1. S. Kienberger, R. Spiekermann
Knowledge fragmentation in the public sector
Department of Geoinformatics– Z_GIS, University of Salzburg
1. Introduction
2. The role of the public sector
3. Barriers and bridges deterring/supporting knowledge
production, implementation, and sharing
4. Examples from Case Studies
 Stakeholders: Who is likely to be directly or indirectly involved with disasters
and have to make decisions?
 Knowledge production: What data and information is used and produced by
stakeholder groups?
 Communication and transfer of knowledge: Are data, information, and
knowledge shared by and with other stakeholders? If so, how is it shared?
 Basis for decisions and co-production of knowledge: How are decisions
taken? Are other stakeholder groups also involved? Is sufficient information and
evidence available to make appropriate decisions?
 Information knowledge vs. orientation knowledge: If information is sufficiently
available, to what degree does orientation knowledge support or hinder DRR and
CCA measures and decisions as well as the understanding of priorities?
 Stakeholders affected by decisions: Who is likely to be affected by decisions
taken?
 An indication of wisdom: Does the knowledge that is produced, i.e., do the
decisions taken (in particular by the public sector) actually lead to DRR and
CCA? If not, why not?
5. Key questions guiding future work
Organisations and institutions from the public sector play the most
important role for protecting society from natural hazards and leading
the recovery efforts, thus preventing or reducing the impact of disasters.
Many instruments are available for the public sector and include risk
governance through implementation of appropriate policies by governing
bodies.
A major issue is that the provision of additional scientific information
and understanding of natural processes does not necessarily lead to
more effective DRR and CCA.
International
UN
(e.g. UNISDR,
UNEP)
EU
(e.g. Flood
Directive)
National
Ministries,
Agencies,
Armed forces
Public institutes
(e.g.
Meteorological
Service)
Provincial
Emergency
response
authority
Technical
Services
(Hydrology,
Geology,
Forestry etc)
Local
Mayor, Rescue
organisations
Local land use
planning
Policy making/implementation and interaction at various levels
FunctionalStructuralSocial
Communication
Co-operation
Co-ordination
Institutionalised
guidelines
Clearly defined
competencies
Standards
Consultations
Efficient
exchange of
information
Successful
relationships
(trust and
respect)
Factors of uncertainty:
 Divergent priorities
 Relevance of information
 Is the information understood?
 Impact of insufficient resources
 False expectations and great
dependency
Factors of uncertainty:
 Applicability of policies
 Changing relevance and
significance of standards
 Impact of pressures and
influences on decision-making
Factors of uncertainty:
 Recognition
 Objectives
 Understanding of information
made available
Salzburg flood event 2013
 The expectations towards meteorologists
and hydrologists have risen drastically.
 The information being shared has a high
degree of uncertainty.
 Updates concerning the predicted flood
event were communicated to the media
and emergency response teams at regular
intervals: the media had trouble
understanding how to deal with the
information and delayed the transfer of
up-to-date information to the public.
 There is great dependency on the
journalist‘s personal knowledge of weather
forecasts as to whether or not the meaning
is understood.
Typhoon Xangsane 2006, Vietnam
 The focus is still very much on response
and recovery. In this way improvements to
DRM are difficult to achieve.
 The policy of government is too focused
on protecting the population upon the
occurrence of an event rather than
preparing with mitigation measures such
as land planning and building codes.
Specific information, including indigenous knowledge, is not considered
relevant by consulting scientists.
 The theory of how DRM is to be coordinated is not applied at local level due
to lack of resources.
 Lack of financial resources available at local level remains the most
significant obstacle to an effective prevention policy.
Most important terms from the analysis of knowledge fragmentation in the public sector based on the case studies.