Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management

A question of roles and power: Lessons from England

authored by

Thomas Thaler, Meike Levin-Keitel

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.

Organisation(s)

Institute of Environmental Planning

External Organisation(s)

Middlesex University
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences

Type

Article

Journal

Environmental Science and Policy

Volume

55

Pages

292-301

No. of pages

10

ISSN

1462-9011

Publication date

01.2016

Publication status

Published

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Geography, Planning and Development, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Electronic version(s)

https://doi.org/10.15488/1891 (Access: Open)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007 (Access: Closed)