Governance networks that are affected by, and that must respond to, wicked problems, such as flooding, are highly complex. While we cannot capture all the social interactions that underly these structures, we can realistically describe this complexity from the perspective of the involved individuals. Thus, the article presented here addresses the question how to take into consideration the individuals' egocentric perspective in the analysis of governance networks that respond to wicked problems. In response to this question we offer concrete methodological guidelines for readers who wish to systematically map and compare egocentric networks. We demonstrate the usefulness of this template with an integrated analysis of the networks of four individuals who operate in a postflood governance context in Germany. We also present evidence that the template produces reliable data on the density, mutuality, and breadth of individuals' networks that support realistic and comparable descriptions.
This paper presents interdisciplinary research focusing on the municipality of Braunsbach in the German state of Baden-Württemberg, where, in May 2016, a flash flood attracted media attention and scientific scrutiny that highlighted the fact that certain aspects of flood risk were overlooked during earlier assessments conducted by the municipality, such as sediment transport. Using a network analysis and a focus-group discussion, we traced the flow of knowledge through the reported interactions between governmental, private, and academic actors in the two and a half years after the event. From our analysis, we learned that the extreme event attracted scientists to the formal and informal assessment of the hazard and the associated damages. Most importantly, we found conditions under which scientific scrutiny is not detached from but becomes integrated in a governance setting. While it is through this process that sediment transport has become an integral part of flood-risk management in Baden-Württemberg, with an evident impact on the measures already implemented, the impact of morphological changes, as well as large wood and sediment transport, have not been factored into the risk assessment as of yet. These variations in scientific impact on the assessment can be explained by decision biases that can occur when decision makers are under pressure to tackle vulnerabilities and thus lack the time to deliberate in a way that uses all the available evidence.
Efforts to collaboratively manage the risk of flooding are ultimately based on individuals learning about risks, the decision process, and the effectiveness of decisions made in prior situations. This article argues that much can be learned about a governance setting by explicitly evaluating the relationships through which influential individuals and their immediate contacts receive and send information to one another. We define these individuals as “brokers,” and the networks that emerge from their interactions as “learning spaces.” The aim of this article is to develop strategies to identify and evaluate the properties of a broker's learning space that are indicative of a collaborative flood risk management arrangement. The first part of this article introduces a set of indicators, and presents strategies to employ this list so as to systematically identify brokers, and compare their learning spaces. The second part outlines the lessons from an evaluation that explored cases in two distinct flood risk management settings in Germany. The results show differences in the observed brokers' learning spaces. The contacts and interactions of the broker in Baden‐Württemberg imply a collaborative setting. In contrast, learning space of the broker in North Rhine‐Westphalia lacks the same level of diversity and polycentricity.
Working together across disciplinary boundaries is considered to be the gold standard for conducting meaningful research tackling complex problems. As this is the nature of many issues concerning water, one would assume interdisciplinarity as being a widespread trait of water research. To review this assumption, we chose to conduct an analysis of research output considering issues of stormwater management and heavy precipitation, as reflected in the meta-information for more than 300,000 documents supplied by Elsevier’s Scopus literature database. For this purpose, we applied a bibliometric measure based on Jaccard similarity determining the level of interdisciplinary cooperation between different fields of research on the topic above. Contrary to interdisciplinarity being depicted as highly desirable, it turns out to be a relatively marginal phenomenon, only growing slowly over the last 50 years.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.