Governance of flood risks in The Netherlands: interdisciplinary research

into the role and meaning of risk perception

M.S. de Wit
TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
H. van der Most
Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
J.M. Gutteling
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Bo karjova, M.
ITC-International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: The policy on flood risk management in The Netherlands is in transition from a prevention-
based approach towards a governance approach, which involves all elements of the safety chain. This implies
that many more actors become involved, each with their own perception of the risks. This paper reports on an
ongoing interdisciplinary research project, which studies the role of risk perceptions in the emerging govern-
ance approach. The project has four disciplinary research tracks in psychology, policy analysis, social eco-
nomics and engineering, and strongly focuses on integration of these tracks. The paper elaborates on one of
the main research questions of the project, i.e. on the ability of citizens to cope with floods by means of ade-
quate preparation. The discussion on this issue illustrates the added value of the interdisciplinary approach.
The paper concludes with an outlook on the development of an integrative framework, which intertwines all
research tracks.

1 DEVELOPMENTS IN FLOOD RISK the end of 2008. So, in a few years time the scope of
MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS flood risk management is being widened from solely
working on prevention to paying attention to all
The policy on flood risk management in The Nether- links in the safety chain from pro-action till after-
lands has always focused on prevention. However care.
during the last 5-10 years a debate has started to The wider scope of flood risk management will
widen the scope of flood risk management, paying have an impact on the position and role of the citi-
more attention to the consequences of flooding. The zen. The citizen is expected to better prepare for the
Dutch government is currently developing a new unfortunate event that a flood takes place, to take
policy for flood risk management in the framework measures to mitigate the consequences of flooding,
of ‘Water Safety 21st Century’. This new policy will to evacuate or find shelter in an orderly way, etc..
be based on three pillars: Whether the citizen is able and motivated to adopt
revision of the prevention policy, including such a new role is yet unknown. Is the average citi-
an update of the standards for the protection zen as active and self efficacious as the government
against flooding for the various dike ring ar- would like him to be? And what options are there for
eas; the government to stimulate a more active and water
more explicit attention tot the consequences conscious behavior of citizens?
A larger attention to the consequences of flooding
of flooding in relation to spatial planning and
and to disaster management also implies that, com-
the robustness of infrastructure;
pared to the current situation, more and other parties
strengthening of the awareness of flood risk will be actively involved in flood risk management.
and promotion of a more water conscious As a consequence institutional arrangements for
behavior of citizens, companies, policy mak- flood risk management will need revision.
ers and administrators. To summarize the Dutch government has initiated
In addition, especially triggered by the flooding a complex transition process from solely risk pre-
disaster in New Orleans (Katrina), the Dutch gov- vention by authorities to a risk governance strategy
ernment has launched a campaign to better prepare in which also other stakeholders are involved such
for the situation that a flood actually does occur. as the public and companies. To gain a better under-
This campaign focuses on the development of disas- standing of the determinants and dynamics of this
ter management plans and actual exercises in disas- transition process, it is important to take into account
ter management including a nation wide exercise by
different perspectives such as risk perception, risk tions to take mitigating measures?; and (iii) how
communication and institutional setting. can information on risk perceptions help to im-
prove risk communication? To address these
questions, large-scale internet surveys will be
2 PROMO-RESEARCH PROJECT carried out.
• A socio-economical track, addressing the role of
The PROmO-research project studies the role of risk perceptions in connection to risk valuation.
perceptions in the emerging governance approach. This track primarily addresses the questions: can
The project runs from 2007-2009 within the frame-
risk perceptions be quantified and expressed in
work of the Dutch knowledge impulse program
‘Living with water’. PROmO is a Dutch acronym monetary terms?; and what is the willingness to
that stands for Perception and Risk Communication pay of individuals to better control flood risks?
in the Governance of Flood Risks. This track also makes use of substantial surveys.
• A technical track, aiming to compile and inter-
pret the technical/physical knowledge on flood
2.1 Research questions risks in The Netherlands. Main questions: how
The central theme in this project has been defined large are the flood risks in the various areas sur-
as: what are the consequences of the current change rounded by dikes (dike-rings)?; and which (tech-
in policy (from risk prevention to risk governance) nical) measures can be taken to mitigate flood
for the public and the administration? This theme is risks? The research activities in this track are
elaborated into four research questions: relatively modest; the focus is on compilation
1. How do citizens (and enterprises) perceive and interpretation of existing data and knowl-
flood risks and what can and should be the edge to support case study work of the other
role of these perceptions in policy and deci- tracks.
sion making processes?
2. What is the role of information, participation
and risk awareness of citizens in decision 2.3 Interdisciplinary approach
making on flood risks and how could this be The research questions do not match the research
improved? tracks one-to-one. To adequately answer the re-
3. How can citizens (and enterprises) be made search questions, an interdisciplinary approach is
more aware of flood risks and how can their needed. This is not a trivial undertaking, especially
ability to cope with actual flooding be im- as both social and natural sciences are involved. A
proved? number of barriers may impede truly interdiscipli-
4. To which extent are citizens able and willing nary research, including differences in scientific
to take responsibility in the governance of concepts and methods as well as a lack of societal
flood risks?. steering in the research process (De Boer et al.,
2006).
2.2 Research tracks To cope with these potential pitfalls, an integra-
tion track was added to the four disciplinary research
The research is carried out in four disciplinary re- tracks. This integration track involves:
search tracks, involving three universities, two insti- • Execution of case studies;
tutes for applied research, a consultancy firm and a • Organization of integrating workshops
government agency: • Development of an integrative framework
• A policy analysis track, focusing on the institu- These activities are outlined in the following sub-
tional settings and their implications. Main dis- sections.
ciplinary research questions are: (i) which pol-
icy-arrangements are required for a risk-based
governance of flood risks?; and (ii) which 2.4 Case studies
changes are possible or desirable in the distribu- All four research tracks in the project carry out
tion of responsibilities between the authorities their research in three selected dike-ring areas, the
and citizens? case-studies of interest (see also Figure 1).
• A socio-psychological track, targeting risk per- These dike-ring areas are
ception and risk communication. The main re- • Walcheren (dike ring 29), a coastal area);
search questions in this track are: (i) which de- • Eiland van Dordrecht (dike ring 22), an urban
terminants primarily determine flood risk area, partly outside the dikes located within a
perceptions in The Netherlands?; (ii) what is the tidal river zone; and
influence of risk perception on citizens individ- • Land van Heusden/De Maaskant (dike ring 36),
located alongside a major river
ual ability to cope with floods and on their inten-
 2.6 Development of an integrative framework
During the first integrative workshop in November
2007, a start was made with the development of an
integrative framework. This framework aims to:
• support the development of a common terminol-
ogy;
• increase the mutual understanding between the
research tracks;
• function as a vehicle to link the research in the
four disciplinary domains; and
Dike ring 22
Dike ring 36
• facilitate the integration of the results from the
individual research tracks into policy-relevant
insights and answers.
The framework is still under development. Sec-
Dike ring 29
tion 4 describes its emerging contours.

Figure 1 Locations of the case study areas in The Netherlands

3 CITIZENS' ABILITY TO COPE WITH A
FLOOD
The case studies were selected to be different in a
variety of aspects that play a role in risk governance, In this paper, we will focus on the third research
e.g. hydraulic, cultural, socio-economic and admin- question of the PROmO-project 'how can citizens be
istrative characteristics. Targeting the research on made more aware of flood risks and how can their
these common areas facilitates the interaction both ability to cope with actual flooding be improved?' At
between the research tracks and with the societal first we will address this issue from an institutional
partners in these areas. perspective. Subsequently, a social-psychological
view will be added, to conclude, again with the insti-
2.5 Workshops tutional implications. The discussion will illustrate
the necessity of and perspectives on the connection
As the researchers in the various research tracks of the research tracks.
have quite different backgrounds, ranging from natu-
ral sciences to social sciences, it is imperative to get
to understand each other's jargon, concepts and re- 3.1 Institutional perspective
search methodologies. This is a process, which To analyze the transition in flood risk management
started in the proposal stage of the project, but re- from an institutional point of view, the analytical
quires further maturation in the stages where the re- model from Williamson is used (Williamson, 1998).
search actually is being done, data become available Institutions are defined in this model as 'the humanly
and conclusions are being formulated. To accommo- devised constraints that structure political, economic
date this process, a series of workshops have been and social interactions' (North, 1991). Williamson's
planned throughout the project. This is schematically model, developed in the context of institutional eco-
shown in Figure 2. nomics, shows that these institutions can be mean-
Figure 2 workshops facilitating the integration process.
ingfully structured into four levels, as illustrated in
Figure 3. The levels in the figure are interconnected
by arrows. The downward arrows indicate that the
lower layer is influenced, either constrained or fa-
cases
cilitated, by the layers above. The upward arrows il-
cases cases
lustrate that developments in the lower layers may
workshop 3
workshop 2
workshop 1

also affect the higher layers, e.g. by means of delib-

tracks tracks tracks
erate attempts of actors, policy makers and politi-
workshop 1 workshop 2 workshop 3
cians to alter the institutions.
winter 2007 summer 2008 winter 2008 The top layer, being the most deeply embedded,
embraces the ‘informal institutions’, like customs,
mores and traditions. These institutions develop
typically over long timescales and may be consid-
ered as static in this context.
 1. Embeddedness:
The constraints, imposed by the formal institutions
Informal institutions, customs, traditions, at the second level, leave only little opportunities or
norms, religion incentives for decisions at the lower two levels, i.e.
the governance level and the operational level. In-
deed, these levels have at present no role of impor-
2. Institutional environment: tance for citizens.
Formal rules of the game – property, wa-
ter laws
The current policy developments in The Nether-
lands, aim at a shift at various institutional levels.
3. Governance: First, the government challenges the paradigm of
play of the game and contracting, aligning fighting the water by adopting a more adaptive flood
governance structures with transactions risk management approach, which creates room for
water. Moreover, a flood management policy is un-
4. Resource allocation and deployment: der development, which gives attention to all ele-
prices and quantities; incentive alignment ments in the safety chain, i.e. not only prevention,
but also pro-action, preparation, response and after-
care. This widening of the scope will result in the
involvement of many more actors in flood risk man-
Figure 3 Four layers of analysis according to Williamson
(1998).
agement, e.g. local authorities, enterprises, insurance
companies, emergency services and citizens. It is
At the second level we find the formal institutions, likely that many of the interactions between these
or the 'rules of the game', which are generally the re- actors will take place at the governance and the op-
sult of politics. These rules concern most notably erational level in terms of Williamson's model. This
laws, property rights and responsibilities of govern- would be consistent with the shift in the Dutch gov-
ment agencies. ernment's steering philosophy from 'taking care of’'
Governance is at the third level of the model, towards 'facilitating that'. In other words, the gov-
dealing with the 'play of the game'. At this level the ernance and operational layers will probably become
actual incentive structures are established that gov- much richer than they are today.
ern the interactions between actors at the lowest
level. Subsidies, taxes, public-private agreements, Improvement of the ability of citizens to cope with
contracts, insurances, etc. are found at this level. floods includes: (i) by better preparation for a flood,
The lowest level, finally, concerns actors’ short- (ii) more adequate response in case of a flood and
term operational decisions and behavior, driven by (iii) better after-care after the flood. In this paper,
their interests and goals, while constrained or facili- we’ll address the preparation stage. In this context,
tated by the existing institutions in the higher layers. we break down the question into a number of sub-
questions:
If we use this model to analyze the current institu- 1. How do citizens currently cope with flood
tional setting of flood risk management in The Neth- risks, and what is their potential coping capa-
erlands, the following picture emerges (see e.g. bility?
Broekhans & Correljé, 2008). 2. How can citizen's coping strategies be aligned
The Netherlands have a long tradition of land rec- with the coping/management strategies of
lamation and defending the land from the water. other actors, in particular the government?
Hence the 'conquering-of-the-water' perspective on 3. Which institutional arrangement(s) would best
flood risk management is thoroughly embedded in facilitate this?
society. This is a typical example of an informal in-
stitution in the top layer of Williamson's model, i.e. 3.2 How do citizens cope with flood risk?
a paradigm with a strong persistence.
The formal institutions in the second layer are This question is addressed in the socio-
fully consistent. The pertaining laws on flood risk psychological research track. Final results are not
management predominantly regulate the design and available yet, but we will present the approach and
maintenance of measures to prevent the occurrence first results from a pilot study. The socio-
of flooding. Virtually no formal regulations exist psychological research aims to get insight in how
with respect to mitigating measures in the other ele- citizens deal with preparations for floods, the main
ments of the safety chain, such as pro-action or determinants of that process, and the possibilities to
preparation. Flood risk management is considered to stimulate citizens to improve their preparations.
be the responsibility of the national government, Many models are available in the literature (e.g.
with executive roles delegated to the regional gov- Bo karjova et al., 2008) which try to capture the (in-
ernmental levels. tention to take) preparative action of individuals.
Figure 4 Graphical impression of the Protective Action Decision Model by Lindell & Perry (2004)

These models relate the intention to take action to her perception of the risk is low, the motivation to
e.g. the properties of the risk, the perception of the take action will also be limited.
risk, aspects of the societal and cultural context, Internet questionnaires, based on the PADM-
elements of the individual context, risk attitude, and model, will be distributed among a large sample of
(perceived) benefits. inhabitants of the three case-study areas. The ques-
In the socio-psychological research track the tionnaires state a number of preparative actions
PADM-model (Protective Action Decision Model which respondents are asked to evaluate on the basis
(Lindell & Perry, 2004) has been adopted. An ex- of the positive and negative attributes mentioned be-
cerpt from this model is graphically shown in Fig- fore. Additionally, risk perception is measured as
ure 4. The PADM-model helps analyzing how peo- well as the level of trust in the government and the
ple decide to prepare for a flood event, and more water management agencies. Also questions have
specifically, what issues are addressed in making been added on the awareness of the physical envi-
such decision. The PADM-model distinguishes two ronment (e.g. if people frequently visit the dykes do
types of variables: they also think more often of floods?). The ques-
efficacy-attributes: preparations can be useful tionnaires were designed with input from munici-
as they increase the individual safety during a palities, provinces, water boards and safety regions.
flood, increase the safety of others (family, Once the results will become available, structural
friends, neighbors etc.), mitigate potential equation modeling (SEM) will be applied to get a
damage, or may also generate benefits in other more quantitative insight in the relations between the
circumstances than a flood. intention to take action, and the potential explana-
resource requirements: preparations take time tory variables that were elicited in the questionnaire.
and effort, skills and sometimes assistance The internet surveys will be held in April 2008.
from others. Consequently no results can be presented yet. In-
The first category (efficacy attributes) are positive stead, a few results are presented from a pilot study
attributes (pro's): benefits of taking action. The sec- that was carried out in a coastal area of Friesland,
ond category (resources) relates to the costs (con's). located in the north of the Netherlands (Terpstra &
Both pro's and con's can play a role, but the extent to Gutteling, 2008).
which individuals use these attributes in their deci-
sions, can vary from one individual to another. In In accordance with prior expectations, the respon-
addition to these attributes, an individual's risk per- dents generally showed low perceptions of flood risk
ception plays an important role. Someone may have Moreover, the majority of the respondents regarded
a positive attitude towards preparations, but if his or the government primarily responsible for protection
of their possessions against potential flood damage.
In contrast, with respect to attributed responsibility ered as an act of participation. The government aims
for disaster preparedness, half of the respondents to stimulate and facilitate activities of citizens as a
viewed disaster preparedness as an equally distrib- part of the governmental care for safety. If the gov-
uted responsibility between themselves and the gov- ernment is responsible, the question arises: what are
ernment. To increase the level of participation of the the incentives for the citizen?
Dutch public in risk management, risk communica-
tion could be an effective instrument, but the citizens
3.4 Which institutional arrangement(s) would best
'low 'sense of urgency' in terms of risk perception
facilitate this?
may reduce the responsiveness to risk communica-
tion. This will be a central topic in the PROmO- Increasing the ability to cope with floods is consid-
study. ered as a form of public participation in government
The results of the socio-psychological research policy, and requires mutual communication and
give clues on how to stimulate and facilitate the in- agreements to be effective. In Williamson's model
tentions of individuals to prepare for flood risks. these are located at the governance level. In design
One of the instruments that will be studied in of, decisions about and implementation of institu-
PROmO in more detail is risk communication: how tions at this level citizens can participate in various
can risk communication be used to effectively influ- ways. The various forms of public participation in
ence risk perception and thereby intentions to be bet- government policy are schematized in a participation
ter prepared (Baan, 2008). ladder by Pröpper & Steenbeek (1998).
The current mode of government operation can be
described as a non-interactive, open-authoritarian
3.3 How can citizen's coping strategies be aligned style. The government aims to get information about
with the coping/management strategies of other citizens' behavior, attitudes and beliefs by surveys
actors, most notably the government? and inquiries. The obtained information is used to
If individuals prepare for floods, they acquire infor- adequately target information and (risk) communica-
mation, knowledge and skills that will help them to tion.
better cope with floods. Governments and emer- According to Rosenthal et al. (2002) governments
gency teams may therefore have to deal with a dif- and emergency services do not succeed to live up to
ferent, potentially more diverse population in terms expectations of the public in cases of a disaster, and
of ability to cope. For disaster management to be ef- in fact impede citizen initiatives. This could possibly
fective, it is essential to have a dialog on the prepa- be overcome by adopting a more participative ap-
rations on either side as well as to match the expec- proach. An example is the participative development
tations with respect to each other. of an evacuation plan for a specific area or district
Perhaps even more crucial is the question of dis- (Van den Brand, 2005), where the government
tribution of responsibilities. In the current situation specifies the required capacity of transport and shel-
the government is fully responsible for flood risk ter resources, clarifying that their own capacity is in-
management. An aim of the government is to in- sufficient. Inhabitants can then mobilize their own
crease the citizen's ability to cope with flood risks, resources. A bonus of this approach is that local
i.e. to give him a role in the risk management. Does knowledge is easily obtained from inhabitants
this also imply a transfer of responsibilities? The po- (which people require help, who do not have their
tential difficulties are illustrated by the following own transport, etc.). In this example the government
questions (Van den Brand, 2005): operates in an interactive, collaborative style, aimed
is it a basic right to be rescued by the gov- at joint decision making with citizens.
ernment in the event of a flood? The issue of citizen participation is closely re-
can citizens be held responsible to inform lated to research question 2 in PROmO. This ques-
themselves about the flood risk in their envi- tion will be further addressed in the institutional re-
ronment, and to take protective action? search track.
can citizens be held responsible to warn and
alarm others in case of a potential flood, and
3.5 Reflection
when does this obligation replace the official
warnings from the government? An intriguing question is whether an increasing abil-
If responsibilities are to be transferred to the citi- ity to cope with floods, i.e. the increased focus on
zens, what are the skills they need to be able to take preparation, should be considered as an alternative
on these responsibilities? Who is responsible for to the existing prevention-based approach, or as an
those who do not have these skills? addition. Indeed, the political debate on this issue
In the current political debate on other safety- shows that it is tempting for politicians and govern-
related issues, such as fire safety and safety in rela- mental authorities to consider an increased public
tion to hazardous materials, the communitarian point ability to cope with flood (risk) as a substitute for
of view prevails. Preparation of citizens is consid-
government care, enabling a further downsizing of at the level of enterprises or individual citizens. In-
the role and investments of the government. deed, many of the models on individual behavior to
However, effectively facilitating the ability of cope with risk, mentioned in Section 3.2, can readily
citizens to cope with flood risk requires that the gov- be fit into this model. Hence, in this study on coping
ernment gives back-up and engages in new activities with flood risks, involving the perspectives of vari-
to interact with and adapt to the preparative activi- ous actors and their interactions, this model is poten-
ties deployed by citizens. According to Denckers tially useful element in the integration of the re-
(1993) effective support of citizen preparation by the search tracks in PROmO.
government will most likely increase government
capacity and investments, in stead of reducing it.
Moreover, the extent to which preventive gov- deciding understanding
ernment care could legitimately be substituted by in-
creased preparative actions is difficult to determine.
As it has been argued in this paper, the question Framing
which level of protective action can reasonably or
potentially be expected from individuals, and the ef-
fectiveness of these actions in case of an actual flood Risk Risk
disaster, remains adamant. management appraisal

4 OUTLOOK
Risk
In the previous section we focused on one of the judgment
central research questions in the PROmO-project,
which made clear that the intertwining of two re-
search tracks had an added value and made the dis- Figure 5 Schematic view of the Risk Governance Framework
cussion match the scope of the question. To address developed by the IRGC.
the full width of the PROmO-research field, an in-
terdisciplinary approach is required, which involves The Framing element (Renn refers to this element
all four research tracks. To facilitate such an ap- as Pre-assessment) of the framework involves the
proach, a start has been made to develop an integra- problem 'definition', i.e. the clarification of the vari-
tive framework. In this section we will give an out- ous perspectives on risk among the different stake-
look on the further development of this framework. holders, listing of the issues and dilemma's to be ad-
It is envisioned that the integrative framework dressed, and assessment of the scope and limits of
starts from Williamson's model, which was already the analysis. Within the context of PROmO, where
introduced in Section 3.1. This model makes trans- we focus on citizens and administrators, this would
parent how the various institutional layers and the e.g. concern issues of the opinions on their (poten-
associated actors influence each other. It lacks a spe- tial) role in flood risk management, prior experience
cific risk perspective, however. Such a perspective with floods, trust in the government and water man-
could help to analyze the considerations of the vari- agement and relation with other issues.
ous actors with respect to risk, which influence their The Risk appraisal element consists of two ele-
attitudes, negotiations, choices and behavior, primar- ments, one related to the physical risk characteris-
ily at the governance and operational levels. As risk, tics, the other to issues of risk perception and con-
more specifically flood risk is at the very heart of cern.
this project, it was considered useful to enhance Wil- The third block addresses the judgment of the risk
liamson's analytical model with a component that as being acceptable or not, e.g. in terms of risk being
specifically addresses the governance of risks. an incentive to consider mitigating actions.
Risk management, the fourth element, involves
4.1 Risk Governance Framework issues as making an inventory of possible mitigating
actions, assessment of these actions in terms of pro's
The Risk Governance Framework, developed by the and con's, deciding on a management strategy and
International Risk Governance Council (Renn, the implementation of it.
2005), has been selected as a promising candidate. It is important to note that the framework is not
This framework is graphically summarized in Fig- describing a linear or sequential process of subse-
ure 5. It consists of four building blocks, viz. fram- quent stages, it rather constitutes an 'agenda' for the
ing, appraisal, judgment and management of risk. various issues that come to play in developing or
These blocks can be recognized as common ele- changing a risk governance or coping approach.
ments of a large variety of strategies and approaches
to cope with risk, either on the government level or
4.2 Confluence into an integrative framework From the viewpoint of the decision or policy maker,
the perception of citizens could be considered as a
One of the main aims of the integrative framework is
component of concern assessment, which, in terms
to facilitate that the central research questions are
of the Risk Governance Framework, is an aspect of
jointly addressed by the individual research tracks
Risk appraisal (indicated by the small ellipse in the
and, in the end, to formulate integral answers to
Figure). This perception, however, from the view-
these questions on the basis of the research results.
point of the citizen, concerns his total perspective on
To that end, the elements presented in the previous
dealing with flood risks, i.e. his framing, appraisal,
subsections, should function as a united framework,
judgment and management potential. This is indi-
which fits the central research questions.
cated by the larger ellipse. In this way, the frame-
work provides a context for the analysis of the ques-
tion on the role of perception in decision making, i.e
1 1 the relation between the two 'ellipses' (arrow in Fig-
ure). The figure also shows the (potential) influence
decision makers
of informal institutions on risk perceptions and the
potential implications of these perceptions for the fu-
2 2 ture institutional setting (dotted lines), which are ex-
amples of relationships that are under analysis in
PROmO.
The other central research questions can be posi-
3 3 tioned into the framework in a similar way. In this
way we hope to develop the framework into a pow-
erful instrument to serve as a roadmap in finding in-
terdisciplinary answers to the central research ques-
4 4 tions underlying the PROmO-project.

citizens
existing new REFERENCES

Baan, M.E. 2008 (MSc thesis in preparation) Fear appeals as a means

Figure 6 Graphical illustration of the combined integrative for flood risk communication,, Twente University, Enschede, The
framework Netherlands.
Bo karjova, M. & Van der Veen, A. & Geurts, P.A.T.M. 2008, How
to motivate people to assume responsibility and act upon their
Figure 6 shows a graphical illustration of this com- own protection from flood risk in The Netherlands if they think
bined framework. It basically depicts the transition they are perfectly safe, Submitted for SRA Europe 2008, Valencia.
from the existing situation to a new situation of Broekhans, B. & Correljé, A.F. 2008, Flood management in the Low
flood risk governance. Both the new and the future Lands: From probability to risk, Submitted for FRIAR 2008 - In-
ternational Conference on Flood Recovery Innovation and Re-
situation are represented by their institutional struc-
sponse, London.
tures in terms of Williamson's layered model. For De Boer, Y. & De Gier, A. & Verschuur, M. & De Wit, B. 2006,
the sake of convenience, only the numbers of the Building Bridges – Researchers on their experiences with interdis-
layers have been retained in the figure. In the transi- ciplinary research in The Netherlands, RMNO, The Netherlands.
tion process, the various actors and stakeholders Denckers, F.A.C.M.. 1993, Op eigen kracht onveiligheid de baas (in
make new considerations and decisions, in constant Dutch), Vermande Lelystad.
Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. 2004, Communicating environmental
interaction, which are influenced by (changes in) risk in multiethnic communities, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand
their framing, appraisal, and judgment of flood risk, Oaks, California.
and their options to manage it. These aspects are the North, D. 1991, Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 97
basic elements of the IRGC Risk Governance – 112.
Framework. Hence, in Figure 6 this framework is Pröpper, I. & Steenbeek, D. 1998, Interactive policy making (in
Dutch), Bestuurskunde 7(7): 292-301.
positioned as a process element between the existing
Renn, O. 2005, White paper on Risk Governance – towards an inte-
and the new situation of flood risk governance. grative approach, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva,
Figure 6 is more specifically tailored to the first Switzerland.
central research question of the PROmO-project, Terpstra, T. & Gutteling, J.M. & Geldof, G.D. & Kappe, B. 2006, The
which states (see section 2): perception of flood risk and water nuisance. Water science and
How do citizens (and enterprises) perceive flood technology, 54 (6-7): 431-439.
Terpstra, T. & Gutteling, J.M. 2008, Households' perceived responsi-
risks and what can and should be the role of these bilities in flood risk management in The Netherlands, Submitted
perceptions in policy and decision making proc- for publication in Journal of Water Resources Development.
esses? Williamson, O.E. 1998, Transaction cost economics: how it works;
where it is headed, De Economist 146(1): 23-58.