A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation

Policy instruments can help put climate adaptation plans into action. Here, we propose a method for the systematic assessment and selection of policy instruments for stimulating adaptation action. The multi-disciplinary set of six assessment criteria is derived from economics, policy, and legal studies. These criteria are specified for the purpose of climate adaptation by taking into account four challenges to the governance of climate adaptation: uncertainty, spatial diversity, controversy, and social complexity. The six criteria and four challenges are integrated into a step-wise method that enables the selection of instruments starting from a generic assessment and ending with a specific assessment of policy instrument mixes for the stimulation of a specific adaptation measure. We then apply the method to three examples of adaptation measures. The method’s merits lie in enabling deliberate choices through a holistic and comprehensive set of adaptation specific criteria, as well as deliberative choices by offering a stepwise method that structures an informed dialog on instrument selection. Although the method was created and applied by scientific experts, policy-makers can also use the method

Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations

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 (FRGA) are noticeably lacking. This study attempts to address this gap by assessing the legitimacy of FRGAs in six European countries through cross-disciplinary and comparative research methods. On the basis of this assessment, recommendation

Governance Conditions for Improving Quality Drinking Water Resources: the Need for Enhancing Connectivity

Realising the water quality objectives of the European Water Framework Directive have appeared to stagnate over the last decade all across Europe because of their highly complex nature. In the literature, interactive governance approaches tend to be regarded as the best way of dealing with complex water issues, but so far little empirical evidence has been reported on this perspective in regard to water quality issues. In this paper we have analysed how conditions of governance contribute to the realisation of water quality objectives at different types of drinking water resources in the Netherlands. The analysis demonstrates the importance of addressing different hydrological scales, institutional levels and sectors and thus enhance connectivity in order to improve water quality. The two other important conditions of governance approaches for water quality improvement which were identified are the use of joint fact-finding to gain a shared perception of risks, and the use of explicit decision-making and close monitoring of outcomes (re. water quality improvement), both of which contribute to this enhanced connectivity

Sticks and carrots for reducing property-level risks from floods: an EU-US comparative perspective

In discussing legal and policy frameworks for flood risk management, the attention is often put on increasing resilience in public spaces. In terms of private properties, discussions are geared toward enhancing the adaptive capacity of future developments. This paper focuses on the instruments associated with resilience of existing privately owned residential buildings mainly from the perspective of post-flood policies and compensation regimes. The paper scrutinizes the relevant legal and policy landscapes in the United States, the European Union and two Member States – the UK and the Netherlands. The goal is to provide mutual lessons learned between the EU, its Member States, and the US and to set forth generally applicable recommendations for improving post-flood policies for existing buildings

The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management

Flood risk for all types of flooding is projected to increase based on climate change projections and increases in damage potential. These challenges are likely to aggravate issues of justice in flood risk management (henceforth FRM). Based on a discursive-institutionalist perspective, this paper explores justice in Dutch FRM: how do institutions allocate the responsibilities and costs for FRM for different types of flooding? What are the underlying conceptions of justice? What are the future challenges with regard to climate change? The research revealed that a dichotomy is visible in the Dutch approach to FRM: despite an abundance of rules, regulations and resources spent, flood risk or its management, are only marginally discussed in terms of justice. Despite that the current institutional arrangement has material outcomes that treat particular groups of citizens differently, depending on the type of flooding they are prone to, area they live in (unembanked/embanked) or category of user (e.g. household, industry, farmer). The paper argues that the debate on justice will (re)emerge, since the differences in distributional outcomes are likely to become increasingly uneven as a result of increasing flood risk. The Netherlands should be prepared for this debate by generating the relevant facts and figures. An inclusive debate on the distribution of burdens of FRM could contribute to more effective and legitimate FRM

The effectiveness of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services jeopardized by the European Court of Justice - Annotations on the judgment in C-525/12

In Case C-525/12 the European Court of Justice concludes that cost recovery for water services as outlined in Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive is only one of the instruments for Member States to strive for a rational water use. It furthermore concludes that the WFD environmental objectives not necessarily imply that cost recovery should be applicable to all water-related activities mentioned in Article 2 (38) WFD. In this underlying contribution a number of critical remarks to this judgment are provided. In view of the authors, the European Court of Justice reduces the effectivity of the cost recovery principle too rigorously by reducing the principle of cost recovery for water services to a practically voluntary tool for Member States

The effectiveness of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services jeopardized by the European Court of Justice - Annotations on the judgment in C-525/12

In Case C-525/12 the European Court of Justice concludes that cost recovery for water services as outlined in Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive is only one of the instruments for Member States to strive for a rational water use. It furthermore concludes that the WFD environmental objectives not necessarily imply that cost recovery should be applicable to all water-related activities mentioned in Article 2 (38) WFD. In this underlying contribution a number of critical remarks to this judgment are provided. In view of the authors, the European Court of Justice reduces the effectivity of the cost recovery principle too rigorously by reducing the principle of cost recovery for water services to a practically voluntary tool for Member States

Toward more resilient flood risk governance

Countries all over the world face increasing flood risks because of urbanization and the effects of climate change. In Europe, flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for the largest number of casualties and highest amount of economic damage. The current scientific debate on how urban agglomerations can be made more resilient to these flood risks includes a discussion on how a diversification, coordination, and alignment of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs), including flood risk prevention through proactive spatial planning, flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation, and flood recovery, can contribute to flood resilience. Although effective implementation of FRMSs can be considered a necessary precondition for resilience, efficient and legitimate flood risk governance can enhance this societal resilience to flooding. Governance and legal research has the potential to provide crucial insights into the debate on how to improve resilience. Yet the social sciences have only looked into this issue in a fragmented manner, often without a comparative scope. This special feature addresses this knowledge gap by focusing on the scope and workings of FRMSs, but also on cross-cutting topics such as uncertainties, distributional effects, solidarity, knowledge management, and citizen participation. The papers included in this feature are written by both policy analysts and legal scholars. The above-mentioned issues are thus approached via a multidisciplinary perspective. All papers convincingly show that one-size-fits-all solutions for appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements do not exist. Governance arrangements should be tailored to the existing physical, socio-cultural, and institutional context. This requires an open and transparent debate between scientists and practitioners on the normative starting point of flood risk governance, a clear division of responsibilities, the establishment of connectivity between actors, levels, and sectors through bridging mechanisms, and adequate knowledge infrastructures, both nationally and internationally

A method for the deliberate and deliberative selection of policy instrument mixes for climate change adaptation

Policy instruments can help put climate adaptation plans into action. Here, we propose a method for the systematic assessment and selection of policy instruments for stimulating adaptation action. The multi-disciplinary set of six assessment criteria is derived from economics, policy, and legal studies. These criteria are specified for the purpose of climate adaptation by taking into account four challenges to the governance of climate adaptation: uncertainty, spatial diversity, controversy, and social complexity. The six criteria and four challenges are integrated into a step-wise method that enables the selection of instruments starting from a generic assessment and ending with a specific assessment of policy instrument mixes for the stimulation of a specific adaptation measure. We then apply the method to three examples of adaptation measures. The method's merits lie in enabling deliberate choices through a holistic and comprehensive set of adaptation specific criteria, as well as deliberative choices by offering a stepwise method that structures an informed dialog on instrument selection. Although the method was created and applied by scientific experts, policy-makers can also use the method