Gérard Hutter

Natural hazards and resilience: exploring institutional and organizational dimensions of social resilience

Policy discourses and academic debates provide evidence that resilience has become one of the leading ideas to deal with uncertainty and change in our times. This applies for numerous and diverse discourses such as flood risk management (Steinfuehrer et al. 2009), urban development policy (Linovski 2010; Mueller 2011), responding to terrorism (Coaffee et al. 2009), and mega-projects like the Olympic Games (Jennings and Lodge 2010), just to name a few. Resilience also appears in a diverse range of publications from institutional (Anderies et al. 2004), organizational (Weick 2009), and climate change adaptation research (Pelling 2011). While the need to build resilience is highlighted, the definitions of resilience are manifold and partially blurred. Given this diversity and accessing the more focused usage of the term ‘‘resilience’’ in ecological research, some authors worry about the health of resilience research (Klein et al. 2003; Brand and Jax 2007). Others see the growth and diversity of discourses and publications as a sign of ‘‘good’’ health (e.g., Van de Ven and Hargrave 2004, p. 291). Despite the wide range of diverse discourses and publications, this Special Issue of natural hazards aims to contribute to these debates with a specific perspective on the overall topic of resilience that might be best described with the term ‘‘social resilience.’’

Strategic Planning for Long-Term Flood Risk Management: Some Suggestions for Learning How to Make Strategy at Regional and Local Level

ABSTRACT Often, discussions about improving long-term Flood Risk Management (FRM) refer to spatial planning as one of the most promising policy instruments (non-structural measures), especially after flood disasters like in Dresden in August 2002. However, up to now, evidence is limited that spatial planning is used intensively and systematically for long-term FRM, for instance, to reduce vulnerability in flood-prone areas by controlling developments on floodplains and providing development possibilities in non-hazardous areas (Burby et al., 2000). Based on the literature on strategic spatial planning (e.g., Albrechts, 2004a; Bryson, 2004; Healey, 2007) and risk management (e.g., Klinke & Renn, 2002), this paper presents normative conclusions from case studies conducted in Dresden and London on how to use strategic planning for improving long-term FRM. The twin hazards of uncertainty and disagreement form an essential context for planninǵs ambitions of shaping the future. In practice, planners may retreat to shorter-range decisions with more limited consequences. Or they may resort to public relations devices that may gain agreement in superficial ways. Still another response is to hide behind technical analyses that are not fully shared with the public, neither revealing the true level of uncertainty nor exposing judgements to potential disagreements. Better methods are clearly desired for professional leadership regarding the future. (Myers, 2001: 365)

Learning how to deal with uncertainty of flood risk in long‐term planning

Abstract Long‐term planning in the context of Flood Risk Management (FRM) necessarily involves dealing with considerable uncertainties. In the past, there have been general doubts about the usefulness of long‐term plans as guiding frameworks for decision makers. Since the mid‐1990s, there has been a revival of long‐term planning to shape the future of European societies and cities. This revival will last in flood risk management only if the implications of dealing with uncertainty for practitioners can be specified. The paper explores learning as one reason to consider developments in the long run. It draws a distinction between exploiting what is already known and exploring what might come to be known in the future. Based upon theoretical reasoning and findings from case studies in London and Dresden, three recommendations to long‐term planners are derived to handle uncertainty in planning: (1) Balance learning to exploit a certain past and learning to explore uncertain futures, (2) Use forums for learning about uncertainties in long‐term strategies of FRM, and (3) Think of dealing with uncertainty in long‐term FRM as a social process prone to interruption, irrelevance for ongoing decision making, and post‐disaster politics.

STRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT – A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE

To manage extreme flood events like the Weisseritz flash flood within the Elbe river basin in August 2002 and their adverse impacts on people and properties, practitioners and scientists argue for a shift from the traditional paradigm of flood protection to flood risk management (Schanze 2002, DKKV 2003, Hall et al. 2003). However, developing a risk-based strategy is a difficult task. Directly after a severe flood event the need for an effective strategic approach to flood risk management is usually widely acknowledged. Nevertheless, after some time memories of the event and its causes fade and it is not easy to maintain political support for flood risk management in all relevant policy fields. As a consequence, flood risk issues are often outweighed in political and administrative decision processes (Fleming 2002) such as spatial planning (DKKV 2003). Furthermore, a strategic approach requires continuous co-operation of water authorities, local planning authorities, and regional bodies. But cooperation is costly (e.g., direct costs in terms of time, financial and human resources). Therefore, the request for a strategic approach to flood risk management does not suffice. It should be demonstrated how such an

Organizing social resilience in the context of natural hazards: a research note

Organizational scholars increasingly use the term “resilience” to analyze options of dealing with uncertain context conditions. What do these scholars have to offer to researchers in the field of natural hazards? This research note makes three suggestions. First, the research note frames social resilience—in contrast to a rigid response to radical change—as a process of broadening information-based activities, loosening formal controls, and using slack resources of organizational members. Second, the research note argues to leave the meaning of social resilience undefined at the outset of a research project with the aim of building theory about resilience. It is expected that a useful definition emerges in empirical research. Third, organizational studies highlight specific social structures and processes of social resilience, for instance, small groups of individuals in organizational and interorganizational contexts. Organizing becomes a crucial factor for dealing with natural hazards.

Resilience, Talk and Action: Exploring the Meanings of Resilience in the Context of Planning and Institutions

The meaning of the word resilience varies according to the social context. To enhance a dynamic understanding of resilience, the paper analyses its elusive character from a sensemaking perspective. Resilience is understood as a content of sensemaking processes in the context of a crisis. Four processes are explored in some detail using findings from a case study about dealing with an extreme flood event in a small town in Germany. These four processes are commitment to resilience, expecting resilience, arguing about resilience and resilience and manipulation. Implications for planning research and practice are thereby revealed.

Dealing with Surprise in Urban Regions—Some Ideas and Examples for Planners

Planners are concerned about the future, the future of cities and regions in particular. However, the future is full of surprise—at least this is what complexity science and concepts like resilience suggest. Unfortunately, planning research has not yet developed a genuine approach to surprise. The paper follows a modest ambition to further planning research with regard to surprise. It proposes a definition of “surprise”, interprets dealing with surprise as component of a commitment to resilience, and presents some ideas how to perform foresight and surprise preparation by actors that are involved in urban development. The paper then presents examples from empirical research to illustrate these ideas. The outline of a research agenda concludes the paper.

Land Use Planning for Sustainable Forestry

The planning and overall management of rural land use are widely recognized as being complex and complicated processes. The state and the dynamics of land use derive from both the natural endowment of the area under consideration and related attributes of the human society. Forest land use has not long been a particular focus of land use planning and rural development. However, increasing human populations with growing needs locally and in a global context, the transformation of forests to other land use types such as agriculture and pasture, but also for purposes of settlement, mining, technical infrastructure, etc., have resulted in efforts to forecast the sustainability of land use based on historical development, the current state and potentials. Land use practices producing results other than those expected have led to the development and implementation of various participatory approaches ahead of exclusively technocratic means of planning. Accordingly, contemporary land use planning is characterized by argumentation stemming from a combination of top-down and bottom-up procedures. Forests continue to play a secondary role relative to other rural land uses, especially agriculture and grassland. Nevertheless, a recognition of the multiple production, protection and service functions of the large proportion of forests worldwide increasingly justifies and impels the adoption of innovative concepts such as adaptive strategy development and strategic spatial planning approaches to ensure an appropriate integration of forests and their management in rural development at local, landscape and regional level.

Demographic Change: Complexity as a Challenge for Urban and Regional Development

Increasing parts of Europe have been (and will continue to be) affected by demo-graphic change that is characterised, among other things, by a deficit of births and an aging of its population. While some European countries have experienced natural growth rates up to now, populations in other countries have only increased as a result of foreign migration. And other countries – in particular the new EU Member States – have already begun to experience a decline in population. Germany’s population has been decreasing since 2003. Since then, net-migration has not been sufficient to compensate for sub-replacement fertility.