Con­tin­gen­cy Plan­ning

Emer­gen­cy plan­ning in alpi­ne regi­ons: A cross-coun­try com­pa­ra­ti­ve ana­ly­sis of chal­lenges, strengths and weak­ne­s­ses bet­ween emer­gen­cy plan­ning and emer­gen­cy manage­ment.

This ana­ly­sis is based on empi­ri­cal data from seven Alpi­ne count­ries: Switz­er­land, Ger­ma­ny, France, Slove­nia, Lich­ten­stein, Ita­ly and Aus­tria. Pre­de­fi­ned natu­ral hazards were con­side­red, name­ly ava­lan­ches, forest fire, floods and mud­flows. The tar­get group of the stu­dy was natu­ral hazard mana­gers as well as emer­gen­cy plan­ners. In a quan­ti­ta­ti­ve ana­ly­sis, the five cate­go­ries — data avai­la­bi­li­ty, risk com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, struc­tu­ral qua­li­ty, mate­ri­al resour­ces and human resour­ces — were exami­ned in more detail, with the ulti­ma­te aim of iden­ti­fy­ing approa­ches for impro­ving coope­ra­ti­on at the plan­ning and manage­ment inter­face. Qua­li­ta­ti­ve work­shops on mud­flows (Ita­ly, Switz­er­land), ava­lan­ches (Aus­tria, Ita­ly) and floods (Switz­er­land, Slove­nia, Ger­ma­ny) com­ple­ted the stu­dy com­mis­sio­ned by the Minis­try of Agri­cul­tu­re, Regi­ons and Tou­rism. Con­tri­bu­tors are repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the Alpi­ne Con­ven­ti­on, Working Group on Natu­ral Hazards — PLA­NALP from the count­ries Aus­tria, Ita­ly, Ger­ma­ny, Switz­er­land, Slove­nia, France and Lich­ten­stein, geo­sphe­re Aus­tria (pro­ject manage­ment, form­er­ly known as ZAMG), BFW and Mon­tan­uni­ver­si­tät Leo­ben.

Publi­ca­ti­on: Zen­tral­an­stalt für Meteo­ro­lo­gie und Geo­dy­na­mik. 2021. Con­tin­gen­cy Plan­ning in Alpi­ne Regi­ons. A com­pa­ra­ti­ve ana­ly­sis of chal­lenges, strengths and weak­ne­s­ses bet­ween con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning and natu­ral hazard manage­ment. In: Öster­rei­chi­sche Bei­trä­ge zu Meteo­ro­lo­gie und Geo­phy­sik, 45, Wien.

Cont­act: Dr. Rena­te Ren­ner