(Label: visualeditor)
|
(Label: visualeditor)
|
||
Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
=== Physical environment and background information === |
=== Physical environment and background information === |
||
=== Demographics of society === |
=== Demographics of society === |
||
+ | Resilience targets: |
||
+ | 300.000 inhabitants |
||
+ | 2 - 10 communities. |
||
+ | {{Cite|resource=Bestand:Frames pilotbook april 2017.pdf|name=Frames Pilotbook (2017)|dialog=process-file-dialog}} |
||
=== Flood risk governance arrangement === |
=== Flood risk governance arrangement === |
||
''Apply flood risk governance arrangements according to the following dimensions:'' |
''Apply flood risk governance arrangements according to the following dimensions:'' |
Resilience targets: 300.000 inhabitants 2 - 10 communities. Frames Pilotbook (2017)
Apply flood risk governance arrangements according to the following dimensions: Diversification and dominance of strategies. Dominance of some strategies and arrangements in this countrie? What factors explain further diversification of flood risk governance arrangements? Multi-sector governance. Relates to factors that explain why flood risk governance either has more differentiated structures, such as sector-based water management, or relies on integrated planning – or even integrated risk management – and what are the possible changes therein? Multi-actor governance. Concerns factors that explain why flood risk governance is a responsibility of the state, the market and/or civil society, their interrelationships, and possible changes therein. Multi-level governance. Relates to factors that explain why flood risk governance is organised locally, regionally, or nationally, what possible shifts in (de)centralisation we see, and how we can explain them. ------------- Alblasserwaard Low diversification, defence dominant. Water sector is dominant. De public (state) is dominant. Central en regional level. Buijs, J-M. (2018)