Copyright © 2016 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Van Buuren, A., G. J. Ellen, and J. F. Warner. 2016. Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecology and Society 21(4):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08765-210443 Research, part of a Special Feature on Toward More Resilient Flood Risk Governance Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Arwin van Buuren 1 , Gerald Jan Ellen 2 and Jeroen F. Warner 3 ABSTRACT. Dutch flood management policy was for a long time dominated by a protection-oriented approach. However, in the last 10 years a more risk-oriented approach has gained ground, denoted by the introduction of the concept of multilayered safety in 2009 in the National Water Plan. Since then, the dominant policy coalition focusing on resistance has found itself competing with a growing community that emphasizes the importance of resilience. In this paper we analyze the process of policy learning in Dutch flood risk management toward a more resilient paradigm, and the resulting outcomes in terms of regime change and stability. To understand the actual degree of change we unpack the mechanisms of path dependency characterizing the current flood policy regime and how they influence the impact of policy learning in terms of regime change. We conclude that specific mechanisms of path dependency, for example, the existing power asymmetries between competing coalitions and the intricate complexity of flood policies, prevent institutional change, but cannot prevent ideas about resilience slowly gaining more impact. Key Words: flood risk management; institutional change; path dependency; policy learning; resilience INTRODUCTION: EXPLAINING GRADUAL CHANGE IN DUTCH FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT The Netherlands is well known for its long history of flood defence (Mostert 2006, Verkerk and Van Buuren 2013). The Dutch government reacted upon the large flooding of 1953 with a huge program of structural measures to improve flood protection. It also introduced elaborate flood protection standards, embedded in national law and regulations. The leading approach in flood risk management well into the 1990s, then, was to focus on structural defenses to prevent the country from flooding (Vis et al. 2003). Many authors have stressed the continuity in the Dutch flood management approach, labeling it as institutional inertia (Van den Brink and Meijerink 2006), only “discursive shifts” (Wiering and Arts 2006), regime stability (Van Buuren et al. 2015a), or path dependency because of past investments in structural defence infrastructure (Hegger et al. 2016). However, after two near-flood events in 1993 and 1995 and growing political priority given to landscape values, ecology, and nature restoration, land-use planning found its way back onto the flood risk management policy agenda (Immink 2007, Pols et al. 2007, Warner et al. 2013), and resulted in the “Room for the River” program in 2000. Although still controversial, this latter aspect has gained momentum in Dutch water policy. The Dutch National Water Plan (Ministry of Public Transport and Water 2009) introduced multilayer safety as a flood policy framework. Multilayer safety (MLS) combines measures at the three “layers” of flood risk management: flood defence, spatial planning and disaster, and crisis management. There are thus signs that the Dutch flood risk system, in spite of its path dependency, is gradually changing. This would seem to be the result of policy learning as the limits of the traditional approach become more and more visible (higher costs, growing implementation problems) and the potential consequences of climate change such as sea-level rise and higher river discharges are promoted up the political agenda. The current system of flood risk management shows many technical, cultural, financial, and institutional characteristics of path dependency. That not only makes policy learning highly difficult, but especially hinders making the step from learning to change or even system transformation (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). Path dependency seems particularly entrenched in the Dutch flood policy domain. But until now we did not know how this path dependency has impacted upon processes of learning and change. This is also a highly relevant theoretical puzzle: how to combine ideas about stability and change and how to understand the role of path dependency, a concept that is often accused of being unable to explain change, when studying policy dynamics (Kay 2005, Peters et al. 2005, Howlett and Cashore 2009). In this paper we analyze the gradual policy shift in Dutch flood risk management toward a more resilient paradigm, and the resulting outcomes in terms of regime change and stability (Wison 2000). To understand the actual degree of change we unpack the mechanisms of path dependency characterizing the current flood policy regime and how they influence the impact of policy learning in terms of regime change. TOWARD MORE RESILIENCE IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT Resilience is the ability to deal with the unexpected, when hazard turns into danger, and to resist its effects (Wildavsky 1985). It is to accept that a system cannot be fail-safe; it is to accept manageable risks to make a system “safe-fail.” Introducing the concept of resilience in a certain policy domain will “require new forms of human behaviour with a shift in perspective from the aspiration to control change in systems, assumed to be stable, to sustain and generate desirable pathways for societal development in the face of increased frequency of abrupt change” (Folke et al. 2005:443). There are many different definitions and interpretations of the concept of resilience (Brand and Jax 2007). For the purpose of this article, we see merit in a more constructivist approach of resilience to take into account more relational and institutional issues that play a role in building resilience, like learning and path 1 Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2 Deltares, The Netherlands, 3 Wageningen University