From ‘Flood Defence’ to ‘Flood Risk Management’: Exploring Governance, Responsibility, and Blame

Abstract

Introduction For the UK, and particularly England, a shift in approach to flood governance has been gaining momentum since the early 1990s, broadly marked by a move from`flood defence' to`flood risk management' (FRM). At a general level, notions of controlling and defending against floods have given way to discourses which suggest we should make space for water' (DEFRA, 2005). This entails greater emphasis on soft engineering approaches and more strategies that work with natural processes, land-use planning, and flood abatement techniques such as reforestation (DEFRA, 2005; Tunstall, et al, 2004). In this emergent context, delivery of government policy is to be achieved through guiding the conduct of citizens, private enterprise, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and other governance agencies at arms length from central government [eg the Environment Agency (EA)]. These contemporary changes in flood policy are by now well documented and have been subject to prior research and discussion (Johnson and Priest, 2008; Tunstall et al, 2004). While previous analyses have provided important insights into the processes of change in English FRM, we develop an interpretation of these processes of change in terms of deeper shifts in political rationalities (see also Pidgeon and Butler, 2009). Some of the newly advocated approaches to the structural management of flood risk can be seen as having been developed in response to concerns about sustainability, but this is not necessarily true of modes of delivery (although these are not easily separated out). Instead, the changing approach to the delivery of government objectives, in particular through noncoercive guidance of citizen and organisational conduct, can be seen as correspondent with a wider set of shifts in political governmentality that some have termed`advanced liberal' (Rose, 1996). Rose designates advanced liberal democracies, such as the UK, as seeking particular forms of rule or techniques of government:

Participatory and collaborative governance for sustainable flood risk management: An emerging research agenda

“…Stakeholder affectedness is arguably more direct than in many other environmental policy fields, as floods pose a direct threat to property, economic activity, and human life. As the risk-based management paradigm entails the social accommodation of flood risk at the community level, and a redistribution of responsibilities away from centralised authorities (Butler & Pidgeon 2011;Johnson & Priest 2008;Thaler & Priest 2014), it implies a need for concerted engagement with and participation by different stakeholdersboth to raise awareness and capacity to confront flood hazards, and to arrive at locally accepted FRM interventions. As appropriate and acceptable levels of flood risk must be negotiated and determined at more localised scales, it would seem to make sense that rather localised participatory planning processes can best incorporate lay-local knowledge, represent community interests, provide relevant information, and develop plans that fit local context and community priorities.…”

Specifying risk management standard for flood risk assessment: a framework for resources allocation

“…The second challenge is related to the stakeholders' (e.g. lay people's) perception [22] and "preferences for risk assessment indicators and assessment deliverables" [23], public participation [24] in decision making process [25] instead of "technocratic approach" [26], as well as policy of differing conceptual approaches to risk [27,28]. Those two points imply the necessity to see to what extent the flood risk assessment framework can be implemented in a scope isolation of this study.…”

“We cannot let this happen again”: reversing UK flood policy in response to the Somerset Levels floods, 2014

“…These different roles are laid out more clearly in Defra's most recent flood strategy: Making Space for Water (2005), and were re-emphasized in reviews following major UK floods in 2007 (Pitt 2008) Local Flood Authorities (LLFA), district/borough councils, and water and sewage service providers are increasingly responsible for assessing and managing flood risk locally (Begg et al 2015;Butler & Pidgeon 2011). At the local level, LLFAs such as the Somerset County Council are required to "develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management", investigate local flooding incidents, and assess the costs and benefits of new measures and importantly how they will be paid for (Trafford Council 2014).…”