Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations

Figures & data

Table 1. Criteria and benchmarks for evaluating the legitimacy of flood risk governance. Adapted from Alexander, Priest, and Mees (2016, p. 41).

Evaluation criteria	Benchmarks for legitimate flood risk governance
Access to information and transparency	Stakeholders have equal access to relevant information and policy documents about the problem and how it will be managed in a timely manner The decision-making process is clear so all can see how decisions were made
Participation	Stakeholder participation is sought through various stages in the decision-making process The views of stakeholders are considered and/or taken into account and integrated in decision making A range of stakeholders is involved in participation
Procedural justice and accountability	There are opportunities for stakeholders to challenge decisions before the courts Access to courts is available at a reasonable cost, and decisions are made within a reasonable time span Stakeholders have equal access to the appeal process There are opportunities for stakeholders to appeal decisions Decisions are subject to review
Social equity	Policy makers strive for social equity in flood risk management decision-making processes Flood risk management protects vulnerable and financially deprived groups

Table 2. Analyzing the degree to which certain features of flood risk governance support access to information and transparency in selected European countries.

Benchmarks for legitimate flood risk governance	Belgium	England	The Netherlands	France	Sweden	Poland
Legislation and policy documents are made available to the wider public in a timely manner	High	High	High	High	High	Medium
Public inquiries and independent reviews are implemented	Medium	High	Medium	Medium	High	Low
There is clarity about how decisions are made	Medium	Medium	High/medium	Low	Medium	Medium

Table 3. Analyzing the degree to which certain features of flood risk governance enable participation in selected European countries.

Benchmarks for legitimate flood risk governance	Belgium	England	The Netherlands	France	Sweden	Poland
Stakeholder participation is sought through various stages of the decision-making process to enable actual influence	Low/medium	Medium/high	High/medium	Medium	Medium	Low
There is a legal duty to take into account the outcome of the participation procedure	Medium/low	Medium/high	High	Low	Low	Low
Participation is not limited to certain categories of actors, for example public actors	Medium	High	High	Medium	Medium	Medium

Table 4. Analyzing the degree to which certain features of flood risk governance enable procedural justice and accountability in selected European countries.

Benchmarks for legitimate flood risk governance	Belgium	England	The Netherlands	France	Sweden	Poland
Stakeholders have equal access to the appeal process and have the opportunity to challenge decisions made	High	Medium	High	High	Medium	Low/medium
Access to the relevant courts is available at a reasonable cost and court decisions are available within a reasonable time span	Medium	Medium/low	High	Medium	Medium	Low/medium
Decisions are subject to independent reviews and public scrutiny	Medium	High	High	Medium	High	Medium

Table 5. Analyzing the degree to which certain features of flood risk governance enable social equity in selected European countries.

Benchmarks for legitimate flood risk governance	Belgium	England	The Netherlands	France	Sweden	Poland
Policy makers strive for social equity in decision-making processes	Low	Medium/high	High	Medium/high	Low	Low
Flood risk governance protects vulnerable and financially deprived groups	Medium/high	Medium/high	High	High	n.a.	Low

Alexander, M., Priest, S., & Mees, H. (2016). A framework for evaluating flood risk governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 64, 38–47.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar