4.7 Article

Participatory modelling for stakeholder involvement in the development of flood risk management intervention options

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE
Volume 82, Issue -, Pages 275-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.04.027

Keywords

Participatory modelling; Bayesian networks; Flood risk; Stakeholder; Evaluation; Social capacity

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [1230597, EP/K013661/1]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K013661/1, EP/N008103/1, 1230597, EP/P004180/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/N008103/1, EP/K013661/1, EP/P004180/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Advancing stakeholder participation beyond consultation offers a range of benefits for local flood risk management, particularly as responsibilities are increasingly devolved to local levels. This paper details the design and implementation of a participatory approach to identify intervention options for managing local flood risk. Within this approach, Bayesian networks were used to generate a conceptual model of the local flood risk system, with a particular focus on how different interventions might achieve each of nine participant objectives. The model was co-constructed by flood risk experts and local stakeholders. The study employs a novel evaluative framework, examining both the process and its outcomes (short-term substantive and longer-term social benefits). It concludes that participatory modelling techniques can facilitate the identification of intervention options by a wide range of stakeholders, and prioritise a subset for further investigation. They can help support a broader move towards active stakeholder participation in local flood risk management. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available