Imagining flood futures: risk assessment and management in practice.
Imagining flood futures: risk assessment and management in practice.
复制标题
想象洪水的未来：实践中的风险评估和管理。
DOI：
10.1098/rsta.2010.0346
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lane SN
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lane SN
政策和管理应“以证据为基础”的口号已广为人知。对未来的预测（预测、情景、视野）的“证据”所产生的影响就不那么重要了，尽管这些未来定义了今天为实现未来可持续发展而采取的行动。在这里，我们考虑“证据”之间的紧张关系，“证据”是可靠的，因为它是观察到的，而对未来的预测是用传统术语无法观察到的。对于英格兰和威尔士的洪水风险管理，我们表明，未来是通过政策、管理和科学分析相结合的“实践套件”积极构建和想象的。管理层必须限制分析，因为构建洪水期货的方式有很多，而且还因为对会计演算的承诺，这需要以货币形式表达风险。它以数值模拟为基础，由科学顾问进行，他们遵循定义要考虑的未来的政策/管理指南。需要历史证据来处理过程和参数的不确定性，并且想象的未来与经历过的过去联系在一起。考虑到不断变化的概率（例如气候变化）和后果（例如洪泛区的发展），对过去事件的依赖对预测来说是一个挑战。因此，风险管理允许风险分析的某些要素变得不稳定（特别是与气候变化有关），但迫使其他要素保持稳定（例如，援引法规来防止不适当的洪泛区开发）。我们的结论是，风险评估和管理分离的假设是错误的，因为风险计算必须由管理层定义。要使这一过程负责任，需要公开程序，使洪水风险分析对我们委托进行分析和采取行动的人来说更加（或不太）可靠，这样，与“伪科学”不同，它们可以接受那些必须承担其后果的人的公众审讯的考验。
The mantra that policy and management should be ‘evidence-based’ is well established. Less so are the implications that follow from ‘evidence’ being predictions of the future (forecasts, scenarios, horizons) even though such futures define the actions taken today to make the future sustainable. Here, we consider the tension between ‘evidence’, reliable because it is observed, and predictions of the future, unobservable in conventional terms. For flood risk management in England and Wales, we show that futures are actively constituted, and so imagined, through ‘suites of practices’ entwining policy, management and scientific analysis. Management has to constrain analysis because of the many ways in which flood futures can be constructed, but also because of commitment to an accounting calculus, which requires risk to be expressed in monetary terms. It is grounded in numerical simulation, undertaken by scientific consultants who follow policy/management guidelines that define the futures to be considered. Historical evidence is needed to deal with process and parameter uncertainties and the futures imagined are tied to pasts experienced. Reliance on past events is a challenge for prediction, given changing probability (e.g. climate change) and consequence (e.g. development on floodplains). So, risk management allows some elements of risk analysis to become unstable (notably in relation to climate change) but forces others to remain stable (e.g. invoking regulation to prevent inappropriate floodplain development). We conclude that the assumed separation of risk assessment and management is false because the risk calculation has to be defined by management. Making this process accountable requires openness about the procedures that make flood risk analysis more (or less) reliable to those we entrust to produce and act upon them such that, unlike the ‘pseudosciences’, they can be put to the test of public interrogation by those who have to live with their consequences.