Search

Studies on stability and change in modes of environmental governance often remain implicit regarding the conceptualisation, nature and causes of stability and change. Moreover, they are selective in the addressed explanatory factors. Theorising of stability and change in modes of environmental governance could be brought to the next level by enhancing the comparability and alignment of explanatory studies. This paper aims to contribute to this effort using insights regarding the definition and explanation of change processes gained in the policy and political sciences. Based on these insights, we provide a systematic approach for conceptualising “stability” and “change” in modes of governance and introduce six categories of explanatory factors: physical circumstances, infrastructures, institutional settings, discourse, characteristics of agency and shock events. The case of Dutch flood risk governance shows the usefulness of the proposed approach. We conclude by reflecting on the approach's potential for providing richer and more nuanced explanations.

The adoption of a broader portfolio of flood risk management strategies inevitably leads to involvement of more different public and private actors; different governmental levels and different sectors. This may lead to fragmentation. To remedy this, bridging processes and mechanisms are needed. The spatial planning and insurance sector are vital players in this respect. Furthermore, businesses, citizens and NGOs need to be involved further through comprehensive multi-actor co-production, since not all resources and capacities needed for resilient flood risk governance are available within governmental institutions. Besides that, in Europe participation in decision making is considered of crucial importance and strongly established through the Aarhus convention. Decentralisation may help in bridging different levels of government to ensure a good combination of top-down and bottom-up governance, however provided that the shifting of financial and executive tasks is accompanied by a shifting of formal powers and resources. Open, broad (political and societal) debate about the division of responsibilities between public and private actors is needed, leading to more clearly defined roles for governments/businesses/NGOs/citizens.

Diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) is debated both in research and practice. A comparative analysis and evaluation of diversification of FRMSs in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden showed large inter-country differences in their approaches to diversification. In the Netherlands, Poland, France and Belgium, we see a desire to create a back-up layer of contingency. England has been diversified for 65 years, while Sweden is currently diversifying due to climate change concerns. In most countries the practical on the ground implementation of diversified strategies is lagging behind intentions as laid down in discussions and policy plans. Main drivers for diversification are: policy entrepreneurs; bottom-up initiatives by local stakeholders; a broader discursive shift towards sustainability and resilience; the presence of enforceable rules and regulations; the availability of financial resources; technical improvements; broader shifts ‘from government to governance’; and Europeanisation. Main barriers for diversification are: a lack of resources and path dependency. Floods as trigger events have been found to contribute both to stability and change, but under different circumstances. To enhance societal resilience to flooding, diversification of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs) is both necessary and important. However, each strategy must be effective in its own right and needs sufficient investment to make its implementation sensible.

Diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies is accompanied by a diversification in rules and regulations. However, in some cases a lack of rules can be witnessed, especially in cases in which certain strategies have not yet been implemented to a significant extent. This chapter reviews several of these rules, including the Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC). While we found evidence that supports its general scope, we also discuss points at which the Directive or its implementation can still be improved, most notably by adding more substantive requirements and increasing its enforceability. Regarding resources (finance, knowledge, skills, ICT tools, public support) we found that their availability differs significantly between countries. This may be problematic since the lack of resources was shown to be an important reason for underinvestment in and underdevelopment of FRM strategies. An important policy issue for the coming years will be to have political debate and make political choices in order to combine the (perceived and sometimes already legally settled) ‘right to be protected’ of citizens by public authorities with the decreasing resource base many public authorities are facing. Resources may also play a key role in bridging, for instance by ensuring that actors involved have the necessary skills, and that private actors receive sufficient payment to increase their willingness to let their land function as flood storage.

Flood risks in European countries are increasing due to urbanisation and the consequences of climate change. To address these increasing risks, several countries are attempting to diversify their portfolio of flood risk management strategies. Besides improvement of flood defences, the strategies of pro-active spatial planning; flood mitigation, flood preparation and recovery are prominently on the agenda. Governance and legal scholars have engaged with flood risk management, but only in a fragmented manner and without adopting a comparative approach, leaving crucial questions on how to govern towards resilient, efficient and legitimate flood risk governance underexposed. The book of which this chapter forms the introduction provides an overview of the main results of the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD (2012–2016). This was a multi-disciplinary project involving governance and legal scholars. It made a comparative analysis and evaluation of flood risk governance arrangements in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden in order to derive design principles for appropriate and resilient flood risk governance. The chapter sets the scene by substantiating the relevance of adopting a governance and legal perspective on FRM. It furthermore explains the main features of STAR-FLOOD’s research approach in some detail, highlights connections with relevant existing literature and provides a reading guide to the forthcoming chapters.

The STAR-FLOOD project (2012–2016) was an integrated project funded by the European Commission under the FP7 programme. It carried out combined social scientific and legal studies, whereby flood risk governance in six European countries was analysed, explained and evaluated. This chapter first reflects on strengths and weaknesses of the chosen research approach. Especially the intensive interdisciplinary interaction as well as intensive interaction with stakeholders has contributed to a significant advancement of the state of the art of flood risk governance literature and practice. Such an approach that goes beyond ‘working in silos’ is recommendable for future European projects. In so doing, the project has led to governance design principles pertaining both to the process and outcome of flood risk governance. The chapter reviews each of them in turn, thus specifying how following these principles may lead to the best possible achievements in terms of resilience, efficiency and legitimacy. A dominant message to be derived from the findings is that there are no panaceas when it comes to improving flood resilience. The appropriateness of the followed approaches in a particular geographical, social, administrative and cultural context is of pivotal importance.

The adoption of a broader portfolio of flood risk management strategies inevitably leads to involvement of more different public and private actors; different governmental levels and different sectors. This may lead to fragmentation. To remedy this, bridging processes and mechanisms are needed. The spatial planning and insurance sector are vital players in this respect. Furthermore, businesses, citizens and NGOs need to be involved further through comprehensive multi-actor co-production, since not all resources and capacities needed for resilient flood risk governance are available within governmental institutions. Besides that, in Europe participation in decision making is considered of crucial importance and strongly established through the Aarhus convention. Decentralisation may help in bridging different levels of government to ensure a good combination of top-down and bottom-up governance, however provided that the shifting of financial and executive tasks is accompanied by a shifting of formal powers and resources. Open, broad (political and societal) debate about the division of responsibilities between public and private actors is needed, leading to more clearly defined roles for governments/businesses/NGOs/citizens.

Diversification of flood risk management strategies can be seen as a necessary but not sufficient precondition for enhancing societal resilience to floods. This chapter identifies three relevant capacities of resilience: the capacity to resist flooding, the capacity to absorb/recover when a flood event occurs and the capacity to adapt to future risks and transform deliberately. These are to be seen as different views on desired outcomes for flood risk governance and have been found to be to some extent mutually exclusive. Resilience is closely linked to the notion of appropriateness: desired outcomes in terms of resilience should be considered in the light of physical circumstances and existing institutional and social contexts. The presence of links between strategies is crucial for countries’ achievements in all three capacities. The chapter goes on to review two other evaluation criteria for flood risk governance: efficiency and legitimacy. Efforts to improve resource efficiency by increased application of (societal) Cost Benefit Analyses are underway in different countries, albeit to a different extent. These CBAs were found to contribute to resource efficiency, but in some countries were perceived as rather technocratic. In terms of legitimacy, the researched countries are doing well on access to information and transparency; procedural justice and accountability. The most potential for improvement lies with the criteria of social equity; public participation and acceptability.

Diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) is debated both in research and practice. A comparative analysis and evaluation of diversification of FRMSs in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden showed large inter-country differences in their approaches to diversification. In the Netherlands, Poland, France and Belgium, we see a desire to create a back-up layer of contingency. England has been diversified for 65 years, while Sweden is currently diversifying due to climate change concerns. In most countries the practical on the ground implementation of diversified strategies is lagging behind intentions as laid down in discussions and policy plans. Main drivers for diversification are: policy entrepreneurs; bottom-up initiatives by local stakeholders; a broader discursive shift towards sustainability and resilience; the presence of enforceable rules and regulations; the availability of financial resources; technical improvements; broader shifts ‘from government to governance’; and Europeanisation. Main barriers for diversification are: a lack of resources and path dependency. Floods as trigger events have been found to contribute both to stability and change, but under different circumstances. To enhance societal resilience to flooding, diversification of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs) is both necessary and important. However, each strategy must be effective in its own right and needs sufficient investment to make its implementation sensible.

Flood risks in European countries are increasing due to urbanisation and the consequences of climate change. To address these increasing risks, several countries are attempting to diversify their portfolio of flood risk management strategies. Besides improvement of flood defences, the strategies of pro-active spatial planning; flood mitigation, flood preparation and recovery are prominently on the agenda. Governance and legal scholars have engaged with flood risk management, but only in a fragmented manner and without adopting a comparative approach, leaving crucial questions on how to govern towards resilient, efficient and legitimate flood risk governance underexposed. The book of which this chapter forms the introduction provides an overview of the main results of the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD (2012–2016). This was a multi-disciplinary project involving governance and legal scholars. It made a comparative analysis and evaluation of flood risk governance arrangements in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden in order to derive design principles for appropriate and resilient flood risk governance. The chapter sets the scene by substantiating the relevance of adopting a governance and legal perspective on FRM. It furthermore explains the main features of STAR-FLOOD’s research approach in some detail, highlights connections with relevant existing literature and provides a reading guide to the forthcoming chapters

The STAR-FLOOD project (2012–2016) was an integrated project funded by the European Commission under the FP7 programme. It carried out combined social scientific and legal studies, whereby flood risk governance in six European countries was analysed, explained and evaluated. This chapter first reflects on strengths and weaknesses of the chosen research approach. Especially the intensive interdisciplinary interaction as well as intensive interaction with stakeholders has contributed to a significant advancement of the state of the art of flood risk governance literature and practice. Such an approach that goes beyond ‘working in silos’ is recommendable for future European projects. In so doing, the project has led to governance design principles pertaining both to the process and outcome of flood risk governance. The chapter reviews each of them in turn, thus specifying how following these principles may lead to the best possible achievements in terms of resilience, efficiency and legitimacy. A dominant message to be derived from the findings is that there are no panaceas when it comes to improving flood resilience. The appropriateness of the followed approaches in a particular geographical, social, administrative and cultural context is of pivotal importance.