Contextualizing institutional factors in an indicator-based analysis of hazard vulnerability for coastal communities

Oulahen, Greg; Chang, Stephanie E.; Yip, Jackie Z.K.; Conger, Tugce; Marteleira, Michelle; Carter, Christopher

doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1399109

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first is the role of political will as an underlying factor for successful implementation of GI. Rather than including political will as a standalone challenge, we concur with the mainstream literature on Environmental Politics, including scholarship on the politics of climate change and sustainable development that demonstrate political will as a distal precondition for tackling all the five challenges in a coherent and holistic way (e.g., Carter 2018;Bauer and Steurer 2014;Oulahen et al 2017). Political will is, for example, instrumental for setting up new regulations and it determines the overall direction for more technical discussions about new standards.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Cities and their inhabitants around the world are becoming more vulnerable as a consequence of rapid urbanization combined with climate change impacts (Petroski 2016). As storm events become more frequent and severe as a function of climate change (IPCC 2013), cities across the world become more vulnerable to floods, and droughts and to all the cascading effects that follow (e.g., damage to urban infrastructure, impacts on health), in context-specific situations (Oulahen et al 2017). Likewise, as temperatures rise, urban residents become more vulnerable to often quite localized heat waves (such as the one in 2003 in France that may have killed as many as 15,000 people; Poumad ere et al 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions

Zúñiga-Terán

Staddon

Vito

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green infrastructure (GI) has been identified as a promising approach to help cities adapt to climate change through the provision of multiple ecosystem services. However, GI contributions to urban resilience will not be realized until it is more fully mainstreamed in the built environment and design professions. Here, we interrogate five key challenges for the effective implementation of GI: (1) design standards; (2) regulatory pathways; (3) socioeconomic considerations; (4) financeability; and (5) innovation. Methods include a literature review, case studies, and interviews with resilience managers. We propose a people-centred and context-dependent approach to advance effective implementation of GI in urban planning. We highlight two underlying currents that run across all of the challenges-(1) the role of political will as a precondition for tackling all challenges holistically; and (2) the role of stakeholder engagement in achieving public support, harnessing funding, and maintaining and monitoring GI in the long term. Highlights: The effective implementation of GI is context-specific and should adhere to the basic principles of appropriate technology. Continuous community engagement is needed to ensure the inclusivity and multi-functionality of GI. Challenges to successful GI are intersectional and therefore cannot be addressed singly in isolation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions

Zúñiga-Terán

Staddon

Vito

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The survey was conducted by email with telephone follow‐up and had an overall response rate of 60%. Methodological details can be found in Oulahen et al (2018). Survey data were available for 25 of the 40 communities that are the focus of the current article.…”

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on municipal planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation suggests that differences in local planning relate to what can be termed institutional factors. While institutions broadly refer to "formal public, private, and civic organizations as well as habitualised behaviour and the rules and norms that govern society" (Oulahen et al, 2018(Oulahen et al, , p. 2494, of particular interest here are factors related to the capacities of local governments. As planning authorities and formal public institutions, local governments play a key role in reducing risk and adapting to hazards.…”

Section: Local Level Planning For Coastal Flood Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Institutional factors that are specific to each local government are frequently found to serve as either barriers or facilitators of climate adaptation planning. These include: governance structure; financial and other resources; leadership and political will; organisational capacity; and institutional memory (Oulahen et al, 2018). These factors, whether serving to impede or facilitate action, are often interrelated (Dilling, Pizzi, Berggren, Ravikumar, & Andersson, 2017; Hamin, Gurran, & Emlinger, 2014).…”

Section: Local Level Planning For Coastal Flood Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explaining communities' adaptation strategies for coastal flood risk: Vulnerability and institutional factors

Chang

Yip

Conger

et al. 2020

J Flood Risk Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing coastal flood risk has prompted a proliferation of cities that are adopting risk reduction and adaptation tools. This article inquires into what types of tools local governments tend to adopt for managing coastal flood risk and the factors that may be influencing these choices; in particular, factors related to hazard vulnerability and institutional capacity. Focusing on 40 diverse coastal communities in a study region in Canada, the study utilised data from the communities' Official Community Plans to characterise their approaches to managing coastal flood risk in terms of land use regulations, construction specifications, and/or structural flood protection tools. The data revealed considerable diversity in the portfolio of tools that the communities have adopted. Tool adoption was found to correlate strongly with hazard vulnerability; that is, communities with similar physical and socioeconomic vulnerability conditions tended to take similar adaptation actions. For example, established communities with highly urbanised coastlines tended to rely on structural flood protection while suburban communities with semi-developed coastlines predominantly utilised land use regulations. Institutional factors such as resource availability and local leadership, which were operationalised using survey data, exhibited surprisingly little correlation with the types of tools that communities adopted.

show abstract

A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments

Smith,

Diedrich

2024

Reg Environ Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic literature review critically evaluates the extent to which community-based vulnerability assessments are progressing towards less siloed approaches that address spatial and temporal interactions and multiple exposures. The review focuses on studies that apply the most commonly operationalised frameworks in the livelihoods and climate change disciplines between 2014 and 2023, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) (n = 72) and the IPCC AR4 Framework (AR4) (n = 101). This review found that a minimal number of studies are addressing limitations. This was most significant in relation to the inadequate consideration of spatial scale (SLF 1%; AR4 5%), future temporal scale (SLF 4%; AR4 7%), and exposure to multiple shocks and stressors (AR4 7%; SLF 8%) within studies. Progress was seen with respect to overcoming siloed perspectives, which had previously led to the exclusion of external shock and stressor events (SLF) or socioeconomic factors (AR4) within assessments. Despite this progress, AR4 based studies were found to exclude key components of adaptive capacity, particularly in relation to natural (28%), financial (57%) and components of social capital. Additionally, only 47% of SLF based studies measured exposure to shock and stressor events. To overcome limitations scholars must engage with i) less-siloed frameworks that combine perspectives from the livelihoods and climate change disciplines and ii) non-static approaches that assess vulnerability in the context of social-ecological systems or use ethnographic methods (e.g., scenario planning and participatory mapping) to contextualise outputs. By engaging with these limitations, scholars reduce the potential for assessments to produce ineffective, or maladaptive outcomes.

show abstract

Contextualizing institutional factors in an indicator-based analysis of hazard vulnerability for coastal communities

Cited by 14 publications

References 42 publications

Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions

Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions

Explaining communities' adaptation strategies for coastal flood risk: Vulnerability and institutional factors

A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About