There has been a noticeable shift in the way in which flood risks are managed in England. This is being driven in part by European developments but also by changes in governance across diverse domains of public policy. A key characteristic is a move to transfer responsibility for the management of flood risk away from the central government and towards the local level. This paper aims to describe and evaluate the potential implications of this shift by focusing on three connected policy areas: flood defence, spatial planning, and emergency management. We draw on an analysis of policy documentation and expert interviews to map out current changes in governance. We then outline a number of potential scenarios for how these changes may play out in the future, emphasising that differences in resource availability and local motivation could result in new patterns of vulnerability and inequality.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2010) “Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28: 803–818
2.
BaileyNPillM (2011) “The continuing popularity of the neighbourhood and neighbourhood governance in the transition from the ‘big state’ to the ‘big society’ paradigm”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29: 927–942
BoyleD (2009) Localism: Unravelling the Supplement State, LondonNew Economics Foundation
5.
BučekJSmithB (2000) “New approaches to local democracy: direct democracy, participation and the ‘third sector’”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy18: 3–16
6.
BurbyR JDeyleR EGodschalkD ROlshanskyR B (2000) “Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning”. Natural Hazards Review1: 99–106
7.
ButlerCPidgeonN (2011) “From ‘flood defence’ to ‘flood risk management’: exploring governance, responsibility, and blame”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29: 533–547
CheethamN (2002) “Community participation: what is it?”. Transitions: Community Participation14(3): 3–6
13.
Civil Contingencies Act (2004) Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 36, London: The Stationery Office
14.
ClarkeNCochraneA (2013) “The geographies and politics of localism: reflections on the localism of Britain’s Coalition Government”. Political Geography34: 10–23
CoaffeeJ (2005) “New Localism and the management of regeneration”. International Journal of Public Sector Management18: 108–113
17.
CoaffeeJJohnstonL (2005) “The management of local government modernization: area decentralization and pragmatic localism”. International Journal of Public Sector Management18: 164–177
18.
Colbourne L, 2009, “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
19.
Coninx I, 2008, “Tackling climate change risks: stakeholder participation in flood risk management”, paper for the ECPR Summer School on Environmental Politics and Policy, Keele University, 7–18 July, https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/257454
DeemingHWhittleRMeddW (2012) “Investigating resilience, through ‘before and after’ perspectives on residual risk”. In: BennettS (eds) Innovative Thinking in Risk, Crisis and Disaster Management, Farnham, Hants: Ashgate, pp. 173–200
DerkzenPBockB (2009) “Partnership and role perception, three case studies on the meaning of being a representative in rural partnerships”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27: 75–89
24.
de VriesD HFraserJ (2012) “Citizenship rights and voluntary decision-making in post-disaster US floodplain buyout mitigation programmes”. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters30: 1–33
EC, 2000, “Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (European Water Framework Directive)” Official Journal of the European Communities L327 22 December (European Commission, Brussels)
28.
EC, 2007, “Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Floods Directive)” Official Journal of the European Communities L288/27, 6 November (European Commission, Brussels)
29.
FeatherstoneDInceAMackinnonDStraussKCumbersA (2012) “Progressive localism and the construction of political alternatives”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series37: 177–182
FWMA (2010) Public General Acts—Elizabeth II, London: The Stationery Officechapter 26, Flood and Water Management Act
32.
GarlandD (1996) “The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society”. British Journal of Criminology36: 445–471
33.
GiddensA (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity
34.
Godschalk D R, 2002, “Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities”, paper for the Urban Hazards Forum, John Jay College, City University of New York, 22–24 January
HerbertS (2005) “The trapdoor of community”. Annals of Association of American Geographers95: 850–865
39.
HolubMFuchsS (2009) “Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria: legislation, risk transfer, and awareness building”. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences9: 523–537
40.
JohnstonC LPriestS J (2008) “Flood risk management in England: a changing landscape of risk responsibility?”. Water Resources Development24: 513–525
41.
KokxAvan KempenR (2010) “A fact is a fact, but perception is reality: stakeholders’ perceptions and urban policies in the process of urban restructuring”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28: 335–348
42.
Kuhlicke C, Steinführer A, 2010, “Social capacity building for natural hazards: a conceptual frame”, WP 1, CapHaz-Net, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, http://www.caphaz-net.org
43.
Kuhlicke C, Steinführer A, Begg C, Luther L, 2012, “Toward more resilient societies in the field of natural hazards: CapHaz-Net’s lessons learnt”, WP 10, final report, CapHaz-Net, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, and Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institue, Braunschweig, http://www.caphaz-net.org
44.
KuhlickeCSteinführerSMeyerM (2013) “Jeseits der Leitdifferenz von ‘Beton contra Natur’: Neue Paradoxien und Ungleicheiten im Hochwasserrisikomanagement”. Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung57
45.
Local Government Act (2000) General Public Acts—Elizabeth II, London: The Stationery Officechapter 22
46.
Localism Act (2011) General Public Acts—Elizabeth II, London: The Stationery Officechapter 20
47.
Localism Bill (2010) House of Commons Session 2010–11, London: The Stationery Office
48.
MarksGHoogheL (2004) “Contrasting visions of multi-level governance”. In: BacheIFlinersM (eds) Multi-level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–30
49.
MeijerinkSDickeW (2008) “Shifts in the public–private divide in flood management”. Water Resources Development24: 499–512
50.
MiletiD S (1999) Disaster by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press
51.
MiraftabF (2004) “Making neo-liberal governance: the disempowering work of empowerment”. International Planning Studies9: 239–259
52.
NyeMTapsellSTwigger-RossC (2011) “New social directions in UK flood risk management: moving towards flood risk citizenship”. Journal of Flood Risk Management4: 288–297
PardoeJPenning-RowsellETunstallS (2011) “Floodplain conflicts: regulation and negotiation”. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences11: 2889–2902
55.
PatonD (2007) “Preparing for natural hazards: the role of community trust”. Disaster Prevention and Management16: 370–379
56.
Penning-RowsellEParkerDHardingD (1986) Floods and Drainage: British Policies for Hazard Reduction, Agricultural Improvement and Wetland Conversation, London: Allen and Unwin
57.
Penning-RowsellEJohnsonCTunstallS (2006) “ ‘Signals’ from pre-crisis discourse: lessons from UK flooding for global environmental policy change?”. Global Environmental Change16: 323–339
58.
PittM (2008) “Learning lessons from the 2007 floods: and independent review by Sir Michael Pitt (The Pitt Review)”, London: Cabinet Office
RacoMParkerGDoakJ (2006) “Reshaping spaces of local governance? Community strategies and the modernisation of local government in England”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24: 475–496
RichardsJWhiteICaterJ (2008) “Local planning practice and flood risk management in England: is there a collective implementation deficit?”. Urban Environment2: 11–20
63.
SamuelsPKlijnFDijkmanJ (2006) “An analysis of the current practice of policies on river flood risk management in different countries”. Irrigation and Drainage55: S141–S150
64.
SandersonD (2000) “Cities, disasters and livelihoods”. Environment and Urbanization12: 93–102
65.
SteinführerAKuhlickeCDe MarchiBScolobigATapsellSTunstallS (2008) “Towards flood risk management with the people at risk: from scientific analysis to practice recommendations (and back)”. In: SamuelsPHuntingtonSAllsopWHarropJ (eds) Flood Risk Management: Research and Practice, Leiden: Balkema, pp. 945–955
66.
StottNLonghurstN (2011) “Big Society and poor places”. In: StottM (eds) The Big Society Challenge, Thetford, Norfolk: Keystone Development Trust, pp. 100–113
67.
Sustainable Communities Act (2007) General Public Acts—Elizabeth II, London: The Stationery Officechapter 23
WachingerGRennOBeggCKuhlickeC (2013) “The risk perception paradox: implications for governance and communication of natural hazards”. Risk Analysis33: 1049–1065
WalkerGBurninghamK (2011) “Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context”. Critical Social Policy31: 216–240
74.
Walker G, Whittle R, Medd W, Watson N, 2010, “Risk governance and natural hazards”, WP 2, CapHaz-Net, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results
75.
WatsonNDeemingHTreffenyR (2009) “Beyond bureaucracy? Assessing institutional change in the governance of water in England”. Water Alternatives2: 448–460
