4.6 Article

Multiple Hazards and Governance Model in the Barranquilla Metropolitan Area, Colombia

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13052669

关键词

urban flooding; risk and disasters; vulnerabilities; governance; decision making; exposure; probability; hazard; sustainable cities

资金

  1. Project Knowledge in Action for Urban Equality-KNOW
  2. UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESCR) under the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF)
  3. ESRC [ES/P011225/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research aims to assess the understanding and effectiveness of governance arrangements in the Barranquilla Metropolitan Area regarding various natural and anthropogenic hazards. The study found that the overall capacity and effectiveness of local government to respond to hazards were classified as regular, while experts believed that risk management institutions lacked sufficient analysis capability.
The Barranquilla Metropolitan Area is exposed and often vulnerable to various natural and anthropogenic hazards. The paper's main objective is to identify the level of understanding that local and regional institutions have of such a multi-hazard scenario, as well as the effectiveness of governance arrangements in minimizing impacts. Research employed a questionnaire applied to 115 stakeholders from government and a survey of 391 households from four communities in the study area. Four focus groups were held during the update of the Barranquilla Development Plan 2020-2023. The results allowed the identification of an updated set of hazards and the levels of government response capacity. The overall level of capacity and effectiveness of local government to respond to hazards was classified as regular. Seventy-seven percent of epistemic 'experts considered that the institutions responsible for risk management did not undertake sufficient analysis for identifying and managing multiple hazards. Finally, the research team developed a new model of risk management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据