Stakeholders' views on natural flood management: Implications for the nature-based solutions paradigm shift?
Stakeholders' views on natural flood management: Implications for the nature-based solutions paradigm shift?
复制标题
利益相关者对自然洪水管理的看法：对基于自然的解决方案范式转变的影响？
DOI：
10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.018
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Bark R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bark R
基于自然的解决方案（NBS）的一个范例是自然洪水管理（NFM），全世界对它的兴趣越来越大。与许多国家统计局一样，实施国家财务管理需要多个利益攸关方的参与和支持。然而，我们缺乏对许多利益相关者的观点和期望的理解，这些利益相关者可能会被期望实现或实施它。了解这些观点可能会提供关于主流洪水风险管理保护范式是否以及如何真正受到挑战的见解。使用的第一次调查（N = 118）在英国（UK）的水和环境管理的利益相关者的范围，本研究探讨是否有支持的范式转变为“与自然合作”的打算与国家统计局。我们发现的证据表明，一些利益相关者认为NFM是一个“没有头脑”的判断的基础上感知的成本效益，社会和环境效益和失败的保护范式暴露在最近的洪水。其他人，通常是农民和土地所有者，对变化持更谨慎的看法。我们所有的受访者普遍认为，启用、实施和资助NFM的责任应该在整个社会中分担，但对任何启用付款的细节和基础仍然存在分歧。我们认为，角色和责任的共同看法提供了进一步的工作，以促进NFM的基础，明确考虑原则和具体的合同细节。在英国，英国退欧后农业环境政策的可能性使得这样的辩论特别相关。在许多其他情况和地方，这也可能是富有成效的，因为国家统计局的理想愿景所带来的范式转变往往需要利益攸关方之间建立新的关系，并在"实地“开展新的活动。
An exemplar of nature-based solutions (NBS) is natural flood management (NFM), for which interest is growing worldwide. As with many NBS, implementing NFM requires the participation of support of multiple stakeholders. However, we lack understanding about the views and expectations of the many stakeholders who might be expected to enable or implement it. Understanding such views may offer insights regarding whether and how the dominant flood risk management protection paradigm is really being challenged. Using the first survey (N = 118) across a range of water and environmental management stakeholders in the United Kingdom (UK), this research explores whether there is support for a paradigm shift to “work with nature” as intended with NBS. We find evidence that some stakeholders view NFM as a “no-brainer”; a judgement based on perceived cost-effectiveness, social and environmental benefits and the failure of the protection paradigm exposed in recent floods. Others, typically farmers and landowners, have more cautious views about change.All our respondents generally agree that responsibility to enable, implement, and fund NFM should be shared across society, but disagreements remain about the detail and the basis for any enabling payments. We argue that the shared perception of roles and responsibilities provides a foundation for further work to facilitate NFM, explicitly considering principles and specific contractual details. In the UK, the possibilities of post-Brexit agri-environment policy make such a debate particularly pertinent. It is also likely to be productive in many other cases and places, since the paradigm shift entailed by ideal visions of NBS often entails new relationships between stakeholders and new activities ‘on the ground’.