Linking adaptive and interactive governance for disaster risk reduction Annisa Triyanti, Joyeeta Gupta, and Maarten Bavinck

Department of Human Geography, Planning, and International Development, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research,

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2. Problem

3. Question and Method

Question: How can governance theories be integrated to better govern disaster risk in order to continuously cope with the threat of creeping to suddent disas-ters?

Method: Analyzing and developing the literature on AG and IG both of which are themselves based on many governance theories and approaches.

7. Adaptive and Interactive Governance

We have combined AG and IG in a conceptual framework which builds on the

strength of both (see Figure 3). Since IG looks at two systems and three actors

(government, civil society and private sector) and AG looks at the quality of re-

lations and also at three types of products—outputs, outcomes and effects, our

comprehensive AIG has four key steps:

1. Governance system

Step 1a—ACW (a): Assessing the quality of relationships in the governing sys-

tem

Step 1b—ACW (b): Assessing the quality of the output of the relationship (e.g.

policy)

2. System to be governed

Step 1c—ACW (c): Assessing the quality of outcome—i.e. policy implemen-

tation

Step 1d- ACW (d): Assessing the quality of effect on the socio ecological system.

8. Conclusion Our AIG research framework has both helped to combine the two governance

approaches and provided us with a methodology of four steps in the two sys-

tems allows us to analyse where the interactive governance system is capable of

adapting to non-linear, uncertain events including creeping to sudden disasters.

References Bavinck, M. (2005). Interactive fisheries governance: a guide to better practice. Eburon Uitgeverij BV.

Djalante, R., Holley, C., & Thomalla, F. (2011). Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2(4), 1-14.

Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., & Bergsma, E. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of

institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), 459-471.

Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance. Marine Policy, 31(4), 360-370.

Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (2005). Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries (Vol. 3). Amsterdam university press.

Kooiman, J. (2008). Exploring the concept of governability. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 10(2), 171-190.

Kooiman, J., & Bavinck, M. (2005). The governance perspective. Fish for life: Interactive governance for fisheries, 3, 11.

Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R., & Pullin, R. (2008). Interactive governance and governability: an introduction. Journal of Transdisciplinary environmental studies,

7(1), 1-11.

Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-

ecological systems. Ecology and society, 11(1), 18.

Ostrom, E. (1994). Neither market nor state: Governance of common-pool resources in the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Torfing, J. (2012). Interactive governance: advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press.

DRR governance research mostly uses the adaptive governance (AG) approach. It has scarcely engaged with interactive governance (IG). This poster assesses and combines the literature on both theories to create an adaptive interactive governance theory for application to DRR.

1. Introduction

Figure 3. Framework of interactive and adaptive governance

6. Comparative analysis

Table 1. Attributes of interactive and adaptive governance

Attributes Adaptive Governance Interactive Governance 1. Origin Rooted in ecological and expanding

to social Rooted in social and expanding to eco-

logical 2. Focus Non-linearity and uncertain problem All types of problem 3. Looks at Type and quality of governance looks at relationships and interaction

(inter and intra) between governing

system and system to be governed

IG was introduced to

explain governance

processes on socio-

ecological systems.

With its roots in public

administration. it has

been applied mostly

to fisheries manage-

ment (Torfing, 2012;

Bavinck, 2005;

Kooiman and Bavinck,

2005; Kooiman, 2008;

Jentoft, 2007;

Kooiman et al, 2008).

IG focuses on the interaction (inter and intra) between (a) the governance sys-

tem and (b) the system to be governed (See Figure 2). It examines the capaci-

ty to govern (governability).

Figure 2. Concept of interactive Governance. Source: Kooiman (2008). Pp 174

5. Interactive Governance (IG)

4. Adaptive Governance (AG)

AG address uncertain and

non-linear changes in the

dynamic socio-ecological

system including creeping

and sudden disasters. It

calls for social learning,

polycentric institutional

arrangements (Ostrom,

1994), leadership and

aims at transformation

(Olsson et al., 2006). The

quality of AG can be as-

sessed through an Adap-

tive Capacity Wheel

(ACW) with 6 parameters and 22 indicators measured through traffic light col-

ours—where green is good and red is poor (see Fig. 1 and 3). AG can be ap-

plied to disaster risk reduction (Djalante et al., 2011). Elements from Olsson et

al., (2006) and Djalante et al., (2011) can be used to improve the ACW.

In the Anthropocene, risk of creeping to sudden disasters are growing

Multiple governance theories have yet to be integrated

Figure 1. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel. Source: Gupta et al (2010) Pp. 10