enhance d4.1 risk perception and risk cultures in...

ENHANCE Enhancing Risk Management Partnerships

for Catastrophic Natural Disasters in Europe Grant Agreement number 308438

Deliverable 4.1: Working paper: Risk perception and risk cultures in Europe

Project 308438 • Risk perception and risk cultures ii

Title INVENTORY: ASSESSING RISK PERCEPTION CRITERIA.

Author(s)

María Carmona (HZG), María Mañez (HZG), Pino González-Riancho Calzada (HZG), Swenja Surminsky (LSE), Joanne Bayer (IIASA), Susanne Hanger (IIASA), David Haro (UPVLC), Joaquín Andreu (UPVLC).

Organization

Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Centre for Materials and Coastal Research, Germany; London School of Economics and Political Science; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; Universitat Politècnica de València;

Deliverable Number

D4.1

Submission date 01.05.2014

Prepared under contract from the European Commission Grant Agreement no. 308438 This publication reflects only the author’s views and that the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Start of the project: 01/12/2012 Duration: 48 months Project coordinator organisation: IVM Due date of deliverable: Month 17 Dissemination level

X PU Public

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Project 308438 • Risk perception and risk cultures 3

Contents

Summary ................................................................................................................. 5

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7

2 Risk in the context of Multi-Sector Partnerships ........................................ 9 2.1 Assessing risk in MSPs. Scholars views on risk .............................................. 10

2.1.1 Risk characteristics and Factors influencing risk perception in MSPs .......... 14 2.1.2 Multi-Sector Partnerships in ENHANCE ........................................................... 15

2.2 Risk inside of the ENHANCE case studies ....................................................... 18 2.3 Insurance view on risk ...................................................................................... 22

3 Identifying risk cultures ............................................................................... 25 3.1 Cultural theory of risk ....................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 Example: Cultural Theory applied to landslide risk in Nocera Inferiore ..... 28 3.1.2 Cultural theory of risk in Multi-Sector Partnership ........................................ 29 3.1.3 Implications of Cultural Theory for ENHANCE research ................................ 31

3.2 Protection Motivation Theory .......................................................................... 31 3.2.1 Protection Motivation Theory in Multi-Sector Partnerships .......................... 34

3.3 Framing theory ................................................................................................... 35 3.4 Criteria for analysing risk perception in MSPs ............................................... 38

4 Identifying risk cultures within an MSP of the ENHANCE project ........... 43 4.1 Case study description ...................................................................................... 43 4.2 Risk management history ................................................................................. 45 4.3 Risk management culture description in Jucar district ................................ 48

Annex I: Criteria table: Jucar River Basin case study ....................................... 57


Summary

Risk management is highly dependent on risk perception. How we deal with risk is contingent largely to how well we understand it and how we perceive it. Risk perception has become an important topic to decision and policy makers concerned with risk management, and the psychological analysis of this construct has attracted much interest. This is important because perception affects behaviour towards management. In the opposite, we may be able to change people’s behaviour by influencing their perception of risk and their attitude towards a proper risk management. The main reason for that is the fact that the transaction cost of an improper managed risk might derivate in high economic and human losses. Research on risk perception has been dominated by main theories coming from psychology, like the protection-motivation theory or the framing theory; or from anthropology and sociology, like the cultural theory of risk. We show how to use these theories for understanding people’s behaviour in the face of risk. An example of the Nocera Region is presented. In the ENHANCE case study presented here, we can see how different risk management develops depending on the risk perceived in the area and how based on this perception different resilience strategies develop. The perception of risk in the Júcar River Basin brought the MSP to the creation of the permanent Drought commission and with this an improved governance mechanism for enhancing resilience.


1 Introduction

Risk perception plays an important role when reacting to hazards and disasters. In cases in which people have a poor perception or no perception of risk, their reaction might be less convenient or even harmful (as e.g. building houses in flood prone areas). In other cases in which the perception of risk is shaped by historical and social events, the reaction to the hazards and disasters might be very appropriate to the event happening. This might reduce the possible harms. We put special attention on the risk perception of Multi-Sector Partnerships (MSPs) and not on the individual level of risk perception. Focusing on existing MSPs in our case studies, we look at the factors that make risk management successful and reduce vulnerability. MSPs, as important governance structures for risk management, might contribute to increase resilience in areas prone to disasters and hazards. The focus of this deliverable is to focus on identifying generic risk perception criteria through assessing different European risk cultures. The aim of these criteria creation is to enlarge the possibilities for other areas with similar risks to copy strategies and governances procedures that might reduce the vulnerability. For doing this, we use the already existing results of the ENHANCE case studies and try to elaborate on them generic indicators. We analyse the cultures of risk management using three main theoretical pathways: the cultural theory of risk, the protection motivation theory and the framing theory. We test our hypothesis and analyse risk perception exemplary in the case study of the Júcar River Basin. In D4.2 we will analyse the remaining ENHANCE case studies. Our aim is to develop the basis for providing criteria to analyse the regional culturally embedded perception of natural hazards (economic- and human-) resources and resource interests as well as analyse the recent handling of risk events by looking at the culture of risk management in ENHANCE. As already explained, these criteria might help other areas in Europe with similar contexts and risk to develop similar risk management strategies. In the later deliverables of this work package we will extrapolate the insight of this project and will provide means for analysing the cultures of risk in other EU countries and contexts. We will produce a European risk landscape including risk networks and cascades attached to existing sustainable management practices and MSPs.


2 Risk in the context of Multi-Sector Partnerships

A disaster is the result of insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with potential negative consequences (UNISDR, 2009). The risk of natural hazards, that might become disasters, is influenced by social, political and economic issues, but depending on the perceptions of people the degree of risk is considered high or low. Every social group has different perceptions and responses in a different way to risk. Thus, it is necessary to understand risk as a mental construction, because risk is a cognitive conception. Risk means different things to different people. Actions and understanding about risk are learned by socially and culturally structured conceptions and evaluations of the world and how it might be. An important aspect is not only to identify which form the cultural and social embedding of risk, but also to identify which characteristics that are in place when individuals and communities act and deal with the risk of natural hazards. This is not only important in the context of individuals, but also regarding social groups, as for example Multi-Sector Partnerships (MSP).

There are differences in the understanding of risk between the broader public and experts. The second considers risk as synonymous with the product of the probability of harm and the extent of harm, e.g. expected mortality. Regarding this understanding, experts try often to change people´s attitudes and perceptions (P. Slovic, 1999). The key element is not to change these attitudes but to learn from them; important is to include them in the risk management process.

Human beings understand risk from two points of view that are not mutually exclusive: The analytic and the experiential view. The first one is normative and requires a conscious control bringing logic, reason and scientific deliberation to deal with hazard management. The second one refers to the intuitive reactions to danger. This one, remains today as a most common way to respond to risk (P. Slovic, Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.G., 2004). The experiences determine in many cases the responses to current risks. And these experiences are closely related to the perceptions of risk. Perception is our sensory experience of the world around us, that is, the way you think about or understand something; and involves both the recognition of environmental stimuli and actions in response to these stimuli. Cognitive psychologists consider that perceptions are formed by common sense reasoning, personal experience, social communication and cultural traditions (Aven, 2010).

In ENHANCE, our focus is on MSPs. To analyse the perception of risk within the MSPs, we need to deal with the experiences, knowledge, preparedness strategies, responses and beliefs that they have.


2.1 Assessing risk in MSPs. Scholars views on risk

Risk can be defined broadly as the combination of the probability of the occurrence of an event and its negative consequences (UNISDR, 2009), due to hazardous physical events interacting with vulnerable social conditions, leading to widespread adverse human, material, economic, or environmental effects that require immediate emergency response to satisfy critical human needs and that may require external support for recovery (IPCC, 2012). In other words, this is the result of the combination of hazard, vulnerability and exposure Figure 1. Exposure and vulnerability are key determinants of disaster risk and of impacts when hazard is realized. They are dynamic varying across temporal and spatial scales, and depend on economic, social, geographic, demographic, cultural, institutional, governance, and environmental factors (high confidence). Individuals and communities are differentially exposed and vulnerable based on inequalities expressed through levels of wealth and education, disability, and health status, as well as gender, age, class, and other social and cultural characteristics (IPCC, 2012). Because of this, the perceptions vary among people.

Figure 1: Disaster Risk (adapted from: IPCC, 2012)

In our understanding ‘risk’ refers more to the psychological and mental construction of the risk. As we introduced on the working paper D.2.1 of the ENHANCE project (Máñez Costa, 2013), in ENHANCE it is important to note that risk is understood differently across people and sectors. This is the result of different mental constructions from the perception of each affected person and their interpretations and responses. Those depend on social, political, economic and cultural contexts and judgments (comp. Luhmann, 1993; UNISDR, 2009). It is important to include different points of view for successful risk management processes, due to multiple differences in interpretation of


risks and their impacts among different actors as well as among different sectors or institutions. The society and the parties involved in the case studies of the ENHANCE project will be willing to act in the face of natural disasters or not, depending on how they perceive hazards (P. Slovic, 2000).

In the case of the ENHANCE project, the perception depends on the parties involved directly or indirectly in its case studies. In many cases, the negative consequences of the likelihood that an event occurs could not represent the same for all the people involved in this event. This depends on the differences in the perception of risk and the culture of risk management of the particular area. Taking into account that it does not exist a risk understanding for everybody, we are going to identify in this working paper criteria which can allow us to analyse and define different risk perceptions. Moreover, it is important to consider the different kinds of risks depending on the different hazards and perceptions that people have about risk.

As we mentioned in the introduction of this section 0, risk mean different things for different people and depends on the perception of risk that they have. Decision making differs also depending on the faced risk. Decision making processes determines a manager’s adjustment to natural hazards. For instance, a way of considering risk perception can be determined by comparing perceived risk to frequency of death (P. Slovic, 2000) or to economic losses, etc. This kind of measurement is done by the axiomatic measurement paradigm. Since axiomatic means self-evident, the axiomatic measurement perspective is the way to combine objective risk information and the possibility of happening. This perspective considers risk as a function of attributes of risky options that are described as probability distributions over possible outcomes (Weber, 2001). The axiomatic measurement approach permits us to prove mathematically that the structure is closely similar to some numerical structure (Luce, 1981). It is the reason of determining the risk degree looking at the mortality rate or at the financial losses. The Oxford dictionary of psychology define the axiomatic measurement theory as a branch of mathematics and mathematical psychology concerned with the correspondence between measurements of psychological or other attributes and the attributes themselves.


Paradigms for defining risk

Risk perception can be understood under different theoretical approaches, which help us to define risk. The perception of risk depends on perceived personal control or the familiarity of the risk situation (Aven, 2010). Some risk situation similar to previous ones, make easier the control of the current situation and decrease the risky sense. With the three following approaches, we provide a more clear view on how to define risk.


Looking at the literature and at the different kind of risk understanding, it is challenging to encompass in a unique concept. We should not consider risk only at the probabilities and consequences. Risk differs among cultures, and their appraisals are related to different factors such as the causes, benefits, context, circumstances or harm. We are using the second paradigm for the analysis of the cultures of risk in ENHANCE, the socio-cultural paradigm. With this, we acknowledge that is the perceived risk, rather than the actual one, people act upon.

2.1.1 Risk characteristics and Factors influencing risk perception in MSPs

Several factors determine how the risk is seen by people and organizations. Individuals, institutions, communities or societies may perceive risks differently, due to diverse cultures or beliefs.

In this working paper, we refer to the perception of risk specifically in Multi-Sector Partnerships; that is, perceptions of institutions. It is a challenge, to separate individuals from institutions beliefs. But people involved in partnerships respond to the ideas of these partnerships. In this way, we look for factors which describe risk in a MSP or influence the perception of risk. The aim is to facilitate the development of a criteria list which will allows us to describe risk cultures. We will refer to this in particular in section 3.4.

Slovic presents a variety of factors to judge risk. Studies demonstrate that factors as sex, race, politics, education, emotional affect and trust, are correlated with risk judgments of experts as well as of broad public (P. Slovic, 1999). For instance, studies have documented that men tend to judge risks smaller and less problematic than women do. But in our case, Multi-Sector Partnership is understood by ENHANCE as voluntary but enforceable commitments between public authorities, private enterprises and civil society organizations across sectors. They can be temporary or long-lasting. They will be founded on principles of sharing the same goal in order to reduce risks and gain mutual benefit. In some cases, they might be enforced by law. Partnerships involve a shift in governance structures and the implied acquisition of competencies typically derived from governmental structures (Máñez Costa, 2013). We focus on institutions (as described in D2.3)and it is important to depersonalize the opinion.

Factors that also influence the perception of risk in a MSP are: 1) the duration of a hazard, giving the degree of harm; 2) the acceptability of risk or recognition of impacts; 3) economic losses or death people (see section 2.1); 4) studies on return periods; 5)


access to existing information about risk; 6) education programs; 7) vulnerability; and/or 8) absence of preparedness. For instance, if a MSP, located in an area where is usual to have storm surge, has a prepared response to this event, the level of resilience might be high and thus the level of vulnerability decrease. This MSP might perceive a low risk. They may see the natural hazard, but not consider it an important risk.

Within ENHANCE we refer to natural risk, that is the probability of harm to human health, property or the environment posed by any aspect of the physical world other than human activity. We can also consider ecological risk as defined by McDaniels et al. in 1995 as “uncertain potential for harm to the health and productivity of natural environments” (McDaniels, 1995). The previous author considers five factors when talk about ecological risk. These factors are impact on species, human benefits, impacts on humans, avoidability (in which is include the natural hazards) and knowledge of impacts.

2.1.2 Multi-Sector Partnerships in ENHANCE

Due to the fact that we pursue the aim to identify and analyse risk management cultures in ENHANCE but specifically within the Multi-Sector Partnerships which are part of the different case studies, we present below a short analysis of the MSPs (defined in section 2.1.1). The ENHANCE project has ten case studies with several Multi-Sector Partnerships (see Error! Reference source not found.). The objective of this section is to know if the MSPs of the ENHANCE case studies fit with the concept defined by ENHANCE. In order to respond the cited objective, we have broken down the definition of MSP into a list of characteristics, which can be seen in the following matrix (Error! Reference source not found.). Table 1: Case studies ENHANCE

Case study

number

Name of Case study

1 Climate variability and technological risk in the Po river basin (Italy) 2 Drought management in Jucar River Basin District (Spain) 3 Risk culture, perception, and storm surge management (North Sea coast) 4 Flood risk and climate change implications for MSPs. The case of London (United Kingdom) 5 Health preparedness and heat wave response plans (Europe) 6 Air industry response to volcanic eruptions (Iceland, and Europe) 7 Insurance and forest fire resilience in Chamusca (Portugal) 8 Flood risk management for Critical infrastructure (The Netherlands) 9 Building railway transport resilience to alpine hazards in Austria (Alpine region, Central Europe) 10 Testing the Solidarity Fund for Romania and Eastern Europe


A MSP should be voluntary and more than an obligatory commitment as we can observe in case studies (CS) such as the North Sea case study (CS 3) or in the case study of The Netherlands. This voluntary commitment appears with the idea of achieving some determinants aims between differing of institutions interested in solving a specific issue. But sometimes the commitment does not emerge until the government intervenes. Being in this case a mandatory arrangement enforced by law, as in the case studies of Portugal and Romania. Nevertheless the two above characteristics are not complementary, because for example in the River Po case study, MPSs are set up voluntarily but also there are some aspects that are mandatory by law. The MSPs, as its name express, are shaped by different sectors. We understand by sector two aspects. On the one hand, sector understood as public or private organizations, included civil society. And on the other hand, sector understood as economic sectors (e.g. agricultural sector or industrial sector). In the first understanding, the MSPs in ENHANCE are shaped in all the case studies by public-private partnerships, which involve a contract between a public sector authority and a private party. But also existing partnerships set up by civil society, for example in the case study of Health preparedness and heat waves response plans (CS 5), where the population is involved in the problem, as well as in the North Sea case study in which NGOs represent part of the society. Regarding the economic sectors present in the MSPs, a variety of them might be included. This is the cases of Jucar River Basin case study, in which the identified MSPs are set up by a diversity of sectors, as might be, agricultural partnerships or the hydroelectricity company among others. Sometimes a partnership is shaped only by one sector, in this case, it is not considered as a multi-sector; but it is part of the bigger MSP as a partner. We can call this kind of relation as nested partnerships. Our definition of MSP considers the commitments, through which are created the MSPs, as enforceable contracts between partners; every partnership ought to have this workable commitment for develop its work. But the true is that not every MSP analysed in ENHANCE accomplish this characteristic as in the case study of Testing the Solidarity Fund for Romania and Eastern Europe (CS 10). The MSPs can be temporary, in which case the MSP comprises a short period of time (creates only when an emergency scenario appear); or long-lasting, in this case the MSP have been created for long time (e.g. historically founded or it is many years working


on). In the case study of Jucar River exist a historically tradition to management hydrological issues even during the no dry period (River Basin District Authority) and to cope to drought events (Permanent Drought Commission). The last one MSP is focused on drought subjects and is shaped only during the drought period. Therefore this MSP is temporary. In other cases, the MSPs are only temporary or long-lasting (e.g. Iceland case study). A crucial characteristic in a MSP is to share the same goal, although the manner to achieve it differs. As can be seen in the following matrix, every MSP in each case study have this quality, as well as the characteristic of reducing risk by implementing emergency measures, preparedness strategies, policy measures, etc.; every MSP in ENHANCE work to develop some of these strategies. And finally, a MSP should has a particular governance structures. It refers to the acquisition of competencies, if there are strong governance structures it will have acquisition of competencies. Governance structures refers to the control of the process of collective action, where members are linked to one another and coordinated in their action in such a way that commonly held or developed aims and objectives to the mutual benefit of the MSP. It is based on the interdependence and resource dependencies of the members which are supported by a system of rules, norms, conventions, etc. (comp. Fürst, 2003; Rhodes, 1997). Not all the cases in ENHANCE have this characteristic. One good example it is the case study of Jucar River Basin. This MSP has a strong governance structures shaped by years working on risk management. The MSP members are coordinated towards common aims through a system of norms and action protocols.


Table 2: ENHANCE MSPs characteristics matrix Characteristics

MSP ENHANCE Case Studies (CS)

CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4 CS 5 CS 6 CS 7 CS 8 CS 9 CS 10

Voluntary

Public

Public-Private

Private

Civil society

Enforceable commitment

(workable)

Temporary

Long-lasting

Sharing same goal (mutual

benefit)

Reducing risk (Emergency measures…)

Enforced by law

(mandatory)

Include different sectors

Strong Governance structures

(Coordination, supported by a

system of rules, norms,

conventions…)

()

2.2 Risk inside of the ENHANCE case studies

The first step in defining risk in a general way is to differentiate between the concept and understanding of risk and hazard. Most of individuals misunderstand the meaning of risk, understanding risk as the hazard that mainly occurs in their areas,. For example, a group of people that understand risk as storm surges, it is because they consider the natural hazard that mainly occurs in their region as risk. But risk does not mean exactly


hazard, risk is the combination between the vulnerability, the hazard event and the mental construction of individuals (perceptions). If the natural threat happens but the people is very resilient and copes with the consequences that could have harmed this people, it cannot be considered this situation as a risk, although the hazard event has occurred. It is the reason because risk is not necessary the same as a hazard.

Below we present in coloured text-boxes a variety of understandings of Risk (Error! Reference source not found.) provided by the case studies. These understandings have been obtained through a questionnaire1 implemented in summer 2013. The question How do you understand risk taking into account the case study area? It is used in this section in order to explain the concept of risk within ENHANCE.

1

Questionnaire on CULTURES OF RISK AND PARTNERSHIP, in which some case studies of ENHANCE responded questions such as, How do you understand risk taking into account the case study area?. August 2013, part of deliverable 2.3 (WP2 of ENHANCE).

Case study 1 The case study in River Po basin (Italy) is highly exposed to climatologic, hydrological and geophysical risks. Risk is the combination of the probability of a hazardous event and its negative consequences (measured as a susceptibility to harm or vulnerability). Depending on the purpose of the assessment, the risk analysis may need to take into account the resilience or coping capacity the affected community,

Case study 2 The river Júcar basin (Spain) is subject to main natural hazards, floods and droughts. Risk is considered to be the probability of occurrence and the consequences of a certain event with a determined magnitude. This, translated to drought risk at the Jucar River case study, is the probability of having a certain storage level at reservoirs at the beginning and end of irrigation campaigns and the probability of having deficits of different magnitudes at demands. A risk that is also important is related to quality of water both for environmental purposes and drinking water plants operation. Regarding floods, the concept of risk is pretty similar. The combination of the probability that a flood occurs and the possible

Case study 3 The most prominent hazards in the Wadden Sea Area (Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands) are storm surges, but also heavy rain events and risk related to changes in groundwater level will be included in the research as well as heavy storm events. Risk is understood as a result from the hazard multiplied by vulnerability (UNISDR, 2004). Handling the risk, especially of storm surges along the North Sea Coast, is strongly effected by statistical methods to calculate the risk (calculation of the design level of storm surge protection facilities). Reactions within the population on hazard events like storm surges and heavy rainfall events are strongly related to their personal risk perception In terms of storm surges risk perception and

Case study 4 The definition and understanding of risk may differ across stakeholders. Flood risk is a major issue for London (United Kingdom). ‘Flood risk’ has historically been seen in the context of coastal and river flooding, but recent events are slowly triggering a change to also consider surface water flooding. The London case study will investigate the existing public-private flood insurance partnership and the

Case study 6 The risk that is considered in the case study of Air industry response to volcanic eruptions (Iceland) somewhat complicated because the notion of risk involves both the direct risk of plane crashes but also the negative impacts from a response to a volcanic ash eruption, such as the specification of no-flight zones. The main task in the risk management is to determine the no-flight threshold for ash concentration. If the threshold is set very low and all flights are grounded, the flight risk due to a continuing eruption is effectively eliminated. But the negative impacts of grounding all air traffic have to be considered. There is a direct risk to human life in this case as well, for example due to the inability to travel or transport necessary goods in a timely fashion, e.g. hospital or other emergency care.


Figure 2: Risk views in ENHANCE project Risk could be defined as the linking between threat, possible exposure and increased vulnerability; and not the impact lived in itself (see orange text-box, the case study 1). A threat is, for example, the possibility that a flood event happens. But if there is no vulnerability to this threat, the risk situation does not exist. In case study 3, it can be seen a clear definition of this, understanding risk as a result from the hazard multiplied by vulnerability (UNISDR, 2004). Therefore the risk is not the flood in itself; flood in this case is better defined as a hazard. Risk happens when the flood occurs and the individuals are not well prepared, loss their properties or even their lives, etc. (negatives consequences that affect them due to they are vulnerable). As in the example of the text-box purple (Case study 2), the risk translated to drought hazard at the Jucar River case study, is the probability of having a certain storage level at reservoirs at the beginning and end of irrigation campaigns and the probability of having deficits of different magnitudes at demands.

There are a wide variety of risk understandings within ENHANCE. As well as in society, the understanding depends on the focused hazard or on the perspective. Depending on the lifetime experience of a person, her/his response to hazard might change. If a person is used to a specific hazard, a new impact of the same hazard might not affect him/her. If the same person is not use to a particular hazard, the probability of not being able to respond is very high. As illustrate the case study 3, experiences of individuals but

Case study 9 The case study of railway transport resilience to alpine hazards in Austria will focus on floods, avalanches and rock falls. All three natural events damaged Austrian railway infrastructure in the past. However, avalanches and rock falls do not play a role along the track section of the ’Nordbahn’ since it is a lowland region. Along the track section of the ’Westbahn’, ‘Nordbahn’ and the ’Arlbergbahn’ all three types of natural hazards are relevant. The risk reduction measures include technical and forestry measures. Measures are also the creation of hazard maps, the operation of a weather warning system and an avalanche warning service and the implementation of risk analyses.

Case study 10 The attention in the case study of the Solidarity Fund for Romania is paid in flooding and seismic risk since those are two major sources of damages in Romania. Large areas in this country are exposed to floods. In this case, home insurance is a tool for protection against this risk. Specialists consider that by pricing risk, insurance provides incentives for reducing risks and adapting to climate change (Linnerooth-Bayer, 2009). The specialists consider that increasing exposure appears to affect flood risks at least as much as climate change and in this case adaptation or risk reduction measures would be the most effective response to reduce flood risks (Bouwer, 2010). A study related to flood insurance revealed that the main reasons why people choose not to insure can be loosely grouped into three categories: 1) psychological defence mechanisms 2) varying degrees of perception of one’s vulnerability, and 3) economics. The same study finds that one of the major reasons that ‘risk-takers’ do not purchase coverage is due to the fact that they


also experiences of the community, formed over decades and centuries are decisive for taking actions. These experiences are the ways of life of these people and their connected viewpoints (Douglas, 1982). We assume that they construct the risk perception of the community through these lived experiences. In the case study of volcanic eruptions affecting air industry (CS-6), we can observe also the differences in conception of what is the risk faced. These differences between the notions of risk depends on the cultural biases in which individuals are identified, as forward we are going to present in the Cultural Theory of risk. As in the yellow text-box it can be seen, the responsible air companies perceived the risk as the danger to flying after a big grey cloud formed by the eruption of a volcano, but there are also people in hospitals that see a risk because the medicines or another emergency care are not going to arrive on time. This means that every individual or group perceive risk differently regarding to the priorities that they make, the experiences undergone or even the cognitions about the understanding of risk for them. If they realize that the behaviour they are carrying out is a maladaptive behaviour, they could adopt a protective behaviour facing the risk. Risk also is related to uncertainty, in other words, the likelihood of something happening and the severity of the consequences if it happens. The consequences differ with respect to the value given by the individuals. The outcome caused is uncertain because we normally do not know the consequence of a risk event. In the case study of London the risk is seen historically in the context of coastal and river flooding and nowadays is changing to also include surface water flooding. This means the traditional way of dealing with the flooding is obsolete. There are hazards that not only threaten a small area or specific community; they provoke cascading effect, like our case study 6 that focuses on air industry response to volcanic eruptions. In this case study the affected sectors go from national to international. We find risk reduction measures for all those threats but not specifically risk management. Risk reduction is understood as a systematic reduction in the extent of exposure to a risk and/or the likelihood of its occurrence; that is, to reduce the severity of the loss or the likelihood of the loss. With risk management we mean the systematic approach and practice of managing uncertainty to minimize potential harm and loss. This comprises risk assessment and analysis, and the implementation of strategies and specific actions to control, reduce and transfer risks (UNISDR, 2009).


In the case of Romania (text-box green, CS-10), a risk reduction measure against the risk situation is home insurances. They justify this by citing: “pricing risk, insurance companies provides incentives for reducing risks and adapting to climate change” (Linnerooth-Bayer, 2009); insurance usually shares/transfers risks – but there is, at least in theory, the chance to also use it to incentivise risk reduction (comp. S. Surminski, and Eldridge, J., 2014; S. Surminski, and Oramas-Dorta, D., 2013). On the other hand, some measures taken in the case study 9 (Alpine hazards in Austria, text-box pink) are the creation of hazard maps or the operation of an avalanche warning service and the implementation of risk analyses.

2.3 Insurance view on risk

Many MSPs are framed in the context of insurance companies, public bodies and private sector. The concept of risk layering stays at the level of insurances and re-insurances but they cannot be detached from the insured population or public sector. The insurance sector reacts differently to others and has already a long history of compliance with risk. As for example, the insurance industry has developed a very distinctive view of risks: a particular risk, such as an earthquake hitting a specific location, is broken down into different frequency and severity segments. This ‘risk layering’ sets the foundation for identifying risk management strategies appropriate for the specific risk level. This risk management strategies give the frame for MSPs in this sector. Economist Makaudze defines risk layering as “the proportional division of the risk burden amongst interested parties…with each shouldering what each one is capable of bearing” (Makaudze, 2012). This definition fits very well with the definition of Multi Sector Parnerships (MSPs). In its broadest sense risk layering is about diversifying financial risk by having multiple different parties hold onto different levels of risk. For example, let’s say there is a 1 in 100 chance that there will be an earthquake that causes 1 million USD of damage and a 1 in 1000 chance there will be an earthquake that causes 100 million USD. There will be one party that takes on the 1 million USD risk and another that takes on the 100 million USD risk (CCRIF, 2013). Someone will be holding the tail financial risk, whereas another party will be holding the financial risk closer to the median.

Risk layering relies upon building up ‘excedence loss curves’ that calculate the odds of loss events of varying financial magnitude. Reinsurance has four basic functions: (1) increasing capacity to write insurance (2) stabilizing financial results against spikes from realized financial losses (3) protecting against catastrophic losses and (4) financing


growth. The insurer pays premiums to the reinsurer in a similar manner as any other insurance policy holder (Raim, 2007). In the CCRIF case, reinsurers are insurers of losses above $25 million USD. They together with the people of institutions insured build a MSP. Risk management measures of this kind of MSPs are manifold. Reinsurance is one product used for funding losses above a certain threshold, however, Catastrophic Bonds, or CAT-Bonds are being developed to try and create more liquidity in the market for tail end risk. These bonds only pay out after a certain catastrophic event has happened. For example, it may pay out if there is an earthquake that causes more than $100 million USD damage in a given city. While they may be able to replace reinsurance in emerging markets that lack access to reinsurance facilities, the CAT-bond market is still underdeveloped and underutilized (Ossa, 2013). Catastrophic bonds are focused on tail end risk, which are becoming a greater concern in weather related disaster insurance. In these contexts, the term ‘risk layering’ is used in a more macro sense. Risk layering means divvying up the pie of risk to completely separate institutions. A simple example elucidates this point. Assume one is thinking about the distribution of rainfall over a given region in a year. An index insurance product could be designed so that if the amount of rain in a given region falls below some pre-determined level than insurer holders will get compensated. Figure 2 shows a sample distribution of rainfall in that given area by rainfall levels. The distribution is divided into three different layers: (1) Risk Retention Layer (2) Market Insurance Layer (3) Market Failure Layer. The Risk Retention Layer are those risks that are self-insured. The Market Insurance Layer are those risks that are insured by the insurance company, be it public and/or private. The Market Failure Layer are those tail risks that cannot be insured but will have to be dealt with by some organization, usually disaster clean-up efforts led by the public sector (Swiss Re, 1996). In this case, layering is about divvying up the distribution of risks to different partners of a MSP, to allow future disasters to be addressed in an equitable manner.


Figure 2: Sample Distribution of Rainfall (source: Swiss Re, 1996)

In addition to the application of risk layering by insurance companies the concept also offers a method to identify the roles that can be played by different partners of a MSP. The MCII proposal for climate insurance outlines this as follows (Warner, 2013) –Figure 3. Here the different risk segments are linked to risk management approaches: prevention and reduction for high frequency and low severity events, risk transfer for the less frequent and more severe events. The concept also points to so-called ‘residual risks’ beyond risk transfer, which will require other response methods, such as policies or public compensation schemes. For MSPs this concept is of interest as it may allow a breakdown of risk and response mechanisms by stakeholders and/or instruments. One challenge with risk layering is that it provides a snapshot of risk. The dynamics of risk levels such as changes due to climate change, population growth or economic development need to be reflected in the loss curve.

Figure 3: Risk Layering approach to support decision –making (source: Warner, 2013)


3 Identifying risk cultures

It is important to define what is risk culture and why are we interesting in that. In ENHANCE, as it was several times mentioned, the goal is to enhance risk management partnerships for catastrophic natural disasters in Europe. In order to enhance risk management, we need before to understand which kind of risk management cultures exist for catastrophic disasters. Therefore, our interest is to analyse the cultures of risk management in the ENHANCE case studies and the likelihood to extend the criteria for analysing cultures of risk to other cases in Europe through the UNISDR web-platform. To reach the aim of analysing risk management cultures, first of all it is central to identify these cultures and understand why they are important for dealing with and for improving risk management. Risk is a collective and cultural construction (Douglas, 1982) (see 2.1). Following this concept for understandings and defining risk in every context, we study the perception of risk that MSPs have in each case. Understanding risk perception means to recognize and to accept the social dimension of risk, since perception is a social phenomenon and not individual. Risk perception is a social process at the same time that is a cultural construction (García Acosta, 2005). Why cultural? Because the culture is a determinant in the social construction of risk perception. Therefore, the risk perceived creates a social construct and shared understanding of risk according the societies’ beliefs and experiences. In some cases, in which the population is used to particular extreme events, e.g. droughts, they might have internalised them and might not consider droughts as a risk. For them it is not risky to live with droughts, it is a situation that they are living for many years or centuries and they have normalized it; it is part of their environment. It is for this reason that we cannot only consider the natural hazards as a risk but understand the risk through the perception and meaning given by the people which are living in a particular area. This belongs to their culture, as a part of their beliefs and experiences and the legacy which has been inherited generation after generation. Risk is thus the product of shared beliefs and values (Douglas, 1982). For analysing the cultures of risk, we will use following theories and will contextualized them for ENHANCE.

3.1 Cultural theory of risk

Research to identify factors that explain individual perception of risk has been dominated by the psychometric paradigm, which, as noted section 2.1, is rooted in psychology and focuses predominantly on cognitive factors, such as the voluntariness or control of the risk (P. Slovic, 1987). This perspective, however, neglects social influences


on risk perception, which have become increasingly important in risk research. Originating in the work of anthropologist Mary Douglas and political scientist Aaron Wildavsky (1982), the cultural theory of risk, often referred to simply as Cultural Theory, is a conceptual framework that seeks to explain conflicting perceptions of risk and, consequently, societal conflict over risk. Cultural Theory asserts that structures of social organization endow individuals with perceptions that reinforce those structures in competition against alternative ones. Since social structures compete to advance their interests and worldviews, and perceive risk in this competition, we can expect that Multi-Sector Partnerships (MSPs) will find resonance mainly among those institutions that share a common worldview or culture. We will say more about this after briefly explaining the premises underlying Cultural Theory. In their early work, Douglas and Wildavsky (1982)maintained that cultural “ways of life and affiliated outlooks” can be characterized along two dimensions: group and grid. A “high group” way of life exhibits a high degree of collective control compared to a “low group”, which exhibits an emphasis on individual self-sufficiency. A “high grid” way of life is characterized by conspicuous and durable forms of stratification in roles and authority, whereas “low grid” reflects a more egalitarian ordering. From this typology, four different cultural biases emerge – hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism and fatalism, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Figure 5: Cultural biases.

High group

High grid

Low group

Low grid

Hierarchy

Individualism Fatalism

Egalitarianism


Hierarchical organization functions only with unequal social relations and thrives on controlling nature through, for example, rules and regulations. The world and nature, in the hierarchical solidarity, is stable until pushed beyond limits, and hierarchical institutions are there to assure that system lies within these limits, that is, they thrive on control, and for this reason they exhibit a process versus outcome rationality. Individualists and their organizations, alternatively, have little sympathy for hierarchical structures or group attachments and view nature as benign and resilient. They favor market organization and oppose regulations, unless the rules serve to correct “market failures“. In contrast to hierarchical organizations with their procedural rationality, individual organizations display what might be viewed as outcome rationality, where costs, benefits and tradeoffs are part of their discourse. As the third cultural perspective, egalitarians also reject hierarchical structures, but having high identification regarding group relations, they establish their solidarity with a commitment to equality of opportunity and outcome, and view nature as fragile, intricately interconnected and ephemeral. Egalitarian organizations tend to justify their policy stances on moral grounds, and typically favour holistic policy solutions. As the fourth solidarity, fatalists are low on both grid and group, and regard nature as random and capricious. They are generally absent from policy discourses. Individuals associated or identifying with each of the four solidarities perceive risks differently. Persons with hierarchical orientation (or those adopting the discourse of hierarchical institutions) tend to trust the organizations that are responsible for controlling the risk (and their network of experts) and because of this trust tend to view risks as manageable and not threatening. Individualists, alternatively, are greatly distrustful of controlling institutions, and they rely more comfortably on individual ingenuity, as for example embodied in technological innovation. It is up to each person to decide for himself or herself how to cope, and with this self-assurance, risk can become opportunity. Alternatively, persons with egalitarian orientation (or participating in an egalitarian discourse) are distrustful of both hierarchy and markets, and they tend to perceive risks, especially those created or amplified by anthropogenic causes, as catastrophic and often irreversible. Although organizations typically have a dominant or hegemonic rationality or perspective, they typically exhibit a mix of cultures internally (not always, however, and especially not with regard to some “deep” environmental groups). Multiple internal risk cultures was shown by Underwood et al, who examined insurance companies for the


risk cultures of the internal management teams, noting that “Risk Culture is not simply “black/white, on/off.” Almost all companies will find each of these four risk preferences within their staff, and most within their management team” (Underwood, 2013).

3.1.1 Example: Cultural Theory applied to landslide risk in Nocera Inferiore

To illustrate the Cultural Theory of risk in an example, we describe a recent study on public views on mitigating landslide risk in the Italian town of Nocera Inferiore. This study is based on stakeholder interviews and a public questionnaire, three active discourses for how best to reduce landslide risk emerged. The first discourse, labelled safety first, was more hierarchical than the others in that it emphasized the importance of expert-derived safety, in this case in the form of top-down structural mitigation measures such as concrete barriers. Available public resources should ensure the greatest protection possible, that is, the public authorities with their experts should be in charge. Risks are perceived as serious, but manageable from the top. The second discourse – careful stewardship of the mountain – was more egalitarian, with its greater emphasis on natural engineering measures, such as planting trees to act as landslide barriers, as well as an equitable sharing of the risk. Risks are perceived as threatening and urgent, and also as immorally imposed by market actors and incompetent regulatory institutions. Due especially to environmentally detrimental anthropogenic practices, such as building roads, industrial activities and also climate change, the mountain had become subject to dangerous landslides. Not only must the residents be protected, but also the natural cycles and the evolving mountain terrain should be respected. This meant taking a more holistic and ecological view of the mountain and its maintenance. Expensive structural passive measures, according to this discourse, would only aggravate the ecological problems and were viewed as unnecessary. The third discourse – rational choice – was more individualistic in that it emphasized tradeoffs and the right of citizens to decide, along with the costs of the proposed measures in relation to their social benefits. Risks are perceived as relative to other risks, and taking account of tradeoffs in allocating resources for their reduction is paramount. Re-locating residents, for instance, may be more cost effective than expensive mitigation measures (an argument that would fit uncomfortably in the other discourses). But the relocation should be achieved by household choice, spurred by


economic incentives (such as high insurance premiums). The three discourses and where they are approximately located in the cultural theory framework are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Three discourses characterizing the landslide risk mitigation debate

As was evident in Nocera Inferiore, discourses on risk and its mitigation are intertwined with social networks and organization, or culture, and they are perceived in a way that reinforces the solidarity of their cultural group identity. For example, government officials and those operating in its regulatory bodies are prone to perceive risk as controllable since they are in the business of control. Egalitarians (often the environmental NGOs), whose organizational solidarity stands in competition to hierarchy, reinforce their group commitment by emphasizing the failure and limits of control, and thus the lurking catastrophic nature of the risk. In other words, structures of social organization endow individuals with perceptions that reinforce those structures in competition with alternative ones.

3.1.2 Cultural theory of risk in Multi-Sector Partnership

Understanding the pluralistic cultures associated with natural hazard risk management can give critical insights on the functioning of Multi-Sector Partnerships. As the Nocera Inferiore case illustrates, the authorities, enterprises and civil society organizations (and the public) may share the same goal to reduce risk and gain mutual benefits, but they typically have very different views on how to achieve this goal. As we argue below, this does not mean that partnerships are not feasible, but they cannot be founded on the idea of reaching a common view of the “best” policy path. Rather, if they can exist at all, they will be “clumsy” partnerships based on compromise as opposed to consensus views.


By compromise or clumsy solution we mean trading off interests and valued outcomes for the purpose of arriving at a common recommendation for policy action. Alternatively, by reaching consensus we mean changing participants’ preferences and values so that a common outcome is arrived at without significant tradeoffs or sacrifices. We illustrate by returning to the Nocera Inferio case, where the discourses informed a two-year analytical-deliberative participatory process. This process stood in contrast to many stakeholder processes, which are grounded on consensus building in the belief that participation can lead to a transformation of citizens’ preference by persuasion rather than coercion, manipulation or deception (Dryzek, 2000; van den Hove, 2006). Outcomes are legitimated if they lead to a rationally motivated consensus, and participants strive to harmonize individual and diverging interests and values. In this way, a solution, even if provisional, can be found for every controversy (Habermas, 1983). Alternatively, Cultural Theory and other analysts argue that reaching a consensus by transforming preferences and values through communication and argumentation is neither sustainable nor desirable for reaching a robust policy recommendation(De Marchi, 2003; Rescher, 1995; Thompson, 1990). Since individual preferences are strongly rooted in social interaction, a change in preferences or values without a switch in social context can only be transitory. A main point of departure of the Nocera Inferiore participatory process thus was its focus on reaching a clumsy solution. The idea was to respect the pluralistic views and perspectives of the participants rather than to convince them to change their views, which meant moving from the “contested terrain” characterized by conflicting viewpoints on the landslide problem and its solution to agreement on a compromise. This was accomplished by providing three different expert-designed policy options (emphasizing differently, for example, concrete barriers, planting trees and incentive-based relocation), each of which was considered by the experts to be technically and economically feasible, and at the same time respected the three cultural perspectives. The participants negotiated among the three options to eventually reach a compromise, which was not wholly acceptable to any one stakeholder, but “acceptable enough” to inspire a compromise agreement and move the policy agenda forward. The participatory process in Nocera Inferiore has important implications for the formation of robust MSPs for natural disaster risk management. According to the premises of Cultural Theory, partnerships will be most feasible among organizations with a similar dominating or hegemonic discourse on the seriousness of the risk (risk perception) and its management, for example, a partnership might be feasible among


responsible government agencies and hierarchically organized environmental groups (often conservation societies). They will be far more difficult among persons and organizations with strongly contending perspectives or “cultures”, for example, between market-based enterprises and deep-green environmental groups (e.g., those that believe industrial civilization is endangering the planet). While some coalitions will be simply out of question, there are a range of organizations, even representing different worldviews that could potentially form partnerships. An important principle making this possible is mutual respect for the conflicting views and risk perceptions (without trying to change the partner) and a commitment to a compromise policy path.

3.1.3 Implications of Cultural Theory for ENHANCE research

What are the possible implications of Cultural Theory for ENHANCE? To understand how culture and plural perspectives on risk and hazard influence the formation and robustness of MSPs, we could examine existing MSPs to determine whether they are based on one or multiple cultural perspectives or dominant risk perceptions, and compare them according to their success (or perceived potential for success). The case studies would thus serve as testing grounds or laboratories for a Cultural Theory hypothesis that robust MSPs are based on negotiated clumsy premises and equally clumsy policy paths for dealing with natural disasters, and vice versa for non-robust MSPs.

3.2 Protection Motivation Theory

The Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) has its origin in 1975 based on Leventhal (1970). It was founded by Rogers. But the theory has been revised several times during the last 30 years. Originally, it was proposed to provide conceptual clarity to the understanding of fear appeals. The communication of fear appeal attempts to influence or persuade through the threat of impeding danger or harm (Rogers, 1975). The fear appeals have been found to be effective in producing attitude change. Years later, in 1983, the PMT was revised also by Rogers, who was based on Lazarus (1966). Lazarus distinguished between stopping dangerous behaviour and starting a preventive behaviour. The first one behaviour involves an appraisal of harm and the preventive behaviour involves an appraisal of threat. Behaviour results from expected consequences and perceived value (Leventhal, 1970). This principle was therefore extended to a theory of persuasive communication with emphasis on cognitive process through behavioural changes. Describing adaptive and maladaptive behaviour by means of two processes –Threat appraisal and Coping appraisal-. These two appraisals are


sequential and allow the adoption of protective behaviour facing a threat, in our ENHANCE project, that could be the hazards which MSPs cope with (Figure 5). An appraisal of threat, as Lazarus wrote, is related to a starting preventive behaviour, important issue when we deal with natural hazard, due to the fact that MSP should be prepared to face that risky event. In the original formulation of PMT, a fear appeal communication initiates cognitive appraisal processes concerning the severity of a threatened event, the likelihood of occurrence (vulnerability) of the event and the efficacy of a recommended coping response. These cognitive processes mediate the persuasive effects of fear appeal by arousing protection motivation, am intervening variable that arouses, sustain and directs activity to protect the self from danger (Maddux, 1983). The PMT assumes that these three processes mediate the effects of negative threat appeals on attitudes and intentions by arousing protection motivation(Mulilis, 1990). The revision of the theory, in 1983 by Rogers and based on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977), attempts to offer a more comprehensive model by incorporating self-efficacy expectancy as a fourth cognitive mediating process.

Figure 5: Protection Motivation Theory

In the first stage, the threat appraisal, the person believes a hazard threatens. During this process people evaluate the likelihood of performing protective behaviours, changing undesired behaviour, or both. There are two factors which decrease the adoption of a protective behaviour (extrinsic reward and intrinsic rewards) and two


factors which facilitate this adoption (perceived severity of the hazard and the likelihood of threat). In other words, the threat appraisal refers to the estimation of the chance of suffering a natural disaster (VULNERABILITY) and the estimation of the gravity of a natural disaster (perceived SEVERITY). The second one process, the coping appraisal, is the consequence of seeking possible coping strategies in the face of threat likelihood and perceived hazard severity. The coping appraisal consists in three judgments (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Coping appraisal (adapted from Neuwirth, 2000)

Therefore, in this second stage people consider preventive behaviour, and they do it through a response effectiveness, that is the efficacy of the recommended preventive behaviour; and the self-efficacy, namely, the level of confidence. The self-efficacy expectancy is the most powerful predictor of behavioural intentions. The influence of probability of occurrence and the coping response efficacy depends on an individual’s self-efficacy expectancy, with different patterns of influence emerging with different levels of self-efficacy (Maddux, 1983). Linking the two factors in the coping appraisal with the two factors mentioned above in the threat appraisal, we obtain the four factors that the PMT provides for protecting oneself (Figure 7) (comp. Boer, 1996; Neuwirth, 2000).

Judgments Component PMT

1

2

3


Figure 7: Components of the Protection Motivation Theory.

3.2.1 Protection Motivation Theory in Multi-Sector Partnerships

If we talk about natural hazard the four components of the PMT would be: (1) probability of occurrence, (2) severity of damage, (3) effectiveness of preparation and (4) capacity of preparation (Mulilis, 1990). This process might be follow by individuals or communities needing to cope with a threat. An example of this might be: Imagine a river basin in a region with high climate variability and demand/resource ratio close to 1, the most common natural hazard will be drought. For instance, in the case of a crop area whose whole water demand is supplied from a surface intake coming from a reservoir, the hypothesis could be the likelihood of suffering a decrease in the amount of supply water for irrigating the crops after a dry period. Thereby a MSP, which manages the risk events in the area and is set up by a farmer partnership (watering community), the water supply company and the public hydraulic control in the region, could see as a threat to its likelihood the losing of part or of the whole production as a consequence of an extension of this dry spell. The MSP could realize the severity of the hazard thinking in the likelihood of not having enough water for irrigating the current crops. Despite of this, the farmers could also use the water at present with the current crops and do not think in the future consequences. On the contrary, an efficacy response could be to change the farming by one that needs less water, taking into account a possible drought (self-efficacy). To this coping response, the farmers could see the difference of income due to the change of the crops (response cost), rejecting in this way the preventive behaviour. Within an institution, as it was mentioned above in Cultural Theory section, there is a mix of cultures internally. Therefore a MSP, which should share the same goal to reduce risk and gain mutual benefit, could achieve this goal through very different views on how to do it. According to the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), people and in this case MSPs might first decide whether a threat in the area in which they are involved it is


relevant or not. In the case that it is, they could determine which actions they might take, following the drawing of the threat appraisal and coping appraisal provided by the PMT as it can be seen in the example above. Taking into account that the PMT describes adaptive and maladaptive behaviour through two processes Threat and Coping Appraisal, it is suitable in a MSP to use this theory to cope with future risk events. But also this theory allow us to analyse current MSPs in ENHANCE for determining which kind of risk perception they have and if they are prepared to handle properly the coming risk events. This provides us characteristics of their culture of risk.

3.3 Framing theory

The definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principles of social organization and our subjective involvement in them. The frames are those basic elements that a person is able to identify (Goffman, 1974). Goffman used the idea of frames to label schemata of interpretation that allow individuals or groups to perceive, identify, and define events and occurrences. Quoting Karl Weick from the organizational psychology, frame is understood as sense-making devices that mediate the interpretation of reality by adding meaning to a situation(Weick, 1995). Persons use frames to make sense of the world around us. In other words, frames are a representation of the external world (Tversky, 1981), and respond to how meaning is deduced and how a situation is understood. Framing (ways of knowing) involves shaping, focusing, and organizing the world around us. Framing is thus the activity and process of creating and representing frames, which individuals construct sorting their experience (Gray, 2003). In the interpretative process for helping us to understand what we are experiencing, framing enables individuals to see that the same events make different kinds of sense depending upon the frame applied. The term frame can be replaced with script, or with labels such as representation, argument, or genre (Van Gorp, 2007). We might differentiate between two ways (Figure 8): frames in thought (cognitive approach), consisting of the cognitive representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality; and frames in communication (interactional approach), consisting of the communication of frames between different actors, where frames are interactional constructions. Framing refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon.


Figure 8: Frame approaches

The cognitive approach refers to frames as knowledge structures that help people organize and interpret information perceived. It is worth highlighting that in the ENHANCE project, we understand risk as a mental construction. Here, frames are retrieved from memory to guide interpretation of new experiences. The second approach, the interactional approach, defines framing as the process through which the meaning of a situation is negotiated among different actors. Here, frames are considered as communicative strategies, due to the negotiation among actors is given by a communication that indicates how a situation should be understood (comp. Brugnach, 2008). By this approach, the frames represent ways to make sense of a situation. When two or more people define a situation the same way, it is because they are socially constructing it. Due to this, cultures of risk would be categorized under the understanding of frames as social constructions. This is because the social construction of a situation is closely related to the concept of culture (ways of life); which is shaped by values, beliefs, experiences among actors during a long period of time. In social science, framing refers to a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. With regard to risks, if we frame a risk event, we develop interpretations about what the risk event is about, why it is occurring, the motivations of the parties involved in the risk management, and how the risk is responded. Probably we frame the risk event differently depending on the place where we live or on the beliefs and experiences we underwent (adapt. Gray, 2003). Framing plays an important role in environmental issues


(see Figure 9). They are used in this area to: (1) define the issue: how people perceive environmental risk; (2) shape actions: determinate which actions might be taken and by whom; (3) protect ourselves: right framing; (4) justify our actions: defining our identity and justifying our own behaviour as correct; and (5) mobilize others to take actions: create a common vision.

Figure 9: Frames in environmental issues (adapt. Gray, 2003).

The sociologists of knowledge recognize that to know is to interpret the reality. We might consider framing, as it was mentioned at the beginning of this section, as ways of knowing. All interpretations are necessarily conditioned by the particular society, historical period, and social status from which they originate. In other words, what you see and know depends on who you are, when you are and where you sit (Schön, 1994). Connected to the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), in which a maladaptive behaviour is changed for coping behaviour, the framing theory also try to modify the frames meanings to more positive alternatives. This is called reframing, understood as the way of viewing and experiencing events, ideas, concepts and emotions to find these more positive alternatives. In the context of cognitive reframing, it is referred to as cognitive restructuring. The essential idea behind reframing is that a person point-of-view depends on the frame it is viewed in, the specific way they look at and understand it. When the frame is shifted, the meaning changes and thinking and behavior often change with it.

1

2

3

4

5


Reframing may be closely connected to the last step seen in the Figure 9 -Uses of Frames in environmental issues-, because it describes a technique used to help create a different way of looking at a situation by changing its meaning.

3.4 Criteria for analysing risk perception in MSPs

We analyse risk perception in our case studies through a list of criteria. The list of criteria is developed taking into account risk perception as the judgment of the people about risk, and in the ENHANCE case as the judgment of the people who represent (be part of) the MSPs. This list may describe risk management cultures within MSPs, i.e. the outlook on risk management. Looking at specific criteria, we can describe ways of being (ways of life, as in the Cultural Theory is defined culture) and of behaving which show the characteristics and decision making in a particular management culture. Considering risk, as the result of hazard, vulnerability and exposure (see 2.1), we are analysing MSPs highlighting the type of hazard before to start the description. Also factors that shape the definition of risk are vulnerability and exposure. In order to determinate the vulnerability facing a risk event, we may observe different criteria which allow us the analysis. For example, if we observe a MSP and it is well prepared and knows how to handle appropriate risk events, the degree of vulnerability in the face of risk will be lower. To have the information about the exposure, we focus on the economic, social, or cultural assets that could be adversely affected. This list encompasses a set of elements, which are subdivided in more specific criteria (see Error! Reference source not found.). Table 3: Criteria for analysing Risk Perception in MSPs.

Element

Specific criterion

Hazard Type of hazard Data observation Consequences

Behaviour Attitude Pattern of behaviour

Information and Knowledge

Knowledge Educational level Preparedness strategies Response planning Kind of information (Media)

Participation Participation Cooperation between members/users/parties


Communication (between partners)

Economic issues Economic losses Economic response (insurance)

Political issues Political preference Decision-making Policy options

Coping capacity Experience Rapid Response Recovery Vulnerability Resilience

Share values Values Belief Trust Fear Emotional harm

Perception Uncertainties about the consequences of a risk event Severity Judgment

Challenges

Necessities Preparation Difficulties

To better comprehend the previous criteria list, we present below a brief description of each criterion. Our first element refers to hazard, which kind of natural hazard is given in the analysed area. And how the hazard is represented -data observation- (e.g. reduction of precipitation). Hazard entails possibility of damage, that is, how the MSPs in the case study area consider the damage caused by the hazard, and which sort of consequences (negatives in many cases) happen. The second element we identify is the behaviour as a principal characteristic in a culture. Representing this element, we focus on the attitude, that is, the way an institutional set views something or tends to behave towards it. And the pattern of behaviour refers to the standardized behavioural model (the actions, reactions, or functioning of a system, under normal or specified circumstances) in the MSP of each case study. Next element in the list is information and knowledge, referring here to the knowledge and information given by other through media or learning processes in school or research. We mean Knowledge as the awareness obtained from the educational


system, which also can answer to the level of education; knowledge can also be obtained by social learning. If we consider education as the act or process of acquiring particular knowledge or skills, educational level refers to the degree of knowledge possessed by the majority of people that set up a MSP closely connected to the educational background. Within the knowledge and information element we find also the preparedness strategies, which refer here to the capacity of coping to a natural hazard taking into account the previous awareness on risk management related to a specific hazard and the plans for responding to possible future risk events. The latter regards to the response planning. Finally, the specific criterion called kind of information answer to the sort manner on how the information is obtained; through which via is reached, as for example Media, advertising, online platforms, etc. Following element is participation, understood as the fact of taking part, and if there are an equal opportunity to be part of the process -participation-. A participatory process normally includes the cooperation between members, that is acting and working together for a common purpose or benefit, but not always exist cooperation. Might be a simple collaboration, which achieve a common goal but with difficulties to cooperate among partners. Here it is also important to note the communication between partners, there is not a good participation without communication networks. The fifth element in the list is the economic issue, and it is related to the economic losses, that are the losses which come from material damage caused by natural hazards and the economic response, that is the use of economic instruments or strategies to mitigate the losses (e.g. insurance). Regarding the political element, our focus is on preferences, decision- making and policy options. We mean by political preferences the ideology of the MSP. The decision-making process is one of the central activities of management and is a huge part of any process of implementation. It is the study of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker. Here we emphasize the responsibility of authorities taking potential measures to risk reduction and the knowledge base on decision-making. Right after, we refer as policy options to a variety plans of actions in order to minimise future impacts that government (public-party), public-private parties or private-parties carry out, determining decisions and actions facing risks, that are the measures followed to reduce risk as for example incentives, financial support, taxes to pay or mandatory insurance.


As a coping capacity element, we understand the ability to managing the risk through experience, that is, the awareness provided by last episodes with similarities. Also it is determined through rapid response, understood as the speed to act, and recovery, that is, how the affected people recover themselves and their land, making the authorities easier this recovery. Likewise it is essential to take into account the specific criterion of vulnerability, defined by UNISDR as the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard (UNISDR, 2009). But as Blaikie quoted, the capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a hazard depends on the characteristics of a person or group (Blaikie, 1994).We wonder also about the resilience for responding the coping capacity facing a risk episode; understanding that resilience of a community in respect to potential hazard event is determined by the degree to which the community has the necessary resources and is capable of organizing itself both prior to and during times of need (UNISDR, 2009). Human beings share values in the social life, in the case of ENHANCE we focus on the share values within a partnership, understanding those values as the moral principles and beliefs or accepted standards of a person or social group; they are an important part in the risk perception for determining the culture of risk in the area, because encompass the beliefs, activities, relationships that enable members of society to express and relate. Some examples are cooperation, wisdom or knowledge, participation and communication, etc. but the most important regarding the culture is the tradition. Included in the moral values described, we find as specifics criteria: belief, which refers to the traditional beliefs that the members of a MSP have; trust, which demonstrates the confidence in others; the fear, which refers to the feeling of distress or alarm caused by a harmful situation. That is the fear to face of a natural hazard which can cause losses in the harvest for example. But the harm is not only physical, also can affect to the feelings, as for instance the loss of a house due to a flash-flood. That not only brings economic losses also emotional harm, because the non-market value given to the assets inside is more than the economic value given by the market. Next to the last is found perception. The risk perception, as above mentioned, is the person´s judgment about a risk, thus perception could be understood as the opinion and point of view that a person or group of people have about something. Perception is influenced by uncertainties and severity. Uncertainties about the occurrence of a risk and its consequences and severity of undergoing a risk event and its consequences


(Aven, 2010). Finally, the specific criterion of judgment respond to the appraisal of the parties involved to cope with the hazardous experience. The last element in the aforementioned list are the challenges, defined as the dare whose parties involved ought to cope, taking into account the necessities of the implicated people such as necessity of water for irrigating, the dike building for preventing a flood or the prevention plans for being prepared facing heat-waves among others. And they are also defined taking into account the preparation to face the hazardous event. These challenges can entail difficulties, as perhaps the not suitable response caused by the lack of education plans which teach society to handle the problem.


4 Identifying risk cultures within an MSP of the ENHANCE project

We use one case study of the ENHANCE project, the Júcar River Basin, for identifying their cultures of risk. The river basin is located in Spain, and provides us information on the risk management culture of risk against droughts. This information is obtained looking at the history of past dry periods and at the current assessments of a specific Multi-Sector Partnership (MSP), which manages particularly droughts in the Jucar River Basin District (Figure 10). The study is analysed under the theories presented in sub-sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3; and also using the list of criteria developed in section 3.4.

Figure 10:Júcar River Basin (source: Olaya-Marín, 2012)

4.1 Case study description

The Jucar River Basin District Authority (RBDA) (Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, in Spanish) administers an extension of 42.989 km² including several adjacent basins that flow to the Mediterranean Sea in Eastern Spain. Among the several basins included in the Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar (CHJ) territory, the larger ones are the Jucar River Basin (22.378 km²), and the neighboring Turia River Basin (6.913 km²). The area is located between latitudes 38° and 40° north and enjoys a Mediterranean climate with hot-dry summers and mild winters. The annual average temperatures ranges from 9°C in the Northwest mountainous areas, to 18°C in the Southern coastal part of the basin (CHJ, 2005). The rainfall shows a high spatial and temporal variability. Mean annual precipitation for the whole basin is about 500mm, ranging from 300mm in the driest years to 800mm in the most humid ones. The persistence of dry years produces significant drought periods. Precipitation presents a strong spatial variability. Mean annual values vary from 250mm/year in the South to about 900mm/year in the North of the basin. Annual


average inflows to reservoirs are 1300 hm3/year in Jucar Basin and 285 hm³/year in Turia Basin. Groundwater plays an important role in both basins. Both have large calcareous aquifers in the north-western upper parts, where the rivers are born, providing base flows. There are also important aquifers in the middle part of the Jucar basin, as the Mancha Oriental aquifer that used to provide important base flow to the river, but nowadays it is being overexploited, which is causing the inversion of flows, so the river loses water to the aquifer in spring and summer. And finally, the coastal alluvial aquifer of Plana de Valencia occupies the coastal plain, where both rivers have their lower parts, in their way towards the Mediterranean Sea. Water in both basins is used mainly for urban water supply (including industry supply), irrigation, and hydropower generation. The main urban demands are the metropolitan area of Valencia (30 hm³/year from Turia river, and 90 hm³/year from Jucar river); the city of Albacete (15 hm³/year); and the city of Sagunto (8 hm3/year). Surface water is used in the traditional irrigated areas, mainly in the lower Jucar (50.000 ha), and the lower Turia (30.000 ha), and more recently (20th century) in the middle basin irrigated areas of the Jucar (20.000 ha) and the Turia (20.000 ha). The last ones use frequently groundwater as a supplement of surface water deliveries. Another irrigated area in the middle Jucar basin, reaching to 100.000 ha at present, is using around 400 hm³/year of groundwater from Mancha Oriental aquifer, and at present can use up to 35 hm³/year of surface water in order to reduce the aquifer overexploitation. In the Valencia coastal plain, where rivers Jucar and Turia have their final parts, and between both mouths, there is a shallow lake called Albufera (2.300 ha), with an associated wetland (23.000 ha). Both, the lake and the wetland, depend on return flows from irrigation areas belonging to both basins, and also on groundwater flows from the coastal aquifer beneath the plain. The major modern history drought events have occurred in the last part of the XX and the beginning of XXI centuries (CHJ, 2007), being the most recent the one occurred in 2005-2008 with a classification of extreme event (Andreu, 2009). Analysis of climate change scenarios reveal that this region lays in an interface that will suffer important changes in precipitation and temperature. Most of the global and regional models predict an increase in temperatures, and a decrease in precipitation, with a general increase of variability of the precipitation. Such changes may produce a reduction in hydrological inflows, groundwater recharge, water availability, and more frequent and


intense drought and flood episodes. Moreover, we can foresee increased salinity in the coastal aquifer, increased water quality problems, and strong social and economic implications (Hernández-Barrios, 2007). Historically, the most severe impacts have been on all sectors. Currently, they concentrate mostly on agriculture and hydroelectricity, since urban water supply and environmentally sensitive have priority over other water uses. But economic impacts also affect municipalities, since they have to pay more for water in order to purchase water rights or alternative sources of water; and they also affect society, in order to cover the costs of environmental measures during drought. In the future, impacts are expected to be higher, at least economically, and for agriculture it will be more difficult to get adequate supply. The Jucar River Basin is one of the most vulnerable areas of the western Mediterranean region, due to high water exploitation indexes, and to environmental and water quality problems when droughts appear. In the future it can be even worse, if variability of precipitation is higher and temperatures are also higher.

4.2 Risk management history

One of the main reasons for the initial development of the CHJ in the early 1900s, with its final constitution in 1936, was to create a body in charge of planning and management of surface waters with a special emphasis on drought adaptation and mitigation. With the pass of time, other objectives were included among the main ones of the CHJ such as flood protection, general protection of the public water domain, and controlling all human actions on rivers (water intakes, waste spillage, arid extraction, etc.). Nevertheless, the activities of the CHJ have always been addressed to overcome the recurrent problem of drought and its consequences, trying to maximize the supply to all water uses both in quantity and quality. Even though the diminution of vulnerability to drought has been an objective of planning activities and infrastructures development, past drought episodes have been managed mostly in a reactive manner. For instance, in the 1990 to 1995 drought episode, it was already late when emergency measures were decided, and thus the infrastructures were not available until the drought had almost ended. From year 2000, Spanish Water Law requires to the basin agencies to develop Special Drought Plans (SDP) in order to turn the traditional reactive crisis management approach into a proactive approach. The SDP for CHJ territory (CHJ, 2007) includes monitoring for early drought detection, drought stages definition, and the measures to be applied in each of the stages.


The management system for the different drought scenarios established in the Special Drought Plan of 2007 requires, for the first time in a normative document, the creation of the so called Permanent Drought Commission when the Emergency scenario is reached and a Royal Decree of Exceptional Situation is passed by the National Government. This commission assumes, from that moment, the control of the management of the exploitations systems affected by drought within the territory of the CHJ and will be in charge of complying with the regulations established in the Plan. The Royal Decree may give the Commission additional competencies leading to a better management of the drought episode. The Special Drought Plan was approved during the last severe drought episode of 2005-2008. The PDC created at that time was composed of representatives of CHJ; of regional governments (Castilla la Mancha, Valencia, and Catalonia regions); of agricultural, industrial, and urban uses; of the Ministry of Agriculture; of the Spanish Geological Institute; of nongovernmental environmental organizations; and of labor unions. It was a participatory committee, in which most stakeholders were represented, and its missions were: to take decisions on water management during the drought in order to get equilibrium between the interests of different sectors, different groups of users in the same sector, and environmental needs, and to mitigate the impacts of the drought; to perform a continuous monitoring in order to control the achievement of the decisions, and to follow the evolution of the drought, and its impacts on users, on water quality, and on environment (water quality in the lower Jucar River and in the Albufera wetland were critical issues, as well as low flows in the middle Jucar River and low inflows to the Albufera wetland); and to authorize emergency works in order to improve control and efficiency of water use, connectivity, additional sources development (e.g., drought wells & conjunctive surface and groundwater use, direct treated wastewater reuse, etc.), in order to improve the reliability of the supply. The information for the decision was provided by technicians of CHJ, including the results of the risk assessment models (Andreu, 2009). Despite the normative requirement of creating a Permanent Drought Commission occurred in 2007 for the first time, there is historic evidence that such Commissions have been created during previous important drought episodes. Their composition has changed over time from purely administrative commissions in the 1980s to the highly representative ones like in the 2005/2008 episode. Next table (see Table 1) shows the composition of the different commissions in charge of the management of the system


that have been created in the last times. Competencies of the commissions have, more or less, maintained the same being:

Surveying available water resources management Establishing priority criteria for water supply to the different uses Accelerate the water assignment processes to the priority uses Order small water abstraction and transportation works Establish water saving guidelines for all sectors Coordinate the actions of all the administrative bodies with competencies Reduction or suspension of any water facility or activity with a water pollution

potential

Decree name Composition

RD 18/1981 Civil Governors of the affected provinces Chief Commissar for Water National Government Delegate Director Engineer (or Hydraulic Service Chief) of the RBDA Representatives of ministries of Internal Affairs; Public Works and Urbanism; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and Industry and Energy

RD 6/1983 Same as before plus: A representative from each of the Regions within the RBDA territory Two spokespersons from the users council of the RBDA that represent the urban and the agricultural demands

RD 15/1984 Same as before plus: Three additional representatives from each of the Regions within the RBDA territory

RD 134/1994 President of the RBDA Water Commissar Technical Director of the RBDA Exploitation Director of the RBDA Representatives from the ministries of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Industry and Energy; and Tourism and Commerce A representative from each region within the RBDA territory One representative for the water uses: urban demand; irrigation; and electricity production

RD 1265/2005 Same as before plus: A representative of associations and organizations for the defense of environmental interests Two representatives from the labor and business unions A representative from the local entities which territory falls total or partially within the RBDA

Table 1: Composition of the commissions since its creation


4.3 Risk management culture description in Jucar district

The main natural hazard in the case study analysed is drought. We focus on a specific MSP for describing its risk management culture, due to the fact that this MSP is the one among the existent MSPs in the Jucar River district that is focused on drought issues. The MSP is named Permanent Drought Commission (PDC), already mentioned in 4.2. This MSP is born under the regulation of a Drought Special Plan (DSP) that foresees the creation of a commission to deal with the particular problems related to drought within the river basin. Hydrologic planning and the management of the system during normality situations are oriented to the minimization of occurrence of droughts. The Permanent Drought Commission (PDC) is created when the severity of drought is such that normal decision making is no longer possible. This plan defines a series of drought scenarios determined according to a set of drought indicators that are monitored continuously. The plan establishes the measures to mitigate the possible effects of drought during each scenario and preventing its development into a more severe one. The occurrence of such hazard is normally detected by the observable, continued reduction of precipitation, rivers streamflow, and reservoirs storage. The previous variables are translated into a set of indicators that allow defining the situation of severity in which the system is in every moment. The effects of drought on the system will normally translate into failure to fulfil water demands, water quality decrease, environmental deterioration, and social conflict for water resources allocation. Most of the components of the Permanent Drought Commission have an important experience in management of drought situations on their respective fields. Their educational level is normally from medium to high with lesser exceptions. Even though some components of the PDC are directly related to the national government, the issues dealt with are normally out of the scope of political preferences. The PDC is responsible for the proper and complete application of all the measures defined in the DSP for drought impact prevention and mitigation. The PDC is advised by the technicians of the CHJ, gathered in a so called Drought Technical Office that elaborates regular reports on the state of the system and the evolution of the drought indicators. This allows everyone having timely information about the hazard and its severity. Additionally, there was a participative development of decision support systems to analyze the operation of the system, assess the risks and test the measures efficacy. This allowed creating a common perspective of the problem and defining common objectives. Moreover, this helps the decision making process getting more transparency since all the stakeholders may try the solutions others have envisaged.


Once the PDC is created there are periodic meetings (almost monthly), in which the management issues are discussed between all the components and decisions are made. The decision-making process works under the paradigm of agreement although there is the chance to vote if consensus is not reached. All the components of the PDC have the opportunity to participate and offer their vision on the different issues regarding the decision making process during the meetings. However, if it was impossible to make agreed decisions, not all the components have the right to vote in the consequent process. Additionally, if it was necessary to vote, the particular composition of the PDC makes that some parts have more importance than others. For example, there are more components belonging to the CHJ than representatives of the water uses. Anyway, past experiences show that voting was not necessary since it was always possible to reach agreements. Despite the objective of the PDC is reaching agreement solutions to the problems caused by drought, each stakeholder has its own objectives and normally will push to reach them. There may be occasional alliances in certain aspects or relative to particular measures. In a situation of drought the economic part appears with important weight, we can see this consequences trough the increasing of products prices; losses of market positions for some sectors; and losses in secondary industries associated to the main water uses (e.g. if there are fewer crops, the owners of cropping machinery will have less work). The PDC for facing the possible economic issues which could are present in a drought period, implement some measures. These measures are mainly reducing the production of the different sectors increasing the costs of water depuration and important environmental deterioration problems. Drought is a recurrent problem in the CHJ, as well as one of the driving issues for which it was created. Therefore, there is an extended experience on the topic by all the parts involved. The existence of the Drought Special Plan (DSP) allows to efficiently responding to each drought-related problem in the moment it occurs (always according to the scenario definition). The responses are divided into two main categories, the economic responses and the policy responses, although they are intimately related, since some policy options need the monetary resources generated, by the economic responses. The DSP also regulates the recovery measures to be implemented after the end of the drought episode. Their objective is recovering the system to levels prior to the occurrence of the event, or better if possible. These measures range from supply restrictions suspension to environmental restoration works.


The observed economic responses to fight the previous problems include: the exoneration of payment for water rights unsupplied; water rights purchase for environmental purposes and to guarantee urban supply; and insurances for loss of crops. With regard to policy options defined in the DSP can be divided into three main aspects regarding their incidence on offer or demand of water and on environmental aspects. Measures on offer are those which finality is finding, developing and exploiting new water sources that may incur in an increase of the available resource. This may be attained by the construction of new reservoirs, utilization of new aquifers, sea water desalination or waste water reutilization. Measures on demand include the ones that strive to satisfy the different uses with lower resource consumption. Mechanisms are diverse such as infrastructures improvement to reduce losses, modernization of irrigation techniques or creating public awareness. Finally, measures on environment have as objective the protection of the water domain like environmental monitoring plans, maintenance of environmental flows, and intensification of spillages control from waste water treatment plants and farmlands. Thus, it is possible to conclude that vulnerability to drought in the Jucar River District ranks nowadays from medium to low due to planning and management work towards the non-occurrence of droughts. Additionally, within the scope of the DSP, changing between different drought scenarios is very well regulated. It is quite simple to enter in a more severe scenario, what triggers measures to avoid the situation develop worse. On the other hand, exiting to a less severe scenario has more requirements, among which time is included. Thus, once the severity scenario is lowered, there is quite some confidence it will not go worse again. This MSP has been successful especially due to high willing of all components to collaborate towards a common good by reaching agreed solutions. It is true that there is certain predisposition to maintain the traditional way of doing things, especially from part of the users. However, it is a labor of technicians, developing tools for appropriate decision making, and the administration, making things work adequately, to create common understanding of the situation and developing a transparent decision making process in which everyone can suggest options that all the rest can try by themselves. This will create an environment of confidence that will allow managing the drought episode successfully. The labour developed in the last drought episode in the district made that there is common agreement in that problems dealt with the intervention of the CHJ usually yield good solutions.


The most important fears related to drought hazard may currently be the availability of economic resources necessary to implement all the measures considered in the plan. Several of these measures are highly economic resources consuming. Therefore, the users affected by these measures (urban supply) are concerned about the outcomes of a possible drought episode nowadays. Hence, the main uncertainties of the MSP nowadays are related to how to cope with the costs related to some measures, and what would happen if the next episode is worse than the ones that have occurred before. The latter issue is directly related to climate change. Global Circulation Models projections do not provide consistent results of future precipitation that result in even more inconsistent values of projected future streamflows. Thus, future droughts in the Jucar River Basin District are covered by great uncertainty that, in other terms, requires constant preparation to confront a large range of future possible events. All the aspects commented above permit concluding that the members of the MSP analysed perceive no high risk. Even though hydrologic planning, normal management, and the DSP provide the instruments to prevent droughts for not having very severe consequences, not every episode is the same. Droughts do not always occur under the same neither socio-economic nor hydrologic conditions. Thus, the measures that proved efficient in one episode may not work equally well in the next one. After each drought episode, new necessities associated to the particular problems occurred arise. The DSP requires that after an event an audit is done to study all the impacts occurred and detecting gaps in normative and new necessities. It also considers the necessity to review the plan, or even writing a new one after each event, to introduce those changes that may help to better approach future events. Another envisaged need is the connection between the academic world (universities) and the administration bodies. A close collaboration between these two may improve the management. In the end, most of users accept that droughts have always occurred and will continue to happen. They have always been able to cope with them and finding an acceptable exit. It is important to remark that drought hazard is not coped only by a singular MSP with the shape of the Permanent Drought Commission, but is a concern for a larger MSP (CHJ) from which the previous one is an additional (daughter) MSP that operates only when the problem has reached a level that normal management is no longer necessary. The very name of the Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar (CHJ) means, literally, Jucar River Basin Partnership. Since its creation, the CHJ has strived for strengthening the ability of the system to allocate a certain amount of scarce water resources to a series of competing demands with different necessities and objectives. Drought, as a natural


hazard, is an expectable problem in almost any river basin and must be taken into account in hydrologic planning processes. Regulated systems confront the additional risk of needing an adequate management in order to not creating artificial drought episodes due to a bad management of the existing resources. The existence of MSPs helps homogenizing the perception of the problem and thus the solutions may be more efficient than if each party involved in the decision making process followed their own (Annex 0). The culture of risk described above about the drought management in the Jucar River Basin might be categorized by the Hierarchy culture, as it was defined on the Cultural Theory. It can be observed a high degree of collective control and conspicuous and durable forms of stratification in roles and authorities. Participation is open and transparent but if it was necessary to vote some parts have more importance than others. The threat could be perceived as serious but they trust in the good management. Therefore, the risk is considered lower.


References

Andreu, J., Ferrer-Polo, J., Pérez, M.A., Solera, A. . (2009). Decision Support System for Drought Planning and Management in the Jucar River Basin, Spain. In R. S. Anderssen, et al (Ed.), 18th IMACS World Congress - MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (pp. 3223-3229).

Aven, T., and Renn, O. (2010). Risk Management and Governance. Concepts, Guidelines and Applications (Vol. 16). Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York: Springer.

Bauer, E., Fischer, L., Kühn, H.J., Maluck, M., and Meier, D. (2001). Chapter 4.2: The Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea Region: Wadden Sea Ecosystem No. 12-2001.

Blaikie, P., cannon, T., Davis, I., and Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. London.

Blanchard-Boehm, R. D., Berry, K. A. and Showalteret, P. S. (2001). Should flood insurance be mandatory? Insights in the wake of the 1997 New Year’s Day flood in Reno–Sparks, Nevada. Applied Geography, 21, 199-221.

Boer, H., and Seydel, E.R. (1996). Protection motivation theory. In M. Conner, & Norman, P. (Ed.), Predicting Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models (pp. 95-120). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bouwer, L. M., Bubeck, P. and Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2010). Changes in future flood risk due to climate and development in a Dutch polder area. Global Environmental Change 20, 463-471.

Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., and Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecology and Society, 13(2).

CCRIF. (2013). Annual Report 2012-2013. Cayman Islands. CHJ. (2005). Provisional Art. 5 Report Pursuant to the Water Framework Directive:

Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, Ministry of Environment, Spain. CHJ. (2007). Plan Especial de Alerta y Eventual Sequía en la Confederación Hidrográfica

del Júcar: Ministry of Environment, Spain. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., and Burton, C. (2008). A place-based model for

understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18, 598-606.

Das Offizielle Kreisportal. www.dithmarschen.de. Heide: Kreis Dithmarschen De Marchi, B. (2003). Public participation and risk governance. Science and Public Policy,

30(3), 171-176. Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of

technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Dryzek, J. (2000). Introduction: The Deliberative Turn in Democracy Theory. In Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Fürst, D. (2003). Regional Governance zwischen Wohlfahrtsstaat und neo-liberaler Marktwirtschaft. Berlin: Demokratien in Europa.

García Acosta, V. (2005). El riesgo como construcción social y la construcción social de riesgos. Desacatos, 19, 11-24.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Gray, B. (2003). Framing of Environmental Disputes. In R. J. Lewicki, Gray, B, and Elliot, N. (Ed.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: concepts and cases. Washington DC: Island Press

Habermas, J. R. (1983). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Boston: MIT Press.

Hernández-Barrios, L. (2007). Efectos del cambio climático en los sistemas complejos de recursos hídricos. Aplicación a la cuenca del Júcar. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain.

IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. New York, USA: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communication. Advances in experimental social psychology

Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Warner K., Bals C., Höppe P., Burton I., Loster T., and Haas, A. (2009). Insurance, Developing Countries and Climate Change. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice 34, 381-400.

Luce, D. a. N., L. (1981). Axiomatic Measurement Theory. American Mathematical Society, 13.

Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin. Maddux, J. E., and Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised

Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. Journal of experimental social psychology, 19, 469-479.

Makaudze, E. (2012). Weather Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers in Africa: Lessons Learnt and the Goals for the Future. In E. Makaudze (Ed.). Stellenbosch: Sun Media.

Máñez Costa, M., Carmona, M., Gee, K., Gerkensmeier, B., Ratter, B.M.W., Botzen, W., Aerts, J. and Paudel, Y. (2013). Governance indicators for (un)successful MSPs: ENHANCE project.

McDaniels, T., Axelrod L., and Slovic, P. (1995). Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk. Risk Analysis, 15(5), 575-588.

MELUR. (2012). Generalplan Küstenschutz des Landes Schleswig-Holstein: Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein.


MLR. (2001). Generalplan Küstenschutz – integriertes Küstenschutzmanagement in Schleswig-Holstein. Kiel, Germany: Ministerium für Ländiche Räume Landessplanng, Landwirtschaft und Tourismus des Landes schleswig.

Mulilis, J. P., and Lippa, R. (1990). Behavioral Change in Earthquake Preparedness due to negative Threat Appeals: A test of Protection Motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(8), 619-638.

Neuwirth, K., Dunwoody, S. and Griffin, R.J. (2000). Protection Motivation and Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 721-734.

NLWKN. (2007). Generalplaan Küstenschutz Niedersachsen/Bremen Festland. Noden, Germany: Niedersächsisher landestrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Kústen- und Naturshutz.

Olaya-Marín, E. J., Martínez-Capel, F., Soares Costa, R.M., and Alcaraz-Hernández, J.D. (2012). Modelling native fish richness to evaluate the effects of hydromorphological changes and river restoration (Júcar River Basin, Spain). Science of the total Environment, 440, 95-105.

Ossa, F. (2013). Cat Bonds Still Rare in Lightly Insured Emerging Markets, Asset Securitization Report. New York: SourceMedia.

Raim, D. M., Langford, J. L. (2007). Understanding Reinsurance, New Appleman Insurance Practice Guide: LexisNexis.

Rescher, N. (1995). Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. USA: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press

Rogers, R. W. (1975). A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 91(1).

Schön, D. A., and Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perceptions of Risk. Science, 236, 280-285. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-

Assessment Battlefield. Society Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London, England: Earthscan. Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as Analysis and

Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 1-12.

Surminski, S., and Eldridge, J. (2014). Flood insurance in England – an assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Working Papers 144.

Surminski, S., and Oramas-Dorta, D. (2013). Do flood insurance schemes in developing countries provide incentives to reduce physical risks? Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Papers 119.


Swiss Re. (1996). An Introduction to Reinsurance. Thompson, M., Ellis, R.J., and Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural Theory Westview Press. TUBS. (2009). Locator map of Kreis Dithmarschen in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psyochology of

choice. Science, 211, 453-458. Underwood, A., Thompson, M., and Ingram, D. (2013). All on the same train, but heading

in different directions. Risk attitudes among insurance company management and implications for forming a risk culture, : Unpublished study to be presented at ICA 2014, Washington DC.

UNISDR. (2004). Living with Risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

UNISDR. (2009). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR. van den Hove, S. (2006). Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the

negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 10-17. Van Gorp, B. (2007). The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In.

Journal of communication, 57, 60-78. Warner, K., Yuzva, K., Zissener, M., Gille, S., Voss, J. and Wanczeck, S. (2013). Innovative

Insurance Solutions for Climate Change: How to integrate climate risk insurance into a comprehensive climate risk management approach. Bonn: United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS).

Weber, E. U. (2001). Risk: Empirical studies on decision and choice. In N. J. Smelser, and Balte, B. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13347-13351): Elsevier Science.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, USA.


Annex I: Criteria table: Jucar River Basin case study

Element Specific

criterion Case study: Jucar River Basin

Hazard Type of hazard Drought Data observation

Observable reduction of precipitation, rivers streamflow, and reservoirs storage

Consequences Failure to fulfil water demands Water quality decrease Environmental deterioration Social conflict for water resources allocation

Behaviour Attitude Regulated/Organized Pattern of behaviour There is a series of drought scenarios defined according to a

set of drought indicators that are monitored continuously. The Drought Special Plan defines the measures to mitigate the possible effects of drought during each scenario and preventing its development into a more severe scenario

Information and Knowledge

Knowledge Most of the components of the Permanent Drought Commission have an important experience in management of drought situations on their respective fields.

Educational level The educational level of the components of the PDC is normally from medium to high with few exceptions

Preparedness strategies Hydrologic planning and the management of the system during normality situations are oriented to the minimization of occurrence of droughts. When the system enter the emergency scenario, the DSP foresees the creation of the PDC

Response planning The PDC is responsible for the proper and complete application of all the measures defined in the DSP for drought impact prevention and mitigation

Kind of information (Media)

The CHJ elaborates regular reports on the state of the system and the evolution of the drought indicators. This allows everyone having timely information about the hazard and its severity. Additionally, there was a participative development of decision support systems to analyse the operation of the system, assess the risks and test the measures efficacy. This allowed creating a common perspective of the problem and defining common objectives. Moreover, this helps the decision making process is more transparent since all the stakeholders can try the solutions other have envisaged.

Participation Participation

All the components of the PDC have the opportunity to participate and offer their vision on the different issues regarding the decision making process during the meetings.


However, if it was impossible to reach agreed decision, not all the components have the right to vote in the consequent process. Additionally, if it was necessary to vote, the particular composition of the PDC makes that some parts have more importance than others. For example, there are more components belonging to the CHJ than representatives of the water uses. Anyway, past experiences show that voting was not necessary since it was always possible to reach agreements.

Cooperation between members/users/parties

Despite the objective of the PDC is reaching agreement solutions to the problems caused by drought, each stakeholder has its own objectives and normally will push to reach them. There may be occasional alliances in certain aspects.

Communication (between partners)

Once the PDC is created there are periodic meetings (almost monthly), in which the management issues are discussed between all the components and decisions are made.

Economic issues

Economic losses Reduction of production of the different sectors. As a consequence, there is an increase of prices, losses of market positions and losses in secondary industries associated to the main water uses, e.g., if there is less crops, the owners of cropping machinery will have less work. There will be an increase of water depuration costs due to higher pollutant concentrations in water.

Economic response (insurance)

The observed economic responses to drought include: the exoneration of payment for water rights unsupplied; water rights purchase for environmental purposes and to guarantee urban supply; and insurances for loss of crops.

Political issues Political preference Some components of the PDC are directly related to the national government under way, while others do not. Anyway, the issues dealt with are normally out of the scope of political preferences.

Decision-making The regular meetings of the PDC are for discussing the actions to implement for a proper management of the system. The decision-making process works under the paradigm of agreement although there the chance to vote.

Policy options Policy options defined in the DSP can be divided into three main aspects regarding their incidence on offer or demand of water and on environmental aspects. Measures on offer are those which finality is finding, developing and exploiting new water sources that may incur in an increase of the available resource. This may be attained by the construction of new reservoirs, utilization of new aquifers, sea water desalination or waste water reutilization.


Measures on demand include the ones that strive to satisfy the different uses with lower resource consumption. Mechanisms are diverse such as infrastructures improvement to reduce losses, modernization of irrigation techniques or creating public awareness. Finally, measures on environment have as objective the protection of the water domain like: environmental surveyance plans, maintenance of environmental flows, and intensification of spillages from waste water treatment plants or farmlands.

Coping capacity Experience Drought is a recurrent problem in the CHJ, as well as one of the driving issues for which it was created. Therefore, there is an extend experience on the topic by all the parts.

Rapid Response The existence of the DSP allows to efficiently respond to each drought-related problem in the moment it occurs

Recovery The DSP also regulates the recovery measures to be implemented after the end of the drought episode. Their objective is recovering the system to levels prior to the occurrence of the event, or better if possible. These measures range from supply restrictions suspension to environmental restoration works.

Vulnerability Vulnerability to drought is currently relatively low due to existing preparation and planning towards the non-occurrence of droughts. Additionally, changing between different drought scenarios is very well regulated. It is quite simple to enter in a more severe scenario, what triggers measures to avoid the situation develop worse. On the other hand exiting to a less severe scenario has more requirements, among which time is included. Thus, once the severity scenario is lowered, there is quite some confidence it will not go worse again.

Resilience See previous cell Share values Values High willing to collaborate towards a common good by

agreed decisions Belief There is certain predisposition to maintain the traditional

way of doing things Trust There is common agreement in that CHJ will probably end up

solving the problems that appear. Or that problems dealt with the intervention of the CHJ usually yield good solutions.

Fear There are not important fears related to drought hazard but maybe the availability of economic resources necessary to implement all the measures considered in the plan

Emotional harm - Perception Uncertainties about the

consequences of a risk How to cope with the costs related to some measures if an episode occurred within the current economic situation of


event the country. What would happen if the next episode is worse than the ones that have occurred before.

Severity Medium. The DSP provides the instruments to prevent that drought episodes have very severe consequences

Judgment Droughts have always occurred and will continue to happen (acceptance). We have always been able to cope with them and finding an acceptable exit

Challenges

Necessities After each new episode appears new necessities associated to the particular problems occurred. The DSP requires that after drought event an audit is done to study its final effects and detecting new necessities. It also foresees the necessity to review the plan after each event to introduce those changes that may help to better approach future events.

Preparation Preparation is associated both to the needs detected in the previous episode and the hydrologic planning process.

Difficulties Current economic situation, uncertainty related to climate change

enhance d4.1 risk perception and risk cultures in...

Documents