This article was downloaded by: [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]

On: 27 May 2013, At: 07:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Environmental Politics
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20

Governance of flood risk

management in a time of climate
change: the cases of Jakarta and
Rotterdam
ab ac d
P. J. Ward , W. P. Pauw , M. W. van Buuren & M. A.
e
Marfai
a
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty
of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
b
Amsterdam Global Change Institute (AGCI), VU
University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c
The German Development Institute/Deutsches
Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn, Germany
d
Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
e
Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Published online: 18 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: P. J. Ward, W. P. Pauw, M. W. van Buuren & M. A. Marfai (2013):
Governance of flood risk management in a time of climate change: the cases of Jakarta
and Rotterdam, Environmental Politics, 22:3, 518-536

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.683155

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
 licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013
 Environmental Politics, 2013
Vol. 22, No. 3, 518–536, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.683155

Governance of flood risk management in a time of climate change:

the cases of Jakarta and Rotterdam
P.J. Warda,b*, W.P. Pauwa,c, M.W. van Buurend and M.A. Marfaie
a
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bAmsterdam Global Change Institute (AGCI),

VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; cThe German Development Institute/
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn, Germany; dDepartment of Public
Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; eFaculty of Geography,
Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

More than half the world’s population lives in cities, and over two-thirds
of the world’s cities will be exposed to flooding within the next 30 years
due to factors including climate change, land subsidence, sea level rise,
and socio-economic development. Traditionally, flood management has
concentrated on providing protection against floods using technical
measures, but there is currently an international shift towards more
integrated flood risk management, whereby flood risk is defined as the
probability of flooding multiplied by the potential consequences.
Governance plays a key role in this transition. However, relatively little
has been written on how climate governance lessons are implemented on a
city-scale. Several characteristics of recent climate change adaptation
governance, relating to its structure, orientation, content, and timeframe,
are gleaned from the research literature. Flood risk management of two
cities – Jakarta and Rotterdam – is examined.
Keywords: adaptation governance; city-scale adaptation; climate change;
flood risk; Jakarta; Rotterdam

Introduction
Flooding poses serious threats to coastal cities, including economic damage
and loss of lives. More than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities, and
the exposure of these cities to flooding is expected to increase due to factors
including climate change, land subsidence and socio-economic changes. Even if
emissions of greenhouse gases were stabilised today, human-induced climate
change would continue for centuries (IPCC 2007). Climate change is projected

*Corresponding author. Email: philip.ward@ivm.vu.nl

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Environmental Politics 519

to lead to a rise in sea level and, in some coastal cities, more intense rainfall
and/or increased peak riverflow. Accordingly, the need for adaptation to
flooding has gained much attention.
Traditionally, flood management has concentrated on preventing floods
through technological measures, like storm surge barriers and dikes. However,
there is currently an international shift towards more adaptive and integrated
systems of flood risk management. In this context, flood risk is defined as the
probability of flooding multiplied by the potential consequences, like loss of
lives and economic damage (Aerts et al. 2011). This shift is being increasingly
adopted at regional and national levels. For example, in Europe flood risk
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

management has been given impetus by the European Flood Directive

(Directive 2007/60/EC). However, at the city level, fewer studies have been
made on this shift. Several cities have plans serving as blueprints for climate-
proof development (e.g. Rotterdam, Hamburg and New York). As part of its
Rotterdam Climate Proof Programme (RCP), Rotterdam has established
Connecting Delta Cities (CDC), an international network to exchange
knowledge and share best practices on spatial development, water management
and adaptation strategies. One of the eight cities involved in CDC is Jakarta,
which has recently suffered several devastating floods. Adaptation is urgently
needed, and Jakarta has recently finalised its Spatial Plan 2030. The city aims
to become a leading example in Southeast Asia.
Adaptive flood risk management requires changes in water governance
arrangements, processes and institutions (Huitema et al. 2009). However, little
has been written on how lessons on climate change adaptation governance are
being applied by cities in their ambitions to shift to more integrated forms of
flood risk management. We derive several characteristics of climate change
adaptation governance from recent literature. We then examine whether these
characteristics are reflected in the flood risk management of Jakarta and
Rotterdam. Finally, we compare similarities and differences in the two cities
and briefly draw lessons that can be learned from our findings.

Methods
Governance characteristics related to climate change adaptation are drawn
from a literature review on adaptation and flood risk at the city-scale. The
empirical information on Rotterdam and Jakarta is derived from several
research and networking activities. The information for Jakarta is based on:
discussions with policy-makers, businesses, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and scientists in November 2008, October 2010 and January 20111;
two workshops in Indonesia on flood risk management with attendees from the
listed institutes and others; and a focus group meeting on flood risk in Jakarta
at the conference ‘Deltas in Times of Climate Change’ in Rotterdam. The
information for Rotterdam is based on: expert meetings of RCP; interviews
with the City of Rotterdam (Van Buuren 2010); and the supervision of theses
on flood risk management at Erasmus University Rotterdam (Abo Sheer 2010,
 520 P.J. Ward et al.

De Haas 2011, Kalweit 2011). Moreover, insights from the two cities were
gleaned during a CDC workshop on the issues in New York (June 2009).

The flood problem in Jakarta and Rotterdam

We begin with a concise background on key causes of the flood problem,
traditional ways this has been responded to, and future changes in physical and
socio-economic conditions in both cities.

Brief history
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

The Netherlands and Rotterdam have long histories of flood management (e.g.
Borger and Ligtendag 1998, Van Koningsveld et al. 2008). The city was
narrowly spared flooding from the North Sea storm surge of 1953, which led to
the establishment of the Delta Works project. The city also avoided inundation
during the Meuse river floods of 1993, which caused substantial flood damage
further upstream. However, record rainfall in August 2006 led to flooding in
the city, and increased awareness of Rotterdam’s vulnerability. Although
Rotterdam’s population of nearly one million has been relatively stable in the
last decade,2 the chance of flooding is increasing due to relative sea level rise
(including land subsidence) and changing precipitation patterns.
Due to its naturally flood-prone location and seasonal rainfall intensity,
Jakarta has a long history of coastal and riverine flooding (Caljouw et al. 2005,
Steinberg 2007). Rapid urbanisation and land-use change over the last half
century (e.g. Firman 2009a) have intensified the problem. Jakarta’s population
has risen from 2.7 million in 1960 to 9.6 million in 2010 (BPS Jakarta 2010)
which also led to an increase in the value of assets vulnerable to flooding. This
has been compounded by rapid land subsidence. Furthermore, the city’s
waterways have often been clogged with sediment from deforested land
upstream and with garbage (Steinberg 2007). As a result, there have been
several devastating floods recently; the flood of February 2007 was the worst in
Jakarta’s history, causing at least 58 deaths (Texier 2008) and direct economic
losses of US$453 million (Steinberg 2007).

Traditional adaptation strategies and changes in physical and socio-economic

conditions
Historically, flood management in the Netherlands has been aimed at reducing
the probability of flooding using structural measures. Dike construction had
begun by 1000 AD and soon after the first local water boards came into
existence (Borger and Ligtendag 1998). In the eighteenth century, natural
flooding and military considerations led to the establishment of a national
water management body (later ‘Rijkswaterstaat’) (Borger and Ligtendag 1998).
In the twentieth century major flood events triggered various large projects.
For example, the 1916 Zuiderzee flood led to the construction of the
 Environmental Politics 521

Afsluitdijk, and the disastrous floods of 1953 triggered the Delta Works, a
series of dams, sluices, levees and storm surge barriers connecting the islands of
South Holland and Zeeland (e.g. Van Koningsveld et al. 2008).
The 1993 and 1995 Meuse floods were a turning point in Dutch flood risk
management. Although the initial response was rather technical (with a law
aimed at dike enforcement), the development of a new policy line was started
with the ‘Room for the River’ directive, and rapidly evolved into a general
policy where spatial planning is considered key to water management (Wolsink
2006). However, at the local level, Neuvel and Van den Brink (2009) state that,
although spatial planning measures are considered, they are rarely implemen-
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

ted as a risk-reducing measure.

Rotterdam has also traditionally been protected by structural measures, but
recently projects have started aimed at creating flood-proof areas within its
environs. Water management and spatial planning are two separate streams of
policy-making, although new policy strategies have established and strength-
ened interlinkages, while various strategic policy documents emphasise the
necessity of integration (Mostert 2006, Woltjer and Al 2007).
In Jakarta, traditional flood management also emphasised protection based
on technical measures (Texier 2008). Caljouw et al. (2005) provide an overview
of historic flood management practices. Soon after the founding of Batavia
(Dutch colonial name for Jakarta) in 1619, a canal system was constructed
similar to those of Dutch cities at the time. In 1725, a dam was built to divert
waters of the Ciliwung river westwards through the Western Canal. Since then,
several other flood control canals have been built. The ‘Van Breen plan’ of
1917 led to the development of several structural flood defence measures,
including the Western Banjir (flood) Canal. Other measures that were
proposed, but not realised at the time, include a large polder along the north
coast and the Eastern Banjir Canal (the latter has been functional since 2010).
In 1965, the Indonesian government developed a ‘master plan for drainage and
flood control’ (revised in 1973), essentially a modification of the Van Breen
plan. In 1984, a new master plan was drawn up, again based on structural
measures (Caljouw et al. 2005).
These projects provided technical solutions and assumed effective main-
tenance. Not all parts of the plans were realised, and by the time some aspects
were implemented, the city’s population had outgrown the numbers on which
the designs were based. Although technical measures continue to dominate,
there has been more investment in non-structural measures, such as: awareness
raising; law enforcement; and upper watershed planning and management.
Responsibility for the functioning of Jakarta’s drainage system is based on
a three-tier government system. The multi-level structure has become more
prominent recently as a result of the country’s decentralisation policies
(Firman 2009b). The Ministry of Public Works is responsible for river systems,
while Public Works offices at the provincial level are responsible for the main
drainage systems and the majority of local drainage works (Caljouw et al.
2005). The provincial governments of Banten and West Java are further
 522 P.J. Ward et al.

divided into several municipalities (Kota) and districts (Kabupaten), each with
Public Works offices that have some authority over water resources (Firman
2009b). Several other Ministries (e.g. Forestry, Agriculture, Environment and
Finance) have roles at all three levels in terms of flood management. Land-use
planning is managed by BAPPENAS (National Development Planning
Agency), whilst river monitoring is carried out by BAPEDAL (Environmental
Impact Management Agency). The Coordinating Body for Jakarta Metropo-
litan Region Development (BKSP) is tasked with coordinating, planning and
monitoring development in the Jakarta Metropolitan Region.
In Table 1 we present an overview of the main trends and changes in
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

physical and socio-economic conditions projected for Jakarta and Rotterdam.

Despite inherent deep uncertainty, they paint a broad picture of what each city
may expect.

Governance lessons for flood risk management

In recent years, the literature on the governance of climate change adaptation
at the national and regional scale has grown substantially (e.g. Biesbroek et al.
2010, Westerhoff et al. 2010, Juhola and Westerhoff 2011, May and Plummer
2011, Naess et al. 2011). However, research on adaptation governance at the
city-scale remains scarce (Van Nieuwaal et al. 2009, Birkmann et al. 2010),
despite a marked increase in the involvement of cities in climate risk
assessments (Rosenzweig et al. 2010) and city networks to address climate-
related problems (e.g. Aerts et al. 2011).
Recent programmes and projects on climate change adaptation have,
however, provided interesting governance lessons that could be useful for flood
risk reduction in cities. For example, a review of adaptation governance (Van
Nieuwaal et al. 2009) concluded that the large number of actors, the
uncertainty over climate change impacts and the demand for immediate
action, combined with long-term horizons, make adaptation a testing problem.
Traditional boundaries between actors, and between the public and private
sector, are blurred as a consequence. Van Buuren et al. (2010b) suggest that
climate proofing is an additional challenge for public and private actors in
realising their core ambitions, and discuss prerequisites for effective and
legitimate adaptation governance.
Many studies try to summarise the defining characteristics of the
governance of climate change adaptation (Folke et al. 2005, Cash et al.
2006, Pahl-Wostl 2006, Wolsink 2006, Biermann 2007, Olsson et al. 2007,
Raadgever et al. 2008, Haug et al. 2009, Huitema et al. 2009, Van Buuren et al.
2010b, Termeer et al. 2011). Frequently mentioned characteristics are: its
structure is multi-level, multi-domain and multi-actor (Cash et al. 2006, Olsson
et al. 2007); its orientation is flexible and robust (Raadgever et al. 2008, Van
Buuren et al. 2010b); its content accommodates a plurality of societal,
economic and other values in combination with flood risk management (Pahl-
Wostl 2006); and its timeframe is focused on the long-term, but looks for
 Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

Table 1. Overview of projected changes in physical and socio-economic parameters from existing studies (to 2100 unless otherwise stated).

Parameter Jakarta Rotterdam

Mean temperature Increase of 0.1–0.38C per decade (Hulme and Sheard 1999) Increase of 1.7–5.68C by 2100 (KNMI 2006)
Mean precipitation Small decrease in some models (Hulme and Sheard Increase expected in winter (KNMI 2006)
1999)
Extreme rainfall Increase in severity and frequency (IPCC 2007) Projected increase in extreme summer precipitation
intensity and extreme 10-day rainfall sums in winter
(KNMI 2006)
Sea level rise and Average land subsidence in recent years of 1–15 cm/yr Increase in relative sea level of 35–85 cm/yr (including
land subsidence (Abidin et al. 2011)* natural subsidence but excluding anthropogenic
subsidence) (KNMI 2006)*
Sea level rise of 18–59 cm by 2100** Additional rate of anthropogenic land subsidence highly
uncertain*
Socio-economic GDP increase of 4.5% p.a. between 2005–2030 (OECD Population increase of 6% between 2009–2040 (CBS;
change 2008) http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/)
Population increase from 9 million in 2007 (BPS Increase in number of jobs and relative importance of
Jakarta) to 25 million in 2050 (Aerts et al. 2009) commercial sector (Huizinga and Smid 2004)

Notes: *At present, *40% of DKI Jakarta is at about or just below sea level (PT Mirah Sakethi 2010). The majority of Rotterdam is below sea level, with
depths up to *8m below mean sea level. For Rotterdam, estimates of current and future subsidence rates are highly uncertain and currently receiving increased
attention. Rijkswaterstaat (http://www.geofoon.nl/Bodemdaling.html) suggests land subsidence of 2–10 cm by 2050 compared to present. However, recent
research suggests that the rate may be higher (Van de Meulen et al. 2007; Van Asselen 2011), especially in areas facing peat oxidation and compaction towards
the northeast of the city. **Globally, IPCC (2007) projects the likely minimum and maximum global average mean sea level rise until 2100 to be 18 cm and 59
cm; recent sea level rise in Jakarta is within this likely range.
Environmental Politics
523
 524 P.J. Ward et al.

opportunities to integrate urgent matters in the short-term (Folke et al. 2005,

Haug et al. 2009). In this section we examine how these characteristics are
reflected in the flood risk management of Jakarta and Rotterdam.

The structure of adaptation governance

Institutions, understood as clusters of people, rules, norms and performance,
are key aspects of governance and are of vital importance in climate change
governance (Thynne 2008). These institutions must deal with global projections
of climate change that are difficult to translate into local physical effects, and
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

with socio-economic impacts at the city level that are highly uncertain (Van
Buuren et al. 2009). This uncertainty predicates the need for multi-level, multi-
scale and multi-actor governance.

Multi-level governance
Since the flood problem transcends geographical scales and sectors, adaptation
benefits from the capacity to function within a multi-level government
structure. An example is the cooperation between the municipality of
Rotterdam and regional water boards, which resulted in Waterplan Rotterdam
2 (Municipality of Rotterdam 2007). This plan provides a framework and
programme of measures for coping with the impact of climate change on water,
including a strategy indicating what needs to be done now to achieve long-term
objectives. However, there are problems in aligning these urban adaptation
strategies with national and regional policy processes that follow a different
and often more gradual path. For example, where the city of Rotterdam thinks
about climate-proof buildings, the province of South Holland develops a policy
assessment for buildings along the river, and the national government discusses
the ‘policy line [for] large rivers’ (Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat/Ministerie
van VROM 2006). Strategies to strengthen the multi-level structure seem to be
mainly informal and process-oriented, and focused on generating possibilities for
interaction and communication instead of adding more hierarchical components.
An example of this is the provincial assessment framework ‘building in the
riverbed area’ where municipalities are informed about the location-specific risks
but the decision to build is up to them (De Haas 2011).
Responsibility for Jakarta’s drainage system is also based on a three-tier
government system. However, there is a high level of political and
administrative fragmentation at the metropolitan level (Laquian 2005, Firman
et al. 2011). According to Firman (2011), there is no particular agency or
institution that is assigned to oversee and account for risk and vulnerability
assessments; to manage climate change data; or to disseminate climate-related
information to the public. As mentioned earlier, in Jakarta the BKSP is tasked
with coordinating, planning and monitoring development in the metropolitan
region. However, BKSP has no authority over implementation, which
according to Firman (2009b) and Firman et al. (2011) makes it powerless
 Environmental Politics 525

and ineffective in coordinating development programmes. An enhancement of

the implementation powers of development bodies may help to address the
latter issue.

Multi-scale governance: catchment scale approach

An important prerequisite for successful water management is the need to
consider river catchment areas in an integrated way (Rahaman and Varis 2005).
For cities, this means that flood risk reduction needs to consider developments in,
and cooperation with, upstream areas. In the Netherlands, the basin approach
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

has been formalised in the EU Flood Directive. Moreover, the main rivers flowing
into the Dutch delta around Rotterdam (Rhine and Meuse) have international
commissions to coordinate and advise on integrated water management.
Solutions to make Rotterdam climate-proof are dependent on choices made
along the main rivers and in the entire basin. As a result of the Delta Programme,
there is an institutional structure that enables both regional coalitions to develop
proposals and a national coordinator (Delta Commissariat) to safeguard
coherence and overall effectiveness. At the same time – although there are
many interfaces between the various governance levels – there is also ambiguity
about who is responsible and which policy frameworks are applicable, especially
in regard to new developments within the riverbed area (Abo Sheer 2010).
In Jakarta, too, flood risks are related to upstream activities, including
land-use change. Expert reports state that the whole system of water-
catchments must be taken into account when addressing the city’s flood
problem (Caljouw et al. 2005). Upstream river basin rehabilitation projects and
reforestation programmes have been set up to regulate water flows of the
Ciliwung river (the main river flowing through Jakarta). However, in the past
the high cost of acquiring land has stalled the progress of such schemes
(Steinberg 2007). A presidential decree on Spatial Planning (Perpres 54/2008)
was introduced in 2008 to ensure that future developments reserve a portion of
green land. This, however, is a national document, and, whilst it provides a
framework for future developments, its success ultimately depends on basin-
scale implementation. The need to integrate upstream–downstream activities in
water-related management is stressed in the Jakarta Spatial Plan 2030.

Multi-actor governance: stakeholder participation and engagement

Stakeholder participation is key to good governance, as pooling resources is
necessary to implement policies in complex, fragmented societies (Bulkeley
2010). The Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI) is interesting in this sense as it
was established by local and regional organisations, and offers a platform for
stakeholders from citizens to national government. RCI’s website shows over
200 climate-related sustainability initiatives from citizens, private bodies and
government. Various investment projects – related to flood risk management
and climate adaptation – are formulated in close cooperation with citizens and
 526 P.J. Ward et al.

local stakeholder groups (like the roof park project and the Green-Blue String:
Kalweit 2011).
Steinberg (2007) suggests that, in Jakarta, a main challenge for
modernisation in a general sense is the need for true cooperation and
transparency between citizens, the private sector and local government.
Steinberg (2007) points to the example of a Strategic Development Plan that
was drawn up for 2002–2007 behind closed doors, thus bypassing local values,
problems and knowledge. In the past this has led to mistrust. The Spatial Plan
2030 does mention the need to increase community participation (Articles 200
and 230). Indeed, a website was launched in December 2009 to publicise the
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

spatial plan and to seek input from the public (http://www.rtrwjakarta2030.

com). However, objections of the Citizens Coalition for Jakarta 2030 to the
planning process, including a lack of participation (Rukmana 2010), show that
the process is in its early phases. Nevertheless, the facilitation of community
participation has been carried out in several recent projects (e.g. Jakarta Flood
Management 2), and awareness raising and public information campaigns are
being carried out by government agencies in collaboration with NGOs. Finally,
on a national level several fundamental laws on flood disaster mitigation in
Indonesia emphasise public involvement (Katsuhama and Grigg 2010).

Transparency and openness regarding responsibilities and tasks

A prerequisite for successful collaboration in complex multi-actor settings is a
certain degree of agreement on the allocation of responsibilities and tasks. Van
Buuren et al. (2009) state that responsibility should be allocated in such a way
that actors are stimulated to cooperate, but that transparency in respect of the
responsibilities and tasks is key. Examples from Rotterdam and Jakarta
highlight the importance of this. Within the Rotterdam context, an example of
unclear responsibilities is the debate about building outside the dikes. It is not
clear who is responsible for safety in these areas, or who is responsible for
recovery and claims, leading to stagnation in the development of proposals for
creating residential areas (Abo Sheer 2010). In Jakarta, an example of unclear
responsibilities is the BKSP, which is charged with coordinating, planning and
monitoring development at the metropolitan level, but lacks authority to
ensure implementation (Firman 2009b, Firman et al. 2011).

The orientation of adaptation governance

Since climate change issues are surrounded by uncertainties, adaptation
governance requires that multiple policy options are kept open, and adaptation
requires policy processes that can gradually evolve or mature over time. Hence,
adaptation governance needs to be both flexible and robust in the area of
regulation.
An example of governance incorporating robustness and flexibility is
programme management (Van Buuren et al. 2010a). By working from a
 Environmental Politics 527

programme rather than a sector on the one hand robust aims can be set, while
on the other different organisations are able to cooperate on a project basis.
Therefore, programme management provides opportunities for adjustment,
equalisation and synergy, and the flexibility to include different sets of aims or
policies (Van Buuren et al. 2010a). The RCP is a good example. This
programme stimulates cross-sectoral climate change adaptation, and activities
are arranged so that investments not only provide climate change adaptation
measures, but simultaneously increase the attractiveness of the city and port for
its citizens, businesses and knowledge institutes. As well as considering
traditional types of interventions, this has led to innovations such as green
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

roofs, water plazas, the floating pavilion and underground water storage. The
innovation and focus on experiments aim to develop more insight into the
possibilities of realising adaptation options that are also attractive from other
perspectives (e.g. tourism and branding as an innovative and climate-proof
city).
Although many laws and regulations are in place in Indonesia to deal with
flood-related issues, such as the Disaster Management Law of 24/2007, the
Water Law of 7/2004 and the Spatial Planning Law of 26/2007 (Katsuhama
and Grigg 2010), to date programme management in terms of climate change
adaptation is limited. Firman et al. (2011) state that Jakarta lacks an agency or
institution to manage climate change data and activities. There may therefore
be a lack of capacity to provide the impetus needed to develop a programmatic
approach, even though the need for integrative programme management is
recognised by local and regional government bodies. The increasing
decentralisation and the expressed willingness of local government to engage
in adaptation provide a window of opportunity for such programmes.
Programme management could also improve the major ongoing project to
clear the city’s waterways of sediments and solid waste as it would allow for
the linking of problems that are currently separated in policy-making, but still
have an impact on each other. Benefits of clearing the waterways would be
short-lived if not linked to improved public services in other areas, such as
solid waste management, land-use, sanitation and housing. The Spatial Plan
2030 can be seen as an explicit attempt to integrate spatial planning with a
plurality of other values. For example, it explicitly mentions aspects such as
climate change adaptation (e.g. Articles 5 and 13), conservation (e.g. Articles
5, 10, 39, 43, 54, 64, 65, 75 and 95), and flood control and hazard zoning (e.g.
70 and 77).

The content of adaptation governance

Since climate change adaptation interacts with various policy domains, its
content must accommodate a plurality of societal, economic and other values.
A catalyst for incorporating such a plurality of values in adaptation content is
the nurturing and forging of interdisciplinary alliances. For climate-proof flood
 528 P.J. Ward et al.

risk management, a synergy between spatial planning and flood management

seems necessary.
A concrete example is the design of so-called water plazas in Rotterdam.
These squares aim to increase the retention capacity of urban areas. During
intense rainfall they retain water, but at other times they serve as playing fields
and communal areas. The concept originates in the document ‘Rotterdam
Water City 2035’ and was adopted in the Second Waterplan of Rotterdam
(Van der Brugge 2009) and won various prizes for its spatial quality.
Rotterdam also faces a major urban renewal challenge with regard to the old
city-harbours. This is treated as an adaptation challenge with possibilities for
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

floating houses and other buildings. A preliminary idea was to raise the level of
the whole area in a classical approach, but during the last decade various
alternatives have been presented (by research groups, urban designers and
transition thinkers) and a climate-robust spatial vision has been approved by
the city government. However, to date, the implementation of such risk-
reducing measures is in an early phase.
In Jakarta, several reports suggested that a key issue hampering flood
reduction was a lack of planning across policy sectors (Caljouw et al. 2005). A
flood risk management approach can be key to this integration, since it
considers both the causes and consequences of flooding. An important facet is
the preparation of flood risk maps, which can be used to communicate risk to
inhabitants and businesses, potentially leading to risk-reducing behaviour;
flood risk mapping has commenced in Jakarta (Ward et al. 2011).
Technical measures continue to dominate the political discourse; for example
DKI Jakarta’s book on flooding in the city mainly refers to planned structural
measures (PT Mirah Sakethi 2010). However, Jakarta has seen more investment
in non-structural measures, such as: awareness raising, law enforcement and
upper watershed planning and management. Another example is that Jakarta’s
city government has developed an automatic weather station that functions as an
early warning system of flood disasters. Also, the Ministry of Forestry has
developed a programme to increase the area of mangroves along the coast near
Jakarta, offering non-structural protection against coastal flooding, whilst also
providing ecosystem and aesthetic services (Aerts et al. 2009).
Moreover, private adaptation measures have been taken by individuals,
such as placing sandbags along streets and raising floor levels in houses
(Caljouw et al. 2005). However, many are carried out on an ad hoc basis, and
Firman et al. (2011) state that in both practice and in scientific research
institutions little attention has been paid to the specific incorporation of
climate risk aspects in spatial and urban development planning. The Jakarta
Spatial Plan 2030 does explicitly mention the need to improve adaptation
against increased risks resulting from climate change. Moreover, its vision
incorporates a plurality of values, such as promoting Jakarta as a comfortable,
sustainable and prosperous city. Again, the intention to act is clear, but the
next step is to define processes and systems to implement the rhetoric.
 Environmental Politics 529

The timeframe of adaptation governance

Adaptation governance requires: integration of long-term ambitions and short-
term needs; readjustment of choices and instruments when new information
becomes available; consistency; and deliberation over efficient timing and the
sequence of measures (Van Buuren et al. 2009). Owing to the long-term
character of climate change, adaptive measures should not be taken in the light
of climate change alone. Adaptation should be integrated into other (long and
short-term) societal aims and interests.
In developing countries this can be seen in the concept of mainstreaming.
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

Mainstreaming refers to the integration of current and future climate change

vulnerabilities (or adaptation) within broader government policy aims and
implementation programmes (Agrawala and Van Aalst 2005). Mainstreaming
fits with the preceding concepts of multi-level governance, flexibility and
robustness since it places climate change adaptation on a broader policy path
and can be carried out at all levels, from global to local. The Jakarta Spatial
Plan 2030 is a good example of mainstreaming, assuming that its concepts and
visions can be successfully implemented. It outlines a long-term vision for the
city, but explicitly looks to integrate (between different scales, policy fields and
institutions) in the short term.
Whereas mainstreaming is often used in the context of developing
countries, it is also useful in developed countries. For example, several of the
activities in Rotterdam could be considered examples of mainstreaming.
Rotterdam’s approach in combining long-term strategies with short-term
challenges is to explore possibilities of adaptation that are easy to combine with
objectives, such as urban renewal and area transformation, or with a variety of
spatial functions, such as recreation (water playing fields), parking (water
retention), nature (green roofs) or multiple land-use (floating houses). In these
cases achieving adaptation goals facilitates the realisation of more urgent
needs, and climate change can be used as an additional argument in favour of
spatial investments.

Lessons learned: comparison of governance characteristics in flood risk

management
In this section we compare similarities and differences in the two cities (see also
Table 2), and reflect briefly on lessons that can be drawn from our findings.
With regard to the structure of adaptation, both cities have a multi-level
governance architecture to differing extents. In Rotterdam, in the last 15 years
the water management system has moved from one focused on flood protection
towards a progressive alliance between city government, water boards and
other stakeholders to synergise adaptation and other urban challenges. At the
same time, the institutional structure is still ‘under construction’ and there are
difficulties aligning some local policy strategies with those at the regional and
national scale. In Jakarta, a transfer of several functions has taken place in
 Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

530

Table 2. Summary of how the shift towards flood risk management in Jakarta and Rotterdam reflects key characteristics of the governance
of climate change adaptation.

Characteristic Jakarta Rotterdam

P.J. Ward et al.

Structure Strong move towards three-tier government system
(decentralisation).
But political and administrative fragmentation has led
to lack of clarity on responsibilities, tasks and
implementation powers.
Community involvement in early phases.
Orientation Limited focus on programme management.
New windows of opportunity exist, and draft Spatial
Plan 2030 explicitly integrates spatial planning with
other values.
Content Technical flood defence measures still dominate
discourse.
But examples of non-structural adaptation increasing,
e.g. flood risk mapping, awareness raising, upper
watershed management.
Spatial Plan 2030 may help link measures, leading to less
ad hoc adaptation.
Timeframe Spatial Plan 2030 has clear long-term focus.
Strong development (last 15 years) towards multi-level,
multi-domain and multi-actor water governance.
But problems in aligning local, regional and national
policies
Stakeholder participation strong.
RCP connects visioning and scenario-building with
concrete projects and ambitions.
Waterplan explicitly aims to connect water challenges to
other urban challenges (added value). Many pilot
projects show possibilities for synchronising flood risk
management and urban planning (e.g. water squares,
green roofs, roof parks).
But attention needed to continue implementation.
Various long-term programmes: Deltaprogram long-
term;
Urban Waterplan (2035);
Transformation City Harbours (2040).
 Environmental Politics 531

recent decades as part of Indonesia’s decentralisation process. However, there

remains a high level of political and administrative fragmentation at the
metropolitan level, and implementation of climate adaptation remains difficult.
Bucx et al. (2010) mention the need to develop a framework of integrated delta
management in Jakarta with a common perception for all delta stakeholders.
Furthermore, stakeholder involvement is in its early phases. Hence, both cities
have some way to go before the structure for an adaptive approach to flood
risk management is fully institutionalised, although the process is further
developed in Rotterdam. The latter finding supports the postulation of Cash
et al. (2006) that systems more consciously addressing scale issues and multiple
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

levels are more successful at finding sustainable solutions. Also, the currently
low implementation powers of regional organisations such as BKSP support
the argument of Olsson et al. (2007) that bridging organisations are critical for
multi-level governance structures.
In terms of the orientation of adaptation, flexibility and robustness in
regulation are necessary to deal with the complexities of climate change and to
secure stakeholder support. Programme management can be helpful in
combining attractive portfolios of alternative pathways for adaptation and
binding targets that have to be met within fixed timeframes and between a
variety of stakeholders (Van Buuren et al. 2010a). Our observations support
this: programme management is a key facet of RCP that ensures an orientation
towards flexibility and robustness. In Jakarta, examples of programme
management are thin on the ground. The Spatial Plan 2030 provides a window
of opportunity but the unanswered question is how it will be implemented.
In Rotterdam, there is a constant opportunity-driven striving to ensure that
the content of adaptation focuses on creating synergy with other policy aims,
such as spatial planning and flood management. However, continued
implementation of the plans will require attention in the coming years. In
Jakarta, several examples of ad hoc adaptation combining flood management
and spatial planning of other values have been described. Moreover, flood risk
mapping and research into how flood risk assessment can enhance the decision-
making process are heading upwards on the political agenda, and several
concrete examples of non-structural risk reduction measures have been
described (e.g. awareness raising, flood warning systems, mangroves along
the coast, upstream watershed management). In the last few years both cities
have taken part in several collaborative events on risk reduction, including
high-level workshops and conferences, in which concrete examples have been
exchanged. A key lesson learned is that the content of adaptation is not just
driven by an awareness of issues, in which both cities seem well equipped, but
also by the ability to integrate different aims in order to actually implement
projects that serve multiple agendas.
The timeframe of adaptation governance requires the integration of long-
term ambitions and short-term needs. Both cities appear to be focusing
activities on the long-term, but also work on short-term projects to realise their
adaptation ambitions step by step. Important in this respect is the concept of
 532 P.J. Ward et al.

mainstreaming; a concept used in development literature to indicate that

reduction of climate change vulnerability can be integrated into broader
development aims.

Concluding remarks
Internationally, flood management is shifting from a traditional safety
standard approach to a more risk-based and adaptive approach. Governance
plays an important role in this shift, but has received little attention at the city-
scale. We distilled four characteristics of climate change governance from
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

recent literature, addressing its structure, orientation, content and timeframe.

We then examined whether these characteristics are reflected in flood risk
management of Rotterdam and Jakarta.
In both Rotterdam and Jakarta, traditional flood management has been
based on the reduction of the hazard of flooding using technical measures.
However, in recent years, changes can be seen. To date, the move towards
flood risk management is further developed in Rotterdam than in Jakarta, and
there are also more concrete examples of the integrated flood risk management
approach in the former. Although the focus of this article is not to address why
these differences exist, our research shows that the characteristics distilled from
our governance of adaptation literature review can so far more clearly be seen
in Rotterdam than in Jakarta. We suggest further research to address how far
the adoption of these characteristics influences the relative success of climate
change adaptation in cities. Rotterdam strives to ensure that its content creates
synergy with other policy aims, such as spatial planning and flood manage-
ment; this seems to be a cornerstone to successful adaptation. It is clear that the
issue of flood risk management in Jakarta has rapidly moved up the agenda in
political discourse in the last few years. The Spatial Plan 2030 explicitly
mentions many of the climate change adaptation governance characteristics
discussed in the article, providing a window of opportunity to further develop a
more integrated form of flood risk management.
There are also several similarities between the cities. Both cities are
planning for the long-term, with climate change being taken into account. We
also present examples in both cities of cases where the lack of clarity on
responsibilities and tasks has hindered integrative climate change adaptation.
The implementation of planned strategies requires continued attention in the
coming years.
In the context of global delta cities, adaptation governance is a challenge.
Both the institutional and physical contexts are complex, fragmented and
bounded by uncertainty. Changing the policy paradigm as well as the
governance approach is difficult because of institutional path-dependency
and deep-rooted policy beliefs. At the same time, we see a cautious start to
exploring alternative paths to deal with the climate challenges that these cities
face. Of these, one of the most important is the internalisation of the concept of
adaptation by the municipal bureaucracy. Only when the idea of adaptation is
 Environmental Politics 533

taken up by actors responsible for traditional policy domains, such as housing,

transport and economic development, can the gap between planning and
implementation be bridged. The cautious start we have described here needs to
be scaled up to provide the impetus for region-wide transitions of flood risk
management, while also being transferred to other cities.

Acknowledgements
We thank three anonymous reviewers and the editor, Arthur Mol, for
constructive comments on earlier versions. The research was supported by
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

Knowledge for Climate/Delta Alliance project HSINT02A; Knowledge for

Climate (HSGR06, Theme 1, and Theme 7); the collaborative research project
‘Knowledge Agenda Climate’ between Erasmus University and Rotterdam
Climate Initiative; and the KNAW (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences) Mobility Programme (09-MP-10). The research was presented at a
workshop hosted by M. Francesch-Huidobro Start-Up Grant Project n:
7200153(SA), funded by the Department of Public and Social Administration,
City University of Hong Kong. The views expressed are those of the authors
alone.

Notes
1. Including representatives of the city government of Jakarta; several national
ministries; Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics;
Indonesian Institute for Water Research; Netherlands Embassy in Jakarta; several
consulting companies; Japan International Cooperation Agency; German Technical
Cooperation; Institute of Technology Bandung; Bogor Agricultural University; and
Indonesian Institute of Sciences.
2. StatLine website of CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), http://statline. cbs.nl/
statweb/ (accessed 20 November 2011).

References
Abidin, H.Z., Andreas, H., Gumilar, I., Fukuda, Y., Pohon, Y.E., and Deguchi, T.,
2011. Land subsidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its relation with urban
development. Natural Hazards, 59 (3), 1753–1771.
Abo Sheer, B., 2010. Adaptief bouwen. Onderzoek naar bestuurlijke en procedurele
stagnaties. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Aerts, J.C.J.H., Botzen, W., Bowman, M., Ward, P.J., and Dircke P., 2011. Climate
adaptation and flood risk in coastal cities. Oxford, UK: Earthscan
Aerts, J.C.J.H., Major, D.C., Bowman, M.J., Dircke, P., Marfai, M.A., Abidin, H.Z.,
Ward, P.J., Botzen, W., Bannink, B.A., Nickson, A., and Reeder, T., 2009.
Connecting delta cities. Coastal adaptation, flood risk management and adaptation to
climate change. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU University Press.
Agrawala, S. and Van Aalst, M., 2005. Bridging the gap between climate change and
development. In: S.Agrawala, ed. Bridge over troublwaters: linking climate change
and development. Paris, France: OECD, 133–146.
Biermann, F., 2007. Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global
change research. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 17
(3), 326.
 534 P.J. Ward et al.

Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J., Carter, T.R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T., Mela, H.,
Morecroft, M.D., and Rey, D., 2010. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing
national adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change, 20 (3), 440–450.
Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., and Quang, N., 2010. Adaptive urban
governance: new challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation
strategies to climate change. Sustainability Science, 5, 185–206.
Borger, G.J., and Ligtendag, W.A., 1998. The role of water in the development of The
Netherlands a historical perspective. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 4 (2), 109–114.
BPS Jakarta. 2010. Jakarta dalam angka 2010. Jakarta, Indonesia: Badan Pusat
Statistik Propinsi DKI Jakarta.
Bucx, T., Marchand, M., Makaske, A., and Van de Guchte, C., 2010. Comparative
assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of 10 deltas – synthesis report. Delta
Alliance report number 1. Delft-Wageningen, The Netherlands: Delta Alliance
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

International.
Bulkeley, H., 2010. Cities and the governing of climate change. The Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 35, 2.1–2.25.
Caljouw, M., Nas, P.J.M., and Pratiwo, 2005. Flooding in Jakarta. Towards a blue city
with improved water management. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
(BKI), 161, 454–484.
Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L.,
and Young, O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics; governance and information
in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11 (2), 8. Available from: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ (accessed 20 November 2011).
De Haas, F., 2011. Buitendijks bouwen. Een zoektocht naar adaptiviteit in de provinciale
praktijk. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Firman, T., 2009a. The continuity and change in mega-urbanization in Indonesia: a
survey of Jakarta-Bandung Region (JBR) development. Habitat International, 33,
327–339.
Firman, T., 2009b. In search of a governance institution model for Jakarta
Metropolitan Area (JMA) under Indonesia’s new decentralisation policy: old
problems, new challenges. Public Administration and Development, 28, 280–290.
Firman, T., Surbakti, I.M., Idroes, I.C., and Simarmata, H.A., 2011. Potential climate-
change related vulnerabilities in Jakarta: challenges and current status. Habitat
International, 35, 372–378.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 441–473.
Haug, C., Rayner, T., Jordan, A., Hildingsson, R., Stripple, J., Monni, S., Huitema, D.,
Massey, E., Van Asselt, H., and Berkhout, F., 2009. Navigating the dilemmas of
climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies. Climatic Change,
101 (3–4), 427–445.
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Yalcin, R.,
2009. Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of
adaptive co-management from a governance perspective and defining a research
agenda. Ecology and Society, 14 (1), 26. Available from: http://www.ecologyandso-
ciety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/ (accessed 20 November 2011).
Huizinga, F. and Smid, B., 2004. Vier vergezichten op Nederland. Productie, arbeid en
sectorstructuur in vier scenario’s tot 2040. The Hague, The Netherlands: Centraal
Planbureau. Available from: http://www.cpb.nl/publicatie/vier-vergezichten-op-
nederland (accessed 20 November 2011).
Hulme, M. and Sheard, N., 1999. Climate change scenarios for Indonesia. Norwich, UK:
Climatic Research Unit.
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
 Environmental Politics 535

Juhola, S. and Westerhoff, L., 2011. Challenges of adaptation to climate change across
multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries.
Environmental Science and Policy, 14 (3), 239–247.
Kalweit, A.M., 2011. Meervoudig ruimtegebruik en beleidsinstrumenten. Een onderzoek
naar het stimuleren van klimaatadaptatie. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus
Universiteit Rotterdam.
Katsuhama, Y. and Grigg, N.S., 2010. Capacity building for flood management
systems: a conceptual model and case studies. Water International, 35 (6), 763–778.
KNMI. 2006. KNMI climate change scenarios 2006 for the Netherlands. KNMI Scientific
Report WR 2006-01. De Bilt, The Netherlands: KNMI.
Laquian, A.A., 2005. Metropolitan governance reform in Asia. Public Administration
and Development, 25, 307–315.
May, B., and Plummer, R., 2011. Accommodating the challenges of climate change
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

adaptation and governance in conventional risk management: adaptive collabora-

tive risk management (ACRM). Ecology and Society, 16 (1), 47. Available from:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art47/.
Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat/Ministerie van VROM, 2006. Beleidslijn Grote
Rivieren. DGW 2006/141. Den Haag.
Mostert, E., 2006. Integrated water resources management in the Netherlands: how
concepts function. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 135, 19–27.
Municipality of Rotterdam. 2007. Waterplan 2 Rotterdam. Working on water for an
attractive city. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Waterplan 2 Rotterdam.
Naess, L.O., Polack, E., and Chinsinga, B., 2011. Bridging research and policy processes
for climate change adaptation. IDS Bulletin, 42 (3), 97–103.
Neuvel, J.M.M., and Van den Brink, A., 2009. Flood risk management in Dutch local
spatial planning practices. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52,
865–880.
OECD. 2008. OECD environmental outlook to 2030. Paris, France: OECD.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L., 2007. Enhancing the fit through
adaptive co-management; creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching
scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and
Society, 12 (1), 28. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/
art28/
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate
and global change. Water Resources Management, 21 (1), 49–62.
PT Mirah Sakethi. 2010. Why are there floods in Jakarta? Flood control by the
Government of the Province of DKI Jakarta. Jakarta, Indonesia: PT Mirah Sakethi.
Raadgever, G.T., Mostert, E., Kranz, N., Interwies, E., and Timmermans, J.G., 2008.
Assessing management regimes in transboundary river basins; do they support
adaptive management? Ecology and Society, 13 (1), 14. Available from: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art14/ (accessed 20 November 2011).
Rahaman, M. and Varis, O., 2005. Integrated water resources management: evolution,
prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 1 (1), 15–21.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, S.A., and Mehrotra, S., 2010. Cities lead the way
in climate-change action. Nature, 467, 909–911.
Rukmana, D., 2010. The flawed 2030 Jakarta spatial plan. The Jakarta Post, 2 June.
Steinberg, F., 2007. Jakarta: environmental problems and sustainability. Habitat
International, 31, 354–365.
Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., Van Rijswick, H.J.F.M., Van Buuren, M.W., Huitema,
D., Meijerink, S., Rayner, T., and Wiering, M., 2011. The regional governance of
climate adaptation: a framework for developing legitimate, effective and resilient
governance arrangements. Climate Law, 2, 159–179.
Texier, P., 2008. Floods in Jakarta: when the extreme reveals daily structural constraints
and mismanagement. Disaster Management and Prevention, 17, 358–372.
 536 P.J. Ward et al.

Thynne, I., 2008. Climate change, governance and environmental services: institutional
perspectives, issues and challenges. Public Administration and Development, 28, 327–
339.
Van Asselen, S., 2011. The contribution of peat compaction to total basin subsidence:
implications for the provision of accommodation space in organic-rich deltas. Basin
Research, 23, 239–255.
Van Buuren, M.W., 2010. Kennisagenda governance van adaptatie in de stad Rotterdam.
In: J. Van Eijndhoven, ed. Samenwerkingsproject Klimaatbureau Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 100–111.
Van Buuren, M.W., Buijs, J.M., and Teisman, G., 2010a. Programme management and
the creative art of competition. Dealing with potential tensions and synergies
between projects of spatial development. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 28, 672–682.
Downloaded by [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] at 07:32 27 May 2013

Van Buuren, M.W., Driessen, P., and Teisman, G., 2010b. Klimaatbestendigheid tussen
ordening en adaptiviteit. Een kritische slotbeschouwing over de legitimiteit van
klimaatadaptatie. Beleid en Maatschappij, 37, 85–95.
Van Buuren, M.W., Driessen, P., Van Rijswick, M., Rietveld, P., Salet, W., Spit, T., and
Teisman, G., 2009. De governance van adaptatie. Bouwstenen voor een afweging-
sproces. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Van de Meulen, M.J., Van der Spek, A.J.F., De Lange, G., Gruijters, S.H.L.L., Van
Gessel, S.F., Nguyen, B.-L., Maljers, D., Schokker, J., Mulder, J.P.M., and Van der
Krogt, R.A.A., 2007. Regional sediment deficiencies in the Dutch lowlands:
implications for long-term land-use options. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 7, 9–16.
Van der Brugge, R., 2009. Transition dynamics in social-ecological systems. The case of
Dutch water management. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University
Rotterdam.
Van Koningsveld, M., Mulder, J.P.M., Stive, M.J.F., Van der Valk, L., and Van der
Weck, A.W., 2008. Living with sea-level rise and climate change: a case study of the
Netherlands. Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 367–379.
Van Nieuwaal, K., Driessen, P., Spit, T., and Termeer, C., 2009. A state of the art of
governance literature on adaptation to climate change: towards a research agenda.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 6, 362019.
Ward, P.J., Marfai, M.A., Yulianto, F., Hizbaron, D.R., and Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2011.
Coastal inundation and damage exposure estimation: a case study for Jakarta.
Natural Hazards, 56, 899–916.
Westerhoff, L., Keskitalo, E.C.H., McKay, H., Wolf, J., Ellison, D., Botetzagias, I., and
Reysset, B., 2010. Planned adaptation measures in industrialised countries: a
comparison of select countries within and outside the EU. In: E.C.H. Keskitalo, ed.
Developing adaptation policy and practice in Europe: multi-level governance of climate
change. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag, 271–332.
Wolsink, M., 2006. River basin approach and integrated water management:
governance pitfalls for the Dutch space-water-adjustment management principle.
Geoforum, 37, 473–487.
Woltjer, J. and Al, N., 2007. Integrating water management and spatial planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 73, 211–222.