changed knowledge requirements for spatial flood governance
Clicks: 5
ID: 234297
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
1.2
/100
5 views
4 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #305 of 308 articles by views in ieee access
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 308 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Floods have not only occurred with greater frequency, they have become more damaging over the years. The associated rising costs have challenged traditional governance approaches that aim to provide full protection against floods. By aiming for protection, these approaches have allowed value to accumulate in high-risk areas. Now that climate change puts more floods on the horizon, policy-makers around the world have turned to "spatial-planning" measures that aim to reduce exposure to flood risks rather than provide full protection. This policy transition not only involves the development of new policy approaches and governance arrangements, it places new requirements on knowledge to support these approaches and arrangements. I analyze these changed knowledge requirements in a case study on the Netherlands. The Netherlands thrived on a technical safety approach in the 20th century, but since the late 1990s, a number of spatial planning policies have been forwarded. Building on the policy arrangements framework as a conceptual model, I add a new knowledge dimension to this framework to analyze what new knowledge requirements emerged in the Dutch turn to spatial-planning measures and how these new forms of knowledge could be organized within existing safety institutions. Based on the analysis, I conclude that spatial-planning measures require new forms of "localized" policy knowledge to support the more decentralized responsibility structures that underpin spatial-planning measures. I also conclude that this form of expertise may be difficult to organize within safety institutions due to the strong interactions between nationally oriented engineers and policy-makers that characterize safety approaches.
| Reference Key |
bergsma2016ecologychanged
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Emmy Bergsma |
| Journal | ieee access |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.5751/ES-08952-210440
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.