Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?

Abstract

ABSTRACT. European countries face increasing flood risks because of urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM), including flood risk prevention (through proactive spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, makes countries more flood resilient. Although this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. We aim to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong capacity to resist, France a strong capacity to absorb and recover, and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g., being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies' feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness), as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. We provide much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties, and citizens who want to increase flood resilience.

From citizen participation to government participation: An exploration of the roles of local governments in community initiatives for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands

“…Due to its dominance, adaptation to flood risks from the rivers and sea is highly institutionalized and legally embedded. This is the classical hierarchical form of steering, which is still quite common for adaptation to fluvial flooding from the rivers and the sea that is highly dominated by a traditional flood prevention and flood defence strategy (Hegger et al, 2016). Here, the government has a traditional "regulating" role, the highest rung on the ladder.…”

Civil society contributions to local level flood resilience: Before, during and after the 2015 Boxing Day floods in the Upper Calder Valley

“…Flooding is becoming an increasingly urgent societal issue that will worsen in the future. Recently, European countries have experienced damaging flood events, the causes of which can be broadly grouped into issues relating to: a lack of “conscientious planning” (Restemeyer et al., , p. 45), urbanisation (Hegger et al., ) and outdated infrastructures (Scott, ). These causes are expected to be exacerbated by climate change‐induced impacts such as increases in the duration, frequency and intensity of high precipitation events, and sea‐level rise (Hegger et al., ; Restemeyer et al., ).…”

Mayors and “their” land: Revealing approaches to flood risk management in small municipalities

“…In some European countries (e.g., Belgium, Sweden), municipalities represent a major force in initiating and building flood mitigation measures; in France, the intermunicipal cooperation for this purpose has been launched (Fournier et al, ). Some authors, however, stress the limits of the municipalities' activity, such as the heterogeneity of strategies and competing planning agendas that must be coordinated (Measham et al, ), increased conflict potential (Thaler & Priest, ), or uneven distribution of social and financial capacities among municipalities (Hegger et al, ). In context of social capacities, some authors emphasise the effects that different leadership styles of political representatives (e.g., mayors) may have on definition and implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., Næss, Bang, Eriksen, & Vevatne, ; Storbjörk, ).…”