Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights
Abstract
:1. Introduction: Debate on Resilient Flood Risk Governance
2. State of the Art: Knowledge Gaps and Proposed Future Directions in FRG Literature
2.1. Knowledge Gaps in FRG Literature
- Stakeholder engagement is an often-explored topic. The role of citizens and stakeholders and methods of citizen and stakeholder involvement in FRM have been investigated in terms of public participation, collaboration, co-production, communication between groups, networks, relations between stakeholders and governmental agencies, and perceptions of flood risk, amongst other themes [13,14,15,16].
- Flood risk management policies and their changes have been analyzed in terms of their assumptions, consequences, and alternatives. This critical literature relies on particular cases or explores possibilities for shallow modifications of FRG policies or more profound paradigmatic change.
- FRG policies have been analyzed in terms of their implementation, feasibility, performance, investigating their structures, assumptions, and limitations.
- A significant body of literature focuses on tools for modeling and predicting the direct and indirect effects of flood risk. A large part of this research lies within the natural and engineering sciences.
- There is an emerging body of literature on governance frameworks. This body of literature analyses integrative organizational, conceptual, and research environments enabling or hampering FRG practices [5].
2.2. Proposed Future Directions in FRG Policy and Practice
- Pursue a context-sensitive diversification of strategies: it has been shown that relying on a roster of strategies is conducive to flood resilience, but not all strategies are equally feasible and desirable in all contexts [10].
- Establish connectivity: flood risk management strategies should be linked together and aligned, not stay isolated. Involvement of different sectors (water management/spatial planning/disaster management) is needed [12].
- Involve a wide array of public and private actors: flood risk governance, especially the implementation of strategies other than flood defense, requires increased involvement of private actors including residents, businesses, and NGOs.
- Issue adequate rules and regulations: rules and regulations that provide legal certainty and respect the rule of law, but at the same time, allow for future flexibility are needed.
- Ensure that a diversity of financial and non-financial resources is present. In terms of finances, partnership funding, as has been thoroughly assessed in a UK context, is a noteworthy development [17]. In terms of non-monetary resources, the development of tailor-made climate services that may help translate science into action is a prominent recent development [18].
- Initiate open and inclusive societal debate. This is expected to lead to the adoption of certain normative principles as the outcome of a political discussion.
3. Logic and Outline of the Special Issue
3.1. A Summary of Papers of the Special Issue
3.1.1. Flood Risk and Resilience in the Netherlands: In Search of an Adaptive Governance Approach
3.1.2. Social Learning in Multilevel Flood Risk Governance: Lessons from the Dutch ‘Room for the River Program’
3.1.3. City-To-City Learning for Urban Resilience: The Case of Water Squares in Rotterdam and Mexico City
3.1.4. Pluvial Flooding in Utrecht: On Its Way to a Flood-Proof City
3.1.5. Exploring Science-Policy Interactions in a Technical Policy Field: Climate Change and Flood Risk Management in Austria, Southern Germany, and Switzerland
3.1.6. The Costs of Living with Floods in the Jamuna Floodplain in Bangladesh
3.1.7. Adaptive Capacities for Diversified Flood Risk Management Strategies: Learning from Pilot Projects
3.1.8. Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We Know about People’s Perceptions?
3.1.9. What Can We Learn from Planning Instruments in Flood Prevention? Comparative Illustration to Highlight the Challenges of Governance in Europe
3.2. Contribution of the Special Issue to the Discussion about Governance Strategies for Improving Flood Resilience
3.2.1. Context-Sensitive Diversification of Strategies
3.2.2. Involvement of Different Sectors in Flood Risk Management Strategies
3.2.3. Involvement of Private Actors Including Residents, Businesses, and NGOs
3.2.4. Rules and Regulations
3.2.5. Financial and Non-Financial Resources
3.2.6. Open and Inclusive Societal Debate
4. Concluding Remarks and Suggestions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dahm, R. Flood resilience a must for delta cities. Nature 2014, 516, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tullos, D. Opinion: How to achieve better flood-risk governance in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 3731–3734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bergsma, E. The development of flood risk management in the United States. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 101, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milly, P.C.D.; Betancourt, J.; Falkenmark, M.; Hirsch, R.M.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Stouffer, R.J. Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science. 2008, 319, 573–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driessen, P.; Hegger, D.; Kundzewicz, Z.; van Rijswick, H.; Crabbé, A.; Larrue, C.; Matczak, P.; Pettersson, M.; Priest, S.; Suykens, C.; et al. Governance Strategies for Improving Flood Resilience in the Face of Climate Change. Water 2018, 10, 1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heintz, M.D.; Hagemeier-Klose, M.; Wagner, K. Towards a Risk Governance Culture in Flood Policy—Findings from the Implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany. Water 2012, 4, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Butler, C.; Pidgeon, N. From ‘Flood Defence’ to ‘Flood Risk Management’: Exploring Governance, Responsibility, and Blame. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2011, 29, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McClymont, K.; Morrison, D.; Beevers, L.; Carmen, E. Flood resilience: A systematic review. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Hegger, D.L.T.; Matczak, P.; Driessen, P.P.J. Opinion: Flood-risk reduction: Structural measures and diverse strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 12321–12325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hegger, D.L.T.; Driessen, P.P.J.; Wiering, M.; van Rijswick, H.F.M.W.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Matczak, P.; Crabbé, A.; Raadgever, G.T.; Bakker, M.H.N.; Priest, S.J.; et al. Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward? Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Botzen, W.; Van Der Veen, A.; Krywkow, J.; Werners, S. Dealing with Uncertainty in Flood Management Research, part of Special Feature on New Methods for Adaptive Water Management Dealing with Uncertainty in Flood Management Through Diversification. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 17. [Google Scholar]
- Morrison, A.; Westbrook, C.J.; Noble, B.F. A review of the flood risk management governance and resilience literature. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2018, 11, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosher, L.; Dainty, A.; Carrillo, P.; Glass, J.; Price, A. Attaining improved resilience to floods: A proactive multi-stakeholder approach. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2009, 18, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mees, H.; Alexander, M.; Gralepois, M.; Matczak, P.; Mees, H. Typologies of citizen co-production in flood risk governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Restemeyer, B.; Woltjer, J.; van den Brink, M. A strategy-based framework for assessing the flood resilience of cities—A Hamburg case study. Plan. Theory Pract. 2015, 16, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uittenbroek, C.J.; Mees, H.L.P.; Hegger, D.L.T.; Driessen, P.P.J. The design of public participation: Who participates, when and how? Insights in climate adaptation planning from the Netherlands. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 2529–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thaler, T.; Priest, S. Partnership funding in flood risk management: New localism debate and policy in England. Area 2014, 46, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lourenço, T.C.; Swart, R.; Goosen, H.; Street, R. The rise of demand-driven climate services. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 13–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molenveld, A.; van Buuren, A. Flood Risk and Resilience in the Netherlands: In Search of an Adaptive Governance Approach. Water 2019, 11, 2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pahl-Wostl, C.; Becker, G.; Knieper, C.; Sendzimir, J. How Multilevel Societal Learning Processes Facilitate Transformative Change: A Comparative Case Study Analysis on Flood Management. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- den Boer, J.; Dieperink, C.; Mukhtarov, F. Social Learning in Multilevel Flood Risk Governance: Lessons from the Dutch Room for the River Program. Water 2019, 11, 2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ilgen, S.; Sengers, F.; Wardekker, A. City-To-City Learning for Urban Resilience: The Case of Water Squares in Rotterdam and Mexico City. Water 2019, 11, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brockhoff; Koop; Snel Pluvial Flooding in Utrecht: On Its Way to a Flood-Proof City. Water 2019, 11, 1501. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nordbeck, R.; Löschner, L.; Pelaez Jara, M.; Pregernig, M. Exploring Science–Policy Interactions in a Technical Policy Field: Climate Change and Flood Risk Management in Austria, Southern Germany, and Switzerland. Water 2019, 11, 1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferdous, M.R.; Wesselink, A.; Brandimarte, L.; Slager, K.; Zwarteveen, M.; Di Baldassarre, G. The Costs of Living with Floods in the Jamuna Floodplain in Bangladesh. Water 2019, 11, 1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, art20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosoveanu, F.S.; Buijs, J.-M.; Bakker, M.; Terpstra, T. Adaptive Capacities for Diversified Flood Risk Management Strategies: Learning from Pilot Projects. Water 2019, 11, 2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, S.; Kuhlicke, C. Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We Know about People’s Perceptions? Water 2019, 11, 2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gralepois, M. What Can We Learn from Planning Instruments in Flood Prevention? Comparative Illustration to Highlight the Challenges of Governance in Europe. Water 2020, 12, 1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkholz, S.; Muro, M.; Jeffrey, P.; Smith, H.M. Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 478, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Matczak, P.; Hegger, D.L.T. Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights. Water 2020, 12, 2122. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082122
Matczak P, Hegger DLT. Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights. Water. 2020; 12(8):2122. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082122
Chicago/Turabian StyleMatczak, Piotr, and Dries L. T. Hegger. 2020. "Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights" Water 12, no. 8: 2122. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082122