评估世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)基于自然的河流洪水风险缓解方案全球标准

IF 4.7 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Maikel Berg , Chris J. Spray , Astrid Blom , Jill H. Slinger , Laura M. Stancanelli , Yvo Snoek , Ralph M.J. Schielen
{"title":"评估世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)基于自然的河流洪水风险缓解方案全球标准","authors":"Maikel Berg ,&nbsp;Chris J. Spray ,&nbsp;Astrid Blom ,&nbsp;Jill H. Slinger ,&nbsp;Laura M. Stancanelli ,&nbsp;Yvo Snoek ,&nbsp;Ralph M.J. Schielen","doi":"10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published their Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in an effort to further a common understanding and successful application of NbS. Our objective is to analyse the applicability of and considerations and advancements in using the IUCN Standard, as very few studies have examined and reflected on its actual application. As method, we applied the IUCN Standard to three case studies of river restoration projects with a focus on flood risk mitigation: (1) Eddleston Water Project, (2) “Room for the River” Deventer Project, and (3) Missouri River Levee Setback Project. Rather than evaluating the case studies itself, we evaluated the outcome to find the strong and weak points of the IUCN Standard. The gathered data (publicly accessible documents, conducted interviews with experts and stakeholders) was analysed and showed the role of the number of documents and interviews available. This determined the outcome of the IUCN assessment. The consultation of project experts has appeared to be an essential step in the data collection, while stakeholder interviews and field visits were less important, but did increase the degree of substantiation and the ease of data collection, respectively. Although restricted by a limited evaluation of flood risk mitigation studies, using the IUCN Standard for an ex-post assessment can provide credibility to project processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement and adaptive management), reveal project strengths and weaknesses, and provide opportunities for the comparison of projects. Hence, the IUCN Standard aptly evaluates process-based aspects of Nature-based Solutions for riverine flood risk mitigation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54269,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Development","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 101025"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the IUCN global standard for nature-based solutions in riverine flood risk mitigation\",\"authors\":\"Maikel Berg ,&nbsp;Chris J. Spray ,&nbsp;Astrid Blom ,&nbsp;Jill H. Slinger ,&nbsp;Laura M. Stancanelli ,&nbsp;Yvo Snoek ,&nbsp;Ralph M.J. Schielen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published their Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in an effort to further a common understanding and successful application of NbS. Our objective is to analyse the applicability of and considerations and advancements in using the IUCN Standard, as very few studies have examined and reflected on its actual application. As method, we applied the IUCN Standard to three case studies of river restoration projects with a focus on flood risk mitigation: (1) Eddleston Water Project, (2) “Room for the River” Deventer Project, and (3) Missouri River Levee Setback Project. Rather than evaluating the case studies itself, we evaluated the outcome to find the strong and weak points of the IUCN Standard. The gathered data (publicly accessible documents, conducted interviews with experts and stakeholders) was analysed and showed the role of the number of documents and interviews available. This determined the outcome of the IUCN assessment. The consultation of project experts has appeared to be an essential step in the data collection, while stakeholder interviews and field visits were less important, but did increase the degree of substantiation and the ease of data collection, respectively. Although restricted by a limited evaluation of flood risk mitigation studies, using the IUCN Standard for an ex-post assessment can provide credibility to project processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement and adaptive management), reveal project strengths and weaknesses, and provide opportunities for the comparison of projects. Hence, the IUCN Standard aptly evaluates process-based aspects of Nature-based Solutions for riverine flood risk mitigation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Development\",\"volume\":\"51 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101025\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464524000630\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Development","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464524000630","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)发布了 "基于自然的解决方案全球标准"(NbS),旨在促进对 NbS 的共同理解和成功应用。我们的目标是分析世界自然保护联盟标准的适用性以及在使用过程中的注意事项和进展,因为很少有研究对该标准的实际应用进行审查和反思。作为研究方法,我们将世界自然保护同盟标准应用于三个以洪水风险缓解为重点的河流恢复项目案例研究:(1)埃德莱斯顿水项目;(2)"河流的空间 "德文特项目;(3)密苏里河堤坝后退项目。我们不是对案例研究本身进行评估,而是对其结果进行评估,以找出世界自然保护同盟标准的强项和弱项。我们对收集到的数据(可公开获取的文件、与专家和利益相关者进行的访谈)进行了分析,并显示了可用文件和访谈数量的作用。这决定了世界自然保护同盟的评估结果。咨询项目专家似乎是数据收集的一个必要步骤,而利益相关者访谈和实地考察则不那么重要,但确实分别提高了数据收集的证实程度和便利程度。尽管受限于对洪水风险缓解研究的有限评估,但使用世界自然保护同盟标准进行事后评估可为项目过程(如利益相关者参与和适应性管理)提供可信度,揭示项目的优缺点,并为项目比较提供机会。因此,世界自然保护同盟标准能够恰当地评估基于自然的河流洪水风险减缓解决方案的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the IUCN global standard for nature-based solutions in riverine flood risk mitigation

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published their Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in an effort to further a common understanding and successful application of NbS. Our objective is to analyse the applicability of and considerations and advancements in using the IUCN Standard, as very few studies have examined and reflected on its actual application. As method, we applied the IUCN Standard to three case studies of river restoration projects with a focus on flood risk mitigation: (1) Eddleston Water Project, (2) “Room for the River” Deventer Project, and (3) Missouri River Levee Setback Project. Rather than evaluating the case studies itself, we evaluated the outcome to find the strong and weak points of the IUCN Standard. The gathered data (publicly accessible documents, conducted interviews with experts and stakeholders) was analysed and showed the role of the number of documents and interviews available. This determined the outcome of the IUCN assessment. The consultation of project experts has appeared to be an essential step in the data collection, while stakeholder interviews and field visits were less important, but did increase the degree of substantiation and the ease of data collection, respectively. Although restricted by a limited evaluation of flood risk mitigation studies, using the IUCN Standard for an ex-post assessment can provide credibility to project processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement and adaptive management), reveal project strengths and weaknesses, and provide opportunities for the comparison of projects. Hence, the IUCN Standard aptly evaluates process-based aspects of Nature-based Solutions for riverine flood risk mitigation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Development
Environmental Development Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
62
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Development provides a future oriented, pro-active, authoritative source of information and learning for researchers, postgraduate students, policymakers, and managers, and bridges the gap between fundamental research and the application in management and policy practices. It stimulates the exchange and coupling of traditional scientific knowledge on the environment, with the experiential knowledge among decision makers and other stakeholders and also connects natural sciences and social and behavioral sciences. Environmental Development includes and promotes scientific work from the non-western world, and also strengthens the collaboration between the developed and developing world. Further it links environmental research to broader issues of economic and social-cultural developments, and is intended to shorten the delays between research and publication, while ensuring thorough peer review. Environmental Development also creates a forum for transnational communication, discussion and global action. Environmental Development is open to a broad range of disciplines and authors. The journal welcomes, in particular, contributions from a younger generation of researchers, and papers expanding the frontiers of environmental sciences, pointing at new directions and innovative answers. All submissions to Environmental Development are reviewed using the general criteria of quality, originality, precision, importance of topic and insights, clarity of exposition, which are in keeping with the journal''s aims and scope.
×
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