ABSTRACT. Countries all over the world face increasing flood risks because of urbanization and the effects of climate change. In Europe, flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for the largest number of casualties and highest amount of economic damage. The current scientific debate on how urban agglomerations can be made more resilient to these flood risks includes a discussion on how a diversification, coordination, and alignment of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs), including flood risk prevention through proactive spatial planning, flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, can contribute to flood resilience. Although effective implementation of FRMSs can be considered a necessary precondition for resilience, efficient and legitimate flood risk governance can enhance this societal resilience to flooding. Governance and legal research has the potential to provide crucial insights into the debate on how to improve resilience. Yet the social sciences have only looked into this issue in a fragmented manner, often without a comparative scope. This special feature addresses this knowledge gap by focusing on the scope and workings of FRMSs, but also on cross-cutting topics such as uncertainties, distributional effects, solidarity, knowledge management, and citizen participation. The papers included in this feature are written by both policy analysts and legal scholars. The above-mentioned issues are thus approached via a multidisciplinary perspective. All papers convincingly show that one-size-fits-all solutions for appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements do not exist. Governance arrangements should be tailored to the existing physical, socio-cultural, and institutional context. This requires an open and transparent debate between scientists and practitioners on the normative starting point of flood risk governance, a clear division of responsibilities, the establishment of connectivity between actors, levels, and sectors through bridging mechanisms, and adequate knowledge infrastructures, both nationally and internationally.

In Europe increasing flood risks challenge societies to diversify their Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs). Such a diversification implies that actors not only focus on flood defence, but also and simultaneously on flood risk prevention, mitigation, preparation and recovery. There is much literature on the implementation of specific strategies and measures as well as on flood risk governance more generally. What is lacking, though, is a clear overview of the complex set of governance challenges which may result from a diversification and alignment of FRM strategies. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap. It elaborates on potential processes and mechanisms for coordinating the activities and capacities of actors that are involved on different levels and in different sectors of flood risk governance, both concerning the implementation of individual strategies and the coordination of the overall set of strategies. It identifies eight overall coordination mechanisms that have proven to be useful in this respect.

The objectives of this study were il) lo quantify river floods shared by more than one country, thai is. transboundary river floods and (2) to grasp more fully the degree of vulnerabihty of people to such events on a global, inlernalional river basin (IRB) and country level. To these ends, publicly available data were combined to identify such events and tbe resultant losses of life, flood-related affected individuals and financial damage statistics were related to national levels of development. It was determined that in the period l'J85-2()()5. some 175 of the 1.760 river floods were transboundary. but globally accounted for 32'/f of all casualties and almost 60% of all affeeted individuals, illustrating the massive Impaet of shared floods. This database of transboundary floods was then merged with socio-economic and biophysical data, enabling analyses that revealed the degree of vulnerability of people to transboundary floods from a global to a country level. Selecting one country, continent or IRB most vulnerable to transboundary floods proofed to be unfeasible since the answer heavily depended upon ihe specific definition of vulnerability, illustrating the complexity of this phenomenon. However, together, the results significantly increased our current knowledge of shared floods whieh could aid policy-makers in identifying and evaluating potential vulnerability to transboundary river floods.

While transboundary flood events have become more frequent on a global scale the past two decades, they appear to be overlooked in the international river basin (IRB) cooperation and management arena. The present study therefore combined geopolitical measures with biophysical and socioeconomic variables in an attempt to identify the IRBs with adequate institutional capacity for management of transboundary floods. It also classified basins that would possibly benefit from enlarging the institutional capacity related to transboundary floods. Of the 279 known IRBs, only 78 were represented by a transboundary rivers institution. A mere eight of the 153 identified institutions had transboundary flooding listed as an issue in their mandate. Overall, 43 basins, where transboundary floods were frequent during the period 1985‐2005, had no institutional capacity for IRBs. The average death and displacement tolls were found to be lower in the 37 basins with institutional capacity, even though these basins experienced twice as much transboundary floods with significant higher magnitudes than those in basins without institutional capacity. Overall, the results suggested that institutional capacity plays a role in the reduction of flood‐related casualties and affected individuals. River basins such as the Juba‐Shibeli, Han, Kura‐Araks, Ma, Maritsa, Po, Coco/Segovia, Grijalva, Artibonite, Changuinola, Coatan Achute, and Orinoco experienced more than one transboundary river flood, but have not yet set up any institutions for such events, or signed any appropriate treaties focused on floods. These basins were therefore recommended to consider focusing attention on this apparent lack of institutional capacity when it comes to managing transboundary flood events.

ABSTRACT. Flood mitigation is a strategy that is growing in importance across Europe. This growth corresponds with an increasing emphasis on the need to learn to live with floods and make space for water. Flood mitigation measures aim at reducing the likelihood and magnitude of flooding and complement flood defenses. They are being put in place through the implementation of actions that accommodate (rather than resist) water, such as natural flood management or adapted housing. The strategy has gained momentum over the past 20 years in an effort to improve the sustainability of flood risk management (FRM) and facilitate the diversification of FRM in the pursuit of societal resilience to flooding. Simultaneously, it is increasingly argued that adaptive forms of governance are best placed to address the uncertainty and complexity associated with social-ecological systems responding to environmental challenges, such as flooding. However, there have been few attempts to examine the extent to which current flood risk governance, and flood mitigation specifically, reflect these aspired forms of adaptive governance. Drawing from EU research into flood risk governance, conducted within the STAR-FLOOD project, we examine the governance of flood mitigation in six European countries: Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Using in-depth policy and legal analysis, as well as interviews with key actors, the governance and implementation of flood mitigation in these countries is evaluated from the normative viewpoint of whether, and to what extent, it can be characterized as adaptive governance. We identify five criteria of adaptive governance based on a comprehensive literature review and apply these to each country to determine the "distance" between current governance arrangements and adaptive governance. In conclusion, the flood mitigation strategy provides various opportunities for actors to further pursue forms of adaptive governance. The extent to which the mitigation strategy is capable of doing so varies across countries, however, and its role in stimulating adaptive governance was found to be strongest in Belgium and England.

No abstract

No abstract

Diversification of flood risk management strategies (FRMS) in response to climate change relies on the adaptive capacities of institutions. Although adaptive capacities enable flexibility and adjustment, more empirical research is needed to better grasp the role of adaptive capacities to accommodate expected climate change effects. This paper presents an analytical framework based on the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) and Triple-loop Learning. The framework is applied to evaluate the adaptive capacities that were missing, employed, and developed throughout the ‘Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden’ (The Netherlands) and the ‘Wesermarsch’ (Germany) pilot projects. Evaluations were performed using questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. From the 22 capacities of ACW, three capacities were identified important for diversifying the current FRMS; the capacity to develop a greater variety of solutions, continuous access to information about diversified FRMS, and collaborative leadership. Hardly any capacities related to ‘learning’ and ‘governance’ were mentioned by the stakeholders. From a further reflection on the data, we inferred that the pilot projects performed single-loop learning (incremental learning: ‘are we doing what we do right?’), rather than double-loop learning (reframing: ‘are we doing the right things?’). As the development of the framework is part of ongoing research, some directions for improvement are highlighted.