Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landslides represent a major threat to human life, property and the environment. Landslide hazard and risk assessments seek to inform the policy and practice of landslide hazard risk management, for example, by identifying high-risk areas so that appropriate policy and private actions could be taken in terms of preventive and mitigative measures. We examine whether a decentralized risk assessment system leads to better assessment outcomes compared to a centralized risk assessment system. The paper is based on a comparative study of two countries—India and Italy—and their responses to landslide risk. Our results indicate a causal relationship between decentralization and three outcomes. First, decentralization appears to be conducive to the more rapid and more complete assessment of risks in local places, through mapping at an appropriate scale. Second, decentralization appears to foster greater and more transparent communication of risk assessment products, such as maps. Third, decentralization appears to lead to a more open, and at times contentious, public discourse over how to interpret and respond to the information contained in the risk assessments and maps. However, in practice, decentralization faces serious institutional resistance. Our analysis does not preclude other risk assessment outcomes or competing explanations for differences in risk assessment and management outcomes. Rather, it provides an understanding of the direction in which the institutional change may be driven for bringing about more effective risk assessments and their use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics Soc 29(4):485–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ribot J (1999) Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African environmental cases. J Dev Areas 33:473–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, Spolaore E (1997) On the number and size of nations. Q J Econ 112(4):1027–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander D (2002) The evolution of civil protection in modern Italy. In: Dickie J, Foot J (eds) Disastro! Disasters in Italy since 1860: culture, politics, society. Palgrave, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson K, Gibson C, Lehoucq F (2004) The politics of decentralizing natural resource policy. PS Polit Sci Polit 37(3):421–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Indian Express (23 August 1998) Malpa landslide could have been averted. Press Trust of India. Available at http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/48134/. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • Bardhan P (2002) Decentralization of governance and development. J Econom Perspect 16(4):185–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan PK, Mookherjee D (2000) Capture and governance at local and national levels. Am Econ Rev 90(2):135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan P, Mookherjee D (2006) Decentralization and accountability in infrastructure delivery in developing countries. Econ J 116(508):101–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari RK (2006) The Indian landslide scenario, strategic issues and action points, (A key note address–technical session on landslides) First India Disaster Management Congress, New Delhi

  • Blair H (2000) Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance in six countries. World Dev 28(1):21–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMTPC (2003) Landslide Hazard Zonation Atlas of India, published by building materials and technology Promotion Council, Government of India and Anna University, Chennai, p 125

  • Cascini L (2004) The flow slides of May 1998 in the Campania region, Italy: the scientific emergency management. Ital Geotech J 2:11–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascini L, Cuomo S, Guida D (2008) Typical source areas of May 1998 flow-like mass movements in the Campania region, Southern Italy. Eng Geol 96:107–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colfer CJP (2005) The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and adaptive collaborative management. Resources for the Future/Centre for International Forestry Research, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Contreras A (2003) Creating space for local forest management: the case of the Philippines. In: Edmunds D, Wollenburg E (eds) Local forest management: the impacts of devolution policies. Earthscan, London, pp 127–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers D (2003) Decentralisation in Zimbabwe: a local perspective. Public Adm Dev 23:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook R, Manor J (1998) Democracy and decentralization in Southeast Asia and West Africa: participation, accountability and performance. University of Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant J (1999) Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Sci Public Policy 26:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environmental Agency (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. Environmental Issue Report no. 22. Luxembourg. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • FAO (2006) Understand, analyse and manage a decentralization process: the RED-IFO model and its use. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0876e/a0876e00.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisman R, Gatti R (2002) Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. J Public Econom 83(3):325–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaiha R, Kaushik PD, Kulkarni V (1998) Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, Panchayatas, and the rural poor. Asian Surv 38:928–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganapathy GP, Mahendran K, Sekar SK (2010) Need and urgency of landslide risk planning for Nilgiri District, Tamil Nadu State, India. Int J Geomat Geosci 1(1):29–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C, McKean M, Ostrom E (eds) (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti F (2000) Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of landslide risk in Italy. Eng Geol 58:89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R (2009) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol Soc 14(1): 26. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/

  • ISPRA, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Difesa Ambientale (2008) Landslides in Italy. Special report, Rapporto 83/2008, ISPRA Roma. http://www.apat.gov.it/site/it-IT/Rubriche/Eventi/2007/Novembre/Rapporto_frane.html

  • Jütting JP, Kauffmann C, McDonnell I, Osterrieder H, Pinaud N, Wegner L (2004) Decentralisation and poverty in developing countries: exploring the impact. OECD Development Centre Working Papers 236, OECD Publishing. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • Kauneckis D, Andersson K (2009) Making decentralization work: a cross-national examination of local governments. Stud Comp Int Dev 44(1):23–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K, Satyal GS (1999) Cost analysis of losses caused by the Malpa landslide in Kumaun Himalaya: a basic framework for risk assessment. Curr Sci 77(8):1023–1028

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM, Ribot JC (2007) The poverty of forest policy: double standards on an uneven playing field. Sustain Sci 2:189–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM, Soto F (2008) Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:213–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litvack J, Ravallion M (2000) Decentralisation, equity and service provision. Working Paper, No. 2, Seminar Series on Decentralisation. World Bank, Washington, DC

  • Litvack J, Seddon J (eds) (1999) Decentralization briefing notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers, No. 37142, World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/publications/wbi37142.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • McGinn N, Welsh T (1999) Decentralization of education: Why, When, What and How? UNESCO, IIEP, Paris. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001202/120275e.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • Mills A, Vaughan PH, Smith DL, Tabibzadeh I (eds) (1990) Health system decentralization. Concepts, issues and country experience, World Health Organization, Geneva. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/9241561378.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • Murali S (2008) Fiscal Decentralisation in India Helps Program Delivery, Available at http://www.cga.nic.in/pdf/FiscalDecentralisationIndia.pdf. Last Accessed 28 Sep 2011

  • NDMA (2009) National Disaster Management Guidelines: management of landslides and snow avalanches, National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India, June 2009

  • Oates WE (1972) Fiscal Federalism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates W (2005) Toward a second-generation theory of fiscal federalism. Int Tax Public Financ 12(4):349–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyono PR (2004) One step forward, two steps back? Paradoxes of natural resources management decentralization in Cameroon. J Mod Afr Stud 42(1):91–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panizza U (1999) On the determinants of fiscal centralization: theory and evidence. J Public Econ 74(1):97–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul SK, Mahajan AK (1999) Malpa rock fall disaster, Kali Valley, Kumaun Himalayan. Curr Sci 76(4):485–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson G (1997) Decentralization in Latin America, learning through experience. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/02/23/000094946_99030406204446/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf. Last Accessed 28th Sep 2011

  • Peterson G, De Leo GA, Hellmann JJ, Janssen MA, Kinzig A, Malcolm JR, O’Brien KL, Pope SE, Rothman DS, Shevliakova E, Tinch RRT (1997) Uncertainty, Climate Change, and Adaptive Management. Conserv Ecol 1(2):4

  • Revellino P, Hungr O, Guadagno FM, Evans SG (2004) Velocity and run out prediction of destructive debris flows and debris avalanches in pyroclastic deposits, Campania region, Italy. Environ Geol 45:295–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC (2002) Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC (2004) Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

  • Ribot J, Oyono PR (2006) Introduction: decentralisation and livelihoods in Africa. Afr Dev 31:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz DR (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarin M, Singh N, Sundar N, Bhogal R (2003) Devolution as a threat to democratic decision-making in forestry? Findings from three states in India. In: Edmunds D, Wollenburg E (eds) Local forest management: the impacts of devolution policies. Earthscan, London, pp 55–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharda YP (2008) Landslide studies in India, Glimpses of Geoscience Research in India, The Indian report to IUGS 2004-2008. Indian National Science Academy, Silver Jublie Volume, pp 98–101

  • Sundar N (2000) Unpacking the ‘joint’ in joint forest management. Dev Change 32:255–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tacconi L (2007) Decentralization, forest and livelihoods: theory and narrative. Global Environ Change 12:338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman D (2000) The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J Public Econom 76(3):399–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigila A, Iadanza C (2007) Statistiche nazionali ed elaborazioni dati del Progetto IFFI, in APAT (2007), Rapporto sulle frane in Italia. Il Progetto IFFI: metodologia, risultati e rapporti regionali. Rapporti 78/2007

  • World Bank (2000) World development report 2000: entering the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Safeland Project (http://www.safeland-fp7.eu/Introduction.html), Grant agreement: 226479. The paper reflects the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. Neither the European Community nor any member of the Safeland Consortium is liable for any use of the information in this paper. We would like to thank Joanne Bayer and Mark Pelling for their valuable comments and feedback during the writing of this paper. Numerous persons gave advice and help of many different kinds. We are grateful to all of them and especially to those who gave logistical organizational support for the fieldwork in Italy and India. We also profoundly thank all the interviewees for their precious testimonies based on long years of experience in landslide risk management.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Upasna Sharma

    Present address: Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Chennai, 600036, India

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, 2361, Laxenburg, Austria

    Upasna Sharma, Anna Scolobig & Anthony Patt

Authors
  1. Upasna Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Scolobig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Patt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Upasna Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharma, U., Scolobig, A. & Patt, A. The effects of decentralization on the production and use of risk assessment: insights from landslide management in India and Italy. Nat Hazards 64, 1357–1371 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0300-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0300-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation