Implementing Floodlabel

This dissertation has already illustrated how a co-evolutionary approach of actors, factors, and institutions contribute to homeowner behavior. Moreover, it has illustrated that a floodlabel should be an approach used while taking these actors, factors, and institutions into consideration. This leaves us with the final question of this research: “Does the introduction of a floodlabel contribute to flood risk governance?

And if so, what contextual conditions are conducive for the implementation of a floodlabel?” Based on the results in this dissertation, we can list and explain some clues for operationalization:

• Floodlabel as situational condition planning;

• Anchoring the floodlabel in governance;

• The role of the expert.

Floodlabel as situational condition planning

The institutional designs influence the way citizens are, or are not, involved in flood risk management. This includes the effectiveness of a floodlabel in flood risk management. In Chapter 5, differences in the perceptions of risk, the conceptualization of flood risk management, the perceptions of floods among inhabitants, the institutional organizations, the involvement of market parties (especially insurance), and the role of spatial planning all contribute to various institutional settings across the project countries. These variations make it possible to apply certain floodlabel configurations and reject others. The Netherlands, having a strongly centrally organized government-dominated flood risk management and dealing with low risks and high impacts, is far from introducing a motivating or binding label, and first needs to inform her residents about their responsibility in flood risk management. On the other hand, countries such as Belgium and Austria, which are federally organized and deal with relatively high risks and low impacts, find more windows of opportunity to experiment with motivating and binding labels. These opportunities include raising flood awareness among homeowners as pluvial floods tend to happen every now and then, as well as a more dynamic flood risk governance (Mees et al., 2018; Rauter et al., 2020).

TABLE 17: CONFIGURATIONS OF THE FLOODLABEL FOR THE NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM, AUSTRIA, AND GERMANY

The Netherlands Belgium Austria Germany

Informative Label

X X X

Region-depen-dent

Motivating Label X X

Binding Label X X

Anchoring the floodlabel in governance

Moreover, for a label to become effective, the label should become institutionalized (see Figure 32). Details might differ depending on the configuration and local contextual settings of the label. However, this generally requires education of flood risk advisors. Future education of ‘the flood risk experts’ should therefore not only focus on technical engineering, but also explicitly pay attention to tailored communication. Moreover, we cannot speak of one type of expert, but multiple. When a floodlabel institutionalizes and a new system evolves, experts as well as advisors are needed to evaluate homes and to provide a risk-based label. Moreover an industry of PLFRA measures needs to exist and become accessible for homeowners, including a workforce available to install PLFRA at home. This requires, in return, auditors that are responsible for quality checks of PLFRA on site, installing companies, and flood risk advisors. Doing so, the quality checks add value and guarantee quality for this newly developed industry of PLFRA. These quality levels can be a prerequisite for governments to provide subsidies or certain permits, and for insurers to provide reduced premiums or insurance at all.

FIGURE 32: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF FLOOD RISK EXPERTISE ON PLFRA

TOWARDS THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF FLOODLABEL: CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Returning to Flanders

Aforementioned suggestions remain somewhat abstract without applying these situationally. Returning to homeowner involvement in Flanders’ flood risk management provides additional clues on implementing floodlabel in a more situational manner. The actor-relational settings of Flanders (see figure 33)9 show a dominant focus on the actors and institutions. The contextual analysis has shown a dynamic flood risk governance, with space for actors to take up new roles and activities. Instruments such as recovery support and flood risk management strategies are developed and available.

Also, actors beyond the traditional scope of flood risk management are involved.

Currently, the Flanders Environment Agency continues with tailored expert advice in municipalities that recently experienced floods. Although new pilots have been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a third pilot to advise c. 150 households will be running in the municipalities along the brooks of Zwalmbeek and Kerkebeek in the next year. Homeowners can now subscribe for participation. This instrument is part of a larger spectrum of instruments to involve citizens in Flemish flood risk management. For example, from January 2021 on the Agency contributes information on water management to the WoningPas (in English: Home Pass). This digital tool is developed by the Flemish government and aims to visualize the qualities and areas of concern of a property and can be useful in housing transactions. The Home Pass merges various information on a property, including energy use and isolation, building history, information on accessibility and distance to facilities, and recently has information on the water management of a property. From now on, this includes the water inspection certificates and sewer inspection certificates. A supplement with information on flood risks is currently under consideration. Even the results from tailored flood risk advice could be linked to the Home Pass.

FIGURE 33: THE ACTOR-RELATIONAL SETTINGS OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE IN FLANDERS

9 An adaptation of this figure also has been published as Davids and Thaler (2021)

Indeed, this contribution to the Home Pass shows similarities with the informative configuration of the floodlabel. In fact, the Flanders Environment Agency is expanding its informing strategy, and thus retains its responsibility in flood risk management.

The information is non-binding and not explicitly motivational in its character. The instruments to involve homeowners remain limited to sermons, i.e. the Home Pass as a communicative instrument. No couplings are built, and the pass does not inter-act with other inter-actors. It forms no incentive for other inter-actors to change their behavior or even get involved in attracting homeowners, while the possibility does exist in Flanders. ‘Carrots’ and ‘sticks’ are not employed to incentivize the implementation of PLFRA measures. Even though the case study illustrated that the province and munic-ipalities of Sint-Pieters-Leeuw and Geraadsbergen are offering some form of financial compensation for the implementation of PLFRA, this remains a local initiative and is not omnipresent. Together with new informative instruments, whether that is tailored expert advice or Home Pass or a floodlabel, initiating actors (in this case the Flanders Environment Agency) should also involve municipalities and provinces actively and structurally. Moreover, to motivate homeowners, the Flanders Environment Agency should also turn to insurers and suggest a redesign of the recovery schemes: one that is not only focusing on quick recovery, but also focusing on prevention as well (e.g.

through PLFRA).