Climate change and continuous urbanization contribute to an increased urban vulnerability towards flooding. Only relying on traditional flood control measures is recognized as inadequate, since the damage can be catastrophic if flood controls fail. The idea of a flood-resilient city – one which can withstand or adapt to a flood event without being harmed in its functionality – seems promising. But what does resilience actually mean when it is applied to urban environments exposed to flood risk, and how can resilience be achieved? This paper presents a heuristic framework for assessing the flood resilience of cities, for scientists and policy-makers alike. It enriches the current literature on flood resilience by clarifying the meaning of its three key characteristics – robustness, adaptability and transformability – and identifying important components to implement resilience strategies. The resilience discussion moves a step forward, from predominantly defining resilience to generating insight into “doing” resilience in practice. The framework is illustrated with two case studies from Hamburg, showing that resilience, and particularly the underlying notions of adaptability and transformability, first and foremost require further capacity-building among public as well as private stakeholders. The case studies suggest that flood resilience is currently not enough motivation to move from traditional to more resilient flood protection schemes in practice; rather, it needs to be integrated into a bigger urban agenda.

Coping with the growing impacts of flooding in EU countries, a paradigm shift in flood management can be observed, moving from safety‐based towards risk‐based approaches and holistic perspectives. Flood resilience is a common denominator of most of the approaches. In this article, we present the ‘Flood Resilience Rose’ (FRR), a management tool to promote harmonised action towards flood resilience in European regions and beyond. The FRR is a result of a two‐step process. First, based on scientific concepts as well as analysis of relevant policy documents, we identified three ‘levels of operation’. The first level refers to the EU Floods Directive and an extended multi‐layer safety approach, comprising the four different layers of protection, prevention, preparedness and recovery, and related measures to be taken. This level is not independent but depends both on the institutional (second level) and the wider (third level) context. Second, we used surveys, semi‐structured interviews and group discussions during workshops with experts from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to validate the definitions and the FRR's practical relevance. The presented FRR is thus the result of rigorous theoretical and practical consideration and provides a tool capable to strengthen flood risk management practice.

Online knowledge-sharing platforms could potentially contribute to an accelerated climate adaptation by promoting more green and blue spaces in urban areas. The implementation of small-scale nature-based solutions (NBS) such as bio(swales), green roofs, and green walls requires the involvement and enthusiasm of multiple stakeholders. This paper discusses how online citizen science platforms can stimulate stakeholder engagement and promote NBS, which is illustrated with the case of ClimateScan. Three main concerns related to online platforms are addressed: the period of relevance of the platform, the lack of knowledge about the inclusiveness and characteristics of the contributors, and the ability of sustaining a well-functioning community with limited resources. ClimateScan has adopted a “bottom–up” approach in which users have much freedom to create and update content. Within six years, this has resulted in an illustrated map with over 5000 NBS projects around the globe and an average of more than 100 visitors a day. However, points of concern are identified regarding the data quality and the aspect of community-building. Although the numbers of users are rising, only a few users have remained involved. Learning from these remaining top users and their motivations, we draw general lessons and make suggestions for stimulating long-term engagement on online knowledge-sharing platforms.

Triggered by recent flood catastrophes and increasing concerns about climate change, scientists as well as policy-makers increasingly call for making long-term water policies to enable a transformation towards flood resilience. A key question is how to make these long-term policies adaptive so that they are able to deal with uncertainties and changing circumstances. The paper proposes three conditions for making long-term water policies adaptive, which are then used to evaluate a new Dutch water policy approach called ‘Adaptive Delta Management’. Analysing this national policy approach and its translation to the Rotterdam region reveals that Dutch policy-makers are torn between adaptability and the urge to control. Reflecting on this dilemma, the paper suggests a stronger focus on monitoring and learning to strengthen the adaptability of long-term water policies. Moreover, increasing the adaptive capacity of society also requires a stronger engagement with local stakeholders including citizens and businesses.

Resilience is held as a promising concept to produce a paradigm shift from traditional flood control to an integration of flood risk management and spatial planning. Central ideas to the resilience narrative are that ‘nothing is certain except uncertainty itself’ and ‘adaptability’ is key to ‘governing the unknown’. However, this terminology is far from clear, yet increasingly used, which raises the question how it is made sense of in practice. To answer this question, we examine two long-term flood risk management strategies in the London and Rotterdam region with a policy framing perspective (i.e. the English Thames Estuary 2100 Plan and the Dutch Delta Programme). In both strategies, uncertainties are a key concern, leading to adaptive strategic plans. Reconstructing the framing processes shows that the English adopted a ‘scientific pragmatism’ frame and the Dutch a ‘joint fact-finding’ frame. While this led to different governance approaches, there are also striking parallels. Both cases use established methods such as scenario planning and monitoring to ‘manage’ uncertainties. Similarly to previous turns in flood risk management, the resilience narrative seems to be accommodated in a technical-rational way, resulting in policy strategies that are maintaining the status quo rather than bringing about a paradigm shift.

This article presents a case study on the implementation of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan in the Royal Docks, a regeneration project in the East of London. On paper, the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan advances the shift from traditional flood control to flood resilience, because of its long-term horizon, estuary-wide approach, and emphasis on floodplain management. In practice, however, we identify three frictions between vision and reality: a lack of local ownership of the plan, a lack of clear guidance for floodplain management, and limited capacities with local authority. These frictions suggest an ongoing ‘public-public divide’ in decentralized governance.