From risk knowledge to action: A systematic review and evidence map of institutionalization deficits in non-structural urban flood risk reduction

This study applies an a priori scaffold of eight institutionalisation pathways and a cross-cutting coordination pathway to develop an institutionalisation-deficit framework. Urban flood-risk research has generated extensive knowledge on non-structural and hybrid measures. Turning this knowledge into enforceable and durable action depends on institutionalisation. Studies address components of this process, but less often examine how these components connect risk knowledge with implementation. Development control is coded as an authorization-and-enforcement pathway. A function was considered specified only when a study identified an actor, authority, instrument, procedure, resource arrangement, or safeguard. Following PRISMA 2020, with PRISMA-S-informed search reporting, we used a two-stage review that combined a systematic evidence map of 4253 records with a configurative synthesis of 138 full-text studies.

Six recurring deficit types emerged, each representing a breakpoint: knowledge without binding rules; plans without enforceable controls; infrastructure without maintenance responsibility; governance without a decision mandate; adaptation without finance or redistribution; and vulnerability analysis without equity safeguards. The redistribution deficit was most prevalent (63.8%). Development control was specified in 7.6% of studies coding risk information and 12.2% of those coding statutory planning. Only three studies specified an operational compensation or retreat arrangement. North's formal-rule perspective informed rule and enforcement gaps; Ostrom's operational and collective-choice rules informed responsibility and authority gaps; and Mahoney and Thelen's layering and drift informed interpretations of redistribution and equity gaps. The framework provides a reproducible diagnostic of the knowledge-to-action gap for research and pre-implementation review.