• Framing justice considerations within flood risk management, Mathilde de Goër de Herve
• Local innovations in flood hazard risk management in the past 10 years: the potential of upscaling niche developments to reduce institutional vulnerability in Austria, Thomas Thaler, Sven Fuchs
• Flash flood risk management in Malloa (Central Chile) during the 29-31 January 2021 precipitations: insights on social and institutional vulnerabilities, Francisca Vergara-Pinto, Jorge Romero
• An institutional vulnerability perspective on Flood Disaster Risk Management in Ghana, Fafali Roy Ziga-Abortta, Sylvia Kruse, Ida Wallin
• Hazard classification and flood risk for the Greek part of Arda River, Mike Spiliotis, Fotis Maris, Panagioris Angelidis, Apostolos Vasileiou, Christos Akratos, Nikos Kostsovinos

Panel description

All over Europe, flood hazard and risk management is quite static, and underlying hazard and risk maps are compiled based on hazard probability times exposure and vulnerability of elements at risk. This is true not only for those countries where such hazard or risk maps have already been successfully  implemented for decades, but also for countries who were required to respond to the 2007 EU Floods Directive. Reasons are mainly rooted in the institutional settings, which is materialized through respective laws and regulations in European countries. Despite considerable efforts in hazard mitigation and risk reduction, however, a substantial amount of loss still is recorded. The main reason for this paradox lies in a missing consideration of dynamics in risk, and these dynamics have different roots: Firstly, neglecting effects of climate change and systems dynamics, the development of hazard scenarios is based on the static approach of design events. Secondly, due to economic development and population migration, elements at risk exposed are subject to spatial and temporal changes. Hence, individual and community resilience can hardly be increased without addressing these issues, and institutions play a key role to include these dynamics in order to achieve resilient societies.

Institutional settings are thus responsible for different dimensions of vulnerability to flood risk. Apart from physical, social, economic and ecologic dimensions, the institutional dimension has not been sufficiently taken into consideration so far. Neither has institutional vulnerability to natural hazards been thoroughly investigated until now, nor have institutional dimensions of vulnerability been sufficiently included in practical implementation and policy advice. Here, we define institutional vulnerability as the combination of the weaknesses embedded in institutions that reduce the capacity to resist, withstand, cope or recover from the impact of a flood event (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2021).

In recent years, multiple efforts have been undertaken to overcome this gap and to achieve a better flood risk management in European countries. These include, but are not limited to, an increased stakeholder engagement in hazard and risk mapping (Srinivasan et al., 2018), research efforts in role-playing games (Terti et al., 2019) or other methods such as the Q-method (Attems et al., 2020) or mapping exercises (Meyer et al., 2012) to include stakeholder knowledge in mapping and communicating flood risk (OECD, 2016). Elsewhere, these efforts have been summarized as citizen science (Hicks et al., 2019). It has been argued that the most effective way to understand informational needs of stakeholders is to establish and nurture a two-way communication to co-produce knowledge between scientists and decision-makers, to build relationships, trust, and credibility over time (Gill et al., 2021) so that the institutional vulnerability can be reduced.

For this panel session we invite contributions focusing on such efforts with the aim to reduce institutional vulnerabilities in flood risk and beyond. Building on existing good practice or on innovative approaches, contributions that provoke discussion in the hazard community are invited, with a particular focus on gaps and needs as well as perspectives in the institutional setting of natural hazard management beyond static concepts of hazard probabilities and risk. Contributions of hazard scientists which collaboratively work with partners and stakeholders to develop hazard information products are welcome, particularly if these efforts are across disciplinary boundaries.  

References:

ATTEMS, M.-S., SCHLÖGL, M., THALER, T., RAUTER, M. & FUCHS, S. 2020. Risk communication and adaptive behaviour in flood-prone areas of Austria: A Q-methodology study on opinions of affected homeowners. PLoS one, 15, e0233551.

GILL, J. C., TAYLOR, F. E., DUNCAN, M. J., MOHADJER, S., BUDIMIR, M., MDALA, H. & BUKACHI, V. 2021. Invited perspectives: Building sustainable and resilient communities – recommended actions for natural hazard scientists. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 21, 187-202.

HICKS, A., BARCLAY, J., CHILVERS, J., ARMIJOS, T., OVEN, K., SIMMONS, P. & HAKLAY, M. 2019. Global mapping of citizen science projects for disaster risk reduction. Frontiers in Earth Science, 7, 226.

MEYER, V., KUHLICKE, C., LUTHER, J., FUCHS, S., PRIEST, S., DORNER, W., SERRHINI, K., PARDOE, J., MCCARTHY, S., SEIDEL, J., SCHEUER, S., PALKA, G., UNNERSTALL, H. & VIAVATENNE, C. 2012. Recommendations for the user-specific enhancement of flood maps. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 1701-1716.

OECD (ed.) 2016. Trends in risk communication policies and practices, Paris: OECD Publishing.

PAPATHOMA-KÖHLE, M., THALER, T. & FUCHS, S. 2021. An institutional approach to vulnerability: evidence from natural hazard management in Europe. Environmental Research Letters.

SRINIVASAN, V., SANDERSON, M., GARCIA, M., KONAR, M., BLÖSCHL, G. & SIVAPALAN, M. 2018. Moving socio-hydrologic modelling forward: unpacking hidden assumptions, values and model structure by engaging with stakeholders: reply to “What is the role of the model in socio-hydrology?”. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63, 1444-1446.

TERTI, G., RUIN, I., KALAS, M., LÁNG, I., CANGRÒS I ALONSO, A., TOMMASO SABBATINI, T. & LORINI, V. 2019. ANYCaRE: a role-playing game to investigate  crisis decision-making and communication  challenges in weather-related hazards. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 19, 507-533.