerable and it is often a challenge for risk assessment to ensure scenario coverage and to ensure high‐quality probability estimations in the case of rare events. Furthermore, traditional risk assessments conducted by public actors sometimes push the focus to aspects related to external events such as hurricanes and floods rather than targeting the organization's internal capabilities, resources, and procedures needed to handle crises (Cedergren et al., ; NFAS, ), which often are generic for most types of events (Quarantelli, ). At the same time, analyses of events from risk assessments can still benefit the BIA by providing event‐specific insights where fulfillment of the business continuity requirements can be tested and verified.…”