Partnership funding in flood risk management: new localism debate and policy in England

Allocation of risk and benefits—distributional justices in mountain hazard management

“…3 Reconstruction values of buildings exposed to mountain hazards in Austria public administration to ignore their own failure in natural hazards management (Jongman et al 2012(Jongman et al , 2014Fuchs et al 2017;Röthlisberger et al 2017). Lastly, the implementation of a liberalism understanding within the Austrian natural hazard management policy would be the most radical shift within the society in terms of responsibility Thaler and Priest 2014;Mostert 2015;Reese and Jacob 2015). The central responsibility within the natural hazard management discourse would be organised by individuals instead of the public administration.…”

“…The main reason is that some social groups are excluded from the planning and implementation process through lack of empowerment (e.g., resources or knowledge). Climate change adaptation strategies are highly technical-oriented with the goal to protect one group, which might include larger negative consequences for others (Thaler and Priest 2014;Holland 2017;Schlosberg et al 2017). Above all studies from the UK analysed the impact of policy changes within natural hazard management on the society, to demonstrate who gains and who loses from this change (Penning-Rowsell andPardoe 2012a, b, 2015).…”

“…This debate again encouraged the question of how funding for natural hazard and risk management should be distributed within a country, and how a respective policy should look like (spatially approach). Hence, future policy might change in either direction, especially if the financial situation of a state is not strong enough to rise the share in investments of state expenditures (Thaler and Priest 2014;). Besides, a study by Röthlisberger et al (2017) showed potential approaches for prioritisation in risk reduction and natural hazards management strategies in Switzerland.…”

Recurrent Governance Challenges in the Implementation and Alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies: a Review

“…Measures found in the literature that could stimulate the implementation of flood-risk mitigation strategies include concluding voluntary multi-stakeholder agreements (De Moel et al 2009), encouraging responsibilities of local authorities (Thaler and Priest 2014) and stressing the local economic benefits of mitigation measures to the community (Holub and Fuchs 2009). In the aftermath of flood events, governments could use arising 'windows of opportunity' to make infrastructure and houses (more) flood-proof (Powell and Ringler 2009;Field et al 2012).…”

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.…”