ArticleHeliyon2022
Assessing the environmental and social co-benefits and disbenefits of natural risk management measures.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urban heat mitigation by green and blue infrastructure: Drivers, effectiveness, and future needs.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2024Review
- Is the coastal future green, grey or hybrid? Diverse perspectives on coastal flood risk management and adaptation in the UK.Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk management measures (RMM) participate in the sustainability of cities and communities through the protection of these socio-eco-environmental systems against threatening events, and by ensuring system recovery. They include structural measures that are grey or green/blue solutions, or hybrid solutions combining the two former types. These measures can provide environmental and social co-benefits (e.g., improved biodiversity, recreational services) and disbenefits (e.g., the development of unwanted flora, concentrations of pollutants). The aim of this article is to provide an approach to assess and compare RMMs by considering these different dimensions. An application to three natural hazards - floods, coastal floods and wildfires - is proposed. The approach takes the form of a procedure to assess the co-benefits/disbenefits of the various RMMs and some technical specifications. It allows comparing the performances of one RMM against another and collectively discussing the choice of RMMs that takes into account a wide range of dimensions. The approach is based on the formulation of eight sustainability criteria and thirty-one indicators. The results were graphically displayed as several types of diagram: one radar chart per RMM, compiling all the indicators; one radar chart by type of risk studied (flood, wildfire and coastal flooding) based on averages of indicators per criterion; a table of the global score assigned to each RMM calculated with an arithmetic mean or a weighted mean. The approach relies on an interdisciplinary research team and involves end-users in a focus group for the validation step. This approach constitutes a transparent base for decision-making processes in the context of sustainable spatial planning against natural risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.