Reputational risks and participation in flood risk management and the public debate about the 2013 flood in Germany

Kuhlicke, Christian; Callsen, Ines; Begg, Chloe

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.011

Cited by 29 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This explicitly parallels Walker and Westley's call to "push power down to the local community level where sense-making, self-organization and leadership in the face of disaster were more likely to occur if local governments felt accountable for their own responses" (2011:4). The case study work showed that this not only relates to local governments (Begg et al, 2015;Kuhlicke et al, 2016) but also to the individual citizens potentially affected by natural hazards . More specifically, Begg et al (2016) found that if the physical and psychological consequences are perceived as being low with regard to their most recent flood experiences, then respondents tend to accept the attribution of responsibility towards individual citizens and also report higher response efficacy (i.e.…”

Section: Extra-community Framing Of Community Resilience 421 Disastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Kruse

Abeling

Deeming

et al. 2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The level of community is considered to be vital for building disaster resilience. Yet, community resilience as a scientific concept often remains vaguely defined and lacks the guiding characteristics necessary for analysing and enhancing resilience on the ground. The emBRACE framework of community resilience presented in this paper provides a heuristic analytical tool for understanding, explaining and measuring community resilience to natural hazards. It was developed in an iterative process building on existing scholarly debates, on empirical case study work in five countries and on participatory consultation with community stakeholders where the framework was applied and ground-tested in different contexts and for different hazard types. The framework conceptualizes resilience across three core domains: (i) resources and capacities, (ii) actions and (iii) learning. These three domains are conceptualized as intrinsically conjoined within a whole. Community resilience is influenced by these integral elements as well as by extra-community forces comprising disaster risk governance and thus laws, policies and responsibilities on the one hand and on the other, the general societal context, natural and human-made disturbances and system change over time. The framework is a graphically rendered heuristic, which through application can assist in guiding the assessment of community resilience in a systematic way and identifying key drivers and barriers of resilience that affect any particular hazard-exposed community.

show abstract

Section: Extra-community Framing Of Community Resilience 421 Disastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Kruse

Abeling

Deeming

et al. 2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also Kuhlicke et al . () conclude that current participatory processes do not offer room for decisions on real alternatives and thus foster frustration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, experiences of flood risk management from the Netherlands show ‘that the choice to limit public participation in the debates about calamity polders has backfired’ (Roth and Warner, , p. 519) as plans were refused and distrust intensified. But also the currently applied participatory processes in German flood management turn out to be not adequate as our own findings and the literature (Kuhlicke et al ., ; Renn, ) suggest. Despite several studies concentrating on involvement issues in controversies of flood risk reduction measures (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Local controversies of flood risk reduction measures in Germany. An explorative overview and recent insights

Otto

Hornberg

Thieken

2016

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of the flood event in June 2013, local disputes of flood risk reduction measures became a public concern in Germany, as it was argued that these controversies delayed the implementation of flood defence schemes and thus aggravated the flood impacts. However, actual knowledge about such disputes is generally quite limited. Therefore, this paper uses different empirical approaches to present first an explorative overview of such ongoing controversies with a focus on the measures under dispute and their geographical distribution. Second, current insights in the disputes are delineated, and the following four central conflict lines are expounded: (1) the desire for safety, (2) arguments of nature and landscape protection, (3) questions regarding economic development, and (4) participation issues. The results are discussed comprehensively, and conclusions are drawn regarding further research as well as planning practice in the field of risk reduction measures.

show abstract

“…This process provides local stakeholders with the opportunity to communicate their interests and concerns in writing. These submissions must be considered and evaluated by the authorities (Kuhlicke et al ., ).…”

Section: Participation In Flood Defence In Practicementioning

confidence: 97%

The role of local stakeholder participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany

Begg

Callsen

Kuhlicke

et al. 2017

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important aspect of integrated flood risk management (FRM) around the world is accepted as being the involvement of a range of stakeholders in flood‐related decision‐making processes. Achieving local stakeholder participation in ways that lead to the expected benefits is burdened by challenges and difficulties. By drawing on examples of practices of local stakeholder participation in FRM in two European countries, the United Kingdom and Germany, this paper aims to understand the extent to which local stakeholders are able to influence FRM. Empirically, the paper focuses on flood defence planning and implementation‐related decisions as they still remain the dominant approach of managing flood risks in those locations. The findings from the two case studies show that involvement of local stakeholders in decisions related to flood defence schemes is limited and likely to lead to conflict and frustration as well as, potentially, a strengthening of inequalities. These lessons have implications for the United Kingdom and Germany as well as for other locations around the world.

show abstract

Reputational risks and participation in flood risk management and the public debate about the 2013 flood in Germany

Cited by 29 publications

References 18 publications

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards – the emBRACE framework

Local controversies of flood risk reduction measures in Germany. An explorative overview and recent insights

The role of local stakeholder participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About