ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1193-228X
Current Organisations
University of Potsdam
,
Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung UFZ
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-07-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2016
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 2015
DOI: 10.1068/C12216
Abstract: There has been a noticeable shift in the way in which flood risks are managed in England. This is being driven in part by European developments but also by changes in governance across erse domains of public policy. A key characteristic is a move to transfer responsibility for the management of flood risk away from the central government and towards the local level. This paper aims to describe and evaluate the potential implications of this shift by focusing on three connected policy areas: flood defence, spatial planning, and emergency management. We draw on an analysis of policy documentation and expert interviews to map out current changes in governance. We then outline a number of potential scenarios for how these changes may play out in the future, emphasising that differences in resource availability and local motivation could result in new patterns of vulnerability and inequality.
Publisher: American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Date: 10-2017
DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000606
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2011
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 14-02-2019
DOI: 10.1101/549873
Abstract: Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is an ambiguous concept and difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as ersity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough because the usefulness of a mechanism is context-dependent. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management of resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons. i) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, ii) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management, and iii) provident when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. This emphasizes that resilience has different interpretations and implications at different time horizons which however need to be reconciled. The inclusion of time into resilience thinking ensures that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-12-2012
DOI: 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2012.01942.X
Abstract: This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust--or lack of trust--in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and in idual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or lifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of in iduals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if in iduals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of in iduals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-03-2020
DOI: 10.1002/WAT2.1418
Abstract: Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood‐related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk and third, that in iduals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence in idual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which in iduals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household‐level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water Planning Water Human Water Water Governance Science of Water Water Extremes
No related grants have been discovered for Christian Kuhlicke.