Enhancing Connectivity Between Strategies by Bridging Actors, Levels and Sectors

  • Dries L. T. HeggerEmail author
  • Peter P. J. Driessen
  • Marloes H. N. Bakker


The adoption of a broader portfolio of flood risk management strategies inevitably leads to involvement of more different public and private actors; different governmental levels and different sectors. This may lead to fragmentation. To remedy this, bridging processes and mechanisms are needed. The spatial planning and insurance sector are vital players in this respect. Furthermore, businesses, citizens and NGOs need to be involved further through comprehensive multi-actor co-production, since not all resources and capacities needed for resilient flood risk governance are available within governmental institutions. Besides that, in Europe participation in decision making is considered of crucial importance and strongly established through the Aarhus convention. Decentralisation may help in bridging different levels of government to ensure a good combination of top-down and bottom-up governance, however provided that the shifting of financial and executive tasks is accompanied by a shifting of formal powers and resources. Open, broad (political and societal) debate about the division of responsibilities between public and private actors is needed, leading to more clearly defined roles for governments/businesses/NGOs/citizens.


Flood risk governance Multi-level governance Multi-actor governance Multi-sector governance Institutional fragmentation Bridging mechanisms Public-private divide Aarhus convention 


  1. Alexander M, Priest S, Micou AP, Tapsell S, Green C, Parker D, Homewood S (2016) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England – enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance. STAR-FLOOD Consortium, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2011) Flood and coastal resilience partnership funding: an introductory guide Available from
  3. Ek K, Goytia S, Pettersson M, Spegel E (2016) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in Sweden – adaptation to climate change? STAR-FLOOD Consortium, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilissen HK, Alexander M, Beyers JC, Chmielewski P, Matczak P, Schellenberger T, Suykens C (2015) Bridges over troubled waters: an interdisciplinary framework for evaluating the interconnectedness within fragmented domestic flood risk management systems. J Water Law 25:12–26Google Scholar
  5. Kaufmann M, Van Doorn-Hoekveld WJ, Gilissen HK, Van Rijswick HFMW (2016) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in the Netherlands. Drowning in safety? STAR-FLOOD Consortium, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Klijn F, Samuels P, Van Os A (2008) Towards flood risk management in the EU: state of affairs with examples from various European countries. Int J River Basin Manag 6:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larrue C, Bruzzone S, Lévy L, Gralepois M, Schellenberger T, Trémorin JB, Fournier M, Manson C, Thuilier T (2016) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in France: from state policy to local strategies. STAR-FLOOD Consortium, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Matczak P, Lewandowski J, Choryński A, Szwed M, Kundzewicz ZW (2016) Flood risk governance in Poland: looking for strategic planning in a country in transition. STAR-FLOOD Consortium, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Mees H, Crabbé A, Alexander M, Kaufmann M, Bruzzone S, Lévy L, Lewandowski J (2016a) Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecol Soc 21:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mees H, Suykens C, Beyers JC, Crabbé A, Delvaux B, Deketelaere K (2016b) Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in Belgium. Dealing with flood risks in an urbanised and institutionally complex country. STAR-FLOOD Consortium, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD (2014) Water governance in the Netherlands: fit for the future? OECD studies on water. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Suykens C, Priest SJ, Van Doorn-Hoekveld WJ, Thuillier T, Van Rijswick HFMW (2016) Dealing with flood damages: will prevention, mitigation, and ex post compensation provide for a resilient triangle? Ecol Soc 21(4):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Van Buuren A, Teisman GR, Verkerk J, Eldering M (2014) Samen verder werken aan de delta: de governance van het nationaal Deltaprogramma na 2014. Erasmus University, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Van Rijswick HFMW, Havekes H (2012) European and Dutch water law. Europa Law Publishing, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  15. Wiering M, Immink I (2006) When water management meets spatial planning: a policy arrangements perspective. Environ Plann C 24:423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wiering M, Kaufmann M, Mees H, Schellenberger T, Ganzevoort W, Hegger DLT, Larrue C, Matczak P (2017) Varieties of flood risk governance in Europe: how do countries respond to driving forces and what explains institutional change? Glob Environ Chang 44:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dries L. T. Hegger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter P. J. Driessen
    • 1
  • Marloes H. N. Bakker
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations