Literature DB >> 21464071

Imagining flood futures: risk assessment and management in practice.

Stuart N Lane1, Catharina Landström, Sarah J Whatmore.   

Abstract

The mantra that policy and management should be 'evidence-based' is well established. Less so are the implications that follow from 'evidence' being predictions of the future (forecasts, scenarios, horizons) even though such futures define the actions taken today to make the future sustainable. Here, we consider the tension between 'evidence', reliable because it is observed, and predictions of the future, unobservable in conventional terms. For flood risk management in England and Wales, we show that futures are actively constituted, and so imagined, through 'suites of practices' entwining policy, management and scientific analysis. Management has to constrain analysis because of the many ways in which flood futures can be constructed, but also because of commitment to an accounting calculus, which requires risk to be expressed in monetary terms. It is grounded in numerical simulation, undertaken by scientific consultants who follow policy/management guidelines that define the futures to be considered. Historical evidence is needed to deal with process and parameter uncertainties and the futures imagined are tied to pasts experienced. Reliance on past events is a challenge for prediction, given changing probability (e.g. climate change) and consequence (e.g. development on floodplains). So, risk management allows some elements of risk analysis to become unstable (notably in relation to climate change) but forces others to remain stable (e.g. invoking regulation to prevent inappropriate floodplain development). We conclude that the assumed separation of risk assessment and management is false because the risk calculation has to be defined by management. Making this process accountable requires openness about the procedures that make flood risk analysis more (or less) reliable to those we entrust to produce and act upon them such that, unlike the 'pseudosciences', they can be put to the test of public interrogation by those who have to live with their consequences.
© 2011 Royal Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21464071     DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci        ISSN: 1364-503X            Impact factor:   4.226


  3 in total

Review 1.  Assessing climate change risks to the natural environment to facilitate cross-sectoral adaptation policy.

Authors:  Iain Brown
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Fusing strategic risk and futures methods to inform long-term strategic planning: case of water utilities.

Authors:  Ana Luís; Kenisha Garnett; Simon J T Pollard; Fiona Lickorish; Simon Jude; Paul Leinster
Journal:  Environ Syst Decis       Date:  2021-05-25

Review 3.  A transdisciplinary account of water research.

Authors:  Tobias Krueger; Carly Maynard; Gemma Carr; Antje Bruns; Eva Nora Mueller; Stuart Lane
Journal:  WIREs Water       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 6.139

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.