Configuración host servidor 50

The main research question of this thesis is:

How can adaptation actions to manage changes in flood and drought risks be delivered effectively?

By focusing on the questions of what, when, why and how, this thesis pro- vides several ingredients for addressing the question (section 7.1). These include: a procedure for establishing fit-for-purpose governance reform (WHAT; chapter 2); a pattern of governance approaches that are typically effective during the early, mid and late stages of transformation (WHEN; chapter 3); a checklist for the availability of the required ingredients for change (WHY; chapter 4); guidance for effective design and management of adaptation programmes (HOW; chapter 5), and recommendations for align- ing governance of strategic planning and delivery of adaptation (HOW; chap- ter 6). These ingredients provide principles and attributes that contribute to

the effective delivery of adaptation to flooding and drought, which need to be customised to the context and purpose of their users in practice. How- ever, as pointed out in the previous section, they also lead to a number of topics for further research, particularly because the findings that are pre- sented in this thesis are based on a limited number of cases.

I am ending this thesis with several overall reflections. Firstly, this thesis does only implicitly address the question of who is involved and should be in- volved with the governance of adaptation. Governance is a purposeful action with a purpose that is subject to stakeholder perspectives (chapter 2). As a consequence of the demand driven approach of this research, this thesis took the perspective of the advocates for stormwater harvesting and reuse in the Australian urban water context and the advocates for river widening for flood risk management in the Netherlands. With these perspectives arbi- trarily chosen, less emphasis was given to the question of who governs and who should govern adaptation. With the shift from ‘government’ to ‘govern- ance’ (chapter 2), decision making about water management is no longer a matter that is exclusive to the public sector. Instead, a wide range of actors, such as the private sector, academia and citizens, are involved with the plan- ning, financing, realisation, operation and maintenance of water infrastruc- ture. As repeatedly recalled throughout this thesis, panacea, blueprint solu- tions, for effective water governance do not exist and governance ap- proaches should be specifically developed, case-by-case. Hence, stakeholder participation should also be customised to the nature of policies, plans or projects and their context. As such, this thesis should be considered in com- bination with the work of others who have made more detailed analyses of the various and many approaches to stakeholder participation (e.g. Edelenbos and Klijn, 2006; Edelenbos et al., 2011; Reed, 2008).

Secondly, this thesis uses case studies with a focus on adaptation to flooding and drought; two hazards that are very different. Obviously, flooding relates to too much water, whilst drought relates to too little availability of water. In addition, flood events, for example, mostly occur rapidly and often have a duration of days to weeks, whereas droughts are persistent in nature and generally have a longer duration than floods (the Australian Millennium drought persevered for nearly a decade). Furthermore, the technological systems that aim to provide flood protection and water security differ signifi-

cantly in terms of scale, operation and management (chapter 6). Despite these differences, the governance of adaptation to flooding and drought in respectively the Netherlands and Australia share remarkable similarities. Chapter 6, describes, for example, how a crisis (respectively near-miss flood- ing and the peak of the drought) first triggered adaptation through infra- structure upgrades and after which governance reform followed. Although both cases followed different adaptation trajectories (i.e. programmed vs. experimental), they both revealed that establishing the required connec- tions between organisations, departments, disciplines, domains, sectors, management levels and individuals for realising adaptive systems is crucial, but challenging. The similarities that the two cases reveal for governance of adaptation to flooding and drought suggest that the lessons and experiences from adaptation to drought can be used as an inspiration to adapt to flood- ing and vice versa. This may be relevant for water management contexts that are vulnerable to both flooding and drought, such as Australian cities.

Thirdly, during the PhD research I have met many colleague scientists, policy makers and planners who perceive resilience as a virtue. In their view, the purpose of the analysed governance approaches was to establish water sys- tems that are resilient to change; i.e. water systems that have the capacity to absorb shocks whilst maintaining function, and to recover and re-organise after a shock has taken place (chapter 1). This may seem self-evident from an engineering perspective, but from a governance perspective the virtue of resilience requires nuance. Formal institutions, such as legislation, planning authorities and regulators are often set up to serve communities and pro- tect public values, such as public health, the environment and welfare. In this regard, resilience of these institutions provides the capacity to safeguard such values, for example by prohibiting the application of technological sys- tems that cause unacceptable risks for public health or the safety of commu- nities. However, this thesis illustrates that the same formal institutions sometimes hamper adaptation of technological systems and the use thereof when the risks are changing. Furthermore, a fact-finding mission about urban flood management in Saint-Louis, Senegal, in which I participated on behalf of UNESCO-IHE, taught me that, in some contexts, communities have a great ability to cope with flooding, recover quickly and resume life as they knew it. In the case of Saint-Louis, this held particularly true for communities in in- formal settlements in the floodplain of the River Senegal. Whilst the capacity

of these communities to cope and recover from flooding could be classified as resilience; it is probable that these communities would prefer better flood protection over resilience. Hence, it would be worthwhile to systemically investigate the pros and cons of resilience in this type of context and deter- mine when it is a virtue and when it is not. However, this was unfortunately beyond this thesis.

Driven by my personal motivations and academic background, this thesis contributes to the practice and science of governance of adaptation through a demand driven approach in which problem framing and solving were equally important. The research questions that are being addressed in this thesis are more derived from practice than theory. This thesis contains ele- ments that enrich specific research domains, such as the pattern of effective governance during different stages of transformation that enriches the adap- tive governance and transition management literature (chapter 3) or the attributes for effective programme management which enriches the pro- gramme management literature (chapter 5). However, in my opinion, the greatest implication of this thesis for the research related to the governance of adaptation lies in the notion that science can develop valuable contribu- tions for practice through combining insights from diverse research do- mains. Based on the analyses that are presented in this thesis, it is therefore likely that the practice of governance of adaptation would benefit from fur- ther exploring combinations of disparate literature domains, such as adap- tive governance / transition management and adaptive governance / adap- tive (project) management.