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

Modelling damage due to low flows in the Meuse. Poster.

In this research the damage due to low discharges on the Meuse has been analysed to get a better view on the scope of the low flow problem. The research area consists of the Dutch and the Flemish part of the Meuse upstream of Roermond and the canals fed by it. A model has been developed to assess the total damage and the distribution over different regions and economic sectors in a number of situations. Total damage varies from a few million Euros in a medium dry year to ten times that much in an extreme dry year. Most of the damage occurs in the navigation sector and the power generation sector. Climatological and economical development will increase future damage substantially. On the other hand, much can be gained by applying appropriate management strategies

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

European countries face increasing flood risks due to 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 pro-active spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery - makes countries more flood resilient. While this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. This paper aims 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. The paper provides much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties and citizens who want to increase flood resilience

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

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

European countries face increasing flood risks due to 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 pro-active spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery - makes countries more flood resilient. While this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. This paper aims 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. The paper provides much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties and citizens who want to increase flood resilience

Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change

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

Domain-based perceptions of risk:a case study of lay and technical community attitudes towards managed aquifer recharge

Despite growing water scarcity, communities in many parts of the developed world often reject technically and economically sound options for water augmentation. This paper reports findings from a study investigating risk perceptions associated with a proposed Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme in Australia. Q-Methodology was used to compare decision-making frameworks of lay community and „technical expert‟ participants. Technical expert participants were also asked to approximate the decision-making framework of a „typical‟ community member. The emerging contrasts between lay community frameworks and those approximated by technical experts suggest that there are prevailing yet errant assumptions about lay community attitudes towards new technologies. The findings challenge the characterisation of the lay community and technical experts as being in entrenched opposition with one another