4.7 Article

Learning and Action Alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: a new framework from empirical evidence from The Netherlands

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 543-554

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.006

关键词

Complex decision-making; Learning and Action Alliance; Flood risk management; Urban planning and development; Transition; Social learning; Netherlands

资金

  1. Living with Water programme
  2. EPSRC [EP/I029346/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I029346/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban development and regeneration present windows of opportunity to reduce flood vulnerability that are often not taken advantage of. Collaborative planning is needed to integrate planning and flood risk management and can be achieved by a social learning framework: Learning and Action Alliance (LAA). This paper presents a new framework on how to organise a LAA to support collaborative planning. The framework is verified based on empirical evidence from 2 case studies in The Netherlands where LAAs supported the adoption of an integrated approach to flood risk management and urban development. More than 60 interviews reported that the LAA helped develop and applied relevant knowledge in 3 types of joint activities: system analysis; collaborative design; and governance. These supported demonstration projects through 3 threads by: establishing facts; creating images; and setting ambitions. This was done via 3 streams by: addressing problems; developing solutions; and influencing politics. The new framework has been demonstrated to provide an effective guide to the organisation of a LAA and provides a new analytical tool to assess the impact of LAAs. Other success factors for LAAs and the better integration of flood risk management into the planning process are considered. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据