Cross-sectoral Multi-Hazard Risk Perceptions and Misperceptions in Tourism-Dependent Islands: A Canary Islands Case Study

Many regions worldwide are increasingly facing multi-hazards and systemic risks that threaten their socio-economic stability and environmental resilience. Island regions, particularly those heavily reliant on tourism, are uniquely vulnerable due to a convergence of structural and systemic challenges, including geographical isolation, dependence on external imports, resource limitations, and fragile ecosystems. These factors heighten their exposure to environmental and economic shocks. The impacts of climate change, natural hazards, and global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have further exposed the tourism sector’s susceptibility to cascading and compounding risks. Effective multi-risk strategies and policies in tourism-dependent island regions require adaptive, cross-sectoral approaches that address these interdependencies and promote resilience. In this context, risk misperceptions present significant barriers to the development of comprehensive policies by distorting priorities, fragmenting decision-making, and impeding cross-sectoral collaboration.
Using the Canary Islands as a case study, this research examines how stakeholder perceptions and misperceptions hinder the development of effective multi-hazard risk policies, with a focus on tourism interdependencies. A participatory, cross-sectoral framework was applied, analyzing qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders, including representatives from tourism, agrifood, energy, water sectors, as well as researchers, local authorities, and emergency response services. Our findings reveal that stakeholder perceptions are often hazard-specific and sector-oriented, leading to a lack of recognition of interconnections between sectors, multi-risks, cascading impacts, and dynamic vulnerabilities.
These misperceptions result in fragmented policy responses, inadequate resource allocation, and limited integration of long-term resilience measures.
To address these challenges, this paper introduces an innovative categorization of risk misperceptions into four clusters: i) Underestimation, where stakeholders downplay the likelihood or impact of hazards; ii) The Single-Sector Fallacy, reflecting a narrow focus on sector-specific risks while ignoring cross-sectoral interdependencies; iii) Overconfidence, stemming from an overreliance on existing systems or capacities; and iv) Climate Stability Assumptions, rooted in a misunderstanding of the pace and severity of climate change impacts. This categorization makes a significant contribution to risk research and policy-making by offering a dynamic and actionable framework to diagnose the root causes of ineffective risk management. By breaking misperceptions into distinct clusters, it provides a nuanced understanding of specific challenges, each paired with targeted intervention opportunities. For example, scenario-based workshops address underestimation, cross-sector dialogues to dismantle silos from the Single-Sector Fallacy, and tailored communication campaigns to address misconceptions about climate risks. This structured approach enhances the ability of policymakers to develop practical, evidence-based tools that address misperceptions directly, fostering more comprehensive and effective multi-hazard risk strategies.