Governing systemic and cascading disaster risk in Indonesia: where do we stand and future outlook
Governing systemic and cascading disaster risk in Indonesia: where do we stand and future outlook
复制标题
治理印度尼西亚的系统性和级联灾害风险：我们的立场和未来展望
DOI：
10.1108/dpm-07-2022-0156
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Djalante
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Triyanti;G. A. K. Surtiari;Jonatan A. Lassa;I. Rafliana;N. Hanifa;Mohamad Isnaeni Muhidin;R. Djalante
PurposeThis paper旨在确定一个情境化的系统性风险治理（SRG）框架的关键因素，并随后探讨如何管理系统性风险，以及如何调整当地的制度机制，以应对复杂的印尼风险landscape.Design/methodology/approachUsing一个案例研究，从帕卢三重灾害中苏拉威西岛，印度尼西亚，作者展示了2018年的内陆地震如何造成级联的次生灾害，即海啸，地震和山体滑坡，给社区和国家造成了前所未有的灾难。定性分析进行了使用收集的数据，通过长期观察，自2002年以来。FindingsThe作者认为，印尼尚未纳入SRG方法在其应对帕卢三重灾害。需要有政治意愿，采取更适当的风险治理模式，促进系统性风险模式。需要通过混合治理安排逐步实现变革，从正式/非正式方法到被认为更现实和可行的自我和横向及纵向治理模式。作者建议，这是通过专注于生产转型和地方transformation.Originality/valueThere是越来越多的认识和认识的重要性，系统性和级联风险的灾害风险研究。然而，研究、政策和实践之间仍然存在差距。目前灾害风险治理的进展不足以实现仙台减少灾害风险框架（2015-2030年），除非在地方一级建立有效的治理体系，使行为体和机构能够同时管理多灾害、多时间、多层面的脆弱性和残余风险的相互作用。本文有助于这些知识差距。
PurposeThis paper aims to identify key factors for a contextualised Systemic Risk Governance (SRG) framework and subsequently explore how systemic risks can be managed and how local institutional mechanisms can be tweaked to deal with the complex Indonesian risk landscape.Design/methodology/approachUsing a case study from Palu triple-disasters in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, the authors demonstrate how inland earthquakes in 2018 created cascading secondary hazards, namely tsunamis, liquefactions and landslides, caused unprecedented disasters for the communities and the nation. A qualitative analysis was conducted using the data collected through a long-term observation since 2002.FindingsThe authors argue that Indonesia has yet to incorporate an SRG approach in its responses to the Palu triple-disasters. Political will is required to adopt more appropriate risk governance modes that promote the systemic risk paradigm. Change needs to occur incrementally through hybrid governance arrangements ranging from formal/informal methods to self- and horizontal and vertical modes of governance deemed more realistic and feasible. The authors recommend that this be done by focusing on productive transition and local transformation.Originality/valueThere is growing awareness and recognition of the importance of systemic and cascading risks in disaster risk studies. However, there are still gaps between research, policy and practice. The current progress of disaster risk governance is not sufficient to achieve the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) unless there is an effective governing system in place at the local level that allow actors and institutions to simultaneously manage the interplays of multi-hazards, multi-temporal, multi-dimensions of vulnerabilities and residual risks. This paper contributes to these knowledge gaps.
影响因子：
18.3
作者：
Bao, Han;Ampuero, Jean-Paul;Huang, Hui
通讯作者：
Huang, Hui