(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Nature based solutions for flood risks: What insights do the social representations of experts provide? [1]
['Pénélope Brueder', 'Recover', 'Inrae Ademe', 'Aix-En-Provence', 'Alexandra Schleyer-Lindenmann', 'Espace', 'Umr', 'Cnrs', 'Aix Marseille Université', 'Avignon Université']
Date: 2024-02
We will present the lexicometric analysis and the thematic analysis at the same time complemented by citations from the verbatim. These combined analyses allow to frame the experts’ SR by other SRs such as nature, risk and engineering culture.
Fig 1 shows the use of terms and the general structure of the representation. The central elements of the representation are “NBS” and “water”, they are strongly linked to each other, and each element of centrality has numerous links to other elements, some strongly linked (eg. “water” and “management” or “NBS” and “project”), some more peripheral (“stakeholder”, “GEMAPI” (Aquatic environment management and flood prevention), “vegetal”). It is remarkable, that the two central elements (“water” and “NBS”) were more often used by theorists than by practitioners. In terms of common associations (in black), practitioners and theorists share a certain number of terms concerning “water”, especially terms related to its management such as the locations “area”, “river” “basin”, the tools of management “planning” “GEMAPI”, the partners “collectivity” and the possible aims “renaturation”, “vegetation”, “natural”. Many terms are also shared with regard to NBS, related notably to “project”, its “complex” nature and possible “barriers” around the stake to “protect” “stakeholders”. This “scientific” “concept” is also clearly linked to “climate change”. Its two main definitional dimensions are mentioned by both groups: to be at the same of service to society (“solution” “flood” “risk” “protection”) and to “nature” (“biodiversity” “ecological”, “environment”).
The similarity analysis [ 59 ], highlights the common aspects and differences between the two groups of experts: theorists and practitioners. In Fig 1 , the thicker the lines, the more often the words were associated or used together. In black are all the elements both types of participants used interchangeably (their “common representation”), in blue all the elements that were significantly more often used by theorists than by practitioners, and the contrary for elements in red which were used significantly more often by practitioners than theorists. This does not mean that the other group does not use them, just less often.
2. What distinguishes practitioners and theorists
The thematic analysis reveals that the gap between the concept and its implementation on the field is related, according to interviewees, to the perception of the IUCN definition. Five experts, both theoreticians and practitioners, describe this definition as broad and vague: "it’s vast, in fact, it’s vast" (GEMAPI project manager, river syndicat); "from the moment you are going to say a use of something natural, I would say that you can qualify it as an NBS?" (researcher in hydrogeology). Two of them went so far as to describe the concept as difficult to apply: "the municipalities that really do what the IUCN definition says, there aren’t that many […] if we want to apply the whole IUCN definition to the letter, it becomes complicated to really find what fits in […] it’s quite restrictive" (director of a flood risk association); "It’s hard to grasp the concept, to apply it in an operational way" (EP basin manager). For these interviewees, the concept is too new and has too many implications to be easily adopted and translated on the field. Others are waiting for NBS to prove themselves: the lack of evidence by example is mentioned by four experts: "I am waiting for concrete operations of nature based solutions" (GEMAPI Mission Officer); "what is needed now is feedback" (researcher in environmental sciences). Interestingly NBS techniques are portrayed as "old" by nine experts (both practitioners and theorists) who detail NBS as "rustic" or "rudimentary" solutions (or similar terms) and have been used, according to them, in the field for decades. The experts seemed to differentiate between the recent concept promoted by international institutions and the long-proven techniques it contains. According to experts, decision-makers appreciated this concept, but this was not necessarily the case for local people: "I think that some decision-makers like this concept, but the residents have a hard time understanding and accepting it" (wetland manager). This is an example of the dialogical nature of SR [26] where experts take into account in their discourse how other social groups consider NBS.
The perceived opposition of the inhabitants as well as their “preconceptions” were cited by six experts: "a rather strong opposition of these farmers […] it was really a psychological barrier for the farmers who were really against it and took a hostile stand against the principle" (in charge of GEMAPI, river syndicate); "the major oppositions in the territory between the inhabitants and the managers of the natural environment" (in charge of operation, river syndicate); "this concept generates a lot of conflict […] there are quite a lot of protests (in charge of a wetland). These aspects seem opposed to the desire to involve the inhabitants in the projects and seem contradictory to the "participative" lever developed by IUCN. Moreover, three experts stated that it was impossible to calm conflicts and that they were obliged to expropriate: "In the long run, it will be done, but it will be painful" (works engineer, river union); "The only solution for the moment is to expropriate" (facilitator, OFB); "once the project is declared to be of public interest, that is what justifies the right to expropriate" (works engineer, river union). This way of proceeding is the antithesis of the community participation strongly encouraged by the institutions that support the NBS concept. This discrepancy reflects difficulties in articulating this participatory concept, which is not easy to implement [61] and requires scientific rigor [62]. Conflict around NBS emerges not only between inhabitants and institutions, but also between experts or institutions, as six experts mentioned: "I don’t think they [the scientists] tell you [the interviewer] the same thing because they work for nature, that’s their primary objective" (operation manager, river syndicate about environmental researchers); "they [the elected officials] don’t trust each other […], they don’t trust each other between elected officials, in fact they have the impression that they won’t be the ones to decide" (coordinator, river syndicate).
The term "NBS" was significatively more often used by theorists during the interview (Fig 1). NBS would therefore be a rather conceptual term that is less used in the field. This result is in line with our thematic analysis in which seven participants describe the term NBS as conceptual and scientific, which is not present in the field: "I find that there is really a distinction between the organizations that drive this concept […] and the local level, which is a little out of step and needs to be informed and understand what is being proposed with this concept of NBS " (GEMAPI officer, association); "the people who are more in the field do not communicate at all on this subject" (wetland manager). Moreover, six participants of both groups added that when talking about NBS, their discourse must be adapted according to the interlocutor, and that this term is not appropriate for all audiences: "depending on the profession, we do not call things by the same name" (researcher in hydrology). In the SR of the interviewees, the term NBS is not unifying and not necessarily understandable for all stakeholders, particularly those in the field.
The similarity analysis highlights (Fig 1) also that the term "dike" is used primarily by practitioners. This strong reference and attachment to this type of grey solution seems an element galvanizing a gap between theorists and practitioners, between concept and field. In fact, the institutions and scientists who support the NBS concept, such as the IUCN or the OFB, propose a sort of alternative to grey solutions. Without pitting grey solutions against nature-based ones, dikes as such do not form a part of NBS. However, the practitioners frequently mentioned dikes in their speeches, explaining that France could not do without this type of engineering: "Today, cities like Arles or Avignon would not exist without dikes" (works engineer, river union). Indeed, five actors, both practitioners and theoreticians, defined NBS as complementary to the so-called grey solutions: "we are not going to think of a total substitution but of a link between these two practices" (researcher in urban planning).
Finally, we note that most of the terms related to the field appear more often in the practitioners’ speech such as "territory", "farmers", "inhabitant", "population" and "local". These terms were very frequent in the speech of the practitioners and concerned a large part of their discourse. For them, the inhabitants and local population in general represent as much the people to be protected from the risk, as the individuals who need to be convinced for NBS projects to see the light of day. In the practitioners’ view, inhabitants represent actors to be involved directly in the NBS projects: "For me, the inhabitants should participate [in monitoring the works]" (OFB regional facilitator); " NBS […] imply much greater participation from local populations" (Environmental science researcher). In addition, the words "funding," "policy," and "landowner" highlight problems encountered in field implementations of NBS projects such as lack of funding, difficulties related to local policy decisions that do not favor NBS, or the refusal of landowners to give up their land. In fact, many of the NBS projects cited by the experts involve land negotiations with local farmers. Close to the previous words on the similarity chart, the term "complicated" was also used by the practitioners. It describes the complications of implementing NBS projects on the ground, but also the fact that it is complicated for non-specialized inhabitants and actors to understand and accept the term NBS as sustained by the verbatim comments.
To sum up, we can see through the lexicometric analysis that both groups have many terms in common especially related to water management and the major dimensions of NBS (protection against risks and biodiversity). They also have some particularities with the practitioners seeming to relate more to places and people (with whom they have to interact in order to implement NBS) and the theorists envisaging NBS in a more ecosystemic approach.
The results of the thematic analysis allow contextualising the lexicometric analysis and deepening qualitative aspects notably regarding the representational context of representations of nature and risk, and the role played by engineering culture.
The thematic analysis highlighted several major themes that can be broken down into several sub-themes. As we were particularly interested in the implementation of NBS, we were especially attentive to the theme of barriers or leverage interviewees talked about. This focus also allows to sustain the socio-dynamic and dialogical approach to SR, as these arguments are always a positioning of the interviewee regarding the alter (the inhabitants, the institutions) and the object (the NBS).
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://journals.plos.org/water/article?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000116
Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/
