Pluvial Flooding in Utrecht: On Its Way to a Flood-Proof City

Abstract

Downpours are increasing in frequency and severity due to climate change. Cities are particularly susceptible to flooding from downpours because of their large share of impervious surfaces. Minimising pluvial flood risk requires all involved stakeholders to collaborate and overcome various barriers. Although an increase in citizen engagement in climate adaptation is generally preferred, experiences with inclusive decision-making are often limited. The aim of this paper is to obtain a deeper understanding of how the capacity to govern pluvial flood risk can be developed through citizen engagement. We scrutinised the capacity of local actors to govern pluvial flood risk in the city of Utrecht, the Netherlands. For the analysis of Utrecht’s problem-solving capacity, the Governance Capacity Framework provided a consistent assessment of the key governance components. The results indicate that Utrecht’s capacity to govern pluvial flooding is relatively well-developed. Collaboration between public authorities is advanced, sufficient financial resources are available, and smart monitoring enables high levels of evaluation and learning. However, citizen awareness and engagement in policy making is rather low. Accordingly, citizens’ willingness to pay for flood adaptation is limited. Stimulating flood risk awareness by combining financial incentives with more advanced arrangements for active citizen engagement is key for Utrecht and other cities.

Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights

“…External factors played a less significant role. This lesson also recurs in the paper by Brockhoff et al [23]. They show that pluvial flooding requires the engagement of a diverse set of actors from different sectors and reveal the challenges related to their involvement.…”

Adaptive Capacities for Diversified Flood Risk Management Strategies: Learning from Pilot Projects

“…The main difference between the GCF paper [62] and this paper is in the application aim. We have applied the ACW to assess the capacity development of practitioners in pilot projects, while the GCF aims to assess the governance capacity of society to solve specific challenges [61,62]. This results in differences in the applied methodology.…”

“…The Governance Capacity Framework (GCF) developed by Koop et al [61] and applied by Brockhoff et al [62] has many similarities with the ACW framework applied in this paper (see [62] for a comparison of both frameworks). The main difference between the GCF paper [62] and this paper is in the application aim.…”

“…The Governance Capacity Framework (GCF) developed by Koop et al [61] and applied by Brockhoff et al [62] has many similarities with the ACW framework applied in this paper (see [62] for a comparison of both frameworks). The main difference between the GCF paper [62] and this paper is in the application aim. We have applied the ACW to assess the capacity development of practitioners in pilot projects, while the GCF aims to assess the governance capacity of society to solve specific challenges [61,62].…”

“…With case narratives and focus groups, we have aimed to gain insight into the development of adaptive capacities by pilot projects over time and identification of key capacities for diversified FRM. In the GCF approach, Brockhoff et al [62] scored the current governance capacity of cities and prescribed what steps involved practitioners need to take. The combination of both methods can be complementary in future research by combining scores to assess the current status and development of governance capacity.…”