首页> 外文期刊>Water International >Forest and Floods: Moving to an Evidence-based Approach to Watershed and Integrated Flood Management
【24h】

Forest and Floods: Moving to an Evidence-based Approach to Watershed and Integrated Flood Management

机译:森林与洪水:转向基于证据的流域和洪水综合管理方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Evidence is presented to show that there is a growing disparity between public perception and scientific evidence relating to the causes offloads, their impacts, and the benefits of mitigation measures. It is suggested that this disparity has arisen through the extensive promotion of certain land uses and engineering interventions by vested interest groups in the absence of any effective dissemination of the scientific evidence which may allow a contrary view. It is believed that this disparity may have resulted not only in the wastage of development funds (possibly to the extent of tens of billions of dollars per year) on unachievable targets, but also in the unwarranted blame of upland communities whose practices have generally had only marginal impacts on downstream flooding. It is recognized that the interaction of floods and society is a highly complex subject. What is recognized, with some certainty, is that simplistic and populist land management solutions, such as oft-advocated solutions involving commercial afforestation programs, cannot ever represent a general solution and will, in most situations, have at best marginal benefit and at worst negative impacts. Similarly, structural engineering interventions, although in the short term providing protection to flood-affected communities in one area may have the effect of transferring the problem downstream and may also introduce other unforeseen adverse environmental and economic impacts. An improved approach to watershed and flood management is proposed that integrates watershed and land-use management in the highlands with land-use planning, engineering measures, flood preparedness, and emergency management in the affected lowlands while taking into account the social and economic needs of communities in both the highland, often source areas, and also the lowland flood-prone affected communities. This approach should be based on our best available scientific knowledge of the causes and the environmental, social, and economic impacts offloads and the environmental, social, and economic effects of engineering interventions.
机译:提出的证据表明,公众的看法与与原因减负,其影响和缓解措施的收益有关的科学证据之间的差距越来越大。有人提出,这种差距是由于既得利益集团广泛推广某些土地用途和工程干预而引起的,而没有有效传播可能允许相反观点的科学证据。人们认为,这种差距不仅可能导致无法实现的目标浪费发展资金(每年可能浪费数百亿美元),而且还无端地将这种做法归咎于高地社区,因为这种做法通常只对下游洪水的边际影响。人们认识到洪水与社会的相互作用是一个高度复杂的主题。可以肯定的是,公认的简单化和民粹主义的土地管理解决方案(例如涉及商业造林计划的经常提倡的解决方案)永远不能代表一般性解决方案,并且在大多数情况下,其充其量只能带来边际效益,而最坏处是负面影响。影响。同样,结构工程干预措施虽然可以在短期内为一个地区的受洪水影响的社区提供保护,但可以起到将问题向下游转移的作用,也可能带来其他无法预见的不利环境和经济影响。提出了一种改进的分水岭和洪水管理方法,该方法将高地的分水岭和土地利用管理与受影响的低地的土地利用规划,工程措施,防洪准备和应急管理相结合,同时考虑到高原地区的社会和经济需求高地(通常是来源地区)的社区,以及低地易受洪水影响的社区。这种方法应基于我们对原因以及环境,社会和经济影响的减轻以及工程干预的环境,社会和经济影响的现有最佳科学知识。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号