{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03407682775712516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019206939281288724, 'mean_word_length': 5.383399209486166, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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)