Framework, approach and process for investment road mapping: a tool to bridge the theory and practices of flood risk management

Water Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 419-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabindra Osti

The Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015) has been a long-standing international policy instrument for disaster risk management. However, many developing countries still lack the appropriate risk management policies and frameworks that suit the national and local needs. There is little or no discussion on the appropriate framework, approach and process for the implementation of international or national policies into the practices. There are many unanswered questions, particularly related to the standards and linkages among proposed tools such as damage, risk and need assessments, and their uses in the formulation of strategies and investment road maps. As a result, flood risk management related problems and issues are often addressed by many countries in an ad hoc and fragmented fashion. For many developing countries, the most pressing challenge at present is to find a trade-off between their capacity and risk reduction options. This paper discusses the current gaps and proposes the framework, approach, processes, and methodologies, in the form of guidelines, leading to the formulation of the flood risk management strategies and the investment road map.

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2643
Author(s):  
Flavia Simona Cosoveanu ◽  
Jean-Marie Buijs ◽  
Marloes Bakker ◽  
Teun Terpstra

Diversification of flood risk management strategies (FRMS) in response to climate change relies on the adaptive capacities of institutions. Although adaptive capacities enable flexibility and adjustment, more empirical research is needed to better grasp the role of adaptive capacities to accommodate expected climate change effects. This paper presents an analytical framework based on the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) and Triple-loop Learning. The framework is applied to evaluate the adaptive capacities that were missing, employed, and developed throughout the ‘Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden’ (The Netherlands) and the ‘Wesermarsch’ (Germany) pilot projects. Evaluations were performed using questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. From the 22 capacities of ACW, three capacities were identified important for diversifying the current FRMS; the capacity to develop a greater variety of solutions, continuous access to information about diversified FRMS, and collaborative leadership. Hardly any capacities related to ‘learning’ and ‘governance’ were mentioned by the stakeholders. From a further reflection on the data, we inferred that the pilot projects performed single-loop learning (incremental learning: ‘are we doing what we do right?’), rather than double-loop learning (reframing: ‘are we doing the right things?’). As the development of the framework is part of ongoing research, some directions for improvement are highlighted.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dries L. T. Hegger ◽  
Peter P. J. Driessen ◽  
Mark Wiering ◽  
Helena F. M. W. van Rijswick ◽  
Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document