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

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

Climate change adaptation in European river basins

This paper contains an assessment and standardized comparative analysis of the current water management regimes in four case-studies in three European river basins: the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza, the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called Zacarpathian Tisza), Alentejo Region (including the Alqueva Reservoir) in the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, and Rivierenland in the Netherlands. The analysis comprises several regime elements considered to be important in adaptive and integrated water management: agency, awareness raising and education, type of governance and cooperation structures, information management and—exchange, policy development and—implementation, risk management, and finances and cost recovery. This comparative analysis has an explorative character intended to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management and to determine its role in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. The results show that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge is an important obstacle for cooperation, or vice versa. We argue that there is a two-way relationship between information management and collaboration. Moreover, this research suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straightforward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top–down governance. Finally, this research shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant—like droughts in the Alentejo (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands)—the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserv

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

Implementatie meerlaagsveiligheid in Nederland: realisatie plannen vergt institutionele verandering

Contains fulltext : 121956.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

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