In our increasingly interconnected world, natural hazards and their impacts spread across geographical, administrative, and sectoral boundaries. Owing to the interrelationships between multi-hazards and socio-economic dimensions, the impacts of these types of events can surmount those of multiple single hazards. The complexities involved in tackling multi-hazards and multi-risks hinder a more holistic and integrative perspective and make it difficult to identify overarching dimensions important for assessment and management purposes. We contribute to this discussion by building on systemic risk research, especially the focus on interconnectedness, and suggest ways forward for an integrated multi-hazard and multi-risk framework that should be beneficial in real-world applications. In this article, we propose a six-step framework for analyzing and managing risk across a spectrum ranging from single-to multi- and systemic risk.

The occurrence and intensity of some natural hazards (e.g. hydro-meteorological) increase due to climate change, with growing exposure and socio-economic vulnerability, leading to mounting risks. In response, Disaster Risk Reduction policy and practice emphasize people-centred Early Warning Systems (EWS). Global policies stress the need for including local knowledge and increasing the literature on integrating local and scientific knowledge for EWS. In this paper, we present a review to understand and outline how local and scientific knowledge integration is framed in EWS, namely: (1) existing integration approaches, (2) where in the EWS integration happens, (3) outcomes, (4) challenges, and (5) enablers. The objective is to critically evaluate integration and highlight critical questions about assumptions, goals, outcomes, and processes. In particular, we unpack the impact of power and knowledges as plural. We find a spectrum of integration between knowledges in EWS, mainly with dichotomy at the start: focus on people or technology. The most popular integration approaches are participatory methods such as ‘GIS mapping’ (technology) and methods that focus on ‘triangulation’ (people). We find that critical analysis of power relations and social interaction is either missed or framed as a challenge within integration processes. Knowledge is often seen as binary, embedded in the concept of ‘integration’. It is important to know what different knowledges can and cannot do in different contexts and acknowledge the hybrid reality of knowledge used for EWS. We argue that how we approach different knowledges in EWS has fundamental implications for the approaches to integration and its meaning. To this end, attention to the social processes, power dynamics, and context is crucial.

In this chapter, we introduce early warning systems (EWS) in the context of disaster risk reduction, including the main components of an EWS, the roles of the main actors and the need for robust evaluation. Management of disaster risks requires that the nature and distribution of risk are understood, including the hazards, and the exposure, vulnerability and capacity of communities at risk. A variety of policy options can be used to reduce and manage risks, and we emphasise the contribution of early warnings, presenting an eight-component framework of people-centred early warning systems which highlights the importance of an integrated and all-society approach. We identify the need for decisions to be evidence-based, for performance monitoring and for dealing with errors and false information. We conclude by identifying gaps in current early warning systems, including in the social components of warning systems and in dealing with multi-hazards, and obstacles to progress, including issues in funding, data availability, and stakeholder engagement.

People possess a creative set of strategies based on their local knowledge (LK) that allow them to stay in flood-prone areas. Stakeholders involved with local level flood risk management (FRM) often overlook and underutilise this LK. There is thus an increasing need for its identification, documentation and assessment. Based on qualitative research, this paper critically explores the notion of LK in Malawi. Data was collected through 15 focus group discussions, 36 interviews and field observation, and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings indicate that local communities have a complex knowledge system that cuts across different stages of the FRM cycle and forms a component of community resilience. LK is not homogenous within a community, and is highly dependent on the social and political contexts. Access to LK is not equally available to everyone, conditioned by the access to resources and underlying causes of vulnerability that are outside communities’ influence. There are also limits to LK; it is impacted by exogenous processes (e.g., environmental degradation, climate change) that are changing the nature of flooding at local levels, rendering LK, which is based on historical observations, less relevant. It is dynamic and informally triangulated with scientific knowledge brought about by development partners. This paper offers valuable insights for FRM stakeholders as to how to consider LK in their approaches.

The Rebuild by Design (RBD) competition was launched after the devastating impact of Hurricane Sandy, and the winning designs have put a significant emphasis on green infrastructure (GI) as a means of achieving flood resilience in urban areas. Previous research in the field of urban stormwater management indicates that wide-spread implementation of GI remains a challenge, largely due to a lack of understanding of the required governance approaches. Therefore, by using a case study of Hoboken, for which the winning design was developed, this paper explores whether RBD provides governance structures and processes needed for the uptake of GI. Semi-structured interviews and desk study provided the data for an analysis of the presence of factors for supporting the transformative governance needed to facilitate the uptake of innovative solutions. Results indicate that RBD brought a greater change in terms of governance processes when compared to governance structures. In Hoboken, RBD created a narrative for long-term change, put GI as a preferred solution for tackling multiple challenges, and strengthened the local political buy-in. However, pitfalls were observed, such as limited funding provision, lack of regulatory compliance, economic justification and large investments required from public and private parties. The absence of these factors can hinder the overall uptake of the GI solution. Even though the design competition presents a novel approach to the field of resilience development, further steps should be made in understanding how the RBD methodology can be adjusted to provide results of equal quality in different settings (e.g., less developed regions, different governance contexts).