Bibliography
1. Wiering (2019) Understanding Dutch Flood risk management, principles and pitfalls .................. 2
2. Keessen et al (2013) The Concept of Resilience from a Normative Perspective: Examples from
Dutch Adaptation Strategies ................................................................................................................... 5
3. Koop et al. (2017) Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water,
waste and climate change ..................................................................................................................... 10
4. Cash et al., (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development .......................................... 13
5. Lemos et al. (2012) Narrowing the climate information usability gap.......................................... 16
6. Raaphorst et al (2019) Mind the gap: towards a typology of climate service usability gaps ....... 18
7. Surminski (2014) The role of insurance in reducing direct risk – the case of flood insurance ..... 24
8. Meijerink et al (2014) The role of leadership in regional climate change adaptation: a
comparison of adaptation practices initiated by governmental and non-governmental actors .......... 32
9. Oteman et al (2014) The institutional space of community initiatives for renewable energy: a
comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark .................................................. 37
10. Zvolska (2019) Urban sharing in smart cities: the cases of Berlin and Londen ......................... 42
11. Barba Lata (2019) A harbour on land: De Ceuvel’s topologies of creative reuse ..................... 45
12. Bolger & Doyon (2019): Circular cities: exploring local government strategies to facilitate a
circular economy ................................................................................................................................... 48
1
, 1. Wiering (2019) Understanding Dutch Flood risk management,
principles and pitfalls
Sequential floods left their scars in society and at the same time created an ever stronger public
domain. Traditionally flood risk management is of public responsibility, but through increasing
pressure on collective public system due to climate change, increasing economic/human risks.
The Netherlands the most vulnerable country in Europe with territory below sea level and flood
prone to floods. However, when Dutch flood risk management (Delta Programme) is included it will
probably be one of the safest countries in the world. Thus, Dutch flood risk governance is strong but
society is vulnerable.
Normative governance principles of Dutch flood risk management
In short: Flood safety is seen as a unitary, collective public interest that leads to a national solidarity
principle which is strong but also has limitations. Solidarity strengthens the national public
infrastructure for flood risks, reinforcing the principle of resilience. → These traditional normative
governance principles are challenged by climate change, as they do not change and adapt fast
enough as climate change. There is an awareness gap: although there is a strong governmental
system, the people are not aware of their greatest societal risks, aka floodings.
Public interest
Public interest is the nature of the interest itself and the political system of which it is part. The flood
risk management is a unitary public interest as it is a societal condition. There is a legal obligation for
the state institutions to protect inhabitants and all people in the Netherlands. ‘’All Dutch inhabitants
are equal’’ in terms of flood protection. This leads to a strong role of solidarity as a national
governance principle.
Solidarity & subsidiarity
Dutch flood risk governance is organised in two levels of responsibility: (1) national level and regional
water authorities and (2) municipalities and regional coordination by provinces. Solidarity aims at
helping those in need which can be voluntary. It can be:
• One-sided (I help the poor without obligation and expecting nothing in return)
• Two-sided (I help the poor but I expect all people to do this and therefore all contribute to
the system with the aim to be better off in the end, creating some obligation)
In flood risks all Dutch citizens are asked to act in solidarity with each other, reflected by vast budgets
for flood infrastructure (dikes, dams). This is reflected via the tax system, which is only possible if
there is some agreement on solidarity between citizens (the whole tax system). There is a national
tax system, but also a regional system exists which has a devolution of responsibilities and is under
discussion as it does not include ‘’the more you pay, the more you say’’ principle. However, the
regional solidarity is formalised through law to connect regions (high risk and low risk).
There is also one-sided and two-sided solidarity, when regions hardly benefit from flood risk
management but do pay expensive taxes.
The Delta-committee is installed after the storm of 1953 with a call for the importance of solidarity.
The committee sketches different scenarios of floods and other risks expected to be caused by
climate change effects. They make it clear to avoid a disaster the Dutch should be proactive and
strengthen their flood risk infrastructure to be climate proof.
2
,Thus, solidarity is reproduced at national level by the Delta programme, at regional level with
regional water authorities and work through the tax system and the work of water agencies.
Resilience
The Netherlands is resilient when a society is considered as social-ecological system that reduced
their vulnerability to climate change. Resilience both refers to (1) stability (keeping a system in its
place) and change (being adaptable) and (2) both flexibility and robustness.
There is a discussion that resilience cannot be flexible and stiff at the same time. Yes, it is about
being flexible, but in the context of social-ecological system with a changing environment, it
predominantly refers to whatever is needed to avoid increasing vulnerability if the system with best
means available. Resilience is a contingent concept and different for every society. Both stability and
change are part of it, where there should be a good balance between a variety of strategies: a robust
infrastructural system (robustness) combined with mature alternatives (stiffness).
Challenges and pitfalls
The question is: Are the Dutch safe? Hypothesis is to decrease vulnerability and increase resilience of
a country with a diversity of flood risk strategies with
• Flood prevention (proactive planning)
• Flood defence
• Flood mitigation
• Flood preparation
• Flood recovery
Because there is a stigma that ‘’the Dutch have it under control’’, there is little strategies on
awareness which is typical for the Dutch approach. The strategies have become dependent on rich
institutions taking up the task of flood risk management where they cannot easily move in another
direction strategically. Most of the budget for climate adaptation is spend on the infrastructural
system of flood protection and hardly nothing on flood mitigation, preparation or recovery systems.
The Dutch are path dependent or dike-dependent which can be seen as an institutional lock-inn of
the social-ecological system.
Ideally in a multi-layered flood risk approach there should be a greater emphasis on flood mitigation
(e.g. investments in spatial adjustments in urban areas), flood preparation (restructuring polders to
create safe ones and evacuation routes) and changes in the recovery systems. But, as the Dutch
consider themselves ‘’safe behind the dike system’’ these measures are not truly considered.
Conclusions and recommendations
Reflection on a few elements of the Dutch governance of flood risks.
1. Flood risks as an overarching, unitary public interest and produced governance system.
There is a lack of awareness of flood risks among the general public as people felt safe because of the
strength of flood defence infrastructure and trust in water agencies and other institutions. Not all
problems will and can be solved by the flood infrastructural system as there are limits to it. Because
of a strong sector based governance of flood, other actors do not feel responsible for flood related
effects of their activities. Municipalities and provinces get the benefits of spatial developments, while
the regional water authorities and central government bear the costs. The sector-based system can
be a victim of its own success. It would be wise to have municipalities and provinces aware and co-
3
, responsible for important investments in flood risk safety when they expect strong benefits from the
results.
2. Future solidarity?
Dutch water governance has unequal economic developments of different regions: there now i
solidarity between regions through the regional water authority financial system, while some
regionals grow and prosper and other shrink and become less economical viable. This can be seen as
on the one hand a vulnerability of the collective system, but on the other hand also as solidarity as a
strength to hold regions together.
3. Resilience
Literature shows the importance if a diversification and a variety of risk strategies. There is fear that
if other strategies next to flood defence are highlighted, the public trust in the traditional flood
defence measures disappears. Advice: you can be proud on your infrastructural system and you can
trust governmental institutions to do their best to protect people from floods, but the Dutch should
also be aware of their own path dependency mechanisms. It is not expected to leave the core
strategy of flood defence, nevertheless to avoid catastrophic events the Dutch should take
diversification of strategies more serious as these are also at importance for community resilience.
The Netherlands should increase its adaptability as much as it can to preserve the social-ecological
system as a whole to be stable. (Increase adaptability, to be better stable in terms of the definition of
resilience).
Next to this, resilience can also be more citizens-oriented wherein citizens have a way of bouncing
back but it is rather ‘’system resilience’’: the robustness of the collective system to endure and
withstand flood risks is key.
The strength of the Dutch is that they created an unique system, but this is also their weakness: it
has become dependent on its system reliance and is not able to increase its flexibility and
adaptability.
4
1. Wiering (2019) Understanding Dutch Flood risk management, principles and pitfalls .................. 2
2. Keessen et al (2013) The Concept of Resilience from a Normative Perspective: Examples from
Dutch Adaptation Strategies ................................................................................................................... 5
3. Koop et al. (2017) Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water,
waste and climate change ..................................................................................................................... 10
4. Cash et al., (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development .......................................... 13
5. Lemos et al. (2012) Narrowing the climate information usability gap.......................................... 16
6. Raaphorst et al (2019) Mind the gap: towards a typology of climate service usability gaps ....... 18
7. Surminski (2014) The role of insurance in reducing direct risk – the case of flood insurance ..... 24
8. Meijerink et al (2014) The role of leadership in regional climate change adaptation: a
comparison of adaptation practices initiated by governmental and non-governmental actors .......... 32
9. Oteman et al (2014) The institutional space of community initiatives for renewable energy: a
comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark .................................................. 37
10. Zvolska (2019) Urban sharing in smart cities: the cases of Berlin and Londen ......................... 42
11. Barba Lata (2019) A harbour on land: De Ceuvel’s topologies of creative reuse ..................... 45
12. Bolger & Doyon (2019): Circular cities: exploring local government strategies to facilitate a
circular economy ................................................................................................................................... 48
1
, 1. Wiering (2019) Understanding Dutch Flood risk management,
principles and pitfalls
Sequential floods left their scars in society and at the same time created an ever stronger public
domain. Traditionally flood risk management is of public responsibility, but through increasing
pressure on collective public system due to climate change, increasing economic/human risks.
The Netherlands the most vulnerable country in Europe with territory below sea level and flood
prone to floods. However, when Dutch flood risk management (Delta Programme) is included it will
probably be one of the safest countries in the world. Thus, Dutch flood risk governance is strong but
society is vulnerable.
Normative governance principles of Dutch flood risk management
In short: Flood safety is seen as a unitary, collective public interest that leads to a national solidarity
principle which is strong but also has limitations. Solidarity strengthens the national public
infrastructure for flood risks, reinforcing the principle of resilience. → These traditional normative
governance principles are challenged by climate change, as they do not change and adapt fast
enough as climate change. There is an awareness gap: although there is a strong governmental
system, the people are not aware of their greatest societal risks, aka floodings.
Public interest
Public interest is the nature of the interest itself and the political system of which it is part. The flood
risk management is a unitary public interest as it is a societal condition. There is a legal obligation for
the state institutions to protect inhabitants and all people in the Netherlands. ‘’All Dutch inhabitants
are equal’’ in terms of flood protection. This leads to a strong role of solidarity as a national
governance principle.
Solidarity & subsidiarity
Dutch flood risk governance is organised in two levels of responsibility: (1) national level and regional
water authorities and (2) municipalities and regional coordination by provinces. Solidarity aims at
helping those in need which can be voluntary. It can be:
• One-sided (I help the poor without obligation and expecting nothing in return)
• Two-sided (I help the poor but I expect all people to do this and therefore all contribute to
the system with the aim to be better off in the end, creating some obligation)
In flood risks all Dutch citizens are asked to act in solidarity with each other, reflected by vast budgets
for flood infrastructure (dikes, dams). This is reflected via the tax system, which is only possible if
there is some agreement on solidarity between citizens (the whole tax system). There is a national
tax system, but also a regional system exists which has a devolution of responsibilities and is under
discussion as it does not include ‘’the more you pay, the more you say’’ principle. However, the
regional solidarity is formalised through law to connect regions (high risk and low risk).
There is also one-sided and two-sided solidarity, when regions hardly benefit from flood risk
management but do pay expensive taxes.
The Delta-committee is installed after the storm of 1953 with a call for the importance of solidarity.
The committee sketches different scenarios of floods and other risks expected to be caused by
climate change effects. They make it clear to avoid a disaster the Dutch should be proactive and
strengthen their flood risk infrastructure to be climate proof.
2
,Thus, solidarity is reproduced at national level by the Delta programme, at regional level with
regional water authorities and work through the tax system and the work of water agencies.
Resilience
The Netherlands is resilient when a society is considered as social-ecological system that reduced
their vulnerability to climate change. Resilience both refers to (1) stability (keeping a system in its
place) and change (being adaptable) and (2) both flexibility and robustness.
There is a discussion that resilience cannot be flexible and stiff at the same time. Yes, it is about
being flexible, but in the context of social-ecological system with a changing environment, it
predominantly refers to whatever is needed to avoid increasing vulnerability if the system with best
means available. Resilience is a contingent concept and different for every society. Both stability and
change are part of it, where there should be a good balance between a variety of strategies: a robust
infrastructural system (robustness) combined with mature alternatives (stiffness).
Challenges and pitfalls
The question is: Are the Dutch safe? Hypothesis is to decrease vulnerability and increase resilience of
a country with a diversity of flood risk strategies with
• Flood prevention (proactive planning)
• Flood defence
• Flood mitigation
• Flood preparation
• Flood recovery
Because there is a stigma that ‘’the Dutch have it under control’’, there is little strategies on
awareness which is typical for the Dutch approach. The strategies have become dependent on rich
institutions taking up the task of flood risk management where they cannot easily move in another
direction strategically. Most of the budget for climate adaptation is spend on the infrastructural
system of flood protection and hardly nothing on flood mitigation, preparation or recovery systems.
The Dutch are path dependent or dike-dependent which can be seen as an institutional lock-inn of
the social-ecological system.
Ideally in a multi-layered flood risk approach there should be a greater emphasis on flood mitigation
(e.g. investments in spatial adjustments in urban areas), flood preparation (restructuring polders to
create safe ones and evacuation routes) and changes in the recovery systems. But, as the Dutch
consider themselves ‘’safe behind the dike system’’ these measures are not truly considered.
Conclusions and recommendations
Reflection on a few elements of the Dutch governance of flood risks.
1. Flood risks as an overarching, unitary public interest and produced governance system.
There is a lack of awareness of flood risks among the general public as people felt safe because of the
strength of flood defence infrastructure and trust in water agencies and other institutions. Not all
problems will and can be solved by the flood infrastructural system as there are limits to it. Because
of a strong sector based governance of flood, other actors do not feel responsible for flood related
effects of their activities. Municipalities and provinces get the benefits of spatial developments, while
the regional water authorities and central government bear the costs. The sector-based system can
be a victim of its own success. It would be wise to have municipalities and provinces aware and co-
3
, responsible for important investments in flood risk safety when they expect strong benefits from the
results.
2. Future solidarity?
Dutch water governance has unequal economic developments of different regions: there now i
solidarity between regions through the regional water authority financial system, while some
regionals grow and prosper and other shrink and become less economical viable. This can be seen as
on the one hand a vulnerability of the collective system, but on the other hand also as solidarity as a
strength to hold regions together.
3. Resilience
Literature shows the importance if a diversification and a variety of risk strategies. There is fear that
if other strategies next to flood defence are highlighted, the public trust in the traditional flood
defence measures disappears. Advice: you can be proud on your infrastructural system and you can
trust governmental institutions to do their best to protect people from floods, but the Dutch should
also be aware of their own path dependency mechanisms. It is not expected to leave the core
strategy of flood defence, nevertheless to avoid catastrophic events the Dutch should take
diversification of strategies more serious as these are also at importance for community resilience.
The Netherlands should increase its adaptability as much as it can to preserve the social-ecological
system as a whole to be stable. (Increase adaptability, to be better stable in terms of the definition of
resilience).
Next to this, resilience can also be more citizens-oriented wherein citizens have a way of bouncing
back but it is rather ‘’system resilience’’: the robustness of the collective system to endure and
withstand flood risks is key.
The strength of the Dutch is that they created an unique system, but this is also their weakness: it
has become dependent on its system reliance and is not able to increase its flexibility and
adaptability.
4
