Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management - A question of roles and power: Lessons from England

Abstract In the past years, stakeholder engagement has become more important in flood risk management. On the one hand stakeholder engagement is often declared as a better way of management, a more successful way to reach consensus in policy discussions. On the other hand is the implementation of increasing stakeholder engagement far away from being as positive, where stakeholder engagement often ends in diverse difficulties and conflicts between political leaders and stakeholder groups. This paper aims to highlight participatory governance in flood risk management to provide an overview of the potential contributions and challenges of a participatory and collaborative governance approach. In this paper, we discuss the role of national authorities and local stakeholders in English flood risk management in three different examples (Bridgwater, Cockermouth and Morpeth). The results show that the Cockermouth and Morpeth flood risk management scheme is characterised by a high level of local self-responsibility in the planning and decision-making process. The study sites with high local capacity (Cockermouth and Morpeth) show a strong leadership at local level and bottom-up concepts and ideas. The local involvement in the discussion and decision-process depends on the local capacity (capacity to act), such as resources (knowledge, financial, time), interest, social and cultural capital. It strongly depends on these aspects, if localities are able to ensure their interests and needs at national level.

[1]  P. S. L. Stanghellini,et al.  Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the stakeholder analysis within participatory processes , 2010 .

[2]  U. Flick.  An Introduction to Qualitative Research , 1998 .

[3]  E. Penning‐Rowsell,et al.  Micro-political and related barriers to stakeholder engagement in flood risk management , 2012 .

[4]  I. Theesfeld,et al.  Water Grabbing and the Role of Power: Shifting Water Governance in the Light of Agricultural Foreign Direct Investment , 2012 .

[5]  Jens Newig,et al.  What Role for Public Participation in Implementing the EU Floods Directive? A comparison with the Water Framework Directive, early evidence from Germany, and a research agenda , 2014 .

[6]  K. Cox.  Territory, Scale, and Why Capitalism Matters , 2013, The Confines of Territory.

[7]  P. Driessen,et al.  Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: the cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam , 2014, Regional Environmental Change.

[8]  John Allen,et al.  Three spaces of power: territory, networks, plus a topological twist in the tale of domination and authority , 2009 .

[9]  M. Juntti,et al.  Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment , 2009 .

[10]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards , 2008 .

[11]  G. Haughton,et al.  Spaces of Neoliberal Experimentation: Soft Spaces, Postpolitics, and Neoliberal Governmentality , 2013 .

[12]  David. Proverbs,et al.  Accessibility of flood risk insurance in the UK: confusion, competition and complacency , 2009 .

[13]  Climate change mitigation options in the rural land use sector: Stakeholders’ perspectives on barriers, enablers and the role of policy in North East Scotland , 2014 .

[14]  Meike Levin-Keitel.  Managing urban riverscapes: towards a cultural perspective of land and water governance , 2014 .

[15]  Ortwin Renn.  Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World , 2008 .

[16]  Phil Allmendinger,et al.  Soft Spaces, Fuzzy Boundaries, and Metagovernance: The New Spatial Planning in the Thames Gateway , 2009 .

[17]  T. Nielsen,et al.  The legitimacy of incentive-based conservation and a critical account of social safeguards , 2014 .

[18]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second Edition. , 2000 .

[19]  Ben Clifford.  Reform on the Frontline: Reflections on Implementing Spatial Planning in England, 2004–2008 , 2013 .

[20]  I. Seidl,et al.  Social capacities for drought risk management in Switzerland , 2013 .

[21]  Andrew E. G. Jonas,et al.  Scaling Sustainable Development? How Voluntary Groups Negotiate Spaces of Sustainability Governance in the United Kingdom , 2012 .

[22]  Caroline Pade-Khene,et al.  Complexity of Stakeholder Interaction in Applied Research , 2013 .

[23]  J. Gerring.  Case Study Research: Principles and Practices , 2006 .

[24]  T. Coulthard,et al.  The Hull floods of 2007: implications for the governance and management of urban drainage systems , 2010 .

[25]  M. Reed.  Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[26]  K. Blackstock,et al.  Participatory research to influence participatory governance: managing relationships with planners , 2015 .

[27]  W. Vermeulen,et al.  Towards a Conceptual Framework for The Study of Shifts in Modes of Environmental Governance – Experiences From The Netherlands , 2012 .

[28]  J. R. Diez,et al.  Catching the Local Buzz by Embedding? Empirical Insights on the Regional Embeddedness of Multinational Enterprises in Germany and the UK , 2012 .

[29]  Anna Scolobig,et al.  Perspectives on social capacity building for natural hazards: outlining an emerging field of research and practice in Europe , 2011 .

[30]  Anil Graves,et al.  Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[31]  Torben Damgaard,et al.  Cluster Facilitation from a Cluster Life Cycle Perspective , 2013 .

[32]  K. O'Toole,et al.  The participatory logic of coastal management under the project state: Insights from the Estuary Entrance Management Support System (EEMSS) in Victoria, Australia , 2013 .

[33]  M. Buchecker,et al.  Does Participatory Planning Foster the Transformation Toward More Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems? , 2013 .

[34]  S. Lukes.  Power: A Radical View , 1974 .

[35]  Sally J. Priest,et al.  Partnership funding in flood risk management: new localism debate and policy in England , 2014 .

[36]  N. Sayre.  Ecological and geographical scale: parallels and potential for integration , 2005 .

[37]  K. Cox.  Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics , 1998 .

[38]  M. Miles,et al.  Data management and analysis methods. , 1994 .

[39]  Public involvement in the Red River Basin management decisions and preparedness for the next flood , 2002 .

[40]  H. Bernard,et al.  Data Management and Analysis Methods , 2000 .

[41]  Peter Jackson,et al.  Public Sector Added Value: Can Bureaucracy Deliver? , 2001 .

[42]  Dennis Collentine,et al.  Stakeholder discourse and water management – implementation of the participatory model CATCH in a Northern Italian alpine sub-catchment , 2008 .