Votre recherche

The environmental management literature suggests that resilience is key to managing complex systems and reducing vulnerability resulting from uncertainty and unexpected change. Yet, flood risk management (FRM) has emerged largely from a culture of resistance. This paper takes the pulse of the current state of FRM research, with a focus on how the scholarly community has approached governance for flood resilience. Our analysis of the FRM journal literature identified 258 articles addressing governance and flooding, resilience and adaptation. Five main research themes emerged from these articles, addressing a variety of issues, but mostly lacking the degree of integration needed to address the social‐ecological complexity of FRM. Overall, research supporting the governance of FRM for resilience lacks integration, and methods of mitigating this lack of integration are poorly studied. We conclude with a discussion about the nature and scope of FRM research for resilience, and identify opportunities for more integrative FRM research that is more tightly coupled with policy and practice.

Abstract There has been an upsurge in studies of flood risk governance (FRG): steering and decision‐making by public and private actors as a complement to risk assessments and technical management options. The scholarly debate is, however, highly fragmented, complicating the production of cumulative insights. To address this knowledge gap, we used six governance strategies for achieving flood resilience that previously have been put forward as a conceptual framework to review 121 articles published between 2016 and 2019, complemented with insights contained in recent overview articles, to gauge the state‐of‐the‐art in FRG literature: to (a) diversify flood risk management strategies; (b) align the strategies; (c) adequately involve private actors, including citizens; (d) put an adequate rule system in place; (e) cater for sufficient monetary and non‐monetary resources; (f) inspire an open and inclusive normative debate. We found, first, that literature is producing insights on increasingly technically advanced risk assessments and agent‐based models but societal debate on justice in flood risk governance is getting attention. A clearly emerging topic is that of citizen engagement in flood risk governance. Second, the geographical focus of the studies is still skewed toward the Global North. To make progress in understanding flood risk governance for better resilience more systematic and comparative empirical assessments of flood risk governance in order to derive generalizable lessons while better taking into account the context‐specificity of FRG. Testing flood risk governance solutions against comparative cases, by balancing the geographical scope of research efforts, and enhancing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary working is a way to deliver knowledge for more resilience. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water

Parler d’inclusion démocratique, c’est chercher à impliquer les citoyen.ne.s dans les processus de prise de décision des organes politiques. Évidemment la première question qui vient, c’est celle de savoir comment le faire. Cette tâche complexe se joue sur de multiples échelles : au niveau national, au niveau des provinces ou des états, des régions, des villes; […]

Purpose This paper aims to provide scholars with a deep understanding of the field through the identification of strengths and weaknesses in the literature and support decision-makers in the development of new practices in local risk management based on scientific data. The specific question in this review asks: what are the drivers and barriers to local risk management? Design/methodology/approach This paper provides an overview of the scientific literature produce over the past 20 years of the divers and barriers to local risk management. This paper presents a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2019 inclusively in the fields of public policy and public administration. Findings This paper makes three main observations regarding the state of the literature. First, this paper finds that scholars mainly focus on single risk and certain regions of the world. Second, there is multiple approached used by the literature to study risk management at the local level. Third, little attention is given to the political context in which local risk management takes place. Originality/value This paper is a complete literature review of more than 500 peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals regarding risk prevention policies over the past two decades. This paper analyzed the main findings of the current literature to provide a general view of the scholarship and improve the collective understanding of risk management at the local level by providing future research avenues.

"This book offers the first critical, multi-disciplinary study of how the concepts of resilience and the Anthropocene have combined to shape contemporary thought and governmental practice. Faced with the climate catastrophe of the Anthropocene, theorists and policymakers are increasingly turning to 'sustainable', 'creative' and 'bottom-up' imaginaries of governance. The book brings together cutting-edge insights from leading geographers, international relations scholars and philosophers to explore how the concepts of resilience and the Anthropocene challenge and transform prevailing understandings of Earth, space, time and knowledge, and how these transformations reshape governance, ethics and critique today. This book examines how the Anthropocene calls into question established categories through which modern societies have tended to make sense of the world and engage in critical reflection and analysis. It also considers how resilience approaches attempt to re-stabilize these categories - and the ethical and political effects that result from these resilience-based efforts. Offering innovative insights into the problem of how environmental change is known and governed in the Anthropocene, this book will be of interest to students in fields such as geography, international relations, anthropology, science and technology studies, sociology, and the environmental humanities"--

Exposure and vulnerability are the main contributing factors of growing impact from climate-related disasters globally. Understanding the spatiotemporal dynamic patterns of vulnerability is important for designing effective disaster risk mitigation and adaptation measures. At national scale, most cross-country studies have suggested that economic vulnerability to disasters decreases as income increases, especially for developing countries. Research covering sub-national climate-related natural disasters is indispensable to obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the effect of regional economic growth on vulnerability reduction. Taking China as a case, this subnational scale study shows that economic development is correlated with the significant reduction in human fatalities but increase in direct economic losses (DELs) from climate-related disasters since 1949. The long-term trend in climate-related disaster vulnerability, reflected by mortality (1978–2015) and DELs (1990–2015) as a share of the total population and Gross Domestic Product, has seen significant decline among all economic regions in China. While notable differences remain among its West, Central and East economic regions, the temporal vulnerability change has been converging. The study further demonstrated that economic development level is correlated with human and economic vulnerability to climate-related disasters, and this vulnerability decreased with the increase of per-capita income. This study suggested that economic development can have nuanced effects on overall human and economic vulnerability to climate-related disasters. We argue that climate change science needs to acknowledge and examine the different pathways of vulnerability effects related to economic development.

This paper examines the extent to which economic development decreases a country's risk of experiencing climate-related disasters as well as the societal impacts of those events. The paper proceeds from the underlying assumption that disasters are not inherently natural, but arise from the intersection of naturally-occurring hazards within fragile environments. It uses data from the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT),(1) representing country-year-level observations over the period 1980-2007. The study finds that low-income countries are significantly more at risk of climate-related disasters, even after controlling for exposure to climate hazards and other factors that may confound disaster reporting. Following the occurrence of a disaster, higher income generally diminishes a country's social vulnerability to such happenings, resulting in lower levels of mortality and morbidity. This implies that continued economic development may be a powerful tool for lessening social vulnerability to climate change.© 2016 The Author(s). Disasters © Overseas Development Institute, 2016. Language: en

Disasters such as floods, storms, heatwaves and droughts can have enormous implications for health, the environment and economic development. In this article, we address the question of how climate change might have influenced the impact of weather-related disasters. This relation is not straightforward, since disaster burden is not influenced by weather and climate events alone—other drivers are growth in population and wealth, and changes in vulnerability. We normalized disaster impacts, analyzed trends in the data and compared them with trends in extreme weather and climate events and vulnerability, following a 3 by 4 by 3 set-up, with three disaster burden categories, four regions and three extreme weather event categories. The trends in normalized disaster impacts show large differences between regions and weather event categories. Despite these variations, our overall conclusion is that the increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of increasing trends in disaster impacts. This holds for long-term trends in economic losses as well as the number of people affected. We also found similar, though more qualitative, results for the number of people killed; in all three cases, the role played by climate change cannot be excluded. Furthermore, we found that trends in historic vulnerability tend to be stable over time, despite adaptation measures taken by countries. Based on these findings, we derived disaster impact projections for the coming decades. We argue that projections beyond 2030 are too uncertain, not only due to unknown changes in vulnerability, but also due to increasing non-stationarities in normalization relations.

Flooding has only relatively recently been considered as an environmental justice issue. In this paper we focus on flooding as a distinct form of environmental risk and examine some of the key evidence and analysis that is needed to underpin an environmental justice framing of flood risk and flood impacts. We review and examine the UK situation and the body of existing research literature on flooding to fill out our understanding of the patterns of social inequality that exist in relation to both flood risk exposure and vulnerability to the diverse impacts of flooding. We then consider the various ways in which judgements might be made about the injustice or justice of these inequalities and the ways in which they are being sustained or responded to by current flood policy and practice. We conclude that there is both evidence of significant inequalities and grounds on which claims of injustice might be made, but that further work is needed to investigate each of these. The case for pursuing the framing of flooding as an environmental justice issue is also made.

Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human–environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented.