WSE, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, South Holland, The Netherlands.
UNESCO-IHE, Delft, South Holland, The Netherlands.
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020 Apr 3;378(2168):20190212. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0212. Epub 2020 Feb 17.
Three different conceptual frameworks of resilience, including engineering, ecological and social-ecological have been presented and framed within the context of flood risk management. Engineering resilience has demonstrated its value in the design and operation of technological systems in general and in flood resilient technologies in particular. Although limited to the technical domain, it has broadened the objectives of flood resilient technologies and provided guidance in improving their effectiveness. Socio-ecological resilience is conceived as a broader system characteristic that involves the interaction between human and natural systems. It acknowledges that these systems change over time and that these interactions are of complex nature and associated with uncertainties. Building (socio-ecological) resilience in flood risk management strategies calls for an adaptive approach with short-term measures and a set of monitoring criteria for keeping track of developments that might require adaptation in the long-term (adaptation pathways) and thus built-in adaptive capacity as opposed to building engineering resilience which involves a static approach with a fixed time horizon a set of robust measures designed for specific future conditions or scenarios. The two case studies, from a developing and a developed country, indicate that the concepts of ecological and socio-ecological resilience provide guidance for building more resilient flood risk management systems resulting in an approach that embraces flood protection, prevention and preparedness. The case studies also reveal that the translation of resilience concepts into practice remains a challenge. One plausible explanation for this is our inability to arrive at a quantification of socio-ecological resilience taking into account the various attributes of the concept. This article is part of the theme issue 'Urban flood resilience'.
已经提出并框定了三个不同的韧性概念框架,包括工程、生态和社会生态韧性,这些都在洪水风险管理的背景下进行了阐述。工程韧性已经在技术系统的设计和运行方面展示了其价值,特别是在洪水韧性技术方面。尽管它仅限于技术领域,但它拓宽了洪水韧性技术的目标,并为提高其有效性提供了指导。社会生态韧性被视为更广泛的系统特性,涉及人类和自然系统之间的相互作用。它承认这些系统会随时间而变化,并且这些相互作用具有复杂的性质,并伴随着不确定性。在洪水风险管理策略中构建(社会生态)韧性需要采取适应性方法,包括短期措施和一套监测标准,以跟踪可能需要长期适应的发展情况(适应途径),从而建立内在的适应能力,而不是构建涉及固定时间范围、针对特定未来条件或情景设计的一套稳健措施的工程韧性。这两个来自发展中国家和发达国家的案例研究表明,生态和社会生态韧性的概念为构建更具韧性的洪水风险管理系统提供了指导,从而采用了一种涵盖洪水保护、预防和准备的方法。这些案例研究还表明,将韧性概念转化为实践仍然是一个挑战。对此的一个合理解释是,我们无法对社会生态韧性进行量化,因为这需要考虑到该概念的各种属性。本文是“城市洪水韧性”主题特刊的一部分。