the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jun 2025
Brief Communication: California wildfires highlight institutional capacity as key to community resilience
Abstract. The 2025 California wildfires exposed significant shortcomings in the implementation of wildfire-adapted land use policies and the application of fire-resilient architectural and urban design principles. This Brief Communication examines four key constraints on progress: stakeholder awareness and capacity building; the absence or inadequacy of incentives; and governance barriers, such as regulatory fragmentation, misalignment between agencies, and insufficient integration of risk into spatial planning processes. The text emphasises the need for coherent, cross-sectoral policy frameworks that foster adaptive capacity at multiple scales, enhance compliance with and enforcement of building codes, and align risk reduction with long-term sustainability and climate resilience objectives.
Competing interests: Margreth Keiler is an Executive Editor of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, and Sven Fuchs is an Editor of the journal.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(420 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(420 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2509', David E. Alexander, 15 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sven Fuchs, 02 Aug 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for his positive and encouraging feedback, and for drawing our attention to the important parallels between the issues discussed in our manuscript and those observed in other recent disasters, such as the floods in Valencia (Spain) in 2024 and the recent flash floods in Texas (US).
We agree that the question of why known solutions to natural hazard risks are not implemented is central, and we appreciate the reviewer emphasising the role of ideology and political polarisation in this context. Although our manuscript briefly references the rollback of disaster preparedness regulations during the Trump administration as an example of such dynamics, we recognise that political and ideological factors warrant further consideration. However, given the format and scope of this brief communication, we have chosen to keep the reference concise to avoid overemphasising a specific political episode and shifting the focus away from our primary objective of comparing institutional capacity and governance challenges across hazard types, particularly between wildfires and floods.
Similarly, we appreciate the suggestion to include additional case examples and agree that they could provide valuable illustrations. To preserve the brevity and coherence of the manuscript and maintain a comparative focus on California wildfires and other hazards, especially in terms of institutional and regulatory responses, we have decided to add these examples briefly in Sections 5 (Removing governance barriers) for the 2024 Spain example and 6 (Conclusion) for the 2025 Texas example.
The sections will read as follows:
5 Removing governace barriers
Effective management of natural hazards requires the systematic identification and removal of institutional and structural barriers that impede resilience and preparedness. These barriers often stem from a combination of administrative fragmentation, misaligned political incentives, and insufficient integration of risk considerations into broader policy frameworks. Key challenges include accountability gaps, where unclear mandates and responsibilities across institutions hinder coordinated action, as well as a pervasive lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Political constraints also play a significant role, with policy directions sometimes shaped by short-term populist agendas or illiberal leadership, such as the rollback of disaster preparedness regulations observed during the Trump administration in the United States. Another example is the 2024 Valencia flood in Spain, were governance complexities and party politics driven by political rivalry and autonomy tensions hindered effective disaster management (Geier, 2025). Such political dynamics can erode established norms of precautionary planning and diminish institutional commitment to long-term risk reduction. Weak enforcement of existing regulations, legal ambiguities, and fragmented sectoral responsibilities further exacerbate different dimensions of vulnerability. The absence of coherent mainstreaming of disaster risk management across sectors results in siloed interventions that fail to address the systemic nature of risk. Moreover, mismatches between the spatial and temporal scales of risk and those of policy implementation can hinder the effectiveness of adaptation and resilience strategies. Financial limitations and persistent knowledge gaps further restrict the ability of institutions to engage in proactive disaster preparedness. Limited funding for prevention measures often leads to reactive, crisis-driven responses rather than long-term planning (Biesbroek et al., 2013). Meanwhile, rushed and poorly executed infrastructure and construction projects – often driven by political or economic expediency – can inadvertently increase exposure to hazards, particularly in rapidly urbanising areas or regions undergoing post-disaster reconstruction. Addressing these multifaceted governance challenges requires a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to strengthen governance, improve enforcement and promote sustainable development practices (Biesbroek et al., 2013).
6 Conclusion
Achieving sustainable economies and resilient societies requires the systematic removal of behavioural and institutional barriers that hinder transformative change. Behavioural barriers are often rooted in psychological and socio-cultural dynamics, including cognitive biases such as the normalcy bias, overconfidence, and the discounting of future risks. Combined with short-term economic thinking and a preference for immediate gains over long-term security, these biases can limit proactive engagement in risk reduction strategies. Meanwhile, institutional barriers – such as fragmented governance structures, poor horizontal and vertical coordination between administrative bodies, and weak regulatory enforcement – significantly undermine the development and implementation of coherent and effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies. These barriers are amplified further by misinformation and conspiracy theories that spread rapidly across social media. The recent 2025 Texas floods in the US are a case in point (Golgowski, 2025; Makuch, 2025). The complexity of DRR lies not only in the unpredictability and variability of natural hazards, but also in the socio-political and institutional contexts in which risk is managed. As a multifaceted challenge, DRR requires interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration that cuts across policy sectors and levels of government. This includes integrating knowledge from the natural sciences, engineering, urban planning, economics, and the social sciences, as well as actively engaging with civil society and the private sector. Institutional inertia and policy fragmentation often act as critical constraints, making cross-sectoral collaboration both necessary and difficult. In order to meaningfully contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), DRR must be mainstreamed into broader sustainability and spatial development agendas. This includes embedding risk considerations into land use planning, environmental regulation, infrastructure development, and social protection policies. Coherent land use strategies that account for hazard exposure, ecological integrity, and socio-economic vulnerabilities are vital for building systemic resilience and reducing long-term risks.
Institutional capacity plays a central role in enabling or constraining such efforts. Recent extreme events, such as the widespread wildfires in the United States, have exposed the severe consequences of institutional weaknesses, including delayed responses, insufficient preparedness, and poorly coordinated interventions. These cases highlight the urgent need to enforce existing regulations more effectively, improve inter-agency coordination, and strengthen governance mechanisms at all levels. Effective DRR must also address structural and systemic vulnerabilities, including not only physical exposure to hazards but also deeper social issues such as inequality, marginalisation, and access to resources (Doorn et al., 2021). Furthermore, diversity in terms of perspectives, experiences, and knowledge systems must be recognised as a valuable asset in developing inclusive and context-sensitive resilience strategies (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2021). Without addressing these deeply embedded governance challenges, efforts to build hazard-resilient societies will remain fragmented. What is needed is a more integrated, equitable, and inclusive approach that aligns DRR with the broader sustainability agenda and acknowledges the interdependencies between environmental and social systems. This approach must support long-term resilience for all communities in the face of escalating climate-related risks. Science is called upon to move beyond sectoral adaptation toward transformative approaches; only then can it meaningfully contribute to strengthening community resilience under changing conditions. As White et al. (2001) argued, this requires shifting from uncoordinated, sector-specific responses to a more coherent and integrated form of risk management that addresses underlying structural issues and political inertia.
New references to be included will be:
Geier, W.: Valencia 2024 flood disaster: Challenges of effective disaster management in countries with complex division of public responsibilities, in: Hochwasser – inundaciones – floods: Integrative risk and security research, edited by: Fekete, A., TH Köln, Cologne, 186-190, 2025.
Golgowski, N.: 'Fake weather, fake flooding': Republicans are spreading a bizarre conspiracy theory after the deadly Texas floods, HuffPost, 07 July 2025, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weather-manipulation-conspiracy-theory-texas-floods_n_686c0c45e4b0082b3c90c01c, 2025 (retrieved 02 August 2025).
Makuch, B.: Far-right conspiracy theories spread online in aftermath of the Texas floods, The Guardian, 09 July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/09/texas-floods-conspiracy-theories, 2025 (retrieved 02 August 2025).
We hope that both the editor and the reviewer agree that this approach maintains the clarity and relevance of the paper, encouraging further discussion and research into the structural and political roots of implementation gaps in disaster risk reduction.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sven Fuchs, 02 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2509', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2025
The manuscript remains overly generic and does not demonstrate a clear or substantive contribution to the existing literature on wildfire governance. While the topic is important, the analysis lacks depth and originality, and the insights presented largely reiterate well-established arguments without advancing conceptual, empirical, or methodological understanding.
A further concern relates to the authors’ limited engagement with the institutional and governance context of California wildfires. The analysis appears to be developed without sufficient context-specific knowledge of California’s complex governance arrangements, legal frameworks, and institutional histories, which are central to the subject matter. This raises questions about the empirical grounding and interpretive validity of the study.
In its current form, the manuscript risks resembling what is often referred to in the literature as parachute or helicopter research, where external perspectives are applied to a case without meaningful engagement with local institutions, expertise, or contextual realities. The authors are encouraged to critically reflect on this issue and to strengthen the manuscript through deeper contextualisation, engagement with local scholarship and practitioners, or collaboration with regionally grounded expertise.
The study provided some novel points to ponder but it gives no clear explanation of how the authors derived their four “key constraints”. Did they analyse government reports? Media coverage? Conduct stakeholder interviews? Without a transparent method, the validity of these findings remains questionable. Even for a brief communication, the methodological pathway leading to these conclusions should be outlined or at least referenced clearly.
Line 20: The discussion around the fire-resistant structure that withstood the flames would benefit from greater elaboration. Adding details on the specific architectural elements or materials used would enhance reader understanding and provide a concrete example of wildfire-adapted design in practice.
Line 25: The article leans heavily on previously established frameworks (e.g., White et al. 2001) without critically updating or challenging them based on the 2025 wildfire context. The authors could have presented a new model of institutional failure, or a typology of governance barriers observed specifically during the 2025 events, that can give their contribution to the academic discourse.
Line 50: Statements such as “capacity building extends beyond individual societal capabilities” is asserted without concrete case studies, statistics, or stakeholder quotes. For a communication rooted in the context of 2025 California wildfires, readers expect specific, data-driven examples or policy evaluations (e.g., What agencies failed? What codes were not enforced? How were inter-agency gaps revealed?).
Line 95: The article avoids any discussion of political or economic trade-offs, despite referencing political constraints. It fails to address who benefits from the status quo and why inertia persists. Why would local governments or developers resist fire-adapted building codes? Are there economic disincentives to resilient land-use planning?
Additional Suggestions for improvement:
The early sections stress the role of property owner awareness, which risks reinforcing a “blame the individual” narrative. This is not adequately balanced with a deeper examination of how institutions fail to support or enable community-level change. The emphasis on public education could be critically reassessed to avoid downplaying the structural asymmetries of power and resource allocation.
The paper discusses the 2025 wildfires as if they are an isolated event. Yet, the same regions in California have experienced repeated catastrophic fires. The authors miss the opportunity to present a temporal critique: why do the same institutional barriers persist despite multiple wake-up calls? What (if any) institutional learning has occurred? A brief comparison across years would strengthen the urgency and credibility of the argument.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sven Fuchs, 22 Dec 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and for their thoughtful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the intent, scope, and contribution of this Brief Communication.
Introductory statement:
The purpose of the NHESS manuscript type “Brief Communication” is not to present a full empirical case study, introduce a new governance framework, or advance a novel methodological approach (see https://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/about/manuscript_types.html). Accordingly, our contribution is a short, reflective commentary on the 2025 California wildfires, summarizing four key institutional capacity concerns repeatedly highlighted in the wildfire governance literature and starkly illustrated by recent events. Therefore, the manuscript does not engage in in-depth local fieldwork, practitioner collaboration, or regionally grounded empirical analysis, which would exceed the scope and format of such a Brief Communication.
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern that the manuscript may appear generic if assessed against the expectations of a full research article. However, our intention is to synthesize well-established insights in light of a contemporary crisis, rather than to reinvent or substantially revise existing frameworks. The 2025 California wildfires serve as a concrete illustration that reaffirms the enduring relevance of principles articulated in seminal work such as White et al. (2001). Our reliance on established frameworks is therefore deliberate, reflecting continuity rather than analytical stagnation.
That said, we agree that the manuscript can more clearly situate this reflection within recent California-specific scholarship. In the revised version, we will explicitly engage with key contemporary contributions from the wildfire research and policy community, including:
- Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface (Mowery et al., 2019),
- Recent analyses of zoning and housing policies relevant to wildfire risk (Philson et al., 2022),
- Lessons from California on the shared responsibilities of government and homeowners in wildfire resilience (Jacobson, 2023),
- Empirical evidence on public support for wildfire adaptation policies (Hui et al., 2022).
This will clarify how the four institutional capacity concerns resonate with current debates and evidence, without expanding the manuscript beyond the intended scope.
We also wish to clarify that providing a comprehensive, context-specific analysis of California’s governance arrangements, legal frameworks, and institutional histories was not the objective of this Brief Communication. Rather, the contribution offers a concise synthesis of four widely observed constraints on progress in wildfire risk reduction: (i) limited stakeholder awareness and capacity, (ii) inadequate incentives for risk-reducing behavior, and (iii) governance barriers, including regulatory fragmentation, misalignment across agencies, and insufficient integration of wildfire risk into planning. The text emphasizes the broader need for coherent, cross-sectoral policy frameworks that enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen compliance with building codes, and align wildfire risk reduction with long-term sustainability and climate resilience objectives.
We fully agree that meaningful engagement with local institutions, scholarship, and practitioners is essential for in-depth empirical research. However, this is a Brief Communication and not a full research paper and as such it is intended as a high-level reflection on widely documented challenges, using recent wildfire events as illustrative examples. While we do not include direct collaboration with regional experts, in the revised manuscript we will more explicitly anchor the discussion in California-based scholarship to provide additional context without exceeding the scope of this manuscript.
Specifically, we will address the remarks of reviewer #2 as follows:
RC:
The manuscript remains overly generic and does not demonstrate a clear or substantive contribution to the existing literature on wildfire governance. While the topic is important, the analysis lacks depth and originality, and the insights presented largely reiterate well-established arguments without advancing conceptual, empirical, or methodological understanding.
A further concern relates to the authors’ limited engagement with the institutional and governance context of California wildfires. The analysis appears to be developed without sufficient context-specific knowledge of California’s complex governance arrangements, legal frameworks, and institutional histories, which are central to the subject matter. This raises questions about the empirical grounding and interpretive validity of the study.
In its current form, the manuscript risks resembling what is often referred to in the literature as parachute or helicopter research, where external perspectives are applied to a case without meaningful engagement with local institutions, expertise, or contextual realities. The authors are encouraged to critically reflect on this issue and to strengthen the manuscript through deeper contextualisation, engagement with local scholarship and practitioners, or collaboration with regionally grounded expertise.
The study provided some novel points to ponder but it gives no clear explanation of how the authors derived their four “key constraints”. Did they analyse government reports? Media coverage? Conduct stakeholder interviews? Without a transparent method, the validity of these findings remains questionable. Even for a Brief Communication, the methodological pathway leading to these conclusions should be outlined or at least referenced clearly.
AC:
Please see our introductory statement above.
RC:
Line 20: The discussion around the fire-resistant structure that withstood the flames would benefit from greater elaboration. Adding details on the specific architectural elements or materials used would enhance reader understanding and provide a concrete example of wildfire-adapted design in practice.
AC:
We appreciate the suggestion. While the physical resilience of structures is not the central focus of this Brief Communication, we have mentioned it as a contextual opener to the discussion. We aim to keep this section concise and focused on the broader discussion rather than detailed architectural specifics.
RC:
Line 25: The article leans heavily on previously established frameworks (e.g., White et al. 2001) without critically updating or challenging them based on the 2025 wildfire context. The authors could have presented a new model of institutional failure, or a typology of governance barriers observed specifically during the 2025 events, that can give their contribution to the academic discourse.
AC:
Please see our introductory statement above. It was not the aim to present a new model based on the 2025 wildfire context. Rather, the objective of this paper is to use that event as a contemporary and well-documented case through which to synthesise four recurring issues associated with preparedness and planning deficiencies that are common across many types of natural hazards globally. These issues, fragmented governance, insufficient information flow, inadequate training, and weak coordination between institutions, have been identified repeatedly in the hazard and disaster risk reduction literature, most notably in the seminal work of White et al. (2001), see also Referee comment #1. We aim to make this clearer in the revised manuscript.
RC:
Line 50: Statements such as “capacity building extends beyond individual societal capabilities” is asserted without concrete case studies, statistics, or stakeholder quotes. For a communication rooted in the context of 2025 California wildfires, readers expect specific, data-driven examples or policy evaluations (e.g., What agencies failed? What codes were not enforced? How were inter-agency gaps revealed?).
AC:
We will adapt the text on Capacity building (Section 3) by specific background information on the California wildfire context. In detail, we will extend the text by including the following: “Capacity building extends beyond individual societal capabilities (Kuhlicke et al., 2011) to encompass the broader institutional frameworks required to effectively manage and mitigate the consequences of natural hazards. This involves not only enhancing the capacities of individuals and communities but also reinforcing the organizational, legal, and procedural systems that underpin risk governance (Nielsen-Pincus et al., 2019). While standards, rules, and regulations are in place, their effectiveness depends critically on how well they are translated into actionable and enforceable policies, such as land-use planning principles, disaster-resistant infrastructure guidelines, enforceable building codes, and other prescriptive measures (Rauter et al., 2020). However, this translation is often impeded by institutional fragmentation, overlapping mandates among agencies, financial constraints, and limited technical expertise, particularly at the local level (Schinko et al., 2023). Specifically, studies have concluded that complex patterns of land ownership and management around a community can increase its exposure to wildfire risk by complicating coordination efforts (Nielsen-Pincus et al., 2019). Accordingly, research and innovation aimed at developing preparedness tools should carefully consider the target audience, the actions they are expected to take, and assumptions about their capacities, including internet access, digital literacy, available time, and financial resources (Ryan et al., 2023). These systemic barriers hinder the coordination and implementation of effective adaptation and resilience-building measures. Often, unclear roles and responsibilities combined with limited inter-agency communication reduce the coherence and overall effectiveness of risk reduction strategies (Zhang et al., 2025). Strengthening institutional capacity therefore requires ongoing investment in education and training programs, knowledge-sharing networks, and cross-sectoral collaboration, ensuring that risk management strategies are not only well designed but also successfully implemented across all levels of government (Hamilton et al., 2023). Beyond technical and structural improvements, capacity building must be anchored in inclusive decision-making processes. Involving local communities, private sector actors, civil society organizations, and scientific experts helps to ground risk management strategies in local knowledge and social realities, enhancing both their legitimacy and effectiveness (Jacobson, 2023). (…)”
RC:
Line 95: The article avoids any discussion of political or economic trade-offs, despite referencing political constraints. It fails to address who benefits from the status quo and why inertia persists. Why would local governments or developers resist fire-adapted building codes? Are there economic disincentives to resilient land-use planning?
AC:
We appreciate the suggestion. These questions (regarding political or economic trade-offs, beneficiaries of the status quo, and potential disincentives to fire-adapted planning) are beyond the scope of this Brief Communication. While we reference political constraints, detailed analysis of such socio-economic factors is not included in this work.
RC:
The early sections stress the role of property owner awareness, which risks reinforcing a “blame the individual” narrative. This is not adequately balanced with a deeper examination of how institutions fail to support or enable community-level change. The emphasis on public education could be critically reassessed to avoid downplaying the structural asymmetries of power and resource allocation.
The paper discusses the 2025 wildfires as if they are an isolated event. Yet, the same regions in California have experienced repeated catastrophic fires. The authors miss the opportunity to present a temporal critique: why do the same institutional barriers persist despite multiple wake-up calls? What (if any) institutional learning has occurred? A brief comparison across years would strengthen the urgency and credibility of the argument.
AC:
A good point. We appreciate these suggestions; however, they extend beyond the scope of this Brief Communication. While we note the importance of property owner awareness and public education, our focus is not on a detailed analysis of institutional failures or structural power dynamics. Similarly, although repeated wildfire events in California are acknowledged, a temporal or comparative institutional analysis is outside the intended scope of this article.
Additional literature that will be considered in a revised version of this manuscript:
Anderson, S. E., Plantinga, A. J., and Wibbenmeyer, M.: Inequality in agency response: Evidence from salient wildfire events, The Journal of Politics, 85, 625-639, doi:10.1086/722044, 2023.
Hamilton, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., and Evers, C. R.: Wildfire risk governance from the bottom up: linking local planning processes in fragmented landscapes, Ecology and Society, 28, 3, doi:10.5751/ES-13856-280303, 2023.
Hui, I., Zhao, A., Cain, B. E., and Driscoll, A. M.: Baptism by wildfire? Wildfire experiences and public support for wildfire adaptation policies, American Politics Research, 50, 108-116, doi:10.1177/1532673X211023926, 2022.
Jacobson, T.: Government, homeowners, and wildfire: What can we learn from California’s resilience planning experience?, in: Homeowners and the resilient city, edited by: Thaler, T., Hartmann, T., Slavíková, L., and Tempels, B., Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 237-263, 2023.
Lambrou, N., Kolden, C., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Anjum, E., and Acey, C.: Social drivers of vulnerability to wildfire disasters: A review of the literature, 237, 104797, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104797, 2023.
Lambrou, N., Kolden, C., and Loukaitou-Sideris, A.: Disaster recovery gentrification in post-wildfire landscapes: The case of Paradise, CA, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 118, 105235, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105235, 2025.
Miller, R. K., Shi, L., Wulf, D. A., and Mach, K. J.: Trends in wildfire-related bills in California, 2001–2020, Environmental Research: Climate, 1, 025006, doi:10.1088/2752-5295/ac8caa, 2022.
Mowery, M., Read, A., Johnston, K., and Wafaie, T.: Planning the wildland-urban interface (PAS Report 594), American Planning Association, Chicago, 144 pp., 2019.
Mowery, M.: Planning the WUI in LA County, California, American Planning Association, Chicago, 15 pp., 2021.
Nielsen-Pincus, M., Evers, C., and Ager, A.: Exposure complexity and community capacity to manage wildfire risk: a coupled biophysical and social analysis of 60 communities in the western United States, Fire, 2, 59, doi:10.3390/fire2040059, 2019.
Philson, C. S., Wagner, L., and Nawathe, R.: Mitigating California wildfire impact through zoning and housing policy, Journal of Science Policy and Governance, 18, 12, doi:10.38126/JSPG180112, 2022.
Schinko, T., Berchtold, C., Handmer, J., Deubelli-Hwang, T., Preinfalk, E., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Scolobig, A., Serra, M., and Plana, E.: A framework for considering justice aspects in integrated wildfire risk management, Nature Climate Change, 13, 788-795, doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01726-0, 2023.
Zhang, C., Lambrou, N., Kolden, C., and Loukaitou-Sideris, A.: Addressing wildfire resilience through comprehensive county-level plan effectiveness in California, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 118, 105230, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105230, 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sven Fuchs, 22 Dec 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2509', David E. Alexander, 15 Jul 2025
This short communication offers a very welcome, timely discussion of an extremely pertinent issue. It is interesting to note that many of the planning and preparedness deficiencies described in the paper are common to diverse environments and disaster. For example, the misuse of land subject to natural hazard impacts connects the October 2024 floods in Valencia (Fekete 2025) and the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles. The flash floods in Texas also qualify.
The solutions to many natural hazard problems are clear, as the paper explains. The question is why they are not implemented. Poor organisation and lack of information and training are emphasised in the paper. I would suggest that ideology and political polarisation are at the root. Perhaps they need more than a passing mention.
The paper would benefit from short examples. I understand that it is a short contribution, and also that examples can be controversial, but they can be very illuminating of the mix of factors that predispose areas to disaster.
I hope that this paper stimulates more discussion of why solutions to the problem of natural hazards are not sufficiently implemented.
Fekete, A. 2025 (ed.) Hochwasser – Inundaciones – Floods. Integrative Risk and Security Research, 1/2025. TH Köln, Cologne, 234 pp.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sven Fuchs, 02 Aug 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for his positive and encouraging feedback, and for drawing our attention to the important parallels between the issues discussed in our manuscript and those observed in other recent disasters, such as the floods in Valencia (Spain) in 2024 and the recent flash floods in Texas (US).
We agree that the question of why known solutions to natural hazard risks are not implemented is central, and we appreciate the reviewer emphasising the role of ideology and political polarisation in this context. Although our manuscript briefly references the rollback of disaster preparedness regulations during the Trump administration as an example of such dynamics, we recognise that political and ideological factors warrant further consideration. However, given the format and scope of this brief communication, we have chosen to keep the reference concise to avoid overemphasising a specific political episode and shifting the focus away from our primary objective of comparing institutional capacity and governance challenges across hazard types, particularly between wildfires and floods.
Similarly, we appreciate the suggestion to include additional case examples and agree that they could provide valuable illustrations. To preserve the brevity and coherence of the manuscript and maintain a comparative focus on California wildfires and other hazards, especially in terms of institutional and regulatory responses, we have decided to add these examples briefly in Sections 5 (Removing governance barriers) for the 2024 Spain example and 6 (Conclusion) for the 2025 Texas example.
The sections will read as follows:
5 Removing governace barriers
Effective management of natural hazards requires the systematic identification and removal of institutional and structural barriers that impede resilience and preparedness. These barriers often stem from a combination of administrative fragmentation, misaligned political incentives, and insufficient integration of risk considerations into broader policy frameworks. Key challenges include accountability gaps, where unclear mandates and responsibilities across institutions hinder coordinated action, as well as a pervasive lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Political constraints also play a significant role, with policy directions sometimes shaped by short-term populist agendas or illiberal leadership, such as the rollback of disaster preparedness regulations observed during the Trump administration in the United States. Another example is the 2024 Valencia flood in Spain, were governance complexities and party politics driven by political rivalry and autonomy tensions hindered effective disaster management (Geier, 2025). Such political dynamics can erode established norms of precautionary planning and diminish institutional commitment to long-term risk reduction. Weak enforcement of existing regulations, legal ambiguities, and fragmented sectoral responsibilities further exacerbate different dimensions of vulnerability. The absence of coherent mainstreaming of disaster risk management across sectors results in siloed interventions that fail to address the systemic nature of risk. Moreover, mismatches between the spatial and temporal scales of risk and those of policy implementation can hinder the effectiveness of adaptation and resilience strategies. Financial limitations and persistent knowledge gaps further restrict the ability of institutions to engage in proactive disaster preparedness. Limited funding for prevention measures often leads to reactive, crisis-driven responses rather than long-term planning (Biesbroek et al., 2013). Meanwhile, rushed and poorly executed infrastructure and construction projects – often driven by political or economic expediency – can inadvertently increase exposure to hazards, particularly in rapidly urbanising areas or regions undergoing post-disaster reconstruction. Addressing these multifaceted governance challenges requires a multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to strengthen governance, improve enforcement and promote sustainable development practices (Biesbroek et al., 2013).
6 Conclusion
Achieving sustainable economies and resilient societies requires the systematic removal of behavioural and institutional barriers that hinder transformative change. Behavioural barriers are often rooted in psychological and socio-cultural dynamics, including cognitive biases such as the normalcy bias, overconfidence, and the discounting of future risks. Combined with short-term economic thinking and a preference for immediate gains over long-term security, these biases can limit proactive engagement in risk reduction strategies. Meanwhile, institutional barriers – such as fragmented governance structures, poor horizontal and vertical coordination between administrative bodies, and weak regulatory enforcement – significantly undermine the development and implementation of coherent and effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies. These barriers are amplified further by misinformation and conspiracy theories that spread rapidly across social media. The recent 2025 Texas floods in the US are a case in point (Golgowski, 2025; Makuch, 2025). The complexity of DRR lies not only in the unpredictability and variability of natural hazards, but also in the socio-political and institutional contexts in which risk is managed. As a multifaceted challenge, DRR requires interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration that cuts across policy sectors and levels of government. This includes integrating knowledge from the natural sciences, engineering, urban planning, economics, and the social sciences, as well as actively engaging with civil society and the private sector. Institutional inertia and policy fragmentation often act as critical constraints, making cross-sectoral collaboration both necessary and difficult. In order to meaningfully contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), DRR must be mainstreamed into broader sustainability and spatial development agendas. This includes embedding risk considerations into land use planning, environmental regulation, infrastructure development, and social protection policies. Coherent land use strategies that account for hazard exposure, ecological integrity, and socio-economic vulnerabilities are vital for building systemic resilience and reducing long-term risks.
Institutional capacity plays a central role in enabling or constraining such efforts. Recent extreme events, such as the widespread wildfires in the United States, have exposed the severe consequences of institutional weaknesses, including delayed responses, insufficient preparedness, and poorly coordinated interventions. These cases highlight the urgent need to enforce existing regulations more effectively, improve inter-agency coordination, and strengthen governance mechanisms at all levels. Effective DRR must also address structural and systemic vulnerabilities, including not only physical exposure to hazards but also deeper social issues such as inequality, marginalisation, and access to resources (Doorn et al., 2021). Furthermore, diversity in terms of perspectives, experiences, and knowledge systems must be recognised as a valuable asset in developing inclusive and context-sensitive resilience strategies (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2021). Without addressing these deeply embedded governance challenges, efforts to build hazard-resilient societies will remain fragmented. What is needed is a more integrated, equitable, and inclusive approach that aligns DRR with the broader sustainability agenda and acknowledges the interdependencies between environmental and social systems. This approach must support long-term resilience for all communities in the face of escalating climate-related risks. Science is called upon to move beyond sectoral adaptation toward transformative approaches; only then can it meaningfully contribute to strengthening community resilience under changing conditions. As White et al. (2001) argued, this requires shifting from uncoordinated, sector-specific responses to a more coherent and integrated form of risk management that addresses underlying structural issues and political inertia.
New references to be included will be:
Geier, W.: Valencia 2024 flood disaster: Challenges of effective disaster management in countries with complex division of public responsibilities, in: Hochwasser – inundaciones – floods: Integrative risk and security research, edited by: Fekete, A., TH Köln, Cologne, 186-190, 2025.
Golgowski, N.: 'Fake weather, fake flooding': Republicans are spreading a bizarre conspiracy theory after the deadly Texas floods, HuffPost, 07 July 2025, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weather-manipulation-conspiracy-theory-texas-floods_n_686c0c45e4b0082b3c90c01c, 2025 (retrieved 02 August 2025).
Makuch, B.: Far-right conspiracy theories spread online in aftermath of the Texas floods, The Guardian, 09 July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/09/texas-floods-conspiracy-theories, 2025 (retrieved 02 August 2025).
We hope that both the editor and the reviewer agree that this approach maintains the clarity and relevance of the paper, encouraging further discussion and research into the structural and political roots of implementation gaps in disaster risk reduction.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sven Fuchs, 02 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2509', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2025
The manuscript remains overly generic and does not demonstrate a clear or substantive contribution to the existing literature on wildfire governance. While the topic is important, the analysis lacks depth and originality, and the insights presented largely reiterate well-established arguments without advancing conceptual, empirical, or methodological understanding.
A further concern relates to the authors’ limited engagement with the institutional and governance context of California wildfires. The analysis appears to be developed without sufficient context-specific knowledge of California’s complex governance arrangements, legal frameworks, and institutional histories, which are central to the subject matter. This raises questions about the empirical grounding and interpretive validity of the study.
In its current form, the manuscript risks resembling what is often referred to in the literature as parachute or helicopter research, where external perspectives are applied to a case without meaningful engagement with local institutions, expertise, or contextual realities. The authors are encouraged to critically reflect on this issue and to strengthen the manuscript through deeper contextualisation, engagement with local scholarship and practitioners, or collaboration with regionally grounded expertise.
The study provided some novel points to ponder but it gives no clear explanation of how the authors derived their four “key constraints”. Did they analyse government reports? Media coverage? Conduct stakeholder interviews? Without a transparent method, the validity of these findings remains questionable. Even for a brief communication, the methodological pathway leading to these conclusions should be outlined or at least referenced clearly.
Line 20: The discussion around the fire-resistant structure that withstood the flames would benefit from greater elaboration. Adding details on the specific architectural elements or materials used would enhance reader understanding and provide a concrete example of wildfire-adapted design in practice.
Line 25: The article leans heavily on previously established frameworks (e.g., White et al. 2001) without critically updating or challenging them based on the 2025 wildfire context. The authors could have presented a new model of institutional failure, or a typology of governance barriers observed specifically during the 2025 events, that can give their contribution to the academic discourse.
Line 50: Statements such as “capacity building extends beyond individual societal capabilities” is asserted without concrete case studies, statistics, or stakeholder quotes. For a communication rooted in the context of 2025 California wildfires, readers expect specific, data-driven examples or policy evaluations (e.g., What agencies failed? What codes were not enforced? How were inter-agency gaps revealed?).
Line 95: The article avoids any discussion of political or economic trade-offs, despite referencing political constraints. It fails to address who benefits from the status quo and why inertia persists. Why would local governments or developers resist fire-adapted building codes? Are there economic disincentives to resilient land-use planning?
Additional Suggestions for improvement:
The early sections stress the role of property owner awareness, which risks reinforcing a “blame the individual” narrative. This is not adequately balanced with a deeper examination of how institutions fail to support or enable community-level change. The emphasis on public education could be critically reassessed to avoid downplaying the structural asymmetries of power and resource allocation.
The paper discusses the 2025 wildfires as if they are an isolated event. Yet, the same regions in California have experienced repeated catastrophic fires. The authors miss the opportunity to present a temporal critique: why do the same institutional barriers persist despite multiple wake-up calls? What (if any) institutional learning has occurred? A brief comparison across years would strengthen the urgency and credibility of the argument.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sven Fuchs, 22 Dec 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and for their thoughtful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the intent, scope, and contribution of this Brief Communication.
Introductory statement:
The purpose of the NHESS manuscript type “Brief Communication” is not to present a full empirical case study, introduce a new governance framework, or advance a novel methodological approach (see https://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/about/manuscript_types.html). Accordingly, our contribution is a short, reflective commentary on the 2025 California wildfires, summarizing four key institutional capacity concerns repeatedly highlighted in the wildfire governance literature and starkly illustrated by recent events. Therefore, the manuscript does not engage in in-depth local fieldwork, practitioner collaboration, or regionally grounded empirical analysis, which would exceed the scope and format of such a Brief Communication.
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern that the manuscript may appear generic if assessed against the expectations of a full research article. However, our intention is to synthesize well-established insights in light of a contemporary crisis, rather than to reinvent or substantially revise existing frameworks. The 2025 California wildfires serve as a concrete illustration that reaffirms the enduring relevance of principles articulated in seminal work such as White et al. (2001). Our reliance on established frameworks is therefore deliberate, reflecting continuity rather than analytical stagnation.
That said, we agree that the manuscript can more clearly situate this reflection within recent California-specific scholarship. In the revised version, we will explicitly engage with key contemporary contributions from the wildfire research and policy community, including:
- Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface (Mowery et al., 2019),
- Recent analyses of zoning and housing policies relevant to wildfire risk (Philson et al., 2022),
- Lessons from California on the shared responsibilities of government and homeowners in wildfire resilience (Jacobson, 2023),
- Empirical evidence on public support for wildfire adaptation policies (Hui et al., 2022).
This will clarify how the four institutional capacity concerns resonate with current debates and evidence, without expanding the manuscript beyond the intended scope.
We also wish to clarify that providing a comprehensive, context-specific analysis of California’s governance arrangements, legal frameworks, and institutional histories was not the objective of this Brief Communication. Rather, the contribution offers a concise synthesis of four widely observed constraints on progress in wildfire risk reduction: (i) limited stakeholder awareness and capacity, (ii) inadequate incentives for risk-reducing behavior, and (iii) governance barriers, including regulatory fragmentation, misalignment across agencies, and insufficient integration of wildfire risk into planning. The text emphasizes the broader need for coherent, cross-sectoral policy frameworks that enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen compliance with building codes, and align wildfire risk reduction with long-term sustainability and climate resilience objectives.
We fully agree that meaningful engagement with local institutions, scholarship, and practitioners is essential for in-depth empirical research. However, this is a Brief Communication and not a full research paper and as such it is intended as a high-level reflection on widely documented challenges, using recent wildfire events as illustrative examples. While we do not include direct collaboration with regional experts, in the revised manuscript we will more explicitly anchor the discussion in California-based scholarship to provide additional context without exceeding the scope of this manuscript.
Specifically, we will address the remarks of reviewer #2 as follows:
RC:
The manuscript remains overly generic and does not demonstrate a clear or substantive contribution to the existing literature on wildfire governance. While the topic is important, the analysis lacks depth and originality, and the insights presented largely reiterate well-established arguments without advancing conceptual, empirical, or methodological understanding.
A further concern relates to the authors’ limited engagement with the institutional and governance context of California wildfires. The analysis appears to be developed without sufficient context-specific knowledge of California’s complex governance arrangements, legal frameworks, and institutional histories, which are central to the subject matter. This raises questions about the empirical grounding and interpretive validity of the study.
In its current form, the manuscript risks resembling what is often referred to in the literature as parachute or helicopter research, where external perspectives are applied to a case without meaningful engagement with local institutions, expertise, or contextual realities. The authors are encouraged to critically reflect on this issue and to strengthen the manuscript through deeper contextualisation, engagement with local scholarship and practitioners, or collaboration with regionally grounded expertise.
The study provided some novel points to ponder but it gives no clear explanation of how the authors derived their four “key constraints”. Did they analyse government reports? Media coverage? Conduct stakeholder interviews? Without a transparent method, the validity of these findings remains questionable. Even for a Brief Communication, the methodological pathway leading to these conclusions should be outlined or at least referenced clearly.
AC:
Please see our introductory statement above.
RC:
Line 20: The discussion around the fire-resistant structure that withstood the flames would benefit from greater elaboration. Adding details on the specific architectural elements or materials used would enhance reader understanding and provide a concrete example of wildfire-adapted design in practice.
AC:
We appreciate the suggestion. While the physical resilience of structures is not the central focus of this Brief Communication, we have mentioned it as a contextual opener to the discussion. We aim to keep this section concise and focused on the broader discussion rather than detailed architectural specifics.
RC:
Line 25: The article leans heavily on previously established frameworks (e.g., White et al. 2001) without critically updating or challenging them based on the 2025 wildfire context. The authors could have presented a new model of institutional failure, or a typology of governance barriers observed specifically during the 2025 events, that can give their contribution to the academic discourse.
AC:
Please see our introductory statement above. It was not the aim to present a new model based on the 2025 wildfire context. Rather, the objective of this paper is to use that event as a contemporary and well-documented case through which to synthesise four recurring issues associated with preparedness and planning deficiencies that are common across many types of natural hazards globally. These issues, fragmented governance, insufficient information flow, inadequate training, and weak coordination between institutions, have been identified repeatedly in the hazard and disaster risk reduction literature, most notably in the seminal work of White et al. (2001), see also Referee comment #1. We aim to make this clearer in the revised manuscript.
RC:
Line 50: Statements such as “capacity building extends beyond individual societal capabilities” is asserted without concrete case studies, statistics, or stakeholder quotes. For a communication rooted in the context of 2025 California wildfires, readers expect specific, data-driven examples or policy evaluations (e.g., What agencies failed? What codes were not enforced? How were inter-agency gaps revealed?).
AC:
We will adapt the text on Capacity building (Section 3) by specific background information on the California wildfire context. In detail, we will extend the text by including the following: “Capacity building extends beyond individual societal capabilities (Kuhlicke et al., 2011) to encompass the broader institutional frameworks required to effectively manage and mitigate the consequences of natural hazards. This involves not only enhancing the capacities of individuals and communities but also reinforcing the organizational, legal, and procedural systems that underpin risk governance (Nielsen-Pincus et al., 2019). While standards, rules, and regulations are in place, their effectiveness depends critically on how well they are translated into actionable and enforceable policies, such as land-use planning principles, disaster-resistant infrastructure guidelines, enforceable building codes, and other prescriptive measures (Rauter et al., 2020). However, this translation is often impeded by institutional fragmentation, overlapping mandates among agencies, financial constraints, and limited technical expertise, particularly at the local level (Schinko et al., 2023). Specifically, studies have concluded that complex patterns of land ownership and management around a community can increase its exposure to wildfire risk by complicating coordination efforts (Nielsen-Pincus et al., 2019). Accordingly, research and innovation aimed at developing preparedness tools should carefully consider the target audience, the actions they are expected to take, and assumptions about their capacities, including internet access, digital literacy, available time, and financial resources (Ryan et al., 2023). These systemic barriers hinder the coordination and implementation of effective adaptation and resilience-building measures. Often, unclear roles and responsibilities combined with limited inter-agency communication reduce the coherence and overall effectiveness of risk reduction strategies (Zhang et al., 2025). Strengthening institutional capacity therefore requires ongoing investment in education and training programs, knowledge-sharing networks, and cross-sectoral collaboration, ensuring that risk management strategies are not only well designed but also successfully implemented across all levels of government (Hamilton et al., 2023). Beyond technical and structural improvements, capacity building must be anchored in inclusive decision-making processes. Involving local communities, private sector actors, civil society organizations, and scientific experts helps to ground risk management strategies in local knowledge and social realities, enhancing both their legitimacy and effectiveness (Jacobson, 2023). (…)”
RC:
Line 95: The article avoids any discussion of political or economic trade-offs, despite referencing political constraints. It fails to address who benefits from the status quo and why inertia persists. Why would local governments or developers resist fire-adapted building codes? Are there economic disincentives to resilient land-use planning?
AC:
We appreciate the suggestion. These questions (regarding political or economic trade-offs, beneficiaries of the status quo, and potential disincentives to fire-adapted planning) are beyond the scope of this Brief Communication. While we reference political constraints, detailed analysis of such socio-economic factors is not included in this work.
RC:
The early sections stress the role of property owner awareness, which risks reinforcing a “blame the individual” narrative. This is not adequately balanced with a deeper examination of how institutions fail to support or enable community-level change. The emphasis on public education could be critically reassessed to avoid downplaying the structural asymmetries of power and resource allocation.
The paper discusses the 2025 wildfires as if they are an isolated event. Yet, the same regions in California have experienced repeated catastrophic fires. The authors miss the opportunity to present a temporal critique: why do the same institutional barriers persist despite multiple wake-up calls? What (if any) institutional learning has occurred? A brief comparison across years would strengthen the urgency and credibility of the argument.
AC:
A good point. We appreciate these suggestions; however, they extend beyond the scope of this Brief Communication. While we note the importance of property owner awareness and public education, our focus is not on a detailed analysis of institutional failures or structural power dynamics. Similarly, although repeated wildfire events in California are acknowledged, a temporal or comparative institutional analysis is outside the intended scope of this article.
Additional literature that will be considered in a revised version of this manuscript:
Anderson, S. E., Plantinga, A. J., and Wibbenmeyer, M.: Inequality in agency response: Evidence from salient wildfire events, The Journal of Politics, 85, 625-639, doi:10.1086/722044, 2023.
Hamilton, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., and Evers, C. R.: Wildfire risk governance from the bottom up: linking local planning processes in fragmented landscapes, Ecology and Society, 28, 3, doi:10.5751/ES-13856-280303, 2023.
Hui, I., Zhao, A., Cain, B. E., and Driscoll, A. M.: Baptism by wildfire? Wildfire experiences and public support for wildfire adaptation policies, American Politics Research, 50, 108-116, doi:10.1177/1532673X211023926, 2022.
Jacobson, T.: Government, homeowners, and wildfire: What can we learn from California’s resilience planning experience?, in: Homeowners and the resilient city, edited by: Thaler, T., Hartmann, T., Slavíková, L., and Tempels, B., Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 237-263, 2023.
Lambrou, N., Kolden, C., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Anjum, E., and Acey, C.: Social drivers of vulnerability to wildfire disasters: A review of the literature, 237, 104797, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104797, 2023.
Lambrou, N., Kolden, C., and Loukaitou-Sideris, A.: Disaster recovery gentrification in post-wildfire landscapes: The case of Paradise, CA, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 118, 105235, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105235, 2025.
Miller, R. K., Shi, L., Wulf, D. A., and Mach, K. J.: Trends in wildfire-related bills in California, 2001–2020, Environmental Research: Climate, 1, 025006, doi:10.1088/2752-5295/ac8caa, 2022.
Mowery, M., Read, A., Johnston, K., and Wafaie, T.: Planning the wildland-urban interface (PAS Report 594), American Planning Association, Chicago, 144 pp., 2019.
Mowery, M.: Planning the WUI in LA County, California, American Planning Association, Chicago, 15 pp., 2021.
Nielsen-Pincus, M., Evers, C., and Ager, A.: Exposure complexity and community capacity to manage wildfire risk: a coupled biophysical and social analysis of 60 communities in the western United States, Fire, 2, 59, doi:10.3390/fire2040059, 2019.
Philson, C. S., Wagner, L., and Nawathe, R.: Mitigating California wildfire impact through zoning and housing policy, Journal of Science Policy and Governance, 18, 12, doi:10.38126/JSPG180112, 2022.
Schinko, T., Berchtold, C., Handmer, J., Deubelli-Hwang, T., Preinfalk, E., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Scolobig, A., Serra, M., and Plana, E.: A framework for considering justice aspects in integrated wildfire risk management, Nature Climate Change, 13, 788-795, doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01726-0, 2023.
Zhang, C., Lambrou, N., Kolden, C., and Loukaitou-Sideris, A.: Addressing wildfire resilience through comprehensive county-level plan effectiveness in California, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 118, 105230, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105230, 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2509-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sven Fuchs, 22 Dec 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,239 | 162 | 44 | 2,445 | 71 | 86 |
- HTML: 2,239
- PDF: 162
- XML: 44
- Total: 2,445
- BibTeX: 71
- EndNote: 86
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Konstantinos Karagiorgos
Margreth Keiler
Lars Nyberg
Maria Papathoma-Köhle
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(420 KB) - Metadata XML
This short communication offers a very welcome, timely discussion of an extremely pertinent issue. It is interesting to note that many of the planning and preparedness deficiencies described in the paper are common to diverse environments and disaster. For example, the misuse of land subject to natural hazard impacts connects the October 2024 floods in Valencia (Fekete 2025) and the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles. The flash floods in Texas also qualify.
The solutions to many natural hazard problems are clear, as the paper explains. The question is why they are not implemented. Poor organisation and lack of information and training are emphasised in the paper. I would suggest that ideology and political polarisation are at the root. Perhaps they need more than a passing mention.
The paper would benefit from short examples. I understand that it is a short contribution, and also that examples can be controversial, but they can be very illuminating of the mix of factors that predispose areas to disaster.
I hope that this paper stimulates more discussion of why solutions to the problem of natural hazards are not sufficiently implemented.
Fekete, A. 2025 (ed.) Hochwasser – Inundaciones – Floods. Integrative Risk and Security Research, 1/2025. TH Köln, Cologne, 234 pp.