Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?
Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?
复制标题
DOI：
10.5751/es-08854-210452
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Ek, Kristina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hegger, Dries L. T.;Driessen, Peter P. J.;Ek, Kristina
由于城市化、风险和破坏潜力的增加以及气候变化的影响，欧洲国家面临着越来越大的洪水风险。在文献和实践中，人们认为，洪水风险管理（FRM），包括洪水风险预防（通过积极主动的空间规划），洪水防御，洪水风险缓解，洪水准备和洪水恢复的战略多样化，使国家更具洪水弹性。虽然这一论点似乎是合理的，但仍应进行实证检验。我们的目标是做到这一点。借鉴现有的文献，我们操作的概念，“洪水复原力”分为三个能力：抵御能力;吸收和恢复能力;和能力的转变和适应。基于欧盟FP 7项目STAR-FLOOD的研究结果，我们探讨了比利时、英国、法国、荷兰、波兰和瑞典国家层面FRM战略和相关洪水风险治理安排的多元化程度，以及这些国家在这三个方面的成就能力。我们发现，荷兰和比利时（在较小程度上）有很强的抵抗能力，法国有很强的吸收和恢复能力，特别是英国有很强的改造和适应能力。制定多样化的财务资源管理战略组合，可能有助于在吸收/恢复能力以及转型和适应能力方面取得较高的成就。因此，我们得出结论，FRM策略的多样化有助于恢复力。然而，多样化的论点应该有细微的差别，因为有不同的方法来保持弹性。首先，这三种能力意味着洪水风险治理的不同理论基础和规范起点，两者之间的选择本质上是政治性的。其次，我们发现了这三种能力之间的权衡，例如，具有抵抗性似乎降低了具有吸收性的可能性。第三，要解释各国在复原力方面取得的成就，战略在具体实际环境中的可行性及其在现有体制环境中的适合性（适当性），以及通过桥接机制在战略之间建立联系，也被证明是至关重要的因素。我们为政府、私人团体和希望提高洪水复原力的公民提供了急需的关于这一诊断的影响的思考。
European countries face increasing flood risks because of urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM), including flood risk prevention (through proactive spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, makes countries more flood resilient. Although this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. We aim to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong capacity to resist, France a strong capacity to absorb and recover, and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g., being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies' feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness), as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. We provide much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties, and citizens who want to increase flood resilience.