The role of different types of knowledge and expertise in explaining recognition justice in flood defence and flood risk prevention

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Journal of Flood Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1111/jfr3.13040
Mandy Paauw, Ann Crabbé, Sofia Guevara Viquez, Sally Priest
{"title":"The role of different types of knowledge and expertise in explaining recognition justice in flood defence and flood risk prevention","authors":"Mandy Paauw,&nbsp;Ann Crabbé,&nbsp;Sofia Guevara Viquez,&nbsp;Sally Priest","doi":"10.1111/jfr3.13040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Flood risks worldwide are rising and it is increasingly recognised that the impacts of floods are not neutral. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics determine people's capacity to deal with flood events. These differences in social vulnerability to floods need to be considered in flood risk management (FRM) to prevent the most vulnerable groups from being disproportionately impacted. However, due to a diversification of FRM strategies and the involvement of various policy domains, the experts working on FRM are no longer a homogeneous group. Where FRM was previously dominated by engineers, now various experts are involved that have different disciplinary backgrounds, knowledge bases and approaches to FRM. As a result, they also differ in their recognition of social vulnerability to floods. In this paper, we explore the different types of knowledge and expertise in FRM in three countries (England, Flanders and France), focussing on the strategies of flood defence and flood risk prevention. We characterise the epistemic communities supporting the domains and study to what extent experts differ in their recognition of social vulnerability to floods. We also dive into the mechanisms employed to stimulate integration between experts and consider the extent to which this integration can strengthen recognition justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jfr3.13040","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.13040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Flood risks worldwide are rising and it is increasingly recognised that the impacts of floods are not neutral. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics determine people's capacity to deal with flood events. These differences in social vulnerability to floods need to be considered in flood risk management (FRM) to prevent the most vulnerable groups from being disproportionately impacted. However, due to a diversification of FRM strategies and the involvement of various policy domains, the experts working on FRM are no longer a homogeneous group. Where FRM was previously dominated by engineers, now various experts are involved that have different disciplinary backgrounds, knowledge bases and approaches to FRM. As a result, they also differ in their recognition of social vulnerability to floods. In this paper, we explore the different types of knowledge and expertise in FRM in three countries (England, Flanders and France), focussing on the strategies of flood defence and flood risk prevention. We characterise the epistemic communities supporting the domains and study to what extent experts differ in their recognition of social vulnerability to floods. We also dive into the mechanisms employed to stimulate integration between experts and consider the extent to which this integration can strengthen recognition justice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同类型的知识和专长在解释洪水防御和洪水风险预防中的认可公正性方面的作用
全世界的洪水风险都在上升,人们越来越认识到洪水的影响不是中性的。社会经济和人口特征决定了人们应对洪水事件的能力。洪水风险管理(FRM)需要考虑社会对洪水脆弱性的这些差异,以防止最弱势群体受到不成比例的影响。然而,由于洪水风险管理策略的多样化和各种政策领域的参与,从事洪水风险管理工作的专家不再是一个单一的群体。以前,首次出现危机时的管理主要由工程师负责,而现在,各种专家都参与其中,他们有不同的学科背景、知识基础和首次出现危机时的管理方法。因此,他们对洪水的社会脆弱性的认识也各不相同。在本文中,我们探讨了三个国家(英格兰、佛兰德斯和法国)在洪水灾害风险管理方面不同类型的知识和专长,重点是洪水防御和洪水风险预防战略。我们描述了支持这些领域的认识论群体的特征,并研究了专家们在认识洪水的社会脆弱性方面的差异程度。我们还深入探讨了促进专家之间融合的机制,并考虑了这种融合在多大程度上能够加强认识的公正性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Flood Risk Management
Journal of Flood Risk Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-WATER RESOURCES
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.30%
发文量
93
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Flood Risk Management provides an international platform for knowledge sharing in all areas related to flood risk. Its explicit aim is to disseminate ideas across the range of disciplines where flood related research is carried out and it provides content ranging from leading edge academic papers to applied content with the practitioner in mind. Readers and authors come from a wide background and include hydrologists, meteorologists, geographers, geomorphologists, conservationists, civil engineers, social scientists, policy makers, insurers and practitioners. They share an interest in managing the complex interactions between the many skills and disciplines that underpin the management of flood risk across the world.
期刊最新文献
Toward Sustainable Flood Resilience: Assessing Efficacy of Paddy Field Dams to Reduce Floods in Jakarta Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle-Based Multispectral Imagery for River Soil Monitoring Putting the English Flooding of 2019–2021 in the Context of Antecedent Conditions Bridge Collapse in Mutsu, Aomori Prefecture, Japan in 2021 Attribution of Flood Forecasting Errors From a Multi-Model Perspective in Milan Urbanized River Basins
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1