Votre recherche

This proof-of-concept study couples machine learning and physical modeling paradigms to develop a computationally efficient simulator-emulator framework for generating super-resolution (<250 m) urban climate information, that is required by many sectors. To this end, a regional climate model/simulator is applied over the city of Montreal, for the summers of 2019 and 2020, at 2.5 km (LR) and 250 m (HR) resolutions, which are used to train and validate the proposed super-resolution deep learning (DL) model/emulator. The DL model uses an efficient sub-pixel convolution layer to generate HR information from LR data, with adversarial training applied to improve physical consistency. The DL model reduces temperature errors significantly over urbanized areas present in the LR simulation, while also demonstrating considerable skill in capturing the magnitude and location of heat stress indicators. These results portray the value of the innovative simulator-emulator framework, that can be extended to other seasons/periods, variables and regions.

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.

Socio-hydrology has become an important platform for discussion and exchange in current water research. A key challenge is the integration of the social into socio-hydrological logic. To date, most...

Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen im Hochwassermanagement verwenden zur Beurteilung von Schutzkonzepten meist den physischen Schaden als Hauptkriterium. Dies kann zu einer ungleichen raumlichen Entwicklung fuhren, da in strukturschwachen Gemeinden meist weit geringere monetare Werte gefahrdet sind als in verdichteten Siedlungszentren. Der folgende Beitrag zeigt den Zusammenhang zwischen sozialer Gerechtigkeit und Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse und schlagt vor, wie strukturschwache Gemeinden besser in einem neuen Konzept der Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse abgebildet werden konnten, indem im Entscheidungsprozess soziale und psychologische Merkmale der Betroffenen mitberucksichtigt werden. Diese Erweiterung fuhrt dazu, dass insbesondere Gemeinden in strukturschwachen Gebieten die Moglichkeit haben, einen Hochwasserschutz rascher umzusetzen. Mit diesem Beitrag mochten wir nicht nur die Bedeutung der sozialen und psychologischen Indikatoren im Hochwassermanagement aufzeigen, sondern auch, wie der Entscheidungsprozess in Zukunft gerechter gestaltet werden kann.

La notion d’acceptabilité sociale est devenue incontournable dans plusieurs secteurs de l’action publique. Au coeur des grands projets d’aménagement et d’urbanisme, énergétiques, d’extraction des ressources, ou qui concernent l’environnement en général, cette nouvelle norme publique apparaît comme un traceur de changements importants en matière de décision tant sur le plan substantif que processuel. Comment comprendre cette notion ? Comment l’étudier et quelle trajectoire a-t-elle connu au Québec ? Dans cet article nous proposons dans un premier temps un cadre théorique pour étudier cet objet : l’approche par les instruments d’action publique, en la considérant comme un instrument de type normatif visant à favoriser la coordination, la coopération et la prévisibilité dans un environnement complexe, par la recherche d’un ajustement négocié sur des bases scientifiques et politiques. Nous présentons ensuite les principales composantes pour bien définir l’acceptabilité sociale. Enfin nous proposons d’étudier la trajectoire de cette norme sur plus de 40 ans au Québec à travers l’étude des rapports du Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement, le Chantier sur l’acceptabilité sociale (2014-2015) et deux jugements des tribunaux (Cour supérieure du Québec en 2017 et Cour d’appel du Québec en 2020). Nous constatons une montée en importance de l’acceptabilité sociale au cours des décennies, pour devenir le critère ultime de décision en plus de s’institutionnaliser jusqu’à être confirmée dans sa portée juridique et pouvant apparaître comme le chaînon manquant entre démocratie participative et démocratie représentative. , The notion of social acceptability has become unavoidable in many areas of public policy. At the heart of major planning and urban planning projects, energy, resource extraction, or the environment in general, this new public standard appears to be a tracer of significant decision-making changes, both substantive and procedural. How is this notion understood? How can it be studied and what was its trajectory in Quebec? We first propose a theoretical framework for studying this object, that is, the approach by public policy instruments as a normative instrument aimed at promoting coordination, cooperation, and predictability in a complex environment, through the search for a negotiated adjustment based on scientific and political grounds. We then present the main components for a definition of social acceptability. Finally, we propose to study the trajectory of this standard over more than forty years in Quebec through the study of the reports of the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment, the governmental workshop on social acceptability (2014-2015), and two court judgments (2017 and 2020). We found an increase in importance of social acceptability over the decades, to the point of becoming the ultimate criterion of decision and institutionalizing, and being confirmed in its legal scope; it may appear to be the missing link between participatory democracy and representative democracy.

Abstract In a rapidly changing world, what is today an unprecedented extreme may soon become the norm. As a result, extreme‐related disasters are expected to become more frequent and intense. This will have widespread socio‐economic consequences and affect the ability of different societal groups to recover from and adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions. Therefore, there is the need to decipher the relation between genesis of unprecedented events, accumulation and distribution of risk, and recovery trajectories across different societal groups. Here, we develop an analytical approach to unravel the complexity of future extremes and multiscalar societal responses—from households to national governments and from immediate impacts to longer term recovery. This requires creating new forms of knowledge that integrate analyses of the past—that is, structural causes and political processes of risk accumulation and differentiated recovery trajectories—with plausible scenarios of future environmental extremes grounded in the event‐specific literature. We specifically seek to combine the physical characteristics of the extremes with examinations of how culture, politics, power, and policy visions shape societal responses to unprecedented events, and interpret the events as social‐environmental extremes. This new approach, at the nexus between social and natural sciences, has the concrete advantage of providing an impact‐focused vision of future social‐environmental risks, beyond what is achievable within conventional disciplinary boundaries. In this paper, we focus on extreme flooding events and the societal responses they elicit. However, our approach is flexible and applicable to a wide range of extreme events. We see it as the first building block of a new field of research, allowing for novel and integrated theoretical explanations and forecasting of social‐environmental extremes. , Key Points We conceptualize unprecedented extremes as social‐environmental processes shaped by institutional, political, and economic change As social‐environmental extremes become more frequent, there is an urgency to unravel their genesis and the possible societal responses This approach is the first building block of a new field of research in social‐environmental extreme event forecasts , Plain Language Summary The world is seeing increases in a range of extreme events, and this increase may continue or even accelerate in the future, due to anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, it is often those who are already vulnerable that experience the biggest impacts from these extremes. Yet, there is little understanding of the possible societal responses to unprecedented events. This underscores the urgency of creating innovative approaches to develop plausible scenarios of societal responses and, in turn, mitigate hazards and reduce vulnerability and exposure to extreme events. In this commentary, we develop a truly interdisciplinary conceptual approach to better understand how different societal groups might interact with and respond to future unprecedented extreme events. We combine social science theories describing how different societal groups are affected by, and recover from, extreme events with projections from the literature identifying plausible areas at risk of unprecedented occurrences and local analyses of past extreme events. We see this as the first building block of a new field of research in forecasting social‐environmental extremes that could support governments, civil protection agencies, and civil society organizations to ensure a fairer, improved response to future events.

Abstract The exposure of urban populations to flooding is highly heterogeneous, with the negative impacts of flooding experienced disproportionately by the poor. In developing countries experiencing rapid urbanization and population growth a key distinction in the urban landscape is between planned development and unplanned, informal development, which often occurs on marginal, flood‐prone land. Flood risk management in the context of informality is challenging, and may exacerbate existing social inequalities and entrench poverty. Here, we adapt an existing socio‐hydrological model of human‐flood interactions to account for a stratified urban society consisting of planned and informal settlements. In the first instance, we use the model to construct four system archetypes based on idealized scenarios of risk reduction and disaster recovery. We then perform a sensitivity analysis to examine the relative importance of the differential values of vulnerability, risk‐aversion, and flood awareness in determining the relationship between flood risk management and social inequality. The model results suggest that reducing the vulnerability of informal communities to flooding plays an important role in reducing social inequality and enabling sustainable economic growth, even when the exposure to the flood hazard remains high. Conversely, our model shows that increasing risk aversion may accelerate the decline of informal communities by suppressing economic growth. On this basis, we argue for urban flood risk management which is rooted in pro‐poor urban governance and planning agendas which recognize the legitimacy and permanence of informal communities in cities. , Key Points The distribution of flood risk in urban areas is uneven, with the negative impacts experienced disproportionately by the urban poor Our model shows that reducing the vulnerability of informal residents to flooding can reduce inequality, even when their exposure is high Based on the model results, we argue that urban flood risk management should be rooted in pro‐poor urban governance and planning agendas

Does salient information on social media influence individuals’ economic decisions and beliefs? Using aggregated data from Facebook and a difference-in-differences strategy, I show that individuals who are socially connected to someone affected by Hurricane Harvey are more likely to purchase flood insurance policies after the event. This effect is stronger in areas at higher risk of flooding. Being socially connected to someone affected by Hurricane Harvey also influences individuals’ perceptions of global warming.

Support from caregivers is an important element of mental health recovery. However, the mechanisms by which social support influences the recovery of persons with depressive, anxiety, or bipolar disorders are less understood. In this study, we describe the social support mechanisms that influence mental health recovery. A cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken in Québec (Canada) with 15 persons in recovery and 15 caregivers—those having played the most significant role in their recovery. A deductive thematic analysis allowed for the identification and description of different mechanisms through a triangulation of perspectives from different actors. Regarding classic social support functions, several of the support mechanisms for mental health recovery were identified (emotional support, companionship, instrumental support, and validation). However, informational support was not mentioned. New mechanisms were also identified: presence, communication, and influence. Social support mechanisms evoke a model containing a hierarchy as well as links among them.

La construction de l’acceptabilité sociale, conçue comme le jugement collectif des populations à l’endroit d’une politique ou d’un projet donné, s’appuie parfois sur la participation des acteurs sociaux concernés aux discussions éclairant la prise de décision publique. Les instances de démocratie intermédiaires où sont déployés divers dispositifs participatifs jouent ainsi un rôle de premier plan quant à l’émergence de l’acceptabilité. Or, la question des effets des processus participatifs sur les dynamiques d’acceptabilité sociale demeure aujourd’hui peu étudiée, que ce soit par les travaux sur l’acceptabilité sociale ou ceux portant sur la participation publique. À partir de projets soulevant des préoccupations de nature environnementale, ce numéro spécial puise à l’intersection de ces deux champs théoriques en vue d’analyser l’impact des dispositifs de démocratie participative sur la prise de décision et la construction de l’accessibilité sociale. Les contributions permettent ainsi de réfléchir à la façon dont les instances de démocratie intermédiaires contribuent ou non à l’acceptabilité sociale. De manière plus spécifique, elles explorent l’institutionnalisation du concept comme nouvelle norme de gestion publique, les effets des processus participatifs déployés dans ces instances sur l’acceptabilité d’un projet donné, de même que les effets sur les décisions finales. En somme, la réflexion proposée dans ce numéro permet de voir dans quelle mesure les dispositifs participatifs offrent les conditions d’un débat constructif permettant de mieux canaliser les conflits sociétaux que suscitent certains projets industriels ou politiques publiques, en vue de construire des compromis qui se projettent dans une vision d’avenir du développement.

Parfois contestée, faiblement théorisée, la notion d’acceptabilité sociale tend néanmoins à s’imposer dans divers secteurs d’activité. Face à ce constat, cet article fait le pari qu’il peut être pertinent de la conserver et de l’utiliser comme « locution frontière » permettant de communiquer avec de nombreux acteurs. Mais cette concession est redoublée par une ambition de consolidation théorique de la notion, et par un souci de symétrisation de la charge d’acceptabilité d’un projet : celle-ci ne peut reposer uniquement sur un social récalcitrant à éduquer et à convaincre, elle doit également remettre en jeu le design du projet. L’article prend appui pour ce faire sur l’analyse des conflits spatialisés autour des équipements d’environnement. Il s’inscrit au croisement des approches STS et pragmatistes : ce cadre conceptuel est retenu car il permet d’étudier la composition d’un collectif (le monde social étendu à sa matérialité constitutive) sans présupposer d’asymétrie entre négociations sociales et techniques. L’épreuve d’acceptabilité porte plus précisément sur la compatibilité problématique entre deux ensembles rendus provisoirement indéterminés par le conflit : un dispositif sociotechnique d’un côté, un ou plusieurs milieux concernés de l’autre. L’article interprète cette épreuve d’acceptabilité en tant que régulation civique d’un projet technique, complétant la régulation de base dont il est normalement l’objet. Il prolonge enfin l’usage de cette notion avec une perspective opérationnelle, en proposant des pistes permettant à un éventuel tiers arbitre de piloter cette épreuve et d’en tirer démocratiquement les leçons.