Votre recherche
Résultats 2 ressources
-
Abstract River confluences are characterized by a complex mixing zone with three‐dimensional (3D) turbulent structures which have been described as both streamwise‐oriented structures and Kelvin–Helmholtz (KH) vertical‐oriented structures. The latter are visible where there is a turbidity difference between the two tributaries, whereas the former are usually derived from mean velocity measurements or numerical simulations. Few field studies recorded turbulent velocity fluctuations at high frequency to investigate these structures, particularly at medium‐sized confluences where logistical constraints make it difficult to use devices such as acoustic doppler velocimeter (ADV). This study uses the ice cover present at the confluence of the Mitis and Neigette Rivers in Quebec (Canada) to obtain long‐duration, fixed measurements along the mixing zone. The confluence is also characterized by a marked turbidity difference which allows to investigate the mixing zone dynamics from drone imagery during ice‐free conditions. The aim of the study is to characterize and compare the flow structure in the mixing zone at a medium‐sized (~40 m) river confluence with and without an ice cover. Detailed 3D turbulent velocity measurements were taken under the ice along the mixing plane with an ADV through eight holes at around 20 positions on the vertical. For ice‐free conditions, drone imagery results indicate that large (KH) coherent structures are present, occupying up to 50% of the width of the parent channel. During winter, the ice cover affects velocity profiles by moving the highest velocities towards the centre of the profiles. Large turbulent structures are visible in both the streamwise and lateral velocity components. The strong correlation between these velocity components indicates that KH vortices are the dominating coherent structures in the mixing zone. A spatio‐temporal conceptual model is presented to illustrate the main differences on the 3D flow structure at the river confluence with and without the ice cover. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
La gestion intégrée des risques d’inondation (GIRI) fait appel à la coordination de tous les niveaux et secteurs du gouvernement et de la société civile. Afin de favoriser la responsabilisation et l’appropriation des plans de GIRI par les communautés, l’implication des acteurs non gouvernementaux et des citoyens est de plus en plus valorisée. D’abord, l’émergence des approches participatives est exacerbée par l’optimisme face à la possibilité d’améliorer substantiellement la qualité et la portée des décisions, de gérer les conflits, de faciliter l'implantation des mesures non structurelles et de renforcer les capacités sociales au sein des communautés. Toutefois, certains avancent que l'intégration des non-experts dans le processus décisionnel brime l'impartialité de la procédure technocratique et que leur manque d’intérêt et de compétences limite la portée des démarches participatives. Des lacunes dans la représentativité des parties prenantes affectées et concernées au sein des instances peuvent aussi biaiser les aboutissants de la participation. De plus, la réticence des autorités à partager le pouvoir décisionnel limite l’institutionnalisation des approches participatives, tandis que la rigidité de l’appareil gouvernemental freine les élans participatifs des collectivités. Considérant l’intérêt grandissant des chercheurs, des décideurs et de la société civile envers les approches participatives dans le contexte de la gestion des inondations, cet article propose une synthèse de la littérature pour démêler les principales retombées et les limites de la participation. , In order to promote community accountability for flood risks, the involvement of non-governmental actors and citizens is increasingly valued. The emergence of participatory approaches is consolidated by optimism about the possibility of improving the quality and scope of decisions, managing conflicts, facilitating the implementation of non-structural measures and strengthening social capacity within communities. However, some argue that the integration of non-experts undermines the impartiality of the decision-making process and that their lack of interest and expertise limits the scope of participatory approaches. Moreover, the authorities’ reluctance to share decision-making power limits the institutionalization of participatory approaches, whereas the rigidity of the governmental framework hampers participatory impulses within communities. Lack of stakeholder representativeness within the decision-making framework may also bias the outcome of participation. In addition, the reluctance of the authorities to share decision-making power limits the institutionalization of participatory approaches, while the rigidity of the government apparatus hinders the participatory momentum of communities. Considering the growing interest of researchers, policymakers and civil society in participatory approaches in the context of flood management, this article provides a synthesis of the literature to unravel the major benefits and limitations of participation.