Reasoning About Uncertainty in Flood Risk Governance

Chapter
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 10)

Abstract

The number and impact of catastrophic floods have increased significantly in the last decade, endangering both human lives and the environment. Although there is a broad consensus that the probability and potential impacts of flooding are increasing in many areas of the world, the conditions under which flooding occurs are still uncertain in several ways. In this chapter, I explore how argumentative strategies for framing, timing, goal setting, and dealing with value uncertainty are being employed or can be employed in flood risk governance to deal with these uncertainties. On the basis of a discussion of the different strategies, I sketch a tentative outlook for flood risk governance in the twenty-first century, for which I derive some important lessons concerning the distribution of responsibilities, the political dimension of flood risk governance, and the use of participatory approaches.

Keywords

Uncertainty Wicked problem Flood risk management Water governance Building with nature European Flood risk directive (2007/60/EC) Flood safety Flood risk Water management Water safety 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) under grant number 016-144-071.

Recommended Readings

  1. Haasnoot, M. (2013). Anticipating change: Sustainable water policy pathways for an uncertain future. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  2. Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M., & Conway, D. (Eds.). (2013). Water security: Principles, perspectives and practices. New York: Earthscan/Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Warner, J. F. (2011). Flood planning: The politics of water security. London: I.B. Taurus.Google Scholar

References

  1. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Monirul Qader Mirza, M., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., & Takahashi, K. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. Van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 717–743). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Almoradie, A., Cortes, V. J., & Jonoski, A. (2015). Web-based stakeholder collaboration in flood risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 8, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asselt, V., Marjolein, B. A., & Renn, O. (2011). Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 573.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, M. H., Green, C., Driessen, P., Hegger, D. L. T., Delvaux, B., Rijswick, M. V., Suykens, C., Beyers, J.-C., Deketelaere, K., Doorn-Hoekveld, W., & Dieperink, C. V. (2013). Flood risk management in Europe: European flood regulation [Star-Flood Report Number D1.1.1]. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, S. (2002). Economic governance and institutional dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betz, G. (2016). Accounting for possibilities in decision making. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 135–169). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_6.
  7. Bijker, E. W. (1996). History and heritage in coastal engineering in the Netherlands. In N. C. Kraus (Ed.), History and heritage of coastal engineering (pp. 390–412). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  8. Bijker, W. E. (2002). The Oosterschelde storm surge barrier: A test case for Dutch water technology, management, and politics. Technology and Culture, 43, 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bijker, W. E. (2007). American and Dutch coastal engineering: Differences in risk conception and differences in technological culture. Social Studies of Science, 37, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borman, T. C. (1995). Deltawet grote rivieren. Ars Aequi, 44, 594–603.Google Scholar
  11. Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C. M., Edwards, C. M., & Tucker, D. W. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bubeck, P., Kreibich, H., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Wouter Botzen, W. J., De Moel, H., & Klijn, F. (2013). Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and the USA. In F. Klijn & T. Schweckendiek (Eds.), Comprehensive flood risk management: Research for policy and practice (pp. 1199–1209). London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  13. Burton, I., Malone, E., Huq, S., Lim, B., & Spanger-Siegfried, E. (2005). Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). From ‘flood defence’ to ‘flood risk management’: Exploring governance, responsibility, and blame. Environment and Planning C – Government & Policy, 29, 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter, T. R., Jones, R. N., Lu, X., Bhadwal, S., Conde, C., Mearns, L. O., O’Neill, B. C., Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Zurek, M. B. (2007). New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. Van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 133–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cashman, A. C. (2011). Case study of institutional and social responses to flooding: Reforming for resilience? Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4, 33–41.Google Scholar
  17. CRED. (2009). Annual disaster statistical review 2008: The numbers and trends. Brussels: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).Google Scholar
  18. Davis, T., Rogers, H., Shays, C., Bonilla, H., Buyer, S., Myrick, S., Thornberry, M., Granger, K., Pickering, C. W., Shuster, B., & Miller, J. (2006). A failure of initiative. The final report of the select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  19. Dessai, S., & Van der Sluijs, J. P. (2007). Uncertainty and climate change adaptation – a scoping study [report NWS-E-2007-198]. Utrecht: Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  20. Disco, C. (2006). Delta blues. Technology and Culture, 47, 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doorn, N. (2013). Water and justice: Towards an ethics for water governance. Public Reason, 5, 95–111.Google Scholar
  22. Doorn, N. (2014a). Equity and the ethics of water governance. In A. Gheorghe, M. Masera, & P. F. Katina (Eds.), Infranomics – sustainability, engineering design and governance (pp. 155–164). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Doorn, N. (2014b). Rationality in flood risk management: The limitations of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in the design and selection of flood protection strategies. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 7, 230–238. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12044.
  24. Doorn, N. (2015). The blind spot in risk ethics: Managing natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 35, 354–360. doi: 10.1111/risa.12293.
  25. Doorn, N., & Hansson, S. O. (2011). Should probabilistic design replace safety factors? Philosophy & Technology, 24, 151–168. doi: 10.1007/s13347-010-0003-6.
  26. Doorn, N. (2016). Governance experiments in water management: From interests to building blocks. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9627-3.
  27. Driesssen, P. J., & Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2011). Normative aspects of climate adaptation policies. Climate Law, 2, 559–581.Google Scholar
  28. Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Edvardsson Björnberg, K. (2013). Rational goals in engineering design: The Venice dams. In M. J. De Vries, S. O. Hansson, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.), Norms in technology (pp. 83–99). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edvardsson Björnberg, K. (2016). Setting and revising goals. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 171–188). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_7.
  31. EEA. (2010). Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe: An overview of the last decade (European Environment Agency). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  32. Elliott, K. C. (2016). Climate geoengineering. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 305–324). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_13.
  33. Espinoza, N., & Peterson, M. (2008). Incomplete preferences in disaster risk management. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 8, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Füssel, H.-M. (2007). Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science, 2, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Framing. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 189–215). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_8.
  36. Haasnoot, M. (2013). Anticipating change: Sustainable water policy pathways for an uncertain future. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  37. Hallegatte, S., Shah, A., Lempert, R.J., Brown, C., & Gill, S. (2012). Investment decision making under deep uncertainty application to climate change. Tech. Rep. Policy research working paper 6193. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-6193. Accessed 5 May 2015.
  38. Hansson, S. O. (2009). From the casino to the jungle. Synthese, 168, 423–432. doi: 10.1007/s11229-008-9444-1.
  39. Hansson, S. O., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2016). Introducing the argumentative turn in policy analysis. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 11–35). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_2.
  40. Heintz, M. D., Hagemeier-Klose, M., & Wagner, K. (2012). Towards a risk governance culture in flood policy: Findings from the implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany. Water, 4, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2016). Temporal strategies for decision making. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 217–242). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_9.
  42. Howarth, W. (2009). Aspirations and realities under the water framework directive: Proceduralisation, participation and practicalities. Journal of Environmental Law, 21, 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Working group 1 contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working group 1 contribution to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC (draft). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Keynes, J. M. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management. Risk Analysis, 22, 1071–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knight, F. H. (1935[1921]). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  48. Kwadijk, J. C. J., Haasnoot, M., Mulder, J., Hoogvliet, M., Jeuken, A., Van der Krogt, R., Van Oostrom, N., Schelfhout, H., Van Velzen, E., Van Waveren, H., & De Wit, M. (2010). Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: A case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 729–740.Google Scholar
  49. Lempert, R. J., Popper, S., & Bankes, S. (2003). Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long term policy analysis (Technical Report MR-1626-RPC). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  50. Lintsen, H. (2002). Two centuries of central water management in the Netherlands. Technology and Culture, 43, 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Löfstedt, R. E. (2005). Risk management in post-trust societies. Hampshire: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lubell, M., Gerlak, A., & Heikkila, T. (2013). CalFed and collaborative watershed management: Success despite failure? In J. F. Warner, A. Van Buuren, & J. Edelenbos (Eds.), Making space for the river: Governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe (pp. 63–78). London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2005). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19, 497–510.Google Scholar
  55. Meijerink, S., & Dicke, W. (2008). Shifts in the public-private divide in flood management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24, 499–512. doi: 10.1080/07900620801921363.
  56. Merz, B., & Emmermann, R. (2006). Zum Umgang mit Naturgefahren in Deutschland. Vom Reagieren zum Risikomanagement. GAIA, 15, 265–274.Google Scholar
  57. Millstone, E., Van Zwanenberg, P., Marris, C., Levidow, L., & Torgesen, H. (2004). Science in trade disputes related to potential risks: Comparative case studies. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS).Google Scholar
  58. Möller, N. (2016). Value uncertainty. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 105–133). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_5.
  59. Mostert, E., & Doorn, N. (2012). The European flood risk directive and ethics. Water Governance, 2, 10–14.Google Scholar
  60. Nye, M., Tapsell, S., & Twigger-Ross, C. (2011). New social directions in UK flood risk management: Moving towards flood risk citizenship? Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4, 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Perhac, R. M. (1998). Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in? Science, Technology & Human Values, 23, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peterson, M. (2003). Risk, equality, and the priority view. Risk Decision and Policy, 8, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., & Van de Giesen, N. C. (2012). Learning from collaborative research in water management practice. Water Resources Management, 26, 3251–3266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  66. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 512–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schefczyk, M. (2016). Financial markets: The stabilisation task. In S. O. Hansson & G. Hirsch Hadorn (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty (pp. 265–290). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30549-3_11.
  69. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  70. Scrase, J. I., & Sheate, W. R. (2005). Re-framing flood control in England and Wales. Environmental Values, 14, 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, K., & Petley, D. N. (2009). Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Soncini-Sessa, R. (Ed.). (2007). Integrated and participatory water resources management: Practice [volume 1, part B]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  73. Van Buuren, A., Edelenbos, J., & Warner, J. F.(2013). Space for the river: Governance challenges and lessons. In J. F. Warner, A. Van Buuren, & J. Edelenbos (Eds.), Making space for the river: Governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe (pp. 187–201). London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  74. Vink, M. J., Boezeman, D., Dewulf, A., & Termeer, C. J. A. M. (2013). Changing climate, changing frames Dutch water policy frame developments in the context of a rise and fall of attention to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 90–101. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vrijling, J. K. (2009). The lessons from New Orleans, risk and decision analysis in maintenance optimization and flood management. Delft: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  76. Warner, J. F. (2011). Flood planning: The politics of water security. London/New York: I.B.Tauris.Google Scholar
  77. Warner, J. F., & Van Buuren, A. (2011). Implementing room for the river: Narratives of success and failure in Kampen, the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77, 779–801. doi: 10.1177/0020852311419387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Warner, J. F., Van Buuren, A., & Edelenbos, J. (Eds.). (2013). Making space for the river: Governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  79. Wiegel, R. L., & Saville, T. (1996). History of coastal engineering in the USA. In N. C. Kraus (Ed.), History and heritage of coastal engineering (pp. 513–600). Washington, DC: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  80. WMO. (2006). Social aspects and stakeholder involvement in integrated flood management. APFM technical document No. 4. http://www.adpc.net/v2007/Resource/downloads/socialaspect13oct_2.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2015.
  81. Wolf, K. D. (2002). Contextualizing normative standards for legitimate governance beyond the state. In J. R. Grote & B. Gbikpi (Eds.), Participatory governance: Political and societal implications (pp. 35–50). Opladen: Leske + Budrich Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wolsink, M. (2006). River basin approach and integrated water management: Governance pitfalls for the Dutch space-water-adjustment management principle. Geoforum, 37, 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Woods, D. (2008). Stakeholder involvement and public participation: A critique of water framework directive arrangements in the United Kingdom. Water and Environment Journal, 22, 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, School of Technology, Policy and ManagementTechnical University DelftDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations