Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands?

Buuren, Arwin van; Ellen, Gerald Jan; Warner, Jeroen

doi:10.5751/es-08765-210443

Cited by 74 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Delta Commissioner's mandate was reduced and budgetary promises were deferred. The retrenchment only reinforced the second frame: there is little institutional backing and budget for non-structural options (van Buuren, Ellen, Warner 2016). Levees are considered more effective than any other combination of disaster risk reduction policies; any alternative is delusional (Jongejan, Jonkman and Vrijling, 2012).…”

Section: Climate Securitisation: Securitising the Dutch Deltamentioning

confidence: 99%

Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration

Warner

Boas

2017

Ambient. soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present contribution focuses on the ‘selling’ of the ‘climate crisis’ to intended key audiences, both in the international domain and at home. We look into the mechanics of crisis framing, the audience, and the resonance that the frame had, as well as development over time in two cases: the UK addressing the UN Security Council and the State Advisory Commission on Deltas (‘Delta Commission’) seeking support in the Netherlands for drastic measures to address sea level rise. For this, we apply the conceptual framework from critical security studies and securitisation, with contributions from the domains of crisis and disaster studies. Both case studies discussed show a dramatic securitising move, where climate change is presented as the source of great potential crisis that will harm us all, unless we take urgent action - either for mitigation (the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) or for adaptation.

show abstract

Section: Climate Securitisation: Securitising the Dutch Deltamentioning

confidence: 99%

Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration

Warner

Boas

2017

Ambient. soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We determined the barriers that exist across multiple levels of jurisdiction and compared this with the levels of ecosystem scale, following previous research [23,24,56]. In contrast to the findings of other studies, we found that barriers mainly arise from a fundamental question about who is responsible for an ecosystem and who needs to make a decision.…”

Section: From Adaptive Governance To Decision-making For Adaptive Ecomentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Interview transcripts and field notes were qualitatively analysed in five steps and identified for each adaptation measure: (1) the actor and its level within jurisdictional scale; (2) the biophysical process it targets and at what level within the ecosystem this has effect; (3) the main policy/law that needs amendment and at what level this operates within the institutional scale; (4) the interaction among actors and institutional arrangements; and (5) the barriers that arise for the implementation of each adaptation option according to a theoretical framework [24,56]. We distinguished barriers (research question two) from an interaction perspective which is characterised by content, the structure of how actors are organised, and from a legal perspective that is characterised by the flexibility to adapt legislation ( Table 2).…”

Section: Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The management-as-learning approaches include the dynamics in a transition due to both internal and contextual factors [23][24][25][26][27] while fit-for-purpose governance strategies focus on dynamic perspectives and strategies [28][29][30]). Stakeholders that operate at multiple spatial scales are able to link ecological and social conditions with the institutional framework.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Matching Ecosystem Functions with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: Decision Pathways to Overcome Institutional Barriers

Nanda

Rijke

Beesley

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental management strategies aim to protect or repair ecological assets (ecosystems, species) so that their ecological and social values can be preserved. However, creating an effective strategy is difficult because multiple government departments are involved and because water and land use legislation and policy instruments are often fragmented. A key obstacle that is often overlooked is the spatial mismatch between ecological processes and institutional organisation (i.e., legislative framework and government departments). Successful management depends on the ability to cultivate resilient ecosystems through institutional reforms that take into account the complexity of ecosystems while supporting cross-sectoral and scale-dependent decision-making within the science-policy interface. Here, we use a case study approach to illustrate how collective strategic decisions can be made to manage a valued ecosystem situated within an urban matrix. We used a three-step framework to guide our approach and commenced by identifying a range of adaptation measures (i.e., management interventions) and the actors responsible. For each adaptation measure, we then investigated (i) mismatches among ecosystem and institution scales and levels; (ii) institutional barriers; and (iii) the role of actors in decision making. We use this information to identify 'decision pathways': i.e., a flexible decision-making platform that assists stakeholders to make strategic short-and long-term decisions. Key insights included the discussion of policy and practical experiences for ecosystem management at different levels and the necessary conditions to provide better alignment between jurisdictional an ecosystem scale to guide decision makers accordingly. We detail the institutional and jurisdictional changes that must be implemented across all levels of governance to protect and support the resilience of environmental assets. 'Short-term' decision pathways were preferred among actors and cross-level cooperation at jurisdictional level provided an adequate fit with the ecosystem scale. 'Long-term' decisions require substantial change of the institutional framework to enable the implementation of adaptive management. Although challenges at institutional and jurisdictional scales remain, decision pathways promote adaptive ecosystem management through a better fit of jurisdictional and institutional roles/policy and ecosystem-scale processes.

show abstract

“…A number of trends emerged in recent years in Dutch FRM, which triggered incremental changes, for instance, adjustments of governance (Van Herk et al ., ) or the integration of spatial planning and FRM (Hartmann and Driessen, ; Jong and Van Den Brink, ; Van Ruiten and Hartmann, ). Nevertheless, Dutch FRM is still characterised by a dominant defence approach (Wesselink, ; Klijn et al ., ; Van den Brink et al ., , p. 284f; Ward et al ., , p. 533; Warner et al ., ; van Buuren et al ., ). The research presented in this article contributes to understanding the limits to change in Dutch FRM and how the interaction of forces for stability and change influence institutional dynamics.…”

Section: Concluding and Discussing Limits To Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to change – institutional dynamics of Dutch flood risk governance

Kaufmann

2017

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite several stimuli for change, flood risk management (FRM) in the Netherlands remains dominated by a probability‐reducing flood defence approach. The aim of this article is to analyse, empirically, the institutional forces for change and stability that explain particular institutional dynamics. The qualitative research revealed that even though a combination of forces for change (in the realm of discourses, actors, resources and rules) is present, their influence is partly neutralised by forces for stability. These forces for stability became incrementally and iteratively more and more institutionalised and mutually reinforced each other, thus stabilising the defence approach. As a consequence, FRM is path dependent, i.e. the development of alternative FRM approaches may be influenced by the dominant defence approach. Nevertheless, in this context, change processes of conversion and layering can be observed, which indicates that even a highly path dependent arrangement has the possibility to adapt to particular challenges.

show abstract

Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands?

Cited by 74 publications

References 27 publications

Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration

Securitisation of Climate Change: The Risk of Exaggeration

Matching Ecosystem Functions with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: Decision Pathways to Overcome Institutional Barriers

Limits to change – institutional dynamics of Dutch flood risk governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About