A framework for evaluating flood risk governance

Alexander, Meghan; Priest, Sally J.; Mees, Heleen

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.004

Cited by 93 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Resilience includes three core elements, namely, the capacity to resist, to absorb and recover, and to adapt (Alexander et al 2016a). Among academics and policy makers, disagreement exists on the importance attached to each of these elements.…”

Section: New Approaches To Flood Risk Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Mees¹,

Crabbé²,

Alexander³

et al. 2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Across Europe, citizens are increasingly expected to participate in the implementation of flood risk management (FRM), by engaging in voluntary-based activities to enhance preparedness, implementing property-level measures, and so forth. Although citizen participation in FRM decision making is widely addressed in academic literature, citizens' involvement in the delivery of FRM measures is comparatively understudied. Drawing from public administration literature, we adopted the notion of "coproduction" as an analytical framework for studying the interaction between citizens and public authorities, from the decision-making process through to the implementation of FRM in practice. We considered to what extent coproduction is evident in selected European Union (EU) member states, drawing from research conducted within the EU project STAR-FLOOD (Strengthening and Redesigning European Flood Risk Practices towards Appropriate and Resilient Flood Risk Governance Arrangements). On the basis of a cross-country comparison between Flanders (Belgium), England (United Kingdom), France, the Netherlands, and Poland, we have highlighted the varied forms of coproduction and reflected on how these have been established within divergent settings. Coproduction is most prominent in discourse and practice in England and is emergent in France and Flanders. By contrast, FRM in the Netherlands and Poland remains almost exclusively reliant on governmental protection measures and thereby consultation-based forms of coproduction. Analysis revealed how these actions are motivated by different underlying rationales, which in turn shape the type of approaches and degree of institutionalization of coproduction. In the Netherlands, coproduction is primarily encouraged to increase societal resilience, whereas public authorities in the other countries also use it to improve cost-efficiency and redistribute responsibilities to its beneficiaries.

show abstract

Section: New Approaches To Flood Risk Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Mees¹,

Crabbé²,

Alexander³

et al. 2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The three main perspectives of resilience outlined above can be translated into corresponding desired capacities for evaluating the flood-resilience of vulnerable urban agglomerations: capacity to resist, capacity to absorb and recover, and capacity to transform and adapt (Alexander et al 2016a). …”

Section: Translating the Perspectives Into Desired Capacities For Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?

Hegger¹,

Driessen²,

Wiering³

et al. 2016

E&S

162

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. European countries face increasing flood risks because of urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM), including flood risk prevention (through proactive spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, makes countries more flood resilient. Although this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. We aim to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong capacity to resist, France a strong capacity to absorb and recover, and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g., being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies' feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness), as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. We provide much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties, and citizens who want to increase flood resilience.

show abstract

“…In the field of flood risk governance-defined by Alexander et al (2016a: 39) as the actor networks, rules, resources, discourses, and multi-level coordination mechanisms through which flood risk management (FRM) is pursued-recent efforts have been made to transform conceptual discussions of legitimacy into frameworks for empirical assessment (Mees et al 2014;Alexander et al 2016a;Mees et al 2017). Whilst these frameworks provide valuable academic tools for evaluating the legitimacy of governance arrangements, these remain situated amongst contested knowledge about what constitutes legitimacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimacy is widely regarded as a founding principle of 'good' and effective governance, yet despite intense academic debate and policy discourse, the concept remains conceptually confusing and poorly articulated in practice. To bridge this gap, this research performed an interpretive thematic analysis of academic scholarship across public administration, public policy, law, political science, and geography. Four core themes were identified in relation to representative deliberation, procedural and distributive equity and justice, and socio-political acceptability, with numerous sub-themes therein. In an attempt to clarify conceptual confusion, this paper grounds these theoretical debates in the context of flood risk governance where numerous legitimacy dilemmas exist. A number of questions are presented as conceptual 'signposts' to encourage reflexive governance in the future. Thus, more broadly, we assert the importance of bringing legitimacy to the forefront of contemporary flood risk governance discourse and practice, moving beyond the realm of academic reflection.

show abstract

A framework for evaluating flood risk governance

Cited by 93 publications

References 36 publications

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About