Unpacking notions of residents' responsibility in flood risk governance
(2022) In Environmental Policy and Governance 32(3). p.217-231- Abstract
- Environmental disasters, and especially floods, are among today's biggest sustainability challenges. The number and intensity of floods are increasing, challenging current governance approaches. Governments worldwide are looking to diversify their flood risk management and adaptation strategies, among others, by increasing resident involvement in flood risk governance. Such involvement of individuals shifts responsibilities from public to private actors. A clear understanding of the extent and implications of this shift is difficult to reach as theoretical perspectives on the concept of responsibility vary. Similarly, grounds for attributing responsibility for flood preparedness and response differ across countries. This lack of analytical... (More)
- Environmental disasters, and especially floods, are among today's biggest sustainability challenges. The number and intensity of floods are increasing, challenging current governance approaches. Governments worldwide are looking to diversify their flood risk management and adaptation strategies, among others, by increasing resident involvement in flood risk governance. Such involvement of individuals shifts responsibilities from public to private actors. A clear understanding of the extent and implications of this shift is difficult to reach as theoretical perspectives on the concept of responsibility vary. Similarly, grounds for attributing responsibility for flood preparedness and response differ across countries. This lack of analytical and empirical clarity complicates academic and policy discourses on what it actually means to ‘be responsible’. The current article systematises these different approaches to responsibility in flood risk governance. To improve current knowledge on residents' responsibilities in flood risk governance, we present a conceptual framework that distinguishes among four theoretical notions of responsibility: legal responsibility, accountability, perceived responsibility, and moral responsibility. These notions are elucidated with the help of examples of flood risk governance practices in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the four notions are closely intertwined. In addition, this article documents divergences between what individuals perceive as their own responsibility in flood risk management and the responsibilities that governments assume. We conclude with a discussion on the tensions between perceived responsibilities and the other three notions. Explicit, transparent and open discussion on these tensions is needed to allow attribution of responsibility in flood risk governance and to reconsider residents' roles in particular. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/9a63a1e6-ef15-4145-940d-3c5a68880985
- author
- Snel, Karin ; Hegger, Dries ; Mees, Heleen ; Kundis Craig, Robin ; Kammerbauer, Mark ; Neelke, Doorn ; Bergsma, Emmy and Wamsler, Christine LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2022-04-21
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- flood risk, governance, Climate change adaptation
- in
- Environmental Policy and Governance
- volume
- 32
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 217 - 231
- publisher
- Wiley-Blackwell
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85127282118
- ISSN
- 1756-9338
- DOI
- 10.1002/eet.1985
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 9a63a1e6-ef15-4145-940d-3c5a68880985
- date added to LUP
- 2022-04-06 13:47:50
- date last changed
- 2022-06-29 19:43:54
@article{9a63a1e6-ef15-4145-940d-3c5a68880985,
abstract = {{Environmental disasters, and especially floods, are among today's biggest sustainability challenges. The number and intensity of floods are increasing, challenging current governance approaches. Governments worldwide are looking to diversify their flood risk management and adaptation strategies, among others, by increasing resident involvement in flood risk governance. Such involvement of individuals shifts responsibilities from public to private actors. A clear understanding of the extent and implications of this shift is difficult to reach as theoretical perspectives on the concept of responsibility vary. Similarly, grounds for attributing responsibility for flood preparedness and response differ across countries. This lack of analytical and empirical clarity complicates academic and policy discourses on what it actually means to ‘be responsible’. The current article systematises these different approaches to responsibility in flood risk governance. To improve current knowledge on residents' responsibilities in flood risk governance, we present a conceptual framework that distinguishes among four theoretical notions of responsibility: legal responsibility, accountability, perceived responsibility, and moral responsibility. These notions are elucidated with the help of examples of flood risk governance practices in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the four notions are closely intertwined. In addition, this article documents divergences between what individuals perceive as their own responsibility in flood risk management and the responsibilities that governments assume. We conclude with a discussion on the tensions between perceived responsibilities and the other three notions. Explicit, transparent and open discussion on these tensions is needed to allow attribution of responsibility in flood risk governance and to reconsider residents' roles in particular.}},
author = {{Snel, Karin and Hegger, Dries and Mees, Heleen and Kundis Craig, Robin and Kammerbauer, Mark and Neelke, Doorn and Bergsma, Emmy and Wamsler, Christine}},
issn = {{1756-9338}},
keywords = {{flood risk; governance; Climate change adaptation}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{04}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{217--231}},
publisher = {{Wiley-Blackwell}},
series = {{Environmental Policy and Governance}},
title = {{Unpacking notions of residents' responsibility in flood risk governance}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.1985}},
doi = {{10.1002/eet.1985}},
volume = {{32}},
year = {{2022}},
}