Legitimation of flood management

The legitimacy of a governing system is at risk when actors leave projects angry, disappointed or disillusioned. Unfortunately this is a common phenomenon. Legitimacy is defined as the reputation of a governing system that it is justifiable and (therefore) authoritative. It is generally assumed that when legitimacy is lacking implementing and enforcing policies becomes more difficult. It is unknown to what extent policy makers can contribute themselves to safeguarding the policy sector’s legitimacy. Too little is known on how legitimacy develops, for instance in flood management. Therefore this research studies the question: “how is flood management currently legitimated?” This research focuses specifically on the interplay between flood management projects and the legitimation of the flood management sector. This research addressed four shortcomings in current legitimacy research, both theoretically and empirically. First, much legitimacy research has focused on the legitimacy of a specific aspect of the governing system, rather than on the legitimacy of the whole system. Second, much research has been focused on legitimation in governing systems with a “government” structure, rather than governing systems with a governance structure. Third, much legitimacy research has not taken into account the interplay between different levels of policy making. Fourth, much empirical research on legitimacy has not distinguished clearly between the legitimacy of the governing system and the support of individual actors for the governing system.. To address these shortcomings, this research developed a legitimation framework. This framework was tested in two cases of urban flood management projects, the Oxford flood risk management strategy and the Nijmegen-Lent dike relocation, using a mix of qualitative methods. Based on the findings of this research some conclusions and guidelines have been formulated on how policy makers can take legitimacy into account in flood management projects