During a disaster or crisis, the response capacity of the government is put under extreme pressure. At the same time, citizens are often resilient in times of crisis and are increasingly capable of organizing themselves. Social media and online platforms have increased the possibilities for self-organization through improved connectivity. In practice, we see that governments struggle to deal with this form of self-organization, while it also offers a unique opportunity to increase the response capacity. The smart use of citizens’ initiatives offers opportunities and can increase the effectiveness of the government’s action. This article focuses on the following question: what role do online platforms play in smartly guiding the self-organization of citizens during crises and disasters? We answer the question on the basis of two examples: the role of online platforms in the aftermath of the earthquakes in Nepal in 2015, and the coordination of the reception of refugees during the crisis in the Netherlands in the winter of 2015-2016.

The crowd increasingly plays a key role in facilitating innovations in a variety of sectors, spurred on by IT-developments and the concomitant increase in connectivity. Initiatives in this direction, captured under the umbrella-term ‘crowd-based innovations’, offer novel opportunities in socio-technical systems by increasing the access, reach and speed of services. At the same time, they signify important challenges because these innovations occur in a context of traditional, well-established institutional and governance structures and practices. This dynamic is captured in the idea of the ‘institutional void’: the tension between traditional structures and (radically) new initiatives. Existing rules, standards and practices are challenged, which raises questions about the safeguarding of public values such as quality, legitimacy, efficiency and governance of crowd-based innovations. This article argues that understanding these tensions requires supplementing empirical research with an explicitly normative dimension to reach thorough and balanced conclusions to facilitate innovation while protecting the valuable elements in existing rules and regulations. Illustrated by a number of short examples, we propose a multidisciplinary research agenda towards formulating appropriate governance structures.

In The Netherlands an innovative water safety policy is under development: multi-layered safety. This innovation is a move from a preventive approach (levees) towards a risk approach. Mitigation of consequences for spatial measures and disaster management too are considered in reducing flood risks. The theory of path dependence teaches us that many technical, financial and institutional factors keep the current policy system in its equilibrium. This complicates policy innovations. This article contains a case study that explains how pilots contribute to a process of policy innovation. It concludes that enshrining results in the ‘home organizations’ and synchronizing pilots with running policy processes is essential. The pilots also show that policy renewal concerns a process of ‘muddling through intelligently’.

Problems with the rivers were the incentive to change Dutch flood safety policy in 2000. ‘A different approach to water’ became the new policy slogan. Government presumes that public engagement in decision-making on flood safety will lead to more water awareness and risk aware behaviour. ‘No or hardly any negative side-effects’ are expected from this strategy. However, our research shows that public engagement in flood safety decision-making leads to fierce policy contestation, since proposed solutions do not meet the safety perception of local citizens. ‘A different approach to water’ strategy does not resonate in Dutch society because most people are convinced that government guarantees water safety. In this article we explain that this so-called ‘myth of water safety’ is based on a deep frame of risk control. We argue that flood safety needs to be reframed and that a new frame should be based on acceptance of vulnerability instead of risk control.