Master Thesis

Adaptation and resilience after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy : The
Shortcomings of the Multiple Streams Approach in Explaining Policy Change after
Natural Disasters: A Complementary Congruence Analysis

MSc International Public Management and Policy

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Erasmus University Rotterdam

By: Cécile Reinkingh | 510554

First Reader: Dr. Asya Zhelyazkova
Second Reader: Dr. Michal Onderco

Date: October 26th, 2020

Word count: 24.441
Abstract
Climate change increasingly affects all regions around the world. The subsequent increased
frequency and intensity of natural hazards poses risks to societies that have not yet adapted to
this new reality. Hurricane Katrina and hurricane Sandy have served as examples for the
importance and urgence of adaptation measures and simultaneously showed the importance of
international communication when combatting these issues, as areas struck by change often
lack resources to prepare and prevent for future events. Therefore, this research paper focuses
on local impact of natural hazards but looks further than just local drivers of policy change,
discovering international influences driving policy change. Although this master thesis tries to
address this problem from a public administration perspective, it emphasizes the importance of
a holistic, multidisciplinary approach in such matters.
This paper thus seeks to create a complementary framework that explains policy change after
natural disasters. It does so by applying the two theories of policy change that are assumed to
have explanatory value in the case of policy change after hurricane Sandy and hurricane
Katrina. The Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) and theory of policy transfer are used, both
theories provide tools to analyze policy change, but singly seem insufficient to provide a
comprehensive explanation of policy change after natural disasters. Whereas the Multiple
Streams Approach has significant explanatory power for policy change, it fails to incorporate
the importance of international knowledge which has become essential for creating resilience
to climate change. Therefore, this research paper compares the explanatory power of both
theories and seeks to solve the gaps in the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) with results and
insights provided by theory of policy transfer.

2
“Scientific knowledge is as much an understanding of the diversity of
situations for which a theory or its models are relevant as an
understanding of its limits.”
― Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons

3
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Research Aim and Question .............................................................................................. 9
1.3 Societal and Theoretical Relevance of the Research Question ........................................... 9
1.4 Structure of the Thesis .................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................... 11
2.1 Natural Disasters and Responsibility ............................................................................... 11
2.2 Natural disasters as focusing events ................................................................................ 12
2.3 International policy sharing: scientific knowledge and experience .................................. 15
2.4 Measuring Policy Change ................................................................................................ 16
2.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 18
3.1: What should the theories explain? ................................................................................. 18
3.2 Multiple Streams Approach ............................................................................................ 19
Problem Stream ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Policy Stream .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Political Stream ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Policy Entrepreneurs ................................................................................................................................... 20
Framing ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Windows of Opportunity............................................................................................................................. 22
Hypotheses............................................................................................................................ 23
3.2 Policy Transfer ................................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 4: Methodology & Research Design .................................................................. 28
4.1 Qualitative Research ....................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Congruence Analysis: A Complementing Theories Approach ......................................... 29
4.3 Case Selection.................................................................................................................. 30
4.4 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 31
4.5 Internal Validity.............................................................................................................. 31
4.6 External Validity ............................................................................................................. 32
Chapter 5: Case Study Hurricane Katrina ...................................................................... 34
5.1 Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................................... 35
Focusing events lead to policy change if policy entrepreneurs respond immediately ............. 35
5.2 Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................................... 37
Policy change after natural disasters is heavily influenced by ‘framing’ of policy
entrepreneurs ....................................................................................................................... 37
5.3 Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................................................... 41

4
 Policy change after natural disasters is a gradual process driven by the growing availability
of international scientific sources and experience ................................................................. 41
5.4: Hypothesis 4 ................................................................................................................... 43
Policy transfer contributes to policy change when domestic actors lack knowledge and
expertise ............................................................................................................................... 43
5.5 Conclusive Remarks ........................................................................................................ 45
Chapter 6: Case Study Hurricane Sandy ......................................................................... 47
6.1 Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................................... 48
Focusing events lead to policy change if policy entrepreneurs respond immediately ............. 48
6.2 Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................................... 50
Policy change after natural disasters is heavily influenced by ‘framing’ of policy
entrepreneurs ....................................................................................................................... 50
6.3 Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................................................... 53
Policy change after natural disasters is a gradual process driven by the growing availability
of international scientific sources and experience ................................................................. 53
6.4 Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................................................... 56
Policy transfer contributes to policy change when domestic actors lack knowledge and
expertise ............................................................................................................................... 56
6.5 Conclusive Remarks ........................................................................................................ 58
Chapter 7: Discussion of Findings.................................................................................. 59
7.1 Unaccounted Findings ..................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 8: Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 63
8.1 Limitations, recommendations and links to relevance ....................................................... 64
Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 66

5
Page intentionally left blank

6
Chapter 1: Introduction
Why do policies change after natural disasters? Does their impact cause more attention for the
flaws in the status quo? Do people seize the opportunity by redirecting their resources to gain
attention for their preferred solutions, or does growing scientific evidence and (international)
experience stimulate policy makers to adapt their policy frameworks? These questions become
increasingly relevant concerning the growing impact of climate change and the need of
decreasing vulnerability and exposure of amongst others coastal (urban) regions. Climate
change has a direct impact on hurricanes and floods, which are driven by warmer sea surface
temperatures, sea level rise and coastal surges (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, sd).
Natural hazards pose a great risk for human beings worldwide, enforced by the often-low level
of climate adaptation and resilience. Therefore, there is a pressing need for increased resilience
through sustainable solutions and climate adaptation policies. Unfortunately, affected areas
often lack expertise and resources to create and implement policies that could solve these
problems. Multiple cases like this have appeared in the United States, where reliance on federal
response and consequent bureaucratic restraints have made it hard to shift to adaptive policies
on state and local level. This has caused many problems that have repetitively been blamed on
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), while disaster risk management would
likely be more successful in response and preparation, when being a task and responsibility of
the entirety of federal, state, local, tribal and territorial organizations and also public-private
partnerships, rather than just FEMA (Atkin, 2018). The transboundary and indiscriminate
nature of natural disasters may cause them to strike a wealthy country, but the burden of
recovery is often carried by the poor, driven by large economic losses (Mathew, 2007).
Therefore, the need for resilient and tailor-made solutions is higher than ever. Together with
the urge of the problem, the growing acknowledgement of natural disasters being caused by
human activities has stimulated the search for new ways of policymaking. Since a couple of
decades, we see a growing trend in international information sharing that contributes to climate
adaptation, accompanied by an increasing popularity of evidence-based policy making
(Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018). Examples hereof are the creation of the C40
network, the Climate Change Initiative (CCI) and multiple pathways of information sharing
through international organizations like the United Nations. A remarkable phenomenon in this
‘new’ way of policymaking and sharing is Dutch expertise in flood control, which is
increasingly exploited and used in other places prone to water-related problems. In The Water
Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities and the Remaking of the Civilized World, Jeff Goodell

7
puts it as follows: the Netherlands is currently one of the most innovative and reliable sources
in terms of water management which they are now “exporting around the world: wherever
there is a city at risk of flooding, you’ll likely find a Dutch engineer offering – or, just as often,
selling – a solution” (Goodell, 2017, p. 295). The active spread of policy ideas like these is
becoming more popular due to the increased popularity of evidence-based policy making
(Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018; Legrand, 2012). To understand the corresponding
processes, it must be investigated how governments, cities and local communities approach the
problem of natural disasters and how and why policy change occurs. In this thesis, the process
of policy change after natural disasters will be investigated by assessing two famous cases of
natural disasters: Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy that respectively hit the United States
in 2009 and 2012. The following two subparagraphs will discuss the problem statement and
the research aim and question, after which the social and theoretical relevance of the research
will be discussed. This chapter is concluded by an oversight of the structure of this thesis.
1.1 Problem Statement
The growing impact of natural hazards due to climate change asks for more research on how
affected areas can respond and prepare for future hazards. To determine this, it is necessary
that insight is gained in the process of changing policies and adaptation after past cases of
natural disasters. Existing theories on policy change can hereby help, as they can provide a
framework to explain how natural disasters led to policy change in these cases, which actors
were important, how these policies were supported and what techniques were used to promote
and implement these policies. It is highly likely that this research will tap into the different
interpretations of natural disasters and their relation to climate change, which can be quite an
influential obstruction to the level of policy change. The model of Multiple Streams Approach
has been successfully applied to countless cases in order to explain policy change and it is
therefore safe to assume that this model will have explanatory value for this paper. However,
the growing interconnectedness between governments together with and due to growing global
problems asks for international cooperation. Consequently, the standard application of the
Multiple Streams Approach that only considers “domestic policy-agenda settings in conditions
of high ambiguity” seems insufficient to provide a comprehensive picture of policy changes
after natural disasters (Lovell, 2016, p. 754). Therefore, this thesis additionally tests the
explanatory value of policy transfer theory. As a relatively new theory, limited research so far
has been done on this specific issue, thus little evidence exists on what theory has the most
explanatory power for policy change after natural disasters. Although this is a rather optimistic

8
aim due to the abundance of theories on policy change, testing the explanatory power of two
theories provides a starting point for future research.
1.2 Research Aim and Question
By assessing two cases, this research paper tries to create a comprehensive explanation of
policy change after natural disasters. The cases that will be studied in this paper are hurricane
Katrina and hurricane Sandy, who struck the United States respectively in 2005 and 2012.
These cases were picked deliberately because they both happened in the United States, which
enables one to draw comparative conclusions over changes in government attitudes,
contributing to the answer of the research question. Also, timewise this decision seems
appropriate, as they did not happen too short after each other and thus one can incorporate
influences on policy change such as Zeitgeist, national mood and political framework but also
changes internationally in policies towards the topic of climate change. The explanatory value
of the Multiple Streams Approach and policy transfer, eventually trying to create a
comprehensive approach. In doing so, this thesis will point out the scope of the theories by
testing where new policies come from and the incentives behind them. Also, this research aims
to establish what actors are most important in this process as explained by the two different
theories and which explanation is most comprehensive. This will lead to an answer on the
following research question: What theory best explains policy change after natural disasters?
This research paper uses congruence analysis and a complementing theories approach, testing
two theories and four hypotheses. The technicalities will be further explained in chapter 3:
methodology and research design.

1.3 Societal and Theoretical Relevance of the Research Question

This research helps to better understand the incentives behind policy change after natural
disasters. Whilst climate change and natural hazards are interdisciplinary matters, this research
aims to shine light on the public administration efforts behind changes in resilience and
adaptation. The theoretical relevance of this research lies in its aim to synthesize the Multiple
Streams Approach and policy transfer, or, at least, complementing the weaknesses of one
theory with elements of the other (Lehnert & Wonka, 2007). While this specific combination
of theories has been hinted upon before (Lovell, 2016), the application of this analysis to policy
change after natural disasters provides an application to a new empirical domain (Lehnert &
Wonka, 2007). The results of this thesis are important for future research on policy change as
it will be clearer what factors should be taken into consideration and which actors should
receive more attention than others when analyzing policy change after natural disasters.

9
As for the societal relevance of this research, one of the effects that this research might have is
on policy makers and policy entrepreneurs, whose strength in the process of policy change will
be determined and might provide different perspectives on where to gain information and on
what to base their policy proposals (Lehnert & Wonka, 2007). Also, it is very well possible
that the answer to this research question will help future research on policy change after natural
disasters as it can incorporate a new approach of theories and therefore start their research with
a more targeted focus. Finally, this research may contribute to the approach of natural disasters
as it heavily emphasizes the relationship between climate change and natural disasters and aims
to find examples of climate change adaptation policies that are adopted due to their success
elsewhere. This might cause people to understand and believe the need of these policies.
1.4 Structure of the Thesis
This thesis will develop as follows. In chapter 1, a literature review will be provided in which
preceding research on the topic and the used theories is analyzed in order to gain understanding
of the gaps in knowledge that need to be filled. After, the theoretical framework will explain
two theories that will be tested, and four hypotheses will be derived from the theories that will
help to answer the earlier established research question. Two hypotheses will be derived from
the Multiple Streams Approach and two hypotheses are derived from theory of policy transfer.
After the theoretical framework, chapter 3 informs the reader about the methodology that is
used and the research design, justifying the choice of methodology, cases, data and the
research’s validity. Chapter 4 and 5 are case studies in which the collected data is analyzed and
short conclusions on each case study are drawn. Following, the findings of both cases will be
provided in chapter 6 and a general assumption is provided from this, after which it will be
determined which theory has most explanatory value when analyzing policy change after
natural disasters. This will be based on the four hypotheses answered in chapter 4 and 5.
Finally, the conclusion will present a recap of the aim of this thesis and the answer to the
research question. Also, suggestions for future research will be made and additionally the
limitations that were encountered during this research.

10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
In this chapter, an assessment of previous research will be provided, and the topic of this thesis
will be placed within the context of this existing literature. As this thesis aims to provide an
answer to the question what theory best explains policy change after natural disasters? this
review will explore existing literature and find out how this research can possibly make a
contribution to this. First, this literature review will discuss previous research on who is held
responsible to take action and react after natural disasters. This will be useful for the rest of the
thesis, when further work will on policy change after natural disasters will be analyzed and will
highly likely use different perspectives on responsibility on different levels. Following,
previous research on policy change after natural disasters will be analyzed and the relationship
between existing literature and the topic of this research paper will be discussed, confirming
the relevance of the research question. Finally, this chapter will provide interpretations and
definitions of ‘policy change’ that are fitting to the topic of this thesis and will enable answering
the research question as comprehensive as possible.

2.1 Natural Disasters and Responsibility

Disaster risk reduction can be defined as “an integral objective of environment related policies
and plans, including for land use natural resource management and adaptation to climate
change” (United Nations, 2014). It includes a wide variety of policies aimed at resilience,
climate change adaptation and reconstruction. In fact, nowadays there is a widespread
understanding that hazards in itself do not necessarily have to become disasters, but that
damage largely depends on factors such as vulnerability and exposure of a certain area.
Governments are considered key players in protecting their citizens through implementing and
adapting protective and preventive policies; besides other risks that need to be addressed by
governments, natural disasters due to their suddenness have a specific influence in agenda-
setting and policy change (Birkland, 2016). Response to natural disasters belongs to national
security. Research on government response after Hurricane Katrina provides some insight in
the abilities of a government to respond, explaining the failure to do so to be a result of either
rent seeking in bureaucratic processes or institutionalist restraints (Chamlee-Wright & Storr,
2010 ). Other literature discusses that the expectations of citizens for their government to rescue
them in the aftermath of a disaster creates constraints to their own motivation to do so: officials
and policy-makers in charge of relief are forced to provide more relief every time, which
discourages individuals to undertake protective measures themselves (Michel-Kerjan &

11
Volkman Wise, 2011). This poses the question whether disaster management policies should
be more efficient and effective in the long-run and also if the effect of these measures differs
on the local, state and federal level. Clarifying expectations of government accountability,
taking Hurricane Katrina as an example, media focused much more on government response
than on responses of individuals, communities or public health roles: an analysis of 1590
articles on Hurricane Katrina showed that 40% focused on the responsibility of the federal
government (Barnes, et al., 2008) – which was recognized as the institution that had the most
responsibility, versus local governments, individuals or agencies (Barnes, et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, natural disasters always strike at local level and the growing interconnectedness
between cities (represented by climate summits for cities and international organizations such
as the C40) demands more responsibility on local and state level (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017).
In order to create a comprehensive analysis of policy change after natural disasters and the
motivations behind it, it is important to assess both policy change on federal, state and local
level. For policy change to occur, however, events must first occur on the policy agenda. In the
following paragraphs, previous research on natural disasters and agenda setting will be
discussed and its relevance to this research.
2.2 Natural disasters as focusing events

The main and foremost work standing out when analyzing existing literature on this topic is
that of Thomas Birkland. His work extensively discusses the process of policy change after
natural hazards, or, more generally, ‘focusing events’ (Birkland, 2016). Birkland introduces
the idea of natural disasters as focusing events and explains how focusing events are able to
shed light on weaknesses in and of existing policies (Birkland, 2016). Birkland, corresponding
with the previous paragraph on government responsibility, mainly focuses on government
response after disasters and explains that action is often, but not always undertaken after
focusing events (Birkland, 2016). The idea of focusing events is narrowly connected to theory
of agenda setting. Agenda setting “influences public agendas and policies through deliberate
coverage of events and issues, with the media prompting policymakers to take action and
satisfy the public’s interest or demand for answers” (Barnes, et al., 2008, p. 605). The need for
policy changes in one field can end up higher on the policy-agenda than others. This is, as
explained by DeLeo, because disasters are a social construct and it is the media, politicians,
disaster managers and policy entrepreneurs that shape certain events to pursue their own
interests (DeLeo, 2018). This is called framing, which can cause us to interpret a problem in a
certain way, allowing for a connection to a certain policy solution, but not others (Knaggard,

12
2013). After natural disasters, light is shed on new information and more attention for the flaws
in the status quo increases negative judgement thereof, creating more incentives for change
amongst policymakers (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Birkland, 1998). An example thereof is
analyzed by Birkland, namely airport security after 9/11, which did not seem sufficient to many
people after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and became highly criticized, whilst there was no such
amount of criticism before (Birkland, 2006). This works similarly for natural disasters: they
attain much attention when they occur, aggregating different actors, like interest groups, policy
entrepreneurs, the media, etc. to realize flaws in the existing policy framework, after which
solutions will be sought in order to solve these problems (Birkland, 1996). DeLeo (2018) goes
on to describe the different theories of agenda-setting, of which amongst others Kingdon’s
(2003) multiple stream approach is mentioned, which is a useful theory in the case of natural
hazards and policy change as it takes into consideration not only what drives policy change,
but also the agenda-setting process, enabling to create a complete oversight of why an
assortment of factors can lead to change (Birkland, 2016).
Together with Basher (2008) these articles recognize the fact that natural disasters or hazards
do not necessarily have to become disasters, but whether or not they become disasters depends
on the state of preparation of the affected area (Basher, 2008; Birkland, 2016; DeLeo, 2018).
This adds to the previously encountered statement that the response to natural disasters is
dependent on the way in which it is presented as a problem by interest groups, media, policy
entrepreneurs and other stakeholders (Birkland, 1996). Both DeLeo and Birkland primarily
focus on the role of the federal government in disaster response, which is emphasized by the
fact that they both discuss the Multiple Streams Approach by John Kingdon, which is based on
domestic policy only (Durant & Diehl, 2013). Already in the introduction, however, the
establishment of international networks and information sharing was discussed. This thus
brings about the question whether there are more approaches and researched that should be
taken into account in order to figure out the best theories to compare when answering the
research question.
While research by Birkland mostly focuses on the rather broad aspect of policy change after
‘focusing events’, there have been some researchers who have conducted empirical case studies
and specifically analyzed policy change after natural disasters, but often use a more technical
and statistical research design, or focus on a single policy and therefore hard to incorporate in
this literature review (Zhang & Lu, 2018; Sapat, 2011; Alam, Alam & Mushtaq 2017). Most
researchers pick one or two theories on policy change, Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach
(1984), or at least elements thereof occurring often. An example is the analysis of Zhang and

13
Lu (2018) on policy change on disaster management in China from 1949-2016 (Zhang & Lu,
2018). Zhang and Lu incorporate the MSA, but also hint on the practicalities of knowledge
sharing and that this will contribute to the improvement of the Chinese disaster management
policy framework, in this case connected to Sabatier’s theory of Advocacy Coalition
Frameworks (Zhang & Lu, 2018). This research is useful as it shows an empirical application
of policy change theories to the topic of natural disasters, and although it acknowledges the
growing influence of Nongovernmental Organizations on disaster management policies, it
mostly neglects the influence of international networks and mostly focuses on domestic
influences on policy change (Zhang & Lu, 2018). Zhang and Lu do emphasize the difference
in disaster management on different levels of governance, which thus should be taken into
account in this thesis. Similarly, this difference is indicated in research by Kristin O’Donovan,
who assesses policy change on state level after natural disasters (O'Donovan, 2017). This fairly
new article by O’Donovan contributes to the Multiple Streams Approach by analyzing the
power of focusing events. More importantly, she introduces the idea of accumulated experience
when focusing events reoccur and tests whether or not experience with a specific problem
increase the probability of policy change (O'Donovan, 2017). The conclusion that (some)
policy learning is existent after focusing events is significant to this research and confirms the
relevance of incorporating the concept of policy learning when answering the research
question. Research by Albright and Crow (2016) also suggests the influence of experience on
policy change and how it can influence one’s perception of disaster risk (Albright & Crow,
2016). However, possible influence from experiences on policy change or knowledge from
outside of the domestic ‘streams’ remains undiscussed (Albright & Crow, 2016; O’Donovan,
2017). While this paragraph has established that previous research mostly focused on the
domestic factors that influence policy change after natural disasters (response by stakeholders
and media and degree of preparation), information on international networks and basic
knowledge of globalization establishes the need to discuss research that provides a more
international focus on policy change and considers influences from the outside that possibly
affect or help policy change after natural disasters. Accompanying this is the need to investigate
the influence of a growing (international) database of information and experience on policy
making after natural disasters worldwide.

14
2.3 International policy sharing: scientific knowledge and experience

Researchers in the past have emphasized the need for further research on policy transfer as a
contributor to policy change: the growing attention for international expertise and the effect
thereof on policy change should be monitored (Zevenbergen, et al., 2013). This makes sense,
considering the growth in international information sharing over the past decades, also in this
policy field and contributing to climate adaptation, due to the increasing popularity of policy-
making based on evidence (Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018). While the previous two
paragraphs are based on the perception of natural disasters being “relatively uncommon”, a
definition used in most policy literature (Birkland 1998), perceiving natural disasters still as
uncommon seems incorrect considering the reoccurrence of similar events in the same places
as consequences of climate change. Also, it to a certain extent neglects the possibility and
necessity of learning from best practices elsewhere or copying those due to possible lack of
experience. Although of course it must be taken into consideration that disasters differ in all
domains, there is overlap, particularly when an event occurs in the same area. There are
multiple researchers that have focused on the idea of sharing policies between domains, even
internationally. Schneider and Ingram have developed the concept of “pinching of ideas” which
means that experts can draw lessons from other policy domains or even governments, or,
policies can be ‘transferred’ on a global scale (May, 1992). Birkland in his book hints at a
combination of Kingdon’s theory and theory on policy learning, but explanation thereof mostly
remains within the ‘domestic’ political sphere, focusing on experience of policymakers rather
than other actors that might be able to influence the policy sphere (Birkland, 2006 ). This
interpretation seems appealing for this paper, as it recognizes international policy networks but
it is also understood that sometimes policies can be transferred as a one-time solution for an
urgent issue: for example, countries that experience a lot of floods but are not used to this can
borrow expertise and best practices from countries that are more experienced. This is where
the idea of policy transfer seems a fitting approach considering the topic of this thesis, as it is
likely to happen more and more in the future due to the cross-border character of climate
change and natural disasters. According to McEntire and Myers (2004), preparedness for
natural disasters can actually increase inter-organization coordination and communication.
This is particularly interesting in the case of floods, where experience amongst policy makers
and entrepreneurs is important in the process of recovering (O’Donovan, 2017; Albright &
Crow, 2016). As mentioned in the introduction, examples hereof are the creation of the C40

15
network, the Climate Change Initiative (CCI) and multiple other international networks that
aim to share knowledge and experience on increasing resilience and policies that anticipate
climate change and subsequent natural disasters. For example, Zevenbergen et al. (2012)
emphasize the importance of improving flood policies by learning from experience,
international interventions and constantly improving practices (Zevenbergen, et al., 2013).
Diane Stone’s work discusses this as well, calling upon emerging ‘international policy
cultures’, communities that develop when sharing information, experience and expertise, a kind
of soft policy sharing in which knowledge, norms, interpretations and values accumulate and
shape a new understanding of common issues (Stone, 2012; Teichman, 2007; Newburn, 2010).
She elaborates on this by explaining what actors can be involved in sharing knowledge, whom
she calls “policy transfer entrepreneurs” and represents a very extensive and diverse group of
actors, like think tanks, NGOs, universities, business coalitions or philanthropic foundations
that enable the share of (mostly scientific) knowledge between countries (Stone D. , 2012, p.
494). This can be both ‘soft transfer’ and ‘hard transfer’, the latter more about policy practices
and legislation with mainly policy officials involved (Stone D. , 2012). Scientific evidence can
serve as an important insurance of effectiveness in policymaking. Especially after natural
disasters that are caused by climate change and thus likely to reoccur, it is important that policy
makers learn from previous flaws in policy or mistakes in solutions; as educative experiences,
they can provide valuable new information on potential reoccurrence and losses (Kousky,
2016). Since natural disasters remain to some extent unpredictable and the consequences
uncertain, scientific evidence and international assistance and knowledge can help to create
more effective policies. More importantly, scientific proof could possibly lead to policy change
when it occurs to policymakers as better and feasible. This process can be placed under theory
of policy learning and is seen as an essential process for the development of policies that protect
the environment (Monpetit & Lachapelle, 2015). Globalization is ubiquitous and also present
in environmental and disaster policy, which enables countries to share information and recall
upon international assistance and policies

2.4 Measuring Policy Change

In order to make claims on the level of policy change after natural disasters, it is important to
first define ‘policy change’ as a dependent variable. Definitions of policy change offer either a
broad or narrow perspective. A clear and way to narrowly define policy change are
constitutional amendments or the implementation of major legislation (Birkland, 2006 ). Other

16
ways to indicate change are to show changes in regulations or different modes of operation of
procedures and shifts in behavior of bureaucrats (Birkland, 2006). In this research paper, the
term ‘policy change’ represents not only both previous definitions of change, but proof of
policy change is also seen as “enacted legislation and regulations” and more importantly the
“movement in the direction of policy change’ (Birkland, 2006 p.25) which is due to the fact
that this research also focuses on policy transfer. Bennett and Howlett adopted a similar
approach in defining policy change after natural disasters as “changing set(s) of beliefs, values
and attitudes towards the flood problem’ because of learning from past disasters” (Bennett &
Howlett, 1992). Since it might be hard to assess policy change in a time frame of approximately
ten years (as the process of implementing change can be lengthy), a movement in a certain
direction or policy recommendations can be used as a valuable indicator, increasing the scope
of useful data. Therefore, also policy recommendations and reports are important sources in
this research. The use of the concept policy transfer needs an additional justification. Even
when no clear evidence exists of an outcome of the process of policy transfer, engagement in
policy dialogues can still evoke learning and thus result in change – despite ‘tangible outcomes’
therefore the process can still result in learning over time (Dabrowski, Musialkowska, &
Polverari, 2018).
2.5 Conclusion

The literature review has provided some key definitions and perceptions that are necessary
when conducting this research. First of all, it taught us that federal governments are mainly
held responsible after natural disasters, but there is a growing need for involvement on every
level of government. It has showed some gaps in previous research and it enabled to draw an
idea of how this research and topic is contributing to existing literature. The lack of research
and evidence in this field of study emphasize the importance of new empirical cases that
investigate the influence of international assistance and the reasons for calling upon it. Not
many researchers have yet explored the specific reasons behind these international
interventions or the incentives that drive policy makers to incorporate international experience
when creating new policies (Legrand, 2012; Benson & Jordan, 2011).

17
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
The following chapter will present and explain the two theories that will be used to conduct a
proper congruence analysis. First, the theoretical framework is introduced by presenting some
questions that have risen from the literature review and that can be answered by using
theories. After, the two theories that will be contrasted and compared in this congruence
analysis will be discussed: the aim of many policy analysis frameworks is to measure the
incentives behind behavioral change (Johnson et al. 2005). Johnson et al. (2005) argue that in
order to do so in an inclusive and complete way, it is important to apply multiple theoretical
frameworks. Therefore, this section will describe two theories that will contribute to
answering the research question.
3.1: What should the theories explain?
From the literature that was researched in the previous chapter, it has become clear that
natural disasters are able to influence the policy agenda and can thus drive policy change.
However, not all disasters cause change, nor is all change caused by disasters (Birkland,
Policy Process Theory and Natural Hazards , 2016). According to previous research on policy
change after natural disasters, more specifically in the United States between 1950 and 2015,
new disaster policies are often, but not always, created based on the aftermath of major
disasters (Birkland, 2016). What then are the causes of policy change after natural disasters?
According to Howlett and Cashore, there has raised a “new orthodoxy” in policy studies,
assuming that change is often due to radical shifts caused by disturbances outside of the
policy agenda (Howlett, 2013). However, other theories see policy change as a product of
slowly accumulated information, such as scientific proof, policy experience or cross-border
information sharing (Grin & Loeber, 2007; Weis, 1977). This is described by some theories
such as policy transfer, a theory of which limited research is yet available. However, policy
transfer describes a process in which knowledge from anywhere can be used to create a better
policy (or, ‘best practice’), while the traditional MSA by Kingdon mostly focuses on
domestic streams of policymaking. However, this seems outdated due to the growing trend of
transnational learning and communities since his framework was created. Therefore, this
theoretical framework will focus on both Multiple Streams Approach and theory of policy
transfer in order to find out which of the two has most explanatory power for the research
question.

18
3.2 Multiple Streams Approach

In the previous chapter, it was mentioned that natural disasters can function as focusing events.
The idea that focusing events can provoke policy change can be traced back to John Kingdon’s
Multiple Streams Approach (1984). The application of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach,
focusing on its keystones such as policy entrepreneurs, focusing events and windows of
opportunity is not new. However, often the application of the model is used as a tool for case
studies but the value or strength of the key elements of the model remain unexplored
(Zohlnhofer & Rub, 2016). The origin of policy ideas or the possibility of policy change outside
or after a window of opportunity remains, herewith, unexplained. Focusing events are a crucial
addition to Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach (after this MSA), or, agenda setting, in
which he states that policies can be changed during ‘windows of opportunity’. Normally, these
windows of opportunity are created when the three streams have developed and come together:
a problem occurs, a solution is available and the political atmosphere is willing and capable of
making changes (Brouwer, 2015). Because the window that then opens is only open for a short
period of time, there is only a short-term action radius to aggravate policy change (Brouwer,
2015). Focusing events can function as a push in the direction of policy change, being a crisis
or a disaster, a powerful symbol catching on, or personal experience of a policy maker
(Kingdon, 1984). Following, the most important elements of the Multiple Streams Approach
will be explained, starting with what happens in each of the three streams.
Problem Stream
The problem stream consists of multiple components that can be observed as problematic, thus
indicating the need for policy change (Jones, et al., 2016 ). Focusing events have been discussed
earlier: sudden, upsetting happenings that shift the collective attention towards it and the
attached policy problem. While focusing events are more sudden and one-off, indicators are,
according to Jones et al., ways in which actors perceive and monitor (possible) problems which
can be issues like unemployment, immigration, etc. (Jones, et al., 2016 ). The last factors within
the problem stream are feedback and load: whereas load refers to the capacity of organizations
to solve problems, feedback is information gained from previous successful programs (Jones,
et al., 2016 ).

19
Policy Stream
The policy stream refers to what Kingdon (1984) once called the ‘primeval soup’ of ideas and
options when creating new policies: the new policy then can be either or not become successful
based on the five components within the policy stream. Policy proposals should therefore be
in coherence with the common values of a community (value acceptability), they should be
technically feasible within the context (technical feasibility), and the resources to complete the
new policy should be available (resource adequacy) (Jones, et al., 2016 ).
Political Stream
The third and final stream, the political stream, primarily refers to the context and community
in which policy change can occur. The components of which this stream exists are national
mood, party ideology and balance of interest. Each of these three components points out the
importance of contextual and cultural factors namely the general perception of the problem of
the public (national mood), the behavior and plans of political parties within institutions (party
ideology) and balance of interest includes others that can possibly influence the process, i.e.
advocacy groups (Jones, et al., 2016 ).
Policy Entrepreneurs
Policy entrepreneurs are the main actors for agenda-setting in the Multiple Streams Approach,
developing new policies and coupling them to the problem stream (Knåggard, 2015). Policy
entrepreneurs are individuals that take advantage of a policy window in order to create policy
change that is in their favor. In order to do so, they are willing to invest their resources in order
to help their preferences and interests, which they do through several different techniques and
strategies, therefore serving an important purpose within the policy process (Reimer &
Saerbeck, 2017). According to Kingdon (1984), policy entrepreneurs can be politicians, leaders
of interest groups or other knowledgeable people that may present an unofficial coalition
(Kingdon 1984).The international orientation of climate governance stimulates the cooperation
between governments and policy entrepreneurs (Reimer & Saerbeck, 2017). However, the
Multiple Streams Approach in its most original interpretation does not recognize influences
outside the domestic streams. Therefore, one must look beyond the definition of policy
entrepreneurs as given by Kingdon within the MSA and some adaptations might be necessary
explain policy change after natural disasters.
Framing
Another very important factor within the Multiple Streams Approach is that of framing.
Framing is a rather universal concept and can be interpreted as defining a problem or presenting
a problem in a way that it has a certain meaning and as a crucial driver of policy change

20
(Knåggard, 2015; Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017). In general, it can be understood as picking
specific elements or events and trying to make a connection between them in order to promote
a certain perception, interpretation or solution: policy entrepreneurs thus use it for coupling
and creating a definition of issues (Entman, 2004; Zohlnhofer & Rub, 2016).
According to Zahariadis, this technique is used policy entrepreneurs in order to promote their
preferred policy outcomes (Zahariadis, 2016). With framing, policy entrepreneurs can use
symbols or a certain way of presenting an issue to gain public support for the way in which
they perceive the problem and the policies they find most suitable to solve them. Framing is
thus the process in which actors thus ‘enforce’ or promote a certain interpretation or definition
of a problem (Zahariadis, 2016). This is important because the options for policy change appear
to be determined by the way in which a problem is perceived or defined (Stone, 2002). In this
paper, the interpretation of ‘framing’ by Åsa Knaggård is used, who provides three elements
of framing (2015). Important in this research paper is the fact that knowledge is crucial to
framing and can be based on scientific evidence or personal or bureaucratic experience
(Knåggard, 2015). On the other hand, values are important in the framing technique as well;
policy solutions must be connected to some sort of value in order to show the importance of
their policy preference and can be things like education, poverty or racism (Knåggard, 2015).
Finally, emotions play an important part in framing a problem as they create the connection
between people and the world (Knåggard, 2015) and can be used through symbols (think of
images used in newspapers), indications about losses and gains, or creating urgency through
fear (Knåggard, 2015). Also, the media is an important influencer in the framing process, as it
is able to “shape and reflect public discourse” (Cody, Stephens, Bagrow, Dodds, & Danforth,
Transitions in Climate and Energy Discourse between Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, 2016, p.
87). Because media reflects the public discourse, it is a helpful tool in determining the ‘content’
of the streams when applying the Multiple Streams Approach. Also, because focusing events
include every level of society and ask for solutions almost instantly, policy entrepreneurs are
essential in coupling the streams thus enabling policy change and they use framing as a strategy
to promote their own ideas, framing seems like a very important element for this theory and
thus needs to be investigated further in the light of its importance compared to the rest of the
Multiple Streams Model. Finally, according to Ingram and Lejano (2009), previous academic
research has often focused on the policy stream, but the framing of problems and strategies of
policy entrepreneurs is able to make much larger contributions to policy change (Ingram &
Lejano, 2009). Therefore, the power of framing must be tested.

21
Windows of Opportunity
Windows of opportunity open when these the individual streams come together, and in order
to change or access the policy agenda, policy entrepreneurs should act thereupon by bringing
the streams together (Jones, et al., 2016 ). A window of opportunity can also open due to so-
called focusing events, these windows tend not to be open for a long time and may already
close due to another major issue before there has been a chance to solve the first (Cairney &
Zahariadis, 2016). Policymakers thus must act upon the opening of the streams quickly, due to
the brief nature of the window of opportunity (Cairney & Jones, 2016). If they fail to have an
alternative policy ready, thus, to be prepared at the time the policy window opens, it will close
before any substantial change is made (Weimer & Vining, 2017). This is due to the fact that
policymakers can only pay attention to a fraction of the problems of society. Therefore,
focusing events do not always draw all their attention (for a long time), unless these events
shed light on policies through failure thereof, particularly when sensitive topics like inequality,
education, or climate change (Cairney & Zahariadis, 2016). According to Kingdon, solution-
production and problem solving are a separate process. Due to the fact that policy change takes
time to develop and also, there is a constant interaction between a solution that can draw
attention and an already established set of ideas that exists in the policy community (Cairney
& Zahariadis, 2016; Cairney and Heikkila 2014). Whereas the original research topic of
Kingdon was the US federal-level policy system, the elements of MSA have been formulated
in such an “abstract” way that it is possible to apply the model quite universally (Cairney &
Zahariadis, Multiple Streams Analysis: A Flexible Metaphor Presents an Opportunity to
Operationalize Agenda Setting Processes, 2016). These elements are ambiguity for attention,
an imperfect selection process and limited time, which are not quite as specific to a certain
political model (Cairney & Zahariadis, 2016) and do not define any type of focusing event.
Applying MSA to agenda-setting and policy change after (natural) disasters as focusing events
is not new. Thomas Birkland has contributed with extensive analyses applying MSA to cases
of (natural) disasters and crises. Herein he uses the Kingdon’s perception of natural disasters
as events that are able to “bowl over” everything that is on the policy agenda at the moment
and take priority and attention of policy makers (Kingdon qtd. in Birkland, 2016). The MSA
thus focuses on multiple aspects that are important in setting the policy agenda and therefore
can be seen as an overarching theory for policy change. However, it misses out on some aspects
that are covered by different approaches. MSA is specifically important to this research as it
emphasizes the potential abruptness of most natural disasters, and more importantly the short
amount of time that policymakers have to make use of the window that is created consequently,

22
which is one of the three basic elements of the approach. Therefore, other theories must be
explored that focus on a broader scope of what can cause policy change and are not bound to
time constraints such as the MSA. Theories focusing on a more gradual process of policy
change could be policy learning or specifically policy transfer. In the article of Cairney and
Zahariadis on the Multiple Streams Analysis that has been mentioned multiple times, several
propositions on the MSA are presented, from which it appears that the MSA in its application
to some extent shows room for connecting it to other theories that include elements as learning
and experience as influencing the process of policy change. Their final proposition is that“an
issue’s chances of making it to the top of the agenda increase when skilled policy entrepreneurs
show policymakers, during open policy windows, that the problem can be solved by an already
available solution which has been well received within policy networks” (Cairney &
Zahariadis, 2016, p. 22). The reference to skilled policy entrepreneurs and already available
solutions are normal in applying the Multiple Streams Model, but it does raise questions about
what influence experience can have on policy change and where and how these policy
entrepreneurs gain information and available solutions. The Multiple Streams Approach seems
to be universal enough to apply it to the issue of policy change after natural disasters. Natural
disasters can be seen as focusing events, that are framed by policy entrepreneurs and the media
and require the three streams to get together in order to evoke policy change.
Hypotheses

The end of the previous chapter presents several general ideas about natural disasters driving
policy change. This research will focus on the idea of ‘focusing events’, derived from the theory
of MSA since this is the best fit for the intended case selection of natural disasters. After
reading into this theory and learning that there is only a short amount of time to evoke policy
change after an event, a relatively short timeframe for change after natural disasters needs to
be included in the hypothesis on focusing events. Therefore, the following hypotheses will be
tested:
H1: Focusing events lead to policy change if policy entrepreneurs respond immediately
This hypothesis will test whether or not focusing events create only a relatively short ‘window
of opportunity’ for policy change to occur. This hypothesis is derived from the conception of
the Multiple Streams Model that windows of opportunity should be acted upon quickly and
have a short-term radius of action to realize change (Brouwer, 2015).

23
H2: Policy change after natural disasters is heavily influenced by ‘framing’ of policy
entrepreneurs
This hypothesis is derived from the importance of the policy entrepreneurs and the strength of
framing in the literature of the Multiple Streams Approach. Policy entrepreneurs have the
ability to frame a problem in a certain way that suits their preferred policy change or outcome.
As stated by Deborah Stone (2002), the way in which a problem is perceived or presented,
determines the options for policy change. The power of policy entrepreneurs and their framing
strategies, plus the need for further research on this topic, is again emphasized by Ingram and
Lejano (Ingram & Lejano, 2009). Therefore, it does seem like this is such a powerful tool that
it is worth testing its influence on determining the level of policy change after natural disasters
more than other streams. With ‘influenced’ in this sense, a process is meant in which one can
see an emphasis on a certain topic and leaning towards that idea in policy making. This research
paper recognizes policy entrepreneurs and the media as key players in problem framing after
natural disasters. The dependent variable is the level of policy change from the status quo
(before the focusing event). The independent variables are the timeframe after the disaster and
the influence of policy entrepreneurs and their actions within the selected case.

3.2 Policy Transfer

As discussed earlier, this thesis needs a theory that acknowledges learning from abroad. This
is the main deficiency of the Multiple Streams Approach in trying to answer the research
question. Also, the interpretation of policy entrepreneurs only being successful when
immediately responding to focusing events seems ignorant in the case of solving problems
relating to climate change. Considering this, theory of policy transfer (although relatively new,
underdeveloped and sparsely applied) seems an appropriate fit.
With awareness for climate change growing, so is the incentive to act upon it. The
transboundary nature of climate change and its results, natural disasters, asks for international
cooperation and experience. A quite advanced example is Dutch water governance: there have
yet been several examples of Dutch water management experience inspiring other countries in
their climate adaptation strategies (Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018). The acquisition
of this mindset or framework of policies shows a movement of international policy cooperation
and that learning does not necessarily have to happen within one political framework but can
be a cross-country process. Richard Rose is one of the first theorists that came up with this
perception of learning and argues that policy makers can actually gain from insights gained
elsewhere (Grin & Loeber, 2007 ). Drawn upon by Schneider and Ingram (1988), policies can

24
transfer through ‘pinching of ideas’ (Grin & Loeber, 2007; Schneider & Ingram, 1988). This
thesis will use theory of policy transfer: although it is possible that learning occurs from policy
transfer, it is important to notice that there is no causal relation between policy transfer and
policy learning (Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018).Policy learning can be defined as a
process in which policymakers adjust their perceptions, understandings and beliefs on public
policy (Moyson, Scholten, & Weible, 2017). Policy transfer can also occur when governments
or local actors are indecisive about new policies, possibly due to political conflicts, policy
failure or lack of scientific information and experience might stimulate them to look for
experience from another place and can stimulate policy transfer (Stone D. , 1999). The
following section therefore focuses on where exactly new information is gained and how it is
implemented between domains and has an organizational and government-level approach.
According to Dolowitz and Marsh policy transfer and defined the concept as a way in which
knowledge (on policies) flows between governments and administrations and how these ideas
are spread and implemented in other political organizations (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000).
Dolowitz and Marsh created a framework on policy transfer that evolves around multiple key
questions: why do actors engage in transfer? Who are the key actors involved in the transfer
process? What is transferred? From where are lessons drawn? What are the different degrees
of transfer? What restricts or facilitates transfer? How is the process of policy transfer related
to policy “success” or policy “failure”? (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000, p. 8). Most important for
the scope of this research is the fact that policy transfer can happen through elected officials,
but the theory also includes international organizations, think tanks, transnational corporations,
ideologies, institutions, attitudes and cultural values as possible ways of transferring policies,
knowledge and ‘best practices’ (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). This is a pivotal difference between
the Multiple Streams Approach and theory of Policy Transfer. Also, the scope of what is
actually transferred is quite broad and correspond quite well with the definition of policy
change in this paper (see Chapter 3 section 4.2): transferred can be policy goals, content, policy
instruments, programs, institutions, ideologies, ideas and attitudes and negative lessons
(Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000, p. 12). In order for policy transfer to happen, there are several factors
determining the process. Since this research paper will be using complementary congruence
analysis, the ‘environment’ is the most important factor group as environmental factors play a
role throughout the entire process of policy transfer (Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018).
Within the environment, Minkman, van Buuren and Bekkers describe contextual factors, of
which the ‘policy arena’ is the most important factor, here defined as including the “Zeitgeist,
existence or absence of competition with peers and the political climate” (Minkman, van

25
Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018, p. 229). Another reason to include this theory on research on policy
change after natural disasters is based on knowledge that governments often lack experience
and resources to deal with these events. Policy transfer offers a solution for this problem,
acknowledging the possibility for actors, after policy failure, to start searching for new ideas
that can replace or improve the status quo (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). Other perceptions of
policy learning through the experiences of others emphasizes the growing popularity of
evidence-based policymaking and beliefs that policy learning is transboundary and pay
attention to the growing extend of globalization and importance of an international network of
governments for policy transfer working on global (security) issues (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000;
Minkman, van Buuren & Bekkers, 2018). However, this relatively new perception of learning
remains underdeveloped. This is also due to the fact that policy transfer is one of the many
things that can contribute to policy change, other such things being some degree of coercion, a
charismatic entrepreneur or a change in the composition of the government (Moyson, Scholten,
& Weible, 2017). Therefore, in this paper, policy transfer will be treated as improving and
extending the scope of the Multiple Streams Approach. After conducting the literature review,
it became clear that the theory of policy transfer as explained by Dolowitz and Marsh provides
a comprehensive and clear understanding when researching policy change after natural
disasters, due to its inclusiveness. After natural disaster, failures of existing policies are
highlighted. The methodology of this research paper, congruence analysis, requires that the
tested theories are somehow contrasted, even though a complementary approach is used in this
case. However, the following two hypotheses are therefore formulated in a way that they
contrast the former hypotheses that were derived from the Multiple Streams Approach.
Considering the growing popularity of policy transfer and the growing awareness of the effects
of climate change, plus an increasing scientific database of knowledge on these topics, the
following hypotheses will be tested.
H3: Policy change after natural disasters is a gradual process driven by the growing
availability of international scientific sources and experience

This hypothesis contrasts the Multiple Streams Approach in two ways. First, it states that policy
change can happen after a longer amount of time, when possibly other issues have been
presented on the policy agenda. Secondly, it includes influences and policy ideas from more
actors than just elected politicians, leaders or unofficial spokespeople (Kingdon, 1984). If
correct, theory on policy transfer can be complementary to the Multiple Streams Approach as
that theory then lacks explanatory power about the origin information that drives policy change.

26
It is based on the idea that globalization and growing importance of international networks lead
to an increase in policy transfer (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; Minkman, van Buuren & Bekkers,
2018).

H4: Policy transfer contributes to policy change when domestic actors lack knowledge and
expertise

This should be visible particularly when there is a lack of experience or knowledge amongst
local policy entrepreneurs. The hypothesis is derived from the element of the framework by
Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) in which is asked why actors involve in policy transfer (Dolowitz
& Marsh, 2000). Due to the need for information and new policies in addition to the growing
network and increasingly integrated policy arenas internationally, natural disasters evoke
policy transfer in order to change existing policies. This also corresponds with Stone’s claim
that uncertainty may be a potential stimulant for policy transfer (Stone D. , 1999). The
dependent variable remains stable: the status quo policy. The independent variables are policies
from abroad (the international policy network) on disaster management, mitigation and
resiliency and everything that was implemented before elsewhere. These hypotheses are
formulated in a way that they can possibly contribute to the MSA framework since they focus
on elements of policy change that MSA ignores. For example, the MSA does not cover the
possibility of gradual policy change after focusing events, nor the influence of international
experience on policy adoption.

27
Chapter 4: Methodology & Research Design

This chapter will explain and justify the methods that were chosen to do the case studies. Also,
the selection of data is justified by linking it to the method. The chapter starts by explaining
which research design was decided to be most suitable and determining the dependent and
independent variable. Following, this chapter will elaborate on the collection of data. After
completing the literature review and theoretical framework, it has been established that the
main aim of this research paper will be to create a more inclusive approach of the theory on
focusing events in which attention is paid to the internationalization of the policy process. In
order to do so, theory on policy transfer will be applied. However, before getting to improve
an existing framework, the theories will be compared in order to see what each is lacking.
Comparing these theories with a focus on reaching the aim of this paper demands a case study
with an international focus.

4.1 Qualitative Research

In the introduction, literature review and theoretical framework, information that could
contribute to solving the research question was provided. This paper will focus on explaining
the reasons of policy change through different theories. In trying to explain this, this paper will
encounter multiple factors that play a role in policy change in a complex social context. The
focus lies on the relationship between theory and research (Bryman, 2012 ), which is best
approached in a qualitative manner. Considering the limitations of quantitative analysis, or the
limitations that might occur during it, qualitative research in this case is a way to avoid this.
For example, it is often hard to determine whether or not the dependent variable is influenced
by the independent variable when using quantitative research (Bryman, 2012 ).When
researching policy change after natural disasters, it is stated that the dependent variable is the
level of change in the existing policy framework after natural disasters and the independent
variables are natural disasters and their direct effect on society. Therefore, qualitative research
is more likely to support an inclusive framework of causality. Also, this research aims to
include all four characteristics of small-N studies as described in Blatter and Haverland (2014):
a small number of cases, many empirical observations per case, a large diversity of empirical
observations per case and searching for a strong connection between empirical observations
and theoretical concepts (Blatter & Haverland, 2014).

28
4.2 Congruence Analysis: A Complementing Theories Approach

This research paper uses congruence analysis. Picking congruence analysis was a relatively
clear choice, as the research question corresponds with multiple examples on congruence
analysis pro-typical questions in which theory provides an explanation in comparison to other
theories or tries to provide new insights as compared to other theories (Blatter & Haverland,
2014). While the research question does not immediately suggest a complementary approach,
this was a conscious choice because the thesis still aims to test the explanatory power of both
theories as this will provide for a clearer insight in their weaknesses and eventually how they
can complement each other. It thus tries to add to the existing literature on policy change,
particularly in the relatively unexplored field of policy learning and change. Therefore, theories
are used as “comprehensive explanatory frameworks,” that are rather “specified through a set
of constitutive causal propositions” than reduced to independent variables, as is mostly the case
in a co-variational approach (Blatter, Innovations in Case Study Methodology: Congruence
Analysis and the Relevance of Crucial Cases, 2012). This research paper uses the subtype
complementary approach, which fits with the aim of the research. The research question of this
paper, what theory best explains policy change after natural disaster? Will be answered by
first contrasting the two theories through hypotheses and determining which theory has most
explanatory power. Simultaneously, there will be searched for ways in which these theories
can complement each other. Hypothesis 1 and 2 are derived from Multiple Streams Approach.
Hypothesis 1 and 3 contrast each other. Hypothesis 1 tests the MSA claim that policy change
happens within is short window of opportunity and that policy entrepreneurs should have their
ideas ready at the time such a window opens. Hypothesis 3, however, is derived from policy
transfer and assumes a more gradual accumulation of (international) knowledge and experience
to cause policy change. Hypothesis 3 tests the idea that policy transfer happens more often due
to the growing popularity of evidence-based policymaking and the need thereof. Also, it would
mean that possibly, windows of opportunity can be opened or at least extended by policy
transfer. Hypothesis 2 focuses on the importance of framing for the Multiple Streams
Approach, which is done by policy entrepreneurs. Policy Transfer also gives much power to
policy entrepreneurs. This hypothesis is used to test the possibility of complementing it with
theory on policy transfer. If indeed policy entrepreneurs heavily influence policy change
through framing, the fourth hypothesis will then test where these policy entrepreneurs gain
their information and if international knowledge can also influence the level of policy change
once they reach out.

29
By using a complementary approach, this paper does not solely focus on which theory offers
better explanatory power for the research question, but rather seeks to find more inclusive
explanations of phenomena by using multiple theories (Blatter & Haverland, Designing Case
Studies , 2014). This thesis tries to contribute to the existing theoretical framework, for which
congruence analysis is the most appropriate research design (Blatter & Haverland, 2014).
Therefore, the focus will be on two theories that could, according to the research in the
literature review and theoretical framework, complement each other and thus form a more
comprehensive theoretical framework to explain the level of policy change after natural
disasters. Analyzing the Multiple Streams Approach, it only seems to be able to explain policies
if policy entrepreneurs act immediately. However, theory of policy transfer does not concern
such a short time frame for stimulating policy change. Also, policy transfer theory includes
many more (international) possibilities for influencing policy change, while Multiple Streams
Approach solely focuses on the domestic elements of policy change. Because both theories
acknowledge the importance of policy entrepreneurs, the international approach of policy
transfer can thus fill in the gaps in Multiple Streams Approach when assessing their influence.
Considering the increased interest and need for international experience, policy transfer could
thus serve as a useful addition to the Multiple Streams Approach in explaining policy change.
4.3 Case Selection

This paragraph will justify and explain the case selection in this research. It will explain how
the case is related to the theories (Blatter & Haverland, 2014). The prerequisite for this paper
was to select a case study that is related to public policy and had an international element.
Although the research question in itself does not show significant international focus, the
theories that have been selected, in particular theory on policy learning, do, as there is a focus
on international influence on domestic policy change. When applying a congruence analysis,
it is important that the selected cases are in a way related to the selected theories.
Many policy domains are subject to disaster. Nevertheless, not all policy domains are subject
to, or in need of, globalization and policy transfer. Therefore, the selected cases had to be cases
in which focusing events caused policy change, but also in which there are clear indicators that
they make use of the international database of policy information. The growing awareness of
the impacts of climate change in a globalized world enables the establishment of international
networks of knowledge and policy sharing. The selected cases are two of the most
(internationally) famous natural disasters that occurred in the 21st century in the United States,
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Specifically, this paper will take into account federal

30
policy changes and policy change on state and local (city) level of the areas that were hit hardest
and thus of which most data was found. These cases are selected due to a couple of prerequisites
for the success of the study. First of all, the cases had to be focusing events for the application
of the Multiple Streams Approach. Also, theory of policy transfer is a rather new topic of study:
combined with the recently growing popularity of international policy sharing and knowledge-
based policy making, recent cases seemed the most relevant (Minkman, van Buuren, &
Bekkers, 2018). Previous research by Birkland in the book Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change
after Catastrophic Events has been used to help decide on the cases. Birkland argues why some
events become focusing events and some do not: in order to be able to answer the research
question, it is important that the cases could actually qualify as focusing events. Birkland
argues that attention for certain events may be a result of the size of an event, which has to be
large enough to draw attention and trigger discussion (Birkland, 2006 ). This helped to decide
on hurricane Katrina and Sandy as the case studies for this thesis.
4.4 Data Collection

From the literature review it appeared that citizens have high expectations of their (federal)
government or society after natural disasters. Therefore, the first type of data that will be used
are governmental policy documents. As argued by Sabatier, the best way to investigate the
content of policy belief systems include amongst others panels of observers, content analysis
and other relevant documents (Sabatier, 1987). However, working on both a time constraint
and the challenge of reaching out to observers in the United States, the main focus will be on
document analysis. Because this is an empirical research, content analysis, government
documents and interest-group data will be able to provide an inclusive description and
argument to test the hypotheses (Sabatier, 1987). Therefore, this research will primarily rely
on an extensive analysis of policy documents, reports, and media coverage. To assess the
impact of the natural disasters as ‘focusing events’ and the power of framing, the database
NexisUni will be used to provide information on media coverage. The data will not be
entirely parallel for both cases. Rather, the data collection is based on pieces that were
important during the time of both events. This includes US federal documents, FEMA
reports, reports of policy entrepreneurs, Dutch government documents, media articles and
journal articles.
4.5 Internal Validity
A plurality of theories in itself leads to internal validity as it enables the researcher to gain
multiple insights in a chose case study (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010 ). Internal validity is

31
also achieved by the case selection. As mentioned before, congruence analysis demands close
attention to the case selection as it is important that in some way the theories relate to the
cases. First of all, the chosen theories are quite broad and have no specific prerequisites.
Therefore, it is clear that both will be applicable to the chosen cases. Second, focusing event
theory fits very well with the case of natural disasters. The theory has been successfully
applied in previous research to case studies involving disastrous and shocking events In order
to reach full internal validity, there should be no alternative explanations for the findings of a
study (Cuncic, 2019) While there are other theories that would have been able to explain
policy change, the combination of Multiple Streams Approach and Policy Transfer provides a
rather unique insight in the level of policy change after natural disasters. There are theories
that might have had added complementary value, but these theories focus on different aspects
of policy change. Also adding to the internal validity of this study is the focus on one kind of
natural disaster (hurricanes and consequent flooding) which all happened in the United
States, allowing for more specificity. For example, the Cultural Theory of Risk would
provide a much better explanation is the approach would be focused on micro-level analysis
of policy learning, as this more often focuses on individual learning and changes in their
perception and policy preferences (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013). Besides focusing on policy
change theories, cultural theory would shed light on the (cultural) incentives behind policy
change, but this is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is suggested for future
research.
Decreasing the internal validity of this research paper is the fact that both theories do not
emphasize the change in government leadership. However, the Multiple Streams Approach
does take into account the influence that the government can have on policy change and how
it might affect the ‘national mood’, which will be discussed in the analysis.

4.6 External Validity

The selection of theories in combination with the selection of cases has provided a
framework in which it is possible to go beyond explaining theoretical dominance (Blatter &
Haverland, 2014). Instead, it is likely that this paper will be able to go beyond this while
trying to shed light on an innovative approach and combination of theory of focusing events
and policy transfer theory (Blatter & Haverland, 2014). As mentioned, this research focuses
on two different theories. The application of multiple theories helps, providing different
insights and a more in-depth analysis of a specific case. This research will try to provide an

32
innovative insight in theory on policy change by trying to merge, or at least create a more
inclusive understanding of focusing events and policy transfer. It will try to provide an
understanding of why either focusing events or theory on policy transfer better explain the
reasons of policy change after natural disasters, but it also beliefs that policy transfer can be a
result of focusing events. Limiting the generalizability of this study is the application of the
Multiple Streams Approach, as theoretical framework focuses on idiosyncratic elements
causing policy change (Cairney, 2007). First of all, the results of the study are influenced by
the political system of the United States and particularly by the ‘national mood’ at the time of
the discussed cases. Secondly, the tested hypotheses in relation to the Multiple Streams
approach are not widely applicable and the outcome of these hypotheses would very likely
differ when another natural disaster would be analyzed. The focus on one type of natural
disaster – hurricanes – limits the external validity but does increase the internal validity.
By applying the theory of policy learning in a complementary approach, it might well be
possible that the results of the study become more generalizable since the scope of the
Multiple Streams Approach will be extended. The Multiple Streams Approach has a rather
broad approach in its nature but focuses on domestic streams: when complementing it with
theory on policy transfer it might also be applicable to cases in which international policy
entrepreneurs or ideas play an important role. This would increase the generalizability of the
research outcome.

33
Chapter 5: Case Study Hurricane Katrina
At the end of August 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall off the Louisiana coast and
devastated large parts of United States’ coastal areas. With a death toll of around 1,500, it is
often defined as the most destructive natural disaster in the history of the United States. Katrina
brought up many questions about the US government and their failure to prepare and respond
to the storm (Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs , 2006 ). The four
biggest failures that were determined after the storm were that governmental officials had
neglected their tasks to prepare despite long-term warnings, they did not take sufficient action
in the direct aftermath of the hurricane, support systems failed and, moreover, governmental
officials in general lacked leadership and initiative (Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs , 2006 ). The lack of preparedness for a disaster of this magnitude
primarily appeared from the failing levees in the areas it hit, of which a total of 50 failed and
consequently flooded most of the city of New Orleans (Gibbens, 2019). Not only the federal
government failed to prepare, Hurricane Katrina also shed light on additional, perseverant
problems in the United States as her victims were in a disproportionate amount African
American and living in poverty (Gibbens, 2019). The ineffectiveness of the response after
Katrina is partly blamed on the coordination problems that occurred between the large diversity
of networks and cross-sectoral organizations that contributed to the disaster management
(Moynihan, 2014). Hurricane Katrina did not only heavily emphasize the weaknesses in the
government’s ability to response to the disaster, but was also, as President Obama quoted ten
years after the storm, a “man-made disaster” that emphasized the economic inequality dividing
the country (Neuman, 2015). When testing the hypotheses, particularly the ones that were
derived from theory of policy transfer, it must be clear that this paper looks at both short and
long-term solutions to the natural disasters. Expecting to see, particularly through policy
transfer, a movement towards more sustainable and resilient policies, this is a relatively new
interpretation of disaster policy (Birkland, 2006). Full implementation thereof might be hard
to proof. Nevertheless, it has already been promoted for a long time in research while federal
responses have conventionally focused on immediate relief, rather than mitigation purposes
(Birkland, 2006).
In the following section, the data will be analyzed. Simultaneously, the four hypotheses will
be tested by providing relevant data. Finally, after analyzing the data and testing the concerned
hypothesis, it will be argued whether or not the hypothesis is confirmed or refuted.

34
5.1 Hypothesis 1
Focusing events lead to policy change if policy entrepreneurs respond immediately

This hypothesis tests whether or not the Multiple Streams Approach is right in stating that there
is often only a (relatively) short window of opportunity to create policy change after natural
disasters. Accordingly, policy entrepreneurs must have their policy ideas developed at the time
of a window of opportunity so they can promote their preferences (Brouwer, 2015). Thus, it
should be visible that policy changes are mostly created right after events. The hypothesis will
be falsified if it appears that policy change is more likely to occur in the long run, which will
limit the explanatory power of the Multiple Streams Approach.
After Katrina, the United States were divided in multiple groups of policy entrepreneurs with
different interpretations on the causes of Katrina and what should be the response to it. To test
this hypothesis, most important the group that had ecological economic policy solutions
already before the hurricane struck which were based on scientific evidence of the causes of
the disaster and the group of policy makers that are politically inclined (Farley & Miles, 2008).
In the direct aftermath of Katrina, the expectations for the government were to help and relief
the damage that was done. Hurricane Katrina was a focusing event that served as a catalyst for
policy change on the federal level and the reorganization of several instances, primarily within
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs , 2006 ). The primary policy change that was enacted on federal level
was the implementation of the “Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006”
which reformed the internal structure and the responsibilities of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) (Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
, 2006 ). Additionally, the impact of Katrina led to amendments in the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) and five new statutes that
impacted federal emergency policies in the long run (table 1).

Policy What When Level

Sections of P.L. The Security and 2006 Federal
109-347 Accountability for
Every Port Act of
2005
P.L. 109-308 The Pets 2006 Federal
Evacuation and

35
 Transportation
Standards Act of
2006
P.L. 109-63 The Federal 2005 Federal
Judiciary
Emergency
Special Sessions
Act of 2005
P.L. 109-67 The Student Grant 2006 Federal
Hurricane and
Disaster Relief Act
Sections of P.L The John Warner 2006 Federal
.109-364 National Defense
Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2007
Table 1: Key federal amendments and changes to existing policies after Hurricane Katrina (Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs , 2006 )

The response to Hurricane Katrina involved an extensive network of actors on multiple

governmental levels – federal, state and local – and stakeholders from the public, private and
non-profit sector (Moynihan, 2014). The aim of response of these stakeholders were
unanimous: direct disaster relief to reduce the suffering: it is complicated to lay out all action
that contributed to this process as, according to a House Report 2006, as more than 500
organizations were involved in it (U.S. House of Representatives, 2006; Moynihan, 2014).
The policy changes that happened quickly after Katrina were primarily on federal level. This
is likely due to the fact that the federal authorities have the biggest capacities. Also, short-term
emergency response policies are those that are most visible, as the attention of the media, public
and policymakers tends to shift or fade after a while (the window of opportunity closes).
However, Hurricane Katrina appeared not to be a case that solely caused policy changes in its
direct aftermath. Longer than at least two years after Hurricane Katrina, there are still
movements towards policy changes based on the event. While it immediately became clear that
there were many flaws in the United States’ system both in terms of its resilience and response,
it was not until much later, 2012, when Dutch experts were called into the region to help with

36
their expertise on flood management. Workshops were held in amongst others New Orleans,
“Dutch Dialogues”, provided policy information for innovative developments that would
enlarge the resilience of the city. Still in 2017, the State of Louisiana published a report
Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast keeps being updated, in
which policy recommendations are provided to increase resilience and prevent flood risk –
based on the impact of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This shows that the focus of the state of
Louisiana has shifted less quickly than the government’s policy priorities and thus the Multiple
Streams Approach fails to make explain or point out a difference between different levels of
governance.
The hypothesis is therefore only partly supported. There were changes in policy, on federal
level, directly after Hurricane Katrina. These policies were mostly aimed at emergency
responses and there were more than 500 organizations that immediately came into action. This
means that the Multiple Streams Approach has explanatory power for policy change directly
after natural disasters: the relatively short window of opportunity and the interest of
policymakers. Yet, it appears that the window of opportunity is exploited still long after the
event, but on different levels and through different perceptions of policy entrepreneurs and
policymakers. The policy preferences that are carried out longer after the event are more aimed
at long-term improvements and are focused on resilience and take into account environmental
concerns. Therefore, an additional theory is needed to explain policy change in the long run.
The third and fourth hypothesis will test policy changes that happen outside these windows and
do not seem to rely on focusing events.

5.2 Hypothesis 2
Policy change after natural disasters is heavily influenced by ‘framing’ of policy
entrepreneurs
This hypothesis tests the power of framing by policy entrepreneurs after natural disasters. The
hypothesis tests if the way in which a natural disaster, or focusing event is framed influences
the level of policy change after the disaster. Framing contributes to agenda-setting and thus is
an important influence on policy change. If the hypothesis is correct, the way in which a natural
disaster is framed can thus determine what policies change and if framing has enough power
to cause change. In doing so, it will also show the power of policy entrepreneurs in the process
of policy change and how they are able to push their own preferred policy solutions onto the
policy agenda or prevent other policies from getting there (Zahariadis, 2016). In the case of
Hurricane Katrina, there are different groups of policy entrepreneurs, or, ways in which the

37
problem was framed the problem in different ways to promote their preferred policy solutions.
Two predominant groups can be distinguished. The first group were government officials that
needed to ensure reelection and therefore focused on the quickest way to pleasure their voters,
while the second group were ecological engineers, economists and biologists (Farley, Baker,
Batker, & Koliba, 2006).The issue of climate change brought the latter group to the policy
table: while research had already pointed out the correlation between global warming and its
results (intensified hurricanes), Hurricane Katrina was the first natural disaster that drew the
attention of the media and framed it in this way to bring it on the political agenda (Farley,
Baker, Batker, & Koliba, 2006). Under the Bush administration (2001-2008), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency had lost significant power (Moynihan, 2014). Historically,
the FEMA had been run by political figures with little knowledge of disaster response, while
being the single biggest network of federal response to natural disasters until the Clinton
administration appointed J.L. Witt as the director of the agency (Moynihan, 2014). The
experience was much praised, until the Bush administration cut much of the resources of the
agency, causing it to loose political influence and many of its experienced personnel: all having
significant influence on the way the agency acted after hurricane Katrina struck (Moynihan,
2014). For the political stream, therefore, Katrina happened in a policy and political
environment of declining federal involvement with issues such as education, welfare or health
(Mueller, Bell, & Chang, 2011). Additionally, as stated in earlier research, the political benefits
for immediate relief are much bigger than spending the same money on more targeted policy
making on mitigation (Birkland, 2006). Consequently, the interest for disaster mitigation of the
Bush Administration was particularly low and even less effective than it had been during the
Clinton Administration due cuts in budget and human resources (Birkland, 2006). The US
Senate report of 2006 acknowledged the failure of the FEMA at the time of hurricane Katrina,
stating that it was responsible for

“(1) multiple failures involving deployment of personnel; (2) not taking

sufficient measures to deploy communications assets; (3) insufficient
planning to be prepared to respond to catastrophic events, (4) not pre-
staging enough commodities; (5) failures associated with deployment of
disaster medical assistance teams and search and rescue teams; (6) failures
involving evacuation; (7) failure to establish a joint field office quickly
enough; and (8) failure to take measures prior to landfall to ensure proper
security for emergency response teams” (U.S. House of Representatives,
2006)
With even the Senate criticizing the way in which a federal instance had reacted to Katrina, the
disaster and its aftermath were framed as federal failures by both policy entrepreneurs and the

38
media. Media framed Hurricane Katrina primarily as a problem on governmental level and
emphasized terms such as ‘inequality’, ‘environmental injustice’, focusing merely on evoking
an emotional reaction – policies aimed at sustainability were thus more stimulated by an
emotional response rather than a scientific and evidence-based considerations. On federal level,
the NAACP report Housing in New Orleans: One Year after Katrina primarily focused on
poverty and reports policies focused on providing federal housing for low-income families
(Washington, Alvarez, Smedley, & Reece, 2006). In the case of Katrina, the issue being framed
as a matter of inequality and unequal distribution and more importantly a responsibility of the
federal government, caused the problem stream, on federal level, to be predominantly focused
on redistributive policies (housing, insurance), rather than long-term ecological and technical
solutions. However, as seen in table 1, legislative changes on federal level were quite limited
and policy change in the area of for example housing appeared difficult due to inadequate
preparation and improbable expectations (Sapat, 2011). Also, bureaucratic hurdles limited the
extend of policy change after hurricane Katrina, particularly due to the fact that advocates of
policy change on housing were rather small, unorganized and lacked political power as policy
entrepreneurs (for example, the National Low Income Housing Coalition) (Sapat, 2011).
Although framing by the media provided a platform for these coalition groups pushing for
social reconstruction and redistributive policies, actual policy change (and implementation)
takes more resources and political power (Sapat, 2011). Meanwhile, the policy stream for the
second group – the scientists – was rather stable at the time of Hurricane Katrina. Amongst
them, there was a strong agreement on what were the problems that caused the severity of
Hurricane Katrina but as the previous paragraph shows, there is a big difference between the
way in which both groups defined the problem. Articles from 2005 on Hurricane Katrina
mostly frame climate change as a debate and controversy rather than hard evidence or an
incentive to make adaptive changes (Cody, Stephens, Bagrow, Dodds, & Danforth, 2016 ). The
scientific frame, which can serve as a powerful factor for framing (Knaggard, 2013) was thus
undermined by the ‘national mood’ in the politics stream and the media that used emotions and
values in their problem framing rather than science (Knåggard, 2015). Also, the gap between
science and public policy at the time was too large and the proposed solutions were too specific
to receive large support (Stone, 2002; Farley, Baker, Batker, & Koliba, 2006). Thus, while
Katrina did cause attention for the connection between climate change and natural disasters
and the, Katrina itself was not approached that way (Knaggard, 2013)
As suggested by Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach (1984), there is a need for an already
existing perception of an issue before a focusing event can provoke policy change (in the policy

39
stream): although Hurricane Katrina might have brought ecological issues to the political
agenda, the issue of poverty that was primarily brought to agenda was not perceived as an issue
that had to be solved through a steady natural ecosystem rather than a growing economy
(Farley, Baker, Batker, & Koliba, 2006). Worsening the perception of failing government at
the time was the fact that prior to Hurricane Katrina, while it was known that the coast was
eroding, funding for improving of drainage and projects by the Army Corps of Engineers were
continuously cut – while oil royalties were “bypassing the state” (Wiley, 2007 , p. 5).
The way in which the problem was framed was decisive in not focusing attention on adopting
the policy suggestions of the ecologists and environmental groups. According to the database
of LexisNexis, “Hurricane Katrina” was named 3,786 times in the New York Times between
2006 and 2012 (NexisUni, 2019). Hurricane Katrina pointed out many failures of the United
States’ Government and additionally brought to the attention the matter of inequality. In
general, between 2005 and 2019, there were 2,914 articles published with “Hurricane Katrina”
in combination with “inequality”, while in the same timeframe only 254 news articles with
“Hurricane Katrina” and “climate change” have been written (NexisUni, 2019). Therefore,
possibly, the narrative surrounding Hurricane Katrina is more focused on the social aspects of
the disasters’ aftermath rather than technical problems or feasible, climate related solutions.
President Bush quoted that "This poverty has roots in generations of segregation and
discrimination that closed many doors of opportunity," and that it was the government’s duty
to “clear away the legacy of inequality” (Bush, 2005).
It thus appears that the way in which an issue is framed have considerable influence on how an
issue is perceived, related to the political strength of the group in the political stream and the
relevance of a policy – or the national mood towards a certain policy. However, the political
stream was pretty much aligned with the way in which hurricane Katrina was framed. Framing
in this case might as well have been pivotal due to its correspondence with the political stream
(Palmer, 2014). Altogether, however, the legislative changes made after Katrina were quite
limited and mostly aimed at short-term relief. It appears that while framing can be a powerful
instrument for policy entrepreneurs and also a powerful tool of keeping non-preferred options
off the agenda (in this case ideas of ecologists and environmental groups), after hurricane
Katrina the political stream was still a pivotal actor for policy change. Framing the federal
government as having the biggest responsibility is an important element in this analysis as
changing attitudes towards climate change caused people to consider state and local actors to
be promotors of resilient policies, thus having more responsibility for this problem (see
introduction). Therefore, this hypothesis is partly confirmed. While policy entrepreneurs and

40
media are able to shed light on certain problems in society and gain attention for their preferred
solutions, from this case it has appeared that often only the issues that are in line with the
political stream (national mood, party ideology) will make it. Nevertheless, the power appeared
a powerful tool in keeping certain policy preferences off the agenda.

5.3 Hypothesis 3
Policy change after natural disasters is a gradual process driven by the growing
availability of international scientific sources and experience

In answering the previous two hypotheses, it became clear that policy entrepreneurs had a hard
time realizing policy change after Hurricane Katrina due to the fact that there was a lack of
capacity, political support, but also knowledge and expertise. Many articles thus state that
Hurricane Katrina’s impact failed to provoke much sustainable policy change as federal
response mostly focused on immediate disaster relief and the legislative changes (table 1) are
also based on relief rather than preventive measures. However, this accounts mostly for the
period directly after it occurred – but it did provoke a big interest and research on the failures
after Katrina (Sapat, 2011). Rather than assuming that policy entrepreneurs can only act upon
windows of opportunity, this hypothesis is derived from theory of policy transfer, which does
not consider such strict time constraints but states that policy change can occur due to gradually
collecting information and experience. As seen in testing hypothesis 1, there have been policy
changes on federal level rather quickly after Hurricane Katrina. These federal changes (table
1) were not caused by a general process of learning but were created right after Katrina and
thus generated by the disaster instead. Also, these policies were more aimed at immediate relief
rather than long-term mitigation solutions, confirming previous research saying that flood
events are often solved with responses that are quickly decided on and deliver little innovative
or resilient solutions (Zevenbergen, et al., 2013; Brown, Ashley & Farrelly, 2011). In order for
this hypothesis to be confirmed, there must be some sort of accumulation of knowledge on the
topic of flood management that has led to a change in beliefs and approach to the flood problem
(Bennett & Howlett, 1992). This can be seen by looking at affected states reaching out to
international experience in addition to the scientific base that was already created by
ecologically inclined scientists prior to Hurricane Katrina, which proposed policy changes
based on a “steady natural ecosystem” (Farley, Baker, Batker, & Koliba, 2006). A change in
attitude towards the problem of hurricanes and climate change can be seen as well. It is clear
that for example the state of Louisiana has made some serious efforts toward adopting policies
based on scientific knowledge. For example, Waggonner & Ball, an architectural company

41
from New Orleans started work visits to the Netherlands as early as in 2006 in order to see
potential solutions for New Orleans water management, which led to the establishment of the
Dutch Dialogues partnerships, sponsored by the Netherlands Embassy and the American
Planning Association (H+N+S Landschapsarchitecten , 2015). New Orleans in the end asked
H+N+S, a Dutch landscape architecture company, to work out the city’s new Water
Management Policy (Elsevier, 2017) and in 2010 developed the Urban Water Plan, a
cooperation between multiple international and local water management experts, funded by the
State of Louisiana’s Office of Community Development Disaster Recovery Unit (Greater New
Orleans Urban Water Plan , 2010). Policy entrepreneurs were actively trying to promote their
solutions: Waggonner planned the first dialogues together with the Dutch ambassador in order
to create awareness amongst local politicians and non-profit organizations for the urgent need
for better water management policies (van Mengen, 2017 ). In 2010, the first funding of 2
million dollars was requested and this request was adopted the same year by the state of
Louisiana: the Office of Community Development Ramp Recovery Unit, showing the success
of accumulation of knowledge for policy change (van Mengen, 2017 ). In 2013, the first
example projects have been developed to assess the functionality and to make changes where
needed to create an optimal model for further implementation on bigger scale. (van Mengen,
2017 ). Despite the effort to incorporate international assistance on local level and create
international knowledge networks, this accumulation of (scientific) knowledge still seems to
be subordinate to the fact that the implementation of innovative approaches that for example
were proposed during Dutch Dialogues are often hindered by the fragmented nature of the
institutional context, in addition to little political dedication to make any significant changes
or investments (Zevenbergen, et al., 2013). Nevertheless, Dutch Dialogues offers an example
of policy change due to an accumulation of information, having influenced multiple policy
decisions and still operating and policies and project for resilience that have been created by it
already implemented in New Orleans, Norfolk V.A. and Bridgeport C.T. (Ashley, 2019).
Additionally, while the previous examples were mostly based on the collection of international
knowledge, there exists another vivid example that shows accumulative knowledge, or,
experience, can lead to a different policy approach in similar events. Not long after Hurricane
Katrina, Hurricane Rita struck Texas in September 2005. There, it appeared that policies and
attitudes towards similar events change due to experience; many Texas Gulf Coast residents
claimed that Hurricane Katrina had changed their evacuation decision and local officials
ordered for evacuation much quicker than in the case of Katrina (Zhang F. , 2007).

42
It appears that this hypothesis can be both refuted and confirmed, as the veracity of the
hypothesis depends on the level of observation. First of all, it appears that on federal level most
policies that are adopted after natural disasters are immediate responses that are politically
more beneficial and there is a shorter time in which policymakers are interested because the
federal agenda is full. On the contrary, on state and local level – where the disaster is most felt
– the interest in the problem remains longer and there is a bigger effort to create more suitable
and resilient policies. Therefore, international help is requested. While the Dutch Dialogues
already came into action a couple of weeks after Katrina (van Mengen, 2017 ), the
implementation of the projects started in 2013, showing that the development of policies that
are aimed at resilience and preventive measures can take time, in addition to implementation.
The data proves that policy change on state and local level can be evoked by policy transfer,
but this does not necessarily have to happen within a tight timeframe. Also, policy transfer can
cause policy change after natural disasters on state and local level. Nevertheless, innovative
solutions can sometimes be hindered by the unwillingness to move away from familiar
practices.
5.4: Hypothesis 4
Policy transfer contributes to policy change when domestic actors lack knowledge and
expertise

This hypothesis assumes that when there is a deficiency or inconsistency on any level for policy
change, help can be sought outside of the standard set of policy entrepreneurs rather than a
shutdown of the process of policy change to draw lessons from best practices elsewhere
(Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). On federal level, the inadequate response by FEMA in the
aftermath of Katrina showed the lack of knowledge and new policy ideas in the policy stream
at the time of Hurricane Katrina on a federal level. When New Orleans’ levees broke, FEMA
was not ready: not in terms of capacity to help disaster relief, nor in terms of technical
knowledge for policy change when the disaster relief had to be taken over by recovery (the
agency had been primarily controlled by political actors after the Clinton administration). From
multiple interviews it appears that the perception of FEMA was that they were not ready to
take on a task, or disaster, of this magnitude (Rainey, 2016). There was no knowledge of the
city’s topography, reports from the only FEMA employee at the site were dismissed and they
turned down offers for supplies from the Department of Interior – later on, when recovery
efforts started, again the lack of technical knowledge showed as trailers were installed in toxic
resins (Rainey, 2016). Deputy FCO for Louisiana stated that there was no staff, no expertise

43
and no “operational training folks” that were needed to carry out work (U.S. House of
Representatives, 2006). More importantly, the ‘FEMA brain drain’ (due to its merger with the
Department of Homeland Security) since 2003 caused three directors of the preparedness,
response and recovery department to leave the agency and a shortage of 500 employees (500
vacancies at the time of Katrina) (U.S. House of Representatives, 2006). On federal level, it
thus can be seen that policy makers adopt policies that have been used in the past and are
hesitant to try new things that might turn out to be less cost-efficient. Often, money is reserved
for short-term restoration purposes but no budget is provided for research on long-term
protective measures: in 2007, Bush attempted to veto a bill that funded projects for
reconstructing levees in New Orleans and Louisiana (CNN Politics , 2007). The political
climate for resilient policy change was thus was far from optimal on federal level. On state
level, there is evidence of policy transfer that was used in order to fill the gap of domestic
knowledge after Hurricane Katrina. Directly after Katrina, Jan Hoogland, at the time director
of the Dutch Public Water Works stated to Congress that flood protection policy should be
their new priority and should develop through learning (Zevenbergen, et al., 2013). Katrina
thus provoked the idea that there was need for a more adaptive approach to flood risk and
opened the discussion for new, interdisciplinary solutions which caused a longer timeframe of
attention for the case than just the hurricane’s immediate aftermath. Policy entrepreneurs
included in this case were thus international, trying to share their experience with flood risk
and transfer their ideas. This led to a transfer of knowledge between Dutch experts and local
experts in Building Resilience Workshops in March 2011, resulting in support and ideas for
Louisiana’s Coastal Plan and New Orleans’s Water Plan (Zevenbergen, et al., 2013). During
these workshops, Anne Loes Nilleson gave presentations on water resilience and helped New
Orleans to implement innovative and sustainable water protection policies (Defacto, 2011).
Additionally, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) New Orleans District requested the help of Dutch engineers in New Orleans, to
develop strategies that could protect the area from future category 5 storms (Louisiana
Protection and Restoration , 2009). This was followed by visits to the Netherlands by key
policymakers to meet Rijkswaterstaat engineers (Louisiana Protection and Restoration , 2009).
During a visit to the Netherlands in 2006, Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, stated that
they needed to “learn from the know-how” that was already acquired by the Dutch (Associated
Press International , 2006). This shows how a lack of expertise and knowledge can cause
politicians to actively seek for solutions abroad. Additionally, in early 2006, Senator Landrieu
together with the Dutch Embassy organized an official visit to the Netherlands to explore their

44
coastal protection policies and innovative technologies that could help to solve the problems
within the USACE such as delay and cost inefficiency (Goldenberg, 2009). This corresponds
with Stone’s reasons that enable policy transfer; lack of information and policy failure inspired
(and forced) Landrieu to seek for solutions abroad (Stone D. , 1999). A report by Knowledge
for Climate (Asselman, et al., 2012 ) states that in fact, New Orleans in 2012 scored low on
knowledge of systems for flood management but instead used expertise of other countries and
for innovation and experimentation also relied primarily on international expertise (Asselman,
et al., 2012 ). Also, instead of relying on local or national policy entrepreneurs, research on
networks and institutions shows that an increasingly diverse set of institutions and
organizations is used to create and change disaster policies (Asselman, et al., 2012 ). Media
coverage provides useful data to test this hypothesis; headlines like “The Dutch Have Solutions
to Rising Seas. The World is Watching” (New York Times, 2017), “US Politicians Visit
Netherlands to Study Flood Defenses” or “The Dutch Understand Flooding, Why Can’t the US
Get it?” (NexisUni , 2019) show that after hurricane Katrina, policymakers were drawn to
international resources in order to solve the problem.
It also reconfirms the previously made statement in this research that the influence of the
federal government is very large, creating difficulties to implement new policies on local level
due to regulations or reporting duties (Asselman, et al., 2012 ). The reliance on federal action
therefore is still big and also seems to create serious struggles in moving forward with
innovative disaster policies, as also stated by Zevenbergen et al. (2013). However, the Dutch
did manage to promote a different attitude towards the problems with water encountered after
Katrina: Governor Blanco’s visit to the Netherlands shows that Hurricane Katrina provoked a
change in attitude towards natural disasters, as she acknowledged the need for sustainable
solutions for which the State of Louisiana lacked knowledge and expertise.
The data analysis confirms this hypothesis. There are multiple pieces of evidence that show
policy change or a movement towards a new sort of policy that is acquired after a lack of
knowledge on the spot is recognized. It is thus confirmed that after natural disasters, when there
is a lack of (scientific) knowledge and insecurity about new policies, policymakers can call
upon policy transfer for policy change which is a reason for transfer (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000).

5.5 Conclusive Remarks

For the case of hurricane Katrina, three hypotheses were partly confirmed, one fully. It has
appeared that the Multiple Streams Approach provides a basic and clear framework through
which policy change after natural disasters can be explained. First of all, not much changed

45
after hurricane Katrina. On federal level, most policy changes were stimulated by the framing
of Katrina as a federal failure and aimed at quick relief: Katrina emphasized already existing
poverty and inequality, two powerful symbols used by the media and policy entrepreneurs
that called upon government investment in redistribution and public investment rather than
investments aimed at recovery and prevention (Farley, Baker, Batker, & Koliba, 2006).
However, the political stream appeared to be very strong and decisive for policy change,
which could be explained by the MSA: policy entrepreneurs that based their policy proposals
on scientific evidence lacked support, due to the specificity of their proposals that did not fit
within the ‘national mood’. MSA also explained policy changes quickly made after Katrina.
However, it lacked explanatory power when studying policy change that is based on
Katrina’s lessons long after the event. This is where policy transfer theory provided useful
insights: it showed that international policy experience and policy entrepreneurs from abroad
were able to influence the process of policy change in multiple states and cities in the United
States after Katrina. Although framing, national mood and political willingness remain
important stimulants or obstructions for policy change, we can conclude from this case that
when attention on federal level fades, the drive for policy change lives on in the lower levels
of government, showing the inadequacy of the strict conception of the short windows of
opportunity as argued by Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach (Kingdon, 1984).

46
Chapter 6: Case Study Hurricane Sandy
Affected areas: Eastern United States
In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit the mid-Atlantic and northeastern region of the United
States. Causing 147 direct fatalities in across the Atlantic, 72 of these deaths were in the mid-
Atlantic and northeastern US (Blake et al., 2013). The impact of Sandy was the largest after its
predecessor Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the debate on the position that federal government
should take in disaster relief and prevention under the Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) has been ongoing ever since. What added to the impact of Sandy was that it primarily
struck two very densely populated areas in the United States; New Jersey and New York. Also,
the hurricane damaged Critical Infrastructure Systems (CI’s), which include both physical
entities like roads, bridges and hospitals and the services that are provided through these
physical elements (Hanseth, 2010). As a result, the natural disaster was highlighted in media
non-stop in the months that followed and on both federal and state level huge emergency
operations were exercised in order to mitigate the impact. Over all, it became very clear that
most states were not adequately equipped to deal with its enormous impact. In the direct
aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the United States grouped together in attempts of disaster relief
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) responded quickly as well by
providing $60 billion in emergency spending (Bucci, et al., 2013). This large amount of disaster
relief money spent by a federal institution aims shows the importance and responsibility of
such instances. It is likely that the response to Hurricane Sandy is partly shaped by previous
disasters: particularly the response to Hurricane Katrina. Despite that fact that of course every
natural disaster is unique in its impact, the United States has been experiencing Hurricanes for
longer, which should provide an accumulation of at least experience and knowledge.

47
6.1 Hypothesis 1
Focusing events lead to policy change if policy entrepreneurs respond immediately

This hypothesis tests the conception in the Multiple Streams Approach that states that there is
often only a short period of time for policies to change after a window of opportunity has
opened. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, changes that happened in the direct
aftermath after Hurricane Sandy included a new hurricane warning policy by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and the implementation of Public Law 113-1 and
Public Law 113-2 acts which focused on the improvement of disaster assistance for Hurricane
Sandy and included policy recommendations for future disasters and the provision of
immediate assistance. These acts were signed by President Obama in January 2013, hardly
three months after the disaster struck. Public Law 113-1 aims at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and provides a temporary increase in borrowing authority (US
Congress , 2013). This act enabled FEMA to keep refunding flood-related insurance claims
(Ladislaw, 2013). Public Law 113-2, better known as the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,
covered the rebuilding of the areas affected by Hurricane Sandy by providing $50 billion in
disaster relief funds (Ladislaw, 2013). Money was divided over multiple sectors and included
recommendations on how to improve resilience of local communities (Congress, 2013). In
response to Sandy, a year after the event, Obama issued the Executive Order 13653, which was
the first order that brought attention to the growing issue of climate change and its impact on
societies on a national level. This order called for the establishment of the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force. This Executive Order called for multiple new policies in which the
main thought was for federal agencies to cooperate with state and local actors in order to
discuss vulnerabilities in infrastructure and community resilience in case of future natural
disasters (Ladislaw, 2013). Whereas Katrina was an example of federal focus on direct disaster
relief that was mostly politically beneficial, the narrative after hurricane was slightly different
in terms of ‘goals’ of policy improvement, also because Sandy offered the first opportunity to
apply lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina (Olshansky & Johnson, 2014). However, it was
not until August 2013 that President Obama released his Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task
Force strategy report, including 69 recommendations divided over multiple policy priorities.
These priorities over all were aimed at creating more resilience on a federal level as well as
within communities (Table 3).

48
 When What Level
PL 113-1 January 2013 FEMA increased Federal
borrowing authority
PL 113-2 (disaster January 2013 Disaster relief and Federal
relief appropriations rebuilding damaged
act areas
Hurricane Sandy August 2013 69 policy Federal (suggestions
Rebuilding Task recommendations for for state and local
Force rebuilding and level)
resilience
Executive Order November 2013 Response to climate Federal
13653: ‘Preparing change: preparing
the United States for the Nation for
the Impacts of growing
Climate Change’ environmental
impact
National Oceanic November 2013 Issuance of tropical Federal
and Atmospheric storm and hurricane
Administration watches and
(NOAA) warnings
Table 3: Key Policy Changes on Federal Level after Hurricane Sandy

The main purpose of these 69 recommendations was a more resilient approach to problems and
rebuilding. While the data up till here is in favor of the hypothesis, there is some other
information that refutes the idea that the window of opportunity of a natural disaster is small
and thus change can only happen in the direct aftermath of the event. These changes were
mostly focused on disaster relief, such as the increase in the FEMA budget and a total of $60
billion in emergency spending. However, from the data, there appeared to be a trend in
changing and adapting climate change resilience policies. Although the Multiple Streams
Approach assumes that there is only a short window of opportunity for policy change – which
in the case of Hurricane Sandy allowed policy changes in budget capacities – these were not
the only policy changes that were provoked in the aftermath of the hurricane. The possibility
that policy changes can be made a while after focusing events becomes visible considering the

49
fact that nowadays still policy changes are being made that are based on Hurricane Sandy. Very
recently, New York City released its 2019 NPCC report, which still used lessons learned by
Hurricane Sandy in providing feasible policy adaptations which are based on the most recent
scientific findings (Earth Institute, 2019). New York City has also been a frontrunner in the
creation of an international network between cities that shares data and information of post-
disaster management and mitigation. By testing hypothesis 3 and 4, more data will be provided
that points out how hurricane Sandy has had a long aftermath of policy change. This hypothesis
is partly confirmed. It is indeed true that, particularly on federal level, policy changes are made
in the direct aftermath of a natural disaster due to their urgent nature. Policies on climate change
adaptation, considering Obama’s ideology towards the topic, were not new. Thus, when
hurricane Sandy struck, policy entrepreneurs were able to profit from the alignment problem
stream with the politics and policy stream (Becker, 2019). Accordingly, the window of
opportunity allowed for policy change in the direct aftermath of the hurricane.
This hypothesis is partly confirmed. As indicated by the data analysis, policy changes can
happen when policy entrepreneurs have their policies ready and act upon the opportunity
immediately. Nevertheless, referring back to the example provided above (the NPCC report
2019), there are still many examples of Sandy affecting current policy changes. Therefore, the
perception that natural disasters, or, focusing events offer only a short-term window of
opportunity seems negligent of the long-term impact that natural disasters can have. Hypothesis
3 will provide more evidence that contributes to this claim.

6.2 Hypothesis 2
Policy change after natural disasters is heavily influenced by ‘framing’ of policy
entrepreneurs

While theory on policy transfer puts more emphasis on the policy arena for transfer to happen,
Multiple Streams Approach argues for all streams to come together. Therefore, this hypothesis
tests the power of framing and therefore the power of policy entrepreneurs in the process of
policy change. According to Birkland, the response to hurricanes often lacks a strong,
organized community which results in the adaptation of mostly relief policies (Birkland, 1997
). However, policy entrepreneurs can still try and present a problem in a certain way that is in
correspondence with their preferred policy solution (Zahariadis, 2016). The additional
knowledge (compared to the knowledge present in the aftermath of Katrina) on climate change
and floods would suggest a different way of framing of the problem. A sketch of the federal

50
political climate considering natural disasters at the time of hurricane Sandy will help to answer
this hypothesis.
While the United States on federal level has only started with plans for climate change
adaptation in the 1990s, mostly in the form of ad hoc responses, Hurricane Sandy has changed
this into a rapidly developing policy field (Becker, 2019). Executive Order 13653 added to
Executive Order 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic
Performance” that was adopted by Obama in October 2009, both showing the good intentions
of the Obama Administration considering environmental protection (FedCenter, 2009; Obama,
2013). In Section 1, ‘Policy’ of EO 13653, the Order calls for the incorporation of resilient
strategies into all policies throughout the Federal Government and Section 3 establishes the
Working Group on Climate-Resilient International Development, which primarily focuses on
collecting data on climate-change impact and developing strategies to cope with it: it calls upon
agencies with international development programs to share information within multilateral
entities (Obama , 2013). In this way, an international network will be created based on climate-
change information sharing and:
“Work through existing channels to share best practices developed by the Working
Group with other donor countries and multilateral entities to facilitate advancement of
climate-resilient development policies” (Obama , 2013)
Consequently, the politics stream had already altered in favor of climate change adaptation
policies with the change in government from the Bush to the Obama administration, as Obama
showed clearly more willingness and understanding towards climate change and its
consequences. Also, the growing acceptability of scientific evidence framing the case of
Hurricane Sandy in the context of climate change becomes clear, as the Executive Order thus
aimed for a transnational approach to the problem of climate change, based on information
gained from ‘science and security agencies and entities’ (Obama , 2013). This change in
attitude is also seen on city level. Contributing to this perception might be the fact that since
2005 the problem of climate change has increasingly been framed as not only a federal
government responsibility but cities being fundamental players in combatting the results
thereof (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017). This happened during the World Cities Leadership and
Climate Summit in London, where Ken Livingstone emphasized the vulnerability of cities to
climate change and their responsibility in fighting climate change (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2017).
New Orleans and New York City both joined this international network, which shows how
policy entrepreneurs succeeded to create an interpretation of climate change as a problem that
should be solved through international cooperation. Also, it shows how (framing) influences

51
from abroad can influence policy agenda’s, based on scientific evidence and experience. While
Hurricane Sandy did provoke a focus in policy change towards a more resilient approach to
issues, the national mood seemed to be somehow problematic. This national mood, in the case
of Hurricane Sandy, can be linked to the risk perception of individuals and organizations
towards natural disasters. Considering this, it has proven to be quite an issue in the United
States and at the same time one of the reasons that it is hard to provide for any policy change
that assumes climate change as a danger and the cause of (more) natural disasters. In an
interview from 2012 with Dawn Zimmer, the mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey since 2009, it
becomes clear that there remains a huge misunderstanding considering natural disasters. She
states that even in the city of Hoboken (which was under water for 80% after Sandy), residents
assumed that the storm would be a once in a lifetime event and therefore preparations for a
potential next one would be unnecessary (Ovink & Boeijenga, 2018). Also, in contrast to media
framing after Hurricane Katrina, little attention was paid to the systemic problems behind
Hurricane Sandy and its impact, neglecting the issue of inequality and the wealth gap
(Gebreyes, 2015). Research on four prominent newspapers, however, showed a large increase
in articles on the topic of ‘adaptation’, to which response to Hurricane Katrina contributes to a
large extent (Barnes, et al., 2008). This shows the overwhelming focus on Hurricane Sandy
and the need for climate change adaptation, rather than the problem of inequality that was
predominant after Hurricane Katrina. This can also be seen in the Climate Change Adaptation
Plan published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2012 through 2014. These
reports present policies committed to Executive Order 13653 and aim to prepare the United
States for “the impact of climate change” (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). The
reports both mention “Hurricane” and “Sandy” close to 50 times which shows the impact of
Hurricane Sandy on federal level and the fact that these policy changes were clearly a result of
the disaster and clearly show a focus on resilience, mentioning it to be a key component in
future policies and climate change-related projects (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).
The focus on resilience shows the reframing of the problem of natural disasters, resulting in
the adaptation of new policies. This shows that framing can very much influences policy
decisions (Becker, 2019).
Similar policy efforts can be seen on state level. Whereas Hurricane Katrina was framed,
primarily by the media, as a failure on the part of federal government and its dramatic impact
as a result of the wealth gap in the United States, in addition to ongoing racism. This resulted,
on federal level, in policies that were mostly aimed at these issues, such as direct disaster relief.
On the contrary, Hurricane Sandy was framed as a problem of climate change and with the

52
question how federal, state and local level could best prepare for the next disaster. This created
the opportunity for policy entrepreneurs that aimed at more resilient solutions to push their
ideas to the agenda, resulting in a novel approach to resiliency. Nathaly Agosto Filion,
resiliency manager, stated likewise that while climate adaptation used to be “an exercise in
looking at the future”, the new way of framing natural disasters, Sandy in this case, created
resiliency to be “a part of our current world” (Becker, 2019, p. n.p.). Through framing, the
support from the public for a new type of policies was increased, so did the interest on state
level for a new approach: Filion stated that the renewed and different way of framing enabled
climate adaptation after Sandy (Becker, 2019). It has become clear that framing heavily
influences the policies that are picked. This is mainly visible due to the stark difference in
problem-framing after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy and the different policies that
were adopted on federal and state level in their aftermath. It has helped, probably, because
Hurricane Sandy was framed in an equal way by both political actors in the political stream
and was in accordance with the public mood, which was expressed by the media. This
hypothesis is therefore confirmed. Policy entrepreneurs have the power to bring attention to a,
by them preferred, interpretation of a problem. In this case, this frame corresponded with the
interpretation that the federal government already had, which resulted in policy
recommendations on climate change adaptation. Testing this hypothesis has discovered more
evidence of how influences from abroad (the C40 network) and the way in which foreign actors
frame problems can affect policy agendas.

6.3 Hypothesis 3
Policy change after natural disasters is a gradual process driven by the growing
availability of international scientific sources and experience

This hypothesis was set up to show the differences between the Multiple Streams Approach,
which states that focusing events only open short windows of opportunity and policy
entrepreneurs should act quickly, and the idea of policy transfer which provides no set
timeframe. As seen in hypothesis 1, it is possible for policy change to occur longer than just
within a short time after a focusing event. New York City has also been a frontrunner in the
creation of an international network between cities that shares data and information of post-
disaster management and mitigation (see hypothesis 4: international networks joined since
hurricane Sandy). Although attention amongst policymakers (particularly on federal level)
might be most focused in the direct aftermath of a natural disaster, it seems very well possible
for policy entrepreneurs (international and national) to bring their preferred ideas to the table

53
after attention has shifted. Contradicting the Multiple Streams Approach, of which the first
hypotheses were derived, policy transfer includes many more types of policy entrepreneurs
than just (elected) officials, interest group leaders or spokespeople for specific issues (Cairney,
2015). In policy transfer, the definition of who can be policy entrepreneurs is more extensive,
including consultants, think tanks, or NGO’s promoting their policy ideas of best practices on
international level (Cairney, 2015). Most reports that have been published after hurricane
Sandy focus on future recommendations to increase resilience. This proves that in order to
actually change policy, it is needed that information is collected. In the aftermath of Sandy,
president Obama established new task force that brings together state, local and tribal actors
and officials that will advise the government on ways to become more resilient and prepared
for future natural disasters (Ladislaw, 2013). He then appointed Shaun Donovan, at the time
secretary of Housing and Urban Development, as the chair of the Task Force. Immediately
after his appointment it became clear that Donovan was motivated to create innovative policy
solutions based on experience and knowledge, gathering a diverse group of actors for his board.
Chief of Staff Laurel Blatchford, e.g., was hired because of her long time residence in the
affected area and her “unmatched awareness of the issues and the players involved” (Donovan,
2013). The holistic approach became more obvious when Henk Ovink, director of the Dutch
office of Spatial Planning and Water Management office joined the Task Force in 2012 as
Donovan’s senior adviser (Shorto, 2014). Like Governor Blanco did after hurricane Katrina,
again Dutch help was called upon in the aftermath of Sandy (Associated Press International ,
2006). The federal effort to create thought through policy changes after hurricane Sandy,
however, seems much more extensive than after Katrina. Reports by the FEMA that still build
upon the experiences of Hurricane Sandy confirm the long-term effect of Sandy on policy
change. The hurricane Sandy Task Force stated that “although current scientific knowledge
does not generally provide a single, clear answer to complicated questions” such as climate
change adaptation and rebuilding, evidence-based research and risk analyses would lie at the
foundation of their future actions and policies (Task Force Advisory Group , 2013, p. 28). This
shows the increase in time that is accepted for policies to take and thus the inconsistency
considering time constraints for policy change in the Multiple Streams Approach. In 2014, an
update on the implementation of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy showed that 50 out
of 69 recommendations were implemented. Most successful is the implementation of
recommendations on ‘promoting resilient rebuilding through innovative ideas and thorough
understanding of current and future risk’ (3/3), ‘building state and local capacity to plan for
and implement long-term recovery’ and rebuilding (5/5) (Brown J. T., 2014). These changes

54
and adaptations in policies on federal level show the increased importance of climate resilience
put on the agenda of federal agencies such as the FEMA and EPA. Also, there is an ongoing
effort towards implementing resilience policies, showing that some policies take an
accumulation of information and experience and do not necessarily have to happen within the
short timeframe right after a focusing event. This data corresponds with conclusions of
previous research on policy transfer, it has appeared that there is a growing popularity of
evidence-based policy making (Minkman, van Buuren, & Bekkers, 2018). On state and local
level, cities that had been affected most by the storm were quicker to implement adaptive
measures. New York City for example, where Hurricane Sandy caused 43 fatalities, was by
this time a prominent leader in the determination of climate risks and focused on climate change
adaptation (Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014). The New York City Panel on Climate Change
(NPCC) was already established in 2008, focusing on climate adaptation policies on i.e.
infrastructure, hurricane Sandy being a tipping point that caused the intensification of their
climate adaptation policies (Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014). Next to NPCC, in 2012 the Special
Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) was established, focusing on long-term
protection against climate change in infrastructure and rebuilding after Sandy (NYC Special
Initative for Rebuilding and Resiliency , 2019 ). Also, a second New York City Panel on
Climate Change was held in 2013 (NPCC2), which resulted in updated policies on climate
change adaptation using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), for
example, which is a tool providing framework for global protocols on climate modeling which
outcomes are used in the IPCC assessments on adaptation (Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014). The
use of this tool was actually advised by the IPCC. These models provide information on which
new climate policies are based and were used in New York City’s climate projections (Flato &
Marotzke, 2013; Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014). The adaptation and implementation of this
type of policy shows a slightly more ambitious approach than the federal policy changes that
were made in the direct aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Also, it confirms the possibility of policy
change long after the actual event. More importantly, there is likely a connection between the
evidence-based nature of the policy and the timeframe in which it can be realized.
This hypothesis is confirmed. After Hurricane Sandy, it seems that on federal, state and local
level there has been an increase in desire for evidence-based policy making in developing new
policies and implementation thereof. There are strong links between the data and the theory of
policy transfer like the definition of policy entrepreneurs, evidence-based policymaking, and
the conditions under which the transfer occurs (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). Additionally, the

55
6.4 Hypothesis 4
Policy transfer contributes to policy change when domestic actors lack knowledge and
expertise

From hypothesis 2, it has appeared that science and knowledge have played a significant role
in framing Hurricane Sandy. Therefore, it can be assumed that after natural disasters, policy
entrepreneurs can be influenced by scientists and, applying the larger scope of what can be
policy entrepreneurs according to policy transfer, also scientists themselves can influence the
policy agenda. Based on this information, this hypothesis can test if this knowledge is called
upon after natural disasters if there is a lack of information and experience amongst domestic
policy entrepreneurs. Groups like the ICLE-Local Governments for Sustainability have
brought together cities and strive to help local governments to become “more sustainable and
resilient” through “collaboration and inspiration” (ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability
, 2019). The ICLE Local Governments for Sustainability network currently includes Canada,
Africa, East Asia, Europe, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean, Oceania,
Southeast Asia, South Asia and the USA. Other groups promoting global information and
policy sharing are C40 Large Cities Climate Group (C40) or the World Mayors Council on
Climate Change (WMCCC): the C40 joined forces with the Clinton Climate Initiative and the
World Bank in 2013. Since, multiple cities within these networks, like London, Tokyo, Mexico
City and Quito and multiple other cities have copied or been inspired by New York City’s
‘flexible adaptation’ policies (Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014). Scientific evidence and growing
knowledge play a lead role in the development of these policies. Another corresponds with
both the conception of Dolowitz and Marsh that policymakers often look for knowledge from
abroad (D&M), that globalization has created incentive to share policies globally and that
Finally, another project shows the new focus on international cooperation, a strong narrative
of climate change as a threat to future society and the growing interest for long-term solutions
and scientifically supported policies. Bringing these trends together are the efforts within
Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to launch a designing project called “Rebuild by Design”, which
created policies focused on design and were inspired by Dutch water management expertise.
For this effort, President Obama sent Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) at that time, to the Netherlands in order to observe the Dutch flood-
control and prevention measures. This project resulted in a designing competition in which
companies, experts and policy entrepreneurs from all different countries worked together on
policy change in New Jersey, New York, New York City and Connecticut – six resulted in

56
projects funded and are (being) implemented (Rebuild by Design , 2019 ). Henk Ovink, a Dutch
water management expert, diplomat and appointed as the Senior Advisor US Presidential
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, 2014 ). In 2013,
the United States and the Netherlands signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the
United States and Kingdom of the Netherlands on “sustainable urban development, water
management and integrated planning and cross sector collaboration” (signed by Shaun
Donovan and M. Schultz van Hagen) for the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) (Government of the Netherlands , 2013 ). Ovink’s analogy of “sabbatical detour” policy
greatly influenced the projects that were established through Rebuild by Design and
distinguished it from other, earlier and more traditional recovery efforts (Urban Institute,
2014). Based on the extensive network of policy entrepreneurs and experts on disaster
management that has been created and was joined after Hurricane Sandy (i.e. the second New
York Panel on Climate Change in 2013). While FEMA and flood insurance policies that have
been extensively used by the US federal government after disasters mostly focus on helping
people to rebuild, they usually do this in an unsustainable way, rebuilding in the exact same
place in the same style (Beesley, 2018). This strategy obviously lacks a focus on resilience,
which is where international expertise on similar situations is needed in order to establish
renewed policies. The most prominent example of policy transfer due to a lack of expert
knowledge in this case is the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and
Kingdom of the Netherlands that was signed in 2013 (Government of the Netherlands , 2013 ).
Policy transfer can be used by policy entrepreneurs to be informed about global policies and
best practices that have been implemented in the same context elsewhere. When analyzing the
collected data, it is clear that as well on a federal as a local level, the United States has
benefitted from international assistance in creating new policies after Hurricane Sandy. Also,
international assistance (for example Rebuild by Design) has resulted in policy change and is
still resulting in policy change. Based on the extensive network of policy entrepreneurs and
experts on disaster management that has been created and was joined after Hurricane Sandy
(i.e. the second New York Panel on Climate Change in 2013). While FEMA and flood
insurance policies that have been extensively used by the US federal government after disasters
mostly focus on helping people to rebuild, they usually do this in an unsustainable way,
rebuilding in the exact same place in the same style (Beesley, 2018). Whereas, as seen in the
previous hypotheses, there is a movement and increased interest in more resilient policies
aimed at (climate change) adaptation, which is where international expertise on similar
situations is needed in order to establish renewed policies. The most prominent example of

57
policy transfer due to a lack of expert knowledge in this case is the Memorandum of
Understanding between the United States and Kingdom of the Netherlands that was signed in
2013 (Government of the Netherlands , 2013 ). Policy transfer can be used by policy
entrepreneurs to be informed about global policies and best practices that have been
implemented in the same context elsewhere. When analyzing the collected data, it is clear that
as well on a federal as a local level, the United States has benefitted from international
assistance in creating new policies after Hurricane Sandy. More importantly, international
assistance through for example Rebuild by Design has resulted in policy change and is still
resulting in policy change.
The hypothesis is therefore confirmed. It has appeared that actors can reach out to international
policy entrepreneurs and that their experience can be decisive for the adoption of new policies
or for a renewed perception of and change in attitudes towards a (flood) problem (Bennett &
Howlett, 1992).
6.5 Conclusive Remarks
Testing the four hypotheses based on the case study of Hurricane Sandy has provided useful
insights in the effort to answer the research question. One hypothesis was partly confirmed, the
other three confirmed. Not all hypotheses were easy to answer. It has appeared that in order to
answer hypothesis two on framing, it is hard to distinguish the influence of policy entrepreneurs
as compared to the strength of the political stream. The data was hard to collect and not all data
was valuable or contributed to the answer. Framing, however, helps to establish who is held
responsible to respond to disasters: the following case study provides evidence of the shift in
‘blaming’ from solely the federal government towards cities being key players in climate
change adaptation. This was influenced by policy entrepreneurs from abroad, something that
the classic Multiple Streams Model does not take into consideration. In the case of Hurricane
Sandy that the preference in policy changes, on both federal and lower levels has shifted
towards a science-based interpretation of the problem. Cities joining international working
groups and official cooperation show that foreign expertise is used when local actors lack that.
Particularly Dutch experience stands out and their expertise is used sometimes solely but also
in combination with local actors to create sustainable policy change anticipating for future
natural disasters.

58
Chapter 7: Discussion of Findings
Case study results, relevance and additional findings

The aim of this research paper was to provide an answer to the question what theory best
explains policy change after natural disasters. The two cases that were used to answer this
question showed that while the Multiple Streams Approach generally offers a clear answer that
indicates multiple influences and reasons behind policy change, it has strong limitations that
can be solved by adding elements of the theory of policy transfer. The inability of the Multiple
Streams Approach to fully explain policy change after Hurricane Katrina and Sandy appeared
from its focus on short time frames and its negligence towards foreign influences. Little
research has used theory on policy transfer together with MSA in a congruence analysis nor as
an extension of the Multiple Streams Approach. Considering the growing danger of climate
change and the need for evidence-based policy making, the Multiple Streams Approach falls
short in explaining some important, sometimes decisive, influences on policy change.
As stated earlier in this thesis, the Multiple Streams Approach has yet been extensively used
and applied to many cases including natural disasters. Nevertheless, it is often applied to case
studies and the assessment of the key elements then does not lie within the scope of those
researchers. Key elements included framing and policy entrepreneurs, but the power thereof
was relatively untouched in previous research that has been encountered in the literature review
and theoretical framework. In both cases it appeared that the hypotheses were testable and that
often similar data could be found to test them.
Overall, this thesis can be concluded with the following findings. Testing hypothesis 1, it has
appeared that the MSA has considerable explanatory power, as it is true that policy change can
happen right after natural disasters. On federal level, policy officials are sometimes more
interested in economically beneficial solutions that quickly solve problems for a large
audience. Nevertheless, in both case studies, it appeared that more complicated policy changes
and shifts in attitude towards the problem also happened long after the event and that policy
changes in this field of study are still based on lessons learned from Katrina and Sandy.
Primarily on state and local level, evidence-based policy change was seen, as was discovered
that on state and local level the interest of policy entrepreneurs often lasts longer. In the case
of Katrina, the federal desire for evidence-based policy making was small, while for Sandy this
increased under the Obama administration, showing the importance of the party ideology for
policy change.

59
Also, this paper found that framing is a powerful tool that policy entrepreneurs can use to
promote their preferred policy outcomes or to prevent other policy ideas to reach the agenda.
Nevertheless, testing it on the case of Hurricane Katrina, it appeared that framing is often
subject to what fits within the Zeitgeist and party ideology of the politics stream. After Katrina,
the way of framing that was most widely accepted was the one based on emotional arguments,
which caused policy making to be mainly focused on the corresponding policy failures
(housing for the poor, inequality). In the case of Hurricane Sandy, the power of framing was
harder to determine since the way in which it was framed – as failure of climate change
adaptation policies – was generally accepted. On federal level, the response to Sandy was much
more thorough and based on the necessity of green infrastructure and resilience than after
Katrina, promoted by the Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. However, in both cases, it appeared
to be true that the attention of policy makers fades rather quickly after the event. On state level,
policy entrepreneurs keep pushing for change and trying to gain information for a long period
after the event: this results in both cases in international cooperation, visits to the Netherlands
and the creation of international networks. Also, the research shows that the way in which a
problem is framed internationally by policy entrepreneurs increasingly influence the behavior
and attitudes of policymakers in areas affected by natural disasters, which is an additional
influence proven to be necessary to take into account when assessing policy change after
natural disasters nowadays. The way in which Hurricane Sandy was framed shows a stark
difference with Katrina, as the responsibilities of state and local level in disaster response were
emphasized, rather than just federal responsibility. This was stimulated from abroad, which
emphasized the power of international policy entrepreneurs and networks.
This influence from abroad is an important finding as it appeared that after natural disasters,
there is a growing interest in international expertise and different policy entrepreneurs are
included and find platform. Policy transfer theory has showed that in contrast to what Multiple
Streams Approach indicates, there is more than just a short timeframe in which there is
attention for a problem after natural disasters, particularly on state and local level.
Nevertheless, it is true that most federal policy change after natural disasters is seen in the
direct aftermath of the event and most policies seem to be based on direct relief and triggered
by the event, rather than a growing amount of research.
The growing awareness of climate change and its consequences has created an incentive for
international cooperation on natural disaster management. Both Hurricane Katrina and Sandy
provoked not only international assistance in disaster relief, but also an international interest in

60
the topic and ongoing bilateral and multilateral partnerships. This is also influenced by the
international narrative that calls for cooperation and the responsibility of cities and individuals
to implement resilience policies. The Netherlands in both case studies offered a good example
of bilateral policy transfer caused by lack of domestic knowledge, while New Orleans for
example offered an example of mostly implementing innovation that has been developed
abroad. This example emphasizes the need for these international networks and the importance
of the theory of policy transfer in climate change adaptation policy change.
Combining the findings of both cases, however, one can establish that policy transfer after
natural disasters has relatively little to do with policy learning. This is likely due to the fact that
policy transfer in these cases is used as a supplement for the lack of knowledge that is
experienced domestically: put simply, the need for a ‘solution’ is urgent and while the efforts
by the international policy entrepreneurs are big, it appears that additional international help is
requested upon after every event.
It has appeared to be true that transfer can contribute to policy change when local actors lack
skills and knowledge. It can be concluded that areas that are affected by natural disasters are
open to, and actively seeking for international assistance and innovation. In both the case of
Hurricane Katrina and Sandy, there is evidence that international help was requested after the
events. After these requests for international assistance, we see a shift in attitude towards the
problem and an increase in investments for innovative policies (Hoboken, New York City,
New Orleans). Using policy transfer to fill the gaps of the Multiple Streams Approach has
provided a comprehensive understanding of policy change after natural disasters. In an
increasingly globalizing world, it appears outdated that theories on policy change do not take
into consideration influences from abroad or a broader scope of policy entrepreneurs than just
domestic. This new framework proposes that windows of opportunity can be open for a longer
period of time, supposedly due to the constantly growing amount of information, promoted and
transferred by international networks and policy entrepreneurs.
7.1 Unaccounted Findings
This thesis aimed to explain what causes policy change rather than to find what is most
influential in the process of policy change after natural disasters. In both cases, however, it has
appeared that the political stream is a decisive element in this process and that party ideology
is an important determinant of policy change, despite the power of policy entrepreneurs and
the media.

61
Another finding that was not accounted for is the fact that it seems that the attention on federal
level fades quicker than interest in policy change on state and local level. Similar to the
previous unaccounted finding, this is probably due to the interest of the US government system
at the time, as we have discovered big differences in the way the Bush and Obama
administration handled disasters. Although it seems logical due to the fact that those areas are
closest, and this thesis hinted on the shift in responsibility from federal level to state and local
level, exact reasons for this should be further explored, preferably through interviews with
federal, state and local officials through the lens of risk perception.

62
Chapter 8: Conclusion
The goal of this thesis was to determine what theory has most explanatory power for policy
change after natural disasters. This was attempted by trying to answer the question “What
theory best explains policy change after natural disasters?” In doing so, the Multiple Streams
Approach and theory of policy transfer were tested on the basis of four hypotheses: two derived
from each theory. Overall, the Multiple Streams Approach appeared to have more explanatory
power, mostly because it is a more complete framework and takes into account more ‘factors’
driving policy change. Also, because policy transfer is relatively new as a theory, there are not
yet many applications of the theory as a framework for policy change. However, it contributed
to the MSA of the level of policy change as it added more dimensions and factors that explained
policy change. This research paper has confirmed that the Multiple Streams Approach has the
most explanatory power for policy change after natural disasters but needs to be updated and
complemented. Theory of policy transfer has proven to be a useful addition in the two studied
cases. The Multiple Streams Approach has significant power in explaining policy change as its
key concepts are widely applicable. This was the case for studying policy change after
Hurricane Katrina and Sandy as well. In particular, concepts as policy entrepreneurs, framing
and window of opportunity have helped to find several main incentives behind policy change
and provided a steady foundation for two of the four hypotheses. It also helped to differentiate
between different levels of government, which appeared to be helpful and necessary throughout
the rest of the research. Nevertheless, its claims about time constraints for policy entrepreneurs
and sole reliance on the streams as only influenced by domestic actors appeared limiting to this
research. If solely the Multiple Streams Approach was applied, there would be no explanation
for later policy changes and the influence from ‘outside’ the policy streams would have been
neglected, resulting in an incomplete explanation of policy change after natural disasters. By
formulating four hypotheses, two derived from each theory, it was possible to find gaps in the
MSA and find ways of complementing it with policy transfer. The hypotheses contradicted
each other in some way but were also formulated in a way that made it possible to use the data
found to answer them to create a comprehensive answer. For example, when the first
hypothesis in both cases found that policies can be made both quickly and longer after a
focusing event, the third hypothesis confirmed that policies after natural disasters are often the
result of a gradual process of accumulating information. The second hypothesis proves the
importance of policy entrepreneurs, which was already acknowledged by both theories but did
provide an opening for policy transfer to complete the MSA, as framing influences from abroad

63
were discovered (the C40 international network). The research question was thus answered, be
it not with the precise answer that might have been the result when using a competing
congruence analysis as methodology. However, the complementary approach has enabled us
to determine policy transfer to be an explanatory tool and addition to Multiple Streams
Approach, revealing information that it would not have revealed otherwise (Blatter, 2012).
This research paper has contributed to the literature on policy change, specifically policy
change aimed at resilience and climate change adaptation. It should be tested whether or not
this new use of MSA supplemented with policy transfer is applicable to other policy areas but
completing knowledge deficits in domestic policy streams with international assistance seems
to be a general trend that should be closely followed and assessed.

8.1 Limitations, recommendations and links to relevance

During the course of this research, several limitations were encountered. First of all, theory of
policy transfer is relatively new and has not been applied to many cases yet, in contrast to the
Multiple Streams Approach. Therefore, the application of policy transfer as a tool to explain
policy change was based on personal choices: although the application relied mostly on
Dolowitz and Marsh’s framework (2000), it was a matter of picking the elements thereof that
were best applicable to this case. This thesis can help in future research as a guideline for
applying the theory. Time constraint was another limitation to the thesis, together with the
difficulty of approaching people relevant to this study for interviews. This decreased the
internal validity of this thesis because no expert opinions support claims on policy change or
the process thereof, which would have been a valuable addition. Finally, this research solely
focuses on policies that changed after natural disasters. Based on that, the framework that is
created here when combining the Multiple Streams Approach and theory of Policy Transfer is
not generalizable for every type of policy change. However, future research should investigate
the possibilities of application of this framework in other policy areas to test the generalizability
of this approach. Linking the findings of this thesis to the societal relevance, some practical
insights have emerged. First, it has provided more insight in why to engage in policy transfer.
The framework by Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) included this question and this research has
confirmed that policy entrepreneurs actively seek for policy transfer when lacking information
and when pressure is high (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). Applying this to a new empirical case
has provided more detailed information on how this happens, and this thesis has provided
information on existing networks. Additionally, future research can immediately focus on the
importance of policy entrepreneurs, as these have appeared to play a pivotal role (according to

64
both theories) and thus should be incorporated and emphasized. Finally, future research should
investigate what the potential is for applying a combination of MSA and policy transfer in other
policy fields. In conclusion, this thesis has provided a framework in which the Multiple Streams
Approach is complemented with the explanatory power of policy transfer and this approach
can be used and further explored applying it to new empirical cases.

65
Bibliography
Alam, M., Alam, K., & Mushtaq, S. C. (2017). Vulnerability to climatic change in riparian
char and river-bankhouseholds in Bangladesh: Implication for policy, livelihoods and
Social Development . Ecological Indicators , 23-32.
Albright, E., & Crow, D. (2016). Learning in the Aftermath of Extreme Floods: Community
Damage and Stakeholder Perceptions of Future Risk. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in
Public Policy, 308-328.
Arias, J. P., Bronfman, N., Cisternas, P., & Repetto, P. (2017). Hazard proximity and risk
perception of tsunamis in coastal cities: Are people able to identify their risk? PLoS
ONE .
Ashley, J. (2019, May 7). Dutch Dialogues – a Dutch approach to fixing Charleston’s
flooding. Retrieved from Charleston Today : https://chstoday.6amcity.com/dutch-
dialogues-charleston-sc/
Asselman, N., Biesbroek, R., Bos, M., Bubeck, P., de Bruijn, K., de Groot, A., . . . Klijn, F.
(2012 ). Towards Climate-Change Proof Flood Risk Management. Wageningen:
Knowledge for Climate .
Associated Press International . (2006, January 10 ). U.S. politicians visit Netherlands to
study flood defenses. Retrieved from AP Worldstream : https://advance-lexis-
com.eur.idm.oclc.org/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:4J11-
WRK0-00BT-M565-00000-00&context=1516831.
Atkin, E. (2018, July 17 ). The Troubling Failure of America’s Disaster Response. Retrieved
from The New Republic : https://newrepublic.com/article/149899/troubling-failure-
americas-disaster-response
Bache, I., & Reardon, L. (2013). An Idea Whose Time has Come? Explaining the Rise of
Well‐Being in British Politics. Political Studies , 898-914.
Barnes, Hanson, Novilla, Meacham, McIntyre, & Erickson. (2008). Analysis of Media
Agenda Setting During and After Hurricane Katrina: Implications for Emergency
Preparedness, Disaster Response, and Disaster Policy. American Journal of Public
Health , 604-610.
Becker, M. (2019). Flood Risk Management: Global Case Studies of Governance, Policy and
Communities. Abingdon : Routledge .
Beesley, C. (2018, October 2 ). Rebuilding Smarter after Hurricanes: Lessons Learned from
The Netherlands. Retrieved from Government Design Hub :

66
 http://govdesignhub.com/2018/10/02/rebuilding-smarter-after-a-hurricane-lessons-
learned-from-the-netherlands/.XPY9TC97FQJ
Bennett, C., & Howlett, M. (1992). The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy
Learning and Policy Change. Policy Sciences, 275-294.
Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? .
Political Studies Review, 366-378.
Birkland, T. (1997 ). After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Birkland, T. (2007 ). Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events.
Washington D.C. : Georgetown University Press .
Birkland, T. (2016). Policy Process Theory and Natural Hazards . Mitigation, Policy and
Governance, Legal Issues , 1-24.
Blatter, J. (2012). Innovations in Case Study Methodology: Congruence Analysis and the
Relevance of Crucial Cases.
Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2014). Designing Case Studies . New York: Palgrave
Macmillan .
Brouwer, S. (2015). Policy Entrepreneurs in Water Governance: Strategies for Change.
Houten : Springer.
Brouwer, S. (2015). Policy Entrepreneurs in Water Governance: Strategies for Change. New
York City : Springer International Publishing.
Brown, J. T. (2014). The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy: In Brief. Washington, D.C. :
Congressional Research Service .
Brown, R., Ashley, R., & Farrelly, M. (2011). Political and Professional Agency Entrapment:
An Agenda for Urban Water Research. Water Resources Management, 4037-4050.
Bryman, A. (2012 ). Social Research Methods . New York : Oxford University Press .
Bucci, S., Inserra, D., Lesser, J., Mayer, M., Slattery, B., Spencer, J., & Tubb, K. (2013).
After Hurricane Sandy: Time to Learn and Implement the Lessons in Preparedness,
Response, and Resilience. Washington D.C. : The Heritage Foundation Emergency
Preparedness Working Group.
Bush, G. W. (2005, September 16). President's Remarks at National Day of Prayer and
Remembrance Service . Retrieved from The White House: https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050916-4.html
Cairney, P. (2007). A 'Multiple Lenses' Approach to Policy Change: The Case of Tobacco
Policy in the UK . British Politics , 45-68.

67
Cairney, P. (2015, February 3 ). What is a Policy Entrepreneur? Retrieved from Paul
Cairney: Politics & Public Policy:
https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/what-is-a-policy-entrepreneur/
Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process. In P.
Sabatier, & C. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. Chicago: Westview Press.
Cairney, P., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). Multiple Streams Analysis: A Flexible Metaphor
Presents an Opportunity to Operationalize Agenda Setting Processes. In N.
Zahariadis, Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting (pp. 1-28). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (n.d.). Drought and Climate Change. Retrieved
from Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: https://www.c2es.org/content/drought-
and-climate-change/
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (n.d.). Hurricans and Climate Change. Retrieved
from Center for Climate and Energy Solutions :
https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/
Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. (2010 ). Expectations of Government's Response to
Disaster. Public Choice , 253-274.
CNN Politics . (2007, November 8). Senate overrides Bush's water bill veto. Retrieved from
CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/congress.water/
Cody, E., Stephens, J., Bagrow, J., Dodds, P., & Danforth, C. (2016 ). Transitions in Climate
and Energy Discourse Between Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, 87-101.
Collier, K. (2018, November 23 ). Federal report: Hurricane Harvey was a climate change
harbinger. Retrieved from The Texas Tribune :
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/11/23/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-federal-
report/
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs . (2006 ). Hurricane Katrina: A
Nationa Still Unprepared . Washington D.C.: Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs .
Congress. (2013, January 3). H.R. 152 (113th): Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013.
Retrieved from Govtrack : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr152/text
Cuncic, A. (2019, May 6 ). Understanding Internal and External Validity . Retrieved from
VeryWell Mind: https://www.verywellmind.com/internal-and-external-validity-
4584479

68
Dabrowski, M., Musialkowska, I., & Polverari, L. (2018). Introduction: Drawing Lessons
from International Policy-Transfer Initiatives in Regional and Urban Development
and Spatial Planning. Regional Studies, 1165-1168.
Defacto. (2011, March 17). Workshop Flood Resilience New Orleans . Retrieved from
DEFACTO Architecture and Urbanism : http://d.efac.to/nl/lezingen/workshop-flood-
resilience-new-orleans
DeLeo, R. (2018). Agenda Setting and Natural Hazards. Natural Hazard Science, 1-18.
Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in
Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance: An International Journal of POlicy and
Administration, 5-24.
Donovan, S. (2013, January 2). Setting Up the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Official Blog:
https://blog.hud.gov/index.php/2013/01/02/setting-up-the-hurricane-sandy-rebuilding-
task-force/
Dunlop, C., & Radaelli, C. (2013). Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to
Dimensions. Political Studies , 599-619.
Durant, R., & Diehl, P. (2013). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. Journal of Public
Policy , 179-205.
Earth Institute. (2019, March 15). New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019. Retrieved
from State of the Planet: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/03/15/npcc-report-2019-
climate-change-nyc/
Elsevier. (2017, October 16 ). Hoe Nederland New Orleans te hulp schoot. Retrieved from
Elsevier Weekblad :
https://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/americandreamers/blog/2017/10/nola-urban-water-
plan-549995/
Entman, R. (2004 ). Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and US Foreign
Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Climate Change Adaptation Plans. Retrieved
from Environmental Protection Agency : https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/climate-
change-adaptation-plans
Farley, J., Baker, D., Batker, D., & Koliba, C. (2006). Opening the policy window for
ecological economics: Katrina as a focusing event. Science Direct, 344-354.
FedCenter . (2009, October 5). Executive Order 13514. Retrieved from FedCenter:
https://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13514/

69
Gebreyes, R. (2015, August 27). The ‘Appalling’ Ways The Media Framed The Narrative
After Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from Huffington Post:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hurricane-katrina-media-new-
orleans_n_55dc999fe4b0a40aa3ac448d
Gibbens, S. (2019, January 16). Hurricane Katrina, explained. Retrieved from National
Geographic : https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-
disasters/reference/hurricane-katrina/
Goldenberg, S. (2009, June 5). US urged to abandon ageing flood defences of Dutch System.
Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jun/05/flooding-us-defence
Government of the Netherlands . (2013 ). Memorandum of Understanding between The
Department of Housing and Urban Development of the United States of America and
the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands. Retrieved from Government of the Netherlands :
ile:///C:/Users/510554cr/Downloads/memorandum-of-understanding-vs-nl%20(1).pdf
Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan . (2010, ). Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan .
Retrieved from Living With Water :
https://livingwithwater.com/blog/urban_water_plan/about/
Grin, J., & Loeber, A. (2007 ). Theories of Policy Learning, Agency, Structure and Change.
In F. Fischer, & G. Miller, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis . Leiden: Taylor &
Francis Inc. .
H+N+S Landschapsarchitecten . (2015). Oplossing + Kwaliteitsimpuls: een Duurzaam
Watersysteem en Stedelijk Perspectief voor New Orleans. Retrieved from H+N+S
Landschapsarchitecten: http://www.hnsland.nl/nl/projects/urban-water-plan-new-
orleans
Hall, P. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State. The Case of Economic
Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 275-296.
Hanseth, O. (2010). Industrial Informatics Design, Use and Innovation. Hershey: IGI Global.
Hung, H. V. (1992). Flood risk management for the RUA of Hanoi: Importance of
community perception of catastrophic flood risk in disaster risk planning. Public
Policy & Environmental Management , 245-258.
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability . (2019). International Cooperation . Retrieved
from ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability :
http://icleiusa.org/programs/international-collaboration/

70
Ingram, H., & Lejano, R. (2009). Transitions: transcending multiple ways of knowing water
resources in the United States. In D. Huitema, & S. Meijerink, Water Policy
Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions around the Globe (pp.
61-77). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Johnson, C., Tunstall, S., & Penning-Rowsell, E. (2005). Floods as Catalysts for Policy
Change: Historical Lessons from England and Wales. Water Resources Development ,
561-575.
Jones, M., Peterson, H., Pierce, J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Raney, L., & Zahariadis, N. (2016
). A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta-Review . Policy Studies
Journal , 13-36.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown .
Knaggard, A. (2013). Framing the Problem: Knowledge Brokers in the Multiple Streams
Approach. Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops.
Knåggard, A. (2015). The Multiple Streams Framework and the Problem Broker. European
Journal of Political Research, 450-465.
Kousky, C. (2016). Disasters as Learning Experiences or Disasters as Policy Opportunities?
Examining Flood Insurance Purchases after Hurricanes. Risk Analysis , 517-530.
Kunreuther, H., & Useem, M. (2013 ). Principles and Challenges for Reducing Risks from
Disasters. In W. Filho, Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management . New York:
Springer.
Ladislaw, S. (2013, November 4). Hurricane Sandy: Evaluating the Response One Year
Later. Retrieved from Center for Strategic and International Studies :
https://www.csis.org/analysis/hurricane-sandy-evaluating-response-one-year-later
Legrand, T. (2012). Overseas and over here: policy transfer and evidence-based policy-
making. Policy Journal, 329-348.
Lehnert, M., & Wonka, A. (2007). Increasing the Relevance of Research Questions:
Considerations on Theoretical and Social Relevance in Political Science. In T.
Gschwend, & F. Schimmelfennig, Research Design in Political Science: How to
Practice What They Preach (pp. 21-33). Palgrace Macmillan.
Louisiana Protection and Restoration . (2009). Dutch Perspective Appendix. New Orleans:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Lovell, H. (2016). The Role OF International Policy Transfer Within the MSA: The Case of
Smart Electricity Metering in Australia. Public Administration, 754-768.

71
Mathew, R. (2007). Climate Change and Human Security. In J. Dimento, & P. Doughman,
Climate Change: What it Means for Us, our Children and our Grandchildren .
Cambridge: MIT Press.
May, P. (1992). Policy Learning and Failure. Journal of Public Policy , 331-354.
McEntire, D., & Myers, A. (2004). Preparing communities for disasters: issues and processes
for government readiness. Disaster Prevention and Management , 140-152.
Mener, A. (2007). Disaster Response in the United States of America: An Analysis of the
Bureaucratic and Political History of a Failing System. College Undergraduate
Research Electronic Journal, 1-62.
Michel-Kerjan, E., & Volkman Wise, J. (2011). The Risk of Ever-Growing Disaster Relief
Expectations . 1-35.
Mills, A., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010 ). Congruence Analysis . Encyclopedia of Case
Study Research .
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. (2014 ). Ontwerpen aan klimaat en water. Retrieved
from Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties:
https://www.ontwerpenaanklimaatenwater.nl/platformbijeenkomsten/ontwerp-delta-
nl/essays/henk-ovink
Minkman, E., van Buuren, A., & Bekkers, V. (2018). Policy Transfer Routes: an Evidence-
Based Conceptual Model to Explain Policy Adoption . Policy Studies, 222-250.
Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs and problem framing: The case of
climate change. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Shape , 1362-1377.
Monpetit, E., & Lachapelle, E. (2015). Can Policy Actors Learn from Academic Scientist? .
Environmental Politics, 661-680.
Moynihan, D. (2014). The Response to Hurricane Katrina. International Risk Governance
Council. Wisconsin-Madison: International Risk Governance Council.
Moyson, S., Scholten, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). Policy learning and policy change:
theorizing their relations from different perspectives. Policy and Society , 161-177.
Mueller, E., Bell, H., & Chang, B. (2011). Looking for Home after Katrina: Postdisaster
Housing Policy and Low-Income Survivors. Journal of Planning Education and
Research , 291-307.
Neuman, S. (2015, August 27). Obama: Katrina A 'Man-Made' Disaster Caused By
Government Failure. Retrieved from NPR : https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/08/27/435258344/obama-katrina-a-man-made-disaster-caused-by-
government-failure?t=1559755743896

72
Newburn, T. (2010). Diffusion, Differentiation and Resistance in Comparative Penality.
Criminology and Justice, 341-353.
NexisUni . (2019). NexisUni. Retrieved from NexisUni : https://advance-lexis-
com.eur.idm.oclc.org/search/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=a15f3288-c7c7-44c9-b23c-
d6909d54e835&pdsearchterms=%22water+management%22+%22Katrina%22+%22
Dutch%22&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=searchboxclick&pdsearchty
pe=SearchBox&pdqttype
NYC Special Initative for Rebuilding and Resiliency . (2019 ). NYC Special Initative for
Rebuilding and Resiliency . Retrieved from NYC Special Initative for Rebuilding and
Resiliency : https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sirr/index.page
Obama . (2013, November 1). Executive Order 13653: Climate-Resilient International
Development. Retrieved from The White House:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/executive-order-
climate-resilient-international-development
O'Donovan, K. (2017). An Assessment of Aggregate Focusing Events, Disaster Experience,
and Policy Change. Risks, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy , 201-219.
Olshansky, R., & Johnson, L. (2014). The Evolution of the Federal Role in Supporting
Community REcovery After U.S. Disasters. Journal of American Planning
Association , 293-304.
Ovink, H., & Boeijenga, J. (2018). Rebuild by Design: A Transformative Approach to
Climate Change. Amsterdam : Nai010 Publishers .
Palmer, J. (2014). How do policy entrepreneurs influence policy change? Framing and
boundary work in EU transport biofuels policy. Environmental Politics , 270-287.
Rainey, R. (2016, August 27). 11 years after Katrina, FEMA has learned from its failures.
Retrieved from NOLA :
https://www.nola.com/politics/2016/08/11_years_after_katrina_fema_ha.html
Rebuild by Design . (2019 ). Rebuild by Design . Retrieved from Rebuild by Design :
http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/our-work/all-proposals/winning-projects
Reimer, I., & Saerbeck, B. (2017). Policy Entrepreneurs in National Climate CHange Policy
Processes. Environment and Planning, 1456-1470.
Rosenzweig, C., & Solecki, W. (2014). Hurricane Sandy and Adaptation Pathways in New
York: Lessons from a First-Responder City . Global Environmental Change, 395-408
.

73
Rosenzweig, C., & Solecki, W. (2014). Hurricane Sandy and Adaptation Pathways in New
York: Lessons from a First-Responder City . Global Environmental Change, 395-408.
Sabatier, P. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented Learning and Policy Change: An Advocacy
Coalition Framework . Knowledge, 649-692.
Sabatier, P. (1987). Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy
Coalition Framework . Knowledge, 649-692.
Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process . Boulder : Westview Press .
Sapat, A. (2011). Policy Learning and Policy Change: Katrina, Ike and Post-Disaster Housing
. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 25-65.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1988). Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative
Approach to Policy Design. Journal of Public Policy, 61-80.
Shorto, R. (2014, April 9). How to Think Like the Dutch in a Post-Sandy World. Retrieved
from The New York Times Magazine :
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/magazine/how-to-think-like-the-dutch-in-a-
post-sandy-world.html
Stone. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: WW
Norton and Co.
Stone, D. (1989). Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science
Quarterly , 281-399.
Stone, D. (1999). Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy acros Time, Space and
Disciplines. State of the Art, 51-59.
Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and Translation of Policy. Policy Studies , 483-499.
Task Force Advisory Group . (2013). Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy. New York: Task
Force Advisory Group.
Teichman, J. (2007). Multilateral Lending Institutions and Transnational Policy Networks in
Mexico and Chile. Global Governance, 557-573.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2006). House Report: A Failure of Initiative. Washington,
D.C.: House of Representatives.
United Nations. (2014). Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations
.
Urban Institute. (2014). The Evaluation of the Design Competition of Rebuild by Design: An
Initiative of President Obama's Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Development. New York : The Rockefeller Foundation .

74
US Congress . (2013, January 3 ). H.R. 41 (113th): Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill . Retrieved
from Govtrack : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr41
van Mengen, J. (2017 ). Post-Katrina Waterplannen voor New Orleans. Arnhem : Tuin en
Landschap .
Walch, C. (2018). Adaptive Governance in the Developing World: Disaster Risk Reduction
in the State of Odisha, India . Climate and Development , 1-15.
Washington, T., Alvarez, B., Smedley, B., & Reece, J. (2006). Housing in New Orleans: One
Year after Katrina . NAACP .
Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Leiden: Taylor
and Francis.
Weiss, C. (1977). Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social
Research . Policy Analysis, 531-545.
Wiley, M. (2007 ). Triumph Over Tragedy: Leadership, Capacity and Needs in Arkansas,
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
New York City : The Center for Social Inclusion .
Zahariadis, N. (2016). Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Zevenbergen, C., van Herk, S., Rijke, J., Kabat, P., Bloemen, P., Ashley, R., . . . Veerbeek,
W. (2013). Taming Global Floor Disasters: Lessons Learned from Dutch Experience.
Natural Hazards, 1217-1225.
Zhang, F. (2007). An In-Person Survey Investigating Public Perceptions of and Responses to
Hurricane Rita Forecasts along the Texas Coast. Weather and Forecasting, 1177-
1190.
Zhang, Q., & Lu, Q. (2018). The Pattern of Policy Change on Disaster Management in China:
A Bibliometric Analysis of Policy Documents, 1949–2016. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 55-73.
Zohlnhofer, R., & Rub, F. (2016). Decision-Making under Ambiguity and Time Constraints:
Assessing the Multiple Streams Model . London : ECPR Press.

75
76
77
78
79
80