Suchergebnisse

Embedded in the overall concept of integral risk management, mitigating mountain hazards is pillared by land use regulations, risk transfer, and information. In this paper aspects on legislation related to natural hazards in Austria are summarised, with a particular focus on spatial planning activities and hazard mapping, and possible adaptations focussing on enhanced resilience are outlined. Furthermore, the system of risk transfer is discussed, highlighting the importance of creating incentives for risk-aware behaviour, above all with respect to individual precaution and insurance solutions. Therefore, the issue of creating awareness through information is essential, which is presented subsequently. The study results in recommendations of how administrative units on different federal and local levels could increase the enforcement of regulations related to the minimisation of natural hazard risk. Moreover, the nexus to risk transfer mechanisms is provided, focusing on the current compensation system in Austria and some possible adjustments in order to provide economic incentives for (private) investments in mitigation measures, i.e. local structural protection. These incentives should be supported by delivering information on hazard and risk target-oriented to any stakeholder involved. Therefore, coping strategies have to be adjusted and the interaction between prevention and precaution has to be highlighted. The paper closes with recommendations of how these efforts could be achieved, with a particular focus on the situation in the Republic of Austria.

Abstract. Embedded in the overall concept of integral risk management, mitigating mountain hazards is pillared by land use regulations, risk transfer, and information. In this paper aspects on legislation related to natural hazards in Austria are summarised, with a particular focus on spatial planning activities and hazard mapping, and possible adaptations focussing on enhanced resilience are outlined. Furthermore, the system of risk transfer is discussed, highlighting the importance of creating incentives for risk-aware behaviour, above all with respect to individual precaution and insurance solutions. Therefore, the issue of creating awareness through information is essential, which is presented subsequently. The study results in recommendations of how administrative units on different federal and local levels could increase the enforcement of regulations related to the minimisation of natural hazard risk. Moreover, the nexus to risk transfer mechanisms is provided, focusing on the current compensation system in Austria and some possible adjustments in order to provide economic incentives for (private) investments in mitigation measures, i.e. local structural protection. These incentives should be supported by delivering information on hazard and risk target-oriented to any stakeholder involved. Therefore, coping strategies have to be adjusted and the interaction between prevention and precaution has to be highlighted. The paper closes with recommendations of how these efforts could be achieved, with a particular focus on the situation in the Republic of Austria.

Embedded in the overall concept of integral risk management, mitigating mountain hazards is pillared by land use regulations, risk transfer, and information. In this paper aspects on legislation related to natural hazards in Austria are summarised, with a particular focus on spatial planning activities and hazard mapping, and possible adaptations focussing on enhanced resilience are outlined. Furthermore, the system of risk transfer is discussed, highlighting the importance of creating incentives for risk-aware behaviour, above all with respect to individual precaution and insurance solutions. Therefore, the issue of creating awareness through information is essential, which is presented subsequently. The study results in recommendations of how administrative units on different federal and local levels could increase the enforcement of regulations related to the minimisation of natural hazard risk. Moreover, the nexus to risk transfer mechanisms is provided, focusing on the current compensation system in Austria and some possible adjustments in order to provide economic incentives for (private) investments in mitigation measures, i.e. local structural protection. These incentives should be supported by delivering information on hazard and risk target-oriented to any stakeholder involved. Therefore, coping strategies have to be adjusted and the interaction between prevention and precaution has to be highlighted. The paper closes with recommendations of how these efforts could be achieved, with a particular focus on the situation in the Republic of Austria.

Abstract. During the last decades, settlement activities increased in European mountain regions. Due to the scarceness of areas suitable for development, residential estates were extended into areas endangered by natural hazards such as mass movements. These settlements generally show a considerable vulnerability to tangible assets. Integral risk management strategies to reduce the vulnerability to tangible assets are presented for the assessment of such endangered areas. Conventional mitigation and local structural measures are discussed with respect to the necessary delimitation of endangered areas, the preparedness of people and possible financial prevention. According to different natural hazard processes (flash floods with and without bedload transport, debris flows, land slides, rock falls and avalanches) and various structural elements of buildings, a catalogue of local structural measures is presented with respect to occurring process impacts and protection objectives. Thereby, different local structural measures are classified and recommended according to a possible implementation for newly-erected buildings and for upgrading existing buildings, respectively. Based on these recommendations, future needs for a sustainable and comprehensive reduction of risk in settlement areas endangered by mass movements are outlined. Above all, this includes a prescription of building codes and the re-introduction of an obligatory final inspection of buildings.

Our paper investigates the compliance of Australian listed firms with the ASX disclosure rules for on‐market share buy‐backs. We find that firm compliance is reasonable for initial buy‐back announcements, but poor for final buy‐back notices. In the latter instance, the disclosure in the appropriate ASX notice is provided in only 53% of cases. Of significant concern is the even lower degree of final notice compliance (42%) for buy‐backs tagged as having 'unlimited' duration. Across our total sample of 807 buy‐backs, an alternative form of disclosure of buy‐back completion is provided in 25% of cases, and no proper notification of either the initial announcement or the completion of the buy‐back is provided in 12% of cases. In order to improve buy‐back transparency, some legislative reform of the ASX rules is suggested including: discontinuing 'unlimited duration' buy‐backs, restricting buy‐back periods to a maximum of twelve months (after which a new buy‐back process must be initiated), avoiding multiple simultaneous buy‐backs, removing the requirement of daily buy‐back notices in favour of more meaningful quarterly or monthly reports, and requiring greater disclosure in relation to foreign buy‐backs.