Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Mees, Heleen; Crabbé, Ann; Alexander, Meghan; Kaufmann, Maria; Bruzzone, Silvia; Lévy, Lisa; Lewandowski, Jakub

doi:10.5751/es-08500-210307

Cited by 87 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the projects are based on various policy fields such as urban planning, building requirements and urban water management (Massey et al, 2015;Mees et al, 2016).…”

Section: Aim Approach and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A more thorough look at other important elements, such as the chosen policy instruments and the form of agreements and regulations for the implementation phase, are often lacking (Buijze, 2015;Buijze, Salet, & Van Rijswick, in press;Mees et al, 2016). This may lead to diminishing effectiveness in the long run.…”

Section: Governance Approaches Of the Three Municipalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning

Dai

Wörner

Rijswick

2017

International Journal of Water Resources Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

b utrecht centre for Water, oceans and sustainability law, faculty of law, economics and Governance, utrecht university, the netherlands; c utrecht university school of law, the netherlands ABSTRACT Due to increasingly frequent incidents of pluvial flooding of public spaces and private properties, climate-adaptive building and urban water management are gaining momentum in Dutch water governance. This study assesses the Dutch approach to urban water management by looking at the governance approaches of three of the largest Dutch municipalities: Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. By analyzing the municipalities' governance approaches in a holistic way, paying attention to knowledge, organization and implementation, the research provides good practices in terms of different aspects of resilience as well as lessons regarding setting performance indicators in service levels, clarifying responsibility division, applying binding rules instead of soft policies, and more.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the projects are based on various policy fields such as urban planning, building requirements and urban water management (Massey et al, 2015;Mees et al, 2016).…”

Section: Aim Approach and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Governance Approaches Of the Three Municipalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning

Dai

Wörner

Rijswick

2017

International Journal of Water Resources Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This integration can be facilitated with a participatory process. Mees and colleagues [22] suggest that a participatory process for the design of the warning system should be complemented with shared responsibility among the authorities, the expert community, and the end-users for the operation and maintenance of the system. Although participatory processes are not new in environmental and natural hazard policymaking [23][24][25][26][27][28][29], they have been rarely applied to landslide warning systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sharing responsibility (by means of a triage process to determine the priority for actions based on the severity of the conditions of the people or the area suffering a fire) is viewed as an appropriate form of response to wildfire due to the lack of resources that might be drawn on to guarantee a fair and equal level of protection to all citizens (ibidem). Also, France witnessed a development in the same direction with the 2004 Act on the Modernization of the Civil Security, which stipulates that "citizens are responsible for their own safety" [22]. However, citizen responsibility may be difficult to implement because of the prominent hierarchical state-citizen relationship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During a participatory process in Gmunden, Austria, the organizational and responsibility-sharing arrangements for a landslide warning system proved to be contested issues. While questions on the warning system technology and the distribution of information, including the alarm for evacuation, could be resolved with the support of experts, controversies arose on the financial and legal responsibilities that ensure long-term and effective monitoring for the protection of the landslide-prone community. This paper examines how responsibilities can be shared among the residents, experts, and public authorities during the design and operation of landslide warning systems. In particular, we discuss the outcome and implications of three stakeholder workshops where participants deliberated on warning-system options that, in turn, were based on a discourse analysis of extensive stakeholder interviews. The results of the case study show that an end-user orientation requires the consideration of stakeholder worldviews, interests, and conflicts. Paradoxically, the public did not fully support their own involvement in the maintenance and control of the warning system, but the authorities promoted shared responsibility. Deliberative planning does not then necessarily lead to responsibility sharing, but it proved effective as a platform for information and for shared ownership in the warning system.

show abstract

“…In the paper by Mees et al (2016) this is labeled as "coproduction." The paper focuses on the extent to which coproduction is evident in five European countries.…”

Section: Cross-cutting Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward more resilient flood risk governance

Driessen¹,

Hegger²,

Bakker³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Cited by 87 publications

References 57 publications

Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning

Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban planning

A Participatory Process to Develop a Landslide Warning System: Paradoxes of Responsibility Sharing in a Case Study in Upper Austria

Toward more resilient flood risk governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About