Integrated Flood Risk Analysis
and Management Methodologies
Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management
CASE STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Date March
2007
Report Number
T13-07-04
Revision Number 1_0_P4
Deliverable Number: D13.1
Due date for deliverable: February 2007 Actual submission date: March 2007
Task Leader IOER
FLOODsite is co-funded by the European Community
Sixth Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) FLOODsite is an Integrated Project in the Global Change and Eco-systems Sub-Priority
Start date March 2004, duration 5 Years Document Dissemination
PU Public PU
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
D
OCUMENTI
NFORMATIONTitle Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management Lead Author G. Hutter
Contributors L. McFadden, E. Penning-Rowsell, S. Tapsell, M. Borga Distribution Public
Document Reference T13-07-04
D
OCUMENTH
ISTORYDate Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes
02/04/07 1_0_P4 G. Hutter IOER - -
04/04/07 J Bushell HRW Final formatting for publication and
change of name from
‘T13_07_01_Strategies_D13_1_v1_0 _p04.doc’
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTThe work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-2004-505420.
D
ISCLAIMERThis document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. This work may rely on data from sources external to the FLOODsite project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Community nor any member of the FLOODsite Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information.
S
UMMARYThe report “Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management – Case Studies and Recommendations” proposes (1) a theoretical framework to analyse the content, process, and context of strategies for reducing flood risk within catchments. (2) Three case studies illustrate why researchers and practitioners alike can benefit from using the framework to better understand the process dimension of strategies for pre-flood risk management (which is, in this report, mainly long-term planning of combinations of structural and non-structural measures). (3) The report formulates six recommendations to practitioners how to improve flood risk management through shifting attention. (1) In European Member States, managing floods is shifting from protecting against floods to Flood Risk Management (FRM). Simply put, this requires that decision makers responsible for different components of FRM and people (citizens) take the full range of possible floods and their consequences as well as probabilities and uncertainties into account. This kind of rational decision making places heavy demands on decision makers and citizens alike. Up to now, it is clear that research and practice should go in the direction of flood risk management. How this is possible, however, requires - among others – a more systematic understanding how strategies as combinations of contents (aims, measures, and so forth), process patterns (e. g. strategic planning, learning), and societal context conditions interact. The framework for analysing strategies for pre-flood risk management makes suggestions with regard to defining strategy, using linear and adaptive processes of strategy making, strategic planning at different spatial levels and under uncertainty and with reference to the well-known notion of learning. Thereby, the report is grounded in current debates (e.g., “Learning to live with rivers”, “Strategic planning of cities and regions”) and attempts to suggest some fruitful discussions for FRM research (e.g., seeing learning as complex process of exploitation what is already known and exploration what might come to be known in the future).
(2) The report is based on an extensive literature review (risk management, FRM, strategy and management research, organizational learning, spatial planning). To ground argumentation, the report refers to three case studies: i) The London study shows that a series of important steps have been taken towards the integrated management of a highly complex physical and social environment. However, it is also clear that the current strategy process still has significant limitations if assessed from the perspective of the framework proposed here. A primary conclusion emerging from this work is that translating the vision of an adaptive strategy process into the reality of flood risk management remains a challenging task. ii) The Dresden study comes to similar conclusions against the background of a recent flood disaster that came like a “bolt from the blue” (Weisseritz river flood in August 2002). The study shows that long-term planning does not only deal with distant futures. Planning itself qualifies as a long-term endeavour. The Adige river study underlines this conclusion. In sum, case study results motivate to further define a common European approach to developing strategies for pre-flood risk management in the long run.
C
ONTENTS Document Information ii Document History ii Disclaimer ii Summary iii Contents v 1. Introduction ... 1 1.1 Background... 11.2 Purpose of the Report ... 1
2. Framework to Analyse Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management... 2
2.1 Aim of the Framework for Strategy Analysis... 2
2.2 Definition of Strategy and Overview over the Framework ... 3
2.3 The Content Dimension of Strategies... 7
2.4 The Process Dimension: Strategic Planning and Learning... 20
2.5 The Context Dimension: External and Internal Constraints... 46
3. Case Studies ... 48
3.1 Aim, Approach, and Research Design... 48
3.2 Case Study Results: Overview... 57
3.3 The Thames Estuary Study... 58
3.4 The Weisseritz River Study ... 64
3.5 The Adige River Study ... 72
4. Recommendations ... 78
5. References ... 82
Tables
Table 1 Local Planning at Framework and Project Level 16
Table 2 Local Spatial Plans at Framework and Project Level - Examples 17
Table 3 The Linear and the Adaptive Process Model of Strategy 21
Table 4 Matching Process Models of Strategy Making to Context Conditions 24
Table 5 Matching Knowledge Problems and Options or Process Management 31
Table 6 First, Second, and Third Order Effects of Strategic Planning 39
Table 7 Episodic and Continuous Change 43
Table 8 Four types of Organizational Change Processes and their Outcomes 44
Table 9 Context Conditions for Pre-Flood Risk Management in European Member States 47
Table 10 A Multilevel Approach to Conducting the Three Case Studies 49
Table 11 Comparing the Case and the Subunit of a Case Study 50
Table 12 Allocation of Data Collection Resources 52
Table 13 Comparing the Content, Processes, and Contexts of the Cases 54
Table 14 Assessing the Validity and Reliability of the Results 55
Table 15 High-Level Strategic Alternatives of Flood Protection and Flood Risk Management 68
Table 16 Deploying Strategic Planning at Different Spatial Levels of FRM 69
Table 17 Water Resources Management Institutional Framework in Italy 75
Figures
Figure 1 Three Dimensions of Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management 5
Figure 2 Components of Flood Risk Management 8
Figure 3 Rational Planning Model 9
Figure 4 Political Decision-Making Model 10
Figure 5 Structural and Non-Structural Measures 12
Figure 6 Structural and Non-Structural Measures in the Downstream Basin 12
Figure 7 Classifying Measures and Policy Instruments 15
Figure 8 Learning to Link Plans at Framework Level with Strategic Projects 27
Figure 9 Matching Strategic Planning Modes to the Uncertainty of Context 29
Figure 10 Integrating Spatial Scales, Policy Issues, and Planning Horizons 33
Figure 11 The Relevance of Projects for Strategy Making: Six Propositions 36
Figure 12 Exploitation, Exploration, and Rational Decision Making 40
Figure 13 Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change 45
Figure 14 The River Thames and London 58
Figure 15 Flood Risk Management Plan Development and Review Process 60
Figure 16 Real Land-use within the Weisseritz River Area 65
Figure 17 Inundated Areas in August 2002 and Statutory Flood Plain 66
Figure 18 High Involvement of Critics in the Formation Period of Innovations 71
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Extreme flood events like the Weisseritz flash flood within the Elbe river basin in August 2002 and their adverse impacts on people and properties have urged practitioners (e. g. LfUG 2004) and scientists (Schanze 2002, DKKV 2003) to argue that strategic planning should be deployed more systematically for avoiding unexpected impacts in flood-prone areas. For instance, strategic spatial planning offers measures which could effectively channel new development to areas not exposed to flooding, thereby discouraging development on floodplains. Spatial planning could serve as means for integrating stakeholders into the decision making process (Burby et al. 2000) for assessing current and future risks of different land use possibilities. In terms of reducing the vulnerability in flood-prone areas and increasing the preparedness of actors, the need is apparent for a planning-based strategy to pre-flood risk mitigation.
However, developing a planning-based strategy is a difficult task for various reasons. Directly after a severe flood event the need for an effective strategic approach to pre-flood risk management is usually widely acknowledged. Nevertheless, after some time memories of the event and its causes fade and it is not easy to maintain political support for strategies of pre-flood risk management. As a consequence, in political decision making at local level flood risk issues are often outweighed in the discussion about strictly prohibiting built-up areas on floodplains (Böhm et al. 1998, Fleming 2002, DKKV 2003). Furthermore, a strategic approach requires constant co-operation of water authorities, municipalities, and regional bodies. But, co-operation is costly (e.g. direct costs in terms of time, financial and human resources to maintain dense communication). Therefore, the call for a strategic approach to pre-flood risk management does not suffice. It should be demonstrated how such an approach can be implemented under real-world conditions (Penning-Rowsell & Fordham 1994, Parker 2000, Hutter 2006).
1.2 Purpose of the report
Task 13 generates a multidimensional framework to analyse strategies for pre-flood risk management. It specifies this framework with regard to the key topic of reducing vulnerability in flood-prone areas through strategic planning at local level. To realise this aim, existing content knowledge referring to the question what structural and non-structural measures should be linked with regard to the recurrence, speed of onset, and impacts of flood hazards (e.g. Hall et al. 2003, Hooijer et al. 2004) is combined with how-to knowledge. How-to knowledge refers to the process of deploying local spatial planning at the framework and project level (European Commission 1997). From a methodological point of view, questions of how to manage a process should be empirically analysed by conducting case studies. Case studies enable the investigation of process patterns which are too complex to be included into surveys (Yin 2003).
2. Framework to Analyse Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management
“The comment, ´Great strategy; lousy implementation´, gives unjustified credit to the strategist. If the strategy has been designed without taking account of the organizations capacity for implementation, it´s a lousy strategy.” (Grant 2005, p. 187) Strategy seems to be a simple term. Within daily life we use the term to refer to a set of activities to influence the world around us in a specific way. Strategy directs and guides behaviour. Furthermore, strategy refers to intentionality. Strategies are consciously chosen. Notwithstanding this daily-life understanding, over the years, strategy research has developed a more complex concept of strategy as multidimensional phenomenon. This concept takes implementation and the challenge to link strategy with day-to-day activities into account. Attempts to deploy pre-flood measures for risk mitigation can benefit from adopting this multidimensional understanding of strategy.
To show this, section 2.1 states briefly what the aim of developing such a framework for strategy analysis is (not least of all, to avoid disappointments). Section 2.2 provides an overview over the framework. Thereby, strategy is defined as multidimensional phenomenon encompassing content, process, and context elements. Sections 2.3 to 2.5 deal with specific dimensions of strategy making (content, process, and context).
2.1 Aim of the Framework for Strategy Analysis
The literature on strategy and management that could be important for FRM, especially pre-flood risk management, is vast and difficult to overview (there are some good handbooks, e.g., Pettigrew et al. 2002, Easterby-Smith & Lyles 2003, Poole & Van de Ven 2004). It is the aim of the framework for strategy analysis in the context of pre-flood risk management to point to important themes and their implications for FRM research and practice. The framework follows two somehow more specific aims:
• To define strategy in a way that process patterns of strategy making are recognized of utmost importance for shifting effectively from a pure flood protection strategy to flood risk management. Research on floods is moving, but so are other research and policy fields too. Coming to more integration between, for instance, spatial planning, flood protection, and measures to increase preparedness of citizens requires paying ample attention to how these linkages can be build.
• To show that strategic planning and learning are important “boundary spanning concepts” between different policy fields as well as between different disciplines, for instance, strategic planning in FRM and in spatial planning.
2.2 Definition of Strategy and Overview over the Framework
The term strategy is not new to flood risk management researchers (e.g. Penning-Rowsell & Peerbote 1994, p. 5, Kundzewicz 2002, Hooijer et al. 2004). Seldom is the term explicitly defined (an exception is Hooijer et al. 2004). Even when explicit definitions are given, the findings of strategy research (e.g. Pettigrew & Whipp 1991, Burgelman 2002, Pettigrew et al. 2002) are not taken into account. Looking at the research on strategy and management (see the Handbook of Strategy and Management, edited by Pettigrew et al. 2002) fosters a comprehensive, multidimensional understanding of strategy and the forces that influence strategy.
A comprehensive understanding of strategy is necessary to improve the management of problems that are difficult to solve. For example, it is widely acknowledged that the aim to reduce vulnerability in flood-prone areas by discouraging development on floodplains and by channelling demands for housing and infrastructure to areas unlikely to be flooded is no easy-to-solve management problem. Yet, rarely the conceptual tools and empirical findings from strategy research are used to shed light on this management challenge from a new perspective. (New, after all, means new to flood risk management research.) The aim of this section is to demonstrate that strategy research has something to offer for pre-flood risk management. To show this, we start with what could be seen as common ground for using the term strategy.
Origins and Meaning of the Term Strategy
The term strategy derives from the Greek word strategia, meaning “general-ship”, itself formed from
stratos, meaning “army”, and –ag, “to lead” (Grant 2005). Military strategy and strategies in other
fields of societal development (business economics, public affairs, and so forth) share a number of common concepts and principles, the most basic being the distinction between strategy and tactics (Grant 2005, Burgelman 2002). Strategy is the overall solution for deploying resources to establish a favourable position; a tactic is a scheme for a specific action. Whereas tactics are concerned with winning battles, strategy is concerned with winning the war.
Strategic decisions, whether in military or other fields, share three common characteristics (Grant 2005, p. 14, see also Ghemawat 1991):
• They are important.
• They involve a significant commitment of resources. • They are not easily reversible.
Especially the third characteristic is important to understand how flood risk management can benefit from strategy research. If external pressures are dominant, there is only very little decision space for an actor to choose his strategy (Schreyögg 1984, Burgelman 2002). Therefore, strategic decisions imply a significant degree of freedom for choice (Hrebiniak & Joyce 1985). But, strategic decisions are fundamental decisions that influence the long-term development of an actors welfare. They refer to the interface of internal and external context conditions (Grant 2005). For example, making strategic decisions a business organisation chooses in which industries it will compete against other enterprises. The decision to compete in a specific industry heavily influences the deployment of resources and the building of distinctive competencies in the medium and long term. Once a strategic decision has been made fundamental decision possibilities decrease and one can concentrate on delivering the net benefits the strategy is promising. But, context can change. Therefore, simultaneously or in specific time periods contexts conditions have to be monitored to assess if they still support the strategy chosen.
1998, Van de Ven & Poole 1988). Especially within large organisations strategy takes the form of strategy making across multiple levels of decisions to address changing external contexts and internal resources and capabilities (Burgelman 2002). We conclude, that strategy is a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses the dimensions of content (“Deciding what to do”), process (“Deciding how to do it”), and context (“Aligning strategic decisions to internal and external conditions”). Shona Brown and Kathleen Eisenhardt elucidate this meaning of the strategy concept referring to two questions which have to be answered at a time (1998, p. 4): “Where do we want to go?” and “How do we get there?”
Defining Strategy as Multidimensional Phenomenon
Against this background, a multidimensional understanding of strategy adopting the following definition is proposed for FRM (see Hutter 2006 as well as FLOODsite 2005):
A strategy for pre-flood risk management is defined as a consistent combination of long-term goals, aims, and measures, as well as process patterns that is continuously aligned with the societal context.
The rationale for this definition is as follows: Changing from the paradigm of flood protection to flood risk management raises challenging questions of formulating and implementing strategies within society. In particular, reducing vulnerability and increasing preparedness require a comprehensive understanding of pre-flood risk management.
Related, But Different Definitions of Strategy
Strategy as multidimensional phenomenon is distinct from other possibilities to define strategy. Firstly, the definition of strategy used in this report is distinct from the classic definition from business economics: The classic approach defines strategy as combination of measures and necessary resources for actions to implement the basic long-term goals of a business organisation (see Whipp 2001, p. 15151). This definition of Alfred Chandler (1962) is closely linked to strategic planning as long-term planning under conditions which are largely predictable (Volberda 1998, p. 37, p. 206). The classic definition does not explicitly comprise process patterns of strategy making. But, under conditions of increasing uncertainty process becomes more important to consider different views on a complex phenomenon, to exploit different possibilities of formulating and implementing strategies, and to adapt swiftly to unforeseen conditions. Uncertainty is an increasingly relevant topic for modelling and managing flood risk (Sayers et al. 2002, Hall et al. 2003, FLOODsite 2005). Hence, process patterns should be taken into account in a systematic way and not ad-hoc.
Secondly, Hooijer et al. see strategy as “a consistent set of measures, aiming to influence developments in a specific way” (2004, p. 346). This definition is restricted to the content dimension of strategies (e.g., aims, measures, scenarios, and so forth). Process and societal context issues are not included. In this report the term strategic alternative is used for combinations of structural and non-structural measures aiming to influence developments in a specific way. Strategic alternatives are
tactics for pre-flood risk management.
A Multidimensional Framework for Strategy Analysis
To systematise this multidimensional understanding of strategy, Figure 1 encompasses the dimensions of content, process, and context. Important categories within the dimensions are listed.
Process:
• Strategic planning mode:
programming, scenario-based planning, etc. • Model of formulation and implementation:
linear, adaptiv
• Learning processes at different levels: individual, group, organisation, network
Internal context: • Politics • Resources • Responsibility • Culture • Capabilities Content:
• General aims and specific targets
• Strategic alternatives as combinations of measures • Structural and non-structural measures
• System analysis: controllable, not controllable variables
External context:
• Political • Legal • Social • Economic
Figure 1: Three Dimensions of Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management (Adapted from Pettigrew & Whipp 1991, p. 26)
Firstly, strategies encompass a content dimension which refers to a complex hierarchy of flood risk management aims, targets and combinations of structural and non-structural measures. In contrast to operational decisions, strategic decisions involve the evaluation of measures with regard to a complex system of general aims and specific targets and the capability of dealing with trade-offs. Thereby, the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainable development should be considered (Hooijer et al. 2004). Secondly, strategies reflect and should match the societal context within specific catchments (e. g. political conflict potential, resources, cultural “world views”). Thirdly, the process dimension describes how strategies are formulated and how they can be implemented. This dimension refers to questions of how planning can be effective under increasing uncertainty and how learning for pre-flood risk management can be fostered.
2.3 The Content Dimension of Strategies
A flood can be understood as a temporary covering of land by water. To take the evaluative societal context into account, one could emphasise that a flood is a “unwanted” temporary covering of land by water (FLOODsite 2005). Thus, a flood is a temporary phenomenon. Therefore, it seems useful to draw a distinction between pre-flood measures that are deployed before a flood, event management, and post-flood measures. This report focuses on spatial planning as pre-flood measure of non-structural “nature”. It is shown that deploying spatial planning for pre-flood risk management requires a strategic approach for combining multiple planning measures over time.
Flood risk management aims at a holistic societal analysis, evaluation and reduction of flood risk (Schanze 2005; cf. Sayers et al 2002, Hall et al 2003). The flood risk system comprises the whole causal chain constituting flood risks, ranging from the flood hazards as sources over various pathways to the receptors with the consequences of floods (SPRC-Model; Kundzewicz & Samuels 1997). The model proposes that any flood event starts with an initiating event (= Source, e.g. meteorological event, technical failure). Water is conveyed to exposed values (= Receptor, e.g. properties, population) through specific flood routs (Pathway). In coincidence of flood event and exposed values losses (Consequences) may occur. Given that measures are implemented with the aim of flood risk reduction, those can be directed towards any component related to the genesis of risk. For the risk formula this means that hazard and vulnerability, both including the elements which they are composed of must be understood as potentially subject to intervention in terms of flood risk reduction. The following risk components can be addressed:
• The hazard, nature and probability of which are influenced by the source (extent of initiating event), condition (natural, humane made) of the pathway and the physical pattern of the receptor area (e.g. conveying capacity in a developed area)
• The value of the receptor (number and type of properties, people, other values) exposed to the hazard (value at risk)
• The susceptibility of receptors (values) to the hazard • The coping capacity in the receptor area.
Flood risk management Hazard determination Vulnerability determination Current / future flood risk Pre-flood measures Flood event management Post-flood measures Risk perception Tolerable flood risk
Risk analysis Risk assessment Risk measures
Figure 2: Components of Flood Risk Management (Source: Adapted from Schanze et al. 2005)
Risk Analysis and Risk Assessment
Flood risk analysis determines current or – based on proposed activities or uncontrollable trends –
future risks. It is based on the determination of the flood hazard and the vulnerability and their combination considering exposure. Hereby, the flood hazard can be defined by probability, magnitude and duration of the hazardous event (Plate 1999). Vulnerability is influenced by the values exposed and their susceptibility to the hazard (damage potential / values at risk) and by the existing capacity to economically, socially, politically and ecologically withstand or recover from threats and damages connected with the hazard (coping capacity / resilience). With other words, vulnerability describes the potential for harmful consequences which can be caused by a hazard. For vulnerability determination exposure and susceptibility of elements of risk need to be analysed, including among others an examination of land use pattern and change, inquiry of immobile and mobile elements at risk and determination of their value, estimation of potential direct and indirect flood effects, social structure of population and identification of vulnerable groups with major impediments to recover from flood events. Up to now, the scope of most investigations on vulnerability is quite narrow and mostly restricted to direct economic losses (Messner & Meyer 2005).
Risk assessment covers the risk perception and the decision regarding the toleration of a certain risk.
Goals, Aims, Targets, and Actions
The content dimension comprises goals, aims, targets, as well as actions to deploy structural and non-structural measures. Referring to the content dimension of strategies one has to answer the question what problem of pre-flood risk management is being addressed and how it can be specified (e.g. specification of the aim to reduce vulnerability with regard to defining as product of susceptibility and value, see FLOODsite 2005). The content dimension of strategies for pre-flood risk management will be elaborated below with regard to the problem of controlling and reducing vulnerability in flood-prone areas through local spatial planning. The following concentrates on more formal differences between goals, aims, targets, and strategic alternatives.
Goals
Aims
Targets
Actions
Figure 3: Rational Planning Model (Source: Bryson 2004, p. 18)
The distinction between goals, aims, and targets is based on the common scientific assumption that it is necessary to differentiate explicitly between analysing cause-effect-relationships on the one hand and addressing questions of evaluating these relationships on the other. Whereas daily life normally does not sharply differentiate between causal and evaluative statements and related actions, scientific inquiry has to explicitly address the question which statements refer to reality independently from the subjective evaluation of the researcher.
This report is based on the decision that its research is mainly descriptive. Its purpose is, as mentioned before, to systematically gather descriptive data referring to strategies for pre-flood risk management, and to interpret these data with regard to the theoretical framework and a specific management problem for focussing scientific analysis. Statements referring to the evaluation of human decisions, actions, and their consequences, as well as the consequences of flood hazards, are understood as components of reality. With regard to the evaluative dimension of strategies, this report distinguishes between goals, aims, and targets. (Other approaches are possible.)
Goals are defined as long-term goals of an actor or a set of actors (individual, group, organisation,
network of organisations). They primarily are grounded in institutional external conditions of strategies. They refer to the identity of the actor(s): For instance, in democratic political systems politicians pursue the goal of winning elections for different reasons (e.g. political belief that a specific strategy for pre-flood risk management should be adopted, acquiring reputation and political power, increasing income, and so forth). This example illustrates that goals can be adapted to different interests of actors. Compared to aims and targets, they are a more abstract entity. They serve as a stable basis for evaluating different tactics despite changing societal context conditions.
Whereas goals refer to conditions with long-term stability (e.g. institutional constraints and definitions of responsibility), aims reflect conditions that can be changed in the medium term. (The terms aim and
objective are interpreted to be synonyms.) More than goals, aims refer to the desire of actors to change
elections. Because of changed external context conditions to win elections, the aim of avoiding a further increase of development in flood-prone areas becomes more important for reaching this political goal. Examples of aims are: Prohibiting further urban development on floodplains and relocating settlements from flood-prone areas to non-risk areas within the territory of a municipality; increasing the speed and effectiveness of communication between local authorities, water authorities, and emergency institutions; increasing the preparedness of households with regard to flash floods.
Targets specify aims. Targets can be defined temporally, spatially, and with regard to the possibility of
quantifying the desired effects of flood risk management. For instance, the Environmental Agency (EA) states that key targets of its strategy for flood risk management in the first three years (beginning in year 2003) are to
• “have no loss of life through flooding,
• reduce risk of flooding to life, major infrastructure, environmental assets and some 80,000 homes” (EA 2003, p. 6)
Targets are preconditions for programming specific actions, for answering the questions if overall aims were realised, and for allocating responsibility with regard to intended consequences. Despite further benefits of targets for precise and transparent strategy making they are not always to be found in policy practice. Formulating targets increases the risk that unsuccessful policies can be identified. Therefore (and for other reasons), politicians as well as representatives from agencies sometimes prefer formulating more abstract intentions in the form of aims.
Figure 4 expresses this in a more systematic way. Up to here, the report assumes implicitly that goals, aims, targets, and actions are ordered hierarchically for rational decision making. In the “real world”, however, it can be difficult to observe such rational decision making. Hierarchies of aspirations (goals, aims, and so forth) are produced as outcome of effective strategy processes. Seldom do such processes function in accordance to hierarchies. Strategy, after all, is about finding new and important solutions of high complexity and considerable uncertainty. John Bryson (2004) proposes that decision making relevant for strategic planning in the public sector proceeds more like a kind of issue- and action focused process. In this process, decision makers start with issues (which are important and sometimes fundamental questions a decision maker can do something about), comes up with actions, and then looks for aims to justify existing solutions. There is great latitude in the public sector in linking aims, targets, issues and actions. For this reason it is important to distinguish systematically between process and outcome (March 1994).
Goals Aims Targets
Issues and actions
Pre-Flood Measures, Event Management, and Post-Flood Measures
Risk Measures encompasses structural (“hard”) and non-structural (“soft”) measures for reducing
current and future flood risk (Kundzewicz & Samuels 1997, Kundzewicz 2002) until a tolerable level has been reached from the point of view of political representatives and experts within the policy field of flood risk management (Schanze et al. 2005). Using the term reduction as general term for all structural and non-structural measures corresponds to current European and national Water Policies. Thereby, reduction comprises all measures with a potential to reduce risks related to flooding. The term does not imply that risks have to be reduced to zero or that considering a measure already implies a decision to use it for risk reduction.
• Measures of pre-flood risk management are deployed before a flood event occurs. Two
approaches can be distinguished: (1) Preventing floods and the adverse impacts of flooding (e.g. developing spatial plans to discourage development in flood-prone areas and to allocate development to non-risk areas). (2) Preparedness is the ability to ensure effective response to the impact of hazards, including the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and the temporary evacuation of people and property from threatened locations (ISDR 2004). To develop this ability requires time and resources. Therefore, it should be seen as part of pre-flood management which is closely linked to event management.
• Event management comprises all activities at the beginning and during flood events (e.g.
forecasting the event precisely, giving effective early warning to the public). Compared to pre-flood management, event management decisions and actions have to deal above average with unexpected events and unforeseen situational contingencies (Tonn et al. 2000). In this case, the capability to self organise (Comfort et al. 2001) becomes crucial for combining formal and informal approaches to event management (e.g. combining official and unofficial flood warning systems, Parker & Handmer 1998).
• Post-flood risk management encompasses all decisions and actions which occur after a flood
event. Often, post-flood management focuses on reinstalling the “status quo” that was in place before the flood event occurred through the deployment of financial compensation mechanisms and structural measures to reconstruct flood protection assets.
Pre-flood risk management, event management, and post-flood measures are distinct categories from an analytical point of view. In the real world they are interwoven. For instance, financial insurance mechanisms not only remedy the damages of past flood events, they have an influence on the expectations of actors about future insurance payments for flood damages. They can discourage or encourage development on floodplains. Hence, they influence the conditions for pre-flood risk management.
Physical Measures and Policy Instruments (≈ Structural and Non-structural
Measures)
Dams, reservoirs, retarding basins Channel modifications
Levee banks Flood-proofing Catchment modifications Schemes of drainage and
flood protection Flood forecasting, flood warning &
emergency planning Planning controls Acquisition & relocation
Flood insurance Public information & education Structural measures Non-structural measures Water control measures Financial relief & loss reduction Land use control measures
Figure 5: Structural and Non-Structural Measures (Source: Penning-Rowsell & Peerbolte 1994, p. 6)
The classification of Hooijer et al. (2004) identifies four main groups of “room for river” measures (Figure 6): a) dike relocation; b) flood bypasses; c) retention areas; d) cyclic floodplain rejuvenation. Furthermore, it distinguishes between six groups of structural and non-structural measures for damage prevention: a) flood hazard maps and flood risk maps; b) spatial planning; c) building regulations for flood-resistant and flood-proof design of buildings; d) financial instruments: insurance, subsidies, fees, and other economic incentives; e) communicative instruments: between authorities, civil protection and emergency management agencies, but also directed towards raising awareness to flood risk in general and the preparedness of the population at risk in particular, f) structural measures for flood control and management: areas, barriers, (sets of) dikes.
„Room-for-Rivers“ Measures
Damage Prevention Structural and Non-Structural Measures in the Downstream Basin
Dike Relocation Flood Bypasses Retention Areas Cyclic Floodplain Rejuvenation Flood Hazard/ Risk Maps Spatial Planning Financial Instruments Communicative
Traditionally, managing floods and flood risk focused on water control through structural measures like dykes, dams and reservoirs. Currently, we can see a shift from flood control to more holistic approaches for managing flood risk (Schanze et al. 2005) within a European perspective on integrated governance and water basin management (Bressers & Kuks 2004). The risk-based approaches underline the importance of considering land use and spatial planning. Spatial planning for controlling development in flood-prone areas is a key topic, especially with regard to vulnerability associated with extreme flood events (see Hooijer et al. 2004). However, in this report, spatial planning is analysed within a holistic understanding of the whole range of possible determinants, assessment aspects, and measures. We should remember that planning for reducing vulnerability is one possible non-structural measure, not the “one best way” for managing flood risk.
Strategic alternatives are combinations (“bundles”) of physical measures and policy instruments for
pre-flood risk management. Specific management problems of pre-flood risk mitigation are due to various causes (e.g. tendency to develop built-up areas on floodplains is facilitated by development plans that do not address flood risk as a strategic problem, limited preparedness of citizens, no participatory planning process at local level, and so forth). These problems have to be addressed by consistent bundles of various measures. We already mentioned that strategic alternatives are tactics for using pre-flood measures.
Spatial planning for Reducing Vulnerability
The theoretical framework to be outlined in this chapter fosters a comprehensive analysis of strategies for pre-flood risk management. The framework shows that developing a pre-flood strategy on catchment scale is a complex endeavour. It requires considering a wide range of possible flood events (e.g. extreme events), different spatial scales and planning horizons as well as various actors with different responsibility, capabilities, goals, aims, and measures. Probably, within many catchments a fully fledged pre-flood risk management strategy will become reality in the long term.
To demonstrate the applicability and implications of the framework, it seems useful to analyse a specific management problem. Solving the problem in the real world should be crucial for developing a holistic approach to pre-flood risk management on catchment scale (Schanze et al. 2005). Reducing vulnerability through spatial planning is such a problem. Many practitioners and scientists claim that spatial planning is a promising non-structural measure for controlling the exposure of people and property in flood-prone areas and for channelling urban development to non-risk areas. Local planning is crucial for influencing day-to-day decisions of developers, land owners, and households that significantly influence in sum the flood risk system of catchments. A participatory planning process could involve all stakeholders at local level, especially citizens. In this case, it provides a platform for discussing the long-term effects of developing high- and low-risk areas, thereby systematically raising public awareness about flood risk to enhance their ability of coping with floods. In what follows, the idea of reducing flood risk through spatial planning is further outlined. Existing contributions to flood risk management research sometimes vaguely refer to planning as a non-structural measure. In this report, it is demonstrated that a spectrum of relevant plans exist at local level. Therefore, planning for pre-flood risk management requires a strategy to combine multiple measures over time.
unknown. Many towns and cities were built on bridging points over major rivers, but have expanded massively into adjacent areas, including onto flood plains.” (Penning-Rowsell 2001, p. 108)
Based on a strong and enduring political will to reduce flood risk through reducing vulnerability, spatial planning could channel additional demands for housing, industry estates, and infrastructure to areas not at risk of flooding and could discourage urban development in flood-prone areas. Of course, development in flood-prone areas would not be strictly prohibited. But, in case of creating new buildings these would be technically adapted to different possible flood events. If necessary, retro-fitting of existing buildings would take place. The safety standard and the condition of flood protection assets would be taken into account. Furthermore, spatial planning could foster an open discussion at the local level about the risks of using an area for different land use purposes. Thereby, planning could provide a communication platform for motivating and informing people in flood-prone areas how to develop the necessary knowledge and behaviour potentials to cope with floods.
Up to now, there is only limited empirical evidence that these ideas about using spatial planning for pre-flood risk management systematically will be applied in practice. In practice, reducing vulnerability through spatial planning at local and regional level is not necessarily a straightforward matter, despite possible disastrous consequences of floods on tangible and intangible assets in flood-prone areas. On the contrary, recent studies investigating measures for the Rhine river basin argue that the most cost-effective possibilities of deploying spatial planning for controlling urban development are underused and that it is not at all clear that reducing vulnerability through planning will be an issue on the local and regional policy agenda in the future (Böhm et al. 2002, Hooijer et al. 2004). Hence, it remains an open question if spatial planning actually will become a “true” non-structural measure of pre-flood risk mitigation (for a similar appraisement with regard to pre-flood risk management through spatial planning in England and Wales see Penning-Rowsell 2001, Howe & White 2002).
consider recent findings in spatial planning research (Mastop & Faludi 1997, Salet & Faludi 2000, Albrechts et al. 2003, Healy 2003, Wiechmann & Hutter 2007). The compendium addresses mainly statutory (formal) plans. Non-statutory (informal) concepts are excluded (European Commission 1997). This seems to be a too narrow approach to spatial planning in general, and with regard to local planning in particular. Local informal planning approaches are widely practiced at framework level. In theory (Healy 2003), but also in practice strategic spatial planning is seen as a social process enhancing the capability of all stakeholders to think about and act for a desired overall spatial pattern of urban and regional development (Albrechts et al. 2003). It supplements rather than supplants statutory plans (Wiechmann & Hutter 2007). Enhancing the ability of stakeholders to consider spatial development as long-term endeavour is an important topic to understand and improve strategies for pre-flood risk management. Therefore, it seems appropriate to take non-statutory plans into account (e.g. spatial development concepts for the whole territory of a municipality). Olfert and Schanze developed a classification scheme that explicitly takes formal and informal spatial planning as policy instruments for pre-flood risk management into account (see Figure 7).
Measures and Instruments for Reducing Flood Risk
(Pre-flood Risk Management, Event Management)
Stimulation
instruments Communicative instruments
Fi na nc ia l i nc ent iv es R isk an d lo ss di st ri bu tio n Regulation instruments In fo rm al s pa tia l p lan ni ng C om m un ic at io n / D is se m in at io n W ar nin g / In stru ct io n Fo rm al w at er m an ag em en t F orm al env ir onm en ta l p ro tec tio n Fi na nc ia l d is inc en ti ve s
PHYSICAL MEASURES POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Fo rm al s pa tia l p la nn in g R ive r c ha nn el a nd coa st al ma na ge m en t Fl oo d pro of in g of bu ildi ng s and te ch ni cal in fr as tr uc tu re L and m anag em en t Control measures Adaptation
measures measuresRetreat
Ev ac ua ti on o f hu ma n l if e and l if e st oc k E va cu at ion of a ss et s Compensation instruments D ra in age a nd pu m pi ng s ys te m s C ha nn el c on ve ya nce a nd ca pa ci ty Fl ood w at er s tor ag e Fl oo d w ate r tr an sf er Co as ta l ali gn m en t C oas ta l e ne rg y ac co m m od at io n
Figure 7: Classifying Measures and Policy Instruments (Source: Olfert & Schanze 2006)
Local Planning at Framework and Project Level
Local authorities can be understood as multi-product organisations. They attempt to accomplish a complex bundle of tasks with regard to a well-defined territory. Usually, this territory covers only a part of a basin. The bundle of tasks encompasses social, economic, and ecological aims (e.g., developing dwellings for low-income people, subsidising the local economy, and preserving open spaces). Local authorities primarily formulate and implement strategies to increase the welfare of a local community, not the overall welfare which results out of all decisions and actions relevant for a catchment.
the political will to learn from flood disasters and to continuously adopt an effective pre-flood risk management approach).
Spatial planning at local level is multi-layered. In all European countries there is a distinction between planning for the whole territory of a municipality which takes regional context into account one the one hand and formulating site-specific regulations to control land use on the other hand. To understand the homogeneous features of local planning as well as its diversity within Europe, it is crucial to distinguish between planning at framework level for the whole territory or large parts of it and site-specific approaches at project level (Table 1).
Object Interaction Future Time Outcome Effect Decisions/Actions Continuous Open Central issue Continually updated Frame of reference Spatial development Until implementation Closed Limited to phasing Blueprint-like Well-known
Framework Level Project Level
Table 1: Local Planning at Framework and Project Level (Adapted from Mastop 2000, p. 148)
Project plans provide blueprints of the intended end-state of the physical environment, including the measures necessary to achieve that state. The only important social interaction is when the plan is being adopted. Thereafter the plan forms an unambiguous guide to action precisely because the measures to be taken are routine so that the outcome can largely be known in advance. The time dimension in project planning is restricted to simple phasing of works. A project plan is expected to have a determinate effect. After finishing the project it is possible to evaluate if the proposed outcomes were produced and if the planned measures were implemented.
Planning at framework level is different (Mastop & Faludi 1997, Salet & Faludi 2000). Spatial plans at framework level are generally long term and comprehensive, bringing together social, economic and spatial considerations. They deal with the coordination of a multitude of actors from diverse institutional contexts (regional bodies, developers, non-profit organisations, citizens, and so forth). Such coordinating is a continuous concern. As all actors want to keep some of their options open, timing is of central importance. Thereby, we have to consider that spatial planners directly control only a limited set of decisions relevant for spatial development. Spatial planning has no absolute power to impose its strategy on others. Its financial resources are limited. Hence, in all European countries co-operation between spatial planners and stakeholders became an important issue.
level. It follows that the relation between planning at framework level and subsequent action is crucial. Departures do not necessarily indicate ineffectiveness. A strategic plan may be interpreted freely by the plan user (which can be the plan maker herself) for adapting to contextual conditions that were not foreseen when the plan was formulated.
This comparison of framework and project planning stresses the differences between the two sorts of planning. One can see these differences as extreme points on a continuum. Obviously, there are large projects that can resemble planning at framework level, for example, planning and building the public infrastructure for conducting the Olympic game in a city region. Furthermore, we can think of spatial planning at framework level under stable and relatively simple context conditions which would justify the expectation that the plan has a determinate effect on subsequent decisions and actions. Notwithstanding this more flexible conceptualisation, the aim of comparing framework planning and projects is only to make clear that in this report the term local spatial planning at framework level is used in a broad sense. Planning processes and plans that cannot be classified as project planning in the sense indicated above in Table 1 are classified as planning at framework level (examples are given below).
Often, in papers on planning and flood management project-based planning practice is criticised for not embedding development control within a catchment-wide planning approach to pre-flood risk management (for the UK see, for example, White & Howe 2002). Local actors are neglecting strategy within a catchment-wide view (“strategic neglect”). But, we have to consider that detached strategic planning is not a viable alternative. Analysis can paralyse and over-planning is a threat (“plethora of plans”, see Royal Geographical Society 2001) to identify true strategic issues (Volberda 1998). We conclude that both planning at framework and project level are necessary for effective strategy making. It is crucial to connect both levels through continuous learning.
Local Spatial Plans: Examples from Germany, England, and Italy
Spatial planning is especially diverse at national and regional level (European Commission 1997). Statutory plans can be described in comparison, but, it is difficult to understand and to evaluate them because complex traditions and informal planning approaches exist. Especially the informal dimension of spatial planning requires deep contextual knowledge about a planning system and its relationship to pre-flood risk management measures. Spatial planning at local level is a bit more homogeneous. A primary concern is to control development proposals from private actors influenced by more or less regionalised market forces (housing market, different industries, and so forth). Various types of spatial plans should be considered. Table 2 shows examples from Germany, England, and Italy with regard to developing planning and development control.
Level of local
spatial planning Germany UK (England) Italy
Framework level - Stadtentwicklungskonzept - Flächennutzungsplan
- Städtebaulicher Rahmenplan
- Community strategies - Spatial development concepts - Unitary development plan
- Locale Agenda 21 - Piano regolatore generale
Project level - Bebauungsplan - Vorhaben- und Erschließungsplan - Control of development proposals - Piano particolareggiato - Piano di lottizzazione
Table 2: Local Spatial Plans at Framework and Project Level – Examples
statutory plan is crucial. Local authorities voluntarily can formulate Stadtentwicklungskonzepte for guiding their decisions on lower tier of local planning. These concepts are used for participatory planning approaches. They can be flexibly adapted to new challenges of local development. Often, they are formulated considering enduring changes of local contexts (e.g. shrinking population in East German Cities, lasting high extent of unoccupied housing stock, and the strategic issue of “urban regeneration”, e.g. Cities of Leipzig and Dresden, see Hutter & Westphal 2003). These concepts formulate the broad spatial pattern of local development. Thereby, channelling new development to low-risk areas could be considered. Local planning authorities have the duty to provide a
Flächennutzungsplan (preparatory land use plan) covering the whole area of the municipality that
serves as a framework for more detailed land use planning at project level (“Bebauungsplan”). To develop an approved preparatory land use plan can take over ten years. Even after over ten years, some cities do not have a state-approved preparatory land use plan (e.g. the City of Freital within the region of Dresden). Non-statutory plans at the urban district level can be formulated (“Städtebaulicher
Rahmenplan”). Only the Bebauungsplan, the land use plan at project level, is legally binding for
property owners. It can comprise very detailed regulations, for instance, with regard to site-specific density and open space structure (Hutter et al. 2004). The Bebauungsplan could be used for limiting density in flood-prone areas or avoiding apartments on ground floor.
In the UK, as in Germany, local planning authorities are the major actors in the planning system and have responsibility for its day-to-day administration and implementation. Local planning authorities are motivated by central government to develop a Community Strategy that focuses on participatory processes and the building of planning-based local strategic partnerships. Interrelationships between a community strategy and development planning are addressed. As non-statutory plan (except London)
spatial development concepts are formulated (e.g. “Going for Growth” strategy of Newcastle upon
Tyne, Community and Housing Directorate 2000). Local authorities have the duty to prepare
development plans (ISoCaRP 2001, p. 280). As a case study will address flood risk management
within the Thames Estuary the following focuses on urban areas within England. “For the major part of the United Kingdom, one tier of local government is responsible both for planning a mandatory development plan combining strategy and detail, and for dealing with planning applications.” (ISoCaRP 2001, p. 286) Unitary development plans consist of two parts. The first addresses strategic policy issues and the second covers detailed policies and broad land use allocations. In London the mayor prepares a Spatial Development Strategy to supplement the strategic elements in the Unitary Development Plans of the London Boroughs. The Planning Policy Guidance 25 (PPG 25): Development and flood risk has described in detail how development plans and related other plans (e.g. community strategy) should be used for pre-flood risk management. Unlike the German local planning system, plans at the project level are rarely provided in the UK (European Commission 1997, pp. 67-69). Development proposals are assessed on a case-by-case basis taking the indicative development plan into account (Rydin 1998, p. 205).
Why Develop a Strategy to Use Local Spatial Planning for Pre-Flood Risk
Management?
Local spatial planning for pre-flood risk management is no simple, unitary phenomenon. Different levels of planning should be considered. At each level, various sorts of plans can be deployed. The examples in Table 2 cover only a small part of the totality of possible planning measures at local level (for Germany see Böhm et al. 1999 with regard to flood risk management and Hutter et al. 2004 referring to urban planning). Therefore, deploying local spatial planning for pre-flood risk mitigation requires a strategic approach for developing a consistent combination of different measures over time. Furthermore, up to now, pre-flood risk management is mainly an issue of water authorities; spatial planning is done by specific departments within municipalities and regional bodies in accordance with the very diverse institutional arrangements of spatial planning at the regional level across Europe (European Commission 1997). It can be assumed that these actors already communicate and co-operate to some extent (Hall et al. 2003, Hutter & Schanze 2004, Schanze et al. 2005). Nevertheless, water authorities and local planning authorities basically still operate in different working cultures. Their responsibility is very different. Put simply, the responsibility of water authorities ends where the responsibility of local planning authorities begins (“in front of and behind the dykes”). The dominant orientation of water managers is based on knowledge about water quality and quantity and their determinants. Spatial planners are interested in very different social, economic, and environmental issues as long as they can be related to specific planning instruments.
It is likely that using spatial planning for pre-flood risk mitigation will require a higher extent of enduring communication and co-operation. To determine flood risk, water authorities have to consider not only the flood hazard, but, the vulnerability of flood-prone areas. Therefore, they have to take the existing land use as well as new development possibilities and related planning regulations into account. Spatial planning for pre-flood risk management requires extensive analysis with regard to the flood risk of different areas within the whole territory of municipalities and therefore a more detailed understanding how floods develop (precipitation, speed of onset of the flood event, flow velocity, and so forth) and what their impacts are. Hence, both spatial planners and water managers will have to significantly change their knowledge base. This knowledge change is only likely if it is rewarded within water authorities and municipalities, and rewards can be expected if there is some enduring political support for using spatial plans as non-structural measures for risk management. Therefore we ask: What societal context conditions foster enduring high political support to use spatial planning for
mitigating flood risk and how can these conditions be enhanced within the given spatial planning system and responsibility of water management?
Population growth and shrinkage both have facilitating and inhibiting effects on using spatial planning for pre-flood risk mitigation. From a theoretical point of view, planning is well suited to accomplish the task of controlling and channelling new development. But, under population growth conditions and the related additional new demand for housing, industry estates, and public infrastructure it becomes more difficult to discourage development in flood-prone areas (Brody 2003). On the other hand, the influence of spatial planning on existing development is still rather limited (Burby 1998, p. 11, Müller 2003a). Furthermore, serious attempts to implement pre-flood measures in non-growth areas are less likely than in growth areas because of the limited political attention and resource commitment to these places. What is facilitating is that population shrinkage encourages public as well as private local actors to use flood-prone areas as open spaces and for water retention. Projects investigating the interrelationship of population development conditions and spatial planning are under way (e.g. EU-project LUDA- Large Urban Distressed Areas). The implications for using spatial planning in the context of pre-flood risk management still have to be explored. Therefore, the following question should be considered: What is the influence of population growth or shrinkage on attempts to use
2.4 The Process Dimension: Strategic Planning and Learning
The content dimension of strategies addresses the question what aims are and should be pursued and what measures of pre-flood risk management are capable of reaching these aims. But, aims and measures can be formulated and implemented in alternative ways. The process of strategy making comprises more variability than is recognized till now within flood risk management research. Usually, a linear model of formulating and implementing strategic alternatives for pre-flood risk management is assumed (explicitly or, more often, implicitly). But, there are alternatives that can contribute to improving the strategy process especially for difficult-to-solve problems as, for example, reducing vulnerability in flood-prone areas through spatial planning.
The framework for analysing strategies of pre-flood risk management identifies three main topics with regard to the process dimension: (1) Choosing a linear or adaptive model of formulating and implementing aims and measures; (2) choosing the appropriate mode of planning with regard to the extent of stability of context conditions, and (3) considering the move from the traditional paradigm of “flood protection” to “flood risk management” as complex learning process with different planning horizons, learning types, and levels of societal learning processes. Empirically, as chapter 3 shows, the issue of learning is not in the foreground of analysis. Therefore, the third topic will only be mentioned to give an outlook on further possibilities of understanding strategies for pre-flood risk management.
Linear and Adaptive Model of Strategy
Often, in text books of strategy analysis (e.g. Weihrich & Koontz 1992) the strategic process is described for teaching reasons as step-by-step process of (1) analysing the internal and external forces of an organisation, (2) formulating aims and targets on the basis of the fundamental values and beliefs of the decision-makers, (3) defining and evaluating strategic alternatives as well as deciding on a preferred alternative, (4) implementing the chosen alternative. (5) The fifth step comprises the subtasks of controlling and learning in form of new information and knowledge about how to affirm or change the strategy process.
There is no problem in using such a step-by-step approach as a heuristic device to understand what different factors and aspects are of importance for strategy analysis. But, nowadays it has become all to clear within the field of strategy research from extensive theoretical discussion (e.g. Schreyögg 1984, Mintzberg 1994, Volberda 1998, Mintzberg et al. 1999, Burgelman 2002, Grant 2005) and empirical findings (Fredrickson & Mitchell 1984, Fredrickson 1984, Grant 2003) that strategy processes do not always follow a simple step-by-step logic to solve complex and dynamic problems. In line with this suggestion, in the field of flood risk management the notion is propagated that decision making (e.g. of water authorities) should be understood as an iterative (e.g. Hall el. 2003, Hooijer et al. 2004) and adaptive process (Schanze et al. 2005, see also Nicholls et al. 2000).
Sequential process of planning, programming, and implementation Top-down strategy making
System of aims, targets and strategic alternatives
Integrated set of strategic, operative and resource plans
Stable Predictable
Process
Content
Context
Continuous adjustment of societal decision making and context Combination of bottom-up initiatives and top-down strategic decisions
System of strategic alternatives, aims and targets
Flexible configurations of resources
Unstable
Limited predictability
Linear model of strategy Adaptive model of strategy
Table 3: The Linear and the Adaptive Process Model of Strategy
According to the linear model the process of strategy making consists of a well-structured sequence encompassing two main phases: strategy formulation and strategy implementation. Using a linear model of strategy one would describe pre-flood risk management as follows:
1. Analysing the flood hazard and its actual and/or possible damages: Analysis in the linear model is
understood as the analysis of objective relationships which are independent of political and cultural context conditions and societal processes.
2. Formulating aims and targets: On the basis of values and key principles of society, aims and targets for pre-flood risk management are formulated. It is crucial that aims and targets are formulated before action is taken. Hence, in principle, the evaluative basis of mitigating flood risk has to be known.
3. Defining, evaluating, and deciding on strategic alternatives: A decision to implement a certain alternative is only made after comparing and evaluating the effects of possible bundles of measures. No action is taken until a preferable solution has been found (“First decide, than act”). 4. Implementing the chosen strategic alternative: In a narrow sense, implementation can be defined
as realising a formally defined programme consisting of more or less specified aims as well as measures to reach the desired effects of the programme (Hucke 1996). Implementation comprises the definition of appropriate organisational structures, staffing, and directing.
5. Controlling and learning: Of course, the linear model of strategy making considers that context conditions can change and expected effects will not occur, but, unexpected will. Characteristically, activities to control, evaluate, and learn are mainly undertaken after the implementation of the strategic alternative is finished.
formally responsible for the overall welfare of an organisation or a set of organisations. It is based on the assumption that decision makers are willing to undertake in advance a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the flood risk system and mitigation alternatives despite the possibility that context conditions can change (e.g. political support for flood risk management can fade), that no easy consistent evaluation of mitigation alternatives in the present is possible (e.g. because of problems in considering how many generations should be taken into account to realise a sustainable flood risk management). To identify the critical elements for improving the current state of management, the linear model assumes a highly stable societal context.
The hallmark of the adaptive process model is that strategy does not move forward in a direct way through easily identifiable sequential phases. The process pattern is much more appropriately seen as continuous, iterative and uncertain (Pettigrew & Whipp 1991, p. 27). An adaptive process is characterised by parallel processes of formulating and implementing strategic alternatives. Hence, formulation and implementation are more difficult to differentiate. Decisions for formulating aims and targets, for analysing the internal and external context, and for combining measures are continuously aligned with the changing societal context (Chaffee 1985). Especially political context conditions are taken into account as enabling and inhibiting factors. They do not only affect the implementation of strategic alternatives, but, analysis and evaluation too. Organisational structures not only serve to implement aims and targets, they influence the formulation of strategic alternatives and thereby restrict the organisational potential for solving strategic problems.
The linear model works on the assumption that a single decision-maker or an elite of decision-makers (Tonn et al. 2000) can design an explicit “grand” strategy based on a highly top-down, deliberate, analytical process (Volberda 1998, p. 38). Top-down forces are strong. The adaptive model assumes that strategy making requires both strong bottom-up and strong top-down forces (Burgelman 2002). Empirical work has revealed very different roles of managers within such a strategy process. (3) Managers close to stakeholders and operational decisions develop bottom-up initiatives how to improve current management; (2) middle managers are connecting these initiatives with the highly political process at the top level of decision making; (3) decision-makers at the top are responsible for challenging and questioning the status quo, setting performance aims and targets, co-ordinating, evaluating, and legitimising bottom-up initiatives. Empirical evidence shows that the substance of such an adaptive strategy process is significantly influenced by decisions made at lower levels of decision making (Burgelman 2002, Grant 2003).
Similar processes of expanding the range of strategy makers and considering the interests of stakeholders can be observed in water management (e.g. House 1999 with regard to citizen participation) and flood management at local and regional level (Fordham 2000, Hutter & Schanze 2004). Strategic spatial planning complements statutory planning (Wiechmann & Hutter 2007). Therefore, it seeks to integrate all stakeholders into the process of discussing notions of long-term spatial development and place making (Healey 2003).
Compared with the linear model, the adaptive model is more concerned about developing flexible resources and capabilities for adjusting swiftly to unexpected events and trends (Volberda 1998, p. 43). Adaptive strategy processes can be patterned in a more complex manner. For instance, considering adaptive processes we can distinguish between anticipated implementation during formulation, and actually implementing a formal policy programme for pre-flood risk management. Adaptive processes can lead to the development of strategic projects without the prior intention of implementing a project of strategic relevance for pre-flood risk management. In retrospect, the project is recognised as being of strategic importance (Burgelman 2002).
