The seven rules for hydrologists and other researchers wanting to contribute to the water management practice

International audienceThis paper addresses the question how hydrologists and other researchers can best contribute to the water management practice. It reviews the literature in the field of science and technology studies and research utilization and presents the results in the form of seven "rules" for researchers. These are (1) Reflect on the nature and possible roles of research; (2) Analyse the stakeholders and issues at stake; (3) Choose whom and what to serve; (4) Decide on your strategy; (5) Design the process to implement your strategy; (6) Communicate!; and (7) Consider your possibilities and limitations. Key notions in this paper are that research always involves selection and interpretation and that the selection and interpretations made in a specific case always reflect the values and preferences of those involved. Collaboration between the researchers and the other stakeholders can increase the legitimacy and utilization of the research and can prevent that the specific expertise of the researchers is lost

Shaping flood risk governance through science-policy interfaces: insights from England, France and The Netherlands

In the face of increasing threats from flooding, there are growing calls to strengthen and improve arrangements of flood risk governance (FRG). This endeavour requires an appreciation of the multitude of factors stabilising and driving governance dynamics. So-called catalyst flood events, policy champions and advocacy coalitions have tended to dominate this study to date, whilst the potential role played by Science Policy Interfaces (SPIs) has been somewhat neglected and often approached in a reductionist and fragmented way. This paper addresses this gap by drawing from in-depth policy analysis and stakeholder interviews conducted within England, France and the Netherlands under the auspices of the EU-FP7 STAR-FLOOD project. The analysis reveals four prominent ways in which SPIs shape FRG, by i) facilitating the diversification of Flood Risk Management (FRM) strategies; ii) increasing their connectivity, iii) facilitating a decentralisation of FRM and iv) fostering inter-country learning. It identifies different roles of specific interfaces (structures) and interfacing mechanisms (processes) in shaping governance dynamics. This way, the analysis reveals various ‘entry points’ through which SPIs can steer FRG, either along existing pathways, or towards new and potentially transformative change. The study shows that SPIs are a hitherto underexposed factor explaining dynamics in flood risk governance which merits additional systematic empirical study

Measuring perspectives on future flood management on the Rhine: application and discussion of Q methodology

International audienceAn overview of stakeholder perspectives promises to be useful in the agenda setting phase of water management policy processes. This paper compares different methods to measure perspectives, and identifies Q methodology as a structured method that allows for unbiased analysis. It is one of the first water management papers about Q methodology, and it presents a detailed discussion of the practical possibilities and limitations of the method, using future flood management in the Rhine basin as a case study. The application shows that there are three different stakeholder perspectives that are shared within groups of respondents: A) "Anticipation and institutions", B) "Space for flooding" and C) "Knowledge and engineering". The paper concludes that Q methodology can be used in practice to comprehensively elicit individual perspectives, to aggregate them in an objective way, and to identify major knowledge gaps and divergent goals. Because the method requires quite some skills and time from the analyst, and the sorting task may be difficult for the respondents, it is most appropriate for in-depth analysis. Additional research is required on how to use stakeholder perspectives in the development of mutual understanding and consensus in water management policy processes

Identification of stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q methodology

This article identifies different stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the downstream parts of the Rhine basin in Germany and The Netherlands. The perspectives were identified using Q methodology, which proved to be a good, but time-intensive, method for eliciting and analyzing stakeholder perspectives in a structured and unbiased way. Three shared perspectives were found: A) "Anticipation and institutions", B) "Space for flooding" and C) "Knowledge and engineering". These three perspectives share a central concern for the provision of safety against flooding, but disagree on the expected autonomous developments and the preferred measures. In perspective A, the expected climate change and economic growth call for fast action. To deal with the increasing flood risk, mostly institutional measures are proposed, such as the development of a stronger basin commission. In perspective B, an increasing spatial pressure on the river area is expected, and the proposed measures are focused on mitigating damage, e.g., through controlled flooding and compartmentalization. In perspective C, the role of expert knowledge and technological improvements is emphasized. Preferred strategies include strengthening the dikes and differentiation of safety standards. <br><br> An overview of stakeholder perspectives can be useful in natural resources management for 1) setting the research agenda, 2) identifying differences in values and interests that need to be discussed, 3) creating awareness among a broad range of stakeholders, and 4) developing scenarios

Assessing Stability and Dynamics in Flood Risk Governance: An Empirically Illustrated Research Approach

European urban agglomerations face increasing flood risks due to urbanization and the effects of climate change. These risks are addressed at European, national and regional policy levels. A diversification and alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) can make vulnerable urban agglomerations more resilient to flooding, but this may require new Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs) or changes in existing ones. While much technical knowledge on Flood Risk Management is available, scientific insights into the actual and/or necessary FRGAs so far are rather limited and fragmented. This article addresses this knowledge gap by presenting a research approach for assessing FRGAs. This approach allows for the integration of insights from policy scientists and legal scholars into one coherent framework that can be used to identify Flood Risk Management Strategies and analyse Flood Risk Governance Arrangements. In addition, approaches for explaining and evaluating (shifts in) FRGAs are introduced. The research approach is illustrated by referring to the rise of the Dutch risk-based approach called 'multi-layered safety' and more specifically its application in the city of Dordrecht. The article is concluded with an overview of potential next steps, including comparative analyses of FRGAs in different regions. Insights in these FRGAS are crucial to enable the identification of action perspectives for flood risk governance for actors at the level of the EU, its member states, regional authorities, and public-private partnerships

Assessing Stability and Dynamics in Flood Risk Governance: An Empirically Illustrated Research Approach

European urban agglomerations face increasing flood risks due to urbanization and the effects of climate change. These risks are addressed at European, national and regional policy levels. A diversification and alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) can make vulnerable urban agglomerations more resilient to flooding, but this may require new Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGAs) or changes in existing ones. While much technical knowledge on Flood Risk Management is available, scientific insights into the actual and/or necessary FRGAs so far are rather limited and fragmented. This article addresses this knowledge gap by presenting a research approach for assessing FRGAs. This approach allows for the integration of insights from policy scientists and legal scholars into one coherent framework that can be used to identify Flood Risk Management Strategies and analyse Flood Risk Governance Arrangements. In addition, approaches for explaining and evaluating (shifts in) FRGAs are introduced. The research approach is illustrated by referring to the rise of the Dutch risk-based approach called 'multi-layered safety' and more specifically its application in the city of Dordrecht. The article is concluded with an overview of potential next steps, including comparative analyses of FRGAs in different regions. Insights in these FRGAS are crucial to enable the identification of action perspectives for flood risk governance for actors at the level of the EU, its member states, regional authorities, and public-private partnerships