Abstract
Because of climate change, extreme weather events and urban sprawl, urban areas have to deal with increasing flood risks. It is argued, both in literature and in practice that these risks can no longer be dealt with by focusing solely on flood defences (building dikes, dams, embankments etc.). Actors at
... read more
various levels (international, European, national as well as regional) wish for and make efforts at a diversification of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). There is currently debate, both within European countries and at EU level, about the potential additional role to be played by flood prevention measures such as pro-active spatial planning (building permits), flood mitigation (e.g. urban green infrastructures, adaptive buildings), flood preparation and flood recovery. It is generally argued that a diversification of FRMSs can make urban agglomerations more resilient to flood risks. However, the realisation of broadening of FRMSs leads to governance challenges. Whereas flood defence is often institutionalised in a highly state-led governance arrangement (centralized or decentralized mode of governance) with a strong role for the water sector, this is much less the case for the other FRMSs. Pro-active spatial planning asks for integration between water management and spatial planning, often in combination with involvement of private parties and civil society actors. Flood mitigation, preparation and recovery are also often institutionalised via various forms of public-private governance or self-governance. On top of this, pleas are made to link these various governance arrangements together in order to align the FRMSs, requiring even more coordination, or meta-governance. It is however not clear under which conditions such meta-governance can be successful. The aim of this presentation is to explore a) the conditions that enable a successful diversification of FRMSs, and b) how meta-governance challenges are currently being addressed in the Netherlands and the UK. First, we will structure the debates in relevant literature by the development of a classification scheme of governance challenges. Second, we will elaborate this scheme for a diversification of FRMSs from flood defence towards flood prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. Third, we will reflect on how the Netherlands and England successfully address these meta-governance challenges. These cases show that while diversification practices may be complicated, conditions under which such a diversification may take place can be created. Future comparative empirical research is needed though to further refine these conditions and we therefore conclude our paper with a research agenda.
show less
