116
T. Neise et al.
Third, we detected that the collaboration between state authorities, the community, civil society, and firms is only weakly developed; although formal regulations
and laws on collaborative disaster management are articulated. Thus, it is suggested
to improve law enforcement and develop a more advanced multi-level flood governance in which firms, particularly SMEs, play an active part. The interviews with
political stakeholders allow drawing the conclusion that engagement on flood adaptation is requested only by large firms because they are evaluated as profitable and are
motivated to express corporate social responsibility. The group of small enterprises
is oftentimes outside of the debate on flood governance. Hence, it is recommended
that smaller enterprises are more integrated into state programs on collective adaptation to floods. This is in line with contemporary reconfigurations of flood risk
management that emphasizes the active engagement of residents in the conceptualization of flood risk reduction measures (Tseng and Penning-Rowsell 2012). For
instance, in the United Kingdom, “Local National Partnerships” were established
that bring together interested people, organizations, and firms that seek to improve
the local adaptation to environmental hazards (Carter et al. 2015; Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2017). In this respect, small enterprises might
be recruited as local partners that execute and maintain jointly with the citizen local
adaptation measures, such as a pump house.
Fourth, we suggest public forums to strengthen the dialog between public authorities, private and state-owned investors on infrastructure, the residents, and the local
firms. These forums can enable to improve the legitimization of flood risk reduction measures provided by the governmental authorities. For instance, the eviction
policy in Jakarta demonstrates that state-led measures are designed without considering the demand of local enterprises. Hence, the flood mitigation policy, including
the relocation of inhabitants and enterprises, should consider more thoroughly the
interest of the owners of the enterprises. Public forums can facilitate the dialogue
between public authorities performing flood mitigation and the relocated residents to
ensure that they continue their business at their new location. Moreover, the efficacy
of these state-led flood mitigation projects is often limited to a small-scale range
because the investment is not synchronized with individual measures of the enterprises. Therefore, it is possible that the scarce financial resources of the governmental
and/or corporate budgets are wasted. For instance, the state-led river dredging, and
construction of pump houses is a top-down masterplan by the World Bank and the
government of DKI Jakarta. Local enterprises and residents in the affected areas
are barely included in the design. Hence, bottom-up initiatives and knowledge are
neglected to integrate (Bott and Braun 2019). Firms stated that they hardly benefit
from the masterplan of flood mitigation because, for instance, the maintenance of
the pump house is weak. Even more, they were forced to invest in elevation or one
drainage system to prevent their flood exposure.
T. Neise et al.
Third, we detected that the collaboration between state authorities, the community, civil society, and firms is only weakly developed; although formal regulations
and laws on collaborative disaster management are articulated. Thus, it is suggested
to improve law enforcement and develop a more advanced multi-level flood governance in which firms, particularly SMEs, play an active part. The interviews with
political stakeholders allow drawing the conclusion that engagement on flood adaptation is requested only by large firms because they are evaluated as profitable and are
motivated to express corporate social responsibility. The group of small enterprises
is oftentimes outside of the debate on flood governance. Hence, it is recommended
that smaller enterprises are more integrated into state programs on collective adaptation to floods. This is in line with contemporary reconfigurations of flood risk
management that emphasizes the active engagement of residents in the conceptualization of flood risk reduction measures (Tseng and Penning-Rowsell 2012). For
instance, in the United Kingdom, “Local National Partnerships” were established
that bring together interested people, organizations, and firms that seek to improve
the local adaptation to environmental hazards (Carter et al. 2015; Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2017). In this respect, small enterprises might
be recruited as local partners that execute and maintain jointly with the citizen local
adaptation measures, such as a pump house.
Fourth, we suggest public forums to strengthen the dialog between public authorities, private and state-owned investors on infrastructure, the residents, and the local
firms. These forums can enable to improve the legitimization of flood risk reduction measures provided by the governmental authorities. For instance, the eviction
policy in Jakarta demonstrates that state-led measures are designed without considering the demand of local enterprises. Hence, the flood mitigation policy, including
the relocation of inhabitants and enterprises, should consider more thoroughly the
interest of the owners of the enterprises. Public forums can facilitate the dialogue
between public authorities performing flood mitigation and the relocated residents to
ensure that they continue their business at their new location. Moreover, the efficacy
of these state-led flood mitigation projects is often limited to a small-scale range
because the investment is not synchronized with individual measures of the enterprises. Therefore, it is possible that the scarce financial resources of the governmental
and/or corporate budgets are wasted. For instance, the state-led river dredging, and
construction of pump houses is a top-down masterplan by the World Bank and the
government of DKI Jakarta. Local enterprises and residents in the affected areas
are barely included in the design. Hence, bottom-up initiatives and knowledge are
neglected to integrate (Bott and Braun 2019). Firms stated that they hardly benefit
from the masterplan of flood mitigation because, for instance, the maintenance of
the pump house is weak. Even more, they were forced to invest in elevation or one
drainage system to prevent their flood exposure.