Developing multi-risk DRM pathways — Lessons from four European case studies

Résumé fourni par la source

In the context of climate change and socioeconomic developments, disaster risk is intensifying, driven not only by more frequent and severe hazard events but also by complex interactions between these events and underlying vulnerabilities. These interactions can amplify impacts and trigger cascading failures across sectors. Using the Canary Islands, the Danube Region, the North Sea, and Scandinavia as four case study regions, this research explores how the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for Multi-Risk (DAPP-MR) framework can support the development of integrated, adaptive disaster risk management (DRM) strategies to reduce risk while addressing these complex interactions. We examine how DAPP-MR enables a deeper understanding of multi-risk systems, facilitates stakeholder engagement, and structures the development of robust, cross-sectoral DRM pathways in these four qualitative applications. The findings indicate that DAPP-MR enables integrated, cross-sectoral thinking and encourages balancing short-term priorities and long-term needs. This research demonstrates that DAPP-MR offers a structured approach to unravelling the complex dynamics between hazards and sectors, while maintaining flexibility in analytical focus. This flexibility allows context-specific priorities to guide the analysis, but it can also make comparing outcomes across different applications more challenging. This study further underscores the need for additional tools to manage and explore the information to support the development and evaluation of multi-risk DRM pathways. • DAPP-MR is used to design qualitative multi-risk DRM pathways in four EU regions. • Its staged approach helps address system complexity and cross-sector interactions. • Limited awareness, data and tools challenge integration of multi-hazard interactions. • Stakeholder engagement promotes learning but raises challenges of continuity.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.