New social directions in <scp>UK</scp> flood risk management: moving towards flood risk citizenship?

Nye, Michael; Tapsell, Sue M.; Twigger-Ross, Clare

doi:10.1111/j.1753-318x.2011.01114.x

Cited by 86 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some have attributed the interest of public authorities to involve the public in policy delivery to the neoliberalist ideal of "self-reliance," which is particularly evident in resilience agendas in public policy (Davoudi 2012, MacKinnon andDriscoll Derickson 2013). Nye et al (2011), for instance, observe how responsibilities for FRM are shifting back to the community scale in England in an attempt to enhance self-reliance and empower local communities to become more resilient to flood risk. However, comprehensive studies, e.g., through comparative cross-country research, are noticeably lacking in this field.…”

Section: The Rationales Behind Coproductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the involvement of civil society in FRM decision making has been widely analyzed (e.g., Tippett 2005, Petts 2007, Koontz 2014, OECD 2015, this is less so for citizen engagement in the implementation of FRM, e.g., the installment of PLP measures. Only a limited number of authors in the general public participation literature consider this phase in their analysis (e.g., Macnaghten and Jacobs 1997, White et al 2010, Nye et al 2011, OECD 2015.…”

Section: Coproducing Flood Risk Management Through the Inclusion Of Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many European countries, a shift can been seen from a flood defense-dominated approach focused on reducing the probability of flooding toward a holistic risk-based approach (Meijerink and Dicke 2008, Nye et al 2011, Hildén et al 2012, Kellens et al 2013. Flood risk management (FRM) encourages the use of measures that aim to reduce both the probability and the consequences of flooding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Mees¹,

Crabbé²,

Alexander³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Across Europe, citizens are increasingly expected to participate in the implementation of flood risk management (FRM), by engaging in voluntary-based activities to enhance preparedness, implementing property-level measures, and so forth. Although citizen participation in FRM decision making is widely addressed in academic literature, citizens' involvement in the delivery of FRM measures is comparatively understudied. Drawing from public administration literature, we adopted the notion of "coproduction" as an analytical framework for studying the interaction between citizens and public authorities, from the decision-making process through to the implementation of FRM in practice. We considered to what extent coproduction is evident in selected European Union (EU) member states, drawing from research conducted within the EU project STAR-FLOOD (Strengthening and Redesigning European Flood Risk Practices towards Appropriate and Resilient Flood Risk Governance Arrangements). On the basis of a cross-country comparison between Flanders (Belgium), England (United Kingdom), France, the Netherlands, and Poland, we have highlighted the varied forms of coproduction and reflected on how these have been established within divergent settings. Coproduction is most prominent in discourse and practice in England and is emergent in France and Flanders. By contrast, FRM in the Netherlands and Poland remains almost exclusively reliant on governmental protection measures and thereby consultation-based forms of coproduction. Analysis revealed how these actions are motivated by different underlying rationales, which in turn shape the type of approaches and degree of institutionalization of coproduction. In the Netherlands, coproduction is primarily encouraged to increase societal resilience, whereas public authorities in the other countries also use it to improve cost-efficiency and redistribute responsibilities to its beneficiaries.

show abstract

Section: The Rationales Behind Coproductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coproducing Flood Risk Management Through the Inclusion Of Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Mees¹,

Crabbé²,

Alexander³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, the local actors have to take part in the discussion process. The co-management approach between the national and the local actors moved from a consultative towards more a co-operation approach [22,23]. Thus, the local actors have become more responsible and active in the flood risk management discussion, especially in the design of the new defence scheme.…”

Section: Incentives For Local Contributorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partnership Funding in flood risk management: multi-level stakeholder engagement – a question of roles and power

Thale

Priest

2016

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper examines the new flood risk policy discussion in England and Wales. The summer floods in England in 2007 caused large damages to the environment, economy and humanity. Following this key flood event, the Government has started to redefine the national flood and coastal risk management policy in England and Wales. The key issue in the new policy agenda is to encourage the responsibilities of local authorities and reduce the central role of flood risk management. This decentralisation in flood risk management has a series of consequences in the development of new governance structures. The main reason for this shift from central to local level is the belief that local authorities deal with public administration tasks in a more efficient way. Nevertheless, the main problem is the gap between the delegated tasks and the lack of transfer of resources, especially the issue concerning funding is still unclear and unresolved. This constraint will go with fiscal and administration cuts. The consequences will be (1) µKROORZLQJ RXW ¶ RI WKH *RYHUQPHQW ZLWK WKH GRZQVFDOLQJ RI WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WRZDUGV ORFDO DFWRUV DQG ZLWKRXW proportional transfer of resources to local authorities they will not be able to deal with new tasks. Therefore, in practice there are many limitations, barriers and concerns with the new policy direction.

show abstract

“…Veelen et al 2015). From a social science perspective, some authors have highlighted the technocratic paradigm that has long pervaded flood management institutions (Brown and Damery 2002) and have explored the evolution toward a more sociotechnical variety of FRM alongside more traditional, centrally managed structural and technical measures (Nye et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is flood defense changing in nature? Shifts in the flood defense strategy in six European countries

Gralepois¹,

Larrue²,

Wiering³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In many countries, flood defense has historically formed the core of flood risk management but this strategy is now evolving with the changing approach to risk management. This paper focuses on the neglected analysis of institutional changes within the flood defense strategies formulated and implemented in six European countries (Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden). The evolutions within the defense strategy over the last 30 years have been analyzed with the help of three mainstream institutional theories: a policy dynamics-oriented framework, a structure-oriented institutional theory on path dependency, and a policy actors-oriented analysis called the advocacy coalitions framework. We characterize the stability and evolution of the trends that affect the defense strategy in the six countries through four dimensions of a policy arrangement approach: actors, rules, resources, and discourses. We ask whether the strategy itself is changing radically, i.e., toward a discontinuous situation, and whether the processes of change are more incremental or radical. Our findings indicate that in the European countries studied, the position of defense strategy is continuous, as the classical role of flood defense remains dominant. With changing approaches to risk, integrated risk management, climate change, urban growth, participation in governance, and socioeconomic challenges, the flood defense strategy is increasingly under pressure to change. However, these changes can be defined as part of an adaptation of the defense strategy rather than as a real change in the nature of flood risk management.

show abstract

New social directions in UK flood risk management: moving towards flood risk citizenship?

Cited by 86 publications

References 24 publications

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe

Partnership Funding in flood risk management: multi-level stakeholder engagement – a question of roles and power

Is flood defense changing in nature? Shifts in the flood defense strategy in six European countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About