Dynamics in Dutch Flood Risk

Management and its consequences

Maria Kaufmann, Radboud University, Nijmegen

Based on research of:

Maria Kaufmann, Willemijn van Doorn-Hoekveld,

Herman Kasper Gilissen

Area 41,000 km2

Population ~16.9 millionPopulation density ~500 inhabitant/km2

Flood-prone area Coastal/river flooding: 59%Pluvial flood problem emerging

Projected climate change (1990 – 2100)Annual precipitationSea level raiseDischarges Rhine

-5% to +6%35cm to 85 cmSummer: -41% to +1%Winter: +12% to +27%

1 | 1 C o n t e x t

Flood risk

How is flood risk management

organised in the Netherlands?

Risk

prevention

Risk

recovery

Flood

Preparation

Flood

Mitigation

Flood

Defense

2014

2 | 1 I d e n t i f y i n g

Flood risk management strategies

Flood risk management

domain

Spatial

Planning

Defence

Prevention

Mitigation

Preparation/ Response

Recovery

Legend

Lower

degree of

Institution-

alisation

Higher

degree of

Institution-

alisationEmergency

Mgmt

Urban

water

Mgmt.

Water

System

Mgmt.

Compen-

sation

2 | 2 I d e n t i f y i n g

Distinguishing sub-FRGAs

over 3,000 km primary

flood defences

55% of country

protected

Highly institutionalised

10

2 | 3 F o c u s

Main water systemProbabilityreduction

How dynamic is the system?

Why?

From 2010

- cooperation water

management–emergency

management improves

- Emergency management

gains on stability

2001

- SP starts to gain on

significance for FRM

- cooperation between water

and SP actors increases

1956

- FRM very sector-

based – water

management

dominated

8

3 | 1 I d e n t i f y i n g

Dynamics in Flood Risk Governance

1956

- FRM very sector-

based – water

management

dominated

2001

- SP starts to gain on

significance for FRM

- aligned with Urban Water

Management

- cooperation between water

and SP actors increases

- E v o l u t i o n a r y c h a n g e s

- H i g h l e v e l o f p a t h d e p e n d e n c y

- L a y e r i n g o f n e w r u l e s a n d p r a c t i c e s

3 | 2 E x p l a i n i n g

Dynamics in Flood Risk Governance

Factor explaining stability

Path dependencyFixed costs:

•High past investments cost-efficient

Learning effects

•Strong expertise

•continuous improvement of technology

Coordination effects

•High institutionalisation

•low awareness

Adaptive expectations

•Trust

• Expectations of provision of safety

Factor explaining change

New/ different problem definition:Ecological turn, Risk

Learning: e.g. VNK, Risk’s in diked areas”, dike

assessment

Shock event: High river discharges: 1993, 1995, 1998

Hurricane Katrina

Agents/ Actors: Environmental coalition

Policy entrepreneurs

- E v o l u t i o n a r y c h a n g e s

- H i g h l e v e l o f p a t h d e p e n d e n c y

- L a y e r i n g o f n e w r u l e s a n d p r a c t i c e s

What are the potential dilemmas or

benefits of a stable system?

4 | 1 B e n e f i t s a n d D i l e m m a s

Benefits of stability in NL

- Independent of political whims

- relatively effective and efficient

- continuous adjustment

- trust of citizens/investors

What if it goes wrong…?

4 | 2 B e n e f i t s a n d D i l e m m a s

Dilemmas of stability in NL

Low awareness

Limited investments in emergency/ recovery preparation

No sound arrangement for compensation

Decreased preparedness

Increased damage potential

Delay in recovery

Potentially long-lasting effect on economy

Strong defence system

Impact, on:

Primary defence structures short-term

limited, but start-up, incremental process

Regional water system

Unembanked areas

pluvial flooding

“reconcile” probability-reduction with new thinking on flood

consequences (spatial planning and emergency management)

13

4 | 3 Future

Multi-layer safety

Potentially

more

applicable