2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Agricultural land use and flood risk management: Engaging with stakeholders in North Yorkshire

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
71
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
4
71
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This makes the numerical modelling approach more feasible along with scenario delivery in the catchment. This follows previous studies (Posthumus et al, 2008;Lane et al, in press) where knowledge has been co-produced. The benefits for both the science researched and the management of the landscape have been shown to exist.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This makes the numerical modelling approach more feasible along with scenario delivery in the catchment. This follows previous studies (Posthumus et al, 2008;Lane et al, in press) where knowledge has been co-produced. The benefits for both the science researched and the management of the landscape have been shown to exist.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…A second study investigating the potential for land use to reduce flood risk is Posthumus et al (2008). This used a different type of stakeholders, as these group members belonged and represented an interested organisation (i.e.…”
Section: Confidence-co-operation Model Of Earle and Siegrist (2006)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…-social interaction encourages the achievement of stakeholder consensus in a risk management decision -higher level of stakeholder engagement, by giving participants the opportunity to communicate their views and judgments to the other participants as well as learn from them -participants can approach the problem in a more integrated way by encouraging exchange of positions and considering issues in relation to the common good rather than individual interest -opportunity to follow up with group dynamics in which evolving discusses play a key role -participants can be challenged by others more profoundly than in semi-structured interviews -local stakeholders are empowered in land and risk decisions -stakeholders are actively involved, working hand-in-hand with land use planners and policy makers -realistic expectations are created via a networking of building trust and enhancing commitment -facilitates the satisfaction of their needs and acceptance of decision-based planning -researchers and planners access to local expertise and knowledge -tendency to avoid conflicts -it is difficult to engage stakeholders in active participation -the number of participants is limited processes (Howgate and Kenyon, 2009;Posthumus et al, 2008), while both mainly used qualitative methods. In the following paragraph the importance, and the potential role of risk communication in risk management will be briefly described, while in Sect.…”
Section: Participatory Involvement Processes Pros Consmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These rivers account for 60 to 80% of the entire river network (Benda et al, 2005), providing potable drinking water (Sturdee et al, 2007), buffering capacity for flood risk (Posthumus et al, 2008), dilution of nutrient rich waters downstream (Bowes et al, 2003) and ecological habitats fundamental to the health of the aquatic ecosystems (Meyer et al, 2007). Maintaining the quality of headwater resources is thus essential for the sustainability of the water environment (Soulsby et al, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%