Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Joanne Vinke-de Kruijf, Lisette Groefsema, Karin A. W. Snel
{"title":"Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices","authors":"Joanne Vinke-de Kruijf,&nbsp;Lisette Groefsema,&nbsp;Karin A. W. Snel","doi":"10.1111/jfr3.13028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Climate change urges water managers in low-lying deltas to diversify their flood risk management (FRM) strategies. To reduce residual risks, they increasingly need to incorporate spatial and other measures. This has implications for the boundary judgements made by water authorities, that is, the implicit and explicit decisions about who and what is relevant to include and consider. To understand these implications, we assess the boundary judgements made by a Dutch regional water authority in two diversification-oriented frontrunner projects. We distinguish between three categories of judgements: (1) substantive: the scale, domains, time horizon and solutions that are considered; (2) participation: who is involved, to what extent and when; and (3) planning and decision: the flexibility of responsibilities, financing, planning and decision-making. Our results show that, in both projects, most of the boundary judgements became wider over time as a result of pressure from or interactions with actors from outside the water sector. Hence, despite its ambition to diversify flood risk strategies, the water authority continued to draw boundaries that were too tight to allow for meaningful collaboration with actors outside the water sector. Considering the importance of reconfiguring practices in transforming FRM, we recommend more engaged research into practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":49294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jfr3.13028","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.13028","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Climate change urges water managers in low-lying deltas to diversify their flood risk management (FRM) strategies. To reduce residual risks, they increasingly need to incorporate spatial and other measures. This has implications for the boundary judgements made by water authorities, that is, the implicit and explicit decisions about who and what is relevant to include and consider. To understand these implications, we assess the boundary judgements made by a Dutch regional water authority in two diversification-oriented frontrunner projects. We distinguish between three categories of judgements: (1) substantive: the scale, domains, time horizon and solutions that are considered; (2) participation: who is involved, to what extent and when; and (3) planning and decision: the flexibility of responsibilities, financing, planning and decision-making. Our results show that, in both projects, most of the boundary judgements became wider over time as a result of pressure from or interactions with actors from outside the water sector. Hence, despite its ambition to diversify flood risk strategies, the water authority continued to draw boundaries that were too tight to allow for meaningful collaboration with actors outside the water sector. Considering the importance of reconfiguring practices in transforming FRM, we recommend more engaged research into practices.

Abstract Image

荷兰洪水风险管理的多样化:对边界判断实践的影响
气候变化敦促低洼三角洲的水资源管理者将其洪水风险管理(FRM)战略多样化。为了降低残余风险,他们越来越需要纳入空间措施和其他措施。这对水利部门的边界判断产生了影响,即对纳入和考虑的相关人员和内容做出了隐含和明确的决定。为了解这些影响,我们评估了荷兰某地区水务局在两个以多样化为导向的先行项目中做出的边界判断。我们区分了三类判断:(1) 实质性:考虑的规模、领域、时间范围和解决方案;(2) 参与:谁参与、参与程度和参与时间;(3) 规划和决策:责任、融资、规划和决策的灵活性。我们的研究结果表明,在这两个项目中,随着时间的推移,由于来自水行业外部的压力或与水行业外部参与者的互动,大多数边界判断都变得更加宽泛。因此,尽管水务局雄心勃勃地要使洪水风险战略多样化,但其划定的边界仍然过于严格,无法与水务部门以外的参与者开展有意义的合作。考虑到重新配置实践在转变洪水风险管理工作中的重要性,我们建议对实践进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Flood Risk Management
Journal of Flood Risk Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-WATER RESOURCES
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.30%
发文量
93
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Flood Risk Management provides an international platform for knowledge sharing in all areas related to flood risk. Its explicit aim is to disseminate ideas across the range of disciplines where flood related research is carried out and it provides content ranging from leading edge academic papers to applied content with the practitioner in mind. Readers and authors come from a wide background and include hydrologists, meteorologists, geographers, geomorphologists, conservationists, civil engineers, social scientists, policy makers, insurers and practitioners. They share an interest in managing the complex interactions between the many skills and disciplines that underpin the management of flood risk across the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信