| dc.description.abstract | Aim of work.
Enhanced precipitation due to climate changes leads to increase in both frequency and intensityof landslides in Norway. A proactive approach to risk management is therefore required to significantly reduce the losses associated with landslides. Opinions and perceptions from practitioners on performance of landslide risk management are expected to provide insights on areas for improvement in landslide risk management activities in Norway. They are also useful reference for prioritising future work plans in Klima 2050.
How to survey and assess perceptions on landslide risk management?
A well-established indicator for performance is the Risk Management Index (RMI) proposed by Cardona et al. (2004). The methodology for calculating this index is based on a survey to technical staff, decision-makers, and stakeholders involved in all stages of risk reduction strategies. The RMI is thus an innovative and useful procedure for measuring perceptions holistically from selected actors. The indicator was first used to measure perceptions of landslide risk management in Norway by Chiu (2015). The present study adopts a similar methodology as Chiu (2015) to obtain more survey results as well as opinions that can also provide insights to the future activities of Klima 2050. Perceptions are surveyed for two time periods: 2015 and 2050 and based on national, county, and municipality levels. Relevant data from Chiu (2015) are also analysed together with the survey data in the present study.
Risk Management Index (RMI)
The RMI is a composite index that consists of four public policies, which are represented by indices, namely Risk Identification index (RMIRI), Risk Reduction index (RMIRR), Disaster Management index (RMIDM), and Governance and Financial Protection index (RMIFP). The RMI is calculated as the mean of the four public policy indices. Each policy index can take a value from 0 to 100. Therefore, RMI also varies from 0 to 100, where the lowest and highest values correspond to the poorest and best performance of risk management (i.e. RMI and policy indices increase as the performance of risk management improves). Based on the obtained score, the resulting RMI (or its subindices) is subdivided into 5 levels with corresponding verbal description 1: Low, 2: Incipient, 3: Significant, 4: Outstanding and 5: Optimal
The survey
For the present study, a survey on landslide risk management perceptions in Norway was conducted between mid September and late October, 2015. A total of 28 responses were received.
Key observations of the survey results are summarised in the following:
1. RMI at any administrative level in 2015 ranges from 30 to 42, correspondent to performance at level 3: Significant. In 2050, the RMI values increase and ranges from 46 to 66, correspondent to performance level 3: Significant to 4: Outstanding.
2. Policy indices are higher for the national level than sub-national administrative levels.
3. RMIRI at national level is the highest among all policy indices in both years, especially in 2050.
4. Within the RR and DM public policies, indicators associated with upgrading, retrofitting, and reconstruction of assets have the lowest performance levels in both years but a large number of answers of 'not relevant' and 'not able to answer'.
5. RMIFP is the lowest among all policy indices in any year, especially at the municipality and county levels.
6. The indicators considered to be most critical are indicators considered important for the landslide risk management, but within which the performance is considered as low. Technically this would be indicators with relatively low performance levels combined with high relative weights. This combination was identified for the three indicators: RI3. Hazard evaluation and mapping (relatively low rating at municipality level), RR4. Housing improvement and relocation from prone-areas, and DM5. Rehabilitation and reconstruction training.
7. At the end of the survey, the respondents were requested to identify and provide brief explanations on the factors they had predominantly considered when evaluating the change in landslide risk performance from 2015 to 2050. The most frequent considered factors in this connection were factors related to knowledge and technology, climate, risk perception, and anthropogenic activities.
Conclusions
Based on the survey results and the comments from respondents, it is concluded that several aspects of landslide risk management in Norway can be improved. For example, landslide hazard evaluation and mapping should be prioritised in Norway. Upgrading, retrofitting, and reconstruction of assets may also be included in the landslide risk reduction strategies in Norway. In addition, there should be more focus on inter-institutional organisation as well as allocation and use of financial resources for dealing with landslides at municipality level. Comparing the results for 2015 and 2050, the respondents show an optimistic view of the landslide risk management in the future. In spite that climate change and expanded development are considered to pose greater landslide hazards in the future, landslide risk management in Norway is perceived to improve in the long term. At all the administrative levels, the scores for the majority of indicators showed an improvement from 2015 to 2050. The reason may be related to respondents' belief that better knowledge and technology (e.g. more advanced monitoring and warning systems), increased risk awareness, and appropriate planning and mitigations in the future are powerful enough to adapt to climate change and development. The results can be used in the development of innovations in the landslide risk management in Norway and they are regarded as useful reference for the future work in Klima 2050. However, using the results, extra care should be taken as they are associated with uncertainties related to the limited number of response, subjective nature of perceptions, and limited knowledge of respondents.
Further work
It is our opinion that the present method can be adapted to and applied in other types of natural hazards in Norway, such as floods, also. However, generally, the questions in the survey should be further simplified or reformulated to make them more understandable. It is suggested to consult practitioners in municipalities about the appropriate terms that should be used in the questions. It is further recommended to expand the present approach of surveying perceptions on landslide risk management to obtain perceptions also from the public, since a more comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of landslide risk management can be obtained by comparing between perceptions by experts and the public. | |
