New social directions in UK flood risk ... - Wiley Online Library

New social directions in UK flood risk management: moving towards flood risk citizenship? M. Nye1, S. Tapsell2 and C. Twigger-Ross3 1 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK 2 Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, UK 3 Collingwood Environmental Planning, The Chandlery, London, UK

Correspondence M. Nye, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR47TJ, UK Tel: +01603 592542 Fax: +01603 591327 Email: [email protected] DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01114.x Preliminary work presented at the IBG/RGS Conference, Manchester, UK. Key words Adaptation; climate change; collaborative working; institutional change; public engagement; sociotechnical approaches; sustainable flood risk management.

Abstract This paper explores the evolution of a more sociotechnical variety of flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) in the UK that emphasises community engagement and personal or community level responsibility for flood risk planning, awareness and resilience alongside more traditional, centrally managed structural and technical measures. Specifically, it explores three interlocking drivers of the social turn in UK FCRM: (i) the need to adapt to climate change and address the lessons from associated high profile flood events; (ii) pressures to integrate FCRM with the sustainable development agenda; and (iii) a broader trend towards a ‘civic model’ in UK environmental policy-making and delivery. The paper also explores the practical impact and manifestation of these drivers in current FCRM planning and delivery frameworks, and suggests several critical pathways for a deeper embedding of the approach.

Introduction Changing patterns of flood hazard and risk management Climate change and associated unstable weather patterns will almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of flood incidents experienced each year by at-risk communities in the UK. Currently, some 2.6 million properties in England and Wales are at risk of flooding from fluvial or coastal sources (Environment Agency, 2009a). Recent predictions about the effects of climate change, including changed weather patterns and sea level rise suggest that this number could rise to 3.8 million properties in the next 20 years (Environment Agency, 2009b, c). Changing patterns of flood probability and risk exposure parallel recent changes in the way that flooding is managed. Since the early 1990s, there has been a gradual shift in flood hazard management policy and practice in England and Wales – from flood defence (holding back the water) to flood risk management (learning to live with floods) that is broadly reflective of the rising costs of flood defence in respect of an uncertain climate. Central to the risk management approach is the adoption of a strategic focus that seeks to account for a broad mix of social, environmental and

economic factors that contribute to or alter flood risk in some fashion across an entire catchment or shoreline area (see the Project Appraisals Guidance for an up-to-date list of these factors DEFRA/HMT, 2009). The nuances of transition to a system of flood risk management have received a good deal of research interest (see in particular Brown and Damery, 2002; Sayers et al., 2002; Tunstall et al., 2009). In particular, Tunstall et al. (2004) provide a useful overview of changes in this area since the mid-19th century, tracking the shift from land drainage to flood risk management and linking it to a series of both classic incremental and catalytic (high profile flood events) drivers. Their analysis highlights three distinct periods or phases in the UK approach to flood hazard management, which we have summarised in Table 1.

The social turn in flood and coastal risk management In addition to tracking the development of the risk management approach, studies like those referenced above also suggest that UK flood and coastal risk management has transitioned from a largely technocentric system, to a more ‘sociotechnical’ one (Twigger-Ross, 2005; Twigger-Ross and Colbourne, 2009) marked by a blurring of the lines between

© 2011 The Authors Journal of Flood Risk Management © 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

J Flood Risk Management 4 (2011) 288–297

289

Flood risk citizenship

Table 1 Phases and drivers of change in UK flood risk management (compiled from Tunstall et al., 2004) 1940s to 1970s – Land drainage: Focus on rural land drainage and flood defence oriented towards protection of food crops. Site-specific or one-off (non strategic) structural engineering schemes dominate and there is little overt consideration for social or environmental impacts. 1980s to mid-1990s – Flood defence: Shift away from rural protection to urban flood defence associated with increasing importance of manufacturing compared with agriculture. Piecemeal, technocratic systems still dominate, but increasing public attention to environmental and social issues merits increased focus on environmental impacts of flood defence activities. Mid-1990s onwards – Flood risk management: Transition towards a more strategic, integrated system of flood risk management that takes more account of the environmental and social impacts of flood hazard management. Increasing emphasis on promoting flood resistance and resilience through a combination of structural and nonstructural measures such as warning systems and development control. Although serious flooding had occurred in the past, a series of extreme flood events in this period serve as high-profile drivers of public and political support for change.

the ‘social’ and ‘technical’ aspects of FCRM planning, prioritisation and delivery. Whereas in the past, the social dimensions of flood risk management systems and practice were largely ignored or discussed as an afterthought (Brown and Damery, 2002), the sociotechnical, risk-based approach necessitates consideration of how floods affect people as receptors and the interaction between technical systems such as flood warnings and the actions of at-risk individuals (Evans et al., 2004). Research on social aspects of flooding themes has increased in recent years (see for review Walker et al., 2006; Fernández-Bilbao and Twigger-Ross, 2009), with particular emphasis on the immediate and longer-term health impacts of flooding (Tunstall et al., 2006; Sims et al., 2008; Tapsell et al., 2008), social justice and vulnerability (Johnson et al., 2007a, 2008; Walmsley et al., 2008. Steinführer et al., 2009), and public responses to flood warning (Fielding et al., 2007; Parker et al., 2009a). The recent increase in attention to the social aspects of flooding and flood risk within the research communities has been mirrored by a similar (although not necessarily parallel) shift in emphasis within the Environment Agency’s flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) programme. Social considerations now manifest even in the most ‘techy’ aspects of flood risk management, such as mapping risks to people (Priest et al., 2007), flood warning systems (Parker et al., 2009b) and key planning and appraisal procedures such as the Project Appraisals Guidance and Catchment/Shoreline Management Plans (see DEFRA, 2004 and for critique, Twigger-Ross et al., forthcoming). In the discussion that follows, we look deeper into the evolution of the ‘social turn’ in Environment Agency FCRM activities, with emphasis on the trend towards increased stakeholder engagement and ‘codelivery. ’ We explore three interlocking themes that reflect different drivers of this transition: 1. The need to adapt to natural factors such as climate change and the challenges of recent high profile flood events; 2. The need to integrate flood risk management policy with the sustainable development agenda; and J Flood Risk Management 4 (2011) 288–297

3. A wider trend towards engaging the public in environmental policy-making and programme delivery. While the natural elements of the first driver, and to a lesser extent its economic counterpart, are fairly well recognised in recent scholarship on the evolution of FCRM (e.g. Sayers et al., 2002; Tunstall et al., 2004), the second two have received little attention in this context. Our analysis suggests that social factors play as important a role in driving the continuing social evolution of FCRM, as they do in marking its progress. Examining the linkages between sociopolitical drivers of policy and programmatic change and their practical manifestations in strategic goals and delivery mechanisms provides a more complete picture of the social turn in FCRM, as well as highlighting some critical issues to the continuing success and evolution of the approach.

Floods as catalysts for policy change Our initial discussion of the direct causal relationship between climate change projections and projected increases in the costs of flood defence underscores the increasing significance of climate change as a political driver for changes in FCRM activities. Although some evidence suggests that the public do not necessarily make the linkage between climate change and flood incidents or experience of flooding (Whitmarsh, 2008) the shift to a risk management approach is often officially justified on this contextual basis, as evidenced in this excerpt from the Environment Agency’s consultation document for the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England: ‘Flood and coastal erosion risk in England is increasing because of climate change and development in areas at risk. It is not possible to prevent all flooding or coastal erosion, but there are actions that can be taken to manage these risks and reduce the impacts that they may have on communities’ (Environment Agency, 2010b, p. 1). Acknowledging that floods cannot be prevented immediately raises questions about how to address increasing exposure to flood risk without building more costly flood defences. If structural measures are not going to be feasible


290

then flood warning, behaviour change and engagement become more central to the risk management approach. Recent high profile flood events appear to have strengthened the importance of the climate–cost relationship as a rationale for changing the risk management approach away from an emphasis on defence, as well as increasing the Government’s resolve to address the social aspects of flooding. Johnson et al. (2005) analyse the pace of change in UK flood risk management practices against the historical frameworks outlined by Tunstall et al. (2004) (see Table 1). The authors present a framework of environmental, contextual (preexisting policy; technology and knowledge) and behavioural drivers for changes in flooding policy. The analysis shows that the normally incremental pace of policy evolution can be hastened by flood events (environmental drivers) acting as ‘windows of opportunity’ in existing policy streams (see Kingdon, 2003). Elsewhere, Birkland (1998) takes a similar tack, highlighting the power of floods and other natural hazards as ‘focusing events’, which can change the policy agenda and lead to the mobilization of interest groups. Changes in policy following the cataclysmic 1998 Easter floods are broadly illustrative of this principle: following intense public criticism of the Agency’s response to the Easter flooding events, an independent report commissioned by the Environment Agency (Bye and Horner, 1998) stressed the need to engage further with the social aspects of flooding, specifically emphasising flood warning, leading to the establishment of the National Flood Warning Centre within the Environment Agency in 1999. In turn, the Environment Agency began to rely less heavily on flood defence assets as a risk management strategy and to move towards a more balanced sociotechnical risk management portfolio that emphasised the value of better flood warnings and raising awareness (Johnson et al., 2005). Similar catalytic changes in planning and policy were also observed following more recent widespread flood events in 2000, and in particular, summer 2007, after which it became apparent that dramatic improvements were needed in the EA and other responders’ abilities to work together and to properly care for communities affected by flooding (DEFRA, 2008a; Pitt, 2008). Again, as with the 1998 floods, the failures were seen as largely institutional and social rather than structural. Perhaps the most easily identifiable policy change that arose from these environmental drivers was the formal establishment of the strategic flooding overview role now held by the Environment Agency (HMG, 2010). True to the ‘policy streams’ model (see Kingdon, 2003) used in the analysis of earlier changes in FCRM by Johnson et al. (2005), government and the Agency itself had been toying with the idea of giving strategic overview authority to the Agency for all forms of flooding for some time (e.g. DEFRA, 2005, p. 8). However, it appears that the 2007 floods, in which the need to create an integrated response to the risk of surface water

Nye et al.

flooding (based on the experience of flooding in Hull in particular) became more apparent, were the main catalyst for implementing this change. After the 2007 floods, the Environment Agency defined its vision for the overview role as one of ‘national leadership, coordination and advice’ (HOC, 2008, p. 12). Central to this more facilitative, leadership-based approach was a renewed commitment to ‘codelivery’ of FCRM policy and procedure within the integrated, catchment-wide or shoreline format. Thus, in a somewhat ironic twist, the centralisation of strategic control for flood risk management with the Environment Agency appears to have increased both the need and the institutional will of the organisation to adopt a governance approach to flood risk management and responsibility (Cornell, 2006). One of the outcomes of the shift towards governance in FCRM was a comprehensive review of the Agency’s internal capacities and willingness to work in partnership with others (Colbourne, 2009a). Among other things, the report recommended that the Agency should recruit staff with the necessary social and communication skills for collaborating and engaging with professional partners and communities, a move towards two-way, consultative communication rather than information sharing and greater recognition within the Agency of the value of local knowledge and data. These recommendations do seem to be having a tangible effect on Agency FCRM practice. For example, eight Community and Coastal Engagement Officers (CEOs) were appointed in 2008/2009 at regional level (Environment Agency, 2010a) with the express purpose of developing the Agency’s capabilities and capacities for twoway collaborative engagement with external stakeholders as part of the ‘Floodwise’ awareness raising campaign (which itself is focused on moving away from broad brush national communication of risk towards intensive local engagement with a smaller number of at risk communities).

Integrating FCRM policy and practice with the sustainable development agenda The shift to a risk-based approach in flood hazard management also represents an attempt to bring flood risk policy and practice into line with the wider sustainable development agenda. This is especially apparent within current FCRM policy documents. The Making Space for Water Programme (DEFRA 2005) strongly promoted efforts to address social justice and community well-being in UK FCRM as part of the government’s (prior) overarching sustainability strategy A Better Quality of Life1 (see also Ledoux et al., 2005). An Outcome Measure (OM3) was developed as part of MSW and the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review Process to positively target deprived households in the flood 1

See DEFRA (2002a) – now replaced by Securing the Future (HMG, 2005).



291


defence planning and asset capitalisation process (Environment Agency 2009d). More recently, achieving ‘environmental, social and economic benefits consistent with the principles of sustainable development’ (Environment Agency 2010a, p. 9) has been put forward as a central principle for the FCRM strategy to replace Making Space for Water. DEFRA has also released draft guidance on sustainable development for local flood authorities (DEFRA, 2010a). As is often the case when the rhetoric of ‘sustainability’ is invoked, the practical meaning of a socially sustainable system of flood risk management is less easy to identify compared with its ecological or economic counterparts.2 Evidence for the increasing importance of environmental considerations to FCRM under the banner of sustainability can be found in assessments of passive retreat or managed realignment (e.g. Turner et al., 1998; Ledoux et al., 2005) or the promotion of consolidated planning for protection of critical habits under the Water Framework Directive (EU 2007) and the Water Strategy (DEFRA, 2008b). Likewise, the importance of cost considerations as both a driver of change for FCRM and an input to the strategic planning process is particularly evident in proposed changes to the Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGIA) system among calls for beneficiaries to pay for a greater share of the new and improved flood defence schemes necessary to resist the impacts of climate change (DEFRA, 2010b). The potential shift to ‘Payment for Outcomes’ offers some uniquely social opportunities for FCRM planning and delivery, as we explore later in the paper. In environmental policy, the social component of sustainability tends to manifest as a loosely related set of issues relating to social and distributive justice (both now and for future generations), democratic rights, human health, access to natural and green spaces, and improved quality of life (e.g. DEFRA, 2002a, b; Lucas et al., 2004). Key to all of these are value-led concerns for how social processes affect human interactions with nature and how those interactions affect the ability of a society to meet its needs (Becker et al., 1999). Although these concepts are not as easy to operationalise in a practical sense, there are signs that a ‘socially sustainable’ branch of FCRM has taken shape among its environmental and economic counterparts. Apart from the Outcome Measure aimed at tackling deprivation in defence funding and prioritisation (which blurs the line between economics and social justice) the most visible ‘social’ manifestation of sustainability in FCRM is an increased emphasis on ‘engaging the public’ in flood risk management delivery and 2

See Becker et al. (1999) for a critique of the continuing wooliness of the social sustainability concept and its lack of integration with the other components of sustainable development. See also Environment Agency (2004) for some pioneering work on defining the nature of sustainable FCRM in the UK.


decision-making. Early examples of such activity can be traced back to the late 1980s and early 1990s in governmental efforts to increase the perceived legitimacy and fairness of sometimes controversial decisions about river management and structural flood defences. These efforts were not only consultative in nature, but also sought to engage the public more actively in direct public review of management schemes (Fordham et al., 1991; Tunstall et al., 1994; Cornell, 2006). Since then, there has been a marked increase in other sorts of public engagement activities related to flood risk (see Speller, 2005; Thomas et al., 2007 for an overview), with particular attention to issues such as: public opinion about managed realignment of coastal flood defences or river basin planning (e.g. O’Riordan and Ward, 1997; Orr et al., 2007), flood warning service improvement and targeted risk awareness raising (e.g. Burningham et al., 2005; Fielding et al., 2007), and promoting community resilience after flood incidents (EA, 2005).

The trend towards public empowerment and a civic model of environmental, and environmentally relevant policy and policy making In addition to pressures to integrate FCRM policy and practice with the broad sustainable development agenda, the trend towards increasing use of public engagement in FCRM also appears reflective of a more nuanced trend towards public consultation, engagement and ‘codelivery’ in UK environmental policy. A key example is the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) guidance for public engagement under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EU, 2003). Such a ‘codelivery’ approach (Orr et al., 2007, p. 339) is seen as essential to meeting integrated river basin planning objectives. Although the WFD is intentionally aligned with the pillars of sustainability, it is arguably the complexity of managing river habitats in an integrated fashion that requires the Environment Agency to consult and empower the public in programme planning and delivery (Collins et al., 2005). A comparable example can be found in the 2009 Community Adaptation Planning and Engagement on the Coast (CAPE) guidance (Woodin et al., 2009), which follows good practice on stakeholder engagement with application to complex coastal adaptation processes. Similarly, rationalised calls for public engagement in other complex areas of the human-environment relationship have flourished in recent years (see Eden, 1996; Rydin and Pennington, 2000), under the banner of a nascent ‘civic model’ (Owens, 2000) in UK environmental policy and delivery (e.g. Kearnes et al., 2006).3 Although top-down solutions are 3

Perhaps nowhere is the ‘citizenship’ trend more evident than in response to climate change (see Lorenzoni et al., 2007 for a recent overview).


292

increasingly viewed as inadequate (at least on their own) for addressing the complex relationships between people and the natural and built environment, there is growing interest in improving the ‘public value’ of environmental policy (Darnton, 2008) through exhorting the public to adopt responsible environmental citizenship roles (see Eden, 1993). Owens (2000, p. 1146) notes that ‘aspirations for deliberative and inclusive forms of public engagement have emerged in parallel with a widely perceived need for a new political culture in which “people . . . think of themselves as active citizens . . .” ’ (quoting Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998, p. 7). Recent attempts by the Environment Agency to empower citizens and communities to take personal level responsibility for protecting themselves from flooding through activities like interactive forums, flooding road shows, and targeted awareness-raising activities (e.g. Environment Agency, 2009e) can be considered broadly illustrative of the civic trend. The emphasis on individual or communitylevel responsibility for flood awareness and protection in these examples echoes the familiar and well established environmental policy rhetoric about ‘citizenship’ in which the individual becomes the ‘repository of environmental responsibility’ (Eden, 1996, p. 185). More generally, it would seem that the focus of the Environment Agency’s FCRM public engagement work has moved on in recent years – away from simply ‘listening harder’ (see Wilsdon and Willis, 2004) and towards efforts to empower a diverse, nonhomogenous public to do new things and to take on new responsibilities under the banner of ‘learning to live with floods’ (Speller, 2005; Johnson and Priest, 2008). Interestingly, some of the more recent, high-profile examples of this trend, such as the flood alleviation scheme in the town of Bourton on the Water, or in the Ryedale area of Yorkshire, both in England (Environment Agency, 2010c; Lane et al., 2010) represent community-led efforts to plan for, fund, and/or build new structural flood defences through creative partnership formation. Examples like these suggest that the nonstructural, social turn in FCRM is beginning to have a strong impact on the structural level as well. Such activity is still rather more an exception than the general rule, but the proposed reforms to flood defence funding under the banner of ‘Payment for Outcomes’ (DEFRA, 2010b; EA, 2010b) could represent a strong test of the power of social networks and the partnership-working approach for delivering economically, socially and environmentally viable structural defence outcomes on a national scale. Whatever happens, it seems clear that social factors will play an increasingly important role as a mechanism for delivering FCRM in future – in addition to continuing to shape its priorities and objectives. Therefore, it is important to reflect on the scope for further evolution in this area, and specifically, on the institutional-level implications

Nye et al.

and requirements of a more socially responsive, citizencentred brand of UK FCRM.

Discussion and conclusions The discussion to this point reveals a fairly significant ‘social turn’ in UK FCRM in the past two decades, away from an emphasis almost solely on structural flood defence measures and towards an understanding that social and institutional processes including community engagement, and community-level responsibility have an important, nonstructural role in helping people to live with flooding and to make communities more resilient to the impacts of flooding when it occurs. The practical elements of this transition have tended to manifest in increased emphasis on community engagement and, more recently, on community-level empowerment and responsibility for both flood awareness and preparedness and flood defence (including structural measures). Our analysis shows that rising levels of risk exposure linked to climate change, and associated high profile flood events, have played an important role in driving these changes. However, the social turn is also reflective of wider political and social pressures to integrate FCRM with the sustainable development agenda, and the trend towards a more civic approach to UK environmental policy-making and delivery. The latter influence is especially apparent in recent calls for reform in flood defence funding mechanisms, such that those who benefit from defences take more responsibility for clubbing together to find the money to build them. The broader message from this discussion is that social factors and issues have played as strong a role in driving the social turn FCRM, as they have in marking its progress. Although we do not dispute that natural and economic factors played a crucial role in the UK’s well documented shift from flood defence to flood risk management, it is also important to recognise that a good portion of the rationale for this shift is distinctly ‘social’ in nature. Without ‘engaged’ and ‘empowered’ communities’ living with floods simply will not work. This is particularly true if we are now beginning to look to the social elements of FCRM as the means for delivering both an informed and responsible public, and a cost effective portfolio of capital defence projects. There is of course a history in UK water management policy of public consultation and efforts to ‘build trust with communities’ particularly where difficult decisions had to be made and/or defended. However, the types of activities discussed here represent something new that is at once more proactive, collaborative and mutually accommodating. Stakeholder engagement and community-empowerment is increasingly offered up as a tool for empowering citizens and professional partners to take responsibility for delivering flood resistance and resilience in their respective communities. Both the



293


means and intended ends of such activities reflect the complexity of creating and delivering flood risk programmes within a sociotechnical flood risk management framework that seeks to address more than just the potential depth of flood waters and the height of flood defences. Despite the increasingly strong position and prominence of ‘nonstructural’ measures in UK FCRM, important questions remain about how best to mainstream the engagement and empowerment approach among the suite of existing flood risk management practices and emerging challenges. Much of the practical evidence for change that has been discussed in this paper represents activities that are best categorised as ‘additional’ rather than ‘core’ to current FCRM protocols and service levels. Therefore, although the drivers discussed in this paper, and related policy documents such as the Pitt Review (Pitt, 2008) and The Flood and Water Management Act (HMG, 2010) have introduced new levels of external (stakeholder) facing social responsiveness in UK FCRM, we would argue (as have others – e.g. Twigger-Ross and Colbourne, 2009) – that the next, and arguably greater, challenge is more internal in nature. Mainstreaming or embedding the ‘soft’ engagement and partnership-building approach within an agency once populated almost exclusively by engineers, concrete pourers and dredging machines is as much of a contextual and institutional problem as it is an exercise in organisational learning. In the final section of this paper, we reflect briefly on a series of key institutionallevel blockers and issues that, if overcome, could facilitate a deeper level of transition in the Environment Agency (and among its partners) towards a collaborative, citizen-centred approach as the core of FCRM.

Successfully embedding socially responsive FCRM at the institutional level Reframing key questions Successfully embedding a more collaborative, peoplefocused FCRM approach requires a reframing of key FCRM questions – away from a focus on reputation management (and associated output-based targets) and towards outcomes and response. This is not to argue that response and outcomes are not currently addressed in FCRM practices or protocols, but rather that sometimes the focus of efforts can be divided, and possibly in conflict, between the tasks of flood risk management and reputation management. The following quote from a review of the Environment Agency’s internal capacities for improving Flood Incidence Management services illustrates this point, and shows how even a subtle reframing of the question about what flood warnings are for can shift the emphasis from reputation management to ‘effective response’: J Flood Risk Management 4 (2011) 288–297

‘. . . we suggest that the warning service should be re-focused as a response based service, changing the question from “How can we warn lots of people?’ to ‘How can effective responses be encouraged from people and what role does flood warning have within that process?’. This is an example of moving from an institutional focus to a problem focus” (Twigger-Ross and Colbourne, 2009, p. 14) Sharing data and information Another key element of successful collaborative working and delivery is sharing data and information. Proposed draft statutory guidance in Sections 13 (1) and 14 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) on Co-operation between authorities and requesting information sends a clear signal that such activity is likely to become even more central to FCRM in future. Specifically, there is a need for the Environment Agency and its partners to transition to a focus on collecting and sharing ‘actionable’ information to address shared flood risk management problems. In a similar vein to the previous point, the term ‘actionable’ information and data raises a distinction between data that is collected primarily as an end in itself (an internally focused, reputationdriven activity) and data that is collected with a focus on the wider context in which it will be used ideally in a responsefocused, collaborative manner (see Colbourne, 2009a on this point). For example, understanding the vulnerability profile of an area is vital for developing effective emergency plans for floods. However, the relevant information does not sit with just one organisation, so working together is important for such a profile to be constructed. This contrasts sharply with a reputation-driven approach, which might seek to collect information on vulnerability in an area as a means for the Environment Agency to rationalize its spending on vulnerability-reducing measures. To some extent, both approaches are necessary and justifiable, but it is worth noting that the recent review of the Environment Agency’s Institutional and Social Response to Flooding quoted earlier (Twigger-Ross and Colbourne, 2009) found much stronger evidence of the latter in everyday Agency practice. Improving the scope and timing of stakeholder engagement Despite the wider range of actors now involved in FCRM policy-making and delivery, decisions and information still tend to flow in a rather protracted, ‘top-down’ fashion between distinct tiers. The Environment Agency tends to engage first with its statutory consultees and contractual partners (first tier) and then on a more ‘ad hoc’ basis with a wider range of professional stakeholders (second tier) or the public (third tier) when decisions reach appraisal stage


294

(Cornell, 2006). This tiered approach does not fit well with the emerging localism agenda, and it struggles to address the increasingly complicated and potentially contentious nature of FCRM decision-making that was discussed previously. This is particularly important with regard to the inclusion of locally relevant, but nationally dispersed, actors and groups operating at the subcatchment level. A wider group of stakeholders needs to be engaged early on in FCRM decisions and planning processes, so as to increase transparency and promote early consensus-building, and thereby drive down the costs of public and stakeholder engagement and consultation. This may also necessitate finding ways to streamline stakeholder engagement processes so that smaller, less well resourced stakeholders are not overly burdened by the process (see Cornell, 2006 for more discussion).

Nye et al.

necessary tool for tackling the multidimensionality and complexity of flood and coastal risk management.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the researchers and colleagues on the Improving Institutional and Social Responses to Flooding project (SC060019): Lindsey Colbourne (Lindsey Colbourne Associates), Nigel Watson, Gordon Walker, Elham Kashefi, Hugh Deeming (Lancaster University), Amalia Fernandez-Bilbao (Scott Wilson) and Paula Orr (CEP) where many of the ideas expressed in this paper were discussed and developed. The project would not have been possible without funding from the Environment Agency and DEFRA.

Empowering local-level flexibility in FCRM practice and service protocols It is clear from the discussion and analysis in this paper that socially responsive, collaboratively driven, citizenempowered FCRM cannot be delivered with a one-size fits all approach. In the same way that the Environment Agency and its partners seek to empower citizens to protect themselves from flooding, so too does it need to empower local level delivery staff with the flexibility to adapt and tailor ‘on the ground’ services and processes to the diverse needs of local communities. This is not to say that national-level standards could not, or would not apply, but instead that these should be flexible and adaptable to the different human and physical geographies of different areas. By implication, local-level FCRM staff should also be empowered to use their own judgement about where socially oriented action is not needed. Making these sorts of choices requires a professional-level understanding of social issues and social elements of FCRM, which in turn suggests that more emphasis should be placed on hiring FCRM staff with socialscience backgrounds, and promoting social science skills in technical development and training frameworks.

Conclusions In conclusion, we suggest that the ‘social turn’ in FCRM offers the potential to open up truly interdisciplinary, collaborative pathways to flood risk management solutions that are sustainable in every sense of the term. It is at once a driver and a natural consequence of collaborative working and engagement with stakeholders and citizens, because it is through these activities that different perspectives, knowledge and solutions are expressed and deliberated. Similarly, a more collaborative form of engagement aimed at empowering ‘flood risk citizenship’ should be understood as both a natural outcome of the different drivers for change, and a

References Advisory Group on Citizenship. Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. Final report. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1998. Becker E., Jahn T. & Stiess I. Exploring uncommon ground: sustainability and the social sciences. In: E. Becker & T. Jahn, eds. Sustainability and the social sciences, a cross-disciplinary approach integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed Books, 1999, 1–22. Birkland T.A. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. J Public Policy 1998, 18, (1), 53–74. Brown J.D. & Damery S.L. Managing flood risk in the UK: towards an integration of social and technical perspectives. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 2002, 27, 412–426. Burningham K., Fielding J., Thrush D. & Gray K. Flood warning for vulnerable groups. A report for the environment agency, science summary SC8990007/SS. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2005. Bye P. & Horner M. Easter 1998 floods: final assessment by the independent review team, vol. 1. Environment Agency, Bristol, 1998. Colbourne L. Collaboration with civil contingency partners and communities for improved FCERM outcomes. Science report – SC060019 improving institutional and social responses to flooding. Work package 3 report. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2009a. Collins K., Ison R. & Blackmore C. River basin planning project: social learning. Science report to the water framework directive programme. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2005. Cornell S. Improving stakeholder engagement in flood risk management decision-making and delivery (SC040033/SR2). Environment Agency, Bristol, 2006. Darnton A. Practical Guide: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses. London: G S R Unit (HM Treasury), 2008.



295


Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Achieving a better quality of life. Review of progress towards sustainable development. London: DEFRA, 2002a. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The environment agency’s objectives and contributions to sustainable development: statutory guidance. London: DEFRA, 2002b. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Catchment flood management plans (volume I – policy guidance). London: DEFRA, 2004. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Making space for water: taking forward a new government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management. London: DEFRA, 2005. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The government’s response to Sir Michael Pitt’s review of the summer 2007 floods. London: DEFRA, 2008a. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Future water. London: HMSO, 2008b. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)/ HMT. Flood and coastal defence project appraisal guidance (FCDPAG). London: DEFRA, 2009. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Consultation draft sustainable development guidance for local flood authorities. 24 November, 2010. 2010a. Available at http://archive.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/floodsustainabledevelopment/index.htm (accessed 12 September 2011). Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Consultation: future funding of flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. 24 November, 2010. 2010b. DEFRA: London. Available at http://archive.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ coast/flood-coastal-erosion/index.htm (accessed 12 September 2011). Eden S. Individual environmental responsibility and its role in public environmentalism. Environment Planning A 1993, 25, 1743–1758. Eden S. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding Science 1996, 5, 183–204. Environment Agency (EA). Sustainable flood and coastal management: final draft scoping report. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2004. Environment Agency (EA). Response to flooding 2005: response to flood events of January 2005 in the Northwest, Environment Agency, Bristol. 2005. Environment Agency (EA). Capitalising on community interest to tackle flood risk management problems. Flood and coastal risk management case studies June 2009. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2009a. Environment Agency (EA). Flooding in England: a national assessment of flood risk. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2009b.


Environment Agency (EA). Investing for the future flood and coastal risk management in England: a long-term investment strategy. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2009c. Environment Agency (EA). Outcome measure definitions and FAQ’s. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2009d. Environment Agency (EA). The way ahead. Flood News: Spring, 2009. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2009e. Environment Agency (EA). Flood news. Summer 2010. Environment Agency: Bristol. 2010a. Environment Agency (EA). Reducing the threat, building resilience, empowering communities: National FCERM strategy for England, consultation document. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2010b. Environment Agency (EA). Success in partnership 2009–2010. Reducing flood risk in Thames West Area. 2010c. Available at http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/ GETH0610BSOR-E-E.pdf (accessed 29 November 2011). European Union (EU). Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive. Guidance document No 8, public participation in relation to the water framework directive. (2000/60/EC) European Commission, Brussels, 2003. European Union (EU). Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (2007/60/EC) European Commission, Brussels, 2007. Evans E.P., Ashley R., Hall J., Penning-Rowsell E.C., Saul A., Sayers P., Thorne C. & Watkinson A. Foresight future flooding scientific summary. Volumes I and II. London: Office of Science and Technology, 2004. Fernández-Bilbao A. & Twigger-Ross C. Improving institutional and social responses to flooding: work package 2 – improving response, recovery and resilience. Science report – SC060019/ SR. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2009. Fielding J., Burningham K., Thrush D. & Catt R. Public response to flood warning. R&D technical report SC020116. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2007. Fordham M., Tunstall S. & Penning-Rowsell E. Choice and preference in the Thames floodplain: the beginnings of a participatory approach? Landscape and Urban Planning 1991, 20, (1–3), 183–187. HMG. Securing the future – UK government sustainable development strategy. London: Stationery Office, 2005. HMG. Flood and water management action 2010. London: Stationery Office, 2010. Available at http://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29/contents (accessed 3 October 2011). House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (HOC). Flooding fifth report of session 2007–08. 23 April 2008. HC 49-I. London: Stationery Office, 2008. Johnson C., Penning-Rowsell E. & Parker D. Natural and imposed injustices: the challenges in implementing ‘fair’ flood risk management policy in England. Geogr J 2007a, 173, (4), 374–390. Johnson C. & Priest S. Flood risk management in England: a changing landscape of risk responsibility? Int J Water Resources Development 2008, 24, (4), 513–525.


296

Johnson C., Tunstall S. & Penning-Rowsell E. Floods as catalysts for policy change: historical lessons from England and Wales. Int J Water Resources Development 2005, 21, (4), 561–575. Johnson C., Tunstall S. & Penning-Rowsell E. Social justice in the context of flood and coastal erosion risk management: a review of policy and practice. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2008. Kearnes M., Managhten P. & Wilsdon J. Governing at the nanoscale people, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos, 2006. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies, 2nd edn. New York: Longman, 2003. Lane S., Odoni N., Landström C., Whatmore S., Ward N. & Bradley S. Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method. Transactions Inst Br Geographers 2010, 36, (1), 15–36. Ledoux L., Cornell S., O’Riordan T., Harvey R. & Banyard L. Towards sustainable flood and coastal management: identifying drivers of, and obstacles to, managed realignment. Land Use Policy 2005, 22, (2), 129–144. Lorenzoni I., Nicholson-Cole S. & Whitmarsh L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 2007, 17, (3–4), 445–459. Lucas K., Walker G., Eames M., Fay H. & Proustie M. Environmental and social justice: rapid research and evidence review. London: Sustainable Development Research Network, 2004. O’Riordan T. & Ward R. Building trust in shoreline management: creating participatory consultation in shoreline management plans. Land Use Policy 1997, 14, (4), 257–276. Orr P., Colvin J. & King D. Involving stakeholders in integrated river basin planning in England and Wales. Water Resources Manage 2007, 21, 331–349. Owens S. Commentary. ‘Engaging the public’: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment Planning A 2000, 32, 1141–1148. Parker D., Priest S., Schildt A. & Handmer J. Modelling the damage reducing effects of flood warnings. Report for the EC FLOODsite Integrated Project, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Enfield, 2009b. Parker D.J., Priest S.J. & Tapsell S.M. Understanding and enhancing the public’s behavioural response to flood warning information. Meteorol Appl 2009a, 16, 103–114. Pitt M. The Pitt review: learning lessons from the 2007 floods. Central Office of Information. London: Cabinet Office, 2008. Priest S.J., Wilson T., Tapsell S.M., Penning-Rowsell E., Viavattene C. & Fernandez-Bilbao A. Building a model to estimate risk to life for European flood events. Report T10-07-10 of FLOODsite Integrated Project, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Enfield. 2007. Available at http://www.floodsite.net (accessed 3 October 2011). Rydin Y. & Pennington M. Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment 2000, 5, (2), 153–169.

Nye et al.

Sayers P., Hall J. & Meadowcroft I. Towards risk-based flood hazard management in the UK. Civil Engineering 2002, 150, (5), 36–42. Sims R., Medd W., Kashefi E., Mort M, Watson N., Walker G. & Twigger-Ross C. Flood, vulnerability and resilience: a realtime study of local recovery following the floods of June 2007 in Hull. Paper given that the Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Risk Management Conference, 2008. Manchester, 2008. Speller G. Improving community and citizen engagement in flood risk management decision making, delivery and flood response. R&D Technical Report SC040033/SR3. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2005. Steinführer A., de Marchi B., Kuhlicke C., Scolobig A., Tapsell S. & Tunstall S. Vulnerability, resilience and social constructions of flood risks in exposed communities: a cross-country comparison of case studies in Germany, Italy and the UK. Report for the EC FLOODsite Project. UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, 2009. Tapsell S., Tunstall S. & Priest S. Developing a conceptual model of flood impacts upon human health. Report T10-09-02 for the EC FLOODsite Project. Middlesex University, Flood Hazard Research Centre, London, 2008. Thomas K., Riedel Y. & Johnston R. Environment agency report for making space for water programme. Better engagement and risk communication. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2007. Tunstall S., Fordham M. & Glenn C. Eton Wick: a survey of residents’ perceptions of flood risk and flood alleviation schemes, final report. Final report to the National Rivers Authority Thames Region. London: Middlesex University, Flood Hazard Research Centre, 1994. Tunstall S., Johnson C. & Penning Rowsell E. Flood hazard management in England and Wales: from land drainage to flood risk management. Paper presented at World Congress on Natural Disaster Mitigation 19–21 February 2004, 2004. Tunstall S., McCarthy S. & Faulkner H. Flood risk management and planning policy in a time of policy transition: the case of the Wapshott Roas Planning Inquiry, Surrey, England. J Flood Risk Manage 2009, 2, (3), 159–169. Tunstall S., Tapsell S. & Green C. The health effects of flooding: social research results from England and Wales. J Water Health 2006, 4, (3), 365–380. Turner K., Lorenzoni I., Beaumont N., Bateman I., Langford I. & McDonald A. Coastal management for sustainable development: analysing environmental and socio-economic changes on the UK coast. The Geographical J 1998, 164, (3), 269–281. Twigger-Ross C. Improving the contribution of social science to the Flood Risk Management Science Programme R&D Technical Report. SC040033/SR5 Environment Agency: Bristol, 2005. Twigger-Ross C. & Colbourne L. Improving institutional and social responses to flooding – synthesis report – improving institutional and social responses to flooding science report



297


(SC060019) – work package 5. Environment Agency: Bristol, 2009. Twigger-Ross C., Deeming H., Fielding J., Orr P., Priest S., Tapsell S., Watson N., White O. & Burningham K. Addressing the collection and management of data on the social aspects of flooding: final report. Environment Agency, Bristol. Forthcoming. Walker G., Burningham K., Fielding J., Smith G., Thrush D. & Fay H. Addressing environmental inequalities: flood risk. Report: SC020061/SR1. Environment Agency, Bristol, 2006. Walmsley N., Penning-Rowsell E., Chatterton J. & Hardy K. who benefits from flood management policies? Paper presented at


FLOODrisk 2008 conference, 30 September–2 October 2008, Keble College, Oxford, UK, 2008. Whitmarsh L. Are flood victims more concerned with climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J Risk Res 2008, 11, (3), 351–374. Wilsdon J. & Willis R. See-through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: DemosS, 2004. Woodin S., Fernandez-Bilbao A., Bose S., Colbourne L., Orr P. & Twigger-Ross C. Draft guidance for community adaptation planning and engagement (CAPE) on the coast. 2009. London, UK: Defra.
