Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: the cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam

• Published in: Regional environmental change Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 671 - 682
• Main Authors: Mees, Heleen L. P, Driessen, Peter P. J, Runhaar, Hens A. C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer-Verlag 01-04-2014; Springer Berlin Heidelberg; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adaptation; Case studies; climate; Climate Change; Climate Change/Climate Change Impacts; Comparative studies; Dikes; Earth and Environmental Science; Environment; Environmental risk; Flood control; Floods; Geography; governance; Nature Conservation; Oceanography; Original Article; Redevelopment; Regional/Spatial Science; risk; Risk assessment; Suffrage; Urban development; Urban renewal; Netherlands; Germany; Finland; Finland, Etelae-Suomi, Helsinki; Netherlands, Rotterdam; Germany, Hamburg; Climate adaptation; Legitimacy; Urban redevelopment; Governance; Flood risk
• ISSN: 1436-3798; 1436-378X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013-0527-2

It has recently been recommended that a shift from traditional flood prevention to more adaptive strategies is made, focusing on the reduction in and recovery from flood impacts as a means to improve resilience to climate impacts. This shift has had implications for the public–private divide in adaptive flood risk governance. In an urban context, it means that private actors such as developers and residents come into play, necessitating governance arrangements which cross the public–private divide. The division of responsibilities for water safety between the public and private sectors affects the way legitimacy is gained for these arrangements and raises new legitimacy issues. The paper offers an analysis of public and private responsibilities in adaptive flood risk governance arrangements, as well as of the legitimacy of the arrangements in the light of the public–private divide. A comparative case study is presented for three urban regeneration projects in un-embanked areas in Hamburg, Germany, Helsinki, Finland, and Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where adaptive strategies have been applied. The results show that network arrangements with joint public–private responsibilities use direct forms of participation and deliberation, but that these do not necessarily lead to more legitimate arrangements in the eyes of stakeholders as is often suggested in the literature. Both network and more public hierarchical arrangements can be perceived as quite legitimate under certain conditions.