Collaborative research to support transition towards integratingflood risk management in urban developmentS. van Herk1,2, C. Zevenbergen1,3, J. Rijke3 and R. Ashley3

1 Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands2 Bax & Willems Consulting Venturing, Barcelona, Spain3 UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

CorrespondenceS. van Herk, Delft University ofTechnology, Stevinweg 1, Delft 2628 CN,The NetherlandsEmail: s.vanherk@ufmdordrecht.nl

DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01113.x

Key wordsCollaborative research; flood riskmanagement; social learning;transition;urban development.

Abstract

Urban development and regeneration present windows of opportunity to helpreduce flood vulnerability. Much recent research stresses the need for betterintegration of flood risk into planning processes. However, there is limitedexperience in incorporating flood risk management in urban planning. Dem-onstration projects can help in overcoming this lack of experience and facilitatea transition towards integrated flood risk management and spatial planning;taking longer term flexible and adaptive approaches. This paper demonstratesthat the process of research, if collaborative, can contribute to the better inte-gration of flood risk in urban planning. Collaborative research can supportdemonstration projects and their wider uptake, as well as policy developmentand subsequently a transition to integrated flood risk management. It alsoprovides greater freedom to use different approaches, consider a broader rangeof problems and solutions, bring stakeholders together and facilitate capacitybuilding. This paper calls for collaborative research that facilitates social learn-ing and is impact focussed, preferably supporting innovative demonstrationprojects.

Introduction

Urban development as a window of opportunityfor flood risk management

Worldwide urban floods are increasing in frequency andimpact (Munich Re, 2009). Although the projected impactsmay be marginal increases on the already large flood losses,in the coming decades climate change will have a majorimpact on the way in which flooding is dealt with in longerterm. It is increasingly recognised that engineering alonecannot accommodate the future frequencies and impacts offlooding and a shift in emphasis is required from hard struc-tural solutions to a mixed integrated approach that consistsof both structural and nonstructural responses. Among thenonstructural responses land use planning is considered asone of the most crucial in managing exposure and vulner-ability to floods.

Many cities around the world are facing the challenges ofsustainable development and are exploring ways to enhanceflood resilience. According to White (2008) reflexive, knowl-edgeable and adaptive cities are needed. It is important that all

stakeholders recognise that the future is inherently uncertainand that science will not necessarily reduce uncertainty (Neu-fville, 2004; Klinke and Renn, 2006). Strategies that addressthese challenges have in common that they recognise thatthere is no best solution and embrace a future that fits into adistribution of events that will not come as a surprise (Rose,2004; Pahl-Wostl, 2006). Hence, climate change provides anincentive to think long term and incrementally and conse-quently to consider reforming traditional urban planningsystems and flood management approaches. These systemsand approaches should be flexible and adaptable (e.g. Bosherand Coaffee, 2008; White, 2008). Normal urban dynamics ofcities provide windows of opportunity over time to adapt andto reduce vulnerability, especially as important driversinclude often unplanned, urban developments (Zevenbergenet al., 2008). This is illustrated in Figure 1. Once an area isdeveloped or regenerated, physical spatial measures can betaken such as: restoring the natural flood plain for storage,unsealing of hard surfaces or creation of green spaces fornatural drainage and flood storage, transport networkslowered for flood storage or elevated as evacuation routes,flood proof buildings or green roofs, etc. (White, 2008).

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–•• © 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Transition to integrated flood risk management

Traditionally an integrated approach to flood risk manage-ment and land use planning has not been widespread (e.g.Carter et al., 2005). There are many barriers to integrationand implementing coherent approaches. The first group ofbarriers relate to characteristics of urban development.Urban planning involves integrating many sectoral interestsof which flood risk is merely one, and not normally consid-ered to be the most important. The integration of externalpriorities or interests within planning processes and proce-dures, the principle of ‘external integration’ (Spit and Zoete,2006) is common and is part of the general ambition tooptimise planning processes at least in the Netherlands.Effective flood risk management relates to more long termand costly public interests as opposed to purely short-termeconomic interests. A shift to more market led planning in,e.g. the Netherlands, which tends to be more short-termprofit led, fragmented and locally unaccountable has beenfound to be inhibiting for flood risk management. Also dif-ferent Institutional players may have different priorities(Meuleman, 2008).

The probability of incorporating effective flood risk man-agement, which generally has a longer planning horizon thanurban planning (respectively 100 years compared with5–25 years), is even further constrained worldwide where amere 5% of new development ‘under way’ in the world’sexpanding cities is planned at all (Gentleman, 2007), andwhere no stakeholder has final or total control on urban orspatial developments (Sellers, 2002). The many actorsinvolved further complicate clear and apparently directattempts to address flood risk, even in developed countries(e.g. Veerbeek et al., 2010). Other barriers for implementa-tion of a more integrated approach include the increasedfuture uncertainty of flood risk (Milly et al., 2008) and a lackof understanding or shared perception of the effectiveness ofnonstandard response measures (Adger et al., 2005), making

flood risk more difficult to plan and manage than other areasof urban planning. The uncertainties also contribute to atechnical lock-in into ‘standard’ solutions such as large struc-tural defence measures (Walker, 2000). The limited experi-ence with incorporating flood risk as a planning variable toreduce exposure and vulnerability, explains why qualitativeresearch indicates a lack of capacity among many profession-als and politicians and entrapment in traditional culturesand approaches. For example, the Netherlands has a tradi-tion of both flood defence and spatial planning, but these aredealt with separately. Woltjer and Al (2007) points out thatthere is a move towards strategic spatial planning with waterin the Netherlands, but also highlights the impeding institu-tional conditions, found in many developed countries inrelation to water (e.g. Barnett and O’Neill, 2010) potentiallyrisking maladaptation. Even in the Netherlands existinginstitutions, regimes and policies are designed for the ‘fight-ing the water’ paradigm rather than for ‘living with water’(e.g. Deltacomissie, 2008), and flood defence is mostly anational public responsibility whereas urban development isa local public–private affair. Similar confusion exists inEngland and Wales in regard to distancing planning fromeffective flood risk management, further compounded byprivate water companies being responsible for urban drain-age (Veerbeek et al., 2010).

A transition is necessary to overcome the barriers andeffectively incorporate flood risk as a planning variable toreduce exposure and vulnerability. The barriers pointtowards ‘wicked-problems’; being problems that have mul-tiple and conflicting criteria for defining solutions, solu-tions that create problems for others, and no rules fordetermining when problems can be said to be solved (Ritteland Webber, 1973) or persistent problems that are ill-structured, involve many stakeholders, surrounded bystructural uncertainties, and hard to manage (Rotmans,2005). Hence, van der Brugge et al. (2005) and Rijke et al.(2008) stress the need for a transition towards more inte-grated water management.

Planning literature (Salet et al, 2003; Boelens, 2006; Hajeret al., 2006; Mommaas and Janssen, 2008; White, 2008)reflects a similar view that the lack of capacity to deal withwicked problems requires active learning. A move is pro-posed towards more collaborative development planning,spatial governance and organised connectivity. Hajer et al.(2006) express the need for a transition to horizontally, inter-active planning, as opposed to vertically institutional. Theystate that planning regimes should be flexible and dynamicenough to address contemporary, complex challenges, com-bining spatial quality with democratic legitimacy. However,operationalising the shift from ‘government to governance’ isdifficult as procedures and instruments adhere to govern-ment structures in a representative democracy. Seizingwindows of opportunity in urban development at a local

Figure 1 Urban dynamics provide windows of opportunity toadapt and reduce vulnerability.

2 van Herk et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–••

12

3

456

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

3 3

44

55

level to decrease flood risk can address these perceived needsfor transition.

It follows from the above that current urban flood man-agement (UFM) regimes require a transition towards moreadaptive and integrated approaches. The challenge is toprovide the means to effect the required change in culture (atransition process) especially among the main players and tofind new, adaptable and resilient, innovative ways of address-ing future security]]] (Ashley et al., 2010, p2). There is abroad literature on the theory of ‘transition’ and ‘activelearning’ in the water management domain. Many haveargued that social learning mechanisms can promote andsupport sociotechnical transitions (e.g. Pahl-Wostl, 2002;Breit et al., 2003; Keen et al., 2005; van de Kerkhof and Wiec-zorek, 2005; Gunderson et al., 2006; Ison and Watson, 2007;Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). Folke (2006) adds that social learn-ing also helps to build experience to cope with uncertaintyand change, which is especially relevant for integrated floodrisk management and urban planning. Social learning hererefers to both the capacity building of individuals andorganisations, and also the creation of relational qualitiesand social capital (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Bouwen andTaillieu, 2004).

This paper shows that collaborative research projects canbe a vehicle for social learning and thus help to dealwith uncertainty. Collaborative research naturally focuseson knowledge generation between stakeholders; capacitybuilding and creation of relational qualities. If knowledgeuptake is also managed effectively, collaborative researchcan contribute to a transition. This paper provides anexample of pathways for collaborative research that havesupported a transition based on the Dutch project UFM

Dordrecht. Recommendations are also provided as to howbest to use such pathways effectively.

Evaluating collaborative research tosupport transitionIn Europe, there is a large body of flood related research. Notincluding European research programmes such as theFramework Programmes, national research in 13 Europeancountries represents an investment of €55 million/year,which is between 1% and 4% of the total investment in floodrisk management (ERA-Net CRUE, 2007). The portfolio ofthese research programmes covers: transdisciplinary anddisciplinary research, research on natural, technical andsocio-economic sciences, and ‘science’ and ‘policy’ orientedresearch, yet with a different focus for each country (ERA-Net CRUE, 2007). Many of these research programmes, espe-cially the transdisciplinary, socio-economic and policy-oriented research, aim to support a transition in flood riskmanagement. These include the Dutch Living with Water(LwW) programme that supported the case study, the col-laborative research project UFM in Dordrecht. The LwWprogramme is highlighted in Figure 2, the highlighted ellipsein the top-right as policy-oriented, trans-disciplinary andsocio-economic research.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to evaluate all of theseresearch programmes in terms of their contribution to atransition. However, this paper will present criteria that maybe used to evaluate collaborative research projects in termsof their potential to support a transition, based on the inven-tory process reviewing the pathways for collaborativeresearch used to support the transition for the UFM Dor-

Figure 2 Orientation of flood related research programmes adopted from ERA-Net CRUE (2007). The Living with Water programme intop right.

Collaborative research 3

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–•• © 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

404142

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

6 6

7 7

8 8

99

drecht case study. This in turn can help others to answer thequestions: are we ‘doing the right research’ and are we ‘doingthe research in the right way’ where a transition from oneFRM regime to another is expected to be part of theoutcome.

Existing definitions and reasons for collaborativeresearch are presented in Katz & Martin’s work: what isresearch collaboration. They focus on collaboration inscience and not social science and do not consider sociallearning and transitions. This study may be too narrowlydefined for the main purpose of the research presentedhere. However, it is nonetheless possible to build upon thisbody of knowledge in combination with recent definitionsof social learning frameworks. Katz and Martin (1997,p11) define research collaboration: ]]]as the workingtogether of researchers to achieve the common goal of produc-ing new scientific knowledge]]] and they distinguish researchbetween: individuals, groups, departments, institutions,sectors and countries. Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) viewcollaborative research more as an attitude or approachrather than well-defined techniques to be followed, andhighlight that participatory research – a form of collabora-tive research – focuses on sequential reflection and actioncarried out with and by local people rather than on them.Katz and Martin (1997) present six reasons for collabora-tive research:

• Funding agencies need to save money.

• Growing availability and falling cost of transport andCommunications.

• Desire for intellection interaction with other scientists.

• Need for a division of labour in specialisations.

• Requirements of interdisciplinary research.

• Government encouragement of international and cross-sectoral collaboration.

These ideas focus mainly on more fundamental scientificresearch projects, researchers and their efficiency. These maybe considered as the ‘providers of knowledge’; in particularexplicit, factual and impersonal knowledge. However, thesetheories do not seem to consider: knowledge as socially con-strued; normatively loaded reality definitions and images(Fischer, 1990; Schön and Rein, 1994); or knowledge asexperience-based competencies and skills (Cook and Brown,1999). By collaborating or otherwise interacting with non-scientific stakeholders the latter types of knowledge arefurther developed and can be applied better in policy anddaily practice. Here, collaborative research projects andresearchers that focus on these types of knowledge can beconsidered either: ‘messengers of knowledge’ collaboratingdirectly with practitioners and policy makers or ‘ambassa-dors of knowledge’, where leading scientists become advisorsto policy makers. These types of ‘researchers’ are intercon-nected as illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 3. Similarly,Pielke (2007) distinguishes between roles such as ‘the pure

scientist’; ‘the science arbiter’; ‘the issue advocate’ or ‘thehonest broker of policy options’.

For the purposes of this paper it is necessary to consider abroader group of collaborators than ‘researchers’ and abroader range of results than just ‘scientific knowledge’. Inorder to contribute to a transition, end-users, practitioners,policy makers and many more stakeholders need to beinvolved to support, e.g. the development of new, innovativepolicies. If knowledge is broadly defined as above, knowledgegeneration and also knowledge uptake have a pivotal role incollaborative research projects supporting a transition. Thecase study may therefore be used as a collaborative researchproject that has a main impact via a transition obtained atthe level of ‘messengers of knowledge’.

Case study: the impact on transition ofUFM in DordrechtThe UFM Dordrecht research project (2005–2008) was setup by a consortium of public, private and research partnersfrom local to national level to learn about flood resilient andclimate proof urban development in areas outside the mainflood defences. UFM used the redevelopment project DeStadswerven as a case study; a former shipyard area, locatedon the edge of the historical city centre of Dordrecht, theNetherlands. The UFM research project radically altered theapproach being taken from one of ‘flood prevention’ to thatof ‘flood risk management’ in common with initiatives else-where (e.g. Evans et al., 2004). The original concept for theDe Stadswerven project followed the focus on flood preven-tion set by national government; specifying the raising of thesite ground level from an average of 2–3 m to 4 m abovemean sea level. Four years after inception of the originalplan, an integrated flood risk management approach wasadopted, i.e. flood risk management within the planningsystem; modifying the masterplan to include a range of alter-native flood risk reduction measures such as: floating build-ings; flood resistant measures at the lower building levels;and elevated roads and walkways providing escape routes forevacuation. The UFM research project provided the floodrisk analysis and management approach, and the impetus for

Figure 3 diagrammatic illustration of three types of scientists:ambassadors, messengers and providers of knowledge.

4 van Herk et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–••

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

5455

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

737475

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

the alternative urban designs and capacities developed by aconsortium that championed a revised approach. The DeStadswerven plan is now seen as a leading innovativeexample of how to develop integrated flood risk manage-ment in the Netherlands, seizing the window of opportunityspatial development provides.

The collaborative research project UFM clearly influencedthe evolution of its’ own case study, a redevelopment projectin Dordrecht. Moreover, stakeholders indicated that UFMactually had a much broader impact on the transition froma ‘flood prevention’ to a ‘flood risk management’ culture.Sixteen semi-structured interviews and two workshops wereused to ask UFM participants, project leaders of De Stad-swerven and policy makers about the impact of the project inrelation to this transition. The workshops aimed at datacollection, but the researchers had different roles as observer,analyst and facilitator, meaning they inadvertently becameinvolved in participatory action research, a research methodin its own right (Robson, 2002).

From the analysis and data triangulation of interview andworkshop outcomes, six clusters of apparent ‘impact factors’emerged that were believed by the stakeholders to have sup-ported the transition.1. Science – there is now a new and improved method to

quantify flood risk. A scientific advance from UFM wasthe development of new methods for flood risk model-ling in the Netherlands: fine grain models (Veerbeekand Zevenbergen, 2009). These models enable detailedflood damage assessment, specified for buildings, neigh-bourhoods and types of damage. In terms of supportinga transition, this method can support flood resilienturban planning and design and can support politicaldebate on flood safety standards. This quantitativemethod is considered pivotal in the public–privatedebate on the potential use of flood risk insurance forsuch areas.

2. Practice and demonstration projects – the new masterp-lan for the De Stadswerven redevelopment (practice)ultimately incorporated several flood risk reductionmeasures designed in the UFM project. It included ‘floodfree routes’ and water-rich areas where the tidal influencecan be lived with by inhabitants and areas that can beintermittently flooded and thus help to offset increasedrisks from climate change. A pilot project for 100 flood-proof dwellings was initiated to experiment with the con-cepts before the new masterplan was adopted. Thisinnovative project is a demonstration of new practice thatcan inspire other development projects in flood-proneareas. UFM design concepts are currently being used bythe city of Rotterdam for the redevelopment of a harbourarea, thus providing a transition beyond the spatial con-fines of the development itself. Transition theory (see alsoKemp et al., 1998; Rotmans et al., 2001) recognises the

importance of such demonstration projects in makinglarge scale transitions happen.

3. Policy – UFM showed that urban development in areasoutside protective dykes does not necessarily compromiseflood safety. From this insight the Province of SouthHolland was able to develop a new and more permissivepolicy for developments in such areas. The UFM findingswere also adopted by the national Delta Commission forthe new flood safety policy in The Netherlands. As theseresearch results are being adopted into policy they are‘scaled up’ and influence practice more broadly.

4. Awareness – the UFM research project and its results wereextensively publicised to stakeholders and the generalpublic. Media coverage in among others: Dutch, French,British newspapers and television supported the dissemi-nation. Also the visits of the Dutch crown prince and thenational committee for Delta Technology brought thenewly developed approach to the attention of more stake-holders. This, in turn, increased awareness of the possi-bilities to develop urban areas outside protective dykesusing an integrated flood risk management approach.Farrelly and Brown (2008) have used the term recept-ivity as a measure for the chances for uptake of newapproaches or technology, based on Jeffrey and Seaton(2003/4). If awareness is created among users the recep-tivity increases, which is fundamental for any transition.

5. Network – UFM itself comprised of a network of stake-holders working together in this research project. TheUFM consortium decided to maintain the network and toset up a continuing research project. In the new project,they have formed a so-called Learning and Action Alli-ance to support new, demonstration projects and otherpolicy challenges, such as green infrastructure and multilevel safety (Ashley et al., 2010). Networks are a form ofrelational qualities obtained by social learning and crucialfor transtions (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Bouwen andTaillieu, 2004). Hillier (1999) stressed the importance ofnetworks in planning processes.

6. Capacity building – Farrelly et al. (2009) explain furtherhow local-scale experiments can be valuable learningplatforms for urban water practitioners. In the UFMProject all those surveyed (see above) recognised that theyhad learnt and developed new competences because ofthe project and their involvement in the practical casestudy De Stadswerven. The competences developed dif-fered between participants and included: (i) single-loopor instrumental or technical learning; (ii) double-looplearning, adjusting their general frameworks of beliefs,norms and objectives; and (iii) deutero-learning or learn-ing how to learn (Tuinstra, 2008).It may be concluded from the descriptions of the six

impact factors above that the types of impact are related ormay be mutually dependent. Capacity building is at the focus

Collaborative research 5

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–•• © 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

of these factors, as are networks. Awareness is needed for allof the factors. Science, practice and policy influence eachother.

How collaborative research cansupport transitionFrom the case study above it is possible to conclude thatcollaborative research can be defined as potentially impact-ing on a transition via six factors whereas Geels and Schot(2007) distinguish three levels of socio-technical transitionpathways: Macro, Meso and Micro (Figure 4). The lessonsfrom the case study here indicate that collaborative researchof the type undertaken can act on two of these transitionpathways: the socio-technical regime (Meso level) and nicheinnovations (Micro level) (Figure 4). Landscape develop-ments (Macro level) can put pressure on the regime creatingwindows of opportunity for transition. Rijke et al. (2008)highlighted the following pressures for the water sectorin the Netherlands: environmental awareness, a disruptivechange since the 1960s; climate change, a disruptive changesince the 1990s; and flood events, shock changes in 1993 and1995. Recent flood events or even the financial crisis (2008)can result in other shock changes. Research is not able toinfluence such ‘landscape’ developments, but can recognise

and support the exploitation of windows of opportunitieson the Meso and Micro level. On the Meso level research canactively catalyse transition through supporting the creationof new, interdisciplinary partnerships and networks. Thenetworks can be used to influence policy, to support capacitybuilding and dissemination for broader practice and tocreate awareness. On the Micro level research can supportinnovative practical demonstration projects. Figure 4 illus-trates the role of collaborative research in transition path-ways towards integrating urban development and flood riskmanagement.

Using the lessons from the case study and the earliertheory presented, it is possible to stress at least one criterionthat is needed for the design and evaluation of collaborativeresearch projects and portfolios related to FRM and urbanplanning. ‘Doing the right research’ means having collabo-rative research that supports practical, innovative projectsthat combine urban development with flood risk manage-ment in the flood related research portfolio. Thus, research isrequired using and supporting an actual case study ex ante,prior to development, or ex durante, during the urban devel-opment project. Such research would directly support theMicro level of the transition pathway (Figure 4). Schön(1983) stated that demonstration provides opportunities toeffectively ‘learn from experience’ by ‘learning by doing’. Allof the UFM stakeholders surveyed in this study were found

Figure 4 The potential role of collaborative research in the transition pathway (adapted from Geels and Schot, 2007 and Rijke et al.,2008).

6 van Herk et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–••

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

91011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

to have had their motivation increased and a significantlearning experience by working on this practical, real-lifeproject.

Another criterion ‘doing the research right’ relates to thecollaborative network and thus social learning component.Collaborative research can be a form of social learningframework. Social learning mechanisms or the frameworksof multi-party collaboration necessary to deliver sociallearning and stimulate interactive decision making havebeen given many names, such as: Communities of Practice(Wenger, 2000), Learning Alliance (Batchelor and Butter-worth, 2008; Verhagen et al., 2008), Learning & Action Alli-ance (Ashley et al., 2010), socially embedded institutions(Cleaver, 2002), learning platforms or arenas (Farrelly et al.,2009). The theory of transition pathways shows how net-works, developed through collaborative research as sociallearning frameworks, can support regime changes, e.g. viapolicy processes. This is also called a transdisciplinary tran-sition process (e.g. Scholz, 2000; Thompson Klein, 2001;Scholz and Tietje, 2002; and Gibbons, 2001). The UFMProject clearly influenced new policy processes and experi-mented with new practical approaches to flood risk manage-ment for areas outside the protected dykes directlythrough the collaboration of project participants andpartner organisations.

Any collaboration should explicitly aim for an impact onthe transition process via inclusion of the six impact factors:science; practice; policy; awareness; networks; and capacitybuilding. A collaborative research project should have suffi-cient flexibility to seize opportunities to do this, as opposedto strictly complying with a project plan or with constricting

regulations and standards. In fact, it should lead the way inchallenging and setting new standards and regulations.

Despite the various definitions earlier, it is likely that dif-ferent social learning frameworks are necessary at differentstages of a transition. This can possibly explain the variousnames and definitions for these frameworks. Figure 5 showsthis hypothesis depicting several social frameworks in theS-curve going through the four transition phases: pre-development, take-off, acceleration, stabilisation (see alsoRotmans et al., 2001). Collaborative research would providean appropriate framework during the early stages of transi-tion: pre-development and take-off phases (Figure 5). Fromthis, innovative approaches are being developed and experi-mented with preparing the way for the acceleration phase bycreating networks and addressing policy and regulatoryproblems and finding solutions to these. In the final stage,stakeholders still have to work together and learn together,for example to deal with uncertainty, but this is a morecontinuous need and activity. Frameworks such as Commu-nities of Practice and socially embedded institutions seemmore appropriate at this stage. Literature on social learningis not clear in the definitions of the frameworks proposedregarding their role in a transition, if any. It would be usefulto position these previously defined social learning frame-works within the larger transition picture (Figure 5). As asuggestion, the figure illustrates the likely timing of collabo-rative research and other social learning frameworks, whichare not mutually exclusive, according to the state of transi-tion they might best contribute to. Further work is needed todevelop and analyse social learning frameworks in terms ofthese different phases.

Figure 5 Timing of collaborative research and other social learning frameworks according to the state of transition they might bestcontribute to (adapted from Rijke et al., 2008 on state of transitions).

Collaborative research 7

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–•• © 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

11 11

Collaborative research supporting urbandevelopment and policy making

Hence, from theory and practice it is found that collabo-rative research can support a transition via the six factorsand two transition pathways. The question arises how toeffectively manage the six impact factors. This sectionfocuses on two of the six impact factors, policy and prac-tice. For collaborative research to support urban develop-ment projects and policy making, this firstly requires anunderstanding of both processes and related complex deci-sion making. This section presents some models to under-stand these processes, while the next section presentsfactors that can support the uptake of research results inthese processes.

Decision makers have to balance multiple objectives, e.g.flood safety, which should be combined or can compete withhousing, ecology, economy and many other objectives. Logi-cally all these objectives mobilise multiple stakeholders, eachwith their own interests. There is not one single decisionmaker. Therefore, Healey (1998) recommends a relationalview of governance processes instead of public action as thedelivery of products by specific agencies. There are manystakeholders with decision-making power in, and from dif-ferent policy fields and at different levels, public and private.Other stakeholders can have blocking power, others aresimply affected by the problems or measures. Additionallythe stakeholders’ perspectives of problems and ideal solu-tions change over time, which introduces additional dynam-ics to the decision-making process.

Teisman (2000) presents three conceptual models toanalyse decision making processes that are relevant forurban development as well as for policy making in a broadersense: the phase model, the stream model and the roundsmodel.

• The phase model (Mintzberg et al., 1976) focuses on suc-cessive and distinctive stages in a process, i.e. defining aproblem, formulation, adoption, implementation andevaluation of a policy or solution.

• The stream model (Kingdon, 1984) emphasises concur-rent streams of participants, problems and solutions,defining decision making as the connection betweenthese streams.

• The rounds model combines elements of the other twomodels, in assuming that several actors introduce com-binations of problems and solutions and create progressthrough interaction.

The three different models show that it is not alwaysobvious that policies are set at a certain moment by a certainactor. Policies result from a series of decisions taken byvarious actors. Also policy evaluation is not that straightfor-ward. Compliance with the objectives of all parties needs tobe evaluated.

These models provide conceptual insights into howdecision-making can be supported by collaborative research.Following the stream model, research can: (i) address prob-lems; (ii) propose solutions; and (iii) bring participantstogether. Thus pushing and pulling the streams to takeadvantage of or even provoke a (policy) window of oppor-tunity. Also timing is everything. In the case study De Stad-swerven it was found that the collaborative research projectUFM redefined the problem of flood risk and proposedflood-proof planning and building solutions that were con-sidered appealing to decision makers. The De Stadswervenproject was temporarily stopped because of political ten-sions, allowing UFM to develop and subsequently enhancepolitical receptivity for the new integrated flood risk man-agement approach. Similarly, related regional and nationalpolicy processes were amenable to external and new ideas atthe time and were able to use the insights obtained in UFM.

When using the insights gained from the phase and roundmodels, it is apparent that on-going research should under-stand and take cognisance of the round or phase in thedecision process. As the phase and round models are usefulfor (ex post) analysis, it is difficult to be able to define theround or phase at any given moment during the researchprocess. It is necessary to use ‘sensors’ or key signals forstep-changes in the process, such as a change of the decisionmakers after elections. Personal contacts are good sensors. Itis necessary to understand their interests and drivers in orderto bring participants together or to address problems orpropose solutions. Any stakeholder who wishes to influencethe definition of reality (e.g. ideas on problems, solutions,actions, objectives) of the other stakeholders in a policyprocess, will only succeed to the extent that they are ableproperly to understand the ‘definition of reality’ of theseother stakeholders (Termeer and Koppenjan, 1997).

Knowledge can be used in decision making in differentways. Van Buuren (2006) presented an idealised descriptionof competent decision-making, using knowledge, in threeinterrelated threads: (1) thread to establish facts; (2) thread tocreate images; (3) thread to set ambitions. As knowledge, in abroad sense, is the main output of collaborative research, it isto be expected that collaborative research can support thefact (1) thread above by generating factual knowledge, theimage (2) and ambitions (3) threads by bringing stakehold-ers together in a way that they can freely discuss interests andviews.

In short, practice and policy of flood risk managementand urban planning involve interactive processes with mul-tiple stakeholders and interests. Collaborative research canhelp organise multi-actor collaboration by providing a moreinformal, nonthreatening environment for actors to discussproblems, solutions, facts, perceptions or images and ambi-tions. The depth of participation can vary from informing,consulting, advising, coproducing to codeciding (Edelenbos

8 van Herk et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–••

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

and Klijn, 2005). Likewise, collaborative research cansupport collaborative planning by bringing policy fieldstogether to develop integrated solutions for multiple ambi-tions. A forthcoming paper uses the models presented in thissection to analyse two case studies and to draw lessons onhow to effectively organise social learning (van Herk,submitted).

Research impact: receptivityand advocacyThe decision-making processes for urban development andpolicy development have their own dynamics of problemsbeing addressed, solutions being proposed and stakeholdersparticipating. These processes can be supported by collabo-rative research, often being an independent process. Thisalso applies to the supportive role of research in a transitiontowards integrating flood risk management in urban devel-opment as mainstream accepted practice. To organise col-laborative research to effectively support this requiresknowledge of the factors that the uptake of knowledge orresearch results in urban development projects, policy andwider practice depend upon.

Farrelly and Brown (2008) utilised the term receptivity,considering that a new technology or initiative must bedesigned from the end-user or recipient’s point of view.Thus, research should be designed from the point of view ofthe involved persons in targeted urban development projectsand policy-making trajectories. Farrelly and Brown presentfour ‘A’ attributes of receptivity:

• Awareness: individual or organisation is aware of aproblem and need for a solution.

• Association: individual or organisation relates to thepotential benefits, enough to expend effort to applysolution(s).

• Acquisition: individual or organisation has requisiteskills, capacities and support to implement solution(s).

• Application: incentives are available to encourage theindividual or organisation to implement solution(s).

Thus, individuals and organisations participating in col-laborative research projects can influence the receptiveness.They can support the creation of awareness by addressingproblems and solutions. They can support association bypresenting potential benefits with a scientifically sound jus-tification. They can also support acquisition through capac-ity building, involving individuals and organisations in thelearning environment and can advocate development of, e.g.policy and regulation, to create incentives for application.Thus, the receptivity attributes point towards the impactfactors found in the case study: awareness; capacity building;networks; and policy.

In parallel with ‘receivers’ and their receptivity, this paperintroduces collaborative researchers as ‘senders’ or ‘messen-

gers of knowledge’ and introduces: ‘advocacy’, a fifth ‘A’. Thisis senders’ efforts to ‘advocate’ their knowledge to be takenup in applications. Thinking in terms of ‘advocacy’ providescollaborative research with a perspective for action to influ-ence the receptivity of the urban development projects orpolicy processes. Thus, in this context, this paper definesadvocacy as: the support of collaborative research to apply itsknowledge in demonstration projects and policy processesby generating and exploiting receptiveness in these projectsand processes.

Following the concepts of receptivity and advocacy above,there is a further conceptual framework that may be used tosupport the uptake of knowledge. The framework is adaptedfrom and inspired by communication theory (e.g. Schrammand Porter, 1982) and technology transfer theory (Bozeman,2000) as knowledge has to be ‘communicated’ or ‘trans-ferred’ to urban development or policy making. In this paperparticipants in collaborative research are termed: ‘messen-gers’ or ‘ambassadors of knowledge’. This paper introducessenders, recipients, message(s), medium and support envi-ronment. Senders should understand receptiveness to moreeffectively choose the message, medium and the individualreceiver. They should also speak the ‘language’ of receiversand be well connected to receivers in the other processes. Forthis, networks should be created and exploited, and ideallysome senders should also be receivers. Messages containknowledge which content and form should be aligned withthe needs and language of the receiver. For example, in thecase study UFM, the message included spatial design alter-natives that reduce flood risk and are considered attrac-tive living environments. Effective mediums are carefullyselected or created, carefully timed and involve as muchdirect personal contact as possible between sender andreceiver. Collaborative research projects could present manyimportant mediums. For example, in the case study UFM, apilot project for 100 flood proof dwellings was initiated. Thesolutions proposed for the pilot (message), were well-received by the development consortium (receivers) thatworked together with the researchers (senders) in this initia-tive (medium). The national, public–private committee ondelta-technology further supported this initiative (supportenvironment).

From the case study it is clear that people are an impor-tant success factor for the impact of collaborative researchfor a transition. Many authors stress the importance ofpeople as knowledge brokers (Pielke, 2007) or champions(Taylor, 2008). In this study the stakeholders surveyed high-lighted several characteristics of people that were importantin creating impact or generating and advocating knowledge.We have clustered their characteristics into six ‘C’s – theircompetences, commitment, connectedness, collaborativeattitude, communicative, and their continuity in the collabo-rative research, urban development and policy processes.

Collaborative research 9

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–•• © 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

12 12

1313

1414

Communicative people with better contacts were moreeffective in advocating knowledge. Whereas the rotation ofparticipants, leaving for other projects or jobs, reduced theimpact of the collaborative research. Stakeholder compe-tences, commitment and collaborative attitude were alsoimportant.

ConclusionsCollaborative research can play an important role in sup-porting a transition towards integrating flood risk manage-ment in urban development processes. Doing the rightresearch and doing the research right is key. This paper advo-cates research to aim to support practical, innovative urbandevelopment projects and create and use networks to influ-ence policy, broader practice, capacity building and aware-ness. For this, research should have a truly collaborativecharacter promoting active learning and coproduction. Ifpartnerships are durably organised in social learning frame-works they can stimulate continuous learning, necessarygiven the uncertainty regarding climate change and the con-tinuous challenges of urban dynamics. Collaborativeresearch can be a first step towards establishing and sustain-ing such frameworks. Moreover collaborative research canbe a tool for multi-actor collaboration by providing a moreinformal environment to discuss problems, solutions, facts,perceptions and ambitions among a wide group of stake-holders in a neutral and legitimate environment. As such,this can support collaborative planning by jointly developingintegrated spatial solutions for multiple ambitions.

It is crucial to understand the underlying complex deci-sion making processes for collaborative research to beeffective in supporting practice and policy making. Thereceptivity to a collaborative research project’s knowledge,approaches and partnerships varies in time and across stake-holders. Problems and solutions should be addressed time-ously and to the right stakeholder to tap into that receptivity.This paper presents several pathways to increase the impactof research collaboration. More case study analysis of col-laborative research supporting practice and policy such aspresented here is needed to draw out and verify lessons oneffectively organising collaborative research to support atransition. This paper indicates several success and inhibit-ing factors based on one case study.

Acknowledgements

This paper has been written in the framework of the LwWresearch programme (http://www.levenmetwater.nl). Theauthors acknowledge the support of the LwW programmeand others who were willing to share their knowledge in theDutch LwW and urban planning case studies.

ReferencesAdger W.N., Arnell N.W. & Tompkins E.L. Successful adapta-

tion to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change

2005, 15, 77–86.

Ashley R.M., Blanskby J., Newman R., Gersonius B., Poole A.,

Lindley G., Smith S., Ogden S. & Nowell R. Learning and

Action Alliances to build capacity for flood resilience. J Flood

Risk Manage 2010, (subm).

Barnett J. & O’Neill S. Maladaptation. Editorial. Glob Environ

Change 2010, 20, 211–213. doi: 10.1016/

j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004.

Batchelor C. & Butterworth J. Learning Alliance Briefing Note 9:

Visioning (draft). 2008. http://www.switchurbanwater.eu/

la_guidance.php (accessed November 2008).

Boelens L. Beyond the plan; towards a new kind of planning.

disP 2006, 167, (4), 25–40.

Bosher L. & Coaffee J. Editorial: International perspectives on

urban resilience. Proc. Inst Civil Eng Urban Design Planning

2008, 161, 145–146.

Bouwen B. & Taillieu T. Multiparty collaboration as social

learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing

for sustainable natural resource management. J Community

Appl Soc Psychol 2004, 14, 137–153.

Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of

research and theory. Res Policy 2000, 29, 627–655.

Breit H., Engels A., Moss T. & Troja M. How institutions change:

perspectives on social learning in global and local environmen-

tal contexts. Poladen: Leske + Budrich, 2003.

Brown R.R., Keath N. & Wong T. Transitioning to water

sensitive cities: historical, current and future transition

states. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Urban Drainage. Edinburgh.

2008.

van der Brugge R., Rotmans J. & Loorbach D. The transition in

Dutch water management. Reg Environ Change 2005, 5, (2),

113–135.

Carter N., Kreutswizer R.D. & de Löe R.B. Closing the circle:

linking land use planning and water management at the local

level. Land Use Policy 2005, 22, 115–127.

Cleaver F. Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social

embeddedness of natural resource management. Eur J Dev

Res 2002, 14, (2), 11–30.

Cook S.D.N. & Brown J.S. Bridging Epistemologies: the genera-

tive dance between organizational knowledge and organisa-

tional knowing. Organ Sci 1999, 10, (4), 381–400.

Cornwall A. & Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci

Med 1995, 41, (12), 1667–1676.

Deltacomissie. Working together with water; A living land

builds for its future; Findings of the Deltacommissie 2008,

Technical Report, Deltacommissie, The Hague, 2008.

Edelenbos J. & Klijn E. Managing stakeholder involvement in

decision making: a comparative analysis of six interactive

processes in the Netherlands. J Public Adm Res Theory Adv

Access 2005, 16, (3), 417–446.

10 van Herk et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–••

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

535455

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

15 15

1616

1717

1818

1919

ERA-Net CRUE. National research programmes on flood risk

management Across Europe. CRUE Report Work Package 2.

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and

Water Management, Vienna, Austria. 2007.

Evans E.P., Ashley R.M., Hall J., Penning-Rowsell E., Sayers P.,

Thorne C. & Watkinson A. Foresight. Future Flooding Vol II

– Managing future risks. Office of Science and Technology,

April 2004.

Farrelly M.A. & Brown R.R. Professional Perceptions on Institu-

tional Drivers and Barriers to Advancing Diverse Water

Options in Australia. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Urban Drainage.

Edinburgh. 2008

Farrelly M., Brown R.R. & Davis C. ‘Can demonstration

projects act as a mechanism for promoting a transition?’

Paper submitted to the 6th International Water Sensitive

Urban Design Conference and 3rd Hydropolis, Perth,

Western Australia 6–8 May, 2009.

Fischer F. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. New York:

Sage, 1990.

Folke C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-

ecological systems analysis. Glob Environ Change 2006, 16,

253–267.

Geels F. & Kemp R. Transities vanuit sociotechnisch perspectief.

Maastricht, The Netherlands: International Centre for Inte-

grative Studies, 2000.

Geels F.W. & Schot J. Typology of transition pathways in socio-

technical systems. Res Policy 2007, 36, (3), 399–417.

Gentleman A. Architects aren’t ready for an urbanised planet.

The International Herald Tribune. 20 August 2007, 11–29.

Gibbons M.N. The potential of transdisciplinarit. Basel:

Birkhauser Verlag, 2001.

Gunderson L.H., Carpenter S.R., Folke C., Olsson P. & Peterson

G. Water rats (resilience, adaptability, and transformability)

in lake and wetland socio-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 2006,

11, (1), 16.

Hajer M., Sijmons D. & Feddes F. Een plan dat werkt. Ontwerp

en politiek in de regionale planvorming. Rotterdam: Nai

Uitgevers, 2006.

Healey P. Institutionalist Theory, Social Exclusion and Govern-

ance. In: A. Madanipour, G. Cars & J. Allen, eds. Social

Exclusion in European Cities. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1998,

53–73.

van Herk S. Learning to integrate flood risk management in

urban development: empirical evidence from the Nether-

lands. Environ Sci Policy (submitted).

van Herk S., Herder P.M., de Jong W.M. & Alma D.S.M. Inno-

vative contracting in infrastructure design and maintenance.

Int J Crit Infrastructures (ijcis) (ISSN 1475-3219), 2006, 2,

(2/3), 187–200.

Hillier J. Going round the back? Complex networks and infor-

mal action in local planning processes. Environ Plann 1999,

32, 33–54.

Ison R. & Watson D. Illuminating the possibilities for social

learning in the management of Scotland’s water. Ecol Soc

2007, 12, (1). (online) URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.

org/vol12/iss1/art21.

Jeffrey P. & Seaton R.A.F. A conceptual model of ‘Receptivity’

applied to the design and deployment of water policy mecha-

nisms. Environ Sci 2003/2004, 1, (3), 277–300.

Katz J.S. & Martin B.R. What is research collaboration? Res

Policy 1997, 26, 1–18.

Keen M., Brown V.A. & Dyball R. Social learning in environmen-

tal management: towards a sustainable future. London: Earth-

scan, 2005.

Kemp R., Schot J. & Hoogma R. Regime shifts to sustainability

through processes of niche formation: the approach of stra-

tegic niche management. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 1998,

10, 175–198.

van de Kerkhof M. & Wieczorek A. Learning and stakeholder

participation in transition processes toward sustainability:

methodological considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Change

2005, 72, 733–747.

Kingdon J.W. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston:

Little, Brown and Company, 1984.

Klinke A. & Renn O. Systematic risks as a challenge for policy

making in risk governance. Forum Qual Soc Res 2006, 7, 1.

Art 33.

Meuleman L. Public management and the metagovernance of

hierarchies, networks and markets: the feasibility of designing

and managing governance style combinations. Heidelberg:

Physica-Verlag, 2008.

Milly P.C.D., Betancourt J., Falkenmark M., Hirsch R.M.,

Kundzewicz Z.W., Lettenmaier D.P. & Stouffer R.J. stationar-

ity is dead: whither water management? in: Science 2008, 319,

(5863), 573–574.

Mintzberg H., Raisinghani D. & Therot A. The structure of

unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Q

1976, 21, 246–275.

Mommaas H. & Janssen J. Towards a synergy between

‘content’ and ‘process’ in Dutch spatial planning: the

Heuvelland case. J Housing Built Environ 2008, 23, (1),

21–35.

Munich Re. Topics geo, Natural Catastrophes 2008: Analyses,

assessments, positions. Munich: Munich Reinsurance Group,

2009.

de Neufville R. Uncertainty Management for Engineering

Systems Planning and Design. Engineering Systems Sympo-

sium, MIT. 2004.

Pahl-Wostl C. Towards sustainability in the water sector: the

importance of human actors and processes of social learning.

Aquat Sci 2002, 64, 394–411.

Pahl-Wostl C., ed. Framework for adaptive water Management

regimes and for the transition between regimes. NeWater

project, Report Series No. 12. 2006.

Pahl-Wostl C., Craps M., Dewulf A., Mostert E., Tabara D. &

Taillieu T. Social learning and water resources management.

Ecol Soc 2007, 12, (2), 5. (online) URL: http://

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/

Collaborative research 11

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–•• © 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

Pielke R.A. The honest broker: making sense of science in policy

and politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2007.

Rijke J.S., De Graaf R.E., Van de Ven F.H.M., Brown R.R. &

Biron D.J. 2008. Comparative case studies towards main-

streaming water sensitive urban design in Australia and the

Netherlands. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference

on Urban Drainage (ICUD), Edinburgh, Scotland, 31

August–5 September 2008.

Rittel H. & Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of plan-

ning. Policy Sci 1973, 4, 155–169.

Robson C. Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Rose A.Z. Economic Principles, Issues, and Research Priorities

in Natural Hazard Loss Estimation. In: Y. Okuyama & S.

Chang, eds. Modeling the Spatial Economic Impacts of Natural

Hazards. Berlin: Springer, 2004, 13–36.

Rotmans J. Societal innovation: between dream and reality lies

complexity. Inaugural speech, ••: Erasmus University Rotter-

dam, 2005.

Rotmans J., Kemp R. & Van Asselt M. Transition management

in public policy. Foresight 2001, 3, (01), ••–••.

Salet W. et al., ed. Metropolitan governance and spatial planning

– comparative case studies of European city regions. London:

Spon Press, 2003.

Scholz R.W. Mutual learning sessions. Zurich: Haffmanns, 2000.

Scholz R.W. & Tietje O. Embedded case study methods: integrat-

ing quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications, 2002.

Schön D.A. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in

action. ••: Basic Books, 1983, ISBN 0465068782.

Schön D.A. & Rein M. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of

intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

Schramm W. & Porter W.E. Men, women, messages, and media:

understanding human communication, 2nd edn. New York:

Harper and Row, 1982.

Sellers J.M. Governing from below, urban regions and the global

economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Spit T.H.M. & Zoete P.R. Ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland: een

wetenschappelijke introductie in het vakgebied. The Hague:

Sdu, 2006.

Taylor A.C. Leadership in sustainable urban water management:

an investigation of the champion phenomenon within austral-

ian water agencies. Report No. 08/01, National Urban Water

Governance Program, ••: Monash University, August 2008,

ISBN 978-0-9804298-5-5 2008.

Teisman G.R. Models for research into decision-making proc-

esses: on phases, streams and decision-making rounds. Public

Adm 2000, 78, (4), 937–9556.

Termeer C.J.A.M. & Koppenjan J.F.M. Managing Perceptions in

Networks. In: W.J.M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn & J.F.M. Koppen-

jan, eds. Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public

sector. London: Sage Publications, 1997, 79–97.

Thompson Klein J. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving

among science, technology, and society: an effective way for

managing complexity. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 2001.

Tuinstra W. Learning and evaluation in Integrated Sustainability

Assessment. Int J Innov Sustainable Dev 2008, 3, (1/2), ••–••.

Van Buuren A. Competente besluitvorming: het management van

meervoudige kennis in ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsprocessen. ••:

Centraal Boekhuis, ISBN 9059314794, 2006.

Veerbeek W., Ashley R.M., Zevenbergen C., Rijke J. & Gersonius

B. 2010. Building adaptive capacity for flood proofing in

urban areas through synergistic interventions. First Interna-

tional Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010).

Hong Kong, China, 15–17 December 2010.

Veerbeek W. & Zevenbergen C. Deconstructing urban flood

damages: increasing the expressiveness of flood damage

models combining a high level of detail with a broad

attribute set. J Flood Risk Manage 2009, 2, (1), 45–57.

Verhagen J., Butterworth J. & Morris M. Learning alliances for

integrated and sustainable innovations in urban water man-

agement. Proc. 33rd WEDC International conference, Accra,

Ghana. 2008.

Walker W. Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional

commitment and power relations. Res Policy 2000, 29, 833–

846.

Wenger E. Communities of practice and social learning systems.

Organization 2000, 7, 225–246.

White I. 2008. The absorbent city: urban form and flood risk

management. Proc. ICE Urban Design and Planning. Vol. 161,

December 2008, Issue DP4, pp 151–161.

Woltjer J. & Al N. The integration of water management and

spatial planning. J Am Plann Assoc 2007, 73, (2), 211–222.

Zevenbergen C., Veerbeek W., Gersonius B. & van Herk S. Chal-

lenges in urban flood management: travelling across spatial

and temporal scales. J Flood Risk Manage 2008, ••, 81–88.

12 van Herk et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management •• (2011) ••–••

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

858687

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

3232

3333

3434

3535

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Dear Author,During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to thesematters and return this form with your proof.Many thanks for your assistance.

Query References Query Remarks

1 AUTHOR: A running head short title was not supplied; please check if this one is suitableand, if not, please supply a short title that can be used instead.

2 AUTHOR: Please check and confirm that the correspondence details are correct.

3 AUTHOR: “The probability of incorporating effective flood risk management. . .or spatialdevelopments (Sellers, 2002).”: The meaning of this sentence is not clear; please rewrite orconfirm that the sentence is correct.

4 AUTHOR: Woltjer (2007) has been changed to Woltjer and Al (2007) so that this citationmatches the Reference List. Please check and confirm that this is correct.

5 AUTHOR: Van de Brugge (2005) has been changed to van der Brugge et al. (2005) sothat this citation matches the Reference List. Please confirm that this is correct.

6 AUTHOR: The symbols “]]]” found in this paragraph has been deleted. Please check andconfirm that this is correct.

7 AUTHOR: Ison et al., 2007 has been changed to Ison and Watson, 2007 so that thiscitation matches the Reference List. Please confirm that this is correct.

8 AUTHOR: Bouwen and Tallieu, 2004 has been changed to Bouwen and Taillieu, 2004 sothat this citation matches the Reference List. Please check and confirm that this is correct.

9 AUTHOR: “55 M Euro/year” has been changed to “€55 million/year”. Please check andconfirm if this is correct.

10 AUTHOR: Bouwen and Tallieu, 2004 has been changed to Bouwen and Taillieu, 2004 sothat this citation matches the Reference List. Please confirm that this is correct.

11 AUTHOR: Verhagen, 2008 has been changed to Verhagen et al., 2008 so that this citationmatches the Reference List. Please check and confirm that this is correct.

12 AUTHOR: Please update the citation van Herk, submitted and insert its publication yearor indicate if it is currently in press.

13 AUTHOR: Schramm, 1982 has been changed to Schramm and Porter, 1982 so that thiscitation matches the Reference List. Please check and confirm that this is correct.

14 AUTHOR: “Messages contain knowledge which content and form should be aligned withthe needs and language of the receiver.”: The meaning of this sentence is not clear; pleaserewrite or confirm that the sentence is correct.

15 AUTHOR: Please check all the website addresses and confirm that they are correct.(Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that all URLs given inthis article are correct and useable.)

16 AUTHOR: Please update Ashley et al. 2010 by providing the volume number and pagerange for this article, or indicate if it is still in press.

Toppan Best-set Premedia LimitedJournal Code: JFR3 Proofreader: MonyArticle No: JFR31113 Delivery date: 12 July 2011Page Extent: 12

Query References Query Remarks

17 AUTHOR: Please check and confirm that the reference details for Barnett and O’Neill2010 are correct.

18 AUTHOR: Please provide the complete accessed date for Batchelor and Butterworth2008 (day).

19 AUTHOR: Bosher and Coaffee 2008: Please check and confirm that the abbreviatedjournal title is correct.

20 AUTHOR: Brown, Keath, Wong, 2008 has not been cited in the text. Please indicatewhere it should be cited; or delete from the Reference List.

21 AUTHOR: Farrely et al. 2009: If possible, please provide publication details such aspublisher name and location for this reference.

22 AUTHOR: Geels, Kemp, 2000 has not been cited in the text. Please indicate where itshould be cited; or delete from the Reference List.

23 AUTHOR: Gunderson et al. 2006: If this is not a one-page article please supply the firstand last pages for this article.

24 AUTHOR: van Herk, submitted: Please update this reference by providing the volumenumber, page range and year of publication, or indicate if it is in press, and update itscitation in the text.

25 AUTHOR: van Herk, Herder, Jong, Alma, 2006 has not been cited in the text. Pleaseindicate where it should be cited; or delete from the Reference List.

26 AUTHOR: Klinke and Renn 2006: If this is not a one-page article please supply the firstand last pages for this article.

27 AUTHOR: Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007: If this is not a one-page article please supply the firstand last pages for this article.

28 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of the publisher for Rotmans 2005.

29 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range for Rotmans et al. 2001.

30 AUTHOR: Please list all the authors in Salet et al. 2003.

31 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of publisher for Schön; 1983.

32 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of the publisher for Taylor; 2008.

33 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range for Tuinstra; 2008.

34 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of the publisher for Van Buuren; 2006.

35 AUTHOR: Please provide the volume number for Zevenbergen et al. 2008.

36 AUTHOR: Figure 4 is of poor quality [labels and lines are blurry]. Please check requiredartwork specifications at http://authorservices.wiley.com/submit_illust.asp?site=1