IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v73y2017icp12-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The conception of public interest in Dutch flood risk management: Untouchable or transforming?

Author

Listed:
  • Wiering, Mark
  • Winnubst, Madelinde

Abstract

The governance of flood risks varies considerably in different parts of the world. Obviously this is due to the nature and characteristics of flood risks, but in part governance approaches vary because of political differences in the nature of governance itself. What is ‘appropriate’ in this respect depends partly on the prevailing conceptions of the public interest in a country. By applying Alexander’s (2002) categorization of public interest to flood risk management practices in The Netherlands, we show that the strongly unitary conception of the public interest (a historic ‘flood risk safety for all’), is intertwined with a state-based, sector-based, hydro-technical governance and expertise system. Although this conception is very strong it is no longer self-evident. Because of changing conceptions of governance in general and because of the felt necessity to adapt to climate change, Dutch flood risk management is gradually changing. Increasingly, the Dutch government has to deal with more dialogical and utilitarian approaches to public interest in the governance of flood risks. The Dutch approach is rooted in community-based interests in flood protection and was centralized and rationalized during the 19th and 20th century. The current flood risk standards are based upon a coarse utilitarian benefit-cost analysis, but evolved into mostly a unitary idea of national safety materialized in law by statutory flood risk standards. The findings show that this unitary concept and status of the public interest of flood risk safety has not diminished; it must, however, increasingly take into account the importance of both processes of decision making (dialogues, deliberations) and neighboring public interests. We conclude that the Dutch conception of the public interest on flood safety is still strong but nevertheless gradually changing, not the least because of a general availability of the information and technology to calculate and differentiate risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiering, Mark & Winnubst, Madelinde, 2017. "The conception of public interest in Dutch flood risk management: Untouchable or transforming?," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 12-19.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:12-19
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116301940
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly Andrea Aguirre & Diego Paredes Cuervo, 2023. "Water Safety and Water Governance: A Scientometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Malecha, Matthew L. & Brand, A.D. & Berke, Philip R., 2018. "Spatially evaluating a network of plans and flood vulnerability using a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard: A case study in Feijenoord District, Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 147-157.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:12-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.