Speaker
Description
In recent years, climate change has exacerbated pluvial flooding, and consequently, flood risk management has become a key priority for our cities and society (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). A paradigm shift from resistance to resilience-focused strategies is emerging, emphasising the need for cities to 'bounce forward' to new equilibria rather than returning to pre-flood normality (Hegger et al., 2016). This requires a shift from modernist, blueprint-based planning, which views space as static, to adaptive approaches that recognise cities as dynamic, complex systems (Davoudi, 2021). Adaptive planning links flows of resources, people and knowledge, and searching for novel practices. It prepares cities for uncertainty by treating space as a relational, socially constructed entity.
The two concepts of resilience and adaptive planning have long been discussed in the literature (Kato & Ahern, 2008; McClymont et al., 2020), however, little is known on practical approaches. For this reason, the aim of this study is threefold: (i) analysing how spatial strategies and plans have promoted resilient flood management strategies; (ii) examining whether current planning practices still apply a blueprint form of planning or have moved towards updated forms of adaptive planning; (iii) analysing the outcomes of local planning approaches including planning tools, stakeholder involvement, knowledge production, as well as related contextual conditions that enable or constrain those approaches.
The study uses a comparative case study approach by analysing Oslo (Norway), and Copenhagen (Denmark). The two capital cities are chosen considering their vulnerability to cloudburst events and extensive experience in resilient flood management. Qualitative data are collected through the analysis of nine spatial planning documents (that include the municipal master plans, stormwater/cloudburst strategies, and action plans) and ten interviews with key stakeholders, including municipal officials, professionals and academics (that were conducted between March and November 2024). Thematic content analysis is applied, with analytical codes aligned with the study's objectives.
Results show that, in both cities, spatial strategies and plans provide a framework to support resilient flood management practices. Nonetheless, the two cities have two very different approaches to planning for flood management. Oslo model is based on a conceptual framework, the Stormwater 3-Step Strategy, which horizontally integrates all planning tools related to stormwater management. This horizontal integration is reflected in the strong cooperation between different municipal agencies and in the role assigned to private initiatives. For this reason, the knowledge produced has an important communicative role. On the contrary, Copenhagen model is based on a spatial framework, the Cloudburst Plan, which identifies the physical measures to mitigate flooding. This spatial framework has been able to specify a programme of interventions that provide a top-down control of urban transformations (e.g., green streets, retention areas). The Cloudburst Plan consists of an expert-driven process in which several scenarios have been evaluated through a cost-benefit analysis. The findings reveal that this process has been able to achieve its objectives and promote a change in the way rainwater is managed throughout the city.
Furthermore, the study highlights the crucial role of spatial planning in supporting resilient flood management and coordinating policies and stakeholders. Contextual conditions significantly shape local planning approaches. To specify, in Oslo, since 2016, financial, regulatory and organisational constraints have led the municipality to take a steering role that relies on private initiatives guided by local norms. In Copenhagen, since the 2011 flood and the consequent political pressure, local and national reforms have empowered the municipality to implement measures directly.
The study contributes to the discourse on resilience and adaptive planning by bridging theory and practice. Adaptive planning needs to integrate technical evidence to inform decision making with adaptive processes to pragmatically address and learn from emerging challenges.
References
Davoudi, S. (2021). Resilience, Uncertainty, and Adaptive Planning. In E. Peker & A. Ataöv (Eds.), Governance of Climate Responsive Cities (pp. 9–19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73399-5_2
Hegger, D. L. T., Driessen, P. P. J., Wiering, M., Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Matczak, P., Crabbé, A., Raadgever, G. T., Bakker, M. H. N., Priest, S. J., Larrue, C., & Ek, K. (2016). Toward more flood resilience: Is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward? Ecology and Society, 21(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08854-210452
Kato, S., & Ahern, J. (2008). ‘Learning by doing’: Adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802117028
McClymont, K., Morrison, D., Beevers, L., & Carmen, E. (2020). Flood resilience: A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(7), 1151–1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1641474
Rosenzweig, B. R., McPhillips, L., Chang, H., Cheng, C., Welty, C., Matsler, M., Iwaniec, D., & Davidson, C. I. (2018). Pluvial flood risk and opportunities for resilience. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 5(6). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1302
| Keywords | Flood Management; Adaptive Planning; Urban Resilience; Spatial Planning; Case Study |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
