IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v34y2014i3d10.1007_s10669-014-9510-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsti Russell Vastveit

    (University of Stavanger)

  • Kerstin Eriksson

    (Lund University)

  • Ove Njå

    (University of Stavanger)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsti Russell Vastveit & Kerstin Eriksson & Ove Njå, 2014. "Critical reflections on municipal risk and vulnerability analyses as decision support tools: the role of regulation regimes," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 443-455, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:34:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9510-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-014-9510-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-014-9510-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-014-9510-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Åsa Boholm & Hervé Corvellec & Marianne Karlsson, 2012. "The practice of risk governance: lessons from the field," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Charles Vlek, 2013. "How Solid Is the Dutch (and the British) National Risk Assessment? Overview and Decision‐Theoretic Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 948-971, June.
    3. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    4. Erik Pruyt & Diederik Wijnmalen, 2010. "National Risk Assessment in The Netherlands," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Matthias Ehrgott & Boris Naujoks & Theodor J. Stewart & Jyrki Wallenius (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems, pages 133-143, Springer.
    5. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, September.
    6. Hokstad, Per & Steiro, Trygve, 2006. "Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 100-111.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amira Ghennaï & Said Madani & Carola Hein, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of scenarios for port city development with Boussole21 method," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 87-106, March.
    2. Horia-Nicolai L. Teodorescu, 2015. "Defining resilience using probabilistic event trees," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 279-290, June.
    3. Igor Linkov & James H. Lambert & Zachary A. Collier, 2014. "Introduction to the inaugural general issue of environment systems and decisions," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 367-368, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rolf Lidskog & Ingemar Elander & Adam Standring, 2020. "COVID-19, the Climate, and Transformative Change: Comparing the Social Anatomies of Crises and Their Regulatory Responses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Charles Vlek, 2013. "What Can National Risk Assessors Learn from Decision Theorists and Psychologists?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(8), pages 1389-1393, August.
    3. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    4. Joel Rasmussen & Jens Ewald, 2022. "The Relation Between Socioeconomic Status and Risk Attitudes: A Nuclear Accident Scenario in Sweden," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 541-555, November.
    5. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    7. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Natalia Vladimirovna Gryzunova & Victoria Ivanovna Pyatanova & Viktoriya Valeryevna Manuylenko & Konstantin Vasilievich Ordov, 2019. "Models of credit limit-setting for companies as means of encouraging competitiveness," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(1), pages 615-625, September.
    9. Grzegorz Drozdowski & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Jacek Stasiak, 2021. "The Empirical Analysis of the Core Competencies of the Company’s Resource Management Risk. Preliminary Study," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    12. Feng Guo & Yanan Wang & Jie Peng & Hetian Huang & Xiangting Tu & Hu Zhao & Nan Zhan & Zhu Rao & Gaofeng Zhao & Hongbo Yang, 2022. "Occurrence, Distribution, and Risk Assessment of Antibiotics in the Aquatic Environment of the Karst Plateau Wetland of Yangtze River Basin, Southwestern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Christiansen, Ulrik & Thrane, Sof, 2014. "The prose of action: The micro dynamics of reporting on emerging risks in operational risk management," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 427-443.
    14. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    16. Jaatun, Martin Gilje & Albrechtsen, Eirik & Line, Maria B. & Tøndel, Inger Anne & Longva, Odd Helge, 2009. "A framework for incident response management in the petroleum industry," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 26-37.
    17. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    18. Juliana Aurora de Oliveira Lopes & Léo Heller, 2020. "Explanatory Matrices on the Causes of a Tailing Dam Collapse in Brazil: The (Dis)Articulation of Epistemes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2524-2538, December.
    19. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    20. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:34:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-014-9510-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.