首页> 外文OA文献 >Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance?
【2h】

Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance?

机译:减轻欧洲的洪水风险:我们与理想的适应型治理相距多远?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Flood mitigation is a strategy that is growing in importance across Europe. This growth corresponds with an increasing emphasis on the need to learn to live with floods and make space for water. Flood mitigation measures aim at reducing the likelihood and magnitude of flooding and complement flood defenses. They are being put in place through the implementation of actions that accommodate (rather than resist) water, such as natural flood management or adapted housing. The strategy has gained momentum over the past 20 years in an effort to improve the sustainability of flood risk management (FRM) and facilitate the diversification of FRM in the pursuit of societal resilience to flooding. Simultaneously, it is increasingly argued that adaptive forms of governance are best placed to address the uncertainty and complexity associated with social-ecological systems responding to environmental challenges, such as flooding. However, there have been few attempts to examine the extent to which current flood risk governance, and flood mitigation specifically, reflect these aspired forms of adaptive governance. Drawing from EU research into flood risk governance, conducted within the STAR-FLOOD project, we examine the governance of flood mitigation in six European countries: Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Using in-depth policy and legal analysis, as well as interviews with key actors, the governance and implementation of flood mitigation in these countries is evaluated from the normative viewpoint of whether, and to what extent, it can be characterized as adaptive governance. We identify five criteria of adaptive governance based on a comprehensive literature review and apply these to each country to determine the “distance” between current governance arrangements and adaptive governance. In conclusion, the flood mitigation strategy provides various opportunities for actors to further pursue forms of adaptive governance. The extent to which the mitigation strategy is capable of doing so varies across countries, however, and its role in stimulating adaptive governance was found to be strongest in Belgium and England.
机译:缓解洪灾是一项在整个欧洲变得越来越重要的战略。这种增长与对学习洪水和为水腾出空间的需求的日益重视相对应。防洪措施旨在减少洪灾的可能性和程度,并补充防洪措施。通过实施适应(而非抵制)水的行动(例如自然洪水管理或改建住房)来实施这些措施。在过去的20年中,该策略获得了发展势头,以努力提高洪水风险管理(FRM)的可持续性,并促进FRM的多样化,以追求社会抗洪能力。同时,越来越多的人争辩说,适应性治理形式最适合解决与社会生态系统相关的不确定性和复杂性,以应对洪水等环境挑战。但是,很少有人尝试检查当前的洪水风险治理(特别是缓解洪水)在多大程度上反映了这些有抱负的适应治理形式。借鉴欧盟在STAR-FLOOD项目中进行的洪水风险治理研究,我们研究了六个欧洲国家(比利时,英国,法国,荷兰,波兰和瑞典)的防洪治理。通过深入的政策和法律分析,以及与主要行为者的访谈,从规范性观点来评估这些国家减灾的治理和实施情况,即是否以及在何种程度上可以将其描述为适应性治理。我们在全面的文献综述的基础上确定了五个适应性治理标准,并将其应用于每个国家,以确定当前治理安排与适应性治理之间的“距离”。总之,防洪战略为行动者提供了进一步寻求适应性治理形式的各种机会。各国在不同程度上可以采取缓解措施,但是在比利时和英国,其在刺激适应性治理方面的作用最为明显。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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