Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Critical reflections on municipal risk and vulnerability analyses as decision support tools: the role of regulation regimes

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk and vulnerability analyses are a required decision support tool in processes to improve societal safety and crisis preparedness at national, regional and local levels in several European states. Analyses result in risk images, which are the stakeholders’ views of events that must be addressed in planning processes related to topics such as land use and crisis management. Hence, risk and vulnerability analyses are used to support decisions regarding which issue areas to prioritize, as well as to choose between alternatives. In Norway and Sweden, municipal risk and vulnerability analyses are mandated and described in regulations, laws and guidelines. This article examines how the two countries’ regulation regimes address, characterize and facilitate risk-based decision-making. We found that the Swedish regulation regime emphasizes use of risk and vulnerability analyses in decision-making regarding emergency preparedness. In Norway, this is also an important issue, but decision-making with regard to long-term and strategic planning is also emphasized. In both regulation regimes, decision-makers must determine on their own how they should use the analyses as a foundation for decision-making regarding emergency preparedness and societal safety. While the regulation regimes contain method and content prescriptions, they do not specify how criteria regarding desirable levels of preparedness and societal safety should be determined, nor who should be involved in such processes. These are challenges that should be addressed in regulation guidelines and in audits carried out by regional authorities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander D (2005) Towards the development of a standard in emergency planning. Disaster Prev Manag Int J 14:158–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2008) Risk analysis: assessing uncertainties beyond expected values and probabilities. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2009) Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context—review and discussion. Saf Sci 47:798–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2011) Quantitative risk assessment: the scientific platform. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk management and governance: concepts, guidelines and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Njå O, Boyesen M, Olsen KH, Sandve K (2004) Samfunnsikkerhet, Risiko- og Sårbarhetsanalyser [Societal safety, risk and vulnerability analyses] (in Norwegian). Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfield EC (1959) Ends and means in planning. Int Soc Sci J XI:361–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm Å, Corvellec H, Karlsson M (2012) The practice of risk governance: lessons from the field. J Risk Res 15:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boreham N, Morgan C (2004) A socio-cultural analysis of organizational learning. Oxf Rev Edu 30:307–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braut GS, Rake E, Aanestad R, Njå O (2012) Risk images as basis for decisions related to provision of public services. Risk Manag 14:60–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charon R (2006) Narrative medicine: honoring the stories of illness. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev 24:522–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (1957) The concept of power. Behav Sci 2:201–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DSB (1994) Veileder for Kommunale Risiko- Og Sårbarhetsanalyser [Guideline for municipal risk and vulnerability analyses] (in Norwegian). Directorate for Civil Protection and emergency planning, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • DSB (2012) Veiledning Til Forskrift Om Kommunal Beredskapsplikt [Guideline to regulation regarding municipal preparednessduties] (in Norwegian). Directorate for Civil Protection, Tønsberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Enderud H (1976) Beslutninger I Organisationer: I Adfærdsteoretisk Perspektiv [Decisions in organizations: in behaviour theoretical perspective] (in Danish). Fremad, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y, Sannino A (2012) Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learn Cult Soc Interact 1:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B (1991) Rationality and power. Akademisk Forlag, Odense

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller CW, Vassie LH (2004) Health and safety management: principles and best practice. FT Prentice Hall, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi S (2001) From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Hum Relat 54:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldson A, Morton A, Pollard SJT (2009) Better environmental regulation - contributions from risk-based decision making. Sci Total Environ 407(19):5283–5288

  • Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1991) Communication and the evolution of society. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey P (1992) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. Town Plan Rev 63:143–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokstad P, Steiro T (2006) Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:100–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter B (2005) The attractions of risk-based regulation: accounting for the emergence of risk ideas in regulation, vol 33. London School of Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter B (2006) Risk, regulation and management. In: Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn J (eds) Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 202–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes JE (1988) Information in communicative planning. Am Plan Assoc J Winter 1988:52–63

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2009) ISO 31000 Risk management—Principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Kain P (1998) How to do a close reading. http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/how-do-close-reading. Accessed 20 April 2014

  • Klinke A, Renn O (2002) A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based strategies. Risk Anal 22(8):1071–1094

  • Kolluru RV, Bartell SM, Pitblado RM, Scott SR (eds) (1996) Risk assessment and management hanbook. For environmental, health, and safety professionals. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindøe P, Braut GS (2010) Risk regulation in the North Sea: robustness towards changing methods of operation. In: Bris R, Guedes Soares C, Martorell S (eds) Reliability, risk and safety. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 2247–2253

    Google Scholar 

  • LOV 2010-06-25 nr 45 Sivilbeskyttelsesloven [Civil Protection Law] (in Norwegian). Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security

  • MSB (2012) Guide to risk and vulnerability analyses. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • MSBFS 2010:6 Myndigheten För Samhällsskydd Och Beredskaps Föreskrifter Om Kommuners Och Landstings Risk- Och Sårbarhetsanalyser (Rules on municipalities’ and county councils’ rvas) (in Swedish). Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, Stockholm, Sweden

  • Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D (2003) Knowing in organizations: a practice-based approach. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk

    Google Scholar 

  • Njå O, Solberg Ø (2010) Safety considerations in political decisions: a case study of changes to the norwegian aviation system. Rev Policy Res 27:595–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003) Emerging risks in the 21st century; an agenda for action. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard SJT, Davies GJ, Coley F, Lemon M (2008) Better environmental decision making—recent progress and future trends. Sci Total Environ 400:20–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pruyt E, Wijnmalen D (2010) National risk assessment in the Netherlands. In: Ehrgott M, Naujoks B, Stewart TJ, Wallenius J (eds) Multiple criteria decision making for sustainable energy and transportation systems, vol 634., Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systemsSpringer, Berlin, pp 133–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2005) White paper on risk governance; towards an integrative approach. International risk governance council, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • SFS 2006:544 Lag Om Kommuners Och Landstings Åtgärder Inför Och Vid Extraordinära Händelser I Fredstid Och Höjd Beredskap [Act on municipal and county council measures prior to and during of extraordinary events and during high alert] (in Swedish). Swedish Ministry of Defence, Stockholm

  • Simon HA (1965) Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Veland H, Amundrud Ø, Aven T (2013) Foundational issues in relation to national risk assessment methodologies proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers. J Risk Reliab 227:348–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlek C (2013) How solid Is the Dutch (and the British) national risk assessment? Overview and decision-theoretic evaluation. Risk Anal 33:948–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfreys J (2000) Readings: acts of close reading in literary theory. Edinburg University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1982) Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection as well as the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency for financing this research. In addition, we are grateful to the municipal employees who we interviewed as a part of the project presented in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Industrial Economics, Risk and Planning, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway

    Kirsti Russell Vastveit & Ove Njå

  2. Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Kerstin Eriksson

Authors
  1. Kirsti Russell Vastveit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerstin Eriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ove Njå
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirsti Russell Vastveit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vastveit, K.R., Eriksson, K. & Njå, O. Critical reflections on municipal risk and vulnerability analyses as decision support tools: the role of regulation regimes. Environ Syst Decis 34, 443–455 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9510-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9510-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation