Votre recherche

Flood risk management requires to comprehensively assess how policy strategies may affect individuals and communities. However, policy development and implementation often downplay or even increase social inequality. Analysis of the social and societal implications of strategies and implementation projects to manage flood hazards is still in its infancy. To close this gap, this chapter critically questions the roles of social justice and their political implications for flood risk management with regard to resilience. The chapter discusses and argues how different theoretical concepts as well as different perspectives on justice (e.g. social, environmental and climate justice) and resilience in flood risk management are related. There is a strong need to have a broader and more in-depth discussion about the role of justice in the current resilience debate. Finally, the chapter presents the outline of a future research agenda.

Canada’s vast regions are reacting to climate change in uncertain ways. Understanding of local disaster risks and knowledge of underlying causes for negative impacts of disasters are critical factors to working toward a resilient environment across the social, economic, and the built sectors. Historically, floods have caused more economical and social damage around the world than other types of natural hazards. Since the 1900s, the most frequent hazards in Canada have been floods, wildfire, drought, and extreme cold, in terms of economic damage. The recent flood events in the Canadian provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta, and Manitoba have raised compelling concerns. These include should communities be educated with useful knowledge on hazard risk and resilience so they would be interested in the discussion on the vital role they can play in building resilience in their communities. Increasing awareness that perceived risk can be very different from the real threat is the motivation behind this study. The main objectives of this study include identifying and quantifying the gap between people’s perception of exposure and susceptibility to the risk and a lack of coping capacity and objective assessment of risk and resilience, as well as estimating an integrated measure of disaster resilience in a community. The proposed method has been applied to floods as an example, using actual data on the geomorphology of the study area, including terrain and low lying regions. It is hoped that the study will encourage a broader debate if a unified strategy for disaster resilience would be feasible and beneficial in Canada.

Canada regularly faces environmental public health (EPH) disasters. Given the importance of evidence-based, risk-informed decision-making, we aimed to critically assess the integration of EPH expertise and research into each phase of disaster management. In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 leaders in disaster management from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and were complemented by other qualitative methods. Three topics were examined: governance, knowledge creation/translation, and related barriers/needs. Data were analyzed through a four-step content analysis. Six critical success factors emerged from the analysis: blending the best of traditional and modern approaches; fostering community engagement; cultivating relationships; investing in preparedness and recovery; putting knowledge into practice; and ensuring sufficient human and financial resources. Several promising knowledge-to-action strategies were also identified, including mentorship programs, communities of practice, advisory groups, systematized learning, and comprehensive repositories of tools and resources. There is no single roadmap to incorporate EPH expertise and research into disaster management. Our findings suggest that preparation for and management of EPH disaster risks requires effective long-term collaboration between science, policy, and EPH practitioners at all levels in order to facilitate coordinated and timely deployment of multi-sectoral/jurisdictional resources when and where they are most needed.

What transformations do municipal administrations implement to enact a resilience policy? This article responds to this question from a comparative perspective by analyzing enabling and impeding mechanisms developed in the cities of Montreal (Canada) and London (UK) as they establish their strategies. Collaborative network governance and institutional work mechanisms used in Montreal and London are analyzed in connection with the influence of macro‐ and micro‐contextual elements under which a network can resiliently manage risk and crises. In both cases, the development of resilience emerges from their emergency management structures, as units in charge try to animate their new area of responsibility through collaborative governance. As a siloed approach this is embedded in daily routines, organizations with limited resources focused on shared motivation and values, collaboration across organizational boundaries and creation of joint capacity to implement resilience. This transformative process concerns the organization in charge of resilience in the municipal administration and the wider network that they build and animate. , 从政策挑战到落实战略: 为都市韧性网络管理创造战略 自治政府为颁布一项韧性政策会经历哪些转型?本文透过比较视角, 通过分析蒙特利尔(加拿大)和伦敦(英国)在建立各自战略时开发的推动机制和阻碍机制, 对该疑问进行了回应。分析了蒙特利尔和伦敦所使用的协作网络治理及机构工作机制与“宏观和微观情境元素的影响”之间的关系, 在这些情境元素中网络能发挥韧性管理风险和危机。在这两个案例中, 当应急管理结构中各主管单位试图通过协作治理开启新的责任区时, 韧性便得以发展。作为一项孤立的措施, 其被应用于日常活动中、应用于在共享动机和价值观方面资源有限的机构中、还被用于跨组织界限的协作以及为发挥韧性而创造的共同行动。该转型过程与负责自治政府韧性建设的机构有关, 还与后者建立和推动的更广网络有关。 , Del desafío político a la estrategia de implementación: estrategias habilitantes para la gobernanza de la red de resiliencia urbana ¿Qué transformaciones implementan las administraciones municipales para promulgar una política de resiliencia? Este artículo responde a esta pregunta desde una perspectiva comparativa analizando los mecanismos habilitadores e impedidores desarrollados en las ciudades de Montreal (Canadá) y Londres (Reino Unido) a medida que establecen sus estrategias. La gobernanza de la red colaborativa y los mecanismos de trabajo institucional utilizados en Montreal y Londres se analizan en relación con la influencia de elementos macro y micro contextuales bajo los cuales una red puede gestionar de manera resiliente los riesgos y las crisis. En ambos casos, el desarrollo de la resiliencia surge de sus estructuras de gestión de emergencias, ya que las unidades a cargo intentan animar su nueva área de responsabilidad a través de la gobernanza colaborativa. Como un enfoque aislado, esto se integra en las rutinas diarias, las organizaciones con recursos limitados se centraron en la motivación y los valores compartidos, la colaboración a través de los límites de la organización y la creación de capacidad conjunta para implementar la resiliencia. Este proceso transformador concierne a la organización a cargo de la resiliencia en la administración municipal y la red más amplia que construyen y animan.

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

"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"--