Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Analyzing Distributive Decision-Making in Flood Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
From Flood Safety to Spatial Management

Part of the book series: Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice ((WGCMP))

  • 483 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter outlines a framework for analyzing cost and responsibility distributions in flood governance. The framework is based on an environmental politics perspective that draws attention to the role of experts in devising risk management solutions. A key concern that develops from this perspective is that experts—consciously or unconsciously—determine the distributive aspects of risk management solutions without a proper democratic debate on these distributions in the decision-making process. The framework draws on theories of institutional change to grasp the contextual and historical embeddedness of expert-influence in flood governance. It forwards the analytical perspective of framing to empirically analyze the influence of experts on distributions in flood governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aakre S, Banaszak I, Mechler R (2010) Financial adaptation to disaster risk in the European Union: identifying roles for the public sector. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 15:721–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adam B, Beck U, Van Loon J (eds) (2000) The risk society and beyond—critical issues for social theory. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankersmit FR (1999) Macht door representatie. Kampen, Kok Agora

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts B, Van Tatenhove J (2004) Policy and power: a conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms. Policy Sci 37(3/4):339–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arts B, Leroy P, Van Tatenhove J (2006) Political modernisation and policy arrangements: a framework for understanding environmental policy change. Publ Organ Rev 6(2):93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JL (1988) The evolution of the 1936 flood control act. Office of History of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach P, Baratz MS (1962) Two faces of power. Am Polit Sci Rev 56(04):947–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand K, Kahn J, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E (eds) (2010) Environmental politics and deliberative democracy—examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader V (2014) Sciences, politics, and associative democracy: democratizing science and expertizing democracy. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 27(4):420–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber BR (1984) Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry J (1997) Rising tide: the great mississippi flood of 1927 and how it changed America. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1992) Risk society—towards a new modernity. SAGE publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann Rev Sociol 26:611–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergsma E, Gupta J, Jong P (2012) Does individual responsibility increase the adaptive capacity of society? The case of local water management in the Netherlands. J Resour Conserv Recycl 64:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland TA (2007) Lessons of disaster: policy change after catastrophic events. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock S (2014) Politicized expertise—an analysis of the political dimensions of consultants’ policy recommendations to developing countries with a case study of McKinsey’s advice on REDD + policies. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 27(4):379–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borowiak CT (2011) Accountability and democracy: the pitfalls and promise of popular control. Oxford Scholarship Online. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199778256.001.0001

  • Botzen WJW, van den Bergh JCJM (2008) Insurance against climate change and flooding in the Netherlands: present, future, and comparison with other countries. Risk Anal 28(2):413–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwer LM (2010) Disasters and climate change: analyses and methods for projecting future losses from extreme weather. Dissertation, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens M, Wille A (2011) Diplomatiedemocratie: over de spanning tussen meritocratie en democratie. Bert Bakker, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens M, ’t Hart P, Van Twist MJW (2012) Openbaar Bestuur: beleid, organisatie en politiek. Wolters Kluwer Nederland, Alphen aan de Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubeck P, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH (2012) A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Anal 32(9):1481–1495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Butler C, Pidgeon N (2011) From “flood defence” to “flood risk management”: exploring governance, responsibility, and blame. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 29(3):533–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens E, Cook J (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Ann Rev Sociol 25:441–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier SJ (2008) Enacting catastrophe: preparedness, insurance, budgetary rationalization. Econ Soc 37(2):224–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler AC (2010) The legitimacy of private transnational governance: experts and the transnational market for force. Socio-Econ Rev 8:157–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (1961) Who governs?: democracy and power in an American City. Yale University Press, New Heaven & London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (1998) On democracy. Yale University Press, New Heaven & London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (2006) On political equality. Yale University Press, New Heaven & London

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bont R, Vanpaemel G (2012) The scientist as activist: biology and the nature protection movement, 1900–1950. Environ Hist 18(2):203–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B. (2015). Risk Governance and the Integration of Different Types of Knowledge. In: Fra. Paleo U (ed) Risk governance—the articulation of hazard, politics and ecology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 149–165

    Google Scholar 

  • De Swaan A (2004) Zorg en de staat. Welzijn, onderwijs en gezondheidszorg in Europa en de Verenigde Staten in de nieuwe tijd. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries J, Wolsink M (2009) Making space for water: spatial planning and water management in the Netherlands. In: Davoudi S, Crawford J, Mehmood A (eds) Planning for climate change—strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. Earthscan, London, pp. 191–204)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellink R, Den Elzen M, Aiking H, Bergsma E, Berkhout F, Dekker T, Gupta J (2009) Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 19(4):411–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf A, Bouwen R (2012) Issue framing in conversations for change: discursive interaction strategies for “doing differences”. J Appl Behav Sci 48(2):168–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf A, Craps M, Dercon G (2004) How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: a multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 14(3):177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf A, François G, Pahl-Wostl C, Taillieu T (2007) A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecol Soc 12(2):14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art14/. Accessed 24 June, 2015

  • Dewulf A, Gray B, Putnam L, Lewicki R, Aarts MNC, Bouwen R, van Woerkum CMJ (2009) Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Hum Relat 62(2):155–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijstelbloem, HO (2007) De democratie anders. Politieke vernieuwing volgens Dewey en Latour. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorn N (2016) Distributing responsibilities for safety from flooding. Available via E3S Web of Conferences. http://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160724002. Accessed 2 Jun 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop CA (2010) The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: Biofuels policy in the UK. Policy Sci 43(4):343–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop CA (2014) The possible experts: how epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystems services policy. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 32(2):208–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgert L (2013) Hard facts and software: the co-production of indicators in a land-use planning model. Environ Values 22(6):765–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelen ER (2008) Op zoek naar legitimiteit: is “disintermediatie” de oplossing voor de “crisis van de democratie?”. In: Noorlander CW, Broeksteeg JLW, Hoogers H, Noorlander C (eds) Het volk regeert: beschouwingen over de (Nederlandse) democratie in de 21ste eeuw. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 101–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman RM (1993) Framing: towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estlund DM (2008) Democratic authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennema M (1982) Tussen vierde en vijfde macht. In: Fennema M, van der Wouden R (eds) Het Politicologen-debat—Wat is politiek?. Van Gennep, Amsterdam, pp 17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (1995) Evaluating public policy. Nelson-Hall, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier M, Larrue C, Alexander M, Hegger D, Bakker M, Pettersson M, Crabbé A, Mees H, Chorynski A (2016) Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance? Ecol Soc 21(4):49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08991-210449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson WA, Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Sociol 95(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1999) Risk and responsibility. Modern Law Rev 62(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudie A (2000) The human impact on the natural environment, 5th edn. Blackwell Publishing, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gralepois M, Larrue C, Wiering M, Crabbé A, Tapsell S, Mees H, Ek K, Szwed M (2016) Is flood defense changing in nature? Shifts in the flood defense strategy in six European countries. Ecol Soc 21(4):37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08907-210437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray B, Purdy J, Ansari J (2015) From interactions to institutions: Micro-processes of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Acad Manag Rev 40(1):115–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusfield JR (1981) The culture of public problems: drinking-driving and the symbolic order. The University of Chicago press, Chicago & London

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms—contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (trans: Regh W). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M (1995) The politics of environmental discourse—ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M (2005) Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: from acid rain to BSE. In: Howarth D, Torfing J (eds) Discourse theory in European politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 297–315

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M, Laws D (2008) Ordering through discourse. In: Goodin RE, Moran M, Rein M (eds) The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) (2003) Deliberative policy analysis understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall P (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state—the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp Politics 25(3):275–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall P, Taylor R (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit Stud, XLIV, pp 936–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann T (2009) Clumsy floodplains and the law: towards a responsive land policy for extreme floods. Built Environ 35(4):531–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegger DLT, Driessen PPJ, Wiering M, Van Rijswick HFMW, Kundzewiczm ZW, Matczak P, Crabbé A, Raadgever GT, Bakker MHN, Priest SJ, Larrue C, Ek K (2016) Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward? Ecol Soc 21(4):52. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08854-210452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegger D, Mees H, Driessen PPJ, Runhaar H (2017) The roles of residents in climate adaptation: a systematic review in the case of The Netherlands. Environ Policy Govern 27(4):336–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmoor A (2010) Rational Choice. In: March D, Stoker G (eds) Theory and methods in political science, 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 42–59

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (2001) Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn W, Ravetz J (eds) Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick/London, pp 47–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson GM (2007) Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. Organ Stud 28(1):95–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R (1999) Policy analysis, science and politics: from speaking truth to power to making sense together. Sci Publ Policy 26(3):201–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R, Petersen A (eds) (1993) Handling frozen fire—political culture and risk management. Westview Press, Boulder/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hupe PL, Hill MJ (2006) The three action levels Governance: re-framing the policy process beyond the stages model. In: Peters BG, Pierre J (eds) Handbook of public policy. Sage, London, pp. 13–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Javeline D, Shufeldt D (2014) Scientific opinion in policymaking: the case of climate change adaptation. Policy Sci 47(2):121–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings ET Jr, Hall JL (2012) Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. J Public Adm Res Theor 22(2):245–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CL, Priest SJ (2008) Flood risk management in England: a changing landscape of risk responsibility? Int J Water Resour Dev 24(4):513–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jong P, Van den Brink M (2013) Between tradition and innovation: developing flood risk management plans in the Netherlands. J Flood Risk Manag. http://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12070

  • Jongman B, Koks EE, Husby TG, Ward PJ (2014) Increasing flood exposure in the Netherlands: implications for risk financing. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14:1245–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM (2006) Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk. Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 104: 1071–1109. Available via SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=801964. Accessed 3 Jun 2018

  • Kane S, Shorgen JF (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Change 45:75–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keessen A, Vink MJ, Wiering M, Boezeman D, Ernst W, Mees H, Van Broekhoven S, Van Eerd M (2016) Solidarity in water management. Ecol Soc 21(4):35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon J (1995) Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Hart, Schaffner & Marx/Houghton Boston: Mifflin Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1936) Politics: who gets what, when, how. Whitlesey House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao KH (2012) A theory on urban resilience to floods: a basis for alternative and intellectual planning practices. Ecol Soc 17(4):48–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart A (1999) Comparative politics and the comparative method. Am Polit Sci Rev 65(3):682–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low N, Gleeson B (1998) Situating justice in the environment: the case of BHP at the Ok Tedi copper mine. Antipode 30(3):201–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes V (2010) The institutional approach. In: March D, Stoker G (eds) Theory and methods in political science, 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 60–79

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes S (2005) Power—a radical view, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Hamshire & New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundin M, Öberg P (2014) Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making. Policy Sci 47(1):25–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maasen S, Weingart P (eds) (2005) Democratization of expertise? Exploring new forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney J, Thelen K (2010) A theory of gradual institutional change. In: Mahoney J, Thelen K (eds) Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency and power. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone G (1999) The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West Eur Polit 22(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin B (2007) The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • March J, Olsen J (1989) Rediscovering institutions. Free Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Maussen, M (2009) Constructing Mosques: the governance of Islam in France and the Netherlands. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijerink S (2005) Understanding policy stability and change. The interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003. J Eur Publ Policy 12(6):1060–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijerink S, Dicke W (2008) Shifts in the public-private divide in flood management. Water Resour Dev 24(4):499–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz B, Hall J, Disse M, Schumann A (2010) Fluvial flood risk management in a changing world. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(3):509–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metze T (2014) Fracking the debate: frame shifts and boundary Work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. J Environ Plan Policy Manage 19(1):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1861) Considerations on representative government, 1st edn. Parker, Son & Bourn, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuvel JMM, Van der Knaap W (2010) A spatial planning perspective for measures concerning flood risk management. Water Resour Dev 26(2):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J, Adger WN (2002) Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol Econ 56:594–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manage 21(1):49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Jeffrey P, Isendahl N, Brugnach M (2011) Maturing the new water management paradigm: progressing from aspiration to practice. Water Resour Manage 25(3):837–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons C (2012) Constructivism and interpretive theory. In: March D, Stoker G (eds) Theory and methods in political science, 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 80–98

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paudel Y, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH, Dijkstra TK (2015) Risk allocation in a public-private catastrophe insurance system: an actuarial analysis of deductibles, stop-loss, and premiums. J Flood Risk Manag 8(2):116–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowsell EC, Pardoe J (2012) Who benefits and who loses from flood risk reduction? Environ Plan C Govern Policy 30(3):448–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, revised edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ Soc 41(1):107–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy SG (1996) Claims to expert knowledge and the subversion of democracy: the triumph of risk over uncertainty. Econ Soc 25(2):222–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rein M, Schön D (1993) Reframing Policy Discourse. In: Fischer F, Forester J (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 145–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1992) Concepts of risk: a classification. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger Publishers, Westport, pp 53–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Schweitzer P (2009) Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environ Policy Govern 19:174–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietig K (2014) ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sci 47(2):141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijke J, Van Herk S, Zevenbergen C, Ashley R (2012) Room for the river: delivering integrated river basin management in the Netherlands. Int J River Basin Manag 10(4):369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimkutė D, Haverland M (2015) How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees. Comp Eur Polit 13(4):430–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon P (2008). Counter-democracy—politics in an age of distrust (trans Goldhammer A). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21 (2–3):129–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayers PB, Hall JW, Meadowcroft IC (2002) Towards risk-based flood hazard management in the UK. Civ Eng 150(5):36–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JC (1998) Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New Haven & London

    Google Scholar 

  • Seawright J, Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Polit Res Q 61(2):294–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shue H (1999) Global environment and international inequality. Int Aff 75(3):531–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol T (1979) States and social revolutions: a comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press, Canto Classics. Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg MW (1998) Tilting the frame: considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory Soc 27(6):845–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Re (2012) Flood—an underestimated risk: inspect, inform, insure. Zurich, Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd., Zurich. Available via Swiss Re. http://www.swissre.com/library/Flood__an_underestimated_risk_Inspect_inform_insure.html. Accessed 3 Jun 2018

  • Turner S (2001) What is the problem with experts? Soc Stud Sci 31(1):123–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNISDR (2015) Disasters in Numbers. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva. Available via UNISDR. http://www.unisdr.org/files/47804_2015disastertrendsinfographic.pdf. Accessed 3 Jun 2018

  • Van Buuren A, Klijn E, Edelenbos J (2012) Democratic legitimacy of new forms of water management in the Netherlands. Int J Water Resour Dev 28(4):629–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Steen MA, Van Twist MJM (2013) Foresight and long-term policy-making: an analysis of anticipatory boundary work in policy organizations in The Netherlands. Futures 54:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gunsteren H (1976) The quest for control: a critique of the rational-central-rule approach in public affairs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hulst M, Yanow D (2016) From policy “frames” to “framing”: theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. Am Rev Publ Admin 46(1):92–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tatenhove J, Arts B, Leroy P (eds) (2000) Political modernisation and the environment: the renewal of environmental policy arrangements. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston & London, pp 53–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Verloo M (2005) Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe. A critical frame analysis approach. Greek Rev Soc Res 117(B): 11–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel KM (2008) ‘Iraqi Winnebagos™ of death’: imagined and realized futures of US bioweapons threat assessments. Sci Publ Policy 35(8):561–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren ME (2006) Deliberative democracy and authority. Am Polit Sci Rev 90(1):46–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waylen K, Young J (2014) Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the UK national ecosystem assessment. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 32(2):229–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and society (trans and ed Roth G, Wittich C). University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39(5):426–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesselink A, Buchanan KS, Georgiadou Y, Turnhout E (2012) Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface. Environ Sci Policy 30(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiering MA, Arts BJM (2006) Discursive shifts in Dutch river management: ‘deep’ institutional change or adaptation strategy? Hydrobiologia 565(1):327–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiering MA, Immink I (2006) When water management meets spatial planning: a policy-arrangements perspective. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 24(3):423–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiering M, Kaufmann M, Mees H, Schellenberer T, Ganzevoort W, Hegger D, 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 Change 44:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsemius HC, Van Beek LPH, Jongman B, Ward PJ, Bouwman A (2013) A framework for global river flood risk assessments. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:1871–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsemius HC, Jongman B, Veldkamp TIE, Hallegatte S, Bangalore M, Ward PJ (2018) Disaster risk, climate change, and poverty: assessing the global exposure of poor people to floods and droughts. Environ Dev Econ. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X17000444

  • Wolsink M (2006) River basin approach and integrated water management: governance pitfalls for the Dutch space-water-adjustment management principle. Geoforum 37(4):473–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum (2015) Global Risks 2015, 10th edn. World Economic Forum, Geneva. Available via World Economic Forum. http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2015/. Accessed 3 Jun 2018

  • Yin RK (2009) Doing case study research, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanetti LA, Adams GB (2000) In service of the Leviathan: democracy, ethics and the potential for administrative evil in the new public management. Admin Theory Praxis 22(3):534–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Emmy Bergsma

Authors
  1. Emmy Bergsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmy Bergsma .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bergsma, E. (2019). A Framework for Analyzing Distributive Decision-Making in Flood Governance. In: From Flood Safety to Spatial Management. Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96716-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation