Layer 3- Emergency response

Table 1: Comparison of flood risk governance arrangements (FRGAs), adapted from Matzcak et al., 2016:72, completed for Germany and Denmark by using Buijs et al., 2018.

Characteristics of governance	Belgium	Germany	Denmark	the Netherlands	United Kingdom
Diversification & dominance	Moderately diversified, defence still important	High diversified, focus on defence	Highly diversified, focus on defence	Low diversification, defence dominant	Highly diversified, quite balanced
Multi-sector	Water sector and spatial planning gaining equal importance; water sector still important	Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning	Multi-sector involvement (landowners and farmers have a say; landowners do not pay)	Water sector dominant	Multi-sector involvement & integrated by spatial planning
Multi-actor	Public (state dominant)	Public (state and federal states) dominant	Public & private	Public (state dominant)	Public & private
Multi-level	Decentralised, tendency towards centralisation	Central guidance & decentralization to federal state & local level	Central guidance & ongoing decentralization to local level	Both central and regional level	Central and local level

Referenties

• Etkin 2016, Etkin, D., 1 januari 2016.

Hier wordt aan gewerkt of naar verwezen door: Adaptive planning, Community resilience, Critical infrastructure, Flood proof design and planning, Layer 3- Preparedness and response, Natural flood management, Preparedness and emergency planning, Recovery learning