Exploring Material and Ideational Dimensions in Policy Networks: A Social Network Analysis of Flood Disaster Risk Management in Ghana

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Fafali R. Ziga-Abortta
{"title":"Exploring Material and Ideational Dimensions in Policy Networks: A Social Network Analysis of Flood Disaster Risk Management in Ghana","authors":"Fafali R. Ziga-Abortta","doi":"10.1111/jfr3.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Flood disasters with cascading characteristics traverse decision-making levels involving a spectrum of actors. Actors involved in Flood Disaster Risk Management (FDRM) form networks to implement related policies. Utilizing an ideational policy network approach, this study contributes knowledge to the role of material and ideational exchanges in policy networks. Two empirical case-study research questions are posed: (1) How is Ghana's FDRM policy network structured in relation to information and resource exchange and trust? (2) How does ideational (mis)alignment influence this network? Methodologically, a quantitative Social Network Analysis is combined with qualitative interpretations. Results show that the current policy network primarily facilitates “information and knowledge exchanges” dominated by centralized state agencies reemphasizing traditional conceptualizations of the state as the primary duty bearer of disaster management. The network benefits from influential actors who act as brokers, fostering shared ideas of resolute problem-solving despite challenges, while maintaining strategic diplomatic ties that enable network endurance. The study reveals complex patterns of ideational alignment and misalignment, where actors' problem definitions do not necessarily correspond with their preferred solutions. Four distinct scenarios emerge: full alignment, partial alignment, partial misalignment, and complete misalignment of shared ideas, demonstrating how material and ideational dimensions interact to shape policy implementation outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","volume":"18 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jfr3.70041","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.70041","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

Flood disasters with cascading characteristics traverse decision-making levels involving a spectrum of actors. Actors involved in Flood Disaster Risk Management (FDRM) form networks to implement related policies. Utilizing an ideational policy network approach, this study contributes knowledge to the role of material and ideational exchanges in policy networks. Two empirical case-study research questions are posed: (1) How is Ghana's FDRM policy network structured in relation to information and resource exchange and trust? (2) How does ideational (mis)alignment influence this network? Methodologically, a quantitative Social Network Analysis is combined with qualitative interpretations. Results show that the current policy network primarily facilitates “information and knowledge exchanges” dominated by centralized state agencies reemphasizing traditional conceptualizations of the state as the primary duty bearer of disaster management. The network benefits from influential actors who act as brokers, fostering shared ideas of resolute problem-solving despite challenges, while maintaining strategic diplomatic ties that enable network endurance. The study reveals complex patterns of ideational alignment and misalignment, where actors' problem definitions do not necessarily correspond with their preferred solutions. Four distinct scenarios emerge: full alignment, partial alignment, partial misalignment, and complete misalignment of shared ideas, demonstrating how material and ideational dimensions interact to shape policy implementation outcomes.

Abstract Image

洪水灾害具有逐级上升的特点,涉及多个决策层。参与洪水灾害风险管理(FDRM)的行动者组成网络来实施相关政策。本研究采用意识形态政策网络方法,有助于了解物质和意识形态交流在政策网络中的作用。本研究提出了两个实证案例研究问题:(1) 加纳的 FDRM 政策网络在信息和资源交流以及信任方面是如何构建的?(2) 意识形态(不)一致如何影响这一网络?在方法上,定量社会网络分析与定性分析相结合。结果表明,当前的政策网络主要促进 "信息和知识交流",由中央国家机构主导,再次强调了国家作为灾害管理主要责任承担者的传统概念。该网络得益于有影响力的行动者,他们充当中间人的角色,促进形成不畏挑战、果断解决问题的共同理念,同时保持战略性外交关系,使网络得以持久发展。研究揭示了意识形态一致和不一致的复杂模式,即行动者对问题的定义并不一定与其偏好的解决方案一致。研究中出现了四种截然不同的情况:完全一致、部分一致、部分不一致以及共同理念的完全不一致,展示了物质和意识形态层面是如何相互作用以形成政策实施结果的。
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