 Your paper is a fascinating account of initiatives in two Indonesian cities to reduce flooding, especially for those on the riverbank. Could you tell us a little bit about these two cases? We have one initiative which is in the city of Solo in central Java and this is a city which has regular flooding every year in which many of the riverbank communities are affected. And what the government did though during the term of the mayor, Joko Widodo, who has actually now become the president of Indonesia, initiated a series of dialogues to talk with the riverbank settlers about solutions and alternatives with the idea of being able to move people away from danger. And so through this process they were able to offer compensation for them to move but allowed that community to take decisions on their own. In the other case in the city of Surabaya, which is the second largest city in Indonesia, we had a case which started off very well. There was engagement between the community and they negotiated a possible alternative where instead of being relocated they could move back their houses three to five meters to be able to create an access road and also restore some of the river edge. However, what we saw was that over time conflicts between different jurisdictions of government, the provincial and the city government meant that there was a breakdown and there was miscommunication and in the end there has been no resolution. And so the community is still living in this sort of state of vulnerability without a solution. In the case of solo, why did so many households choose to move away from the flooded zones? Flooding is something that happens regularly. So I think that the community there knew that they were living in vulnerability but they were given options or they were engaged with government about finding a solution. So I think what's important there was that they were able to enter a dialogue. The government was able to offer them things that would reduce their vulnerability but also reduce some of their social and economic vulnerability. So they were offered to legalize their tenure in their new locations. They were able to, by becoming legal citizens, this is another part, component of that, they could then access a lot of the city services and social welfare. So I think an important component of why the community moved is because they saw that it was a better, you know, the best solution for them. Are there some general lessons we can draw from these two case studies in regard to relocation? There's no one-size-fits-all solution and the ability for the government to, in both cases, actually to offer sort of a flexible process which created a number of, you know, flexible solutions that, you know, would work for the government and could work for the community because, you know, it's going to depend on the context. Understanding that there are social and economic vulnerability issues on top of the, you know, the physical vulnerability and if policies can include components or have a sort of multi-dimensional sensitivity to that, I think that that's a very important thing. Civil society, when they engage, they're organized, they have ideas, they can put forward proposals and that the strength of that community, the way that they engage with government is very important. In these cases, how can urban policies contribute to building resilience for communities at risk from flooding? Urban policies are very important. The process through which policies are implemented is more important. The way in the solo and even in the Surabaya case where there was a commitment to participation, to working together with residents and listening to their needs, that process of developing the policy I think is what we call good governance.