Перлина дерев’яного зодчества та її рятівники

Церкву Різдва Пресвятої Богородиці жителі Тулинець здавна звели на вершині одного з пагорбів. Вони хотіли, щоб їхня святиня сягала неба. І сьогодні вона виринає, немов диво перед зором проїжджаючого селом у напрямку до Дніпра

Про авторів номера

Because of climate change, extreme weather events and urban sprawl, urban areas have to deal with increasing flood risks. It is argued, both in literature and in practice that these risks can no longer be dealt with by focusing solely on flood defences (building dikes, dams, embankments etc.). Actors at various levels (international, European, national as well as regional) wish for and make efforts at a diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). There is currently debate, both within European countries and at EU level, about the potential additional role to be played by flood prevention measures such as pro-active spatial planning (building permits), flood mitigation (e.g. urban green infrastructures, adaptive buildings), flood preparation and flood recovery. It is generally argued that a diversification of FRMSs can make urban agglomerations more resilient to flood risks. However, the realisation of broadening of FRMSs leads to governance challenges. Whereas flood defence is often institutionalised in a highly state-led governance arrangement (centralized or decentralized mode of governance) with a strong role for the water sector, this is much less the case for the other FRMSs. Pro-active spatial planning asks for integration between water management and spatial planning, often in combination with involvement of private parties and civil society actors. Flood mitigation, preparation and recovery are also often institutionalised via various forms of public-private governance or self-governance. On top of this, pleas are made to link these various governance arrangements together in order to align the FRMSs, requiring even more coordination, or meta-governance. It is however not clear under which conditions such meta-governance can be successful. The aim of this presentation is to explore a) the conditions that enable a successful diversification of FRMSs, and b) how meta-governance challenges are currently being addressed in the Netherlands and the UK. First, we will structure the debates in relevant literature by the development of a classification scheme of governance challenges. Second, we will elaborate this scheme for a diversification of FRMSs from flood defence towards flood prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. Third, we will reflect on how the Netherlands and England successfully address these meta-governance challenges. These cases show that while diversification practices may be complicated, conditions under which such a diversification may take place can be created. Future comparative empirical research is needed though to further refine these conditions and we therefore conclude our paper with a research agenda

Recurrent Governance Challenges in the Implementation and Alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies: a Review

In Europe increasing flood risks challenge societies to diversify their Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). Such a diversification implies that actors not only focus on flood defence, but also and simultaneously on flood risk prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. There is much literature on the implementation of specific strategies and measures as well as on flood risk governance more generally. What is lacking, though, is a clear overview of the complex set of governance challenges which may result from a diversification and alignment of FRM strategies. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap. It elaborates on potential processes and mechanisms for coordinating the activities and capacities of actors that are involved on different levels and in different sectors of flood risk governance, both concerning the implementation of individual strategies and the coordination of the overall set of strategies. It identifies eight overall coordination mechanisms that have proven to be useful in this respect

Tissue perfusion and oxygenation to monitor fluid responsiveness in critically ill, septic patients after initial resuscitation: a prospective observational study

Fluid therapy after initial resuscitation in critically ill, septic patients may lead to harmful overloading and should therefore be guided by indicators of an increase in stroke volume (SV), i.e. fluid responsiveness. Our objective was to investigate whether tissue perfusion and oxygenation are able to monitor fluid responsiveness, even after initial resuscitation. Thirty-five critically ill, septic patients underwent infusion of 250 mL of colloids, after initial fluid resuscitation. Prior to and after fluid infusion, SV, cardiac output sublingual microcirculatory perfusion (SDF: sidestream dark field imaging) and skin perfusion and oxygenation (laser Doppler flowmetry and reflectance spectroscopy) were measured. Fluid responsiveness was defined by a ≥5 or 10 % increase in SV upon fluids. In responders to fluids, SDF-derived microcirculatory and skin perfusion and oxygenation increased, but only the increase in cardiac output, mean arterial and pulse pressure, microvascular flow index and relative Hb concentration and oxygen saturation were able to monitor a SV increase. Our proof of principle study demonstrates that non-invasively assessed tissue perfusion and oxygenation is not inferior to invasive hemodynamic measurements in monitoring fluid responsiveness. However skin reflectance spectroscopy may be more helpful than sublingual SDF

Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?

European countries face increasing flood risks due to urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM) - including flood risk prevention (through pro-active spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery - makes countries more flood resilient. While this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. This paper aims to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that The Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong "capacity to resist", France a strong "capacity to absorb and recover" and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g. being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies' feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness) as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. The paper provides much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties and citizens who want to increase flood resilience

Towards a diversification of Flood Risk Management in Europe: an exploration of governance challenges

In order to make European regions more resilient to flood risks a broadening of Flood Risk Management strategies (FRMSs) might be necessary. The development and implementation of FRMSs like risk prevention, flood defence, mitigation, preparation and recovery is a matter of governance, a process of more or less institutionalized interaction between public and/or private entities ultimately aiming at the realization of collective goals. Such processes are institutionally embedded in Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs), which can be defined as “the constellation resulting from a dynamic interplay between actors and actor coalitions involved in all policy domains relevant for Flood Risk Management – including water management, spatial planning and disaster management; their dominant discourses; formal and informal rules of the game; and the power and resource base of the actors involved”. This definition stresses that FRGAs have an actor dimension, a rule dimension, a power and resource dimension and a discursive dimension. By focussing on FRGAs we hope to get a better insight into the societal aspects of FRMSs and the way they are institutionally embedded in a broad sense. The concept allows us to combine insights from policy scientists as well as legal scholars and urges researchers to focus on FRMSs using combined perspectives. The aim of this report is twofold. First we want to explore the governance challenges a shift in FRMSs may pose to society and second we will identify questions for further research. The report is based on a first exploration of relevant scientific articles and reports. Governance challenges are found within each of the four dimensions of the FRGAs. We therefore discuss these dimensions in separate chapters. Major challenges in the actor dimension are the necessity to organise joint working between relevant actors in an effective way, to adequately involve stakeholders and to optimise the science-policy interface. In the rule dimension we have found that the major challenge concerns the translation of general Flood Risk Management principles into a set of more specific organisational, substantive and procedural provisions. Efficient and joint use of resources is the major challenge addressed under the power and resources dimension. The overarching discourse-related governance challenge is the realisation of a discursive shift. Overall, our exploration indicates that FRGAs tend to be highly fragmented. The overall challenge flood risk governance has to face is the development and implementation of inspiring bridging concepts which change agents may use to create synergies between key actors involved in flood risk governance. Concepts like Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) or climate proofing are examples of this. Empirical research is needed to further elaborate on this

Toward more resilient food risk governance

Countries all over the world face increasing flood risks because of urbanization and the effects of climate change. In Europe, flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for the largest number of casualties and highest amount of economic damage. The current scientific debate on how urban agglomerations can be made more resilient to these flood risks includes a discussion on how a diversification, coordination, and alignment of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs), including flood risk prevention through proactive spatial planning, flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, can contribute to flood resilience. Although effective implementation of FRMSs can be considered a necessary precondition for resilience, efficient and legitimate flood risk governance can enhance this societal resilience to flooding. Governance and legal research has the potential to provide crucial insights into the debate on how to improve resilience. Yet the social sciences have only looked into this issue in a fragmented manner, often without a comparative scope. This special feature addresses this knowledge gap by focusing on the scope and workings of FRMSs, but also on cross-cutting topics such as uncertainties, distributional effects, solidarity, knowledge management, and citizen participation. The papers included in this feature are written by both policy analysts and legal scholars. The above-mentioned issues are thus approached via a multidisciplinary perspective. All papers convincingly show that one-size-fits-all solutions for appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements do not exist. Governance arrangements should be tailored to the existing physical, socio-cultural, and institutional context. This requires an open and transparent debate between scientists and practitioners on the normative starting point of flood risk governance, a clear division of responsibilities, the establishment of connectivity between actors, levels, and sectors through bridging mechanisms, and adequate knowledge infrastructures, both nationally and internationall