1  

Enhancing urban flood resilience as a multi-level governance challenge: An exploration of multi-level coordination mechanisms

Paper for the 2016 Nairobi Conference on Earth Systems Governance

Carel Dieperink 1, Hannelore Mees2 , Sally Priest 3, Kristina Ek 4, Silvia Bruzzone 5, Corinne Larue 6, Piotr Matczak 7

1 Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance

2 Antwerp University, Research Group Environment and Society

3 Middlesex University, Flood Hazard Research Centre

4 Luleå University of Technology, Division of Social Sciences

5 Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées

6 University of Paris Est, Paris School of Planning

7 Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment and Adam Mickiewicz University, Institute of Sociology

 

ABSTRACT

In both academic literature and in flood risk management practices it is argued that a multiplicity of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs) may be needed to enhance the flood resilience of urban agglomerations. Different levels of policy making will be involved in this as FRM tasks and responsibilities will be divided among actors operating at the local, regional or national level. Finding an optimal balance between these levels of policy making is challenging, but so far hardly addressed in literature. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to explore what multi-level coordination mechanisms are in place to address the challenges that result from the ambition to enhance urban flood resilience. The paper is based on a review of literature and six in-depth case studies undertaken in urban agglomerations in different European countries (Dordrecht, Hull, Geraardsbergen, Karlstad, Wroclaw and Nice). These case studies revealed that the involvement of multiple levels of governance depends partly on the mix of FRMSs chosen to enhance urban flood resilience. In the end, multiple level involvements are mainly due to the general institutional, economic and geographical settings in which flood risk governance is embedded. In all cases the presence of policy entrepreneurs, bridging concepts, a transparent division of tasks

2  

and responsibilities, clear funding schemes and adequate knowledge provision contributed to identification of the proper balance between the different levels of policy making. However, since this balance appeared to be highly context dependent, we conclude that there does not seem to be a one-size-fits-all solution to address the challenges of enhancing urban flood resilience and that the tailoring of approaches is required to provide the best chance of effective flood risk management.

Acknowledgement

The work described in this publication was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project STAR-FLOOD, Contract 308364. The authors would like to thank Dries Hegger and Peter Driessen for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

   

3  

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing consensus that flood risks in urban areas are increasing due to climate change induced changes to precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, higher peak discharges of rivers and canals, on one hand, and increased urban developments on the other (Mitchell 2003; IPCC 2011). Both in academic literature and in flood risk management practices it is argued that a multiplicity of flood risk management strategies (FRMSs) may be needed to enhance the resilience of these urban areas (Hegger et al. 2014). Flood defense, by constructing dikes or upstream retention areas, may for instance be complemented by flood risk prevention (spatial planning measures), flood risk mitigation (flood proof building), flood preparation (emergency plans) and/or flood recovery (rebuilding and insurance) strategies. In such cases, not only are flood risk managers required, but also the involvement of other actors such as spatial planners and insurance companies. The enhancement of urban flood resilience therefore necessitates multi-actor governance. These actors will not only represent different governance sectors but also different governance levels. In most countries flood risk governance systems are observed to be multi-level.

According to Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013) a governance system is characterized as multi-level in cases where activities within the policy cycle and in learning processes occur at spatially different administrative levels. Within a multi-level governance structure, centralization is high if strategic goals and policies are only formulated at the national level, and regional levels implement according to requirements from above. Actors from the national level have the lead role in most implementation situations, even at lower levels. On the other hand, the decentralization of powers makes multi-level governance systems more polycentric. In these systems, regional authorities develop their own strategic goals and tailored policies. Some authors argue that centralized regimes tend to have lower adaptive and transformative capacity than polycentric systems, provided that in the latter case the decentralization of power is combined with effective coordination and a balance between bottom-up and top-down processes (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013).

Since administrative borders often do not align with the boundaries of the water systems involved, flood risks governance systems as a result will be multi-level. Apart from this, the involvement of multiple levels of policy making may also be the result of institutionalized solidarity between richer and poorer regions. In both cases, coordination mechanisms are required to organize the activities that occur at the different levels. Ideally these levels cooperate well, which means that a mix between top-down and bottom up interactions will be emerge. It is, however, not clear what coordination mechanisms are required to optimize these multi-level interactions. Literature points at the multi-level aspects of enhancing urban flood resilience in rather general ways, either by indicating its relevance (Bulkeley 2014), the limitations of decentralized flood risk governance approaches (Johannessen and Hahn 2013, Hansen et al. 2013, Stevens and Hanschka 2014) or as elements of a risk assessment tool (Walker et al 2014).

4  

In order to address this knowledge gap this paper explores which multi-level coordination mechanisms are used to enhance the flood resilience of urban areas.

First, literature on flood risk governance is used to theorize which multi-level coordination mechanisms may be needed for enhancing urban flood resilience. An assessment of six cases of enhancing urban flood resilience in urban agglomerations in six different EU countries is undertaken in order to further explore the relevance and characteristics of these mechanisms. Next, discussion considers whether different ways of enhancing urban flood resilience require different coordination mechanisms and what role different institutional, economic or geographical contexts play. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research.

ENHANCING URBAN FLOOD RESILIENCE: MULTI-LEVEL CHALLENGES AND REQUIRED COORDINATION MECHANISMS Enhancing urban flood resilience requires investments in combinations of flood defense, flood prevention, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery measures. This is challenging as it implies an increase in the number of involved actors (Dieperink et al. submitted). Improving flood prevention, for example, requires co-operation between actors responsible for dikes and watercourses and actors responsible for spatial planning. Formal instruments requiring the consideration of water issues in spatial planning can contribute to such cooperation by clarifying the flood risks of planned urban developments (Hartmann 2009, Immink 2005, Wiering and Immink 2006). Improving flood warning systems and evacuation planning will necessitate the involvement of emergency planners. In cases of flood recovery the number of actors broadens including both residents and insurance companies. Raising overall flood awareness will be a precondition for involving these different participants in flood risk management. This calls for the development of inspiring and convincing narratives which define a common ground for future cooperation. Societal debates on safety norms, acceptable risks, costs and benefits and related funding principles (solidarity and/or user pays) of existing and future defence structures are necessary to define what mix of FRMSs will be required.

Literature addressing the multi-level component of these challenges is limited, and thus this research will be situated within the more general literature on flood risk governance in order to explore those mechanisms needed to enable societies to address these challenges. Based on a review of literature on flood risk and water governance, it is argued that the aforementioned challenges may be better addressed if a number of coordination mechanisms are present. These mechanisms can be categorized using the dimensions of the policy arrangements approach (PAA) (Arts et al. 2006) which includes consideration of the actor, discourse, rules and resource dimensions.

Within the actor dimension, policy entrepreneurs are needed to initiate and coordinate the processes at different levels of policy making that aim to enhance urban flood resilience (Brown

5  

and Clarke 2007, Huitema and Meijerink 2009, Partzsch and Ziegler 2011). They must provide for visionary, entrepreneurial and collaborative leadership (Rijke et al. 2013, Van den Brink et al. 2011) and must involve relevant stakeholders. On one hand, in order to avoid too much complexity, some authors argue that stakeholders activation should be selective (Green and Penning-Rowsell 2010, Rowe and Frewer 2005), while on the other hand, literature also suggests that addressing problems from different perspectives necessitates the proactive involvement of a broader community (Bruchnach and Ingram 2012, Garrelts and Lange 2011, Rijke et al. 2013). Apart from inspiring policy entrepreneurs, processes to enhance urban flood resilience also need dedicated, neutral and skilled process managers. These managers must be able to organize meetings in such a way that participants are kept at the table, remain interested and that promotes learning (Dieperink et al. 2012).

Concerning the discourse dimension, enhancing urban flood resilience may require the development of bridging or boundary concepts (Greiving and Angignard 2013), especially in cases where actors aim for a more diversified set of FRMSs. Within the field of science and technology studies, boundary concepts or objects signify a term (such as resilience or sustainability) that facilitates communication across disciplinary borders by creating a shared vocabulary (Star and Griesemer, 1989). The understanding of the parties, however, can differ on the precise meaning of the term in question (Brand and Jax 2007). Bridging concepts may connect different levels of policy making by addressing a variety of policy frames and solutions (Bruchnach and Ingram, 2012, Rijke et al. 2013, Van den Brink et al. 2011) and may, thereby, inspire actors to find common problem definitions (Bruchnach and Ingram 2012) and align and balance multiple objectives (Rijke et al. 2013).

Third, the existing system of formal and informal rules should be considered. Ideally, rules do not only aim to guarantee basic rights and equity (Van den Brink et al. 2011) but also define autonomies and the shared responsibilities of different level actors. This will be done by constitutional and/or specific laws. Subsidiarity is a guiding principle in this, according to which flood risk policies will have to be developed at the lowest appropriate level. It is often contested what this means in practice (Dieperink and Driessen 2007). Ideally, rules clearly clarify which actors at which levels have authority and policy freedom for using policy instruments such as standard setting, issuing permits, subsidizing and/or tax raising. Rules may also institutionalize top-down hierarchical command and control interactions, as well as, more horizontal interactions in which formal positions between actors (operating on different levels or not) are more equal. Covenants may be used to initiate or reinforce the results of such partnerships or multi-stakeholder processes (Edelenbos et al. 2009, Dieperink et al. 2012), for instance, by formalizing the status of developed strategic visions (Rijke et al. 2013).

Fourth, and related to the above, attempts to enhance urban flood resilience will only be successful if multi-level governance provides for the required resources. Funds must be allocated to organize meetings and enable participation processes facilitating the connections between different actors and different levels of governance (Dieperink et al. 2012). A facilitating program

6  

office involving different competencies and having adequate management instruments for gathering data and information is needed to develop learning capacities and organize single and double loop learning (Medema et al. 2008). Teams must be established for monitoring and evaluation of policy experiences (Van den Brink et al. 2011) and community building (Fleischhauer et al. 2012, Rijke et al. 2013). Urban flood resilience also necessitates the development of a shared knowledge base concerning systems’ functioning (Van Herk et al. 2011) and the mobilization and connection of different forms of knowledge (Bruchnach and Ingram 2012, Hegger et al. 2012). Apart from these process-related resources, money is of course needed for the actual implementation of measures. Somebody has to pay for the improvements in diking systems and (re)constructions of buildings or sustainable urban drainage systems. The enhancement of urban flood resilience may benefit from an agreement on the funding required and those levels of governance that are responsible for resourcing.

In sum, enhancing urban flood resilience will require the involvement of multiple levels of governance. The interactions between these levels may benefit from the presence of pro-active policy entrepreneurs, bridging concepts and a clear allocation of authorities and responsibilities. The latter also concerns the provision of relevant knowledge and the necessary funding.

METHODS

To further explore which multi-level coordination mechanisms may facilitate the enhancement of urban flood resilience and provide context specific lessons, six in-depth case studies were conducted. Table 1 illustrates that Dordrecht (the Netherlands), Karlstad (Sweden), Wroclaw (Poland), Hull (England), Nice (France) and Geraardsbergen (Belgium) are all flood-prone agglomerations. All cases are susceptible to both fluvial and pluvial flooding. Additionally, both Nice and Hull are also vulnerable to coastal flooding.

The six cases have been studied in the context of the EU FP7-programme funded STAR-FLOOD project. The cases studies are based upon a systematic analysis of policy documents, and on average, 15 interviews with key informants (civil servants, flood risk management professionals, academics, NGOs and/or neighborhood groups) for each case. The resulting case descriptions were discussed in workshops at the national level and several times within the STAR-FLOOD-consortium in order to ensure case comparability.

The focus on flood-prone urban agglomerations was selected because it is at this geographical scale that multi-level complexities of enhancing urban flood resilience are manifested. Within urban agglomerations, a multitude of FRMSs are discussed, planned and implemented, requiring not only the engagement of local authorities, but also regional and national actors. Apart from public authorities at all levels (national, regional and local governments) companies and individuals will also be involved. Tensions and/or dependencies between these levels are expected to arise during these discussion, planning and implementation processes.

7  

Table 1: Flood proneness of the six case study areas

Agglomeration  Flooding  types  (involved 

water bodies) 

Flooding events 

(since 1950) 

Population at  risk   

 

Dordrecht 

(Netherlands) 

Fluvial (Oude Maas, Nieuwe 

and Beneden Merwede, 

Hollands Diep, Wantij, 

Dordtsche Kil), tidal, pluvial 

1953, 2012, 

2013 

1,910 (Veenstra 2014) 

Kingston‐Upon 

Hull (England)  

Fluvial (River Hull), tidal 

(Humber Estuary),  pluvial   

1953, 1969, 

2007, 2013 

44,000 (1% flood) (EA, 2011) 

Geraardsbergen 

(Belgium ) 

Fluvial (Dender) and pluvial  1995, 

1999/2000, 

2002/2003, 2010 

1,300 (10% flood), 5,000 (1% 

flood) and 11,800 (0,1% flood) 

Karlstad 

(Sweden) 

Fluvial (Klarälven, Lake 

Vänern), pluvial 

1916, 1987, 

1995, 2000‐2001

 

17,079 (within highest 

estimated water level) and 

5,710 (1% flood) (Swedish Civil 

Contingencies Agency, 2012) 

Wroclaw 

(Poland) 

Fluvial (Odra), pluvial   1997, 2010  282,300 (1% flood) (Matczak et 

al., 2016) 

Nice 

(France) 

Fluvial (Var), marine 

submersion 

1994, 2002, 

2011, 2012, 

2015 

306,888 (28% of the population 

of the Alpes Maritimes 

Département) 

The institutional contexts, in which these cases are located, differ. Within the Netherlands, England and France, four main administrative levels are discerned, in Belgium five and in Sweden and Poland three. These contexts tend to be rather long-standing, although Poland underwent a rapid and deep transformation of its administrative, economic and political system and policy making competences following the collapse of communism (1989/90). For each case, Table 2 clarifies those governance levels involved in the different FRMSs.

8  

Table 2: Governance levels involved in different FRMSs in 6 urban agglomerations

  Defense  Prevention  Mitigation  Preparation  Recovery 

Dordrecht 

(Netherlands) 

National 

and 

regional 

level 

Local and 

provincial 

level 

Local  and 

Individual level 

Regional level  National level 

Kingston‐Upon 

–Hull (England)  

National 

and local 

level  

National and 

local level 

National, local 

and individual 

level  

Local and 

regional level  

Individual level 

(Inter)national 

insurance 

market  

Geraardsbergen 

(Belgium ) 

National 

and 

provincial 

Local and 

national 

National, 

provincial and 

local 

Local, provincial 

and federal 

Federal level 

Karlstad 

(Sweden) 

Local, 

regional 

and 

national 

level 

Local, 

regional and 

national 

level 

Local, regional 

and national 

level 

Local national, 

and regional 

level 

National and 

local level 

Wroclaw 

(Poland) 

Regional 

level 

Local level  Provincial, local 

and individual 

level 

Local, provincial 

and national 

level 

National and 

local level 

Nice 

(France) 

Provincial 

level  

Local and 

national 

level 

Provincial 

(Departmental) 

and 

agglomeration 

level  

Local, provincial 

(Departmental) 

and   national 

level 

National level 

MULTI-LEVEL FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE IN SIX CASES

The discussion of the multi-level aspects of flood risk governance begins with a description of the selected cases. For each case study area the types of flood risk and the FRMSs used are clarified, followed by a characterization of the roles of the different levels of governance involved. A later section subsequently reflects on those mechanisms which are present to coordinate activities at different levels.

9  

Dordrecht, The Netherlands Most of the Island of Dordrecht (119.000 inhabitants) is protected by dikes (Hegger et al. 2012). However, the historical port, parts of the historical center and more recently developed housing and business areas all are located outside of the dike-protected area. If flooding occurs it will be deep and fast with an expected number of victims of 1,910 (Veenstra 2014) and material damage of 7 billion Euros (Hegger et al. 2014).

Since the probability and impact of flooding in Dordrecht is expected to increase, the local authority of Dordrecht initiated a debate on enhancing FRM by diversifying FRMSs (Kaufmann et al. 2016). Together with the Regional Water Authority they elaborated on the idea to become a more self-reliant island. Cooperation was sought with Sheffield and Rotherham (England), Hannover (Germany), Bergen (Norway) and Seattle (US) through the EU funded MARE project (MARE, 2016). Meanwhile, the national government has started the elaboration of the Dutch Delta program which, amongst other things, explored the feasibility of a Multi-layered Safety (MLS) approach, which requires the consideration of different measures in FRM: (1) probability reducing measures (e.g. dikes); (2) sustainable spatial planning; and (3) emergency management. Water authorities were critical about the MLS approach and questioned: whether measures in one layer could replace those in another; what this approach would mean for existing protection levels of the dike system; and who would consequently be responsible for FRM. Since a Societal Cost Benefit analysis made clear that Dordrecht’s protection level was twice as low as economically optimal (Kelder et al. 2013:20), the State Secretary transferred the MARE project into a pilot study for the elaboration of the MLS approach. The pilot study, carried out by a consortium comprising the local authority, a consultancy firm and Delft University of Technology, proposed a diversified set of FRMSs. First, tailor-made reinforcements of primary flood defenses (dikes) are foreseen. Second, restoring and strengthening old dikes will compartmentalize the island, which may reduce economic damage by a factor of five to ten and reduce to zero the expected number of victims. Third, it is suggested to use movable flood defense barriers to protect the entrances of existing houses while the floor levels of new houses will be raised. Furthermore, the construction of floating houses is also another option that is considered. Fourth, it is argued that pro-active spatial planning should reduce urbanization in the south of the Island, while compartmentalization will create a safe area in the north-eastern part of the Island, providing citizens a place to evacuate to. Apart from redesigning existing buildings such as schools and hotels, additional new smart shelters will be constructed and vital infrastructure in zones outside the main dike ring will be raised or protected. It is expected that 75% of the residents in the western and southernmost compartments of the island can be evacuated within the island in case of a flood (Kauffmann et al. 2015).

Despite its pro-activeness, the local authority of Dordrecht was dependent on other governance levels for the realization of its ambitions. The local authority only has a formal mandate for rain and sewerage water collection. The improvement of secondary dikes has to be financed by the

10  

Regional Water Authority. The national level is not only involved in flood forecasting and visioning, but also in the planning, financing and implementation of the Flood Protection Program for primary flood defenses. The national level is also responsible for managing the Maeslantkering, a storm surge barrier, which also protects Dordrecht. At the regional level the province can influence land use in un-embanked areas by its spatial plan, its provincial building by-law and the provincial water plan. The latter addresses water logging, safety and crisis management. The regional Safety authority (Safety Region in Dutch) is responsible for implementing crisis management. It has established a warning system and clarified its responsibilities and those of the regional and national water authorities. In crisis situations a Regional Operational Team will take the operational lead.

The Dordrecht case highlights that enhancing urban flood resilience asks for multi-level involvement. This is due to the institutionalization of relevant responsibilities at different levels of policy making in the Netherlands. The local authority acted as a key policy entrepreneur using the MLS approach as a bridging concept between its own policy ambitions and the ongoing activities of the higher echelons. The division of responsibilities is consistent with other locations in the Netherlands and as these are well recognised and taken for granted; no problems have resulted from this implementation. However, when compared to other Dutch agglomerations, local government in Dordrecht is more involved. The lack of possibilities for dike reinforcement in the city centre necessitates this. The different levels involved in Dordrecht share their knowledge through policy documents and reports. Strategy specific working groups have been established where all levels participate.

Kingston-Upon-Hull and surrounding areas, England

Kingston-upon-Hull (over 250 000 inhabitants) is situated on the East Coast of Northern England on the confluence of the River Hull and the Humber Estuary. The city is naturally susceptible to fluvial, tidal and pluvial flooding. Estimates suggest that as many as 44,000 properties are at risk from the 1% flood (EA 2011). This case study is indicative of the situation in England, where all FRMSs have been present for many years and in which overarching policy is often established at the national level, but delivered at the local level. Additionally, partnership working, a strong discourse in England, is also apparent in Hull in the development of programs of measures, including Flood Alleviation Schemes (FAS).

Defense and land drainage are the dominant FRMSs in this case and investment continues to maintain and strengthen fluvial and coastal defenses within the city. However, the significant threat posed by pluvial flooding was highlighted by the summer floods in 2007. This led to a re-emphasis of the need to employ a diverse approach to managing flood risk, recognizing the natural context of this case’s flood risk and ensuring coordination between upstream and downstream authorities. To mitigate pluvial flood risks several Flood Alleviation Schemes (FAS) are currently at different stages of design, consultation and construction and involve different actors and interventions at multiple governance levels (European, national, local and individual).

11  

The most advanced scheme, the Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme (WaDFAS) is based upon the principle of upstream flood storage to reduce the risk of downstream flooding to over 8000 properties (Defra 2014). Due to a lack of space in Hull the development of the scheme was initiated jointly by the neighboring local municipalities (Hull City Council (HCC) and upstream East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC)) in their capacity as Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). Public participation activities to include local citizens (such as parish meetings, public exhibitions and a ‘flood bus’) were utilized to facilitate public dialogue and to demonstrate the benefits to both communities. Additionally, expropriation by a national legal instrument (a Compulsory Purchase Order) was utilized for the first time in a flood context in England. This instrument was used as it was considered the best mechanism for gaining the necessary control of the large-scale flood storage area, although an agreement was reached with the land owner to lease back the land to retain its agricultural use.

The importance of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) is also acknowledged in Hull City Council’s Surface water management and Flood mitigation investment plans (HCC 2009; HCC 2014). Although retrofitting and property-level measures are not fully supported, there are efforts to mitigate risk exposure by enforcing designated floor heights according to a property’s location and accounting for Flood Risk Standing Advice (FRSA) provided by the Environment Agency who operate at the regional level (HCC 2007). In addition, HCC is exploring options for small-scale flood storage areas at recreational sites (such as parks and football fields). In order to improve flood risk preparation, the Environment Agency implemented a new flood warning service for Hull East, West and City Centre, utilizing new modelling data to enhance the accuracy of flood forecasting and communicating warnings via text, email, phone or fax.

Despite a growing role for the local level, the implementation of the WaDFAS still draws on multi-levels of governance. Apart from a locally generated levy and other public monies generated at the local level, funding for the WaDFAS has come from the European Regional Development Fund and National FRM Grant-In-Aid funding. Other FRM schemes have also benefitted from more regionally-generated financing, through the Humber Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). In general, the goals of economic development (this area has a high degree of economic deprivation) and flood mitigation have been tackled together. A major challenge in securing funding for the scheme relates to the methodology of the CBA upon which prioritization and funding is based. Despite being at risk from multiple sources of flooding, a property can only be counted once and is required to be assigned to a single flood alleviation project. To tackle this, the River Hull Integrated Catchment Strategy (River Hull Advisory Board 2014) was produced to test multiple solutions and, when implemented, to maximize benefit-cost ratios. This strategy is perceived as an important step-forward in terms of facilitating joint-prioritization of investments and a sequenced approach to defense and mitigation works (Alexander et al. 2016).

The Hull case is a clear example of multi-level flood risk governance. All levels of governance are involved. The case also shows that two Lead Local Flood Authorities acted as policy

12  

entrepreneurs. Joint strategic plans were developed to bridge the ideas of actors operating at different levels of governance. The division of tasks and responsibilities did not hinder further progress in planning and knowledge as this, as well as funding, was provided by all levels involved.

Geraardsbergen, Belgium Geraardsbergen (32,800 inhabitants) is located at the River Dender a 69 km-long tributary of the River Scheldt. The city is protected by dike and sluice infrastructure. Following past flood events (in 1995, 1999/2000, 2002/03), small-scale flood defence measures have been implemented first (CIW 2009), but these could not completely prevent two sub-municipalities (Overboelare and Zandbergen) from being flooded. Hence, it is generally acknowledged that the Dender basin is in need of an integrated and diversified approach, which not only relies on flood protection but also on prevention and preparation measures (Mees et al. 2016). Adopting a diverse approach requires cooperation between actors at four different government levels.

The Flemish government is responsible for the management of the Dender and its main tributaries (Mees et al. 2016). Until recently, the City of Geraardsbergen authority was responsible for smaller “category 3” watercourses, but in 2014 it has transferred this competence to the province. Spatial planning has many governance levels. The City of Geraardsbergen has a key position as it grants building permits. The provincial and regional water managers do, however, offer guidance and expertise through water assessment advice and development of flood cartography. Moreover, the Flemish government defines the legislative framework on spatial planning. The city is also the main actor in emergency planning. In this task it is supported by the province and the federal level through legislative prescriptions, guidance, training and financial and material resources. In terms of funding, the management of watercourses is financed by the provincial and regional level, crisis management is the financial responsibility of the city, but with support from the federal level. Flood recovery is funded through a private insurance system and non-insurable damage can, in particular cases, be re-funded by the Flemish disaster fund. Until 2014, the latter used to be a federal fund, but is now regionally provided.

Since the beginning of the 2000s, a discourse has been prevalent among actors within the Flemish and provincial government that ‘water needs space’ and thus increasing importance is given to the field of spatial planning (Mees et al. 2016). The 2003 Decree on Integrated Water Policy initiated the water assessment, according to which local authorities have to consult with provincial and national water managers before they can grant building permits. Before the 2010 flood the application of the water assessment in Geraardsbergen was rather loosely implemented since the advice given by the flood risk managers was not binding.

13  

The 2010 flood turned out to be a trigger event for enhanced multi-level cooperation. The water assessment is still not binding, but it is very rarely deviated from. The flood also demonstrated deficiencies in the communication between local emergency planners and the water management sector. Today, contact details are shared between the different domains and levels in a collectively developed manual. In general, the communication and cooperation between the involved governmental levels involved has improved through regular meetings and personal contacts (Mees et al. 2016). The local authority has appointed a coordinator on integrated water policy to organize activities between actors within- and outside the municipal administration. Apart from this, the provincial governor united all relevant actors within the Dender sub-basin board in a series of inter-governmental meetings. The Flemish government is currently drafting ‘water action plans’ at the local scale based on prevention, protection and preparation (CIW 2015). In a first phase, a cost-benefit analysis has been conducted to define the most appropriate measures. In a next phase, it will be negotiated with local governmental actors exactly which FRM measures will be implemented and by whom.

Enhancing urban flood resilience in Geraardsbergen calls for a diversified approach which requires intense multi-level cooperation. Both rules-based (water assessment, water action plans) and agency-based (coordinator integrated water policy, provincial governor) coordination mechanisms are used to improve communication and coordination between all the different actors and levels involved.

Karlstad, Sweden

Karlstad (89,000 inhabitants) is located in the southwest of Sweden and is vulnerable to both fluvial and pluvial flooding. A 1% flood is estimated to imply costs of about 10.5 billion SEK (1.1 billion Euros) and flood the homes of about 25,000.

In contrast to the national level in Sweden, where FRM is almost non-existent, flood risk governance is put high on the political agenda in Karlstad. The priority of FRM is manifested through a local Flood Management Program which was developed after the 2000/2001 floods and also inspired by a national investigation of major climate change induced risks and vulnerabilities (Official Reports of the Swedish Government 2007:60). The program constitutes a comprehensive approach to flood risk management, pointing at the necessity to develop a portfolio of different FRMSs.

So far, mainly temporary defenses have been used in Karlstad but the flood management program proposes a number of permanent defense structures to be developed (Flood management program 2010:21). The strive for diversification is visible also in the Karlstad Water and Sewerage Plan, which expresses a need to develop sustainable storm water management and increased reliance on solutions that try to mimic nature´s way of handling storm water (Ek et al. 2016). Flood prevention and mitigation are primarily handled within the

14  

local authority while the Emergency Services is organized in cooperation with four other municipalities.

The national level provides limited funding for implementing measures to reduce flood risk that the municipalities may apply for, but the local level carries the main responsibility for planning, financing and implementing the Flood Management Program. The local level has the authority to levy taxes. A municipal flood risk manager is responsible for coordinating the work related to the implementation of the program, and oversees the financial resources earmarked for flood risk related investments (Karlstad local authority 2012a:27). The flood risk manager is also responsible for contributing to knowledge building (Karlstad local authority 2010:18).

Although FRM in Sweden is mainly a matter for the municipalities, higher governance levels do play a role. In addition to the limited funding, the national level sets rules and guidelines and provides support and knowledge, e.g. through building regulations and guidelines on how mitigation measures can be implemented (Board of Housing, Building and Planning 2010b). The building regulations constitute a bridging mechanism between the local level where the prevention and mitigation strategies are implemented and the national rule setting level. The regional level is represented by the County Administrative Board of Värmland, which is actually a regionally-located national agency that ensures that that national rules and guidelines are implemented and provides support and recommendations to the local level (County Administrative Boards of Västra Götaland and Värmland 2011). Municipalities willing to allow developments in flood prone areas need to clarify in a detailed plan which measures must be taken to secure a building (National Board on Housing, Building and Planning 2010a:30) and the County Administrative Board must approve these municipal plans before development can commence. Although the County Administrative Board holds the right to revoke the plans (Planning and Building Act, Ch. 10, p.10), this is rarely done, which may be due to the involvement of the authority at earlier stages of the planning process.

Despite all levels of governance being involved (mainly related to local spatial planning processes); flood risk governance in Karlstad is mainly an issue for the local, municipal government. The local level is leading in flood risk management and operates rather autonomously from the higher levels of policy making. The national level sets rules and guidelines and supports the local level financially and by contributing to knowledge development. The allocation of authorities and responsibilities to the local level is clearly defined in Swedish legislation.

Wroclaw, Poland

The city of Wrocław with 631,377 inhabitants is one of Poland’s largest cities. It lies in flood prone area of the Odra basin and may suffer from discharges from the Odra and its tributaries the Oława, Ślęza, Bystrzyca and Widawa. The length of all rivers within the city borders is ca. 100

15  

km with possible losses from a 1% flood expected to be over € 700 million. Following the 1903 flood, significant defense structures were constructed, and for a period of 50 years new development was prohibited on the most endangered areas, however this was later relaxed. An unusually high level of precipitation (Kundzewicz 2007; Dubicki et al. 1999) and a lack of adequate protection structures and capacities made Wrocław the biggest victim of the 1997 Millennium flood. In 2010 another serious flood hit the city although in this later flood, losses were smaller in Wroclaw, as the city was better prepared.

The traumatic event of 1997 not only brought devastating losses but also provoked spontaneous citizens’ involvement during the crisis and in recovery actions. The mayor played a key role in creating a sense of community in the city (Kubicki 2010, Sitek 1997). After the flood, Wrocław became a center for discussions on flood management, including environmental advocates, such as WWF, and other NGOs. Community awareness-raising activities were established and a local flood leaders’ system was established. Intervention and evacuation plans and crisis communication were reconsidered and small scale investments were made in sand bags and pumps.

The 1997 flood had impacts beyond the local level of policy making. It accelerated the creation of a new Water Act (finalized in 2001) and initiated substantial reconstructions of the preparation strategy (finalized with an Act on Crisis Management in 2007). A new system of emergency management was established, with a significant role for the local authorities, to cooperate with the main operational force, the fire brigades. Flood forecasting and warning systems were also improved.

The World Bank sponsored the Program for the Odra River, started after the flood of 1997, which offered a window of opportunity for local flood management actors to improve their cooperation and bargaining skills and obtain experience in raising external funds. This large collaborative investment program facilitated infrastructure investments, which not only improved the defense system of the Wrocław Water Junction, but it also strengthened the position of the flood defense system on the regional policy agenda. Apart from aiming to coordinate investments in flood defense measures, inland waterways and afforestation initiatives, it also addressed spatial planning and insurance incentives. However, despite this initially diversified approach, the Program eventually evolved into a hard-defense and infrastructure-oriented action plan. Besides the modernization of the Wroclaw Water Junction, upstream retention reservoirs were also included (such as in Raciborz). The domination of defense persisted in this case and the 2010 flood resulted in the construction of an additional dike.

The inconsistency between the structural dominance of the Program for the Odra with the more environmentally-oriented EU Water Framework Directive, (that Poland was required to implemented following EU accession in 2004) led to the Program’s discontinuation by the end of 2014. The Polish accession to the EU not only made additional funds available, but also increased transparency in water and flood risk management and the importance of environmental

16  

concerns. Besides the EU, the International Commission for the Protection of the Odra River also has external influence. This Commission was established after the Millennium flood (which also affected other countries) and offers a platform for the discussion of transboundary aspects of flooding with fellow German and Czech stakeholders.

Following the decentralization and administrative reform of 1999 the maintenance of levees became the responsibility of the regional governments. However, due to a lack of competences, regional planners have difficulty resisting municipalities’ ambitions to develop in flood prone areas. At the same time, local level advocacy work of some environmental NGOs resulted in the demolition of some levees in the Odra basin, the first case of its kind in Poland.

Enhancing urban flood resilience in Wroclaw is indeed illustrative of multi-level governance. The Program for the Odra River was an investment vehicle. It was organized around the leading concept of integrated, river basin based water management with the intention to cover flood risk management, water quality, spatial planning and other social aims (Pelnomocnik, 2011). The concept involved different levels of governance. It was supervised by the governmental level, but the local authorities of Wroclaw act as key policy entrepreneurs.

The allocation of authority and responsibilities over the different levels seems to be clear. The regional governments are responsible for levees and infrastructure while the water administration is charged with the water management at the basin level. However, there are some ambiguities concerning the responsibilities for smaller watercourses. The Institute for Meteorology and Water Management is the main provider of data and expertise, although this state institute is underfinanced and also needs to focus on offering commercial services. Most financial resources are provided by the central government, however the municipality, county and regional levels also contribute financially. The instability of financing and competition for funds poses a serious challenge for flood risk management in the Wroclaw case (and similarly for other cities in Poland).

Nice, France

The risk of flooding in Nice (343,304 inhabitants), located in the Region Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur in the South-East of France, mainly comes from the River Var, although concerns about marine submersion are rising. The River Var has the typical characteristics of Mediterranean rivers, which are subject to sudden, violent torrential flooding. The flood risk of the area is enhanced by the existence of upstream infrastructure works that accelerate the flow of the river. Similar to other Mediterranean cities, Nice has a high urban density and an economy highly dependent on tourism as well as on housing, business and important transport systems. In the recent past flooding has caused high damages and even casualties (Larue et al. 2016: 130).

17  

Urban flood risk management in Nice is worked out by different actors at different levels of government. Although national legislation on prevention has existed since the 1990s, the Flood Risk Prevention Plan on the River Var was only finally approved by the prefect (the local representative of the State) in 2013. The Departmental level is responsible for the maintenance of defence infrastructure and, together with the municipal level, is also in charge of preparation actions and the funding of the fire-brigade. The local and inter-municipal level thus plays a central role in prevention and mitigation at the basin level. Water management and development plans (SAGE) are developed in order to coordinate departmental/inter-municipal activities in the field of flood risk.

The main financing tool for FRM at the level of the river basin, the Action Program for Flood Prevention (PAPI) for the Var River, has to integrate all FRMSs (apart from recovery) and is the main instrument for the coordination between state, departmental and local levels. Inclusion in a PAPI is a requirement for FRMSs to be funded. Their cohesiveness, however, is questioned as in practice they turn out to be a collection of measures (to be financed) instead of a cohesive and integrated multi-strategic flood risk management program. In reaction to this fragmentation, a group headed by the Conseil Départmental of Alpes Maritimes (provincial level) has initiated an informal dialogue about a Local Strategy. This strategy must coordinate actions and actors within the territory of Alpes Maritimes.

In 2009 an Operation of National Interest Var Plain was launched by the National Government together with the inter-municipal authorities. This so called Eco-Valley project shows that enhancing urban flood resilience might conflict with urban development ambitions. It aims to construct a future city, consisting of a business center, a multimodal transport hub, a high-tech manufacturing and food and horticultural production center and an eco-residential quarter in the western part of Nice. An assessment procedure (Hydraulic Consistency and Global Development Scheme) has been set up to certify that the system of defense is suitable for new development in the area. Despite this, local associations criticize the project for both negligence of flood risks and a lack of transparency.

The leading authority (Etablissement Public d’Aménagement) gathers representatives of national, regional, departmental and metropolitan levels, and is also responsible for balancing the national flood policy requirements as laid down in the Action Programmes for Flood Prevention (PAPI) and the development ambitions of the project. Moreover, the central role played by the metropolitan level (as the head of the EPA Executive Board) provides a coordination mechanism for flood risk management. This is because of the proximity of policy sectors within the city administration (urban planning, the Mayors’ police power, the management of protection infrastructures and mitigation initiatives). However, the Eco-Valley master plan aims to develop the Var Plain and flood risk management is not a priority of this plan, but a subsidiary action, coming secondary to development objectives. The Nice case clearly shows the involvement of multiple levels of governance. Flood risk management tends to be centralized with a key role for the national level. Policy entrepreneurs are present, but flood risk management may not be their

18  

primary concern. Authorities and responsibilities seem to be shared. The Eco-Valley project may indeed be considered a bridging mechanism and even a boundary concept. The prefix “Eco” evokes the dual nature (or ambiguity) of this master plan as it can either mean “economic” or “ecological” and gathers together actors of all levels and natures (e.g. public, private and potentially from the civil society). Enhancing urban flood resilience by the implementation of mitigation measures is not a stand-alone approach, but mainstreamed with urban renewal initiatives.

DISCUSSION

In this section, discussion will turn to whether different ways of enhancing urban resilience require different coordination mechanisms and assess the importance of institutional, economic and geographical contexts. Table 3 summarizes the findings of the prevalence and characteristics of the multi-level coordination mechanisms facilitating the enhancement of urban flood resilience in the six cases. It illustrates that in all cases pro-active policy entrepreneurs, bridging concepts and the clear allocation of authorities and responsibilities are present. In all cases different levels provide relevant knowledge and the necessary funding for FRM.

Table 3: Enhancing urban flood resilience: The presence of multi-level coordination mechanisms in six cases

Urban 

agglomerations 

 

Policy 

entrepreneurs 

Bridging 

concepts  

Division  of 

authorities    and 

responsibilities 

 

Resource providers 

Dordrecht 

(Netherlands) 

Local authority and 

national level 

Mare project 

Multilayered 

safety concept  

Delta program 

Clear  

 

Local, regional, 

national and EU level  

Kingston‐Upon  –

Hull (England)  

Local authorities (in 

conjunction with 

the Environment 

Agency actors) 

Joint strategic 

plans 

 

Clear  Local, regional, 

national and EU level 

Geraardsbergen 

(Belgium ) 

Local coordinator 

integrated water 

policy 

Providing space 

for water 

discourse 

Appeared 

unclear in 2010, 

since then 

Local, provincial, 

national and federal 

level  

19  

Provincial governor   Water actions 

plans  

Water 

Assessment 

 

improved 

 

Karlstad 

(Sweden) 

Local authority and 

local flood manager 

/coordinator 

Municipal flood 

strategy/plan 

Building 

regulations 

  

Clear 

 

Local and national 

level  

Wroclaw 

(Poland) 

Local authorities, 

NGOs, water 

managers, crisis 

managers 

The Program for 

Odra 

Clear  

 

National level, EU 

level, county level, 

municipal level.  

Nice 

(France) 

Metropolitan 

Council 

 

Eco‐valley 

project  

 

 

Clear  

 

Municipal, 

departmental, basin, 

regional, national 

and EU levels 

Table 3 highlights that different actors can play the role of policy entrepreneurs. They promote initiatives, bring actors together and collect finances/resources. Most policy entrepreneurs tend to be public actors, but in Wroclaw an NGO operated as a policy entrepreneur. This organization secured support at different levels for its ambition to introduce environmental concerns into the flood risk management debate.

In all cases bridging concepts are used, but their geographical scales and the degrees of freedom they offer to involved actors differ. The Multi-Layered Safety and “Space for Water” approaches are non-geographically bounded visions while catchment plans for the Var or Odra or project development plans have a more area-specific focus. In Hull, joint strategic planning bridges upstream communities and the urban area, but this is not the case in Wroclaw. In Karlstad, the Flood Management Program adopts a comprehensive approach to flood risk and itself constitutes a linkage between actors from different sectors and levels. Contrary to the Var plain, in which all FRMSs are addressed, the Odra plan shows a dominance of the flood defense strategy

20  

(Pelnomocnik, 2011). The latter has been developed by trained engineers and construction companies and due to a lack of expertise, non-structural FRMSs have little potential in Wroclaw.

In general, the division of authorities over different levels seems to be clear in our cases. In Sweden, the municipalities carry the main responsibility for initiating and implementing flood risk measures and instruments, within a nationally decided legal framework. Flood recovery (including insurances and national compensation schemes) is, however, mainly a national concern. Authorities are shared over different levels in the other cases. In Nice, the division of the authorities is the most complicated. Since the Var Plain project is an Operation of National Interest, the involvement of the national government is rather high. Following decentralization, levees in Poland are now managed by the regional authorities, whilst water management is organized within basin borders. This has created complexities that require a re-institutionalization of authorities. In Geraardsbergen, the 2010 flood demonstrated that a lack of clarity existed concerning the responsibilities of different water and crisis managers. However, several initiatives have improved knowledge of the distribution of responsibilities of the various actors involved. Actors at different levels provide urban areas with the required resources for enhancing flood resilience. Flood risk governance is funded by different sources from different levels. In Karlstad, the municipality has the main responsibility for funding flood risk management measures, and it also has the authority to collect taxes. Karlstad, as all other municipalities in Sweden, can apply for limited financial support from a national fund. In all cases, scientific research in flood forecasting and innovative technologies, as well as the actual weather and flood forecasting, is provided at the national level. Apart from this, local research units tend to work more closely with local administrations. The Dordrecht case shows that the local authority can act as a knowledge provider for higher levels of governance since the MLS-project is explicitly established as a learning project. It was difficult to full answer the question of whether different approaches to enhancing resilience result in different multi-level governance challenges and coordination mechanisms. In all the cases studied mixes of FRMSs are chosen. The difference between cases is also limited, which does not allow for very detailed conclusions. All cases have clarified that the coordination mechanism that were discerned are present. Furthermore, in all cases, coordination between levels will be achieved by the activities of policy entrepreneurs and the development of bridging concepts, the interactions between the levels benefit from clarity in the division of authorities and responsibilities, and finally, resources are provided by different levels.

The multi-level coordination mechanisms identified tend to be universally applicable. However, context does matter. The institutional context and the degree of (de)centralization of authorities and responsibilities within a country are important as it determines the number of levels involved. Processes to enhance urban flood resilience take place within an existing multi-level

21  

institutional setting. This setting to a large degree defines those actors who will be involved, although it may be rather straightforward (Sweden) or more complicated (France). Complexities, however, do not necessarily hamper attempts to achieve greater urban flood resilience. In Hull, although responsibilities are clear, close dialogue and true partnership working, both horizontally and vertically, were required to involve two neighboring Lead Local Flood Authorities (Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council) in implementing appropriate flood risk management strategies. The Polish case shows that the economic context also matters. FRMSs in the Wroclaw agglomeration could be more strongly implemented when the EU funding was able to compensate for a lack of budget at the different policy levels in Poland. EU funding also played a role in the other cases. In Dordrecht, additional EU-funding was found by framing the MLS-project as part of a wider EU-program. Geographical context matters in a different way by defining which measures are feasible in an area. The cases highlighted that flood defense measures are difficult to implement in highly populated and congested urban areas. In such situations, alternative strategies tend to be necessary, each of which brings an additional network of involved actors.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that enhancing urban flood resilience is indeed a multi-level governance challenge. The cases revealed that the local governance level relies on other levels of governance where necessary measures extend beyond municipal competences. This may be, for instance, for the provision of resources such as financing and knowledge, as well as for formal permissions to act. Higher levels are dependent on lower levels to implement tailor-made solutions and portfolios of measures (from all FRMSs), to learn from experiences and to upscale good urban practices to higher levels of policy making. The development of a more diversified set of FRMSs will not necessarily result in higher multi-level governance complexity, as long as the roles and responsibilities of each level are clear. Dialogues on enhancing urban flood resilience will be facilitated by clarity on the allocation of responsibilities among the public, as well as other actors involved, and the possibility to formalize visions and plans as well as the presence of a shared and authoritative knowledge base. Apart from clear responsibility allocation, bridging concepts (visions, water assessment, plans and programs) are needed to connect different levels of policymaking. Policy entrepreneurs must embrace these bridging concepts in order to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking by flood risk managers, spatial planners and other stakeholders, whilst they must also enable the integration of feasible options into concrete policy plans. These policy plans must be mutually compatible, both in a vertical as well as in a horizontal way, which asks for uploading and downloading initiatives.

Our explorative case comparison was challenging and inspiring and as a result several topics for future research have emerged. More in-depth research about the role of policy entrepreneurs might provide, for instance, insight of the strategies they use to define common interests and/or

22  

mutually supplementary roles between the different policy levels. An increased focus on bridging concepts may clarify in what respects they may differ and what conditions may be needed, at different levels of policy making, to ensure their effectiveness. For instance, is having a formal legal status necessary for a plan to play a bridging role? Furthermore, in-depth studies on the division of authorities and responsibilities between governance levels might reveal if, and what kind of overlap, in responsibilities is necessary between the different levels. Apart from this, a reflection on knowledge infrastructures may contribute to our understanding of learning processes that may take place in multi-level flood risk governance.

This paper focused on the urban level. An alternative starting point would be to consider the highest level of governance in Europe and study the involvement of different levels of governance in the implementation of the Floods Directive in different European areas. This could reveal additional insights into the roles of different levels of governance in enhancing urban flood resilience.

To conclude, enhancing urban flood resilience requires appropriate, context specific, institutional frameworks comprising a mixture of central, regional local, river-basin-specific private organizations. These frameworks need to be open to feedback and, as such, responsive to the needs of society whilst providing accountability, and proactive policy review cycles that consists of monitoring, facilitation and justification. Importantly, this study concurs that: “There is no one-size-fits-all answer, magic blueprint or panacea to respond to governance challenges in the water sector” (OECD 2011: 1).

References

Alexander, M., S. Priest, A.P. Micou, S. Tapsell, C. Green, D. Parker, and S. Homewood. 2016. Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England – Enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance. STAR-FLOOD report England WP3. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University. Arts, B., P. Leroy and J. van Tatenhove. 2006 Political modernisation and policy arrangements: A framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review 6: 93-106. Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society 12(1):23. Brown, R. R., and J. M. Clarke. 2007. Transition to water sensitive urban design, the story of Melbourne, Australia, Report No. 07/1, Facility for advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Bruchnach M., and H. Ingram.2012. Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environmental Science and Policy 15:60-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005 Bulkeley, H. 2010. Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35:229-253.

23  

CIW (2009). Het bekkenbeheerplan van het Denderbekken 2008-2013. Integraal waterbeleid in de praktij. VMML Erembodegem. CIW. 2015. Aanpak wateroverlastproblematiek. Transitie naar meerlaagse waterveiligheid (MLWV). Rapportering svz (2015). Consulted on 17-07-2015 at http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/publicaties/aanpak-wateroverlastproblematiek-rapportering-2015. Dewulf, A., S. Meijerink, and H. Runhaar. 2015. Editorial: The governance of adaptation to climate change as a multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor challenge: A European comparative perspective. Journal of Water and Climate Change 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2014.000 Dieperink, C. and P. P. J. Driessen. 2007. Multilayered policy making, Vertical division of tasks and organization in environmental policy. In: P. P. J. Driessen and P. Leroy (Eds.). Environmental Policy, Analysis and Perspective (in Dutch) Bussum. Coutinho: 239-264. Dieperink, C., D.L.T, Hegger, M.H.N. Bakker, Z. W. Kundzewicz, C. Green, P.P.J. Driessen. submitted Recurrent governance challenges in the implementation and alignment of flood risk management strategies: a review, submitted for publication to Water Resources Management Dieperink C, R. Boesten, J. Hovens, and H. Tonkes. 2012. Sustainable Coastal Development and Open Planning? Transferring the integrated area approach to Bulgaria. Sustainable Development 20(1):58-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.464 Dubicki A., Słota H. and Zieliński J., 1999. The Odra river basin - monograph of the 1997 flood (In Polish). IMGW, Warsaw. Edelenbos J, P. J. Klok, and J. Van Tatenhove. 2009. The institutional embedding of interactive policy making – insights from a comparative research based on eight interactive projects in The Netherlands. American Review of Public Administration 39(2):125-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074008317157 Ek, K, S. Goytia, M. Pettersson, and E. Spegel. 2016. Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in Sweden - Adaptation to Climate Change? STAR-FLOOD Consortium, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Fleischhauer M, S. Greiving, F. Flex, M. Scheibel, T. Stickler, N. Sereinig , G. Koboltschnig, P. Malvati, V. Vitale, P. Grifoni, K. Firus. 2012. Improving the active involvement of stakeholders and the public in flood risk management – tools of an involvement strategy and case study results from Austria, Germany and Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences 42:2785-2798. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2785-2012 Garrelts H, and H. Lange. 2011. Path dependencies and path change in complex fields of action: climate adaptation policies in Germany in the realm of flood risk management, AMBIO 40:200-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0131-3 Green, C. H., and E. C. Penning-Rowsell. 2010. Stakeholder engagement in flood risk management. In G. Pender and H. Faulkner (Eds.), Flood risk science and management, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Greiving S, and M. Angignard. 2013. Disaster Mitigation by Spatial Planning. In T. Van Asch, J.

24  

Corominas, S. Greiving, J. P. Malet, S. Sterlacchini (Eds). Mountain Risks: From Prediction to Management and Governance. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research Volume 34. Springer: 287-302. Hanssen, G.S., P.K. Mydske and E. Dahle. 2013. Multi-level coordination of climate change adaptation: by national hierarchical steering or by regional network governance? Local Environment, 18:8, 869-887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.738657 Hartmann T. 2009. Clumsy floodplains and the law: towards a responsive land policy for extreme floods. Built environment: floods and cities. Marcham Oxon, Alexandrine Press, pp. 531-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.35.4.531 Hegger DLT, P. P. J. Driessen, C. Dieperink, M. Wiering, G. T. Raadgever, and H. F. M. W. Van Rijswick. 2014. Assessing stability and dynamics in flood risk governance: an empirically illustrated research approach. Water Resources Management 28:4127-4142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0732-x Huitema, D. and S. Meijerink. (Eds.). 2009. Water policy entrepreneurs. A research companion to water transitions around the globe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Immink I. 2005. Established and recent policy arrangements for river management in The Netherlands: an analysis of discourses. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, P. Opdam, (Eds). From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application. Berlin, Springer: 387-404. IPCC. 2011. Summary for Policymakers of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Kaufmann, M., W.J. Van Doorn-Hoekveld, H. K. Gilissen, H.F.M.W. Van Rijswick. 2016. Drowning in safety. Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in the Netherlands. STAR-FLOOD report The Netherlands WP3, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Kelder, E., Gersonius, B. & Hulsebosch, M., 2013. Deltaprogramma Rijnmond-Drechtsteden. Concept Gebiedsrapportage Eiland van Dordrecht http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/hydrotheek/2041240 Kubicki, P. 2010. The Identity of Wrocław. How Wrocław’s citizens construct their city, In: Łazuga, W.,Paczos, S. (eds.), Poznań, Szczecin, Wrocław: three universities, three cities, three regions. (in Polish), Kraków . Libron, 2010: 203-212. Kundzewicz Z.W. 2007. Summer 1997 Flood in Poland in Perspective. In Vasilev O, P. van Gelder, E. Plate and M.Bolgov (Eds), Extreme Hydrological Events: New Concepts for Security. Springer. pp. 98, ISBN 978-1-4020-5740-3. Larrue, C., S. Bruzzone, L. Lévy, M. Gralepois, M., T. Schellenberger, J. B. Trémorin, M. Fournier, C. Manson, T. Thuilier. 2016. Analysing and evaluating Flood Risk Governance in France: from State Policy to Local Strategies. STAR-FLOOD report France WP3, University Tours, France. MARE. 2016. Managing Adaptive Responses, The Interreg IVb North Sea Region Programme. Consulted at 1-9-2016. http://www.mare-portal.eu/

25  

Matczak P., Lewandowski J., Choryński A., Szwed M., Kundzewicz Z.W. 2016. Flood risk governance in Poland: Looking for strategic planning in a country in transition. STAR-FLOOD report Poland WP3, Poznan. Medema W, B. S. McIntosh BS, and P. J. Jeffrey. 2008. From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society 13(2):29. Mees, H., C. Suykens, J.C. Beyers, A. Crabbé, B. Delvaux, K. Deketelaere. 2016. Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in Belgium. Dealing with flood risks in an urbanised and institutionally complex country. STAR-FLOOD report Belgium WP3. University Antwerp and KU Leuven, Belgium. Mitchell, J.K. 2003. European river floods in a changing world. Risk analysis 23(3): 567-574. MSB. 2012. Floods in Sweden, 1901-2010 (in Swedish). Consulted at 6-1—2016. https://www.msb.se/RibData/Filer/pdf/26098.pdf OECD. 2011. Water governance in OECD countries: a multi-level approach, https://www.oecd.org/governance/regional-policy/48885867.pdf. Pahl-Wostl, C., G. Becker, C. Knieper, and J. Sendzimir. 2013. How multi-level societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: a comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Society 18(4): 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05779-180458 Partzsch, L and R. Ziegler. 2011. Social entrepreneurs as change agents: a case study of power and authority in the water sector. International Environmental Agreements, 11: 63-83. Pelnomocnik Rzadu do Spraw Programu dla Odry. 2011. Program dla Odry - 2006 - aktualizacja, Wrocław: 1-184. Rowe, G and L. J. Frewer. 2005. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science Technology & Human Values 30 (2): 251-290 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724 Stevens, M.R. and S. Hanschka. 2014. Multi-level governance of flood hazards: Municipal flood bylaws in British Columbia Canada, Natural Hazards Review 15(1): 74-87. Sitek, W. 1997. A community and a danger. Citizens of Wrocław and the large flood (in Polish), Wrocław, Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19: 387-420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 Streeck, W. and K. Thelen, 2005. Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political econonomies. In Streeck, W. and K. Thelen (Eds.). Beyond continuity, Institutional change in advanced political economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-39. Van den Brink M, C. Termeer, and S. Meijerink. 2011. Are Dutch water safety institutions prepared for climate change? Journal of Water and Climate Change 2(4):272-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2011.044 Van Herk S, C. Zevenbergen, R. Ashley, and J. Rijke. 2011. Learning and action alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: a new framework from empirical evidence from The Netherlands. Environmental Science and Policy 14:543-554.

26  

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.006 Veenstra, C.E. 2014. Dutch safety in map. Flood riks in dike ring area 22, (in Dutch), Consulted at 6-1—2016 at http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/publish/.../dijkring_22_eiland_van_dordrecht.pdf Walker G, F. Tweed and R. Whittle. 2014. A framework for profiling the characteristics of risk governance in natural hazard contexts. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 14:155-164. Wiering M, and I. Immink I. 2006. When water management meets spatial planning: a policy arrangements perspective. Environment and planning C: government and policy 24:423-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0417j