The rationales of resilience in English and Dutch flood risk policies

We compared the governance of flood risk in England and the Netherlands, focusing on the general policies, instruments used and underlying principles. Both physical and political environments are important in explaining how countries evolved towards very different rationales of resilience. Answering questions as ‘who decides’, ‘who should act’ and ‘who is responsible and liable for flood damage’ systematically, results in a quite fundamental difference in what resilience means, and how this affects the governance regime. In the Netherlands, there is nationwide collective regime with a technocracy based on the merit of water expertise, legitimated by a social contract of government being responsible and the general public accepting and supporting this. In England there also is a technocracy, but this is part of a general-political and economic-rational decision-making process, with responsibilities spread over state, insurance companies, individuals and communities. The rationales are connected to specific conceptions of the public interest, leading to specific governance principles. In both countries, flood risk strategies are discussed in the light of climate change effects, but resilience strategies show more persistence, although combined with gradual adaptation of practices on lower scales, than great transformations

Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation and ex-post compensation provide for a resilient triangle?

There is a wealth of literature on the design of ex-post compensation mechanisms for natural disasters. However, more research needs to be done on the manner in which these mechanisms could steer citizens toward adopting individual level preventive and protection measures in the face of flood risks. This paper provides a comparative legal analysis of the financial compensation mechanisms following floods, be it through insurance, public funds or a combination of both, with an empirical focus on Belgium, the Netherlands, England and France. Similarities and differences between the methods in which these compensation mechanisms for flood damages enhance resilience are analyzed. The comparative analysis especially focuses on the link between the recovery strategy on the one hand and prevention and mitigation strategies on the other. There is great potential within the recovery strategy for promoting preventive action, for example in terms of discouraging citizens from living in high-risk areas, or encouraging the uptake of mitigation measures, such as adaptive building. However, this large potential is yet to be realized, in part due to insufficient consideration and promotion of these connections within existing legal frameworks. Recommendations are made about how the linkages between strategies can be further improved. These recommendations relate to, amongst others, the promotion of resilient reinstatement through recovery mechanisms and the removal of legal barriers preventing the establishment of link-inducing measures

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

Особенности образования неметаллических включений при производстве углеродистой электростали

Изложены результаты, полученных при реализации нового подхода к решению проблемы образования неметаллических включений (НВ), основанного на анализе генезиса и трансформации НВ в стали по всем этапам сталеплавильно–разливочного и прокатного (применительно к условиям сортопрокатно–проволочного стана) переделов

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