Flood risk of all types of flooding is projected to increase based on climate change projections and increases in damage potential. These challenges are likely to aggravate issues of justice in flood risk management (hereafter FRM). Based on a discursive institutionalist perspective, this paper explores justice in Dutch FRM: how do institutions allocate the responsibilities and costs for FRM for different types of flooding? What are the underlying conceptions of justice? What are the future challenges with regard to climate change? The research revealed that a dichotomy is visible in the Dutch approach to FRM: despite an abundance of rules, regulations and resources spent, flood risk or its management is only marginally discussed in terms of justice. Despite that, the current institutional arrangement has material outcomes that treat particular groups of citizens differently, depending on the type of flooding they are prone to, area they live in (unembanked/embanked) or category of user (e.g. household, industry, farmer). The paper argues that the debate on justice will (re)emerge, since the differences in distributional outcomes are likely to become increasingly uneven as a result of increasing flood risk. The Netherlands should be prepared for this debate by generating the relevant facts and figures. An inclusive debate on the distribution of burdens of FRM could contribute to more effective and legitimate FRM.

中文翻译：

---

不容忽视的正义问题：荷兰洪水风险管理中的沉默言论。

根据气候变化预测，各种洪水的洪水风险预计都会增加，潜在破坏力也会增加。这些挑战可能会加剧洪水风险管理（以下简称FRM）中的正义问题。本文基于话语制度主义的观点，探讨了荷兰FRM中的正义：各机构如何为不同类型的洪水分配FRM的责任和成本？正义的基本概念是什么？气候变化的未来挑战是什么？研究表明，在荷兰的FRM方法中，二分法是显而易见的：尽管有大量的规则，法规和花费的资源，但洪水风险或其管理只是在正义方面进行了少量讨论。尽管那样，当前的制度安排具有物质结果，根据洪水的种类，所居住的地区（非银行/堤岸）或用户类别（例如家庭，行业，农民）的不同，对特定人群的待遇也有所不同。该论文认为，关于司法的辩论将会（重新）出现，因为随着洪水风险的增加，分配结果的差异可能会变得越来越不平衡。荷兰应通过提供有关事实和数据为这次辩论做好准备。关于FRM负担分配的包容性辩论可能有助于建立更有效和合法的FRM。该论文认为，关于司法的辩论将会（重新）出现，因为随着洪水风险的增加，分配结果的差异可能会变得越来越不平衡。荷兰应通过提供有关事实和数据为这次辩论做好准备。关于FRM负担分配的包容性辩论可能有助于建立更有效和合法的FRM。该论文认为，关于司法的辩论将会（重新）出现，因为随着洪水风险的增加，分配结果的差异可能会变得越来越不平衡。荷兰应通过提供有关事实和数据为这次辩论做好准备。关于FRM负担分配的包容性辩论可能有助于建立更有效和合法的FRM。