Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorWitte, Patrick A.de
dc.contributor.authorSnel, Karin A.de
dc.contributor.authorGeertman, Stan C. M.de
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-20T14:14:40Z
dc.date.available2021-10-20T14:14:40Z
dc.date.issued2021de
dc.identifier.issn2183-7635de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/75312
dc.description.abstractIn light of several recent large-scale flooding events worldwide, the urgency of involving residents in the flood risk management debate is growing. However, this has so far proven to be problematic, mainly because of lacking or ineffective communication between stakeholders. One way to better involve residents in the flood risk management debate is by developing smart applications, dedicated to facilitate and increase the insights of residents into the flood risk and vulnerability of their private properties. However, what is lacking thus far is a systematic evaluation of the technical aspects and the user experiences of such tools. The goal of this article is to explore and evaluate the technical, analytical, and communicative qualities of smart flood risk assessment tools. To this end, a new smart application named FLOODLABEL is used, aiming to inform residents of flood-prone areas about potential flood risks and associated protection measures of their dwellings. Based on this, the article concludes that a smart application like FLOODLABEL can be beneficial for informing residents about flood risks and potential protection measures. However, it also shows that a one-size-fits-all approach is not suitable for informing residents on flood risks, inter alia because how residents perceive risks is not homogeneous. This research is therefore just the first step towards a more systematic evaluation method of smart applications.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcLandscaping and area planningen
dc.subject.ddcStädtebau, Raumplanung, Landschaftsgestaltungde
dc.subject.otherflood risk governance; planning support; pluralism; risk communication; task-technology fit; user-technology fitde
dc.titleLess is More? Evaluating Technical Aspects and User Experiences of Smart Flood Risk Assessment Toolsde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4257de
dc.source.journalUrban Planning
dc.source.volume6de
dc.publisher.countryPRTde
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozArea Development Planning, Regional Researchen
dc.subject.classozRaumplanung und Regionalforschungde
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.source.pageinfo283-294de
internal.identifier.classoz20700
internal.identifier.journal794
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc710
dc.source.issuetopicSmart Urban Governance for Climate Change Adaptationde
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i3.4257de
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/4257
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record