Yv
Y.R. van der Zee
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
Governing Long Term Flood Recovery in Amsterdam
How governance arrangements enable or constrain Building Back Better
This thesis examines how long-term flood recovery is governed in Amsterdam and how this affects the implementation of Build Back Better (BBB). Increasing flood risks due to climate change highlight the importance of not only preventing floods but also recovering in a way that reduces future vulnerability. However, long-term recovery remains underdeveloped in Dutch flood risk management. This research therefore aims to answer the question: “How do Amsterdam's governance arrangements enable or constrain the operationalisation of Build Back Better (BBB) principles in long-term flood recovery?’’
To answer this question, a qualitative single-case study was conducted in Amsterdam. The research combines a policy review of 11 flood-related policy documents, 12 semi-structured interviews (15 respondents), and a focus group with 29 participants. The data were analysed using the Policy Arrangements Approach (PAA), focusing on actors, resources, rules, and policy discourse, in combination with three BBB dimensions: environmental, infrastructural, and social.
The results show that for local policies in Amsterdam there is no long-term recovery strategy. The national BBB ambitions and goals are hard to conceptualise within the local context, leading to the fact that long-term flood recovery in Amsterdam is fragmented and not prioritised. Responsibilities are divided across multiple actors, but there is no concrete plan on who is responsible during long-term recovery. Furthermore, financial and organisational capacity for recovery is lacking, despite the presence of knowledge on BBB. Rules and regulations mainly focus on prevention and short-term recovery, leaving long-term recovery largely undefined. In addition, policy discourse prioritises a rapid return to normal conditions and prevention, thereby limiting recovery as a moment for transformation.
The conclusion is therefore that governance arrangements in Amsterdam mainly constrain the operationalisation of BBB in long-term flood recovery. The main challenge is not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of governance structures that support implementation. As a result, recovery is primarily focused on restoring existing systems rather than improving them.
These findings show that long-term recovery needs to be better included in flood governance. This means that roles and responsibilities need to be clearer, and that actors need to work together more rather than separately. It is also important that there are enough resources and capacity to organise long-term recovery.
At the same time, this study is limited by the incomplete inclusion of relevant actors and its reliance on resilience strategies to assess BBB, which may blur the distinction between recovery and prevention. Moreover, a news reporter was present during the focus group, leading to fewer open comments. For future research, it would be useful to further develop practical BBB recovery strategies for different contexts, such as other cities or rural areas. It would also be valuable to bring actors together in workshops to better understand their roles and improve collaboration.
...
To answer this question, a qualitative single-case study was conducted in Amsterdam. The research combines a policy review of 11 flood-related policy documents, 12 semi-structured interviews (15 respondents), and a focus group with 29 participants. The data were analysed using the Policy Arrangements Approach (PAA), focusing on actors, resources, rules, and policy discourse, in combination with three BBB dimensions: environmental, infrastructural, and social.
The results show that for local policies in Amsterdam there is no long-term recovery strategy. The national BBB ambitions and goals are hard to conceptualise within the local context, leading to the fact that long-term flood recovery in Amsterdam is fragmented and not prioritised. Responsibilities are divided across multiple actors, but there is no concrete plan on who is responsible during long-term recovery. Furthermore, financial and organisational capacity for recovery is lacking, despite the presence of knowledge on BBB. Rules and regulations mainly focus on prevention and short-term recovery, leaving long-term recovery largely undefined. In addition, policy discourse prioritises a rapid return to normal conditions and prevention, thereby limiting recovery as a moment for transformation.
The conclusion is therefore that governance arrangements in Amsterdam mainly constrain the operationalisation of BBB in long-term flood recovery. The main challenge is not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of governance structures that support implementation. As a result, recovery is primarily focused on restoring existing systems rather than improving them.
These findings show that long-term recovery needs to be better included in flood governance. This means that roles and responsibilities need to be clearer, and that actors need to work together more rather than separately. It is also important that there are enough resources and capacity to organise long-term recovery.
At the same time, this study is limited by the incomplete inclusion of relevant actors and its reliance on resilience strategies to assess BBB, which may blur the distinction between recovery and prevention. Moreover, a news reporter was present during the focus group, leading to fewer open comments. For future research, it would be useful to further develop practical BBB recovery strategies for different contexts, such as other cities or rural areas. It would also be valuable to bring actors together in workshops to better understand their roles and improve collaboration.
...
This thesis examines how long-term flood recovery is governed in Amsterdam and how this affects the implementation of Build Back Better (BBB). Increasing flood risks due to climate change highlight the importance of not only preventing floods but also recovering in a way that reduces future vulnerability. However, long-term recovery remains underdeveloped in Dutch flood risk management. This research therefore aims to answer the question: “How do Amsterdam's governance arrangements enable or constrain the operationalisation of Build Back Better (BBB) principles in long-term flood recovery?’’
To answer this question, a qualitative single-case study was conducted in Amsterdam. The research combines a policy review of 11 flood-related policy documents, 12 semi-structured interviews (15 respondents), and a focus group with 29 participants. The data were analysed using the Policy Arrangements Approach (PAA), focusing on actors, resources, rules, and policy discourse, in combination with three BBB dimensions: environmental, infrastructural, and social.
The results show that for local policies in Amsterdam there is no long-term recovery strategy. The national BBB ambitions and goals are hard to conceptualise within the local context, leading to the fact that long-term flood recovery in Amsterdam is fragmented and not prioritised. Responsibilities are divided across multiple actors, but there is no concrete plan on who is responsible during long-term recovery. Furthermore, financial and organisational capacity for recovery is lacking, despite the presence of knowledge on BBB. Rules and regulations mainly focus on prevention and short-term recovery, leaving long-term recovery largely undefined. In addition, policy discourse prioritises a rapid return to normal conditions and prevention, thereby limiting recovery as a moment for transformation.
The conclusion is therefore that governance arrangements in Amsterdam mainly constrain the operationalisation of BBB in long-term flood recovery. The main challenge is not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of governance structures that support implementation. As a result, recovery is primarily focused on restoring existing systems rather than improving them.
These findings show that long-term recovery needs to be better included in flood governance. This means that roles and responsibilities need to be clearer, and that actors need to work together more rather than separately. It is also important that there are enough resources and capacity to organise long-term recovery.
At the same time, this study is limited by the incomplete inclusion of relevant actors and its reliance on resilience strategies to assess BBB, which may blur the distinction between recovery and prevention. Moreover, a news reporter was present during the focus group, leading to fewer open comments. For future research, it would be useful to further develop practical BBB recovery strategies for different contexts, such as other cities or rural areas. It would also be valuable to bring actors together in workshops to better understand their roles and improve collaboration.
To answer this question, a qualitative single-case study was conducted in Amsterdam. The research combines a policy review of 11 flood-related policy documents, 12 semi-structured interviews (15 respondents), and a focus group with 29 participants. The data were analysed using the Policy Arrangements Approach (PAA), focusing on actors, resources, rules, and policy discourse, in combination with three BBB dimensions: environmental, infrastructural, and social.
The results show that for local policies in Amsterdam there is no long-term recovery strategy. The national BBB ambitions and goals are hard to conceptualise within the local context, leading to the fact that long-term flood recovery in Amsterdam is fragmented and not prioritised. Responsibilities are divided across multiple actors, but there is no concrete plan on who is responsible during long-term recovery. Furthermore, financial and organisational capacity for recovery is lacking, despite the presence of knowledge on BBB. Rules and regulations mainly focus on prevention and short-term recovery, leaving long-term recovery largely undefined. In addition, policy discourse prioritises a rapid return to normal conditions and prevention, thereby limiting recovery as a moment for transformation.
The conclusion is therefore that governance arrangements in Amsterdam mainly constrain the operationalisation of BBB in long-term flood recovery. The main challenge is not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of governance structures that support implementation. As a result, recovery is primarily focused on restoring existing systems rather than improving them.
These findings show that long-term recovery needs to be better included in flood governance. This means that roles and responsibilities need to be clearer, and that actors need to work together more rather than separately. It is also important that there are enough resources and capacity to organise long-term recovery.
At the same time, this study is limited by the incomplete inclusion of relevant actors and its reliance on resilience strategies to assess BBB, which may blur the distinction between recovery and prevention. Moreover, a news reporter was present during the focus group, leading to fewer open comments. For future research, it would be useful to further develop practical BBB recovery strategies for different contexts, such as other cities or rural areas. It would also be valuable to bring actors together in workshops to better understand their roles and improve collaboration.