实施全流域洪水风险管理计划:未来与正义的冲突

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
{"title":"实施全流域洪水风险管理计划:未来与正义的冲突","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate change is projected to heighten flood risk. To adapt to this higher flood risk, catchment-wide flood risk management (FRM) plans have become increasingly popular. These plans aim to implement risk reduction measures (RRMs), usually in rural areas on privately owned land, with the goal of reducing the vulnerability of downstream/urban regions. These interventions can have ramifications for rural/upstream areas as they restrict such areas’ spatial and economic growth. Despite these unequal outcomes of distributive justice, reasons for using the countryside/upstream areas are multifaceted, such as lowering the costs of implementation or attaining further co-benefits. In this paper, we aim to analyse how anticipated futures are used to legitimise the unequal distributive consequences of catchment-wide FRM. We combine insights from future studies involving a future perspective (expected, preferable, and probable futures) and the distributive justice literature to examine the debate on large-scale catchment-wide FRM plans in Austria and the Netherlands. In both countries, the debates remain rather implicit, even though the subsequent decisions can have substantial repercussions for the distribution of burdens and benefits. Whereas in the Netherlands expected futures are contested, in Austria desired justice implications are contested between authorities and locals. On the one hand, futures are harnessed by quanitifying desired futures and by embedding expected futures in decision-making tools. On the other hand, credibility of expected futures is descreased by framing them as more uncertain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing catchment-wide flood risk management plans: futures and justice conflicts\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Climate change is projected to heighten flood risk. To adapt to this higher flood risk, catchment-wide flood risk management (FRM) plans have become increasingly popular. These plans aim to implement risk reduction measures (RRMs), usually in rural areas on privately owned land, with the goal of reducing the vulnerability of downstream/urban regions. These interventions can have ramifications for rural/upstream areas as they restrict such areas’ spatial and economic growth. Despite these unequal outcomes of distributive justice, reasons for using the countryside/upstream areas are multifaceted, such as lowering the costs of implementation or attaining further co-benefits. In this paper, we aim to analyse how anticipated futures are used to legitimise the unequal distributive consequences of catchment-wide FRM. We combine insights from future studies involving a future perspective (expected, preferable, and probable futures) and the distributive justice literature to examine the debate on large-scale catchment-wide FRM plans in Austria and the Netherlands. In both countries, the debates remain rather implicit, even though the subsequent decisions can have substantial repercussions for the distribution of burdens and benefits. Whereas in the Netherlands expected futures are contested, in Austria desired justice implications are contested between authorities and locals. On the one hand, futures are harnessed by quanitifying desired futures and by embedding expected futures in decision-making tools. On the other hand, credibility of expected futures is descreased by framing them as more uncertain.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001642\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001642","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预计气候变化将加剧洪水风险。为了适应更高的洪水风险,全流域洪水风险管理(FRM)计划越来越受欢迎。这些计划旨在实施降低风险措施(RRMs),通常在农村地区的私有土地上实施,目的是降低下游/城市地区的脆弱性。这些干预措施会对农村/上游地区产生影响,因为它们会限制这些地区的空间和经济增长。尽管分配正义的结果不平等,但利用农村/上游地区的原因是多方面的,如降低实施成本或获得更多共同利益。在本文中,我们旨在分析如何利用预期未来使全流域森林恢复管理的不平等分配后果合法化。我们将涉及未来视角(预期未来、可取未来和可能未来)的未来研究和分配正义文献的见解结合起来,考察奥地利和荷兰关于大规模全流域森林资源恢复管理计划的辩论。在这两个国家,尽管随后的决策会对负担和利益的分配产生重大影响,但辩论仍然相当隐蔽。在荷兰,预期的未来是有争议的,而在奥地利,预期的正义影响则是当局和地方之间的争论。一方面,通过对预期未来进行量化,并将预期未来纳入决策工具,对未来加以利用。另一方面,通过将预期的未来描述为更加不确定的未来,降低了预期未来的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementing catchment-wide flood risk management plans: futures and justice conflicts
Climate change is projected to heighten flood risk. To adapt to this higher flood risk, catchment-wide flood risk management (FRM) plans have become increasingly popular. These plans aim to implement risk reduction measures (RRMs), usually in rural areas on privately owned land, with the goal of reducing the vulnerability of downstream/urban regions. These interventions can have ramifications for rural/upstream areas as they restrict such areas’ spatial and economic growth. Despite these unequal outcomes of distributive justice, reasons for using the countryside/upstream areas are multifaceted, such as lowering the costs of implementation or attaining further co-benefits. In this paper, we aim to analyse how anticipated futures are used to legitimise the unequal distributive consequences of catchment-wide FRM. We combine insights from future studies involving a future perspective (expected, preferable, and probable futures) and the distributive justice literature to examine the debate on large-scale catchment-wide FRM plans in Austria and the Netherlands. In both countries, the debates remain rather implicit, even though the subsequent decisions can have substantial repercussions for the distribution of burdens and benefits. Whereas in the Netherlands expected futures are contested, in Austria desired justice implications are contested between authorities and locals. On the one hand, futures are harnessed by quanitifying desired futures and by embedding expected futures in decision-making tools. On the other hand, credibility of expected futures is descreased by framing them as more uncertain.
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
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
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