Uploaded by User2034

Summary Transitions in Water Management

Schoeman et al. (2014)
Huitema et al. (2011)
Van der Brugge et al. (2005)
Loorbach (2010)
Davoudi (2012)
Restemeyer et al. (2015)
Laeni et al. (2019)
Spaans & Waterhout (2017)
Van Slobbe et al. (2013)
Burger et al. (2017)
Sakic Trogrlic et al. (2018)
Vis et al. (2003)
Liao (2014
Haasnoot et al. (2013)
Restemeyer et al. (2017)
Water: New Paradigm
Conventional approaches to water management are failing so a new paradigm emerged:
 Broader stakeholder involvement
 Integration (horizontal)
 Human dimension
 Recognition of economic, ecological, and cultural values
!note: horizontal integration is similar to including other values, but it is only about including sectors
that would are relevant to water management, not necessarily other values.
There are three separate approaches, and combining them is key for current water management:
(1) Integrated water resource management (IWRM)
(2) Ecosystem-based approaches
(3) Adaptive management
World’s ecosystems are threatened due to human influences, this article considers water as
Paradigm can be observed through assumptions about nature of system managed, goals of
management, and best problem solving, goal achieving methods (often not questioned)
 In water management still evolving but has common features: (1) conceptualisation as
complex, adaptive systems, (2) goals moving towards sustainability, water security, and
adaptive capacity, & (3) integrative and adaptive management approaches
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)
Promotes sustainable social and economic development through governance platform for actors to
negotiate at basin scales
Roots in communicative rationality
 Focus on sustainable development and cross-sectoral planning
 Assists in improving nature of decision making (legitimacy issues)
Definition: ““promotes co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related
resources, in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without
compromising the sustainability of vital systems”
5 key principles
(1) Recognizing water as finite and vulnerable
(2) Encouraging broad stakeholder participation
(3) Strengthening role of women in water management
(4) Recognising social and economic value of water
(5) Integration of economic, social, and sustainability
(1) Vagueness allows business as usual approach
(2) Encourages centralisation and one-size-fits-all
(3) Preserves institutional barriers it was meant to overcome
Ecosystem-based approaches (EBA)
Focused on conservation  seek balance between sustainable usage while maintaining and
restoring functioning ecosystems
Roots in science
Looks to holistically encompass links between ecosystem service, drivers of change, and wellbeing/poverty reduction (economic values)
Ecosystem services have 4 categories:
(1) Regulating: control clima/disease
(2) Provisioning: supplying
(3) Cultural: spiritual/recreational
(4) Supporting: helps create other benefits
Expresses costs of harvesting ecosystem services (opportunity costs)
Criticisms: ambiguous definitions, doing what’s most beneficial (not right), because it is moral and
not empirical it provides information but can only be properly acknowledged through debates
Adaptive Management (AM)
AM implements policies following a continuous cycle of doing, monitoring, and evaluation,
encouraging learning about management.
 Learning by doing
Roots in science
Accept that there is inherent uncertainty in decision making, which can be decreased by learning
from feedback mechanisms.
Criticisms: Ambiguity, little evidence of success, institutional barriers, costs/risks
The three approaches show potential to complement each other in processes
IWRM for participation, AM for learning and building capacity to deal with uncertainty, and EBAS
focus on restoring & conserving natural processes
Synthesis challenges
Power imbalances (perceived?)
Participation is costly
Institutions constrain learning
encourages equity
Cost effective & no
Learning and dealing
with uncertainty
Dutch water management transition
V.D. BRUGGE ET AL. (2005)
Dutch system has seen increasing pressures from infra, housing, and industry, and land pressures
from soil subsidence and climate change. Here, the transition is characterised through multi-level
and multi-phase.
In NL we find dual pressures. From land on water due to increasing claims to space, and water on
land due to soil subsidence, decreased retention, and rising sea level.
Termed a persistent problem (worse than wicked?)
(1) Multiple manifestations
(2) Multiple functions & values
(3) Many interests and high stakes
Transition is co-evolution of culture, institutions, economical, ecological, and technical processes on
various level, from a relatively stable to relatively stable state
The basis for transition theory encompasses three concepts. Multi-stage, multi-level, and transition
 Multi stage considers the speed of change and has four phases: pre-development, take-off,
acceleration, stabilization.
 Multi-level contains niche, regime & landscape
Combination of multi-stage/level:
(1) In pre-dev regime is inhibiting factor
(2) Take-off sees dev at the niche and landscape level
a. Context of niche matches well with new landscape or landscape shifts and so does
b. In both stages different ideas cross-fertilize and converge
(3) Regime changes as result of top-down and bottom-up pressures (acceleration)
Transition management
refers to governing transitions. Coordinating multi-actor processes across levels (long term view). It
has anticipative and adaptive aspects
 Developments detrimental to sustainability often, transition management has the inherent
goal of increased sustainability and positive development
It contains four developing lines which are cyclical and iterative
(1) Development and establishing transition arena
a. Participatory setting
(2) Generating long term visions
(3) Steering process based on knowledge and learning
a. Learning by doing, doing by learning, and learning to learn
(4) Monitoring and evaluating transition process
Historical analysis
Predev: in waterworks the Delta works destroyed ecosystems while on a macro level environmental
concerns were rising. (Club of Rome; Limits to Growth). Micro-level development included the
inclusion of environmental researchers in the Delta Team for the Eastern Scheldt. Promotion of a
biologist to chief engineer led to a new Dealing with Water vision, that resonated with the meso
level, due to (1) growing number of biologist, and (2) RWS reorganisation.
 Cross fertilization of biologists and water engineers
 Interaction between events happened throughout the 80’s and 90’s that led to a new
strategic vision
Take-off: trends are decentralisation, liberalisation, and privatisation, at the macro level. Meso-level
had slow ecological changes, and micro level development stimulated relation between ater
management and spatial planning.
On the multi-level we see
(1) Micro-level built-up of practical knowledge
(2) Macro-level developments (CC / eco-awareness)
(3) Meso-level: slowly changing perceptions in organisation
Water Transition Management
We see incommensurability between strategic level, where concepts are shared, and operational
where were practical issues arise. Transition management needs to focus on these ‘three’ levels of
governance?  operational and strategic level need to be matched well.
Envisioning and performing experiments seen as co-evolutionary. This is the room to learn and
In pre-dev ideas are matured and they refrain from upscaling during this process
Tries to tie activities from micro to meso level and foster interaction
Macro level: the transition arena
Meso level: strategic vision
Micro level: where activities and niche-experiments are carried out.
Transition management for sustaianble development
Research into complex processes of long-term structural changes, basic tenets for complexity-based
governance have been developed. Four types of governance activities, and their roles, have been
distinguished and can be used for complexity-based governance.
Trends we have seen are liberalisation, privatisation and decentralisation.
 Diffuse policy making
We see increased complexity of society, the problems facing society, and the level at which we
combat issues.
 The problems we need to deal with are ‘persistent’ problems, that require attention to
learning, integration, integration, and experimentation, and not just policy making. Actions
and changes influence societal structures and thus the nature of problems we try to solve.
In systems we consider uncertainty, non-linearity, emergence,
Governance consists of both formal and informal arenas, and is not independent of context. It is
influenced and changed by developments.
To induce long-term sustainable development some things need to be included:
(1) Top-down and market workings are only a part of societal change, network dynamics and
reflexive behaviour are also important
(2) We need a reflexive process of searching, learning, and experimenting
(3) All societal actors are important and influence social change, we also need to be aware of
restrictions on change.
Basis for complexity based governance theory
Two concepts used to analyse transitions in societal systems: multi-level and multi-phase
 Multi-level: niche, regime, landscape
 Multi-phase: pre-dev, take-off, acceleration, and stabilisation
Tennets for complexity based theory:
(1) Back and forecasting (scenario studies and backcasting)
(2) Insight into the system is important for process management
(3) Flexibility of objectives is important
(4) Timing is crucial
(5) Understanding and using (dis)equilibria (window of opportunity)
(6) Creating an arena is important, allowing stakeholders to participate
(7) Changes should be from the inside
(8) Participation is important
(9) Learning
Transition Management: Multi-level
Four spheres of transition management have been identified:
(1) Strategic: these are process of vision development. These deal with culture of societal
systems as a whole, and include norms and values. Very uncertain.
(2) Tactical: activities that relate to structure (regime) of societal system. A strategy on the level
of just an organisation leads to fragmentation.
a. Includes rules, regulations, institutions, etc.
(3) Operational: activities with a short term horizon, in the context of innovation. It is driven by
individual action, and relates to the niche leve.l
(4) Reflexive: activities are monitoring, assessing, evaluating, ongoing policies. It has a role for
science and enables learning & prevents lock-in. Manages self-organisation and can be
applied on every level.
Transition Management Cycle
Step 1: structure the problem and develop a vision + arena
 The transition arena is strategic. The perceptions are linked here and bound to a common
perception of an issue. It needs an open process and evolution of the involved actors, which
should include experts from in and outside the regime. It allows cross-fertilization and
shapes perspective on the issue
Step 2: develop future visions and back cast
 Tactical and the creation of an agenda. It requires exploring structural barriers to change,
and the creation of a transition network. Here, interests and motives will come out into the
open and it requires individual who can maneuver within their own organisation and also
have insight in the opportunities.
Step 3: carry out experiments
 This is the operational level. Projects are tried and possibly upscaled or broadened into
different contexts.
Step 4: monitor, evaluate, and learn
 In reality there is no fixed cycle, but it is a normative expression of how activities should be
 It tries to structure and informal networks that will influence policy
 Monitoring transition process: this is about the outputs that are being achieved
 Monitoring transition management: progress, openness, behaviour.
Resilienc: Bridging or dead end?
DAVOUDI. (2012)
This opening essay raises three issues. (1) trying to unpack three fundamentally different meanings
of resilience, (2) draw parallels between resilience thinking and interpretive approach, and (3) raise
critical issues for translating resilience from natural to social world.
Three meanings:
(1) Engineering resilience: ability of system to return to an equilibrium. This describes the
resistance to disturbance and speed of return.
(2) Ecological resilience: magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system
changes in structure. Does not have the underlying assumption that there is ‘one’
equilibrium but instead implements the idea of critical thresholds. When such a threshold is
reached the system changes structure. So not just based on bounce-back ability
(3) Evolutionary resilience: systems are ”complex, non-linear and self-organising, permeated by
uncertainty and discontinuities”. There is not return to normality but systems change, adapt,
and transform due to stresses. They can also change without external disturbances.
Evolutionary resilience can be linked to Holling’s model. It has two loops: one is the selforganisation, and the other the maturation and demise. Along with this the Panarchy idea aimed to
close out its paradoxes. It states the phases are not sequential or fixed, systems don’t function in a
cycle but are instead nested adaptive cycles that operate and interact across different scales,
speeds, and timeframes.
Links between evolutionary resilience and interpretive planning
 Both put emphasis on contingency, connectivity, multiplicity, and polyvocality
 Both emphasis complexity, interconnection of systems and unpredictable feedback
processes across timeframes and scales
From natural to social world has (at least) four issues
(1) It overlooks the influence of intentional human intervention. According to ecological
perspectives human can alter resilience
(2) What is the outcome of resilience? Often defined uncritically (ecology; sustainability)
(3) From what to what? What is the boundary of the system? And what needs to be excluded?
a. Risk of exclusionary practice
(4) Resilience is power-blind (ecology). Who decides the resilience, and what outcome is desired
Policy entrepeneurs in water transitions
Abstract Individuals who play a role in transitions are called policy entrepenurs. It is argued they use
a set of strategies to contribute to transitions. Important are the degree of top-down/bottom-up,
windows of opportunity.
Policy entrepreneur = boundary spanner?
 Make change, and are assisted by organisations
 These entrepreneurs strategies can be summarized in five categories
Developing new ideas
A lot of grand ideas are being developed and transferred through NGOs. Ideas can arrive from both
the inside and outside. Countries that change policy based on exogenous ideas often do so because
it is a requirement for international (NGO) support). These are top-down influences. The bottom up
influence are policy entrepreneurs and shadow networks at regional/national levels, exploring ideas.
Bottom-up ideas are communicated through media.
 Hard to distinguish top-down from bottom-up, because there are many interactions
Building coalitions and selling ideas
There are three types
(1) Based on similarity of ideas (environmentalists e.g.)
(2) Coalition with different ideas but the same general goal (decrease pricing e.g.)
(3) Coalitions with separate goals and ideas that mutually depend on each other to realise their
diverging interests
Here, the policy entrepreneurs negotiate and form a coalition
Recognizing and exploiting windows of opportunity
Problem window: change to bring attention to problem
Political window: change for new leaders to step forward
Policy entrepreneurs contend in a framing contest, where they try to establish the importance of
their problem definition and solutions
Orchestrating and managing networks
There is a key role for individuals, but also for their networks. Access to a diverse, layered network
allow for (1) diverse strategy access and (2) access to a variety of skills.
Recognizing, exploiting, creating and/or manipulating multiple venues in modern societies
Changing or manipulating venues of power and discussion on change can help disable resistance or
enable advocates
Need to adapt strategy to institutional context
Flood resilience assessment framework (Hamburg)
flood resilient city can withstand or adapt to flood without functionality being harmed. The paper
creates framework to assess flood resilience. 3 characteristics robustness, adaptability, and
transformability. It shows capacity building with public/private stakeholders are required.
Literature has a dichotomy, where resistance reduces probability and resilience reduces
Resilience has 3 key concepts:
(1) Robustness: strength to withstand flood events
(2) Adaptability: hinterland is adjusted to flooding (preparation and zoning)
a. Strong link to public-private sphere, and requires coordination/communication
(3) Transformability: ability of city to switch from fighting water to living with it through
integration. It is a change of mindset in people that is required before physical
Fir a framework this has the implication that: robustness is needed, responsibilities need to be
broadened, and a degree of innovation and creativity are needed
Process: three types f knowledge evolution are needed. The intellectual capital (engineers/
knowledge resources), social capital (relations / relation resources), and political capital (ability to
Wilhelmsburg: Leap over the Elbe (Hamburg)
(Content) Two ideas came up. A compartment system where flood probability is regulated by dikes,
but differs between parts of the area. More vulnerable uses would be more protected and it would
offer a better water/land transition. The other idea was a dike line, nothing innovative.
 Context: Minister of interior very powerful in crisis situation and flood risk and spatial
planning are not well integrated.
 Process: low awareness, willingness to spend bigly, trust in water engineers,
Hafencity (Hamburg)
Content: Choice between a flood wall (4,75m high), and elevating the dwelling (7,5m). The choice
was made to elevate dwelling in a more integrated approach
Context: Growing city, important economic position, legal changes made for dwelling mound
Process: Private developers took construction, operation, and maintenance costs for basements &
flood gates. This is because of the benefits of waterfront development ($$$$$). Idea of resilience has
more influence on flood risk reduction than flood awareness itself.
Framework adds value through (1) overcoming the resistance – resilience dichotomy and (2)
clarifying the key characteristics of flood resilience. It explains that resistance (engineering)
approach is not the opposite of resilience strategy, because it is a key part of robustness. Secondly,
the paper clarifies that robustness, adaptability, and transformability are the key concepts.
Two cases show us that:
(1) Wilhelmsburg: social (public support) and political (coordination) capital remains an issue.
Measures to build capacity is consensus building and ad campaigns (+schooling)
(2) HafenCity: potential to link flood resilience a bigger political and economic agenda for winwin scenarios.
Resilience worldwide: Rotterdam in 100 resilient cities
Abstract: cities dealing with many interrelated complex issues, dealing with them requires systemic
capacity to deal with complexity, gained through learning, adaptation, and transformation across
sectors and levels (increased resilience). Rockefeller: resilience is ability to survive, adapt, and grow.
Acute problem: direct harm
Chronic problem: stresses that weaken fabric of city cyclically
Resilient city approach focuses on tackling both chronic and acute, creating a stronger resilience.
Over time the Rockefeller 100 resilient cities view on stresses and needing location widened
Framework: to enable a generalisability a framework was developed consisting of 12 indicaors, 4
categories, and 7 qualities.
 The categories are present in (all) cities: wellbeing of individiuals, infrastructure and
environment, economy and organisation, and leadership and strategy were chosen
 Indicators can be used to describe the outcome of actions to build resilience
 The 7 qualities show how well cities can respond to changing situations
The approach is based on the function of the system and not the system itself. This is important
because it might be necessary to adapt the system to maintain function.
Rotterdam’s participation in 100RC led to a broader definition of resilience in city governance
Consideration for 100RC framework
(1) Cities can be seen as systems, but they are open systems. The scope is defined as the
geographical city boundary, but can be taken wider as well.
(2) City is not just one systems, but a jumble of linked systems. Hard to conceptualise it as 1.
(3) CAS thinking is not comparable to RC approach. In CAS the elements of system are
determined through selection, and resilience is developed through experience of the
system. RC focusses on the preparedness of a desired system.
(4) US has a large focus on individual (household) responsibility to carry out policy ambitions
(5) How can 100RC focus be maintained after novelty wears off?
(6) If resilience is so holistic, what is it not? “if planning is everything, maybe it is nothing”
Bangkok resilience policy analysis
LAENI ET AL., (2019)
Abstract: Goal is to understand and assess flood resilience policy development in Bangkok, as an
example of the 100RC cities in developing countries. It is found that the focus is on structural flood
protection and less focus is on flood adaptation and social impacts on vulnerable communities
 Frame of economic growth prevails
Demand for cities to be resilient is growing, in order to cope with current environmental challenges.
It is defined here as the ability to withstand/adapt to shocks and also ability to adapt and transform
in changing socio-ecological conditions. 100RC tries to increase resilience of cities, in order to
increase ability to function (and develop) under acute shocks and chronic stresses.
 Criticism: resilience is different to operationalise and ideas about process and outcome are
lacklustre. It also has a dominant developed country perspective.
o It is multi-interpretable: by what approach? Difficulty to implement evolutionary
makes engineering approach more common.
o Resilience by whom, where do we put key responsibilities while maintaining equity?
o Resilience for whom? The political nature of resilience is often neglected and needs
to be acknowledged to protect vulnerable groups.
 Shift from engineering (equilibrium) to evolutionary resilience, which deals with ability to
withstand and recover and also adapt and transform.
Based on the criticisms a framework was developed that includes Strategy, Process, and Outcome.
Framing is used to see how insiders and outsiders interpret the resilience policy.
Strategy: structural and inflexible historically but recently changed to more adaptive measures as
well. The idea that structural defence is insufficient is brought forth in Bangkok resilience strategy.
 Mainly structural and drainage
Process: mainly prime stakeholders (NGO, businesses, academics, government) work in phase one
where data is collected. In phase two the development of initiatives and programmes is set out.
 International experts and consultants significant for strategy
Outcome: idea is to integrate social and economic benefits, but economic growth is dominant.
 Socio-economic benefits not integrated concretely
Strategy: recognition for need of holistic methods
Process: exclusionary to settlements, they want a system for knowledge sharing
Outcome: overlooks informal settlements and social issues such as poverty, disablesd are
Ecological Planning Solutions
BURGER ET AL. (2017)
This paper is a proof-of-concept. It shows that collaborative design can improve resilience (recovery)
of coastal areas if a broad conceptualisation of the shores geomorphology and ecology are applied.
 Restore ecological connections
 Re-envision shore tourism by making the wider area attractive
 Transport routes from shore to wider area
 Watershed based projects for severe inland storms
Benefits: enhancing economic, ecological and social connections
Ecological design principles in coastal communities
Coastal areas are highly vulnerable
Attention to ecological foundation of economy and character of shore both equally important
5 perspectives must be applied in planning practice
(1) Design and planning must be consistent with ecological and geomorphological structures
and processes to be sustainable
a. Identify which areas are most suitable to house certain ecological qualitiess
(2) Coastal planning must integrate watershed processes.
a. Transect from beach to inland landscapes ( barrier island, back bay, and mainland)
i. = horizontal design approach/ paying attention to relations between areas
b. Usually focus is on verticality (creating height)
c. Promote ecosystems, absorb wave action, and allow ecological functions to migrate
when sea levels rise
d. Accommodating processes instead of fighting them
e. Identify new areas for habitats that support coastal species (e.g. industrial area 
sustainability zone)
i. Pineland  woodlands  sandy recreation  freshwater lake (in former
industry)  new estuarine
(3) Ecological processes must be accommodated
a. Raise grade of current bay island (to keep bird habitats)
b. Raise grade of mainland to allow it to become bay island in future
i. Easier regulation wise too
(4) Incorporate climate change impacts and disasters
a. Need for landscapes that accommodate future salt gradient
b. Allow future habitat migration
(5) Rearrange human activities across newly defined coastal zone to accommodate ecological
a. Related to question of ecological and social integration  how can integration be
used as basis for adaptive design
Sea level rise
Sea level rise is an important principle for this article, must be taken as fact for future
development in coastal areas
o Creates economic, social and safety issues, but also destroys biodiversity and
ecological qualities
Social connections and opportunities (barrier island)
Cultural life very connected to ecological character
Population is very seasonal (summer = high)
Mix of soft and hard measures to protect barrier islands
Evacuation infra is limited
Municipality isolated from region in coastal planning
Design and solution opportunities
Plan is cheaper now than when it is forced by climate change
Broader applications
(1) Ecological based planning can prevent future ‘forced changes’
(2) Ecological asset protection can secure social assets
a. Reducing risks attracts developments
(3) Design can be used to enhance the physical/subjective connection across coastal regions,
which allows activities to shift to lower risk sites
Building with nature
Traditional engineering approaches optimise safety but are not good for other functions, they also
aren’t resilient or sustainable. ‘Building with Nature’ provides a basis costal protection that allows
for maintaining flood safety, ecological values, and socio-economic functions.
‘Working with Nature’ approach, which is described as ‘an integrated process which identifies and
exploits win–win solutions with respect to nature, which are acceptable to both project proponents
and environmental stakeholders
The emerging discourses see human activity as part of ecosystem, as opposed to separate. Building
with nature focusses on the relation between biotic, abiotic, and society.
 Biotic: ecological processes
 Abiotic: human interventions that influence natural system
 Societal: institutional, formal and informal
In the article a conceptual framework is used that utilises three elements of socio-ecoligcla systems:
(1) Resilience: capacity to absorb shocks while maintaining structure and function
(2) Social Learning: learning to cope with uncertainties. This method acknowledges the loss of
structure for coastal protection issues, focussing on making sense of them through past
events and learn through experiments, monitoring, and stakeholder perspectives
(3) Ecosystem Services: benefits that humans derive from ecosystem functions. (e.g. mangroves
for flood resilience)
Dutch context:
 History
o Pre 90’s we used engineering measures
o Post 90’s a focus on nourishment to maintain the shoreline
o Currently we use Sand motor in the north/south holland area
 Coast: high GDP, much infrastructure
o Need for nourishment to counter erosion  negative environmental impact &
diminishing returns
 Led to sand motor experiment
 Sand motor (now): gradual distribution of sand through waves
o Goals: encourage natural dune growth & knowledge generation
o Will form new juvenile dunes, create a small lake with pioneer vegetation
o Benefits: lower sand cost per m3, recreation, and ecological
Sand Engine outcomes
(1) Interesting ecological development (species of pioneer vegetation and animals)
(2) Very close to soft engineering, but more of a natural adaptation option
a. Larger scale nourishment
(3) Added value: public involvement, mitigate impacts of frequent small scale nourishments,
attract additional wildlife, recreation and economic opportunity.
Rebuild by Design in Hoboken
Abstract: Governance is a limiting factor to the implementation of green infrastructure. The paper
analyses the influence of Rebuild by Design (RBD) on governance (structure & process) in Hoboken.
It finds that the changes came in the form of governance processes (1) long-term narrative in place,
(2) GI as preferred solution for integrated challenges, (3) strengthened political buy-ins, but also
found several pitfalls: (1) limited funds, (2) lack of regulatory compliance, (3) economic justification,
(4) large investments needed from public & private. These pitfalls are limiting factors.
Pluvial pressures:
 Inadequate planning, insufficient drainage capacity, increasing rainfall, built environment
o Under threat of climate change, population growth, limited resources, and ageing
RBD is a design challenge that was done in NY. Hope was that drawing international expertise to the
area could be the catalyst for transformation of the area into being more flood resilient.
GI provides social, economic, and environmental benefits. Helps with flood risk management and
can tackle integrated challenges. It is also cost-efficient compared to traditional solution and has a
high effectiveness, depending on local characteristics.
 Theory is advancing but the implementation and practical examples are slow to follow
Three governance approaches:
(1) Hierarchy: formal, inflexible, and lack of participation
(2) Market: private sector principles in public sector with a focus on efficiency, empowerment
and competition
(3) Network: self-organisation based on networked interaction.
Farrelly et al. came up with 8 factors that support transformative governance
The research aims to explore if elements (1) through (8) are contained in the RBD planning approach
for GI
Farelly et al. in RBD:
Governance structures
(1) Narratives, metaphor, and image: Very strong vision created through community interaction
(2) Regulatory and compliance agenda: Not present but enhancement can be expected in later
(3) Economic justification: Not present but enhancement can be expected in later stages
(4) Policy and planning frameworks: Great influence on planning practice and policy creation
Governance processes
(5) Leadership: Strong leadership from Mayor and due to involvement of federal level
(6) Capacity building and demonstration: also there, and was emphasised as important
(7) Public engagement & behavioural change: Awareness was very important for public &
private funds over project lifetime so heavy focus
(8) Research and partnership with policy and practice: Was a very important part, but
universities could have been involved more
Resilience strategies for FRM in NL
VIS ET AL., (2003)
Abstract: Resistance strategy in the Dutch river Rhine area aims to prevent flooding by raising dikes,
while also reducing consequences and at the same time allowing some flooding. Reducing
consequences is done through green river discharge and detention in compartments. These
strategies are evaluated on financial, economic, ecological, and landscape impact + their flexibility.
Findings are that initial costs are higher and benefits come in the longer turn, but they are more
flexible and allow for nature/landscape development
Distinction: flood risk strategy (both) & flood control strategy (hazard)
Flood control based on standard (1/1250) – disadvantages
(1) Same flood risk for all land uses. E.g. hospital and agricultural land
(2) Endless improvement of structures
(3) Little attention given to consequences  vulnerability paradox
Resistance: ability of system to not show a reaction to disturbance
Resilience: ability to bounce back [Holling 1973]
Resilient flood risk management differentiates based on local characteristics (higher local probability
is lower total risk)
Conclusions: Green rivers and detention and compartments have less disadvantages in the long run
than dike strategies?
Flood control to flood adaptation
LIAO (2014)
Abstract: FCI is still used as a the primary flood defence measure in many places (flood control), and
flood adaptation is often overlooked (integrating space and flood defence examines). The paper
examines human-river interactions associated with FCI, and establish flood adaptation as a valid
FCI lets growth continue, but its capacity are finite, and areas are usually poorly prepared
2 feedback mechanisms found in LGR case: river adjustments and misconception of flood risk
FCI limitations:
 Inflexible (changing conditions)
 Depends on elements of FCI working, being maintained, perfectly
 Social inequality
 Vulnerability paradox
 Ecological impacts
Flood adaptation techniques:
(1) Houses: flood resistant materials, water-tight seals, flexible uses lower floors.
(2) Infra: incorporating resilient transport
(3) Open spaces: Increase green space index
Benefits Flood adaptation strategy:
(1) Does not transfer risks (short term)
(2) Flooding less severe
(3) Decreased risk of catastrophic flooding
(4) Chance to learn
(5) Ecological benefits
(6) Flood plain restoration (creating new ecological zones)
Between adaptability & urge to control
Abstract: Call for long-term water policies to transform towards flood resilience, but how? The
paper proposes 3 conditions. Increasing adaptive capacity requires local stakeholder engagement
and a focus on learning/monitoring can increase adaptability of long-term policy.
We argue that three points are crucial for making long-term water policies more adaptive; namely:
(1) An agile governance process
a. Collaboration and social learning are crucial
i. Improve information flows and knowledge
b. Agility requires the capacity to steer and the capacity to adjust based on new
(2) Make flexible strategies and plans
a. Ends that can be adapted along the way
b. Tools are scenarios, tipping points, and adaptation pathways
(3) Prioritise measures that prevent lock-ins
a. Situation where suboptimal arrangement persists due to path dependence (sunk
Delta programme has 5D’s
 Delta Act = legal infrastructure
 Delta Commissioner
 Delta Fund
 Delta Programme report = progress report for cabinet
 Delta Decisions = main choices
Agile governance processes of Dutch Delta Programme
High steering capacity and capable of making decisions. Looks for national level strategy and
regional level implementations by creating integrated, tailor-made solutions. No formal role for
citizens and local stakeholders.
Capacity to adjust based on insights is attempted. Knowledge generation is central in the
programme but it is not clear what happens when underlying assumptions for Delta Decisions
change. It remains to be seen if there will be a better link between monitoring and reflection/change
Flexible strategies (ADM)
Adaptive Delta Management (ADM) approach uses 4 scenarios based on socio-economic
development and climate change speed, as well tipping points, and adaptation pathways.
“Working with scenarios, tipping points and adaptation pathways is therefore not
only rather complex; issues like power and money also make policy-making much
less rational than the abstract idea of adaptation pathways suggests”
Dynamic adaptive policy pathways
HAASNOOT ET AL., (2016).
Abstract: Authors identify a new paradigm for dealing with uncertainty. Uses backcasting method
where strategic vision of the future is translated into short-term actions. Then, dynamic adaptation
is allowed for. They propose a decision-making method that combines
(1) adaptive policymaking: uses different types of actions and signposts to monitor need for
adaptation (mitigation/hedging actions)
(2) adaptation pathways: provides analytic approach to sequence & explore possible actions
based on contextual developments
New paradigm emerged due to deep uncertainties
Adaptive pathways:
 Tipping point is moment when action no longer meets objectives
 Decisionmakers can identify opportunities, no regret actions, lock-ins, and the timing of an
action, in order to support decision making in a changing environment.
Adaptive policymaking is a generic stepwise approach
(1) Analyse existing system and future development opportunities
(2) Basic plans for objective
(3) Taking 4 types of actions
a. Mitigating: action to reduce adverse effects
b. Hedging: spread or reduce uncertainties
c. Seizing: to seize opportunity
d. Shaping: action to reduce failure
(4) Signposts specify information to track in order to see if the strategy is working. Triggers
(critical values / tipping point) should be established to see when to change strategy
(5) 4 types of actions
a. Corrective: adjustments to plan
b. Defensive: actions taken to meet challenges without changing the plan
c. Reassessment: analyse if critical assumption are holding up
d. Capitalising: using opportunities to enhance performance
Dynamic Adaptive policy pathways
Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) key principles:
(1) Use of transient scenarios representing uncertainties and their change
(2) Anticipating and corrective actions to handle vulnerabilities and opportunities
(3) Sequences of promising actions in different pathways
(4) Monitoring system with related actions to keep track of preferred pathways