Institutional Conditions for Inclusive, Flood Resilient Urban Deltas: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Two International Resilience Programs in Southeast Asia

Abstract

Policy makers in Southeast Asian flood-vulnerable regions are confronted with various institutional challenges when planning for inclusive flood resilience. This paper focuses on the role of international resilience programs and investigates how these programs can enable institutional transformation. The key question is which institutional conditions promote the development and implementation of inclusive flood resilience strategies by international resilience programs. The Mekong Delta Plan in Vietnam (MDP) and the Water as Leverage for Resilient Cities Asia (WaL) program in Semarang, Indonesia, are selected as the cases for a comparative analysis. To structure the comparative analysis of these programs, the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is adopted and operationalized for the institutional analysis of inclusive flood resilience planning. The findings illustrate that whereas the MDP was able to involve decision makers from the national government and international financial institutions for mobilizing funding and technical support, the strength of the WaL program was its enabling environment for the cocreation of context-specific flood resilience proposals. Overall, this study concludes that the institutional conditions that enable project financing and the implementation of long-term and integrated flood resilience solutions are determined by engagement with national governments and by ownership of the solutions at both the national and local levels.

Mapping institutional change: Analysing strategies for institutional design in collective infrastructure renewal

“…The framework assesses four components: the action arena wherein certain activities occur and specific actors act, based on the three exogenous variables of biophysical and material conditions, attributes of community, and rules, that result in specific interactions, and specific outcomes (Ostrom, 2005). Commonly, when assessing spatial planning, the focus of the IAD is on rules because this allows for analysing the complex multiactor decision‐making process (Hijdra, 2017; Van Karnenbeek & Janssen‐Jansen, 2018; Laeni et al, 2021; Ostrom, 2014).…”