|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Cosens, Barbara A; University of Idaho College of Law; bcosens@uidaho.edu. |
| Ecologists have made great strides in developing criteria for describing the resilience of an ecological system. In addition, expansion of that effort to social-ecological systems has begun the process of identifying changes to the social system necessary to foster resilience in an ecological system such as the use of adaptive management and integrated ecosystem management. However, these changes to governance needed to foster ecosystem resilience will not be adopted by democratic societies without careful attention to their effect on the social system itself. Delegation of increased flexibility for adaptive management to resource management agencies must include careful attention to assuring that increased flexibility is exercised in a manner that is... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Insight |
Palavras-chave: Adaptive governance; Ecosystem management; Law; Legitimacy; Networks; Policy; Resilience. |
| Ano: 2013 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| Mees, Hannelore; Research Group Environment and Society, University of Antwerp; hannelore.mees@uantwerpen.be; Alexander, Meghan; Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University ; m.c.alexander@mdx.ac.uk; Kaufmann, Maria; Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen; m.kaufmann@fm.ru.nl; Bruzzone, Silvia; CITERES Research Centre, François Rabelais University of Tours; silvia.bruzzone@enpc.fr; Lewandowski, Jakub; Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Science; jakub.lewandowski22@gmail.com. |
| Across Europe, citizens are increasingly expected to participate in the implementation of flood risk management (FRM), by engaging in voluntary-based activities to enhance preparedness, implementing property-level measures, and so forth. Although citizen participation in FRM decision making is widely addressed in academic literature, citizens’ involvement in the delivery of FRM measures is comparatively understudied. Drawing from public administration literature, we adopted the notion of “coproduction” as an analytical framework for studying the interaction between citizens and public authorities, from the decision-making process through to the implementation of FRM in practice. We considered to what extent coproduction is... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Reports |
Palavras-chave: Codelivery; Coproduction; Cross-country comparison; Flood risk governance; Flood risk responsibilities; Legitimacy; Public participation; Resilience. |
| Ano: 2016 |
|
| |
|
|
| van Doorn-Hoekveld, Willemijn J.; Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University School of Law, The Netherlands; w.j.hoekveld@uu.nl; Suykens, Cathy; KU Leuven, Belgium; cathy.suykens@kuleuven.be; Homewood, Stephen; Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University London, England; stephenhomewood@yahoo.co.uk; Chmielewski, Piotr J.; Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland; piotr.chmielewski1990@gmail.com; Matczak, Piotr; Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland; Institute of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University; matczak@amu.edu.pl; van Rijswick, Helena F.M.W; Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University School of Law, The Netherlands; H.vanRijswick@uu.nl. |
| We seek to examine the manner in which either the EU member states of France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden or parts of them, such as the country of England in the UK or the Flemish Region in Belgium, deal with the distributional effects of the flood risk management strategies prevention, defense, and mitigation. Measures carried out in each of these strategies can cause preflood harm, as in the devaluation of property or loss of income. However, different member states and authorities address this harm in different ways. A descriptive overview of the different compensation regimes in the field of flood risk management is followed by an analysis of these differences and an explanation of what may cause them, such as the geographical differences that... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Reports |
Palavras-chave: Defense; é Galité Devant les charges publiques; Equity; Flood risk management; Legitimacy; Loss; No-fault liability; Preflood compensation; Prevention; Protection of property rights; Solidarity; Spatial planning. |
| Ano: 2016 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
