Authors John Handmer Mathilde de Goër de Herve Thomas Schinko
License CC-BY-4.0
DOI: 10.1111/risa.14157
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Risk justice: Boosting the contribution of risk management to
sustainable development
Mathilde de Goër de Herve1,2,3 Thomas Schinko4 John Handmer4
1
Risk and Environmental Studies, Karlstad Abstract
University, Karlstad, Sweden
Comprehensively addressing different aspects of justice is essential to enable risk man-
2
Centre for Research on Sustainable Societal agement to contribute to sustainable development. This article offers a new conceptual
Transformation (CRS), Karlstad University,
Karlstad, Sweden
framework called risk justice that comprises procedural, distributive, and corrective jus-
3
tice in four dimensions related to sustainable development: social, ecological, spatial,
Centre for Societal Risk Research (CSR),
Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden and temporal issues. Risk justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable
4
while governing and managing a possible negative event. After explaining the concep-
International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA), Population and Just Societies tual framework, a detailed content analysis of two international guidelines for disaster
Program, Laxenburg, Austria risk management (the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 and
the European Floods Directive) illustrates the analytical potential of the risk justice
Correspondence framework. Findings show strong emphasis on social and spatial aspects of distribu-
Mathilde de Goër de Herve, Risk and
Environmental Studies, Karlstad University, tive and procedural justice in the two documents, whereas considerations of corrective
Universitetsgatan 2, 65188 Karlstad, Sweden. justice and temporal and ecological issues are scarce or indirect. This may result in con-
Email: mathilde.degoerdeherve@kau.se flicting impacts of disaster risk management on sustainable development. Therefore,
discussing risk management with a risk justice viewpoint while elaborating guidelines
Funding information
Swedish Research council for Sustainable
or choosing risk management strategies provides new avenues for sustainable devel-
Development opment and facilitates transparent trade-offs. Our risk justice framework enables risk
practitioners and researchers to reflect systemically about justice in risk management
in different risk contexts and can be used both as a proactive and as a retrospective tool.
KEYWORDS
disaster risk management, flood risk governance, risk justice, sustainable development
1 INTRODUCTION the other hand, justice is critical in risk management (Adger
& Nelson, 2010) and key for successful sustainable develop-
Two of the global challenges the world is facing are sus- ment (Agyeman, 2013). Yet, no umbrella framework in the
tainable development and increasing inequalities, and these literature addresses the different justice issues related to the
challenges are intertwined in the sense that justice is a key various facets of sustainable development within risk man-
aspect of sustainable development. In addition, as risks are agement (de Goër de Herve, 2022). That is why this article
affecting the durability of the activity they threaten, it is not presents a framework called risk justice. The framework itself
surprising that risk management is an essential part of sus- is meant to be generally applicable to all types of risks, as
tainable development. Yet, conflicts arise when managing defined later, and the second part of the article illustrates
risks because of perceived or real injustices, and therefore, its application in the context of disaster risk management
one needs to think concretely about justice in risk manage- specifically.
ment to contribute effectively to sustainable development. In The risk justice framework can be employed for sev-
other words, on the one hand, risk management is important eral purposes by many stakeholders, such as risk managers,
to build a path toward sustainable societies (Hunjra et al., decision-makers, evaluators, and researchers. It may be used
2022; Izumi et al., 2020; Šakić Trogrlić et al., 2022), and on in practice either as a forward-looking (proactive) tool when
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.
Risk Analysis. 2023;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/risa 1
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
deciding about new risk management strategies, or as a or not, Johannesson et al. (2022) suggest that it is possible
backward-looking (retrospective) tool when judging past to agree on a justice assessment framework. The risk justice
and current strategies. The article provides examples of the framework offers such a structure for justice assessment in the
retrospective application. context of promoting the contribution of risk management to
To put it another way, our goal is to elaborate a generally sustainable development.
applicable and multidimensional risk justice framework that Interestingly, there is no clear definition of sustainable
aims at facilitating considerations of fairness issues within development that is broad enough to integrate the many
risk management in order for it to contribute to sustainable aspects of the concept in online dictionaries. The only agree-
development. The application provided as an example shows ment in the scientific community is that there is no consensus
its analytical potential with the document analysis of some on the definition, but most scientific discussions include at
international disaster risk management guidelines. least one of the following three elements: targets, territories,
Such conceptual work requires not only examples but also and time (Martinuzzi & Meyer, 2016). Targets group the dif-
clarification of the keywords (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020), which ferent issues related to sustainable development, such social
are developed in the following. and ecological ones. The Sustainable Development Goals
In order to define risk justice, we decided to go back (General Assembly Resolution, 2015, 70/1) are an example
to linguistic definitions to explore the concepts of risk and of this understanding of sustainable development. Territories
justice, drawing on standard dictionaries. A risk is “the pos- encompass different spatial levels and highlight that actions
sibility of something bad happening” (Cambridge Dictionary, taken in one place should not hinder sustainable development
n.d.-b) or “the possibility that something unpleasant or dan- in other places. Time is about the long term and the belief
gerous might happen” (MacMillian Dictionary, n.d.-b). We that current actions should not limit the well-being of future
note two main characteristics of risk from these definitions: generations. This is a key part of the definition of sustainable
the uncertainty of the event happening and the potential for development in the Brundtland Report (World Commission
negative consequences. More elaborated definitions are pre- on Environment and Development, 1987) that concerns the
sented in the scientific literature (see for instance Haimes, capacity of future generations to meet their own needs. Fair-
2009) and given by organizations that work with the concept ness issues emerge in relation to these three elements of
(see e.g., ISO (2018) for a standardized understanding of risk sustainable development. Even if some have argued that sus-
in organizations; and SRA (2018) for an overview of several tainable development focuses on economic growth, whereas
qualitative definitions and risk metrics). Turning to the con- the concept of sustainability encompasses a complex system
cept of justice, it is defined as “fairness in the way people are analysis of nature and human relationships (Ruggerio, 2021),
dealt with” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-a) or “the fair treat- we notice that the Sustainable Development Goals, a broadly
ment of people” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, n.d.). Other accepted conception of sustainable development today, are
definitions also include the idea of reasonableness: Justice is not focused on economics only (General Assembly resolu-
“the fact that something is reasonable and fair” (MacMillian tion, 2015, 70/1). As the notion of “sustainability” gives the
Dictionary, n.d.-a) and “the quality of being fair or reason- impression of a fixed target and leaves out the idea of a per-
able” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, n.d.). In summary, we petual evolvement toward better well-being, which the word
define the concept of risk justice as the quality of being fair “development” includes, we have chosen to use the notion of
and reasonable while governing and managing a possible “sustainable development” in this article.
negative event. For risk management to contribute to the different “targets”
We therefore need to provide specific definitions of of sustainable development, the concept of justice has to be
risk governance and management. Risk governance is “the extended from a purely anthropocentric perspective (fairness
application of governance principles to the identification, between people, which includes social and economic issues)
assessment, management and communication of risk. Gov- to a larger understanding that includes natural systems (fair-
ernance refers to the actions, processes, traditions and ness between both humans and nonhumans, which includes
institutions by which authority is exercised and decisions are environmental and ecological issues). As these entities can
taken and implemented” (SRA, 2018, p. 8) and risk man- be in different places, the fairness between them relates to
agement is the “activities to handle risk such as prevention, the “territories” aspect of sustainable development. In addi-
mitigation, adaptation or sharing” (SRA, 2018, p. 8). tion, the entities can also be living at different moments in
It is important to clarify here that a risk might offer bene- time, and thus, the fairness between them affects the “time”
fits that explain the willingness to take it, but there are always element of sustainable development. The many meanings of
negative consequences if the risk materializes (SRA, 2018). sustainable development increase the likelihood of conflict-
We note as well that the definitions of justice refer to fair- ing goals, and therefore, the idea of reasonable treatment of
ness, which itself is not defined. This is so because what is entities included in the concept of justice is also important for
considered fair depends on many factors, including cultural being able to deal with necessary trade-offs.
and historical contexts, types of risks, and types of manage- As mentioned previously, the second half of this article
ment strategies (see for instance de Goër de Herve, 2022, presents an application of the framework in the specific case
concerning the various meanings of fairness in flood risk of disaster risk management. Disaster risks were selected
management). Even if there is no agreement on what is just among the many possible examples of risks because their
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 3
reduction is essential for sustainable development (United conducted to challenge its content and its relevance. An ini-
Nations, 2015). A disaster risk is a combination of the poten- tial version focusing on flood management, built following a
tial negative consequences of a hazardous event given the literature review on justice considerations within flood risk
degree of exposure and vulnerability of the people and assets management, has been published under the name of “flood
present in a place at a particular moment. Numerous disas- risk justice” (see de Goër de Herve, 2022). The review led to
ters (such as heatwaves, fires, and floods) in the last years improvements of the framework while generalizing it to var-
have occurred in Europe and around the world (Bevere & ious types of risks, with for instance the addition of a third
Remondi, 2022), making an increasing number of people meta-dimension, corrective justice.
experience their direct effects. Disasters uncover inequitable
situations leading Thomalla et al. (2018) to call for moving
from “current development patterns that increase, create or 2.2 Document analysis
unfairly distribute risks, to forms of development that are
equitable, resilient and sustainable” (p. 1). More than 10 years We test the framework through the analysis of two docu-
ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change intro- ments. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
duced the idea that equity is an essential part of disaster 2015–2030 (United Nations, 2015), hereafter “SFDRR”, has
risk management in the face of climate change (IPCC, 2012) been selected for analysis as an international guideline for
and therefore necessary for sustainable development. Conse- disaster risk management. It was released in 2015, the same
quently, disaster risk management is a suitable illustration for year that two other key international agreements for sus-
applying the risk justice framework. tainable development were agreed upon: the Sustainable
The article is divided into five sections. Section 2 describes Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. In addition, the
the methods for theory-building and document analysis. The European Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC), hereafter
framework is presented and described in Section 3, and “FD”, has been selected as it is an example of an international
Section 4 details the illustration of its application as a ret- binding agreement between the European Union Member
rospective analytical tool. To conclude, Section 5 discusses States on flood risks, which are one of the risks concerned by
the findings and the risk justice conceptual framework. the SFDRR. Floods are among the most frequently occurring
disasters with globally the greatest impacts and largest num-
bers of affected people (CRED, 2022; Delforge et al., 2022).
2 METHODS Appendix A summarizes the two documents.
The document analysis was processed in two parts: a count
2.1 Theorization of the word justice and some synonyms and their antonyms
(we searched for “just,” “fair,” “equit,” and “equal” in the
The present article follows a theory-building approach that text) and a content analysis with coding based on the different
gathers information from previous scientific publications in dimensions of the framework. The rather limited appearance
order to synthesize multiple theories into a unified frame- of justice-related words during the word count (see results
work, which is one of the main ways of making a theoretical in Table 2) called for an in-depth qualitative content analy-
contribution according to Jaccard and Jacoby (2020). “Con- sis, as some elements can be related to justice issues without
structing a theory is more like crafting an elegant ensemble being labeled as such in the texts. The content analysis was
of logically connected ideas that depict the world and allow proceeded in two steps: First, general codes related to the
knowledge to leap forwards” (Series Editor’s Note by T.D. several dimensions of risk justice were applied to the qual-
Little, Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020, p. vii). To do so, we connect itative data. Second, the codes were fine-tuned based on the
and bring together ideas from relevant existing literature. The first step analysis, allowing for a more precise second content
resulting risk justice framework is at the crossroads of two analysis to elaborate the preliminary findings. The final list
main categories of conceptual works, according to the typol- of codes is presented in Appendix B. This was undertaken by
ogy developed by MacInnis (2011): revising and delineating. the lead author with results cross-checked by the coauthors to
Among these categories, there are a number of types of tasks. strengthen their validity.
The article uses two of these: First, envisioning tasks that
characterize different justice aspects that are sometimes not
labeled as such and second, explicating tasks that show how 3 RISK JUSTICE
the dimensions are relevant when taken together as a whole.
MacInnis (2011) states that “conceptualization is a process 3.1 Conceptual framework
of abstract thinking involving the mental representation of an
idea” (p. 140) and that it is “critical to vitality of academic The conceptual risk justice framework considers distributive,
fields” (p. 150). corrective, and procedural justice in four dimensions (social,
The premises of the framework have been presented during ecological, spatial, and temporal) related to sustainable
research seminars and conferences (e.g., de Goër de Herve, development. Risk governance and management can be
2021), and an informal interactive review of the work in described in a very simplified way as a risk that is identified,
the form of discussions with subject-matter specialists was a choice of a management strategy, and the consequences of
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
The risk itself
The management
The consequences strategy decision process
of the strategy
Meta level of risk justice
DISTRIBUTIVE & CORRECTIVE PROCEDURAL
risk justice risk justice
Who (in)directly carries the burdens, Who decides for whom/what?
and who (in)directly benefits? Whose voices and what knowledge are considered?
Who is responsible for and affected by the (potential) harm,
and who corrects it?
Sustainable development dimensions of risk justice
SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL
risk justice risk justice
Fairness between Fairness between Fairness between
different groups of people humans and non-humans different non-humans entities
SPATIAL TEMPORAL
risk justice risk justice
Fairness between Fairness between
entities present in entities living at different
different geographical areas moments in time
FIGURE 1 The conceptual risk justice framework.
this strategy once implemented, which should have an impact committed and the other has suffered a transactional injus-
on the risk itself (among other consequences) as shown at the tice” (p. 349), whereas distributive justice “deals with the
top of Figure 1. distribution of whatever is divisible […] among the partici-
Distributive justice, which is the fairness between those pants in a political community” (p. 349), and therefore, “there
who directly and indirectly benefit and those who directly and is a conceptual difference between the correlative logic of
indirectly carry the burdens (de Goër de Herve, 2022), applies corrective justice and the comparative logic of distributive
both to the risk itself (e.g., Busby & Sedmak, 2011; Dietrich, justice” (p. 355). In Aristotle’s understanding, corrective jus-
2021) and to the management strategy (e.g., Kaufmann et al., tice can happen between two parties only because one is
2021; Thaler, 2021). In essence, it can be addressed by asking responsible for the loss of the other one, whereas distributive
the following questions: Who is impacted positively and neg- justice can happen between an unlimited number of parties
atively by the risk? Is that fair? Who is impacted positively (Weinrib, 2002). Yet, in the risk justice framework, we extend
and negatively by the management strategy? Is that fair? In this limited understanding of corrective justice by consider-
many cases, distributive justice can be interlinked with cor- ing that corrective actions may be taken by a third party, for
rective justice, which is about establishing responsibilities for instance when a public policy aims at remediating polluted
the harmful event. Corrective justice raises the questions of land in order to restore its ecological value, whereas those
who is responsible for the harm? Who is affected by it? Is responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or are other-
that fair? Who should correct the harm, and whether that is wise unable to rectify the wrongdoing. Lazar (2008) contends
fair? that the harm can be corrected by a different agent than the
The theoretical distinctions between corrective and dis- harmer, as long as it is indeed rectified.
tributive justice are discussed in philosophy (see for instance In practice, it might be easier to discuss distributive issues
Perry, 2010), and according to Weinrib (2002), a classi- concerning the current and future distributions of resources,
cal fundamental difference comes from Aristotle’s distinc- and corrective ones in the case of past and historical situa-
tion: corrective justice “focuses on whether one party has tions that lead, or can lead, to loss and damages. For instance,
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 5
Wallimann-Helmer et al. (2019) compare compensatory and the broad frames of social and intragenerational justice, as
distributive justice for climate-related loss and damage and well as environmental justice, which focuses on social issues
conclude that in practice, compensatory justice (which is one in the case of environmental risks and resource management
possible application of corrective justice) applies for iden- (Schlosberg, 2007). The ecological justice dimension of risk
tified harm that has already happened, whereas distributive justice is inspired by what is also called ecological justice,
justice can be used to foster fairness when implementing new which is the fairness between human and nonhuman systems
strategies. and entities, as well as multispecies justice, which is the fair-
Procedural justice, which is about who takes the decision ness among different species. In the context of risk justice,
and whose voices and what knowledge are considered dur- the spatial dimension includes issues raised by climate jus-
ing the decision process (de Goër de Herve, 2022), is key tice for climate-related risks, such as the responsibility for
when choosing a management strategy (Figure 1). It asks and impacts of climate change, as well as the capacity to cope
the following questions: Who makes the decision? Is that with impacts between different countries or regions of the
fair, especially when compared to who is affected? Whose world. Environmental justice also offers spatial insights about
voices are heard, and whose knowledge is considered? What environmental risks, and international justice starts out from
information is taken into consideration? Is that fair? There- national borders to discuss fairness. The understanding of
fore, procedural justice is both about the participation of the spatial justice in the context of risk justice also includes atten-
relevant stakeholders and the information used to make the tion to other spatial levels such as different places located
decision. within the same country. Temporal justice extends the idea of
Distributive and corrective justices are linked to proce- intergenerational justice to include nonhuman entities as well.
dural justice, and the other way around. Some argue that It can also reflect fairness issues between human and nonhu-
there cannot be serious distributive justice without procedu- man entities who have lived in the past, and the ones living
ral justice, and that there is a need for the fair distribution today. We understand temporality broadly, covering different
of resources, such as time, money, and knowledge, in order points in time in the short, medium, and long-term.
to foster procedural justice (Begg, 2018). This meta-level
of risk justice is visible in the middle of Figure 1. Yet, the
causal links among the different forms of justice vary widely 3.2 Details for distributive justice in the
(O’Hare & White, 2018). In addition, there is often a need for four dimensions
justice of recognition in order to support procedural, distribu-
tive, and corrective justice. Indeed, the recognition of those Figure 2 presents a matrix that encompasses the scope of dis-
affected by the risk or the harm, and those affected by the tributive risk justice. The rows detail fairness issues between
management strategies, leads to better delimitations of who the stakeholders: different human groups and different non-
and what should be included in the decision-making process human entities. The columns add the spatial–temporal frames
(Kaufmann et al., 2021). to discuss the distribution of the impacts of the risk and the
The innovative aspect of risk justice is that distributive, management strategy among these actors.
corrective, and procedural justices are considered in terms of Each management strategy may be discussed within each
four dimensions related to sustainable development: social, of the boxes appearing in Figure 2. Is the specific risk and/or
ecological, spatial, and temporal justice, as shown at the the strategy to handle it concerned with distributional issues
bottom of Figure 1. Social justice is the fairness among dif- of any box and all the other boxes? If yes, is the situation just,
ferent groups of people, and ecological justice is the fairness given what is considered fair in the context?
between humans and nonhumans, as well as among different
nonhuman entities. They should both be analyzed together
with spatial–temporal considerations. Spatial justice is the 3.3 Details for corrective justice in the four
fairness between entities present in different geographical dimensions
areas, and temporal justice is the fairness between entities
present at different moments in time. As human and natu- Corrective justice establishes responsibilities for harms and
ral systems are interconnected and various spatial–temporal their corrections between the different groups and entities.
scales are included, the different dimensions overlap. They “Harm is a damage to a person’s interests” (Lazar, 2008, p.
are relevant for the different facets of sustainable devel- 356) or, in the case of risk justice, a damage to the interest
opment, in particular the target integration of social and of an entity, whether it is human or nonhuman. Yet, Lazar
ecological justice, the territorial integration for spatial justice, (2008) states that money, even if it may be “a means for
and the time integration for temporal justice. Therefore, risk furthering our interests” (p. 356), has certain limitations for
justice is about both humans and nonhumans, here and now correcting the harm, notably because some harm can never be
as well as elsewhere and in the future. compensated, especially if it cannot be undone, and because
The four sustainable development dimensions included in some situations cannot be valued in money: They are incom-
the risk justice framework build on existing theories in the mensurable. Therefore, corrective justice in risk management
justice literature (see Table 1). The social dimension reflects cannot be reduced to monetary compensation only but can
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
TA B L E 1 Justice frameworks inspiration
Dimensions of risk justice Inspired by existing justice frameworks in the literature
Social -Social justice
-Intragenerational justice
-Environmental justice
Ecological -Ecological justice
-Multispecies justice
Spatial -Spatial justice
-Climate justice
-Environmental justice
-International justice
Temporal -Intergenerational justice
FAIRNESS BETWEEN…
Same place, Different places, Different places, Same place,
Same time Same time Different times Different times
SOCIAL
ISSUES Between people now
Between groups of Between people here Between people now
and in the future here Between humans
people here and now and there and in the future
and there
Between humans and
Focus on
Between humans and Between humans and Between humans and Between humans
non-human entities
non-humans entities non-human entities non-human entities
now and in the future and non-humans
here and now here and there now and in the future
here and there
Between non-human
Between non-human Between non-
Between non-human Between non-human entities now and in
entities now and in
entities here and now ECOLOGICAL entities here and there the future here and
the future human entities
there
ISSUES
SPATIAL TEMPORAL
ISSUES Focus on ISSUES
FIGURE 2 Detailed components of distributive risk justice.
include other actions such as restoration processes. So cor- 3.4 Details for procedural justice in the
rective actions group monetary and nonmonetary strategies four dimensions
as shown at the bottom of Figure 3. Compensatory justice
refers to “the provision of resources to a victim with the goal As summarized in Figure 4, procedural justice concerns both
of minimizing or reversing the impact of harm done by the the question of who participates during the decision-making
injustice” (Mullen & Okimoto, 2015, p. 478). As it is about process and the question of what information is considered
a transfer of resources, for instance money, this type of jus- when choosing what strategy to implement. Procedural jus-
tice usually applies to the social dimension of risk justice, the tice in the social dimension is most often discussed in terms
fairness between humans, and can apply in various spatial– of participation in and access to the decision-making pro-
temporal scales. Restorative justice focuses broadly on the cess (e.g., Adger & Nelson, 2010). Who can participate in the
recovery and healing process after harm has been done; it decision-making process? Who is given the opportunity, and
“calls for a repair of harms done to communities and the who does it in practice? This discussion also raises the trick-
environment” (Spurlock et al., 2022, p. 2). It can apply to ier question of who should be invited to participate: experts in
humans as well as nonhumans (e.g., the restoration of ecosys- the area of study who have theoretical knowledge, or people
tems after an environmental pollution). Restoration processes exposed to the risk who have knowledge derived from experi-
may take time and therefore include a temporal dimension. ence but may be biased by inaccurate perceptions? Moreover,
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 7
SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL
An individual/a A harmer
group provoking provoking a risk
a risk for another for non-human THE (POTENTIALLY) HARMED
THE (POTENTIAL) HARMER
socio-economic- entities and/or
Who? or What? cultural group ecosystems Who? or What?
Where? When? SPATIAL TEMPORAL Where? When?
A harmer A harmer
provoking a risk provoking a risk
for someone or for someone or
something something at
somewhere else some other point
in time
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
From whom?
Where? When?
What?
Monetary Non-monetary
E.g. E.g.
Compensatory Restorative
justice justice
FIGURE 3 Corrective risk justice mapped.
a critical issue is to consider whether or not increasing the disaggregated data in order to analyze the potential impacts
number of participants in the decision-making process always on different communities. Including an ecological dimension
increases fairness. Previous research has shown that taking requires information about the consequences of the potential
part can sometimes turn into a burden for the participants and strategies on nonhumans, and including a temporal dimension
result in a transfer of responsibilities rather than power (Begg, can be represented by the consideration of long-term scenar-
2018). ios and the inclusion of foresight methodologies to support
In addition, the other dimensions of sustainable devel- decision-making. The spatial dimension requires a check on
opment bring challenging decisions: how to enable the the potential consequences of the actions on different geo-
participation of future generations or nonhumans? Even more graphical areas and not only the one where the hazard and/or
challenging is how to enable the participation of nonhumans the strategy is located.
that will live in the future? Hypothetical reasoning can guide As mentioned in the introduction, the risk justice frame-
decisions about risks affecting people who cannot take part work can be applied to very different types of uncertain and
in the decision procedure such as future generations (Her- negative events. The next section uses it to look specifically
mansson, 2010). As a minimum, their interests should be at disaster risk management.
considered during the decision-making process, for instance
through the invitation of representatives of specific NGOs
(see Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013) referred to by Begg (2018)). 4 ILLUSTRATION: ANALYSIS OF
Among the various actors that should be included in jus- DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT
tice assessments, Johannesson et al. (2022) suggest a “justice INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES
caller,” who would present “a justice claim on behalf of an THROUGH THE RISK JUSTICE
actor who cannot exercise her rights directly” (p. 7). They FRAMEWORK
state that “with relevance to sustainable development and cli-
mate justice, we note that some actors may not be able to To illustrate the analytical potential of the risk justice frame-
come in contact with the system directly. […] Separate indi- work, we applied it to official documents used as compulsory
viduals and activist groups may act as justice callers for future or voluntary guidelines for disaster risk management. The
generations who do not yet have a voice in climate issues or SFDRR (United Nations, 2015) is an international voluntary
on the behalf of ecosystems that cannot speak for themselves agreement on how to support disaster risk reduction world-
by definition” (p. 7). wide. It clearly states that disaster risk management is a way
When it comes to what knowledge is considered, and to contribute to sustainable development. We present the find-
therefore, what information is processed during the decision- ings of the analysis of the SFDRR through the risk justice lens
making process, including a social dimension can call for in the first part of the results section. Then follows a more
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
during the decision- processed for making
making process choices
Who is the source of
information? e.g.
expert/traditional knowledge
Who is participating compared to
SOCIAL who is impacted by the decision? To what level of disaggregation
are the data available (depending
on socio-eco-cultural
characteristics)?
Is there information about the
Is there a representative for non- ecological impacts? At what level
ECOLOGICAL human interests? of disaggregation (e.g. entities,
ecosystems, etc.)?
Is there information about the
What is the role of local consequences
communities?
- at different spatial scales (local,
SPATIAL Where are situated the instances regional, national, global, etc.)
deciding compared to the risk
exposure? - and in other places than the risk
exposure?
Are scenarios used? For what
Is there a representative for timeframe?
TEMPORAL future (human and non-human)
generations? Are historical data and
experience considered?
FIGURE 4 Non-exhaustive list of procedural justice concerns in the four sustainable development dimensions.
specific example focusing on flood management. The basis 4.1 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
for the establishment of flood management plans and their Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR)
implementation within the European Union is the FD (Direc-
tive 2007/60/EC), which is analyzed in the second part of the The SFDRR includes several elements of procedural and
result section. distributive justice but limited consideration of corrective jus-
Table 2 shows a very limited mention of justice or syn- tice. A more detailed description of the issues presented in the
onyms and antonyms in the two documents, as well as in SFDRR through the risk justice lens is available in the Sup-
the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) of porting Information section. In summary, the justice-related
the European Union, hereafter “WFD”, a key directive to elements of the SFDRR contain a strong focus on social
which the FD often refers. The results presented thereafter are and spatial sustainability with many explicit statements in
therefore based on the in-depth-content analysis described in these contexts, whereas less emphasis is put on the tem-
Section 2. We present only a summary in the article because poral dimension, and the ecological dimension is relatively
of length limitation, and the longer version can be found in underrepresented.
the material.
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 9
TA B L E 2 Word count of justice and synonyms/antonyms
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction EU Floods Directive EU Water Framework
2015–2030 (SFDRR) (FD) Directive (WFD)
*just* 0 0 0a
*fair* 0 1 (“fair” sharing of 0
responsibilities)
*equit* 3 (“gender equitable”: once in the core text, once in 0 1 (“equitable” water use)
the index, and once in the chart)
*equal* 2 (“inequality” as a driver of disaster risks: once in 0 1b (the parties are “equal” in the
the core text, and once in the index) decision-making process…)
Note: Only the words related to justice appear in the table (excluding a) “adjusted”; “justified”; “just” as a meaning of “only”; b) “equally” in the meaning of “as well”; “equal” for a
color code).
4.1.1 Social issues environmental heritage. However, suggestions of corrective
measures for ecological purposes are missing.
The SFDRR argues that the management of disaster risks
should be preventive, people-centered, and assist those who
are disproportionately affected by disasters (such as women, 4.1.3 Spatial issues
the elderly, migrants, and indigenous groups). The main strat-
egy is to invest in the resilience of people and communities The guidelines for each priority in the SFDRR are presented
according to their respective vulnerabilities and needs in for different spatial levels, and there is a section dedi-
order to reduce potential losses and damages, with a focus cated to “International cooperation and global partnership.”
on tackling root causes of disaster risks by for instance Cooperation among various spatial levels and international
investing in reducing poverty and hunger, and improving collaboration mechanisms are essential for coherent manage-
educational, health, and telecommunication infrastructure. ment. In general, local characteristics of disaster risks should
Clear tasks and responsibilities for risk management should be taken into consideration during the decision-making pro-
be assigned to relevant stakeholders, which is connected cess. There is an emphasis on the “developed” countries
to the allocation of needed resources. The SFDRR high- helping “developing” countries, and this help should be based
lights procedural elements and encourages whole-of-society on the needs and priorities identified by the beneficiaries
engagement in the decision-making process, with special themselves. The SFDRR acknowledges that some countries
attention to giving voice to people disproportionally affected face specific challenges because of higher vulnerability and
by disasters. The process should be empowering and inclu- hazard levels and are therefore disproportionally affected by
sive with accessible and nondiscriminatory participation. disasters. Finally, the SFDRR encourages some actions that
Decision-making collaboration includes all stakeholders in can be interpreted as corrective, for example strengthening
society: public and private, at different institutional levels the resilience of affected people and that of host communities,
and in different sectors. Scientific, traditional, and indige- and relocating public facilities and infrastructure to places
nous knowledge, as well as knowledge from experience, must outside the hazardous areas in the post-disaster reconstruction
inform the decision-making process. Disaggregated data (i.e., process.
by sex and age) helps with identifying the needs of different
affected people. Corrective justice aspects refer to the need
for accountability for disaster risk creation at all levels. The 4.1.4 Temporal issues
SFDRR also suggests the promotion of mechanisms that can
be interpreted as international corrective measures such as According to the SFDRR, the management of disaster risks
risk transfer and insurance. should first and foremost prevent future losses by focusing
on prevention and preparedness. This includes an emphasis
on investment in resilience through tackling root causes of
4.1.2 Ecological issues disaster risks and other strategies such as building back bet-
ter. The participation and leadership of children and youth
According to the SFDRR, the management of disaster risks are strongly encouraged as they are agents of change. Infor-
aims, among other goals, at protecting environmental assets mation about the factors and scenarios for disaster risks in
and ecosystems, with a focus on investing in environmental the medium and long term should be considered, in particular
resilience, which necessitates for example resource man- in the light of climate change. To make decisions, it is also
agement and biodiversity promotion. The choices should important to learn from past programs and disaster reviews.
be made considering the vulnerability and exposure of the There is no specific mention of corrective actions related to
environment and the effects of disasters on ecosystems and temporal justice.
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
The SFDRR is an international voluntary agreement that limited ecological value. As flood management is integrated
advises disaster risk reduction in a broad sense. The next part into general water management, most ecological elements
focuses on one of these disaster risks, namely floods, within in the FD are indirectly included through the WFD and
the European Union spatial context. its environmental objectives. No particular participation of
stakeholders representing nonhuman interests is mentioned in
the FD but some specific information should be considered,
4.2 European Floods Directive (FD) such as the potential environmental pollution resulting from
floods and the assessment of the effects of potential flood
The FD touches upon all elements included in the risk jus- management measures on the environment. Moreover, the
tice framework, although some are addressed only indirectly WFD recommends taking into account the vulnerability of
through reference to other documents; such as the WFD and aquatic ecosystems. In general, the strategies should reduce
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union damage to the environment due to floods and promote envi-
(2012/C 326/02)1 . The FD mentions the contribution of flood ronmental objectives, in line with the WFD and the Charter
management to sustainable practices, through environmen- of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In addition,
tal protection, sustainable land use practices, and sustainable flood risk management should consider giving more space to
human activities. A more detailed analysis of the FD elements rivers and using some floodplains as natural flood retention
is available in the Supporting Information section. areas. Although the FD does not mention responsibilities for
ecological harm, the restoration of floodplains is suggested,
and it is for example possible to use the European Union Sol-
4.2.1 Social issues idarity Fund to help natural zones to return to pre-disaster
conditions. The WFD suggests the polluter-pays principle for
The FD recommends an active involvement of all interested the restoration of aquatic environments.
parties in the production and update of management plans
through public information and consultation. All costs and
benefits of the strategies must be considered in decision- 4.2.3 Spatial issues
making. The plans should be inspired by best practice cases
and best available technology and adapted in line with sci- The FD recognizes that different types of floods affect dif-
entific and technical progress. The measures should prevent ferent places in the European Union, and that the causes and
damage, and, if possible, reduce the likelihood of flooding. consequences of floods vary across geographical locations.
The FD argues that there must be a “fair sharing of responsi- Spatial aspects are strongly emphasized: Whereas each Mem-
bilities” (p. 28) for measures jointly decided for the common ber State is responsible for the flood risk management on its
benefit of the European Community, in light of the solidar- own territory, coordination must take place at the river basin
ity principle. As the FD respects the Charter of Fundamental level even if it is an international one. Therefore, collabora-
Rights of the European Union, it must consider the right to tion with neighboring countries is essential, and transnational
life for everyone (article 2), the right to property (article 17), effects must be considered in cost and benefit analyses.
and the prohibition of discrimination (article 21). The FD also Decision-making should consider the particular needs and
recognizes that some human activities and climate change priorities of the specific geographical area at stake, and map-
contribute to the harm generated by floods. In the case of a ping risk assessments need to be done at the appropriate scale.
disaster event, the European Solidarity Fund can grant rapid Given the European solidarity principle, a Member State is
financial assistance to help people return to preflood condi- not allowed to implement a measure that reduces flood risks
tions, which is a corrective measure. In general, the WFD on its own territory if it increases the risk of floods in another
recommends basing corrective measures on the polluter-pays Member State, unless there is a specific agreement between
principle. them. In addition, a Member State facing an emergency can
receive support and assistance from other Member States.
4.2.2 Ecological issues
4.2.4 Temporal issues
The environment is always mentioned together with human
health, cultural heritage, and economic activity when the The management of flood risk should focus on preven-
FD describes the purpose of flood risk management and tion, protection, and preparedness, and as the FD respects
the adverse consequences of floods. The FD recognizes that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
floods damage the environment; however, the risk is con- there are responsibilities and duties toward future generations
sidered insignificant if it threatens an unpopulated area with (preamble). The FD requires the consideration of long-term
socioeconomic and natural developments, such as the impact
1
of climate change on the occurrence and the impacts of
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was first published in 2000
and has been updated in 2012. In this analysis, we have used the updated version in spite floods. The FD does not directly include representatives of
of the fact that the FD was published in 2007. the interests of future generations in the decision-making pro-
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 11
cess, but the participation of children is indirectly encouraged nation involves the type of guidelines that are analyzed here.
through the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Both documents focus on the management of potential future
Union (article 24). Regular reviews and updates of flood risks rather than already existing harm, which would be the
risk management plans help distribute the effects over time. remit of corrective actions in risk management practice. Yet,
In addition, past flood events, their impacts, and the likeli- we suggest that discussing justice issues proactively before
hood of similar events in the future guide strategy choices. harm occurs could support implementation of actions to cor-
Finally, according to the WFD, the selection of recovery mea- rect it. Although the influence of international agreements
sures needs an economic analysis of water services based on on disaster risk reduction has been limited because of resis-
long-term forecasts, and the measures taken to face excep- tant sociopolitical structures (Raikes et al., 2022), we argue
tional circumstances such as floods should not compromise that discussing justice issues explicitly in international guide-
the recovery of water quality once the circumstances are over. lines such as the SFDRR and the FD could be a first step
toward an institutional change in the direction of sustainable
development.
5 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
To conclude, we discuss both the results from the documents 5.2 Benefits of the conceptual framework
analysis and the benefits of the risk justice framework. We and further research
also suggest some ideas for further research.
The risk justice framework presented here enables decision-
makers, researchers, evaluators, and all affected stakeholders
5.1 Similarities and differences between the to address justice issues explicitly and comprehensively in
SFDRR and the FD risk governance and management relating to different risk
contexts. It connects and adds to other existing justice
The content analysis of the SFDRR and FD through the lens frameworks by enabling a systemic understanding of jus-
of our conceptual risk justice framework has underlined that tice considerations in different risk management situations,
many elements of these guidelines relate, even if only implic- thereby proactively addressing potential conflicts about what
itly, to several forms and dimensions of justice. In particular, is perceived as fair processes and outcomes in order to eventu-
social and spatial dimensions of procedural and distribu- ally contribute to sustainable development. As our framework
tive justice are highlighted in the two documents, and both offers a new conceptual understanding, it promotes new ideas
have a similar emphasis on the importance of prevention and and encourages new ways of thinking, which is the benefit of
preparedness rather than reactive actions. This aligns with conceptual research (MacInnis, 2011).
increasing the well-being of current and future generations As shown in our application, using a risk justice framework
by reducing risks, which is an essential aspect of sustain- to analyze international guidelines for disaster risk manage-
able development. Yet, we have identified some gaps in the ment enables us to identify gaps and omissions and hence
SFDRR and the FD that may reduce the contribution of dis- question the contribution of disaster risk reduction to the
aster and flood risk management to sustainable development. well-being of human populations, natural ecosystems, and
Notably, although ecological issues are considered, they are future living entities. The risk justice framework has there-
mostly focused on environmental protection for the purpose fore been a useful retrospective analytical tool for pointing
of human well-being. Elements related to fairness among out what dimensions of justice are included in the guide-
different nonhuman entities are scarce in the documents. In lines, explicitly or implicitly, and what dimensions are not.
addition, the ecological and temporal aspects of procedu- By extension, this provides information on the potential con-
ral justice focus mostly on the consideration of information tributions to (un)sustainable development practices. When
regarding impacts on future generations and ecosystems, and fairness issues are not explicitly addressed, they may in
very little on the inclusion of participants representing their practice be left open for the personal interpretation of the
interests. For the temporal aspect, hearing the voices of chil- decision-makers. Future international guidelines for disaster
dren and youth is recommended; however, there is nothing risk reduction could benefit from a discussion facilitated with
on the interests of further generations. Corrective justice ele- the help of the risk justice framework presented in this article
ments are also limited in both documents. In the SFDRR, in order to explicitly point out the different forms of justice
some elements can be related to the restoration of the pre- related to sustainable development. Doing so can help min-
disaster situation, but no attribution of harm is explicit. In imize potential conflicts associated with the implementation
the case of flood risk management, the suggestion to apply of disaster risk management strategies and make the choices
a polluter-pays principle for environmental injustices due to of what should or should not be included to promote fairness
floods is indirect through the WFD and is not made explicit more transparent.
in the FD. These absences of direct statements may reflect Stakeholders willing to operationalize risk justice as a
the low priority given to some fairness aspects compared proactive decision-making tool will have to determine justice
to others that are more explicit in the text. Concerning the principles that guide the answer to the question of “what is
limited attention given to corrective justice, a possible expla- fair?,” and these principles are very much context-dependent
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
(de Goër de Herve, 2022). One of the advantages of the risk Busby, J., & Sedmak, M. (2011). Practices and problems in the management
justice framework is that it can be used whatever justice prin- of risk redistributions. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 259–279. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.528561
ciples apply in the specific context. Other studies could also
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-a). Justice. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved
test the framework on different risk management guidelines, September 30, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/
applied to different kinds of risks, which are not necessarily english/justice
disaster risks. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-b). Risk. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved
Thomalla et al. (2018) point out that disaster risk reduction September 30, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/
english/risk
actors often fail to consider various trade-offs and that the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2012/C 326/02, 2012
current ways of building resilience are not always equipped O. J. (C 326) 391. http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj
to tackle issues of social inequity and injustice. We argue that CRED. (2022). 2021. Disasters in numbers: Extreme events defining our
the risk justice framework can facilitate discussions among lives. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2021-disasters-numbers
practitioners and enable them to consciously address these de Goër de Herve, M. (2021). Risk justice and the people, nature, place and
time: A theoretical framework for fairness considerations in sustainable
issues. To transform the risk justice conceptual framework
risk management. Poster presented at the Society for Risk Analysis-
into a proactive decision support tool, further studies are European Conference 2021, Espoo, Finland (online). https://doi.org/10.
required, especially research based on validity workshops 13140/RG.2.2.20265.93289
with practitioners such as risk managers, to determine its de Goër de Herve, M. (2022). Fair strategies to tackle unfair risks? Justice
applicability in real-life processes of risk governance. considerations within flood risk management. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 69, 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.
102745
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S Delforge, D., Below, R., & Speybroeck, N. (2022). Natural hazards & disas-
First of all, the authors would like to acknowledge the pre- ters: An overview of the first half of 2022. CRED Crunch Newsletter,
cious help of all the people and colleagues we have been (68). https://reliefweb.int/report/world/cred-crunch-newsletter-issue-no-
discussing with in order to build and improve the framework. 68-september-2022-natural-hazards-disasters-overview-first-half-2022
Dietrich, M. (2021). Addressing inequal risk exposure in the development of
A warm thank you. We sincerely thank the editor and review-
automated vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(4), 727–738.
ers for their time and comments. In addition, the first author https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09610-1
would like to thank the International Institute for Applied Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23
System Analysis (IIASA) for welcoming her into the Young October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field
Scientists Summer Program of 2022, as well as Formas, for of water policy, 2000 O. J. (L 327) 1. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/
60/oj
financing her participation in the program (Grant No. dnr
Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
2022-00291). October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Text with
EEA relevance), 2007 O. J. (L 288) 27. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2007/
C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T 60/oj
The authors declare no conflict of interest. General Assembly Resolution, (Sep. 25, 2015). 70/1, Transform-
ing Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/
ORCID generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
Mathilde de Goër de Herve: 0000-0002-9667-440X Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the complex definition of risk: A systems-based
Thomas Schinko: 0000-0003-1156-7574 approach. Risk Analysis, 29(12), 1647–1654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
John Handmer: 0000-0002-6674-7946 1539-6924.2009.01310.x
Hermansson, H. (2010). Towards a fair procedure for risk manage-
ment. Journal of Risk Research, 13(4), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/
ORCID 13669870903305903
Mathilde de Goër de Herve https://orcid.org/0000-0002- Hunjra, A. I., Azam, M., Bruna, M. G., Verhoeven, P., & Al-Faryan, M. A.
9667-440X S. (2022). Sustainable development: The impact of political risk, macroe-
Thomas Schinko https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1156-7574 conomic policy uncertainty and ethnic conflict. International Review
of Financial Analysis, 84, 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.
John Handmer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-7946
102370
IPCC. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance
REFERENCES climate change adaptation. Cambridge University Press. https://www.
Adger, W. N., & Nelson, D. R. (2010). Fair decision making in a new climate ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf
of risk. In K. O’Brien, A. L. St. Clair, & B. Kristoffersen (Eds.), Climate ISO. (2018). Risk management – Guidelines (ISO Standard No.
change, ethics and human security (pp. 83–94). University of Cambridge 31000:2018). ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511762475 Izumi, T., Shaw, R., Ishiwatari, M., Djalante, R., Komino, T., Sukhwani, V.,
Agyeman, J. (2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and & Adu Gyamfi, B. (2020). 30 innovations linking Disaster Risk Reduction
practice. Zed Books. with Sustainable Development Goals. IRIDeS; Keio University; The Uni-
Begg, C. (2018). Power, responsibility and justice: A review of local versity of Tokyo; UNU-IAS; CWS Japan. https://www.preventionweb.
stakeholder participation in European flood risk management. Local net/files/70713_7071330innovationslinkingdrrwithsdg.pdf
Environment, 23(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017. Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building
1422119 skills: A practical guide for social scientists (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Bevere, L., & Remondi, F. (2022). Natural catastrophes in 2021: The Johannesson, P., Zhemchugova, H., & Hanger-Kopp, S. (2022). An onto-
floodgates are open. Swiss Re Institute. https://www.swissre.com/dam/ logical analysis of justice. In Proceedings of the 16th International
jcr:326182d5-d433-46b1-af36-06f2aedd9d9a/swiss-re-institute-sigma- Workshop on Value Modelling and Business Ontologies (VMBO 2022),
natcat-2022-en.pdf held in conjunction with the 34th International Conference on Advanced
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 13
Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2022), June 06–10, 2022, Šakić Trogrlić, R., Donovan, A., & Malamud, B. D. (2022). Invited per-
Leuven, Belgium. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3155/paper1.pdf spectives: Views of 350 natural hazard community members on key
Kaufmann, M., Priest, S., Hudson, P., Löschner, L., Raška, P., Schindelegger, challenges in natural hazards research and the Sustainable Development
A., Slavíková, L., Stričević, R., & Vleesenbeek, T. (2021). Win–win for Goals. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 22(8), 2771–2790.
everyone? Reflecting on nature-based solutions for flood risk manage- https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2771-2022
ment from an environmental justice perspective. In C. S. S. Ferreira, Z. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements,
Kalantari, T. Hartmann, & P. Pereira (Eds.), The Handbook of Environ- and nature. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
mental Chemistry: Vol. 107. Nature-based solutions for flood mitigation: 9780199286294.001.0001
Environmental and socio-economic aspects (pp. 399–423). Springer. Spurlock, C. A., Elmallah, S., & Reames, T. G. (2022). Equitable deep
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77505-6 decarbonization: A framework to facilitate energy justice-based multi-
Lazar, S. R. M. (2008). Corrective justice and the possibility of rectification. disciplinary modeling. Energy Research and Social Science, 92, 102808.
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11(4), 355–368. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102808
1007/s10677-008-9108-8 SRA. (2018). Society for risk analysis glossary. SRA. https://www.sra.org/
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in market- wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SRA-Glossary-FINAL.pdf
ing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg. Thaler, T. (2021). Just retreat—How different countries deal with it: Exam-
75.4.136 ples from Austria and England. Journal of Environmental Studies and
MacMillian Dictionary. (n.d.-a). Justice. In MacMillian Dictionary. Sciences, 11(3), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00694-1
Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.macmillandictionary. Thomalla, F., Boyland, M., Johnson, K., Ensor, J., Tuhkanen, H., Swartling,
com/dictionary/british/justice Å. G., Han, G., Forrester, J., & Wahl, D. (2018). Transforming devel-
MacMillian Dictionary. (n.d.-b). Risk. In MacMillian Dictionary. Retrieved opment and disaster risk. Sustainability, 10(5), 1458. https://doi.org/10.
September 30, 2022, from https://www.macmillandictionary.com/ 3390/su10051458
dictionary/british/risk_1 United Nations. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction
Martinuzzi, A., & Meyer, W. (2016). Evaluating sustainable development 2015 - 2030. UNISDR. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_
in a global society. In R. Stockmann & W. Meyer (Eds.), The future of sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
evaluation: Global trends, new challenges, shared perspectives (pp. 81– Wallimann-Helmer, I., Meyer, L., Mintz-Woo, K., Schinko, T., & Serdeczny,
94). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137376374 O. (2019). The ethical challenges in the context of climate loss and
Mullen, E., & Okimoto, T. (2015). Compensatory justice. In R. S. Cropan- damage. In R. Mechler, L. M. Bouwer, T. Schinko, S. Surminski, & J.
zano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the Linnerooth-Bayer (Eds.), Loss and damage from climate change: Con-
workplace (pp. 477–496). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10. cepts, methods and policy options (pp. 39–62). Springer. https://doi.org/
1093/oxfordhb/9780199981410.013.23 10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5
O’Hare, P., & White, I. (2018). Beyond ‘just’ flood risk management: The Weinrib, E. J. (2002). Corrective justice in a nutshell. The University of
potential for—and limits to—alleviating flood disadvantage. Regional Toronto Law Journal, 52(4), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/825933
Environmental Change, 18(2), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113- World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common
017-1216-3 Future. Oxford University Press.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. (n.d.). Justice. In Oxford Learner’s
Dictionaries. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/justice?q=justice
Pahl-Wostl, C., Becker, G., Knieper, C., & Sendzimir, J. (2013). How S U P P O R T I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: Additional supporting information can be found online in the
A comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
Society, 18(4), 58. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05779-180458
Perry, R. (2010). The third form of justice. Canadian Journal
of Law and Jurisprudence, 23(1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0841820900004884
Raikes, J., Smith, T. F., Baldwin, C., & Henstra, D. (2022). The influence
How to cite this article: de Goër de Herve, M.,
of international agreements on disaster risk reduction. International Jour- Schinko, T., & Handmer, J. (2023). Risk justice:
nal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76, 102999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr. Boosting the contribution of risk management to
2022.102999 sustainable development. Risk Analysis, 1–15.
Ruggerio, C. A. (2021). Sustainability and sustainable development: A https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14157
review of principles and definitions. Science of the Total Environment,
786, 147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 GOËR DE HERVE ET AL.
APPENDIX A
This appendix presents the documents analyzed.
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030 EU Floods Directive
Purpose Concise, focused, forward-looking, and action-oriented “A ‘directive’ is a legislative act that sets out a goal that
international Framework for disaster risk reduction all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to
following the Hyogo Framework for Action the individual countries to devise their own laws on
how to reach these goals.” a
Main focus “The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in Prevention and mitigation of floods.
lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic,
physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of
persons, businesses, communities and countries.” p.
12
Year of publication 2015 2007
Source United Nations European Union
a
Definition available on https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en (last access: November 2022)
APPENDIX B
This appendix details the list of codes used for the content analysis processed in NVIVO.
Name of the code Description of the content Examples
Distr_soc_risk Elements related to social issues in the Who benefits from the risk? Directly, and
distribution of the risk itself indirectly? Who is exposed to the risk? Who
is vulnerable to the risk?
Distr_soc_management Elements related to social issues in the Who is targeted by the management strategy?
distribution of the management strategies Who implements it? Who pays for it? Who
would benefit from a different strategy?
Distr_eco_risk Elements related to ecological issues in the How are ecosystems impacted by the risk?
distribution of the risk itself
Distr_eco_management Elements related to ecological issues in the How are ecosystems impacted by the
distribution of the management strategies management strategy? Is one type of
ecosystem more impacted than another
type?
Distr_spa_risk Elements related to spatial issues in the Where does the risk take place? Are the ones
distribution of the risk itself benefiting from the risk and the ones at risk
located in different areas?
Distr_spa_management Elements related to spatial issues in the Does the management strategy impact
distribution of the management strategies different areas? How? Are the ones who
benefit from the strategy located in a
different place than the ones who carry the
burdens of it?
Distr_temp_risk Elements related to temporal issues in the When does the risk take place? Are there early
distribution of the risk itself warning systems? Are the ones creating the
risk and the ones being at risk present at
different points in time?
Distr_temp_management Elements related to temporal issues in the What will be the impacts of the strategy on
distribution of the management strategies future generations? Are the ones benefiting
from the strategy and the ones carrying the
burdens of it in a different moment in time?
Corr_soc_harm Elements related to social issues in the Who is responsible for the creation of harm?
creation or the allocation of the harm Who is affected (or potentially affected) by
the harm?
(Continues)
15396924, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14157 by CochraneItalia, Wiley Online Library on [13/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RISK JUSTICE 15
Name of the code Description of the content Examples
Corr_soc_correction Elements related to social issues in the actions Who should correct the harm? How?
to correct the harm
Corr_eco_harm Elements related to ecological issues in the What ecological entities are harmed? For what
creation or the allocation of the harm purpose?
Corr_eco_correction Elements related to ecological issues in the How should ecosystems be restored? Who
actions to correct the harm should be responsible for it? Who is
financing and implementing the restorative
actions?
Corr_spa_harm Elements related to spatial issues in the Where is the harm done? Where are the ones
creation or the allocation of the harm responsible for the harm based?
Corr_spa_correction Elements related to spatial issues in the actions Where are the ones correcting the harm
to correct the harm situated? Is the harm corrected where it
takes place? At what spatial level are the
corrective actions decided?
Corr_temp_harm Elements related to temporal issues in the Is a given generation harming another one?
creation or the allocation of the harm Are the actions of today harming entities in
the future?
Corr_temp_correction Elements related to temporal issues in the How should future harm be corrected? How is
actions to correct the harm past harm corrected today?
Proc_soc_participation Elements related to social issues in the Who should participate in the decision-making
involvement of stakeholders during the process? How?
decision-making process
Proc_soc_info Elements related to social issues in the What information related to the effects of the
information processed to make the decision risk management on different
socioeconomic groups is considered?
Proc_eco_participation Elements related to ecological issues in the Is there any representative of nonhumans in
involvement of stakeholders during the the decision-making process? How are
decision-making process nonhumans represented?
Proc_eco_info Elements related to ecological issues in the How are the interests of nonhumans
information processed to make the decision considered? How are the effects of risk
management on nonhumans considered?
Proc_spa_participation Elements related to spatial issues in the At what spatial level should the decisions be
involvement of stakeholders during the taken? Where are the decision-makers
decision-making process situated?
Proc_spa_info Elements related to spatial issues in the How are the impacts on various geographical
information processed to make the decision scales considered? Are the indirect impacts
of risk management in other places taken
into consideration?
Proc_temp_participation Elements related to temporal issues in the Is there any representative of future
involvement of stakeholders during the generations in the decision-making process?
decision-making process How are future generations represented?
Should past generations be represented?
Proc_temp_info Elements related to temporal issues in the How are the interests of future stakeholders
information processed to make the decision considered? How are considered the effects
of risk management in the future? How are
past risk management taken into account to
inform future ones?