393 research outputs found

    The Safe Development Paradox in Flood Risk Management: A Critical Review

    Get PDF
    Climate change and continued urban development in flood-prone areas exacerbate flood risks. Flood Risk Management authorities often turn to structural protection measures to minimise losses. However, these measures often lead to infrastructural lock-ins with potential unintended consequences as increased safety can induce increased development, ultimately leading to higher losses in the event of failures of the structural safe-guards in place. This process has been referred to as the Safe Development Paradox: a cross-cutting science-policy-practice challenge that requires a systematic understanding in the context of climate change and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, there are no comprehensive review studies, to date, that summarize the state of knowledge of the Safe Development Paradox. This paper provides the first evidence base through a critical review of the state-of-the-art and quantitative analysis of the peer-reviewed English-language literature since 2000, highlighting key knowledge gaps and issues hindering progress in addressing the Safe Development Paradox. It was identified that current research is compounded by a lack of consistent terminology, limited geographic distribution of case studies, and skewed emphasis on fluvial flooding. The review ends with potential directions across the science, policy, and practice domains for increasing knowledge and tackling the Safe Development Paradox.EPSRC grant number EP/T518116/

    The Effects of Previous Misestimation of Task Duration on Estimating Future Task Duration

    Get PDF
    It is a common time management problem that people underestimate the duration of tasks, which has been termed the "planning fallacy." To overcome this, it has been suggested that people should be informed about how long they previously worked on the same task. This study, however, tests whether previous misestimation also affects the duration estimation of a novel task, even if the feedback is only self-generated. To test this, two groups of participants performed two unrelated, laboratory-based tasks in succession. Learning was manipulated by permitting only the experimental group to retrospectively estimate the duration of the first task before predicting the duration of the second task. Results showed that the experimental group underestimated the duration of the second task less than the control group, which indicates a general kind of learning from previous misestimation. The findings imply that people could be trained to carefully observe how much they misestimate task duration in order to stimulate learning. The findings are discussed in relation to the anchoring account of task duration misestimation and the memory-bias account of the planning fallacy. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
    corecore