Fig 1 - uploaded by Willemijn van Doorn-Hoekveld
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
We seek to examine the manner in which either the EU member states of France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden or parts of them, such as the country of England in the UK or the Flemish Region in Belgium, deal with the distributional effects of the flood risk management strategies prevention, defense, and mitigation. Measures carried out in each...
Similar publications
2016. Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance? Ecology and Society 21(4):49. https:// 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....
Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of approaches can reduce the effectiveness of flood risk management. Placed in the context of increasing flood risks, as well as the potential for flooding t...
Flood risks are managed differently across Europe. While a number of research studies aim to understand these differences, they tend to pay little attention to the social constructionist aspects of flood risk governance, i.e. the meaning that societies give to flood risk and governance. This paper aims to address this gap by understanding differenc...
Citations
... These uncertainties include: 1) the potential loss of threatened systems under pressures (McCarthy et al., 2001), 2) the extent to which the resilient (or adaptation) measures could ameliorate the negative effects and enhance positive effects, and the extent of the cost of actions (de Bruin et al., 2009; Debels et al., 2009; Mechler et al., 2014), and 3) the distributional effects of the proposed resilience measures (Anguelovski et al., 2016). The literature focusing on socio-economic concerns, strongly supported by economic scientists and economic analysis institutions, provides some insights into these issues by 1) estimating financial losses of climate change and flood hazards(Stern, 2007), 2) calculating investment and payoff of flood resilience measures(Hallegatte et al., 2011), and 3) allocating the responsibilities of a flood (or pre-flood) loss compensation(Doorn-Hoekveld et al., 2016).In the planning literature, the discussion of socio-economic features of resilience measures has been largely neglected. It has been partly covered in a few planning papers that concentrate on the economic issues of flood resilience measures in urban development projects, such as the calculation of investment and payoff(Raaijmakers et al., 2008).An early study from Bruin and Goosen(2014)used cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to verify the economic efficiency of flood resilience measures to deal with precipitation. ...
The need to respond to increasing flood risk, climate change, and rapid urban development has shaped innovative policies and practices of spatial planning in many countries over recent decades. As an instrumental-technical intervention, planning is mainly used to improve the physical environment (through concepts such as regulating waterproof facades of architecture, setting buffering zones, and designing green-blue corridors). However, the implementation of the proposed physical interventions is often challenging and necessitates assistance from practices such as climate assessment, policy disciplines, civil societies, and economic resources. These extensive perspectives have spawned many new research domains in the realm of spatial planning. This chapter provides a review of the recent developments in flood resilience, risk management, and climate adaptation ; based on this, it positions planning research and practice within these works of literature. Four clusters of thought are identified, mainly in the European and American scholarship of the last two decades. They are environmental concerns , disaster management concerns, socioeconomic concerns, and institutional concerns. Current planning research concentrates on disaster management in the underlying belief that planning is functionally efficient. The attention to environmental concerns, socioeconomic concerns, and institutional concerns of planning research remains insufficient but has been growing. This, in turn, enlarges the scope of planning research and indicates future directions for study. These new concerns relate to spatial planning's ability to operate effectively in a multi-sectoral setting, despite limited resources and in the face of uncertain risk.
... These can be intentional consequences or unintended side effects. Deliberately planned distributional effects are profound in the domain of flood risk adaptation, where various compensation mechanisms have long been an inseparable element of adaptation policies, as physical measures such as levee heightening often have adverse consequences for some subgroups of the population (van Doorn-Hoekveld et al. 2016). Yet, even in such an established domain, unforeseen distributional impacts still abound. ...
To support equitable adaptation planning, quantitative assessments should consider the fairness of the distribution of outcomes to different people. What constitutes a fair distribution, however, is a normative question. In this study, we explore the use of different moral principles drawn from theories of distributive justice to evaluate fairness. We use adaptation planning in Vietnam Mekong Delta as a case study. We evaluate the preference ranking of six alternative policies for seven moral principles across an ensemble of scenarios. Under the baseline scenario, each principle yields distinctive preference rankings, though most principles identify the same policy as the most preferred one. Across the ensemble of scenarios, the commonly used utilitarian principle yields the most stable ranking, while rankings from other principles are more sensitive to uncertainty. The sufficientarian and the envy-free principles yield the most distinctive ranking of policies, with a median ranking correlation of only 0.07 across all scenarios. Finally, we identify scenarios under which using these two principles results in reversed policy preference rankings. Our study highlights the importance of considering multiple moral principles in evaluating the fairness of adaptation policies, as this would reduce the possibility of maladaptation.
... FRG arrangements refer to the constellation of actors, institutions, resources, and discourses involved in the management of flood risk (Hegger et al., 2018b). Comparative analysis of these FRG arrangements across national borders has been fruitful in diagnosing the willingness and capacity of actors to collaborate, the efficacy and interplay of policy instruments, and the ways in which different institutional mechanisms-coordinating authorities, intergovernmental partnerships, and so on-shape interaction among actors and induce cohesion across sectors and scales (Kaufmann & Wiering, 2017;Liefferink et al., 2018;van Doorn-Hoekveld et al., 2016). ...
The study of flood management has experienced a paradigmatic shift over the past two decades. Particularly notable are the embracement of flood risk management (FRM) and comparative analysis of flood risk governance (FRG), meaning the complex institutional arrangements that shape the behavior of state and societal actors concerning FRM. Thousands of publications have addressed these themes, and this field of study is ripe for a systematic analysis that consolidates and structures this rapidly evolving literature. This study employed a bibliometric methodology to analyze the metadata (including authorship, keywords, abstracts, and citations) of 3059 such publications. The results reveal that both FRM and FRG scholarship have expanded over the past two decades; the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are the most prominent countries of origin, a small number of prolific authors stands out as major contributors, and a relatively small number of journals dominate as publication venues. The text mining results reveal that the bodies of FRM and FRG scholarship are highly correlated but yet differ in core subject matter, as demonstrated by the unique keywords found in the analysis. The findings are useful for researchers seeking relevant clusters for study and therefore offers reference value for future research and practice.
... During flood, the communities of these areas move to protection bunds or barrages, which is highly risky itself. A better plan could be the identification of flood-safe zones and develop them to fully accommodate the communities residing in the high and very high-risk zone of the flood [39][40][41][42] (Fig. 3). ...
Flood risk management comprises two phases; the first deals with risk analysis and assessment while the second considers risk prevention and mitigation. Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) based multi-thematic scenario is developed, risk extent and quantity were calculated at multiple levels. Taunsa Barrage Wildlife Sanctuary was selected as study area. Assets at risk were estimated in numbers showing annual average damage per unit area and coverage maps show their distribution pattern. Risk zonation layers were also developed to estimate the risk extent in terms of high, medium, and low risk. Population data were acquired and analyzed to find out inhabitants at different risk categories. Similarly, erosion and accretion layers were extracted from temporal land cover/land use datasets to analyze environmental risk. Results of flood inundation were utilized for flood depth analysis. During the 2010 Flood, almost 4200 small and large villages/towns were inundated. Out of 4,200, approximately 1,750 villages/towns are on the right bank and the remaining 2,450 are on the left bank which highlights high economic and financial risk. However, all methods chosen here to estimate the different risk criteria (inundation modeling as well as damage evaluation) are approximate approaches but develop a strong foundation for decision-makers.
... These uncertainties include: (1) the potential loss of threatened systems under pressures [19], (2) the extent to which the resilient (or adaptation) measures could ameliorate the negative effects and enhance positive effects, and the extent of the cost of actions [40][41][42], and (3) the distributional effects of the proposed resilience measures [43]. Correspondingly, the literature focusing on socio-economic concerns, supported by economic scientists and economic analysis institutions, provides some insights into these issues by (1) estimating financial losses of climate change and flood hazards [44], (2) calculating investment and payoff of flood resilience measures [45], and (3) allocating the responsibilities of a flood (or pre-flood) loss compensation [46]. ...
... It leads to a debate on who should pay for private landowners' losses when individual interest is challenged by public interests. The burden-sharing and benefit-giving, in the European context at least, follow four major principles [46]: (1) the solidarity principle (for instance, all Dutch citizens pay for the cost caused by flood risk management via tax and leave responsibilities to regional water boards and the Dutch state), (2) the protection of private property rights principle unless for public interests with authorised law, the appropriate ministry's approval, and compensation (e.g., in England), (3) the equity before public burdens principle (compensations to a Sustainability 2020, 12, 7864 5 of 23 restricted loss in the public interest in Flanders), and (4) the practice of citizens bearing minor adverse effects themselves while getting compensation in the case of strong adverse effects (e.g., in France). ...
The need to respond to increasing flood risk, climate change, and rapid urban development has shaped innovative policies and practices of spatial planning in many countries over recent decades. As an instrumental-technical intervention, planning is mainly used to improve the physical environment (through concepts such as regulating waterproof facades of architecture, setting buffering zones, and designing green-blue corridors). However, the implementation of the proposed physical interventions is often challenging and necessitates assistance from practices such as climate assessment, policy disciplines, civil societies, and economic resources. These extensive perspectives have spawned many new research domains in the realm of spatial planning. This paper provides a review of the recent developments in flood resilience, risk management, and climate adaptation; based on this, it positions planning research and practice within these works of literature. Four clusters of thought are identified, mainly in the European and American scholarship of the last two decades. They are environmental concerns, disaster management concerns, socioeconomic concerns, and institutional concerns. Current planning research concentrates on disaster management in the underlying belief that planning is functionally efficient. The attention to environmental concerns, socioeconomic concerns, and institutional concerns of planning research remains insufficient but has been growing. This, in turn, enlarges the scope of planning research and indicates future directions for study. These new concerns relate to spatial planning's ability to operate effectively in a multi-sectoral setting, despite limited resources and in the face of uncertain risk.
... The increasing incidents of pluvial flooding of public spaces and private property have led to stronger advocacy of climate adaptation and a new focus on urban water storage in Dutch water governance (Showstack, 2014). This is an acknowledgment of the necessity for cooperative spatial planning and flood management (Gilissen, 2015;van Doorn-Hoekveld et al., 2016;Ward, Pauw, van Buuren, & Marfai, 2012). ...
... An effective derivative of this study is the signal that the use of the IDW to distinguish areas at the highest menace of flood event may be convenient for conveying flood mitigation measure. The documentation of pivotal areas at very high risk can aid to define precedence areas of specific interferences (Van Doorn-Hoekveld et al. 2016). This information could help the administrative planner and environmental scientist to mark out the areas of flood hazard and mitigation measure in Bongaon sadar sub-division. ...
The spatial mapping of flood menace extents is crucial for the effective and competent enactment of risk-lessening strategy. We focused on geographical pattern and variation in flood-affected villages in Bongaon sadar sub-division, West Bengal, India, during the period between 1996 and 2016. To appraise the indigenous smoothing and dissimilarity of flood-affected/non-affected villages, GIS-based Voronoi statistics were used. Inverse distance weighting (IDW) is used to interpolate and predict the pattern of flood-affected/non-affected zones across the sub-division. Moran’s I index statistics was considered to appraise spatial auto-correlation among the flood affected and non-affected villages. Getis-OrdGi*(d) statistics was employed to recognize the flood hotspot and cold spot areas within the study site. The higher magnitude of Moran’s I was calculated as 1999–2001, 2004, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016. The high Z score was recorded in 1996–1999, 2001–2003, 2011, 2013, and 2014 indicated a spatial clustering of flood-affected villages. The predictive map derived through IDW showed that 7.76% (64.59 km²) area comes under very high threat zones of flood, followed by 16.27% as high risk, 24.49% as medium risk, 23.97% as low risk, and 27.51% as very low risk. This study determines the solicitation of GIS-based prophecy for the impost of revelation mapping, so as to define the latitudinal extent and frequency of areas where most affected villages are located and potential risk areas.
... Examples of different mechanisms with different underlying normative principles are: (i) the partnership funding in England which encourages local actors and stakeholders to engage in FRM and facilitates flood defense schemes; (ii) the constitutional right to flood protection in The Netherlands which is enacted through legal safety standards based on risk type [30]; (iii) compensation regimes/schemes which increase equity, and mechanisms for compensating losses. These are present in most of the researched countries [52]. ...
Flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for large numbers of casualties and a high amount of economic damage worldwide. To be ‘flood resilient’, countries should have sufficient capacity to resist, the capacity to absorb and recover, and the capacity to transform and adapt. Based on international comparative research, we conclude that six key governance strategies will enhance ‘flood resilience’ and will secure the necessary capacities. These strategies pertain to: (i) the diversification of flood risk management approaches; (ii) the alignment of flood risk management approaches to overcome fragmentation; (iii) the involvement, cooperation, and alignment of both public and private actors in flood risk management; (iv) the presence of adequate formal rules that balance legal certainty and flexibility; (v) the assurance of sufficient financial and other types of resources; (vi) the adoption of normative principles that adequately deal with distributional effects. These governance strategies appear to be relevant across different physical and institutional contexts. The findings may also hold valuable lessons for the governance of climate adaptation more generally.
... Debates on equity and justice are also relevant for the study of recovery mechanisms from natural hazards, whether provided through private market-based insurance, statedimplemented insurance, or compensation schemes, and can manifest in many ways across countries (see Priest, 2014;Penning-Rowsell and Priest, 2015). Adopting a legal perspective, van Doorn-Hoekveld et al. (2016) examine the influence of 'preflood' compensation, i.e. measures used to prevent floods, as opposed to recovery mechanisms (e.g. flood storage areas), upon distributive effects of floods in selected European countries. ...
Legitimacy is widely regarded as a founding principle of ‘good’ and effective governance, yet despite intense academic debate and policy discourse, the concept remains conceptually confusing and poorly articulated in practice. To bridge this gap, this research performed an interpretive thematic analysis of academic scholarship across public administration, public policy, law, political science and geography. Four core themes were identified in relation to representative deliberation, procedural and distributive equity and justice, and socio-political acceptability, with numerous sub-themes therein. In an attempt to clarify conceptual confusion, this paper grounds these theoretical debates in the context of flood risk governance where numerous legitimacy dilemmas exist. A number of questions are presented as conceptual ‘sign posts’ to encourage reflexive governance in the future. Thus, more broadly, we assert the importance of bringing legitimacy to the forefront of contemporary flood risk governance discourse and practice, moving beyond the realm of academic reflection.
... In the context of flood research, these themes are typically discussed in the context of distributive justice and assume that the outcome of the governance process should be considered fair, as opposed to necessarily equal (Johnson, C., Penning-Rowsell, E., Parker, D, 2007; Penning Rowsell & Pardoe, 2015;Thaler & Hartmann, 2016). It is important to note that what is perceived as fair depends on the normative system that is prevalent ( Driessen & Van Rijswick, 2011: Keessen, Hamer, Van Rijswick, & Wiering, 2013Tennekes, Driessen, Van Rijswick, & Van Bree, 2014;Van Doorn-Hoekveld, 2014;Van Doorn-Hoekveld et al., 2016). While from a solidarity perspective it is considered fair that people in low-risk areas also contribute to flood protection measures, if social equity is interpreted as 'beneficiary pays', the situation will be perceived as fair if contributions are based on risk ( Keessen et al., 2016). ...
... For example, emergency management is based on the solidarity principle, as it is usually funded through general means, whereas for flood recovery the systems in the examined countries range from a strongly prevailing solidarity principle, for example in the Netherlands, to market-based insurance systems in England and Sweden ( Suykens et al., 2016). In case a country focuses on prevention instead of recovery, pre-flood compensation mechanisms may also contribute to social equity and distributional justice ( Van Doorn-Hoekveld, 2014;Van Doorn-Hoekveld et al., 2016). The degree to which certain features of flood risk governance support social equity in the examined countries is summarized in Table 5. ...
Legitimacy has received comparatively less attention than societal resilience in the context of flooding, thus methods for assessing and monitoring the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements are noticeably lacking. This study attempts to address this gap by assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in six European countries through cross-disciplinary and comparative research methods. On the basis of this assessment, recommendations to enhance the legitimacy of flood risk governance in Europe are presented.
