Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder perspectives on barriers to landslide risk governance

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

Abstract

European Union directives as well as national legislation are placing great emphasis on the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in the governance of risks from natural hazards. This should help decision makers formulate better policies. However, to date, there is little information on stakeholders’ perspectives with respect to landslide risk governance. This paper addresses the gap by reporting on research in Nocera Inferiore, Italy. The research is based on a documentary analysis, 43 semi-structured interviews and a survey submitted to 373 residents. The political instability, the unfairness of national funding allocation across municipalities and the residents’ lack of knowledge about risk assessment and emergency planning are some of the main barriers to effective risk governance. Moreover, there are divergent, sometimes even opposite, stakeholders’ views on several issues, such as the relevance of illegal development in risky areas. The results highlight the importance of addressing these divergent views and including the plurality of voices as a prerequisite for inclusive risk governance. The research provided essential background information for a participatory process, which was designed to support decisions on landslide risk mitigation measures in Nocera Inferiore (Linnerooth-Bayer et al. this issue). The methodology will be of more general interest to researchers and policymakers intent upon including stakeholder perspectives in natural risk governance.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to specify that the four key administrative levels in Italy are national, regional, provincial and municipal: The country is divided into 20 regions, 110 provinces and 8,104 municipalities (72 % with a pop. ≤5000, ISTAT 2011). Nocera Inferiore is a municipality in the province of Salerno, Region Campania.

  2. The focus groups were composed of between seven and eight participants and the author of this paper acted as facilitator together with some colleagues of the University of Salerno, Italy. A protocol was prepared beforehand that served to provide stimuli for directing the discussion on topics of interest.

  3. An interview guide was prepared, containing general advice on the submission of the questionnaire and instructions on how to deal with possible problems before, during and after the interview.

  4. Respondents got to know about the online questionnaire either via emails or thanks to a link in the project Web site (http://safeland.iiasa.ac.at/index.php/Main_Page).

  5. We calculated this with the following formulas: sample = population/4 × (population−1) × e² + 1; e = sqr((population/sample) − 1)/4 × (population − 1)) × 200.

  6. Mean values have been calculated excluding the “don’t know” answers and the unanswered questions.

  7. In Italy the emergency commissioners’ mandate usually lasts no more than one year. In contrast, the major is in office for 5 years (law 267/2000) unless, as in the case of Nocera Inferiore, she/he loses support from a majority of the councilors. In any case both are short-time political mandates, whose length clashes with the time usually needed to implement risk mitigation measures.

References

  • Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien K, Pulhin J, Pulwarty R, Smit B, Takahashi K (2007) Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Bevir M (2009) Key concepts in governance. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann F (2007) Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Glob Environ Change Hum Policy Dimens 17:326–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann F (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 10:277–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesbroek G, Klostermann JM, Termeer C, Kabat P (2013a) On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Change 13:1119–1129

  • Biesbroek GR, Termeer CAM, Klostermann JM, Kabat P (2013b) Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 7:1–22

  • Boer H (2010) Policy options for, and constraints on, effective adaptation for rivers and wetlands in northeast Queensland. Aust J Environ Manag 17:154–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boin A, Comfort L, Demchak C (2010) The rise of resilience, designing resilience: preparing for extreme events. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton N, Clark G (2000) From response to resilience: emergency management reform in New Zealand. Nat Hazards Rev 1:145–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Cascini L (2005) La gestione scientifica dell’emergenza idrogeologica del maggio 1998 nella Regione Campania. Rubbettino Editore, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascini L, Ferlisi S, De Chiara G (this issue) A quantitative analysis of hyperconcentrated flow risk for life loss. Natural Hazards

  • Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our global neighborhood. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Damm A, Eberhard K, Sendzimir J, Patt A (2013) Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria. Nat Hazards 69:165–183. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0694-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi B (2003) Public participation and risk governance. Sci Public Policy 30(3):171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi B (2013) Risk governance and the integration of scientific and local knowledge. In: Fra Paleo U (ed) Risk governance. The articulation of hazard, politics and ecology. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi B, Scolobig A (2012) The views of experts and residents on social vulnerability to flash floods in an Alpine region of Italy. Disasters 36:316–337. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01252.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:14081–14087. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212740110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenack K, Stecker R, Reckien D, Hoffmann E (2012) Adaptation to climate change in the transport sector: a review of actions and actors. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 17:451–469. doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9336-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiser RJ, Bostrom A, Burton I, Johnston DM, McClure J, Paton D, van der Pligt J, White MP (2012) Risk interpretation and action: a conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 1:5–16

  • European Parliament (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J L 327:1–73. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:HTML. Accessed 22 May 2013

  • European Parliament (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Off J Eur Union L288, 27–34, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/. Accessed 22 May 2013

  • Fischhoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Supplement 3):14033–14039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Reads S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda S, Nagasaka T (2011) An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IRGC International Risk Governance Council (2008) An introduction to the risk governance framework. Geneva

  • ISTAT Italian National Statistical Office (2001) National census. ISTAT, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones L, Boyd E (2011) Exploring social barriers to adaptation: insights from Western Nepal. Glob Environ Change 21:1262–1274. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann D (1999) Governance matters. In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2196. Washington, DC

  • Linnerooth-Bayer J, Scolobig A, Ferlisi S, Cascini L, Thompson M (this issue) Expert engagement in participatory processes: translating stakeholder discourses into policy options. Nat Hazards

  • Lofstedt R, Bouder F, Wardman J, Chakraborty S (2011) The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe. J Risk Res 14:409–429. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.557479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:22026–22031. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Næss LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J (2005) Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob Environ Change 15:125–138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan F (2008) Risk perception, risk management and vulnerability to landslides in the hill slopes in the city of La Paz, Bolivia. A preliminary statement. Disasters 32:337–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01043.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patt AG, Weber EU (2014) Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 5:219–232. doi:10.1002/wcc.259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plapp T, Werner U (2006) Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: examples from Germany. Risk Anal 21:101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Plattner T, Plapp T, Hebel B (2006) Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:471–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2008) Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scolobig A, Linnerooth Bayer J, Ferlisi S, Cascini L (2011) Design and testing: a risk communication strategy and a participatory process for choosing a set of mitigation and prevention measures. In: Deliverable 5.7, EC funded SafeLand Project—7th Framework Programme Cooperation Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Sub-Activity 6.1.3 Natural Hazards

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Storbjörk S, Hedrén J (2011) Institutional capacity-building for targeting sea-level rise in the climate adaptation of Swedish coastal zone management. Lessons Coastby Ocean Coastal Manag 54:265–273. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M (2008) Organizing and disorganizing: a dynamic and non-linear theory of institutional emergence and its implications. London

  • Thompson M, Rayner S (1998) Risk and governance part 1: the discourses of climate change. Gov Oppos 33:139–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Colorado-West View, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M, Rayner S, Ney S (1998) Risk and governance part 2: policy in a complex and plurally perceived world. Gov Oppos 33:330–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2005) Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters United Nations Development Programme Geneva http://www.undp.org/bcpr/whats_new/rdr_english.pdf 09/03/07. Accessed 14 July 2014

  • UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2013) Implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action in Europe: Regional Synthesis Report 2011–2013 United Nations Development Programme Geneva http://www.undp.org/bcpr/whats_new/rdr_english.pdf 09/03/07. Accessed 14 July 2014

  • Vari A, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Ferencz Z (2003) Stakeholder views on flood risk management in Hungary’s Upper Tisza Basin. Risk Anal 23:585–600. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Versace P, Altomare P, Serra M (2008) Interventi strutturali per la riduzione del rischio di colata. Il modello Sarno. vol 3 (3). Quaderni del CAMIlab

  • Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33:1049–1065. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner K (2007) Mental models of flash floods and landslides. Risk Anal 27:671–682. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00916.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper was supported by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme through the grant to the SafeLand Project (http://www.safeland-fp7.eu/Introduction.html), Grant agreement: 226479. The paper reflects the author’s 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. I gratefully thank the 43 local stakeholders, who devoted their precious time to the interviews and meetings. The same gratitude goes to the numerous volunteers of seven local associations providing help to collect the questionnaires, as well as for the 373 survey respondents. Last but not least, I thank the colleagues at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg (Austria) and at the University of Salerno (Italy), especially Professor Leonardo Cascini and Professor Settimio Ferlisi, for their key contributions in all the research phases. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Giuseppe Sorbino and of Paolo Fabbricatore, leader of a local NGO. There are no words to describe their precious contribution to the research in Nocera Inferiore as well as to describe the sadness for their loss.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Anna Scolobig

    Present address: Climate Policy Group, Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH-Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Universitätstrasse 22 CHN J72.2, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Anna Scolobig

Authors
  1. Anna Scolobig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Scolobig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scolobig, A. Stakeholder perspectives on barriers to landslide risk governance. Nat Hazards 81 (Suppl 1), 27–43 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1787-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1787-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation