Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices

Abstract Climate change urges water managers in low‐lying deltas to diversify their flood risk management (FRM) strategies. To reduce residual risks, they increasingly need to incorporate spatial and other measures. This has implications for the boundary judgements made by water authorities, that is...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf, Lisette Groefsema, Karin A. W. Snel
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-03-01
Series:Journal of Flood Risk Management
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.13028
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850048250343587840
author Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf
Lisette Groefsema
Karin A. W. Snel
author_facet Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf
Lisette Groefsema
Karin A. W. Snel
author_sort Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Climate change urges water managers in low‐lying deltas to diversify their flood risk management (FRM) strategies. To reduce residual risks, they increasingly need to incorporate spatial and other measures. This has implications for the boundary judgements made by water authorities, that is, the implicit and explicit decisions about who and what is relevant to include and consider. To understand these implications, we assess the boundary judgements made by a Dutch regional water authority in two diversification‐oriented frontrunner projects. We distinguish between three categories of judgements: (1) substantive: the scale, domains, time horizon and solutions that are considered; (2) participation: who is involved, to what extent and when; and (3) planning and decision: the flexibility of responsibilities, financing, planning and decision‐making. Our results show that, in both projects, most of the boundary judgements became wider over time as a result of pressure from or interactions with actors from outside the water sector. Hence, despite its ambition to diversify flood risk strategies, the water authority continued to draw boundaries that were too tight to allow for meaningful collaboration with actors outside the water sector. Considering the importance of reconfiguring practices in transforming FRM, we recommend more engaged research into practices.
format Article
id doaj-art-7dde9bd1d8eb4db0964bcfa9c02a4fae
institution DOAJ
issn 1753-318X
language English
publishDate 2025-03-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Flood Risk Management
spelling doaj-art-7dde9bd1d8eb4db0964bcfa9c02a4fae2025-08-20T02:54:01ZengWileyJournal of Flood Risk Management1753-318X2025-03-01181n/an/a10.1111/jfr3.13028Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practicesJoanne Vinke‐de Kruijf0Lisette Groefsema1Karin A. W. Snel2Department of Civil Engineering & Management University of Twente Enschede The NetherlandsRegional Water Authority Vechtstromen Almelo The NetherlandsDepartment of Civil Engineering & Management University of Twente Enschede The NetherlandsAbstract Climate change urges water managers in low‐lying deltas to diversify their flood risk management (FRM) strategies. To reduce residual risks, they increasingly need to incorporate spatial and other measures. This has implications for the boundary judgements made by water authorities, that is, the implicit and explicit decisions about who and what is relevant to include and consider. To understand these implications, we assess the boundary judgements made by a Dutch regional water authority in two diversification‐oriented frontrunner projects. We distinguish between three categories of judgements: (1) substantive: the scale, domains, time horizon and solutions that are considered; (2) participation: who is involved, to what extent and when; and (3) planning and decision: the flexibility of responsibilities, financing, planning and decision‐making. Our results show that, in both projects, most of the boundary judgements became wider over time as a result of pressure from or interactions with actors from outside the water sector. Hence, despite its ambition to diversify flood risk strategies, the water authority continued to draw boundaries that were too tight to allow for meaningful collaboration with actors outside the water sector. Considering the importance of reconfiguring practices in transforming FRM, we recommend more engaged research into practices.https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.13028boundary judgementsdiversificationflood risk managementpracticeswater authorities
spellingShingle Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf
Lisette Groefsema
Karin A. W. Snel
Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices
Journal of Flood Risk Management
boundary judgements
diversification
flood risk management
practices
water authorities
title Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices
title_full Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices
title_fullStr Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices
title_full_unstemmed Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices
title_short Diversification of flood risk management in the Netherlands: Implications for boundary judgement practices
title_sort diversification of flood risk management in the netherlands implications for boundary judgement practices
topic boundary judgements
diversification
flood risk management
practices
water authorities
url https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.13028
work_keys_str_mv AT joannevinkedekruijf diversificationoffloodriskmanagementinthenetherlandsimplicationsforboundaryjudgementpractices
AT lisettegroefsema diversificationoffloodriskmanagementinthenetherlandsimplicationsforboundaryjudgementpractices
AT karinawsnel diversificationoffloodriskmanagementinthenetherlandsimplicationsforboundaryjudgementpractices