Search

The concept of ecosystem services has been extensively studied in recent decades. Most studies have focused on describing the specific aspects such as production, spatial extent, valuation of services and the trade-off between services. Few studies however assess the practitioners’ views on the frameworks, models or tools developed. In this paper, we report on a multi-stakeholder workshop where two tools were tested (i) the ecosystem service cascade framework was tested as a means to frame the issues and (ii) a participatory-spatial modelling method, QUICKScan, was tested as an aid to support discussion over natural resource management and planning in a multi-use landscape. A focused group discussion was utilised to determine stakeholders’ views of the cascade framework and pre- and post-workshop questionnaires quantified the stakeholders’ views of the QUICKScan method. The stakeholders identified both positive and negative aspects of both tools. The diversity of views expressed were associated with (i) the past experience of the individual with the issues discussed, (ii) the technical aspects of the tools i.e. the ability with GIS and (iii) the level of new shared knowledge they reported acquiring on the day which was related to their initial knowledge of the issue and area studied. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Hydro-hazards are increasing in frequency due to climate change which has inspired a cultural change in Flood Risk Management (FRM). Uncertainty associated with climate change has resulted in a shift towards flood resilience as it helps deal with unexpected climatic perturbations that impact extreme flows. The concept of resilience has increased in popularity, leading to a multitude of definitions, measurements and applications. This paper systematically reviews the FRM literature to provide clarity on the differing perspectives of resilience and how they influence successful implementation of the concept. Our analysis assesses where FRM is positioned within three pre-defined interdisciplinary understandings of resilience. The polysemic nature of resilience has produced a multitude of different perspectives that prevent successful operationalisation. Resilience is interdisciplinary; therefore it requires integration between top-down and bottom-up FRM approaches, as well as a more holistic approach to the interdependence between temporal and spatial scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]