首页    期刊浏览 2024年11月24日 星期日
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Selecting and analysing climate change adaptation measures at six research sites across Europe
  • 本地全文:下载
  • 作者:van Alphen, Henk-Jan ; Strehl, Clemens ; Vollmer, Fabian
  • 期刊名称:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
  • 电子版ISSN:2195-9269
  • 出版年度:2021
  • 卷号:21
  • 期号:7
  • 页码:2145-2161
  • DOI:10.5194/nhess-21-2145-2021
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:Copernicus Publications
  • 摘要:As Europe is faced with increasing droughts and extreme precipitation,countries are taking measures to adapt to these changes. It is challenging,however, to navigate through the wide range of possible measures, taking intoaccount the efficacy, economic impact and social justice aspects of thesemeasures, as well as the governance requirements for implementing them. Thisarticle presents the approach of selecting and analysing adaptation measuresto increasing extreme weather events caused by ongoing climate change that wasdeveloped and applied in the H2020 project BINGO (Bringing Innovation toOngoing Water Management). The purpose of this project is (a) to develop anintegrated participatory approach for selecting and evaluating adaptationmeasures, (b) to apply and evaluate the approach across six case-study riverbasins across Europe, and (c) to support decision-making towards adaptationcapturing the diversity, the different circumstances and challenges riverbasins face across Europe. It combines three analyses: governance,socio-economic and social justice The governance analysis focuses on therequirements associated with the measures and the extent to which theserequirements are met at the research sites. The socio-economic impact focuseson the efficacy of the measures in reducing the risks and the broad range oftools available to compare the measures on their societal impact. Finally, atentative social justice analysis focuses on the distributive impacts of theadaptation measures. In the summary of results, we give an overview of theoutcome of the different analyses. In the conclusion, we briefly assess themain pros and cons of the different analyses that were conducted. The mainconclusion is that although the research sites were very different in both thechallenges and the institutional context, the approach presented here yieldeddecision-relevant outcomes.
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有