Managing urban flood resilience as a multilevel governance challenge: an analysis of required multilevel coordination mechanisms

Dieperink, Carel; Mees, Heleen; Priest, Sally J.; Ek, Kristina; Bruzzone, Silvia; Larrue, Corinne

doi:10.5751/es-09962-230131

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, new initiatives are likely to be discussed in already existing coordination bodies in order to avoid large transaction costs that are involved in setting up new bodies [54]. The institutional setting in both countries is rather different as a result of the 1953 Dutch catastrophe and the social-political reactions afterwards.…”

Section: National Imposed Institutional Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, the institutional setting is characterised by a national monopoly on flood safety and public institutions responsible for regional and urban flood safety. The dominance of a single public governance arrangement in the Netherlands seems to limit the scope, interaction and learning of other actors, in particular with respect to the reduction of flood impacts (indicator 1.2 local sense of urgency, 1.3 behavioural internalisation, and 3.3 cross-stakeholder learning, [54]). …”

Section: National Imposed Institutional Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea level rise and increased storm events urge cities to develop governance capacity. However, a cohesive conceptual and empirical-based understanding of what governance capacity implies, how to measure it, and what cities can learn, is largely lacking. Understanding the influence of context is critical to address this issue. Accordingly, we aim to identify crosscutting contextual factors and how they prioritise different elements of governance capacity to address urban flood risk. In doing so, a framework of nine conditions and 27 indicators is applied in two Dutch cities and two cities in the United Kingdom. Three crosscutting contextual factors are identified that may explain differences in capacity-development priorities: (1) flood probability and impact; (2) national imposed institutional setting; and, (3) level of authority to secure long-term financial support. Capacity-priorities include, the recent political devolution in the UK, which emphasizes the role of citizen awareness, stakeholder engagement, entrepreneurial agents, and the overall necessity for local capacity-development. The Dutch focus on flood safety through centralised public coordination reduces flood probability but inhibits incentives to reduce flood impacts and lowers public awareness. In conclusion, the three identified contextual factors enable a better understanding of capacity-building priorities and may facilitate learning between cities.

show abstract

Section: National Imposed Institutional Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: National Imposed Institutional Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The existing institutional context defines, to a large degree, which actors will be involved, how they act and which new initiatives emerge. In fact, new initiatives are likely to be discussed in already existing coordination bodies in order to avoid large transaction costs involved in setting up new bodies [45]. [17].…”

Section: National Imposed Institutional Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors

Koop¹,

Gomes²,

Schoot³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea level rise and increased storm events, urge cities to develop governance capacity. However, a cohesive conceptual and empirical-based understanding of what governance capacity implies, how to measure it, and what cities can learn, is largely lacking. Understanding the influence of context is critical to address this issue. Accordingly, we aim to identify crosscutting contextual factors and their influence in impeding, enhancing or prioritising different elements of governance capacity to address urban flood risk. By assessing governance capacity through nine conditions and 27 indicators in two Dutch and two cities in the UK, three crosscutting contextual factors are identified: 1) flood probability and impact, 2) national imposed institutional setting, and 3) level of authority to secure long-term financial support. We found that contextual factors explain differences in urban capacity-priorities within and between both countries. The institutional setting in the UK and recent political devolution emphasized the role of citizen awareness, stakeholder engagement, entrepreneurial agents, and the overall necessity for local capacity-development. The Dutch focus on flood safety through centralised public coordination reduces flood probability but also inhibits incentives to reduce flood impacts and reduced public awareness. In conclusion, the three identified contextual factors enable a better understanding of capacity-building priorities.

show abstract

“…By this, the study contributes to two highlighted topics in addressing flood affairs, positioning agents among multiple actors and spanning professions horizontally [13][14][15], and shifting relations between territorial authorities in hierarchical systems [16,17]. Both topics are related to a wide agreement that there is a need to integrate spatial planning and flood risk management (or water management) to address flood risk [18,19]. In spite of the acknowledgement, to realizing this integration is challenging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifts in Spatial Plans for Flood Resilience and Climate Adaptation: Examining Planning Procedure and Planning Mandates

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines the development of different spatial plans to address flood resilience in the Chinese city of Guangzhou, one of the most vulnerable cities to flooding and climate change. The analysis focuses on the differences in planning procedures and planning mandates (determined by different plans in authority) before and after the launch of the Sponge City Plan which calls for numerous spatial resilience measures to address the increasing flood risk. The analysis reveals that the introduction of the Sponge City Plan has changed the role of planning from onlooker to active participant in the arena of flood governance. In addition, new plans combine long-term strategic visions, soft principles, and strict regulations with an aim to promote concrete planning practice between multiple layers with a clear mandate. Despite these shifts, institutional and territorial challenges remain.

show abstract

Managing urban flood resilience as a multilevel governance challenge: an analysis of required multilevel coordination mechanisms

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors

Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors

Assessing the Capacity to Govern Flood Risk in Cities and the Role of Contextual Factors

Shifts in Spatial Plans for Flood Resilience and Climate Adaptation: Examining Planning Procedure and Planning Mandates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About