Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The European union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience: Lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries
Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.
Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University.
University François Rabelais.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 9
2016 (English)In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 4, 50Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of approaches can reduce the effectiveness of flood risk management. Placed in the context of increasing flood risks, as well as the potential for flooding to undermine the European Union’s sustainable development goals, a desire to increase societal resilience to flooding has prompted the introduction of a common European Framework. We provide a legal and policy analysis of the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) in six countries: Belgium (Flemish region), England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Evaluation criteria from existing legal and policy literature frame the study of the Directive and its effect on enhancing or constraining societal resilience by using an adaptive governance approach. These criteria are initially used to analyze the key components of the EU approach, before providing insight of the implementation of the Directive at a national level. Similarities and differences in the legal translation of European goals into existing flood risk management are analyzed alongside their relative influence on policy and practice. The research highlights that the effect of the Floods Directive on increasing societal resilience has been nationally variable, in part because of its focus on procedural obligations, rather than on more substantive requirements. Analysis shows that despite a focus on transboundary river basin management, existing traditions of flood risk management have overridden objectives to harmonize flood risk management in some cases. The Directive could be strengthened by requiring more stringent cooperation and providing the competent authorities in international river basin districts with more power. Despite some shortcomings in directly affecting flood risk outcomes, the Directive has positively stimulated discussion and flood risk management planning in countries that were perhaps lagging behind

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 21, no 4, 50
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Research subject
Law
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-61420DOI: 10.5751/ES-08913-210450ISI: 000391199400042Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85008235096OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-61420DiVA: diva2:1064816
Note

Validerad; 2017; Nivå 2; 2017-01-13 (andbra)

Available from: 2017-01-13 Created: 2017-01-13 Last updated: 2017-05-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Goytia, Susana
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Ecology & society
Law (excluding Law and Society)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 147 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf