Flood risk assessment approaches have traditionally been dominated by measures of economic damage. However, the importance of understanding the social impacts of flooding are increasingly being acknowledged. Social vulnerability indices have been constructed in various geographical contexts to understand the relative susceptibility of different social groups to flood hazards. However, integrated assessments of social vulnerability, exposure, and hazard information are lacking. Here, we construct a national social vulnerability index (SVI) for Denmark and combine this with direct and indirect social exposure data and coastal flood hazard data to construct a national social flood risk index (SFRI). Results show the spatial distribution of social flood vulnerability and social flood risk in Denmark. Our findings illustrate that including social data in flood risk assessment could significantly change our understanding of flood risk on a national scale. Methodologically, our work introduces a comprehensive flood risk modeling approach that explicitly considers the social impacts of flooding in all model components. The application of this model in Denmark reveals that the social impacts of flooding extend far beyond flooded areas, thus highlighting the importance of explicitly considering direct and indirect social exposure in addition to social vulnerability in flood risk assessment. By introducing a comprehensive, socially specific approach to flood risk assessment that is usable within existing risk management frameworks such as the EU Floods Directive, our work aims to mainstream social wellbeing, resilience, and justice as central considerations in decision making on flood risk management.
This article reviews and examines the most significant climate-change-related impacts and adaptation from the perspective of stakeholders in Greenlandic fisheries. The study was constructed as a comprehensive, multi-site, bottom-up case study around Greenlandic fisheries (south-north/offshore-inshore), where interviews and workshops with Greenlandic fishermen and stakeholders have communicated their observations of fishery changes associated with changes in the marine environment within the last decade. Key observations include: changes in sea ice cover; increased abundance of known species in North Greenland; fish species relocation and periodic absences in coastal systems; a northward movement of the shrimp fishery; new and unprecedented bycatch issues; and new fisheries. Stakeholder knowledge acknowledges the capacity of both offshore and coastal fisheries to adapt to changing seasonality and distribution. Factory capacity and decision-making as well as bycatch legislation have been identified as the most critical bottlenecks for (re)diversifying fisheries and increasing the value of the locally available resources.
A new motivation for marine restoration has been observed, associated with the dissatisfaction with current marine restoration governance arrangements (MRGAs). An MRGA consists of alliances of public and private actors (coalitions) who, through their common conceptualisation of the problem (discourses), try to influence and design marine restoration activities while considering the rules of decision-making, and the management of limited resources. Emerging MRGAs rise in parallel to existing ones and aim to contribute to the same goals or show another way of reaching those goals. This phenomenon raises questions of legitimacy both for the emerging and the existing arrangement. Building on existing literature, this paper proposes an analytical framework to simultaneously explore input, throughput and output legitimacy as three essential pre-conditions of legitimacy for MRGAs. The framework is tested in three European cases of MRGAs that were part of the European Union MERCES project (http://www.merces-project.eu/). Analysis showed that actors who are influential in achieving restoration goals, and also those who are impacted by restoration actions, should be involved in the MRGAs (input legitimacy); actors within MRGAs should establish and follow procedures for decision-making that are both transparent and clear (throughput legitimacy); and actors within MRGAs need to establish a common understanding of restoration, of the goal to reach and of the related uncertainties (output legitimacy). Awareness of these pre-conditions allows actors internal and external to MRGAs to address aspects that give legitimacy to restoration actions. It also creates a language that allows actors to engage in discussion on legitimacy that goes beyond the mere application of the rule of law.
This article investigates recent reforms of the Greenland coastal fisheries in order to contribute to the general lessons on reform and policy networks in the context of a changing Arctic stakeholdership. It analyzes participation in fisheries governance decision-making by examining the emergence of discourses and policy networks that come to define the very need for reform. A policy network is identified across state ministries, powerful officials, banks and large scale industry that defined the need for fisheries reform within a 'grand reform' discourse. But inertia characterized the actual decision-making process as reform according to this 'grand reform' discourse was blocked by a combination of small-scale fishermen' informal networks and the power of the parliamentary majority. After a parliamentary shift in power the new government implemented the 'grand reform' gradually whilst new patterns of participation and exclusion emerged. In this process, the identities of the participating participants were reinterpreted to fit the new patterns of influence and participation. The article argues that fishery reform does not necessarily start with the collective recognition of a problem in marine resource use and a power-neutral process of institutional learning. Instead, it argues that fishery reform is likely to be the 'reform of somebody' and that this 'somebody' is itself a changing identity.