PROTECTING COMMUNITIES, PROTECTING
LIVELIHOODS: INTEGRATING FLOOD RISK
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH WEST OF
ENGLAND, UK
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Faculty of Humanities
2018
Evelyn Alexis Prosser
School of Environment, Education and Development
Department of Planning and Environmental Management DECLARATION
This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing, which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
I. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.
II. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.
III. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.
IV. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses
Signed: Evelyn Prosser
Date: 07th November 2018 ABSTRACT
Flooding is a natural phenomenon which has been defined simply by Arnell (2002, p. 112) as “an excess of water in a place that is normally dry”. This excess of water beyond its usual confinement causes problematic consequences to the ordinary functioning activity of society. Although water is an essential resource which sustains life, enables trade for goods and services, is functional, workable and an aesthetically pleasing asset, its presence in excess and subsequent management can threaten economic development.
The flood event itself and indeed the policy approaches taken to manage the probability and consequences of flood events can come into conflict with economic development policy. Flood risk management policy has developed a reputation for creating a barrier to economic development, rather than being a tool to facilitator.
Despite policy integration rising as an academic concept and a practical policy aspiration; there has been limited research which has examined the interface of flood risk management and economic development in correlation to changes in governance. This thesis explores the challenges that arise at the interface between flood risk management policy and economic development policy using a case study of the Mersey Basin with a specific focus on the city region of Greater Manchester. The research builds an understanding of this interface and the perceptions of actors across multiple scales of governance.
The main challenges for policy integration include conflicts which arise between the political and economic interests of actors; the ability of actors to rebalance from the dominance of economic development policy and to articulate the drivers for policy integration; the capability and power of actors to be able to influence strategies for the long term and; the limited availability of people and financial resource to facilitate policy integration. Despite challenges being far reaching across scales of governance, the opportunities for policy integration were seen to exist especially in relation to policy integration being a facilitator to the release of funding and having a role in engaging and fulfilling goals within a wider policy discourse. CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION ...... 2
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES ...... 5
1.3 FLOOD EVENTS AS AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM ...... 6
1.4 ACOMMON POOL RISK ...... 7 1.4.1 …But what is flood risk? ...... 8
1.5 DRIVERS OF FLOOD RISK...... 11
1.6 FLOOD MANAGEMENT RATHER THAN CONTROL...... 13
2. SPACES OF GOVERNANCE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY INTEGRATION ...... 16
2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 17
2.2 GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ...... 18 2.2.1 Spaces of Governance ...... 20 2.2.2 Integration of Policy ...... 22
2.3 CONTINUAL REWORKING OF GOVERNANCE – WAGERS AND SCALE? ...... 34 2.2.3 Challenges Associated with Hydrological Infrastructure ...... 37 2.2.4 The Urban Concentration, a Focus for Experiment ...... 41
2.4 THE PURSUIT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - IMPLICATIONS FOR FLOOD RISK
MANAGEMENT IN THE UK ...... 47 2.2.5 Wisdom and Foresight: Early Town Planning ...... 47 2.2.6 Significant Economic Stress and Land Drainage ...... 49 2.2.7 The First Wave Environmentalism ...... 50 2.2.8 Neoliberalism and Flood Defence ...... 51 2.2.9 Is the frequency of Flood Events Increasing? ...... 51 2.2.10 A Civil Emergency ...... 54 2.2.11 Fresh Spatial Strategies ...... 56 2.2.12 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ...... 58 2.2.13 Investing in Britain’s Future ...... 60 2.2.14 Conclusion ...... 60 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 64
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 65
3.2 COMPONENT ONE: DEFINE AND DESIGN...... 67 3.2.1 Theoretical Paradigm ...... 68 3.2.2 Ontology and Epistemology ...... 69 3.2.3 The Researcher as a Multi-Cultural Subject...... 70 3.2.4 Limitations of Policy Specific Research ...... 75
3.3 COMPONENT TWO: DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISATION...... 77 3.3.1 International Scoping Exercise ...... 77 3.3.2 The Case Study Research Strategy ...... 83 3.3.3 Scale of Analysis, the River Basin ...... 85 3.3.4 The City Region of Greater Manchester ...... 86 3.3.5 Localised Embedded Case Studies ...... 87
3.4 COMPONENT THREE: DATA COLLECTION, INTEGRATION AND REFLECTION ...... 90 3.4.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ...... 91 3.4.2 The Exercise of Analysis by Coding ...... 99
3.5 DRAWING TOGETHER AND ANALYSIS ...... 104
4. INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO POLICY INTEGRATION ...... 106
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 107
4.2 ATLANTIC GATEWAY ...... 110 4.2.1 The Vison...... 110 4.2.2 Developing the Vision ...... 112
4.3 CLYDE WATERFRONT REGENERATION ...... 114 4.3.1 The Vision ...... 114 4.3.2 Developing the Vision ...... 114
4.4 EMSCHER LANDSCAPE PARK ...... 120 4.4.1 The Vision ...... 120 4.4.2 Developing the Vision ...... 122
4.5 LOWER MURRAY FLOODPLAIN PROJECT ...... 125 4.5.1 The Vision ...... 125 4.5.2 Developing the Vision ...... 125
4.6 NEW WATER PILOT AREA ...... 128 4.6.1 The Vision ...... 128 4.6.2 Developing the Vision...... 129
4.7 THAMES GATEWAY ...... 132 4.7.1 The Vision ...... 132 4.7.2 Developing the Vision...... 134
4.8 TRINITY RIVER VISION ...... 139 4.8.1 The Vision ...... 139 4.8.2 Developing of the Vision...... 140
4.9 SUMMARY ...... 143 4.9.1 Project Case Studies Summary ...... 143
5. THE INTERFACE BETWEEN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY ...... 149
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 150
5.2 FINDING COMMON GROUND? ...... 150
5.3 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT POLICY ...... 152 5.3.1 A Competitive Economy...... 153
5.4 OPPORTUNITIES CREATED BY POLICY INTEGRATION? ...... 157 5.4.1 Promotion of Win-Win Solutions ...... 159 5.4.2 Promotion of Consistency between Policies ...... 160 5.4.3 Improved Achievement of Long Term Goals ...... 161 5.4.4 Improved Relations ...... 162 5.4.5 Promotion of Innovation ...... 163 5.4.6 Greater Understanding of the Effects of Policies on Other Sectors ...... 163
5.5 SUMMARY ...... 165
6. DYNAMICS OF POLICY INTEGRATION: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTIPLE SCALES AND NEGOTIATING POLICY INTEGRATION...... 168
6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 169
6.2 EXPLORING THE RIVER MERSEY BASIN ...... 169
6.3 DYNAMICS OF EVOLVING INTEGRATION IN A CITY REGION ...... 172 6.3.1 Greater Manchester ...... 175
6.4 CITY OF SALFORD ...... 180 6.4.1 Background ...... 181 6.4.2 Turning around Barriers and Challenges? ...... 183
6.5 BOROUGH OF ROCHDALE ...... 189 6.5.1 Background ...... 190 6.5.2 Turning around Barriers and Challenges? ...... 191
6.6 SUMMARY...... 199
7. DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING POLICY...... 203
7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 204
7.2 IMPACTS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF POLICY INTEGRATION ...... 204
7.3 CHALLENGES OF POLICY INTEGRATION ...... 207 7.3.1 Political - Perception and Finding Common Ground ...... 207 7.3.2 Institutional and Organisational - Challenge of Rebalancing the Dominance of Economic Development ...... 209 7.3.3 Process and Management - Planning for the Long-term ...... 212 7.3.4 Economic and Financial - Challenge of Resource ...... 217 7.3.5 Behaviour, Cultural and Personal - Challenge of Integrating Actors ...... 220
7.4 SUMMARY...... 222
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 224
8.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 225
8.2 INTERPRETATION AND REFLECTION ...... 225 8.2.1 Contextual Summary ...... 225 8.2.2 Collaborative Research ...... 226
8.3 PERCEPTION, PRACTICE AND CHALLENGES ...... 228 8.3.1 Introduction ...... 228 8.3.2 Perceptions of the Integration of Flood Risk Management and Economic Development Policy ...... 228 8.3.3 International and National Contemporary Practices in the Integration of Flood Risk Management and Economic Development Policy ...... 229 8.3.4 Challenges of Integration of Flood Risk Management and Economic Development Policy at the Multiple Scales of City Regional Governance ...... 231
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED POLICY INTEGRATION ...... 234 8.4.1 Political ...... 235 8.4.2 Institutional/ Organisational ...... 237 8.4.3 Process and Management ...... 237 8.4.4 Economic/ Financial ...... 239 8.4.5 Behavioural, Cultural and Personal ...... 240
8.5 CONTRIBUTION OF THIS RESEARCH ...... 242
8.6 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 243
9. REFERENCES ...... 245
10. APPENDICES ...... 287 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 – LIST OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF POLICY INTEGRATION …...... 24
TABLE 2 – FACILITATORS OF POLICY INTEGRATION…….…………………….28
TABLE 3 – INHIBITORS OF POLICY INTEGRATION………….…………………...31
TABLE 4 – LIST OF URBAN DRIVERS FOR FLOOD EVENTS…………………….43
TABLE 5 - TECHNICAL DISCOURSES OF WATER INFRASTRUCTURE………...46
TABLE 6 – THE BIOGRAPHICAL SITUATED RESEARCHER……………………..72
TABLE 7 – TRUSTWORTHINESS, EVALUATIVE CRITERION….…….…………..75
TABLE 8 – ASPECTS INVESTIGATED FOR EACH PROJECT …...………………..79
TABLE 9 – TYPOLOGY OF PROJECTS………………..……………………………..81
TABLE 10 – TYPOLOGY SCORING SYSTEM……………………………….………82
TABLE 11 – MERSEY BASIN, SALFORD EMBEDDED CASE STUDY….…...... 89
TABLE 12 – MERSEY BASIN, ROCHDALE EMBEDDED CASE STUDY…………90
TABLE 13 – DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANT NUMBERS BY ORGANISATION AND SECTOR…….…………………………………………………………………...... 96
TABLE 14 – DISTRIBUTION OF NON-PARTICIPANT NUMBERS BY ORGANISATION AND SECTOR………………………………………….………...…97
TABLE 15 – CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS - CURRENT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOOD RISK AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT POLICY (THEME A)……………………………………….....…………………..101
TABLE 16 – CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS - DYNAMICS OF
EVOLVING POLICY INTEGRATION (THEME B)…………………………………………….102
TABLE 17 – CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS - FUTURE AVENUES OF POLICY INTEGRATION (THEME C)………………………………………………………..…103
TABLE 18 – PROJECT CASE STUDIES…………………………………………...…109 TABLE 19 – CLYDE WATERFRONT PROJECTS WITH FLOOD RISK ELEMENT………………………………………………………………………...... 118
TABLE 20 – REVEALING THE RIVER ROCH, BENEFITS ANALYSIS..………………………………………………………………………...... 193 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………….…63
FIGURE 2 – REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE OF THE RESEARCH APPROACH ...... 67
FIGURE 3 – INITIAL THEMES OF ENQUIRY USED FOR THE INTERVIEWS…...94
FIGURE 4 – DEVELOPED THEMES AND SUB-THEMES USED FOR CODING………………………………………………………………………………...100
FIGURE 5 – CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………..108
FIGURE 6 – ATLANTIC GATEWAY MAP………………………………..………....110
FIGURE 7 – MAP OF EMSCHER LANDSCAPE PARK……………………....……..120
FIGURE 8 – VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE NEW WATER PILOT AREA MASTER PLAN………………………...……………………………………………...128
FIGURE 9 – MAP OF THAMES GATEWAY…….…………………………………..132
FIGURE 10 – MAP OF PUBLIC SECTORS INVOLVED IN THE THAMES GATEWAY……………………………………………………………………….…….135
FIGURE 11 – VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF PANTHER ISLAND……………...140
FIGURE 12 – HYDROLOGICAL CONNECTIONS OF SALFORD WITHIN GREATER MANCHESTER…...………………...……………………………………..181 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ECONOMIC
COSTS OF SUMMER 2007 FLOODS IN ENGLAND………….………………….…288
APPENDIX B – INTERVIEW DISCUSSION GUIDE………...……………….……..289
APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM………………………………….291
APPENDIX D – OBSERVATION ACTIVITIES………………..………………….…292
APPENDIX E – STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATION INTERVIEWED
AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION……………………………...…………...... 295
APPENDIX F – INTERVIEW METHOD TABLE…………………………………….300
APPENDIX G – TIMELINE, TRINTY RIVER VISION……………………………...304
APPENDIX H – INTERNATIONAL FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE – REPORT………………………………………………………………………………...306 Chapter 1 - Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
1.1 Problem Definition Water is an essential resource for economic development and growth. It sustains life, enables trade for most types of goods and services, is functional, workable and an aesthetically pleasing asset. However, water can also be described as a troublesome substance with many unruly qualities which humans attempt to tame in various ways (Jones and Macdonald 2007). Flooding is one of these unruly qualities which can have consequences for human life, wellbeing, economic activity, cultural heritage and the built environment (Tapsell et al. 2002; Jonkman 2005; Burrell 2007; Hammond et al. 2013), and provides the focus of this thesis. It is the interface between policy for flood risk management and economic development policy on which this thesis focuses, addressing important gaps in policy and academic understanding.
The problematisation of flooding has led to a raised profile internationally and nationally with major disasters, regularly entering political debate, topping newspaper headlines and televised news. Such an event is in line with a number of studies showing that flood risk is increasing due to, amongst other things, climate change and increasing development in flood prone areas (Peduzzi et al. 2009; Jongman et al. 2012; Alfieri et al. 2015).
Simply, flooding is “an excess of water in a place that is normally dry” (Arnell 2002, p. 112) which can be caused by a variety of sources namely, watercourse (fluvial), coastal, surface water (pluvial) and groundwater in rural and urban localities (Merz et al. 2010). Although the flood event can be described with distinct terminology according to the source, a combination of sources may give rise to a flood event. As explained by Walker et al. (2011) the definition by Arnell suggests that when water becomes flood water, it accumulates and moves across a boundary of spatially constituted normality and that a transgression and a change of state can occur whereby water may become problematic. It is at this point where flooding becomes problematic. Even though flooding is a natural phenomenon, the potential consequences of flood events can be seen to have been exacerbated over time, as a result of human activity, with climate change, urbanisation and even approaches taken to tame and manage flood water increasing the consequences of a flood. Flood events influence economic development firstly by causing direct economic cost during an event and after, and secondly, the event itself or the risk of an event can release the potential for economic development.
2 Chapter 1 - Introduction
Lewis (2012) highlights that policies aiming to reduce the likelihood of flood events may adversely impact economic prosperity. However, more recently flood risk management can be seen to be fundamental to unlocking the full potential of economic development. Theoretically, investment can in turn support a locality’s aspirations for a reduction in vulnerability to flood events but also increase the resilience, competiveness of and opportunities for wider economic development. Therefore, there is a need to greater understand integration between flood risk management and economic development policy so that where possible the policies complement each other and conflicts are resolved to enable the realisation of sustainable livelihoods and development.
In many countries there has been a trend towards more integrated flood risk management (Bubeck et al. 2017). Some would argue that this need for policy integration is fundamental because water systems are complex, multi-faceted and trans-boundary. However, the rhetoric of ‘integrated governance’ has often found difficulty transferring to practice (Healey 2006). The governance of flood risk management in Europe and worldwide is not static but constantly in a state of flux (Samuels et al. 2006), reflective of wider changes in approaches to governance. In this context, actors are having to navigate through new scales of multi-level governance both for flood risk management policy and economic development policy while also seeking to integrate policy. There has been increasing emphasis over how to secure integration across and within functional and territorial divides (Dinan 2010), reflected through new scales of multi-scalar governance, focusing on functional economic areas and city-regions to facilitate integrated both vertical and horizontal that more accurately reflect where people live and work.
Rescaling can be thought of as comprising at least one of three elements: a scaling downwards from countries and provinces to more local levels of government; a scaling upwards from local, provincial, and national governments; and a scaling outwards from centralised to more inclusive forms of decision making (Reed and Bruyneel 2010). Flood risk governance in the UK has at different moments exemplified all three of these.
Wiering et al. (2017, p. 25) stress that analysing change and stability in policy should take into account the “complexity of the policy world”. For flood risk management complexity arises when attempting to ascertain areas which are constituted as normality, as the spatial and temporal boundaries of normality are not always easily or consistently identified. The spatial boundaries of flood events often do not align neatly with the
3 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK institutional boundaries created to manage the problematic behaviour of flood events. In terms of the aspiration for policy integration, solely looking at economic space is insufficient. Flood events are trans-boundary with boundary concepts such as local authority, administrative, city regional scales, river basin catchments and regional basin catchments all being used in attempts to govern flood risk management. Therefore, it could be argued that for integrated economic development and flood risk management, governance is required at the landscape level, but at this level multiple interpretations of jurisdictions, territorialities and boundaries overlaps occur (Hajer 2003; Smith and Raven 2012). It is argued by van Oosten (2018) that from a landscape perspective it has become necessary to create place-specific institutions or new spatial spatiality where policy integration can be achieved (Hajer 2003), but this can only happen if landscape actors behave creatively and entrepreneurially in order to address conflicting policies. This is an approach which acknowledges that policy making rarely occurs in neat sequential stages but is somewhat messy and fraught with problems. Van Oosten (2018) develops an analytical framework for conceptualising strategies for overcoming conflicting policy objectives and emphasises that this is a subject that has not received much attention. Furthermore, McFadden (2009) in relation to strategic coastal flood risk management explain that specific success factors that can facilitate patterns of integrated flood risk management for the long term are still relatively unknown.
The challenges of integration remains dependant on our ability to effectively govern in ways that take into account scale and regularly shifting priorities. However, there is limited understanding on how policy actors are dealing with aspirations for flood risk management and economic development policy and the conflicts that may arise in practice. Furthermore, whether opportunities for policy integration are being realised. In this context, urban areas are of particular interest because this is where risk and associated impacts of flood events on economic development are more severe, conversely, governance is seen to be fundamental in unlocking the full potential of economic development. This thesis will aid understanding of policy integration of flood risk management and economic development.
4 Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.2 Aim and Objectives
Aim:
To analyse understand the challenges of policy integration across multiple scales of governance and the extent to which actors have been successful in promoting integration of flood risk management and economic development
Objectives:
Objective I
To examine how actors within a multi-scalar governance context perceive impacts between flood risk management and economic development policy
Objective II
To analyse international and national contemporary practices in the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy to understand the approaches and opportunities arising from policy integration
Objective III
Use detailed case studies to explore the challenges of integrating flood risk policy and economic development policy, focusing on the multiple scales of city regional governance in Greater Manchester
Objective IV
To make recommendations regarding improved integration of flood risk management and economic development policy
5 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
1.3 Flood Events as an International Problem Floods occur every year all over the world and have been described as the most frequent and damaging natural hazard (Berz 2000; Jha et al. 2012). In the last couple of decades, major floods have occurred in China 2011, Afganistan-Pakistan 2013, New York 2014 and Northern Chile in 2015. This observed increase in flood events and related losses has mainly been attributed to socio-economic trends that increase exposure to floods: namely; an increase in the number of people and assets in flood prone areas.
Flood events are widespread globally, occurring in all regions of the world compared to other natural disasters which are primarily restricted in their distribution, for example earthquakes to tectonics plate boundaries and hurricanes to tropic regions (Kron 2005). Indeed, flooding has been described as the most frequent and damaging natural hazard, which affected 178 million people and in one year alone, 2010, caused losses that exceeded US$ 40billion (Jha et al. 2012). During the time between 2010 and 2014 flooding contributed to about 39% of worldwide natural disasters and caused US$ 397.3 billion worth of damage (EM-DAT, 2015). Flood events can also cause loss of human lives and significant material damage (Brázdil et al. 2006; Cavallo and Noy 2011). As an example of such events the region of South East Queensland, including the state capital of Brisbane, experienced one of its largest recorded floods in January 2011, reportedly the most expensive natural disaster in Australian history (Honert and McAneney 2011; Bohensky and Leitch 2013). Flooding is said to be the most costly environmental hazard (World Bank and United Nations 2010), with high, middle, low income countries all struggling to cope with weather extremes.
Research by Wilby and Keenan (2012) concluded that although the absolute direct costs of events may be greatest for high-income counties, the economic impact is larger for middle income countries because of their rapidly expanding asset base yet relatively immature risk management systems (World Bank and United Nations 2010). A substantial amount of international literature critically examines the flood event including research within Australia, Canada, India, America and Europe which explores and compares flood events within and between countries. This literature, until recent years, has tended to focus upon flood defence measures to reduce the probability of flooding (Scott et al. 2013). The potentially devastating consequences of floods and the anticipated future increase in occurrence justify efforts to reduce both their occurrence and severity
6 Chapter 1 - Introduction
(Burrell 2007). The future potential economic cost of flood events has driven a renewed interest in flood risk management (Scott et al. 2013).
1.4 A Common Pool Risk Water can be conceptualised as a common pool resource, therefore by extrapolation flooding can be conceptualised as a ‘common pool risk’ which requires approaches which deal with risk of flooding affecting the ‘common good’ of society and all members of society. Understanding what comprises a ‘common good’ and managing the hazard, exposure, and vulnerability of the risk is a challenge which requires shared understanding and cooperative politics, not least in the practice of planning but for governance. Healey (2016, p.45) argues that “there is an urgent need in the present period for a strategic approach to how places develop, with a broad social and environmental perspective rather than a narrow economic pre-occupation”, requiring a transformation of traditional politics and planning processes. This aligns with a related need to reconcile the relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy. This political ground presents a space where the narrow pre-occupation with economic development is counterproductive and strategic approaches to place economic development with flood risk management can be seen as imperative.
The environmental and non-environmental entities which are engaged in this policy arena have often found common ground in the conceptual objective of resilience; whatever the aspirational goal, it is contested that this can only be achieved in tandem as considering such policy spheres in isolation is misconceived due to the co-implicated nature of the two entities (Castree 2002). However, in many governance contexts, regimes have allowed for sectorial policy communities with a focus on their particular functions to develop as isolated bastions each having its own relations to business and pressure groups, paying little attention to the intersection of policies with the realities of economic organisation, social life, and bio-spheric systems (Healey 1999). This approach is perhaps seen as easier, more straight forward and fits better within short term political aspirations. However, environmental entities are often a “key conflict within local policy making” demonstrating an on-going need to integrate economic development (Jonas and Ward 2007, p. 2).
7 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
There has been widespread acknowledgement that challenges such as flood events and economic development are no longer solvable by traditional state intervention and agencies. A gradual change in perception has occurred from the hierarchical traditional image of government as a direct provider of essential public services such as flood defence, towards becoming an enabler, a co-operative player which acts as a catalytic agent facilitating provision and action by and through other actors. However, despite a move towards this wider governance approach and the win-win rhetoric of policy integration there has been little academic enquiry into the actual impacts and challenges of integration for flood management against the back drop of contemporary governance rescaling.
1.4.1 …But what is flood risk? The concept and instruments of risk have formed an important element in initiatives to manage floods (Krieger 2013). In the first instance, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the term risk. A broad definition of risk is provided by Rowe (1977, p. 24): “the potential for the realisation of unwanted negative consequences of an event”. The term flood risk is regularly used in relation to measure the troublesome behaviour of flood events. However the application and understanding of the term needs to be unpicked further. Many attempts have been made to define and measure the concept, seek its origins and account for discrepancies between the risk perceptions of expert and lay persons (Lewis 2012). Research by Lewis (2012) shown that risk can be conceptualised in two different ways as either:
1) A ‘physical given’ attribute of hazardous technologies. This is based on objective facts, which can be explained, predicted and controlled by science, therefore remaining separate from subjective values. 2) A ‘socially constructed’ attribute that cannot be treated as value free. This places greater emphasis on the role of cultural values, signifying that risks cannot exist independently of the humans who assess and experience its effects.
The origins of risk assessment as a method for determining the likelihood of an event lays within the first of these concepts, relating risk to a physical attribute. Originally
8 Chapter 1 - Introduction used within the chemical, nuclear and aerospace fields, it has now evolved and is used within a broad range of fields but in varying approaches.
A well established and simple framework in environmental risk assessment is the Source-Pathway-Receptor model, which is based upon causal linkages between the source of hazard, the mechanism by which it is transmitted and the receptor, which suffers an impact. This framework can be useful in the context of flood events (Merz et al. 2010; White 2010) whereby, as an example, a fluvial flood event is caused by heavy and prolonged precipitation (Source) and connected to a residential property (Receptor) by a road (Pathway). The exposure of people and economic assets to natural hazards is rapidly increasing with risk becoming a much larger threat than previously anticipated. The damage from flood events may be wide reaching and can be direct or indirect, having effects within months or years after the flood event itself. As a result of exceptional rainfall in parts of England during the summer of 2007 which caused unprecedented flooding and associated disruption, economic loss and social distress, a government funded assessment of the impacts was undertaken. This assessment provides a monetary estimate of the total economic costs of the floods across a range of sectors and impact categories (Chatterton et al. 2010). A high level assessment of the estimated economic costs of the floods by impact is provided in Appendix A. This appendix helps to indicate the high number of policy sectors that are impacted by a flood event and ultimately economic growth. This and subsequent events have led to significant change in the governance of flood risk management in the UK and in particular the policy relationship with economic development. Much flood risk literature discusses the negative consequences of a flood event in terms of risks to society however impacts as a result of an event or approaches to flood risk management can have advantageous consequences.
In terms of risk management, risk itself can be defined as a combination of the probability of an event occurring and the potential adverse consequences of flooding from all sources (Hall et al. 2003). The probability is the likelihood of a flood event occurring which is a complex function of numerous interacting factors such as climatic conditions, built infrastructure, and geographical setting. It is often calculated in numbers i.e. 1 in 100 year event meaning an event that on average will occur every 100 years or as an event which has a 1% probability of occurring in any one year.
The consequence of a flood event is a function of the vulnerability and exposure of the built and natural environments to harm. Exposure is the nature and degree to which
9 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK people or things may be exposed to a flood event (Parry, et al. 2007) and vulnerability is a measure of the potential of people or thing to be harmed (Wolf et al. 2013). For example, the consequences of a flood will be less severe in an area with few people who are able to evacuate quickly and easily. Flooding on an area with lots of people who have difficulty with evacuation is likely to have more serious consequences.
The European Union Floods Directive defines flood risk consistently with this approach: “the combination of the probability of a flood event and of the potential adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with a flood event” (European Commission 2007, p. 3). A key aspect of this definition is that the natural processes of flooding is framed with human consequences; linking the issues with the presence of ‘bad water’ with human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity (Kaika 2003).
The different components to risk make quantifying risk a challenging task and is most often defined by those who seek to measure it using probability and a forecast of future events. However, as “the future is uncertain and inescapably subjective; it does not exist except in the minds of people attempting to anticipate it, complications arise” (Adams 1995, p. 30). Therefore, to effectively manage risks we need to acknowledge that not all consequences can either be measured or foreseen (White, 2010). A fundamental challenge when using the term risk is considering the subjectivity of risk when attempts are made to pin it down with objective numbers (Adams 1995), a figure often required by policy actors and decision makers.
This move into the subjective world of perception means that different people and their belongings experience varying degrees of risk associated with flood events. The risk of flooding is therefore not only associated with the physical nature of the flood but also relates to the ability to manage, cope and adapt to the event itself (Treby 2006). The risk of flooding is then “the conjunction of the natural physical hazard and the socio- economic vulnerability of the population affected” (Priest, 2003, p 34). It is recognised that there are different perceptions of risk, most notably lay reactions and expert derived judgements and it is important to understand why particular perceptions to risk arise.
Further uncertainty arises in relation to the drivers of flood risk such as climate change or urbanisation. The presence of uncertainty should not need to lead to inaction but instead should be seen as requiring a sophisticated way of handling future uncertainty
10 Chapter 1 - Introduction
(White 2010). A greater understanding and application of the risk concept is required to provide an ability to manage the uncertain nature of the flooding hazard. It is certain that flood events will always affect human society but the nature of the future flood hazards is uncertain alongside the governance approaches to the management and the political appetite for support.
1.5 Drivers of Flood Risk Although the flood may be in part a natural phenomenon the urban flood events in particular are affected by anthropogenic, social/economic and political factors which in turn influence the country, region, city, community and individual being flooded (Parker 2000). It has been suggested that flood risk has increased over recent decades partially as a result of a quest for modernity which has included draining wetlands and floodplains for agriculture, permitting steady encroachment of settlements onto flood plains and the construction of more impermeable surfaces within urban areas (Evans et al. 2004). Humans have developed in a manner which has sought to dominate nature, an approach which shows limitations that are accentuated when considering the future drivers of flood risk. There are two main drivers of increased flood risk - urbanisation and climate change.
The first driver, urbanisation is intrinsically linked with global population growth. At the start of the twentieth century the population of the world was estimated to be 1.65 billion, this figure has since increased dramatically and in 2005 this population was a hugely expanded 6.5 billion. This growth is expected to continue and between 2006 and 2050 the total global population is predicted to rise by a further 2.7 billion to around 9.2 billion (White 2010). A worldwide demographic trend is for an increasing population to concentrate in settlements and for the settlements to expand their perimeters creating large urban areas. The move from rural to urban environments is a dominant spatial process evident throughout the world within developed and developing countries and is referred to as urbanisation.
Urban areas especially cities are unnatural environments which have caused and continue to cause rapid changes to the natural landscape. Historically, large watercourses attracted urban development for a number of reasons: fresh water supply for drinking; industry and agriculture; a natural disposal facility for sewerage; a fertile flat flood plain for construction and agriculture; and as a transportation route for enhancing trade and
11 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK defence (Sadoff and Grey 2002). Over time the urban areas have become increasingly unnatural systems comprising of impermeable surfaces causing reduced water infiltration, increased surface water run-off, complex surface water and foul water drainage systems; and the culverting of watercourses. The high density concentration of people, services, amenities and associated infrastructure cause cities to be high risk environments with increased exposure to flooding.
The second driver, is commonly referred to as climate change. In response to widespread recognition that human influenced emissions of greenhouse gasses have the potential to alter climate systems, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation. Despite some debate around the actual causes of climate change (Royer et al. 2004) the IPCC claim that the issue is of anthropogenic origin. In 2007 the panel reported that the scientific evidence for climate change is overwhelming; the world’s atmosphere will experience further warming over the next century, even if significant reductions are made to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the changing climate will lead to an increased risk of exposure to extreme weather events including rainfall (IPCC 2007). A warmer earth surface leads to increased evaporation and a higher intensity of water cycling (Becker and Grunewald 2003, p. 1099). This will not only increase the intensity and frequency of rainfall, raising the risk of pluvial and fluvial flooding, but also increase sea level rise. Therefore, flooding is believed by some to be the most widespread and serious potential impact of climate change (IPPC 2001). Flood events are increasing worldwide and are likely to become even more damaging in the future due to the driver of climate change.
Famously, the link between climate change, increased flood risk and the potential to impact a nation’s economic growth was publicised in the 2006 Stern Review (Stern 2007). Over the coming years as the climate systems change, society will not be static but will undergo social, cultural, economic and political changes affecting how human systems experience the climate change. Mitigation and adaptation are essential if significant risks such as those presented by the hydrological cycle are to be reduced (Ford and Smit 2004; Smit and Wandel 2006; Pielke et al. 2007; Adger and Barnett 2009; Parry 2009).
Urbanisation and climate change are drivers that will amplify the risk of water based hazards to society (White 2010). A common response to risk, “the potential for the
12 Chapter 1 - Introduction realisation of unwanted negative consequences of an event” (Rowe 1977, p. 24) is to apply management techniques. Flood risk whether it is physically or socially conceptualised needs to be analysed, assessed and mitigated in order to avoid unwanted consequences.
1.6 Flood Management rather than Control The concept of flood risk management commenced with a view of the natural world which developed during the emerging Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, that nature is something which can be conquered (Khatibi 2011). This is demonstrated by the use of structural defences to ‘control’ flood events in order to defend people and property from what Kaika (2003) calls ‘bad water’. Accordingly to Giddens (1991, p. 109) “to live in the universe of high modernity is to live in an environment of chance and risk, the inevitable concomitants of a system geared to the domination of nature”. Human ability to dominate nature with respect to water has been seen to be largely successful and includes feats of engineering such as culverting watercourses within urban areas and constructing dams for water retention. However, the use of hard engineered measures such as embankments, walls, barriers, weirs, sluices, and pumping stations can not entirely control flood events, and they may create unanticipated problems for instances moving the flood elsewhere. Questions have arisen over the long term sustainability of flood management strategies based exclusively on structural defences which comprise typically of a costly state-geared and often singular project driven focus.
During the 1930’s Gilbert White presented ‘The limit of economic justification for flood protection’ (White 1936) and developed ideas for flood mitigation and management within ‘Human Adjustments to Floods (White 1945), famously stating that “floods are acts of God but flood losses are largely acts of man” (White 1945, p. 2). History has shown that the management of floods is not easy and the acceptance and understanding of human’s ability to adjust has not been readily applied across the globe. An increasing number of flood events causing significant economic damage since the 1990s (Barredo 2007) has led to flood management receiving substantial academic attention. One of the main themes within the literature is the recognition that the use of solely structural measures to control flooding is likely to be less effective than integrated approaches which comprise a portfolio of structural and non-structural measures (Evans
13 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK et al. 2004). In response to significant flood events, flood management has undergone a paradigm shift from flood defence to flood risk management which comprises a portfolio of management options including structural and non-structural measures being used since the 1990s (Johnson et al. 2005; Krieger 2013). This involved a move away from the control of the flood hazard by protection to a flood risk management ideology (Scrase and Sheate 2005; Johnson and Priest 2008; Merz et al. 2010; Butler and Pidgeon 2011; Krieger 2013). The emphasis in flood risk management is now upon reducing harmful outcomes and seeking beneficial opportunities rather than prescriptive approaches to responding to particular flooding events and rekindles the origins of White’s work on ‘Human’s Adjustments to Floods’ (White 1945).
The rapid evolution of flood risk management is mirrored in different ways in many countries worldwide (Merz et al. 2010). The nature of flood risk management in different countries has evolved around their legislative and administrative systems, their cultural contexts, and the type of floods they experience. However, the concepts and instruments of flood risk, in most cases have formed an important element in many initiatives to manage flood events. The European Union governance arrangements comprise of the European Union Flood Directive which treats risk assessment as an important instrument to achieve the efficient use of resources, makes providing a “valuable basis for priority setting and further technical, financial and political decisions regarding flood risk management” (European Commission 2007, p. 187). Academic debate, about how effectively risk can be governed for managing flood events, is on- going (See - Burton 2008; Krieger 2013) and has often included a river basin catchment approach (De Roo et al. 2001; van Stokkom et al. 2005; Falconer and Harpin 2009). One intention of the catchment approach is that catchments across countries or regions can be analysed and managed hydrologically, economically and environmentally to a similar framework (Falconer and Harpin 2009). It is the management of risk which is the overarching theme of all flood management independent of spatial setting.
The aspirational idea of a landscape being managed for flood risk in tandem with economic development requires a greater understanding of the relationship between the two policies, and the governance challenges associated with policy integration. This central question of the thesis arose directly from a regional public body, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) who became a CASE partner of the research.
14 Chapter 1 - Introduction
The partnership provided an opportunity for a close, research led relationship with the public sector actor, with the aim of positively supporting goals for regional economic development alongside sustainable flood risk management. Therefore, this research has focused its aim on river catchments in the North West of England and Greater Manchester.
15 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
2. SPACES OF GOVERNANCE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY INTEGRATION
16 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
2.1 Introduction In this chapter a focus is placed on the governance and policy integration literature. The chapter establishes a framework to help promote a better understanding of the relationship between economic development and flood risk management policy. The chapter will consider urban space by examining some of the associated concepts which influence our management of space such as neoliberalism, governance, the river basin, and begin to critically engage with the challenges of policy integration.
Urban space, has for centuries been problematized and conceptualised in many different ways. Much recent critical enquiry has focused on trends in political and economic restructuring since the 1970s including privatization, marketization, deregulation, localisation, decentralisation and the state led encouragement of civil society to provide services that states previously provided directly for citizens (Tickell and Peck 2002; Castree 2008). In broad terms, this trend is often referred to as neoliberalism. Firstly, this chapter enquires into the foundations of modern economic thought and its evolution towards the current mainstream dogma of neoliberalism, outlining the contemporary implications of our ability to consider political government as an activity rather than an institution.
Secondly, this political and economic restructuring is discussed in terms of its continual impacts upon how we perceive, manage and plan urban space, in particular the notion of governance. The inadequacies of governance and our ability to problematize and resolve economic development and environmental challenges have become apparent, and can be linked to the changing rationalities of government. The understanding of the intersection between the complex non-human nature and the human designed urban space is a challenge, not least because the governance experience is constantly evolving. This chapter considers how such governance dimensions can become a useful analytical frame to unpick the problems associated with policy integration.
Finally, this chapter brings together the various concepts that are considered to develop and propose new arrangements for policy integration, drawing upon recent literature on governable spaces, scales and territories of governance. The overall aim is to improve understanding of the challenges in reconciling and integrating flood risk management and the aspirations of economic development.
17 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
2.2 Governance and Economic Development The concept of governance means different things to different people, it is much debated but many agree that the current ‘era of governance’ makes a departure from more traditional forms of governance (Griffin 2012). In its simplest form, governance is about authority, decision making and accountability whereby context, place, politics and the very nature of issues at stake, all make a difference to the precise articulation of the ‘geographies of governance’ (Griffin 2012). Governance can be seen as a social process of dialogue, negotiation and decision-making; or instrumentally, as a means to achieve pre-determined objectives. Despite discourses of reconciliation, tensions often persist between the environment and development in the wake of governance reforms that are actually designed to resolve them. Governance has become a key focus for enhancing integration across environmental management (McFadden et al. 2009).
The notion of governance places into central importance the interaction of government and non – government actors and how they are guided and directed to make decisions with a critique of how we govern becoming more significant in light of perceived governance failings. These failings can include political inefficiencies, poor policy implementation, democratic and accountability deficiencies and, of course growing environmental problems (Griffin 2012).
This research is being undertaken at a time where actors are getting to grips with the notion of governance, how do we govern with this new architecture and who is responsible. Restructuring and a resurge of economic and political ideas associated with laissez faire economic liberalism began in the late 1970s leading to the consolidation of neoliberalism as a new economic orthodoxy, in many western nations including the UK. Simply, the neoliberal concept promotes a blend of market-led economic and social restructuring to enhance the role of the private sphere and civil society in the economy. The strategy was justified as a bid to “remove market failures and prevent barriers to growth” (Williams 2015, p. 619). The powerful and appealing notion of freedom from government, to liberated individuals was used to drive implementation of neoliberal measures such as privatisation, open markets and deregulation under the belief that it would produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of all. The strategy presented a clear role for government in developing policy and intervention to support economic stability by creating strong institutions, opening up nations to the world
18 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration economy, encouraging innovation, and promoting social cohesion, solidarity and political stability (Hajer 2003). Such roles have involved a selective process of decentralisation away from central government, a redistribution of functions and power, albeit with strings attached and the possibility they could be rescinded.
Recently, there has been growing policy agreement that decentralisation will in principle produce optimum policy outcomes (Pugalis and Townsend 2014). However, the pendulum between centralisation and decentralisation in governance tends to swing back and forth over time (Rowe 2010), with varying tendencies across policy domains and geographies, involving “shifts in governance… [Defined as the] shifting relationships between the state, market and civil society in political domains of societies” (Arts and van Tatenhove 2006, p. 29). Decentralisation as a result of neoliberalism has created governance systems which are influenced in part by the political strength and the spatial coalitions of state and non-state actors. The geographical perspectives of this challenge has often been used to encapsulate governance, articulated via spatially loaded vocabularies such as horizontal, vertical power relations and blurring of boundaries between ‘levels’ and ‘scales’ (Griffin, 2012). The significance of what can be referred to as state rescaling strategies extends beyond the passing of powers and responsibilities from one tier to the next to encompass new policy frames and, thus, new scales of governance, working relations, interventions and contestation (Shaw and Greenhalgh 2010; Brenner 2011; Stead 2011). As argued by Griffin “these spatial imaginaries in governance theory are crucial in comprehending the ways in which power is understood to operate in governing arrangements…[and] function…for articulating the kinds of power modalities that are at play in governing practice” (Griffin 2012, p. 208). An understanding of the spatial imaginaries, power modalities and power dynamics in operation in the governing aspects of society can help us understand the dynamic and changing approaches to flood risk governance.
In efforts to make sense of political-economic events, the label of neoliberalism has been used as a theoretical explanatory concept and an analytical framework for contemporary forms of economic restructuring (Larner 2003). It has been suggested that neoliberalism has seen adaptation over time and space, as a political project specialised to a specific location (Brenner et al. 2010; Peck and Theodore 2012; Peck 2013). Adaptations of the neoliberal project to the landscape of institutional, economic and political contexts has been the grounds for critiques about the usefulness of neoliberalism
19 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK as an explanatory concept (Larner 2003; Tulumello 2015). As summarised by Baptista (2013) there are two strands of critical literature about neoliberalism: structuralist critiques of neoliberal political economy and governmentality critiques, which use a Foucauldian approach in order to explore the dynamics of state reconstruction (Baptista 2013). However, Larner, (2003) suggests that each strand need not be seem as isolated lines of critical enquiry and that there is value in using both the political economy and the governmentality approaches as frameworks to help understanding the “complexity and contradictions of the processes associated with contemporary forms of rule” (Larner 2003, p. 511).
The idea of governance promotes positive imaginaries of adaptability to all eventualities and is seen to be useful for “a world that is beyond our control” (Joseph 2013, p. 42) and constantly changing and therefore is applicable to constantly changing flood risk and economic development policy. This focus on subject formation within processes of neoliberalization provides an analytical bridge to the broader literature on neoliberalism as a form of political rationality or as termed by Foucault, governmentality (Burchell et al. 1991).
2.2.1 Spaces of Governance The act of governing itself is a processes of rendering things problematic and devising ways to rectify the problem which can be viewed as a way in which the activity of government has been made both thinkable and practical as a means to rectifying contemporary problems (Miller and Rose 2008). In this approach, the term government is referred to by Foucault as the conduct of conduct, expressing government as a more or less methodical and rationally reflected way of doing things, or ‘art’, for acting on the actions of individuals. There are many different forms of the conduct of conduct, the particular objects, methods and scales of which will vary (Burchell 1993). The state is treated as only one element in a multiple network of actors, organisations and entities involved in exercising authority over the conduct of individuals and populations. Government designates not just the activities of the state and its institutions but more broadly any rational effort to influence or guide the conduct of human beings through acting upon their hopes, desires, circumstances or environment (Inda 2005, p. 1). It is within this field of governmentality that one sees the continual attempts to define and
20 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration redefine which aspects of government are within the competences of the state and which are not, what is not political, what is public and what is private (Rose 1999). Furthermore, this notion of governmentalization has allowed the state to survive within contemporary power relations and seeks a continuing question of how governable spaces are fabricated (Rose 1999, p. 59). As explained by Joseph (2013, p. 41), a new form of power, “governmentality, works from a distance through a liberal rationality of governance… [and that] Foucault is interested in liberal forms of governance because he is trying to understand the newfound concern with populations and its relation to the development of capitalism in certain Western countries”.
Foucault’s discussion of neoliberal governmentality shows that the so called retreat of the state is in fact a prolongation of government, neo-liberalism is not the end but a transformation of politics, which restructures the power relations in society. Governmentality, thus, involves the fabrication of “governable spaces” (Rose 1999, pp. 31-40) in which questions of boundaries and territorial limits are implicated in determining domains of object and types of subjects requiring government. The term governmentality indicates diverse and multiple aims and practices to form and guide the conduct, behaviours and/or the inner states of others or the self. Governmentality is a dispersed power “by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects” (Foucault 1982, p. 777), which can be seen as having two elements: that of government - practices, programmes and projects; and that of mentality or thought - the truths that serve as rationales for the aims of government (Foucault 1991). Larner, 2003 challenged academics to think about neoliberalism as involving processes that produce spaces, states and subjects in complex and multiple forms; “that the spaces, states and subjects are seen as artefacts, rather than as architects, of neoliberalism” (Larner 2003, p. 511). In this vein, flood risk management is an artefact of neoliberalization, reflecting its need to measure in order to govern, and provide better information for the self-government of individuals able to respond to risk. It is not just power that is redistributed to individuals but also responsibility.
Regarding neoliberal governance more generally, McCarthy and Prudman, (2004) identify four central processes by which state functions aimed at regulating the social and environmental excesses of capitalist development have been transformed under neoliberalism. These are:
· Privatization
21 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
· The incapacitation of the state to regulate through fiscal and administrative cuts · The ‘hollowing out’ of the state through the rescaling of governance functions · Shifts towards supposedly more flexible ‘second generation’ regulatory frameworks, namely market based, nonbinding, voluntarist regimes that stress public-private cooperation, self-regulation, and the increased participation of civil society.
(McCarthy and Prudham 2004, p. 276)
One approach to governmentality is that it names a form of power whose logic is not the defence of territory or the glorification of the sovereign but the optimisation of the health and welfare of the population (Larner and Walters 2004). Several issues arise from this analysis. How is flood risk policy being implemented alongside aspirations for neoliberal driven economic development? How are roles and responsibilities being reworked both within government and with other actors?
2.2.2 Integration of Policy Polices are positions taken and communicated by governments and organisations, that recognise a problem and in general terms state what will be done about the problem (Dovers and Hezri 2010). Specifically, policy interventions seek to change behaviour in society with policy processes comprising multiple elements concerning problem framing, policy framing, policy implementation and evaluation, and involve government and non-government actors.
The concept of policy integration has been a long-standing debated issue within planning, politics and environmental management literature, with Pressman and Wildavsky noting in relation to the bureaucracy associated with these disciplines that “no suggestion of reform is more common than what we need is more coordination” (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984, p. 133). Over time, the process of integration and governance in terms of policy has been linked to a number of related concepts, to name a few: cross-cutting policy making; policy coordination; holistic government; collaborative governance; joined-up policy; joined-up government; environmental policy integration; network management and most recently the nexus approach (Benson et al. 2015). Broadly speaking, the concepts above are often categorised as relating to one of three main
22 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration umbrella concepts: policy integration, policy coordination and policy cooperation (Stead and Meijers 2009), under the baseline assumption that integration is instrumental for the policy process in complex policy areas (Hogl et al. 2016).
For the purposes of this research a conceptualisation is developed on policy integration as opposed to ‘coordination’ or ‘cooperation’. Interest in policy integration first entered the mainstream political domain in the 1990s as a policy response to the perceived need to connect the seemingly incompatible goals of economic competitiveness, social development and environmental protection. This policy response has been driven by the desire to develop sustainably, famously popularised by the Brundtland Report published in 1987 (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Although popular as a concept, policy integration is a highly contingent, a complex term where ideas about what is perceived to be best practice cannot be easily shared between localities (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). Humphreys (2015, p. 2), helpfully argues that:
“integration may be imagined as the process by which some policies, and the objectives, principles and values on which the policies are based, are integrated into a whole, that is a broader and more holistic set of policies, where the former did not previously exist” (Humphreys 2015, p. 2).
But also, Rouillard (2013, p. 379) argues that in addition to policy integration resulting in new unified policies, integration can also be when “a policy may unilaterally integrate characteristics of another policy to improve compatibility”. The imperative to integrate then has become a necessary part of the policy process which can occur within one policy or across two or more policies and be referred to as horizontal i.e. across sectors, or vertical policy integration i.e. across political and organisational scales (Rouillard et al. 2013).
Many arguments for integration have been promoted by academics and professionals: a summary of the benefits thought to be achieved by policy integration is provided in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 provide similar summaries of the literature on factors which respectively facilitate or inhibit policy integration based on six important factors, namely political; institutional and organisational; economic; process and management; and behavioural, cultural and personal.
23 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 1 – List of Potential Benefits of Policy Integration
Potential Benefits
Ø Improved personal, social and inter-organisational relations
Ø Promotion of synergies (win-win solutions)
Ø Access to alternative sources and forms of scientific and lay knowledge
Ø Reduction in the duplication of policy making processes
Ø Deep learning leading to the exploration of underlying values, assumptions, attitudes and expectations
Ø The promotion of consistency between policies in different sectors and at different levels of decision making.
Ø Re-framing of complex issues and questions, leading to enhanced problem- solving capacity
Ø Legitimization of decisions through consensual decision making
Ø Commitment to long-term goals and future visions
Ø To give more focus to the achievement of governments overall goals rather than the achievement of narrower sector orientated goals
Ø Leverage of additional financial, technical, administrative and political resources
Ø To help promote innovation in policy development and implementation
Ø Re-allocation of roles and responsibilities according to organisational capacities and skills
Ø To encourage greater understanding of the effects of policies on other sectors
Ø Reduce costs to the policy process
Adapted from: Stadoff and Grey (2002), Stead and Jong (2006) and Fish et al. (2010)
24 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
A recent contribution from Norman et al, (2012, p. 53) usefully focuses on scale, rescaling and environmental governance and the “need for closer attention to the inter- relationships between, governance, water and social networks including an emphasis on the role of institutional framings and scalar constructs in these processes”. However, despite an understanding that integration is seen as the administrative Holy Grail, the management of sectorial policies is more complex and more difficult to achieve than ever due to increasing interdependencies between government and society, the growing number of actors involved in policy processes, decentralisation, division of responsibility, and the increasing number of cross-cutting issues (Stead and Meijers 2009). Policies are seen to make the landscape where they exist and contribute to the interpretation of distinct policy sites including the relations between people, places and objects. From a policy perspective, there is an overriding consensus that some form of cooperation, co-ordination and continuing administrative support is required for formulating strategic development activities which triggers both central and municipal concerns (Pugalis and Townsend 2012 a). Therefore, it is thought that understanding policy within its contextual setting is an important component in governing for flood water particularly because policies emerge from, and are responses to, local sets of social and political conditions (Cochrane and Ward 2012; Lane et al. 2013).
For the purpose of this research, the politics of scale and level refers to the tensions when and where actors co-operate, share in knowledge, compete or conflict as they endeavour to exercise their influence on the present and future of water resource use and economic development. Peet and Watts, 1996, insist that:
“concern is not simply a salvage operation – recovering disappearing knowledges and management practices – but rather a better understanding both of the regulatory systems in which they inhere… and the conditions under which knowledges and practices become part of alternative development strategies” (Peet and Watts 1996, p. 11).
Policy integration concerns the management of cross-cutting issues in policy making that transcend the boundaries of established policy fields, and that do not correspond to the institutional responsibilities of individual departments (Stead and Meijers 2009). Examining power relations in practice is required to understand policy, tracing power to explore how it is constituted and how equally and unequally it is constructed. Although the literature on relational geographies has usefully highlighted
25 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK that the objectives of policy do not function solely within territorial boundaries, floods for instance do not respect administrative boundaries nonetheless territories are still important spaces for conducting political struggles including attempts to coordinate across different policy domains (Morgan 2007).
This thesis focuses on the integration of economic development and flood risk management policy within a river basin, considering the pressures that are exerted on natural systems by aspirations for economic growth and vice versa. The economic development functions of interest are those considered to involve policies and interventions that cut across government boundaries and/or require a larger than local perspective - economic development which is considered to be of strategic importance. It is widely accepted that integrated approaches to water management constitutes the preferred form of knowledge acquisition and an important mechanism for contributing to sustainable development (Cameron et al. 2004; McFadden et al. 2009; Fish et al. 2010; Jordan and Lenschow 2010; Edelenbos and Teisman 2011). However, if neoliberalism has already set the parameters for environmental policy, delimiting it prior to actors seeking to pursue policy integration, then even the most effective strategies and modalities of integration, territories and political struggles will be fatally weakened, as illustrated by research on international forest policy (Humphreys 2015). This suggests a need to consider the role of neoliberalism in shaping both the broad structures of governance and environmental policy in particular (ibid).
Recognition of the need for a more integrated approach reflects not only contemporary understandings of management challenges that have to be addressed, but also awareness of the shortcomings of current frameworks in dealing with these challenges. In the same way that integration challenges current thinking about governance in policy-making and its worth as a concept used to achieve sustainable development, it raises fundamental questions about how academic research should be organised and conducted (Fish et al. 2010). Although, distinct framing of policy can occur, policy does not exist in any kind of permanent, objective form (Prince 2012); it changes, so how and why changes occur need to be examined. Therefore, policy research needs to be carefully constructed bearing in mind that distinct framing of policy will occur but being mindful of the temporal and locational parameters. Policy research often encompasses location specific case studies which can add value in trying to understand how plans and policies
26 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration result in practical and integrated action on the ground (Stead and Meijers 2009). There are gaps in understanding who are the winners are losers during policy integration and how are the power relations established and occurring, issues which this research seeks to address. Policy integration can be used to link policy actors, organisations, and networks across boundaries working to new geographies. This research will examine how these new geographies can either help or hinder effect for policy integration, across scales and across actors.
27 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 2 – Facilitators of Policy Integration
Factors Facilitators
· Convergent problems definition, professional ideologies, interests and approaches (A; B; F) · Relatively equal status of organisations involved in integration (A) · Understanding of other organisation’s needs and the perception that these are compatible and thus might enhance efficiency (C) Political · Perception that integration increases the ability to manage uncertainty and complexity (A, C) · Gain of influence over other sectoral domains (C) · Commitment to policy coherence and integration by political leadership; political backing (A; B; D; F) · Perceived effectiveness of policy and service delivery (G) · Ability to convey the ‘bigger picture’ and to identify cross cutting issues (G)
· Standardised procedures, allowing for greater supervision and maintenance of an orderly and reliable pattern of Institutional/ resource flow from other involved organisations (A) Organisation · Similarity of structures, supply capabilities, needs and services of organisations involved (A) · A central overview and integration capability responsible for achieving cross-cutting, long term objectives (D)
Economic/ · Corresponding actual needs or common benefit, and scarce resources (A) Financial · Perceived gain in resource (time, money, information, raw material, legitimacy, status) (C)
28 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Factors Facilitators · Sharing costs and risk of developing products and policies (C) · Perceived economics of scale (G) · Allocation of budgets to cross-cutting issues and policies rather than to sectors (G) · Incentive structures, appraisal systems and rewards stimulating integration (G)
· Group-centred approaches to problems (A) · Geographical proximity easing interaction and communication between decision makers and staff (A) · Complimentary organisational or personnel role (A) · Mechanisms to anticipate, detect and resolve policy conflicts early in the process (D; G) · Existence of a strategic policy framework that helps to ensure that sectoral policies are consistent with overall Process and governmental objectives and priorities (D) Management · Decision-making process organised for reconciling policy priorities and budgetary imperatives (D; G) · Flexible implementation procedures and monitoring mechanisms capable of adjusting policies in the light of new information, progress and/ or changing circumstances (D) · Ability to involve all indispensable actors and leave out others (F) · Ability to take the diversity and multiformity of the network and actors into account (F) · Open nature of networks (F)
29 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Factors Facilitators
· Positive attitude and organisational culture towards working with other organisations in a joint endeavour (A; D) · Good historical relations (A) Behavioural, · Positive evaluation of other organisation’s and staff involved (A) Cultural and · Persons in the organisation able to understand their own and others’ possible benefits of integration and to plan Personal intervention (B) · Willingness to cooperate, need for expertise and culture of trust (C) · Shared framework of understanding that allows broader issues to become perceptible to specialists (D)
Adapted from: Stead and Meijers (2009). Original sources prior to categorisation by Stead and Meijers are as follows: A = Halpert (1982) B = Challis et al, (1988) C = Alter and Hage (1993) D = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1996) E = Huxham (1996) F = Kickert et al. (1997) G = Cabinet Office (2000)
30 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Table 3 - Inhibitors of Policy Integration
Factors Inhibitors
· Divergent priorities, interest, ideologies, outlooks or goals (A; E; F; G) leading to a lack of consensus on nature of the problem and solution (B) and fear of conflict over domain, goals and methods (C) · Perceived loss of organisational power, strategic position, prestige, authority and fear of being linked with failure (A; C) · Guarding administrative domain and attempting to extend them (B) Political · Lack of political commitment, backing and leadership (B; D; F) · Status differences and asymmetries of scale between actors (B; E) · Short term political aspirations vs the time needed for integration (B) · Loss of autonomy and ability to unilaterally control outcomes (B; C) · Sectoral objectives often taking priority over cross-cutting goals (G)
· Bureaucratisation generating increased communication costs, fragmenting communication and leading to low levels of internal communication that makes it difficult to maintain inter-organisational networks (A) · Large institutional and organisational differences increase costs (A) Institutional/ · Fragmentation of levels of government leading to contradictory mandates and regulations (A) Organisation · Inadequately trained personnel and high turnover of policy personnel leading to a lack of continuity (A) · Lack of central overview capacity above the fray of sectoral issues (D) · Lack of formal authority structure (E)
31 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Factors Inhibitors
· Costs outweigh benefits (A) · Perception of limited or unbalanced resource to exchange (A) · Different cycles of planning budgets and resource uncertainty between sectors complicating structural integration (B) · Fear of losing resource (time, money, information raw material, legitimacy, status) (C) Economic/ · Time needed to manage logistics (E) Financial · Direct and opportunity costs of management and staff time spent establishing an sustaining cross-cutting working arrangements (G) · Significant costs falling on one budget while the benefits occur on another (G) · Budget allocations on a departmental or sectoral basis, rather than to policies or goals (G) · Little or no reward for helping someone else to achieve their goals (G)
· Infrequent or inadequate communication (A or local of a systematic dialogue between actors (D) · Fear of delays in solution due to integration problems (C) · Tension between autonomy of individuals involved in collaboration and their accountability to the ‘parent’ Process and organisation (E) Management · Differences in procedures (E) · Insufficient recognition of multiformity of the network (F) · Complex relationships and lines of accountability, implying risks and management difficulties (G)
32 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Factors Inhibitors · Lack of management mechanisms (G)
· Poor historical relations and negative evaluations of previous cooperation and negative image formation of other organisations (A) · Perceived sanctions by network members in case of cooperation with new non-network members (A) Behavioural, · Vested interest (A) Cultural and · Lack of a shared understanding resulting from non-convergent approaches and language (A; D; E) Personal · Poor personal relations between key actors and different styles of working (B) · Professional defensiveness reinforcing domain defences (B) · Lack of co-operation and consultation orientated structure (D) · Overlooking the overall goals of the organisation or the end user of services (G)
Adapted from: Stead and Meijers (2009). Original sources prior to categorisation by Stead and Meijers are as follows: A = Halpert (1982) B = Challis et al, (1988) C = Alter and Hage (1993) D = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1996) E = Huxham (1996) F = Kickert et al. (1997) G = Cabinet Office (2000)
33 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
2.3 Continual Reworking of Governance – Wagers and Scale? Over two decades ago, Lefebvre drew attention to the continuous rearrangement and reterritorialization of space caused by tensions of capitalist integration (Lefebvre 1991). The nature of urban space under contemporary capitalism and the ways in which space is envisioned as an object of knowledge by urban experts and policymakers has been a focal point of discussion for many philosophers and sociologists. In the words of Lefebvre:
“space is at once result and cause, product and producer; it is also a stake, the locus of projects and actions deployed as part of specific strategies, and hence the object of wagers on the future – wagers which are articulated, if never completed” (Lefebvre 1991, p. 142).
Some academics contest that the theoretical concept of neoliberalism can be viewed as a kind of wager, referring to Lefebvre’s articulated futures, with the neoliberal strategy containing implications for urban researchers as attempts are made to understand contemporary and future spatial change and urban politics (Jones and Popke 2009). The use of the term wager by Lefebvre implies an acceptability of diverse interests and anticipated tensions that may arise due to the nature of the future urban space. The sometimes contested visions of politics and spatial change within urban space are both navigated and manipulated by governance arrangements. Due to the continuous change of space associated with neoliberalism, questions about how and why tensions and contradictions arise which can be approached critically using the concept of governance.
Recent governance literature has helped improve our understanding of the spatial and temporal variability of governance arrangements, with scale being a key issue and subject of scrutiny and debate (such as Brenner 1999; Wong et al. 2006; Larner and Laurie 2010) The turbulent, refocusing of scale has been referred to as a “scalar flux in which interscalar hierarchies and relations are continually reshuffled in response to a wide range of strategic priorities, conflicts and contradictions” (Brenner 2000, p. 373). A shift has occurred from what could be termed an essentialist conception of scale which envisages a nested hierarchy of units from global to the very local, to a relational conception of scale where scale is understood in terms of the reach of socially constructed relationships, with the potential for multiple scales of interaction to be at play in any
34 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration locality at any particular point in time (Bulkeley 2005). This continual reworking is complex, involving a much wider spectrum of actors than would have previously been engaged in the problematization, prioritisation and solutions of societal issues. The potential involvement of a wider spectrum of actors also leads to conflicting and complementary aspirations to be realised and relationships to be bridged whether they are perceived advantageous or not. Actors are required to make decisions which may be catalysed by a variety of different factors.
Difficulty arises in understanding the dichotomy which may arise between conflicting and complimentary decisions particularly when economic interest overlaps with the non-human environment. One of the first economists to analyse environmental issues in non-monetary terms was Kapp (1983), who focused research on integrative approaches in economics, showing concerns about the compartmentalised attitude of academia. Drawing on Kapp’s 1983 consideration of the challenges and controversies of integration, a brief summary of the main contentions are provided. Kapp (1983, p. 49) states that “the fact of the matter is that both disruption and improvement of our environment involve us in decisions which have the most heterogeneous long term effects and which, moreover, are decisions made by one generation with consequences to be borne by the next”. Furthermore, that:
“To place a monetary value on and apply a discount rate to future utilities or dis-utilities in order to express their present capitalized value may give us a precise monetary value, but it does not get us out of the dilemma of choice and the fact that we take risks with human health and survival. For this reason, I am inclined to consider the attempts at measuring social costs and social benefits simply in terms of monetary or market values as doomed to failure. Social costs and social benefits have to be considered as extra-market phenomena; they are borne and accrue to society as a whole; they are heterogeneous and cannot be compared quantitatively among themselves and with each other, not even in principle” (ibid).
Although, doomed to fail there is still a necessity to understand integration better, then to utilise this understanding of what Kapp terms extra-market phenomena into decision making. This viewpoint begins to highlight the challenges between understanding economics in a clear momentary way which often leads to a sense of security, clarity and control; and uncertainty in the non-human environment. In this
35 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK context, the politics of reworking governance arrangements and the effect this has on economic development and flood objectives is a challenge to understand. Today, our ability to integrate economics and the environment has improved with new emerging fields arising such as the economics of climate change. However, the challenges of integration remain dependant on our ability to effectively govern in ways that take account of multi-scalar governance and shifting priorities. The dominant discourse of the neoliberal agenda puts competiveness as a central driver which is not only seen as the way it is, but also a good thing by many. Does this discourse approach mean that other rationalities and policy outcomes are narrowed or reduced in a way? For example, Purcell explains that neoliberalism could lead to a situation whereby, “a polity that values the environment, for example, might feel it cannot make a strong environment policy because it would make the area less competitive” (Purcell 2009, p. 145).
The articulation of governance is often expressed using spatially loaded vocabularies such as horizontal or vertical power relations and blurring of boundaries between levels and scales which adds a geographical perspective, seen to be ‘’crucial for comprehending the ways in which power is understood to operate in governing arrangements” (Griffin 2012, p. 208). Scale has become an important component in the reworking of governance. It is used to create meaningfully constructed units of space which for instance may relate to neighbourhoods, market areas, river catchments, agricultural land, urban conurbations, ultimately enabling multiple layers of administrative and functional geographies to be understood collectively (Baker et al. 2010). This presents a new relational geography where the new norm of governance can be viewed as continued institutional turbulence and the remaking of governance networks across multiple scales or geographies (Brenner 1999; Jones 2001). Therefore, scholars have had to become more precise about the use of the concept of scale and more transparent about how to disentangle scale as a fixed unit and open up the between-ness of space and interrelationships.
This engagement in the meanings of space has been referred to as an established concept of the politics of scale. However MacKinnon suggests that this established concept of politics of scale should be replaced with scalar politics, arguing that “it is often not scale per se that is the prime object of contention, but rather specific processes and institutional practices that are themselves differentially scaled” (MacKinnon 2011, p. 22).
36 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
The concept of scalar politics focuses attention on the strategic deployment of scale by various actors, movements and organisations rising to a research agenda of examining how different actors and groups seek to tie particular scalar categories and categorisation to specific material relations. This approach requires the researcher to envision territories and governance as fluid and flexible, with more static territorial governance arrangements interweaving with dynamic zones in which various forms of connectivity and association partnership working are continually formed and reformed to the changing world (Delanty and Rumford 2005; Kidd and Shaw 2013). This is often seen in contrast to using a place- based conception of space; instead new scales comprising a mix of formal and informal policy intervention are constantly being reworked, creating new space of ‘scalar flux’ or ‘scalar complexity’ (Brenner 1999; Jones 2001).
Academic enquiry into scale and its effect on policy is driven by a widespread recognition that better aligning the scale of analysis of a problem to the regulatory scale at which decisions are made is a major step forward (Johnson 2012, p. 94). In relation to economic objectives, the economy is seen as inseparable from politics. Although, the associated politics is often more easily aligned with place based strategies and administrative centre, the actual distribution of actors, objectives and solutions to an issue, requires a scalar complexity that is not always easily aligned. Environmental issues which also have economic advantages and disadvantages such as water pollution, habitat restoration, air quality, acid rain, and flood events show scalar complexity and governance that need to be responsive to this inability to align.
2.2.3 Challenges Associated with Hydrological Infrastructure Our ability to understand and respond appropriately to a wide range of environmental challenges has changed significantly over recent decades, illustrated by expanding transnational networks such as the Cities for Climate Change Campaign (Bulkeley 2005), the development of frameworks for water management and the liberalization of the water markets (Kaika 2003), and licences and specific rights to fish stocks (Pearse 1992). Such research in to the historic and contemporary changes in governance provides insight into the changed spatialities and associated approaches to environmental governance. By viewing the phenomena as changed spatialities, a means is provided through which reconfiguration of the notions of governance can occur. New
37 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK approaches are created which can be sensitive to processes of ongoing scaling and rescaling of both the objectives and agents of governance, but also the political, social and environmental implications.
One identifiable outcome of the changes in environmental governance is evident in shift from political to hydrological boundaries, whereby political boundaries have become framed as obstacles to be overcome in efforts to produce meaningful forms of governance (Cohen 2012). Although natural entities do not need to be seen as pre-given scales some argue that they form the most natural scale for decision making. However, work presented by Cohen (2012) suggests that the naturalness of river basins does not necessarily facilitate the creation of governance systems that are more integrative than their political predecessors. Instead, the “perceived naturalness may exacerbate, rather than resolve, the questions of integration’’ (Cohen 2012, p. 2219). Despite the policy rationales for the scaling of governance, a fundamental point is argued by Bulkeley (2005, p. 875) in that the “new spatial grammar of environmental governance must be sensitive to politics of scale and politics of networks”, or scalar politics. The concept of governance is seen as a crucial element due to the interplay of politics (Edelenbos and Teisman 2011). Indeed, the extent to which a balance between economic development and flood risk management falls in favour of one or other is likely to be determined by political discourses as well as technical innovation (Bell 2015).
The concept of sustainable development, popularised by the publication of Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987), instigated a large body of literature and governance responses on the integration of environmental policy into other policy sectors (Nilsson and Persson 2003; Jordan 2008). A parallel growing intersection bringing together insight from physical and social science disciplines has been driven by a long standing need to consider a combination of societal and ecological dimensions, and socio-ecological interactions. This interaction is apparent for flood risk management, for although flooding is often described as a natural phenomenon the flood event is affected by anthropogenic, social, economic and political factors which in turn influences the scale of politics and governance. In an attempt to exert control over the multi-faceted nature of flood governance, the problem of flood risk has been framed using an array of units, for example, local authority boundaries, administrative boundaries, the city region, ecosystem, watershed approach and
38 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration river/regional basin catchments. However, the complexity of water systems means that an integrated approach requires going beyond and between the boundaries of any governing unit. Scalar contests often arise about whether actors should privilege a particular unit such as administrative, hydrological, ecosystem or economic frame approach (Dore and Lebel 2010).
Despite an assortment of approaches in recent times, the river basin approach to water governance has taken precedence and has been advanced enthusiastically over traditional political territories becoming a widely accepted scale for water governance (Montgomery et al. 1995; McGinnis 1999; Mitchell 2005; Cohen and Davidson 2011; Houdret et al. 2014). This privileged scale is often justified by it natural boundaries, the physical and biological processes that influence water flow, aquatic and riparian form and evolution. The approach has led to a discourse and sub-discourse of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) which is said to provide the basis for a holistic approach, acknowledging that “everything is connected” (Barrow 1998, p. 173). However, Vogel (2012) argues against the commonly accepted notion, that hydrologically based governance territories foster holistic management, yield positive results and avoid the fragmentations and conflicts endemic to traditional political territories. Instead, Vogel (2012) suggests that river basin management is shaped by challenges from and negotiations with traditional jurisdictional spaces and political districts which leads to fragmentation and conflict. This pattern of governance is referred to by Vogel as a way of “parcelling out the watershed”, that has produced changing, but discernible, patterns of both positive and negative environmental, social and economic, and democratic outcomes (Vogel 2012, p. 161). Vogel (2012) concludes that more critical thinking is required about the consequences of adopting a river basin approach as the outcomes are mixed and in some cases facilitate environmental destruction, ongoing litigation and ineffective political distribution. Perhaps the river basin as a unit of analysis is a challenge but not due to the river basin per se, but rather the governance tools and paradigm with which it has been conflated under the rubric of the river basin approach.
Rather than focusing on the framing provided by the natural hydrological river basin, some academics have focused on the importance of looking at the arenas where governance practices are performed. Framing research on the perceived struggles over their staging, setting and scripting, a framework presented by Hajer (2003) for the
39 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK analysis of governance. This concept of staging, setting and scripting enables academics to consider “water problems as social, political, hydrological, cultural, economic and technical” (Bell 2015, p. 3). The setting is where deliberation and decision making takes place and the enactment of organisational frames, operationalised through consideration of the scripting, setting, staging and performance of governance. Scripting refers to the determination of actors involved in the decision-making forum and setting concerns the physical environment of interaction. Staging is identified as deliberate attempts to organise interaction between participants. This is an approach that is used across disciplines to analyse governance and stems from an understanding that reality is mediated through the application of frames to make sense of available information. Therefore, the analysis of the integration of flood risk management and economic development could be framed in many ways depending on the role of the actors and will lead to different outcomes. These frames have been referred to as classification systems which actors use in order to make sense of diverse social phenomena, with the performative potential of the invested actors dependent upon the frames available, suggesting a need to acknowledge that a river basin approach as a frame will not always suit all actors and challenges.
A final consideration is highlighted by those academics who see neoliberalism as the most significant contemporary force in environmental politics; it is argued that environmental policy is routinely shaped by neoliberal policy principles, establishing the parameters of what is actually admissible in environmental policy (Humphreys 2015). Some have argued that the watershed approach has changed from its origins as a technical tool to a watershed policy framework which has been problematic with a lack of attention to governance issues during this transition (Cohen and Davidson 2011). Despite the strong argument that favours a basin approach to flooding, it is argued that without measures to mitigate the events, urbanisation and climate change will increase flood risk, highlighting as key the extent to which measures are implemented, whether at the catchment or local scale (Wheater and Evans 2009). However, the degree to which this approach enables the integration of economic development is questionable, especially because scale becomes a contested notion during dialogues between related areas as different actor’s privilege particular temporal or spatial scales in their analysis, arguments and responses.
40 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Many academic papers highlight the need for continued engagement in discussions of water governance, politics of scale and critical thinking about the consequences of river basin territories (Bulkeley 2005; Cohen 2012; Norman et al. 2012). However, questions remain about how the river basin scale as a prominent approach to flood management aligns with other framings of space for economic development. Such spaces can be referred to as experimental spaces of policy whose impacts remain unknown for the most part, an issue which this thesis addresses by looking at the intersection of flood risk and economic development policy.
2.2.4 The Urban Concentration, a Focus for Experiment It could be argued that one of the most important constructed spaces implicated in the governance relationship between economic development and flood risk management policy are urban concentrations which contain commerce, business, industry, and residential arrangements. One particular framing of the urban concentration which has continually become a focus for academic enquiry is the concept of the city region. The city region, as with many other functional realities, can be seen as an experimental space to trial policy approaches. It presents a frame of what is perceived to be a logically constructed geographical space for economics and politics. As defined by Scott and Stroper, (2003, p. 581):
“city-regions are locomotives of the national economics within which they are situated, in that they are the sites of dense masses of interrelated economic activities that also typically have high levels of productivity by reason of their jointly-generated agglomeration economics and their innovative potentials”.
In recent years a recently a greater understanding of the drivers, frequency and implications of flood events has been advanced bringing urban issues closer to the fore (Table 4). The governance arrangements for city regions have consequently become accepted as increasingly valid for flood risk management, albeit presenting new challenges to a wide spectrum of actors. This has created challenges for rethinking how the problem of flood water can be better incorporated into existing functional realities and administrative jurisdictions (Grey and Sadoff 2007; Bell 2015). Flood events have increasingly been analysed academically using a city regional scale focus, similar to
41 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK economic activities (White 2008; Walker et al. 2011; Krueger and Savage 2007; van Stigt et al. 2013).
42 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Table 4 – List of Urban Drivers for Flood Events
Driver and SPR Classification Driver Group Source (S)/ Pathway (P)/ Receptor (R)
Ø Precipitation (S)
Ø Temperature (S)
Climate Change Ø Relative sea-level rise (S)
Ø Waves (S)
Ø Surges (S)
Ø Urbanisation (P) Catchment runoff Ø Rural land management (P)
Ø Environmental regulation (P) Groundwater systems Ø River morphology and sediment supply (P) and processes Ø River vegetation and conveyance (P)
Ø Sewer conveyance (P) Urban systems and Ø Impact of external flooding on drainage (P) processes Ø Asset deterioration (P)
Coastal processes Ø Morphology and sediment supply (P)
Human behaviour Ø Stakeholder behaviour (P)
Ø Building and contents (R)
Ø Urban impacts (R)
Ø Infrastructure impacts (R) Socio-economics Ø Agricultural impacts(R)
Ø Social impacts (R)
Ø Science and technology (R)
Adapted from: Wheater and Evans (2009)
43 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
A city’s water infrastructure is increasingly being recognised once again as one of the most important factors underpinning its ability to function and develop The usefulness of the city as a concept can be understood when you begin to consider its definition, the city can be defined as “concentrations of many people located close together for residential and productive purposes” (Davies 1973, p. 34). This definition highlights the role of a city as an engine for economic development but also its vulnerabilities; the residents and productive entities which utilise the city. The city provides a spatial entity where social, political and economic challenges can be critically assessed. However, some have questioned the ability of city regions to balance different objectives (Harding 2007) particularly because the conceptualisation is seen by some as a condition of neoliberalism (Jonas and Ward 2007). This recent critical interest in the city region as a unit of analysis echoes “a growing appreciation that in certain important respects the city is not a satisfactory unit of analysis, since many of its external interactions are within adjacent areas” (Parr 2008, p. 3017). The concept is linked to the assumption that a city region corresponds to a functional reality of integrated economics, political and social relations, but this does not necessarily align readily with administrative jurisdictions that contain within them the critical relationships including environmental concerns, upon which the future development trajectories of settlements depend (Healey 2009).
Attempting to tie critical economic, political and environmental relationships to a concept of a relationally integrated urban place is difficult, as multiple relational webs connect people, firms and non-human processes to all sorts of other places, often in more closely integrated ways than to spatially contiguous neighbours (ibid). Nonetheless, whilst the city regional experiment faces criticisms and challenges, the concept remains useful in the framing of policy development and during encounters between social, environmental and economic agendas. Therefore, understanding the scope of its setting and problem solving is important but should not occur in isolation of the alternative geographies also required for effective, multi-scalar flood risk management.
Improvements in the ability to develop and pursue a place for society using a planning system, governance arrangements, localised economic investment and control are drivers behind a city region approach, but thinking has changed to acknowledge the limitations of a planner’s ability to comprehensively plan (Healey 2009). For instance,
44 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Harding (2007) debates that city regional research should be more engaged in progressive agendas which build cities and regions that are economically viable, liveable and environmentally sustainable, which champion the need for integration. Such progressive agendas would include the future challenges of flood risk management and its implications for aspirations of economic growth. However, the framing taken by Harding (2007) is critically questioned by Jonas and Ward, 2007 who suggest that evidence is required to investigate whether “progressive, social democratic, economic, social and environmental agendas do in fact underpin city-regionalism in the UK” (Jonas and Ward 2007, p. 654).
Firstly, it is necessary to consider flood water’s links to the economics of the city-region and the politics of city regionalism. In 2015, Bell analysed the discourses associated with flood water to understand the extent to which water infrastructure and in particular technologies are moving closer or further away from sustainability (Bell 2015). One of the fundamental questions asked by Bell 2015 is “are we any closer to renegotiating an urban partnership with water, or are we reinforcing modern patterns of domination and submission? [To which Bell answers] The answer is both” (Bell 2015, p. 23). The discourses of water infrastructure are wide reaching with technical discourses being distinguished by conventional and sustainable systems. One approach has been guided by Feenberg’s thinking on technical revolutions – “the technical code” (Feenberg 2010). In this assessment Feenberg conceptualises the problem of surplus water as one fundamentally linked with progressive urban design, design which is sensitive to water. This research attempts to unpick the various discourses which occur where human activity resides with surplus water (Table 5).
45 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 5 – Technical Discourses of Water Infrastructure
Discourse Water Sensitive Urban Design
· Part of the urban landscape Water · Flood risk
· Part of the urban landscape Nature · Needs to be protected from pollution
· Simple to intermediate complexity Technology · Multi-disciplinary expertise · Decentralised to intermediate scale includes ecosystems
Society · Needs urban green space and healthy waterways
· Municipal and development scale Governance · Interest with regulatory utility
Capital · Decentralised and intermediate scale
· Design space for water Space · City is natural and hydrological ecosystem · Create connection between surface and ground water
Adapted from: Feenberg (2010) and Bell (2015)
Despite some criticism about the purpose and effectiveness of a city regional approach, a key point made by Harding is the ability of academics to engage in the effectiveness of city regionalism to facilitate progressive agendas to be achieved (Harding 2007). If flood risk management is viewed as a progressive agenda then what is the impact of flood risk management on economic development policy? How is a relationship continually renegotiated to better integrate economic development and flood risk management?
46 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
2.4 The Pursuit of Economic Development - Implications for Flood Risk Management in the UK Historically and presently, our relationship with water is contentious, complex and economically driven. This economic drive in our ability to manage water can be traced back to the industrial revolution, commencing in the eighteenth century (Eaton 1989). In urban conurbations of the Industrial Revolution, water was used as a functional commodity for steam generation, manufacturing processes, navigation and the carriage of raw materials and products (ibid). The river systems were used as sewers for human and industrial effluent without prior treatment which resulted in watercourses being devoid of oxygen and full of decomposing sediments. As population growth within the conurbations exploded, insanitary living conditions and uncontrolled pollution eventually caused disastrous epidemics of waterborne diseases (Briggs 1986).
The consequences of the unmanaged water in terms of its appropriate supply and disposal became a catalyst for research and policy directed at controlling water, such as the research by English sanitary reformer Edwin Chadwick, public health official (1848- 54) and author of the famous report - ‘Inquiry into the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain’ (1842). He saw mid-century British civil engineers as “part of the problems, not the solutions… both loyal to a primitive laissez- faire and in cahoots with the most corrupt and irrational institutions of local government: the ancient municipal corporations, sewers commissions, and navigation trusts” (Hamlin 1992, p. 680). Growth at this time was unplanned, and there was often no coordinated drainage or even no drains at all, leading Chadwick to think in terms of the sewage flow rather than sewer capacity, and to the evolution of the arterial-venous conception in which water constantly moved in, through, and out to the country for recycling. This contextual placing of water within a system is an early advancement in the understanding and planning of water management within the context of detrimental impacts on economic growth.
2.2.5 Wisdom and Foresight: Early Town Planning Early in the 20th century practical evidence began to suggest that to meet aspirations for economic development and the management of water, planners and the practice of planning would need to be engaged. In terms of bad water, being a
47 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK phenomenon that comes into being in relation to spaces that ‘bad water’ occupies and becomes problematic (ibid), evidence of the wisdom of its avoidance arose following floods in London in 1928. At this time it was suggested in a letter to the Minister of Health, Mr Chamberlin that the contemplated legislation relating to the town planning of built up areas should deal with the matter of limiting the “use of basements for sleeping accommodation, at any rate in the riverside areas” (The Times 1928, p. 14). In his reply, Mr Chamberlain said that it was “easy to be wise after the event, but when an event comparable with the late flood has been without precedent for 700 years it was natural that no one should have anticipated its possibility” (ibid). In dealing with the various points he did believe that the flood confirmed “perhaps, the wisdom of some prohibition against the building of dwelling houses on land liable to floods” (ibid). This flood opened up the idea of proactive planning in order to manage uncertain economic impacts.
As well as demonstrating the need to plan development due to flood risk, the commentary after the 1928 flood points to the complexity and distinct need for spatial integration. Baker simply comments that “there is no London, as implying a city with definite boundaries, but there are several London’s… There are not only police London and postal London but water London, drainage London, port London, electricity London, and traffic London” (Baker 1927, p. 37). At this time legislation and institutional arrangements to support co-ordination and flood management arose from land drainage purposes, indirectly pursued due to the decline in domestic food production during the agricultural depression, cheaper foreign imports and vulnerabilities exposed by blockades during the First World War (Sheail 2002). The Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) was set up to look at the problem of food production, raising concerns that rich agricultural areas could be returned irretrievably to its original condition as swamp and that the need for engineering works to control water was urgent (ibid, p. 259). However, due to the financial constraints on government and its inability to support industry, it was not considered politically acceptable to provide direct support to agriculture and that financing river engineering for flood defence and land drainage could be more easily be justified. This policy shift subsequently led to the Land Drainage Act 1930 which consolidated all previous legislation, establishing for the first time law relating to land drainage and made increased financial resources available from government (Scrase and Sheate 2005). Prior to this, flood defence and land drainage was a profit seeking private enterprise, financed by direct beneficiaries.
48 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
2.2.6 Significant Economic Stress and Land Drainage The 1947 floods are remembered for causing prolonged and widespread agricultural damage during a time when the national economy was under significant economic stress and was dependent on domestic agricultural production (Barker 1985). During this flood the Thames reached record levels and debate commenced on the need for new flood defences, which had previously been defined mainly in relation to agricultural land drainage. After initial resistance, attention began to turn to urban areas and the competing priority to protect life and property from flood events.
Resistance to wider, large scale engineering works in urban areas broke down after catastrophic flood events involving loss of life in the 1950s. Lynmouth in Devon was flooded in 1952, followed by east coast floods in 1953, claiming 33 and over 300 lives respectively (Steers 1953). In the House of Lords Viscount Swinton stated “once again, as in the ravages of war, we had suffered in common with our allies and friends” (The Times 1953). Scrase and Sheate (2005) cite the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) in relation to evidence submitted to the Waverley Committee on the 20 April 1953 which supported the recommendations that “…due regard should be given to the user of the land in question and to the national economy” (Institute of Civil Engineers 1954, p. 3).
Despite the flood defence discourse to protect development, bad planning, or an absence of it, was blamed for severe floods in 1953. The Waverley Committee noted that “much of the damage done by the 1953 floods was a result of sporadic and ill-considered development along the coast… and urged local authorities to make use of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to prevent further development in flood prone areas” (Waverley Committee 1954, p. 13). The expansion of residential, industrial and commercial sectors and associated pressures on available land had tested the relatively new framework for town and country planning. While reflecting on Birmingham, Mr Steadman, a Lecturer in Geography at the University of Birmingham reported that modification of the townscape post 1945 had occurred and with acute shortage of building land in the city:
“Some undoubtedly rather unfavourable sites have been used. The marshy Rea valley between King's Norton and Northfield, for instance, had been avoided with good reason by earlier builders, but the pleasant green belt which it formed has been sacrificed to post-war housing demands… and the largest continuous areas of recent development…” (Steadman 1958, p. 236).
49 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Crucially, from the mid-1950s the land-use decision processes gradually became more transparent and open. The planning system became used as an arena for public argument, “in which complex issues of policy could be dramatized in terms of individual developments” (Grove-White 1991, p. 38).
2.2.7 The First Wave Environmentalism The modern era of environmental politics in England dates from the 1960s, marked by escalating public concerns reacting against the impacts of science, technology, industrialisation and economic growth (Grove-White 1991; Adam 1997). Discussion of the newly recognised idea that the activities of man could be increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the atmosphere was added to this agenda by Lamb (1967). Lamb stated that “research directed at understanding how climate changes come about must continue, and could usefully be stepped up both in the interests of modern long-term economic planning and because we live in an evident time of change” (Lamb 1967 p.466). At the time, this understanding was combined with a continued and widely shared dissatisfaction with the role of the development plan system, in place since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Due to sustained industrialisation and urban development, Britain had the second highest population density in Europe by the 1970’s. It was becoming increasingly clear that with such growth, there was “a pressing need for collaboration between urban planners and water managers” as the two are intractably linked (Rees 1973, p. 28). Ongoing dissatisfaction led to change and amendment to the legislation, later the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which created a new system of structure and local plans in an attempt to streamline economic growth (Grove-White 1991) and the creation of the Water Act, 1973 which gave new Water Authorities complete executive responsibility for all water provisions in their areas.
During this time land drainage clearance works continued at an unprecedented rate through the mid-1970s as food security remained a priority. In 1975 the government white paper ‘Food from our Own Resources’ confirmed their priority, with MAFF’s chief engineer reiterating that “land drainage is the first function of a river” (Cole 1976, p. 347). Floods meant a loss of agricultural productivity, therefore river engineering and land drainage schemes were promoted leading to environmental damage and elimination of wetland habitat (Scrase and Sheate 2005).
50 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
2.2.8 Neoliberalism and Flood Defence The Conservatives, under Margaret Thatcher, came to power in 1979. Thatcher had an unequivocal political programme for the economic restructuring of Britain according to neo-liberal prescriptions (Hajer 1997). Thatcher’s rolling back of the state and improvement of the general setting for business initially at least did not leave much space for active environmental policy and nor did reforms to the planning system leave room to heed the messages from urban geographers and hydrologists (ibid).
In the early 1980s local authority planners, along with other public sector professionals, felt the full force of the new Conservative Government's ambition “to reduce bureaucratic obstacles to the freer working of markets” (Grove-White 1991, p. 36). Less than a decade after the major restructuring of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 continued to strengthen district councils at the expense of the strategic level county councils, “whilst in reality moving strategic power and control upwards to central government” (ibid, p37) including the administration of flood defence.
Despite 50 years of work by water agencies to improve river management with the construction of flood defence works, the scale of flood risk remained significant (Penning-Rowsel and Handmer 1988). Inadequate local government land use planning within flood prone areas were seen as one of the factors behind the increase in vulnerability. However, although fresh attempts were being made to prevent this type of hazard growth, the government had a “general antipathy towards tighter land-use planning controls” (ibid, p. 213). Nevertheless, the government considered the problem to be sufficiently serious to issue a policy Circular (No. 17/82), an approach preferred by the British government as a traditional tool of “persuasion rather than mandatory guidelines” (ibid, p. 215). The Circular, similar to those issued previously, sought to encourage closer liaison between the Water Authorities and the local District Councils in order to informally prevent the permission of unwise development.
2.2.9 Is the frequency of Flood Events Increasing? A key contextual factor of floods in 1998 was that there had not been a major national flood event for decades. Conversely, in 2000, it was the fact that there had been such an event only two years earlier which began to underline continuing vulnerability to
51 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK flooding. The more widespread, and in some locations repetitive, flooding of autumn 2000 was the result of rainfall unprecedented during previous years. However, following so closely after the events of 1998, it could not be represented as exceptional and reinforced the view that it was essential to plan for flood events, leading to a shift in policy towards a flood risk management approach (Marsh and Dale 2002). The sequence of notable floods in England during the late 1990s and 2000s placed flood risk management high on government agendas (Mcewen et al. 2014), complimented by a link in the public psyche between flood incidence and climate change.
At this period in time flood management in England was administered, financed and delivered by a complex framework of institutions. Policy and operational responsibility were highly fragmented and shared by a set of distinct organisations, which effectively separated the national policy strategy from its delivery at regional and local levels. The Deputy Prime Minister characterised the 2000 flood as a wakeup call and led the government to agree to a review of its existing advice to local planning authorities on development and flood risk. This advice was further strengthened in 2002 when the government produced its first overarching policy statement on water, Directing the Flow – Priorities for future water policy. The policy acknowledges the growing body of evidence showing that the world’s climate is changing and that the change could have a significant effect on the UK, including more frequent periods of intense rainfall. The statement can be seen as a milestone step towards setting out strategic aims and summarising future protection for many aspects of the water environment. The policy strongly put forward sustainable development as achieving integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions of policy including the wider economic benefits from flood alleviation measures. This policy explained that “considerably more emphasis needs to be put on integrating water policies with policies in other areas…” (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2002, p. 5) and that “integration will need to address the proper sharing of costs between different sectors of the economy” (ibid, p. 18). The creation of DEFRA sought to better integrate policies on water, agriculture, biodiversity, fisheries, rural recreation and flood management. The 2002 policy statement is structured to support European Union Directive implementation in the UK, mainly the European Union Water Framework Directive.
52 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
There was growing appreciation that it was not possible to deal with all flood risks through structural flood defences only (Johnson et al. 2007) and a major focus began to be placed on the non-structural policy approach of development control. This led to the government agreeing to review its existing advice to local planning authorities on development and flood risk (Johnson et al., 2005). The outcome was the publication of Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk (Department of Communities and Local Government 2009) which introduced a different and much more rigorous risk- based approach towards development and flood risk. This began to recognise that past planning decisions were partly to blame for allowing new homes and properties in areas at risk. The guidance embodied the precautionary principle, and required an appropriate flood risk assessment for all development plans and proposals where there was any flood risk on site or that might be generated elsewhere. It proposed a sequential test that should be applied, giving priority to those areas that presented little or no risk over those with low to medium or higher risk (Department of Communities and Local Government 2009). The guidance reflected the recognition of the importance of the land-use planning system to the flood risk management approach.
The floods that affected the country at the turn of the 21st century prompted the government to look at the relationship between land use and flooding, exploring the topic within the Foresight Futures Flooding project. The aim of the report was to use the best available science to provide a challenging vision for flood and coastal defence in the UK between 2030 and 2100. It stated that if current flood management policies remained unchanged, the risk of flooding would increase greatly over the next 30 to 100 years, that the number of people in England at high risk from flooding might increase by 1.4 million to between 2.0 million and 3.3 million; and the expected annual economic damages to properties might increase from 0.9 billion to between £1.5 and £20 billion (Evans et al. 2004). The report championed a long term policy approach to managing floods and the need to balance flood management against other economic, social and environmental needs. Fundamentally the report incorporated risk and acknowledged strategic policy trade-offs between minimising the probability and consequences of flooding on the one hand, against other competing policy imperatives (Porter and Demeritt 2012).
The Foresight Futures Flooding Report was produced the same year as Regional Spatial Strategies became statutory (Glasson and Marshall 2007) prior to which strategic land use planning was agreed within Regional Planning Guidance documents. The state’s
53 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK capacity to implement options for risk and vulnerability reduction for flood management and economic development is important and at this point in time became an experiment from a regional perspective.
The new Government strategy Making Space for Water (2005) (MSfW) set out the government’s 20 year plan for an integrated approach to fluvial flood and coastal erosion risk management (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2005). The strategy seeks to embrace the new flood doctrine and establishes a different model of flood risk management than that which had preceded it (Johnson et al. 2007). It was recognised that a more holistic approach to the management of rivers and floodplains was required, moving away from managing risks on a project-by-project basis towards a catchment approach. The working aim is to achieve multi-functional benefits where possible which will seek to “deliver the greatest environmental, social and economic benefits, consistent with the Governments sustainable development principles” (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2005 p.8). The strategy incorporates the requirements for a coherent management of all types of flooding and recognises the need for different models of flood risk financing, which draws on individuals and commercial funding (Johnson and Priest, 2008). It is argued that one of the most challenging issues is to enable sufficiently robust flood risk management which does not undermine economic growth.
2.2.10 A Civil Emergency The 2007 floods constituted the greatest civil emergencies that the UK had faced in recent times (Pitt 2008). The floods caused the loss of 13 lives and billions of pounds of damage, with approximately 48,000 households and nearly 7,300 businesses flooded (Pitt 2008). The floods were described as being “severe and on a par with that in 1947” (ibid, p. 233). However, although the scale of the flooding may be on par when considering the hydrological extent, the seriousness of the impact with an economic focus is one of change comparatively to 1947, due to a number of reasons, such as urbanisation and population growth, which incrementally increased the consequences of floods.
The 2007 floods again showed weakness in our understanding of flood events themselves and the governance arrangements for the management of risk (Priest et al.
54 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
2011) The scale and consequences of the flooding triggered the government to commission an independent review by Lord Pitt, which was published in June 2008 (Pitt 2008). The review identifies that one of the most significant features of the recent flood events was that different organisations responsible for flood risk within a particular locality rarely looked beyond the limits of their responsibilities, and rarely consulted with each other. There was no lead agency and no incentive for organisations to work together, nor penalty if they failed to do so (Coulthard and Frostick, 2010).
The water authorities are closely regulated by a government appointed regulator the Office of Water Services (Ofwat) in terms of quality of service and price. However within Ofwat’s regulatory framework, there is comparatively little scope to assess the quality of flood protection. Conversely, the EAs remit (pre-2007) was more closely aligned with flood risk from watercourses and open bodies of water, not sewers. The disaggregation of the governance and management of drainage led to an unclear or a non- existent chain of responsibility for surface water flooding in urban areas. The Pitt report advised that the EA should progressively take on a national overview of all flood risk with immediate effect and that local authorities should lead on the management of local flood risk, with the support of relevant organisations (Pitt 2008).
Reflecting on the management and governance of flood risk, Coulthard and Frostick (2010) argue that the shortcomings can be traced back to the disaggregation of the water industry following privatisation in 1989. In 1973, the UK Water Act created ten regional water authorities that had general responsibility for water courses and land drainage. The responsibility for highway drainage and some land drainage functions lay with the local authority, providing a clear division of duties and responsibilities. The 1989 Water Act led to the privatisation of the water authorities, which saw a greater division of responsibilities. An example provided by Coulthard and Frostick (2010) is the City of Hull, where Yorkshire Water became responsible for sewerage, water supply and treatment; the Council for road and gulley drainage; and river management was transferred to a new body, the National Rivers Authority (NRA). In 1995, the NRA was amalgamated with other agencies to become the EA. For the City of Hull, this meant that responsibility for drainage function passed from one organisation (the local authority) to three organisations (Hull City Council, Yorkshire Water and the NRA/EA). This situation was repeated across England and Wales. Privatisation of the water companies caused
55 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK increased fragmentation of roles and responsibilities which led to confusion and inability to act with purposeful direction.
2.2.11Fresh Spatial Strategies The year 2010 saw the election of the Conservative-led Coalition government. At this time the governance of economic development in England has been described as entering a state of considerable flux (Bamforth 2011). One significant change affecting the governance of economic development and to a lesser extent flood risk management, was the eradication of administrative regions and the associated governance apparatus established between 1994 and 2004. This included the government offices in the regions (GORs), the unelected regional development agencies (RDAs), and statutory regional spatial strategies (RSSs), all of which followed the same geographical template. The change undertaken by the coalition government went some way in erasing the notion of the ‘region’ from contemporary English policy vocabulary (Pugalis and Townsend 2014).
In place of regions, a localism policy discourse was orchestrated by central government (See for example, Pickles and Cable 2010). Under the banner of Localism and spatially functional economic areas the 2010 White Paper Local Growth: Realising Every Place’s Potential describes a classic case of reducing, replacing, and outsourcing government tasks. The ‘White Paper’ proposed to decentralise planning further to the level of communities, inviting communities and people to take up ownership of their area and to stimulate economic development growth from the bottom up, whether at the scale of the neighbourhood or the city region. Inevitably, an increasing interest began to be placed on the politics of shifting governance scales and modes for such areas as city regions and functional economic areas (Jonas 2012).
Sub-national governance structures and cross-boundary spatial relations emerged at the forefront of activity in a drive to replace regional development. A new “technique of government” was proposed, generating a new map of sub-national alliances of business and councils called Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) (Pugalis and Townsend 2012 b, p. 1). The LEPs are voluntary partnerships led by business, but also comprises of local government and other actors within a geography which local actors claim better reflect the functional economic areas of England. Their broad strategic development remit is to
56 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration stimulate local growth, including to influence the policy domains of planning, housing and infrastructure although central government refrained from prescribing precise roles (Pemberton and Morphet 2014). The technique of influence is distinctly different to the previously territorial focus and some question whether LEP’s have designed in just as many problematic issues as they have designed out (Pugalis and Townsend 2012 b).
In relation to flood risk management policy, during the time of the general election in May 2009 its direction was in a state of working progress while government considered appropriate management options after the 2007 flood event. On coming to power, the Coalition announced its intention to implement the findings of the Pitt Review to improve flood defences, as well as to prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk (The Cabinet Office 2010). Set within the context of the localism discourse in April 2010, the Flood and Water Management Act, 2010 (FWMA) was established which fundamentally changed the way flood risk was managed. The Act was in response to the additional flood events since 2007, the findings of the Pitt Review and several independent regional reviews. The Act gave new responsibilities to bodies at the local level to co-ordinate and participate in managing risk, within a new National Strategy Framework led by the EA. Lead local flooding authorities in all areas have been established to coordinate local partnerships, draw up comprehensive Asset Registers and produce Local Flood Risk Management Strategies. This marks a distinct change in who and how flood risk is managed, with the EA taking overall responsibility, and the local authority taking a lead role in urban surface water drainage.
The FWMA supports the management of flooding by using a risk based approach, including the requirement to consider the consequences of flood events on the economic welfare of individuals and communities. At the same time as significant changes to flood risk management due to the FWMA, new sub-national techniques of government were being reconfigured with potentials and pitfalls.
For instance, the use of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) framework was discussed in early consultation about the FWMA in relation to the Rural Development Programme for England and the LEPs were referred to as the obvious vehicle for delivery by the Secretary of State (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2010). However, whilst the LEP assumed responsibility for economic schemes, responsibility for flood management was reassigned to DEFRA. LEPs were nonetheless still promoted as part of the new solution, operating somewhere above the local but below the national tier
57 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK of government, and providing various kinds of collaborative economic leadership, supporting businesses and enabling development. As LEP’s are generally considered to be the prime English conduit for strategic development and sub-national economic leadership over the coming years, there is value in providing a critical examination of the remapped geographies used for the purpose of administering strategic development. The coalition government has been positively viewed as offering an opening for strategic planning and raises many questions as to how such apparatus focused at stimulating economic growth will integrate with planning but also the overarching aim of sustainable development (Pemberton and Morphet 2014).
2.2.12Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development The vision of sustainable development projected by the Coalition government is about:
“making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same’… we will make sustainable development central to the way we make policy…” (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2011).
This newly introduced strategy seeks to move sustainable development beyond being considered as a separate, green issue which is the priority of a few government departments. Sustainability in this context is considered as more of a core strategic issue central to the way policy is made. This is seen as a positive frame for the delivery of sustainable development overseen across central government by DEFRA. All policy must respect the principles of sustainable development (below). Whilst all policies are underpinned by these principles, some policies will place more emphasis on certain principles.
1. Living with environmental limits; 2. Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; 3. Achieving a sustainable economy; 4. Using sound science responsibility; and
58 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
5. Promoting good governance.
Commitment to integrative progresses is demonstrate by an active acknowledgement of the longstanding relationship with flood risk management. The Treasury announced in 2012 that £60 million of a £120 million funding pot of flood risk management funding “will be targeted at areas where flood defences can unlock new opportunities for development and growth, helping our country compete and thrive in the global race” (HM Treasury 2012). The aim of the government appeared to be to promote investment in defences where the greatest economic impact can be achieved. A further £60 million was committed to help speed up the delivery of up to fifty flood defence schemes already in train and prioritised by the EA. In 2013, “for the first time set a specific long-term funding settlement for flood defences, rising to £370 million in 2015- 16 and then protected in real terms until 2020. This will deliver improved protection to at least 300,000 homes” (HM Treasury 2013 p.7). This commitment shows that central government grants and structural defence options remain dominant, but the approach adopted has shifted to be more sensitive to the goals of economic policy. The Government published the first national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in 2011. The strategy provides a framework for managing all sources of floods in a co- ordinated way. Sustainable development and localism is at the heart of this strategy, recognising that there is a limit to what government and national bodies can achieve alone, and that national priorities are only part of the picture. This shows a shift in responsibility and powers to local actors.
One of the most significant impacts on economic development was the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012 which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The framework marks a change, replacing all the previous Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance documents. The framework includes a Flood Risk Management Hierarchy section, which requires local authorities to demonstrate that flood risk has been a consideration in all planning processes, and, where development in areas of risk is deemed necessary, that flood risk is managed in an effective and sustainable manner at the local level using Local Plans. The Local Plans are expected to be supported by Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources, taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant bodies. The local
59 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK authorities’ role in co-ordinating of the Local Plan and with the management of flood risk represents a new scale of governance.
2.2.13Investing in Britain’s Future In 2013 the Government articulated a new vision to build a strong economy, necessary for a fairer society with the use of a long term infrastructure plan which will rebalance the economy, enhance productivity and create jobs. The plan described “a long term commitment which requires concerted action to tackle historic problems of short term decision making, uncertainty in funding and financing and failures in delivery” (HM Treasury 2013 p.5). The importance and concern over flood events is clearly recognised with the Government including funding for flood defence within its vision for long term planning. The Government committed to raise flood defence spending to £370 million in 2015-16, a rise which was then protected in real terms until 2020-21. This commitment provides a total of £2.3 billion and representing a real annual increase of 18% compared with the Spending Review 2010 period (HM Treasury 2013 p.53). This funding settlement is seen as a strategic investment to provide long-term security for home owners and businesses. However, from a planning perspective, this strategic investment is set against a backdrop of radical rescaling, including the Localism Bill; removal of the regional tier and implementation of a neighbourhood tier. In addition the newly established LEPs were advised by Government that they could encourage local planning authorities to work with them on strategic planning.
2.2.14Conclusion To summarise this chapter, whether actors see flood risk as a deterrent to economic development or not, recent experiences of flood events and associated damages to society and the economy has placed this policy intersection at the forefront of decision- making.
One challenge of policy research is that there is never a ‘clean slate’ position to begin: few policy concepts which get leverage exist in isolation. Instead policy is placed within a messy world of political life, each locality having a complex cultural and
60 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration historical legacy, and open to different struggles between a variety of actors. This requires that knowledge obtained for the objective of policy integration needs to be carefully understood and contextually positioned to provide useful academic enquiry.
Bearing this in mind this chapter began by mapping the origins of holistic economic thinking and how the term economic development has dominated the political agenda, whilst illustrating the challenges facing attempts to incorporate environmental considerations into economic centred notions of progress. These shifts have been accompanied by a changing relationship between state and non-state actors in attempts to remove perceived barriers to growth and enable better policy outcomes. It has been argued that the spaces of governance, states and subjects can be seen as artefacts, not architects as a result of self-interest, a laissez-faire approach and the invisible hand of the state.
The chapter focuses on the geographical perspectives and scales that have been used to encapsulate governance using the city region and the water basin as demonstrable examples of attempts to problematise and rectify issues related to flooding. Despite an illusion of freedom it is contested that the parameters of policy are restrained by pre- defined state goals of neoliberalism. On the one hand, decision making has moved beyond core institutions of government, leading to a dispersion of governance power and resources across multiple jurisdictions which is considered to be both more efficient than and superior to state monopoly. On the other hand, the remit of formal authorities has been dispersed from central states both up to supranational institutions and down to local governments. Questions are then raised in relation to how governance can be played out for economic development alongside flood risk management.
By critically engaging with the concept of governance, particularly multi-scalar governance and its theoretical worth as a safeguard against potential governance failures (Hooghe 2012), it is hoped that a better understanding of these questions can be achieved. Finally, the chapter engages in the concept of policy integration which invokes ideas of disparate elements being brought together in a more holistic entity. As academic and political reflection often resides with the uneven nature of governance, this has led to a wide ranging academic interest in the case study experiences of individual cities and regions (Deas et al. 2013; Deas 2014; Haughton and Allmendinger 2015) including international experience (Yang 2005; McGuirk 2007; Hager 2012). It is contested that the
61 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK case study approach to investigate integration between flood risk management and economic development policy provides a useful way forward.
Figure 1 provides a conceptual framework for the research visually representing the focal point and overlap between flood risk and economic development policy and placing this focal point within the context of governance and policy integration, and identifying the themes of prominence used to address the research objectives.
62 Chapter 2 –Spaces of Governance and the Implications for Policy Integration
Figure 1 – Conceptual Framework
Source: Author (2018)
Fundamentally, the research seeks to understand the intersection between flood risk management and economic development policy in terms of integration between the two traditionally distinct policy domains. This research focuses on how policy integration and the conflicts, partnership and approaches develop in the context of a multi-scalar governance arrangement whereby geographies, formal and informal spaces of decision making occur.
63 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
64 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
3.1 Introduction In this chapter the research design and methodological approach adopted during this research is presented. The approach was designed to connect the theoretical framework and questions established in Chapter 2 into a clear strategy of enquiry relevant to the present contemporary empirical context. The chapter presents the overall research strategy by describing and justifying the theoretical underpinnings, the data obtained and the character of the approach.
Firstly, it is important to recognise that the PhD studentship was an Economic Social Research Council (ESRC) Collaborative Award in Science and Engineering (CASE) which subsequently influenced the methodological approach adopted. Throughout the research it was important to be mindful of the main purpose of a CASE Studentship, to “encourage so-called ‘knowledge transfer’… [to] harness publically supported university research more closely to the goals of national competitiveness, regional economic development and local regeneration” (Demeritt and Lees 2005, p. 127). This CASE partnership was undertaken with the regional public governance body, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA). The partnership provided an opportunity for a close, research-led relationship with the public sector actor, with the aim of positively supporting goals for regional economic development.
The role of AGMA, referred to herein, also as the ‘CASE partnership’ enabled the regionally specific aspirations for economic development and local regeneration within the locality of Greater Manchester to be closely engaged with the research. The CASE partnership was seen as a tool to facilitate knowledge transfer and as an opportunity to open up new areas of policy integration research. Early on in the research a decision was made to use a case study methodological approach. This approach was considered most appropriate to harness a detailed enquiry into contemporary policy integration while utilising the existing geographical frame of AGMA as a base arrangement. However, despite the pre-existing frame of AGMA, the specific parameters of a unit of analysis for the case study required contemplation, consideration and debate alongside a literature review.
The foremost focus for the research was to add knowledge to the understanding of the relationship between, and the governance challenges associated with the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy. The strategy employed was designed to facilitate the methods for review, data collection and analysis that would
65 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK enable transparency and consistency, whilst ensuring that the aim and objectives of the research were answered as unambiguously and convincingly as possible (De Vaus 2001; Yin 2003).
There are three key elements which were seen to be imperative in progressing the research agenda. Firstly, to delineate the research questions; secondly; to design a route of enquiry which would support the description and characterisation of contemporary practice, and; thirdly, to actively reflect on and interpret the findings. These three components formed the basic framework of enquiry (Figure 2). The components were mainly operationalised in a linear approach, each component being a focal point during a particular temporal point during the research. However, as is required for most social science research, the approach offered flexibility in order to reflect and alter the design, as required throughout the research process. By way of explanation this can be visually represented as cogs, apparatus within a mechanical device which is dependent on the activation of each cog to succeed towards a desired motion, or in this instance desired research objective.
66 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Figure 2 - Representative Image of the Research Approach
1. Define and Design
2. Description and Characterisation
3. Interpretation and Reflection
Source: Author (2018)
3.2 Component One: Define and Design The topic forming the basis of this PhD arose from discussions held between my supervisor and an economic development policy actor, at the time professionally operational within the government funded body, AGMA. As part of the original CASE Studentship proposal initial research questions were framed into aim and objectives, jointly by the University of Manchester and AGMA. After being awarded the CASE studentship in 2012 to establish a direction I commenced reviewing academic literature - what was already known on the subject and approaches other researchers had used to address similar objectives. This was complemented by exploratory discussions and pilot interviews with actors involved in the fields of flood and economic development policy. This component of the research, to define and design in combination is typical of social science research enabling the research problem and objectives to be continually defined as the research strategy is established. It also enabled exploration into the appropriate theoretical paradigm, theoretical observations, and the epistemological and ontological position.
67 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
3.2.1 Theoretical Paradigm The knowledge we use to construct our theories and interpretations requires the methodology to be able to be critical of issues around how knowledge is generated and applied. The research methodology is critically supported and dictated by the theoretical lens through which the subject of interest is being investigated. For this research the subject of interest is the scale of interaction for the concept of flood risk management and economic development policy integration. The theoretical lens collectively involved: the epistemological; ontological; and methodological premises which will guide the research strategy. Simply, the question was asked - which methodological approach and theoretical lens will be used to take the research forward?
The purpose of theory and the application of a theoretical lens is to support the researcher’s ability to understand the social world. In the words of Popper “theories are nets cast to catch what we call the ‘world’: to rationalise, to explain, to master it. We endeavour to make the mesh even finer” (Popper 1959, p. 37). Throughout this research I have sought to add knowledge on the world of governance during the continual reconstruction of policy and associated challenges for the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy. This aspiration to produce a reconstructed understanding of the social world is an orientation of the interpretivism theoretical paradigm which will enable practical recommendations on policy integration to be formulated.
One key contributing factor in using this approach to the research is that it acknowledges that our interpretations are not constructed in isolation but against a backdrop of shared understandings and practices (Schwandt 2000, p. 197), that is that all knowledge and interpretation “take[s] place within a conceptual framework through which the world is described and explained” (Schwandt 2000, p. 197). It further recognises that human interpretations are critical in understanding and setting the goal of understanding the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it. This presents a methodological quest for subjective knowledge, an elucidating of meaning and understanding, and a grasping of the actor’s definition of a situation.
The interpretivist paradigm relies on the context of the research to play a crucial role as all research is informed by hunches, puzzles or perceived tensions which are of interest. The researcher is seen as constructing the data together with the research
68 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology participants. This led to a challenging task for interpretation as the social scientist is required to interpret not only fact but also the meanings society attaches to these facts. Two problems arise: how can we know that we are interpreting others’ meanings correctly; and how can we be sure that the people we are observing understand their world? These problems were unable to be completely solved but by having a traceable analysis, the interpretations could be made more trustworthy. Although this paradigm is positioned to support the lived experience of actors, interpretivist researchers have been accused of lacking rigour, not being able to generalise and not being able to reproduce their research. However, Yanow and Schwartz-Shea (2015) argue that in interpretivist research the rigor applies to the logic and argumentation rather than the re-producible components. Therefore, it was important to have traceable analysis.
3.2.2 Ontology and Epistemology The ontological position of the research is that as a researcher there is no direct access to the real world. The world is a lived reality and comprises of situation specific meanings that constitute the general object of investigation which is thought to be constructed by social actors. This ontological premise taken for this research is described succinctly by Healey as:
“a world of multiple, overlapping ‘systems’ (structures, networks), with varying degrees of openness, and variable space/time reach, through which what gets to be understood, materially and mentally, as a place and territory are constructed and recognized. It is a world of human and also non-human agency, in which people are not simply autonomous individuals with single identities. Instead, they/we often have multiple identifies, formed in socio- environmental contexts.” (Healey 2013, p. 1514)
This view enables the research to be concerned with the perspective of flows and interactions of planning ideas and planning practices in relation to flood risk management and economic development policy integration. The current experiences of people situated in a place and the territories outlined by human and non-human actors is central to the research. The role of the researcher is seen less as expert and more as a co-traveller, as explained by Thomas and Hollinrake “so as to free up respondents through co-ownership of the research to be more open in expressing their honest views and opinions and less
69 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK likely to tell the researcher what they think she [/he] wants/needs to know” (Thomas and Hollinrake 2014, p. 3). The research needed to involve policy actors to gain their views, as experts in their field. The ontological premises led to an epistemological position that knowledge is something which is interpreted by individuals and subjective. As the research strategy began to take shape it also become apparent that it was necessary to understand my role in the research as a social scientist researcher; a social scientist undertaking a PhD CASE award.
3.2.3 The Researcher as a Multi-Cultural Subject The researcher can be viewed as a potential contaminant, something which should be separated out, minimized, standardised and controlled (Weis and Fine 2000). The interpretative nature of case study research requires two considerations. Firstly, that the researcher can be a competent observer, with objectivity, clarity and precision, able to report on their own observations of the social world, including the experiences of others. Secondly, that the researcher has held to the belief in a real subject, or real individuals, who are present in the real world and able, in some form, to report on his or her experiences. However, Denzin and Lincoln (2000, p. 12) acknowledge that poststructuralists and postmodernists take issue with this idea, arguing that there is “no clear window into the inner life of an individual”. In short, that there is no objective observation, only observation socially situated in the worlds of and between the observer and the observed (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). This also highlights that the researcher will have certain opinions and views about a wide range of issues, and these are likely to be expressed during the research. Consideration must be given to the researcher’s subjectivity and “a need to forefront the politics of representation by making visible, through reflexivity, how we do the work of representation” (Pillow 2003, p. 176). Research by Gewirtz and Cribb (2006, p. 141) acknowledged “the tensions between, on the one hand, the goal of insulating the research process from ‘value bias’ and, on the other hand, the goal of contributing to political and social change through research”.
Therefore, the researcher cannot be considered wholly objective and is required to develop reflexivity in order to be able to handle value judgements in social research. As defined by Fook reflexivity is “…a stance of being able to locate oneself in the picture, to appreciate how one’s self influences” (Fook 2002, p. 43). Being reflexive is to
70 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology become aware of the limits of our knowledge, our own behaviour and how we relate with others. The results of reflexivity is to produce research that questions its own interpretations and is reflexive about its own knowledge production towards the goal of producing between, less distorted research accounts (Hertz 1997). Okely (1992) believes that the lack of ability of the researcher to be wholly objective can be counter balanced by inserting autobiographical information which can serve to establish the researchers’ position and therefore supporting the researcher’s ability to be reflexive. Considering the above aspects of interpretive research and the challenges posed by poststructuralists and postmodernists, I began to see myself as a subject of my research which needed to be situated in relation to my professional and academic biography. Table 6 provides a chronically arranged biography of myself, the researcher, highlighting key academic and professional experiences of specific relevance to this research and which may influence my objectivity and reflexivity.
71 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 6 – The Biographically Situated Researcher
Title Organisation Summary
A foundation was obtained on the study of biological science including ecosystem, microbial, plant, animal and ecological biology. Subjects studied included genetics, University of Wales, BSc Biology Student cellular biology, ecosystems and humans impact on the environment. This Aberystwyth education developed a scientific based approach questioning. A technical and theoretical understanding of river catchments as functional ecosystems.
Experience of on-site environmental management for a national infrastructure project. This included compliance to an ISO14001 Environmental Management Environmental Support Entrepose Industrial System; performing, preparing for and being audited; and developing contractor Officer Services toolbox talks. Daily communication was required with the client, sub-contractors and various statutory and non-statutory consultees.
MA in Environmental A specialised understanding of environmental assessment at both the project level University of Impact Assessment and (EIA) and the strategic level (SEA). This education developed a working Manchester Management Student understanding of planning for environmental change and environmental law.
Cheshire and Research was conducted in association with the Mersey Basin Campaign (MBC) and Work Placement Warrington Economic the University of Manchester to evaluate the status and potential for micro-hydro
72 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Title Organisation Summary Alliance and University scheme development in Cheshire and Warrington. During this research I resided as of Manchester an intern two days a week with the MBC. The findings of the research were published in the Mersey Basin Campaign Source Magazine and presented at the Cheshire Water Forum.
A broad spectrum of experience was obtained in consultancy as a member of the Environmental Assessment, Management and Planning team. Here I worked on Environmental Parsons Brinckerhoff projects with a variety of clients including North Hub (Network Rail), Nuclear Consultant Ltd. Energy Supply Chain Study (Tees Valley Regeneration) and Carbon Foot printing (Electricity Alliance North West)
Long term secondment to provide environmental support during an investment programme to triple the size of the Metrolink across Greater Manchester. I assisted TfGM during various stages of development - planning to construction. The role Transport for Greater involved providing strategic direction to engineering disciplines to enable works to Environmental Support Manchester (TfGM) be planned, constructed and operated with minimal risk to the environment; reviewing and evaluating existing and new environmental information; undertaking site inspections and conducting regular meetings with contractors. Specific statutory and non-statutory stakeholder liaison was also conducted.
73 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
The transparency provided by my biography not only helps to demonstrate my ability to think reflexively but also what I personally brought to the research. After spending the majority of my time post Master’s degree working as an environmental consultant I obtained experience working with a diverse mix of clients and projects. I hope this experience has added depth to my research in terms of undertaking practical implementation of environmental solutions and challenges. It also supported my definition of the research gap and designing the research approach. As a researcher I am recognising the pitfalls of naïve value neutrality and the potential weakness which can arise from unreflexive partnership in research (Gewirtz and Cribb 2006).
Returning to academia after a break also meant that I needed to reconvene with intellectual debates and advances in methodological approaches specifically within the fields of environmental governance, planning and policy. My consultancy experience had drawn from a different set of skills to that of undertaking a PhD research. Although distinctly different in some aspects I expected my previous experience to complement and add depth to my progress during the duration of the studentship. This depth was particularly obtained due to my understanding of the practical delivery of policy objectives. I was familiar with the practical workings of regional governance arrangements in Greater Manchester due to my time working on various regionally important projects, such as the long term secondment to Transport for Greater Manchester during infrastructure development. From early on during my studentship I expected this experience to influence my way of approaching the research. I expected my tackling of the problems to take a practical approach.
As mentioned previously, reflexivity was a technique used to help establish confirmability in the research. It was necessary to develop trustworthiness in the research undertaken using criteria developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) which requires research to be credible, transferable, dependable and confirmable. The criteria and methods used within this research to support establishment of each criteria are summarised in Table 7.
74 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Table 7 – Trustworthiness, Evaluative Criterion
Criteria Techniques
Credibility
Confidence in the truth of the findings.
Transferability
Showings that the findings have applicability in other contexts.
· Triangulation Dependability · Reflexivity Showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated.
Confirmability
A degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondent and not researcher bias, motivation or interest.
3.2.4 Limitations of Policy Specific Research The research of policy is full of pitfalls, one of which is about how to address policy research due to the nature of policy itself. What is policy? What is being researched? For example, some would argue that there is no simple linear progression in which policy is drawn from one place to be implemented elsewhere (Cochrane and Ward 2012). Such considerations about policy itself raises methodological challenges requiring the researcher to be fully aware of the limitations of policy research, to understand what knowledge can be obtained and how location specific knowledge may be used in a broader policy context. Simply, the question is how can meaningful policy research be conducted?
The meaningfulness of policy research cannot be discussed without referring to the distinction and value given to qualitative and quantitative enquiry for policy development. As an example, in the UK the evidence base for policy research has traditionally aligned to quantitative evidence. However, more recently there has been a
75 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK turn towards qualitative enquiry across the policy arena, precisely because quantitative approaches have proved inadequate in addressing the issues of context and complex causation that underline policy intervention. The word qualitative implies an emphasis on the qualities of entities, processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured in terms of quantity, amount, intensity or frequency (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). The ability of the research to be able to provide recommendations on the current and future integration of flood risk management and economic development policy required investigation into the issues of context and complexity, which benefits from a qualitative research approach.
The framing of policy research is another aspect which required careful consideration. It is contested that research focused on policy should allow for a wide framing of policy development which can be achieved through the lens of multi-level governance (Bache and Flinders 2004). This allows the research to focus on the dispersion of decision-making across multiple territorial levels (Hooghe and Marks 2001). However, it should also be remembered that the multi-level aspect of the term multi-level governance takes place “in the shadow of hierarchy” (Jessop 2004, p. 52) and that vertical layers are no more important than horizontal relationships (Bache and Flinders 2004). Therefore, consideration has been given to framing the research using a multi-level governance lens to enable the research to consider policy integration in relation to hierarchy and the vertical and horizontal layers which may reside as navigation routes for governance. The application of a multi-level governance perspective helped to provide a detailed description of governance, to help understand how the existence and functioning of the multi-level governance influences policy integration.
The acknowledgement of multi-level governance recognises the argument that policy making has to be understood as both relational and territorial, and can be defined in place as well as in and through networks (Cochrane and Ward 2012). Recent challenges to thinking about policy have focused on the geographical concept of policy mobilities, an approach which emphasises that careful consideration is required to research the multiple and overlapping spaces of policy making (Cochrane and Ward 2012). This involves recognising that policies emerge from and are responses of a particular local set of social and political conditions. Therefore, the research approach has sought to enable an exploration of the ways in which the working through of tensions
76 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology between policies serves to produce the policies and places but also the policies in place (Cochrane and Ward 2012). However, the place and territories of a place are not fixed, they are the outcome of overlapping and interconnecting sets of social, political, and economic relations which stretch across a space (Massey 2005). The existence of identifiable territories shapes and in some cases limits the ways in which those relations are able to develop (Massey 2005). This methodological ability to research both the relational and territorial space is a challenge and has to be overcome by also researching the practices through which policy is made mobile; the ways in which policy is allowed to develop. Understanding of policy is best gained by using multiple data sources, also referred to as source triangulation (See Section 3.5). This method ensures that the description is rich, robust, comprehensive and well-developed.
3.3 Component Two: Description and Characterisation The application of the interpretivist theoretical paradigm facilitates the nature of the research questions as an exercise in observation, to describe and critically engage in the collective characteristics of contemporary policy integration. Initially, the means to do this required further focus to clarify description and characterisation of what was understood as policy integration, a process supported by an international scoping exercise.
3.3.1 International Scoping Exercise The initial idea of an international scoping exercise (Chapter 4) stemmed from interest expressed by the CASE partner. AGMA wanted to gain an insight into international best practice for the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy. To meet this expectation a report was produced during the first year of research which examined the main characteristics of approaches used to manage flood risk during the progression of economic development projects. A comparison of seven international projects at different geographical scales was undertaken which was used as a valuable scoping exercise, not only because it enabled investigation into policy but addressed some of the limitations of research that is bounded by a narrow national policy focus. Such a national focus has been identified as a weakness of previous policy development analysis (Cochrane and Ward 2012). This international scoping exercise
77 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK acknowledges the importance of establishing a wider framing of policy development, beyond the national policy remit, as a framing for the case study.
The key aim of the report was to identify and outline practical examples of how flood risk management is being undertaken without compromising regional aspirations for economic development. To meet this aim a series of objectives were developed with AGMA and used to undertake a comparative study of international development projects. The review sought to identify and assess:
· How flood risk is managed during the evolution of economic development projects. · What tensions arise between flood risk management and economic development policy?; and · What methods are used to mediate tensions between flood risk management and economic development policy?
The comparative investigation focused on five key aspects of interest for the development projects in order to assist in answering the research objectives, as outlined in Table 8. These aspects were identified as a result of discussion with the CASE partner and preliminary literature reviews.
78 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Table 8 – Aspects Investigated for each Project Case Study
Aspect Description
The Hydrological Describes the area of land and main water drainage Catchment area within which the development project resides
Identifies the principal organisation or representatives actively involved in the development Key Actors projects and those taking a role in flood risk management
Implementation of Flood Considers how flood risk has been incorporated into Risk Governance the development project.
Identifies outline funding arrangements for flood Financing risk management
Identifies potential tensions which may have arisen Tensions between the aspirations for economic development and flood risk management.
Project Case Study Selection
The project case studies were selected using internet searches and the below section criteria as a tick list for inclusion as a valuable project case study.
· Project of a regional scale · Project with potential to influence approaches to flood management · Collectively the project is from a different geographical range to other chosen selected projects therefore providing interest due to difference. · Project had sufficient information freely and publically available in order to complete an analysis.
The principal method of investigation involved desk based internet searches to gather documented data, where publicly and freely available, on each project case study. The scope of the comparative assessment was limited to aspects identified above, as a means of data reduction. Information was extracted from sources using the aspects from
79 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 8 in note form for each project case study. The scope of the analysis was contained using these aspects and then further comparatively analysed using the typologies shown within Table 9.
Project Case Study Scoring
The typologies were then scored using a numeric classification between 0 – 5. This provided a subjective assessment to demonstrate the degree to which a project case study correlates to the defined typology, the scoring system used is shown within Table 10. The analysis was based on the researcher’s interpretation of data and identified sources of information; it provided only an indication of the degree of correlation. A matrix containing scoring from all case studies was then used to facilitate comparison which is contained within the report (Appendix G) provided to AGMA in 2014.
80 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Table 9 – Typology of Projects
Typology Description
Private and Public A development project in which the private sector and Developer Led public sector take an equal share in responsibilities.
A development project in which public actors take a Private Developer
n leading role and private actors adopt a facilitating role to o
i Led t
c manage the development (Heurkens and Hobma 2014). e r i
D A development project in which public actors take a Public Developer leading role and private actors adopt a facilitating role to Led manage the development of an area. A regulatory impact on the development project is present.
River restoration is a central consideration in providing River Restoration appropriate flood protection and as a driver for the Focus development of an area.
r Risk is a central consideration in providing appropriate e v
i Flood Risk Focus r flood protection and as a driver for development. D
Economic Fiscal advantage is a central consideration in providing Development appropriate development and a driver. Focus
Concept for allocating and managing land to achieve Landscape social, economic and environmental objectives.
River and floodplain focused enhancement that Hydrological considers catchment scale hydrological processes and
Catchment h
c associated land management pressures. a o r p
p Engineered Flood
A Engineered structural features to reduce flood risk. Risk Management
Natural/ Alteration, restoration or use of natural landscape Ecological Flood features to reduce risk. Risk Management
81 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 10 – Typology Scoring System
Score Correlation
0 None
1 Very Weak
2 Weak
3 Moderate
4 Strong
5 Very Strong
Project Case Study Scoping Insights
The scoping exercise led to the selection of practical examples of policy integration from England, Scotland, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and the United States of America. The scoping exercise supported the development of the research, enabling reflection on the need for and how to frame further detailed case study analysis in England. The scoping exercise provided an initial link between the theory and practical implementation of policy integration. The understanding gained from each case study demonstrated that interview questions needed to enquire about, firstly, the current relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy; secondly, the dynamics of policy integration itself and finally, the future avenues of policy integration. Such a framing of questions intended to ease the interviewee into explaining the challenges of policy integration that they face in practice. The analysis from these projects case studies also helped to refined themes and sub-themes in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The limitations of the scoping exercise is that it only intended to provide a ‘snap shot’ of the approaches and challenges to policy integration between flood risk management and economic development. The exercise did not provide an in depth comparative analysis, only an interpretation based on information readily available. The methodology did not did not include directly contacting any of the actors involved in the projects case studies. Chapter 4 presents the analysis for each country specific project
82 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology case study. The lessons learnt which were of value to designing the methodological approach are discussed here.
3.3.2 The Case Study Research Strategy The primary strategy adopted for this research was the case study as explained by Yin (2003) it “is a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence” (Yin 2003, p. 13). By adopting a case study strategy the research was able to achieve a more complex and fuller explanation of contemporary phenomena while also retaining the holistic and meaningful characteristics of the real life context. The strategy presented a useful method in order to establish an in-depth understanding of the real life context for flood risk management and economic development policy integration. This real life context included the practical relations, opportunities and challenges associated with policy integration.
The adherence to a case study approach presented a way of organising the social data so that the unitary character of the social object being studied could be preserved (Goode and Hatt 1952), in this case, the unitary character of the concept of policy integration within a defined context. The approach enabled a detailed understanding of the policy interface to be obtained through engagement with selected actors. The merits of a case study approach for policy research is well documented and is said to “succeed excellently in laying bare bottlenecks in policy making, policy implementation and its actual effects, and may therefore result in a sound and valuable policy evaluation” (Goode and Hatt 1952, p. 41). Furthermore, in specific relation to environmental policy evaluation, the case study approach is often used and when chosen carefully, it has been claimed that a small number of cases, or even a single case can be very revealing of the core issues in a policy field and the critical paths of certain implementation processes (Crabbé and Leroy 2008). For such reasons the case study strategy has been consistently chosen as a methodological tool for research on policy governance (see Healey 2009; McFadden et al. 2009; Benson et al. 2015) and river basin catchments (see Mori 2012; Schmidt and Morrison 2012).
This research uses qualitative evidence collected by literature review, interview and observation. Initially, a critical exploration of the theoretical relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy both within the UK and
83 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK internationally was conducted using academic literature. The review sought to define the concept of policy integration; explore the relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy; understand existing knowledge on the subject; and identifies methods used by other researchers. This review commenced with a broad scope of literature to understand concepts including: policy; integration; flood risk; environmental protection; economic development, sustainable development and governance. At the preliminary stage of enquiry the academic review included UK and international research (Chapter 4). However, in order to enable a geographically focused analysis and consideration of a chosen case study locality, a focus was later placed on England, UK (Chapter 5-6).
The limitations of a nation specific approach are understood but the focus was considered necessary to be able to obtain a level of detail on the governance challenges associated with policy integration. The England focused strategy included a policy review of flood risk management and economic development policy over the last three decades from 1985 to 2015. This period was chosen because it contains some key legislative events both in terms of economic development policy and water resource management of relevance to the research. The UK and international policy review enabled the design of a critical theoretical framework whereby a series of generalised themes and concepts were considered to support analysis. The theoretical framework acted as a guide to continued analysis and began to illustrate how the concerns of the researcher are manifested in the case.
The case is the object of study and the unit of analysis about which information is collected (De Vaus 2001). Therefore the case needs to be clearly defined which Yin (2003) recognises as a functional problem that has plagued many researchers at the outset of case studies. Here the ‘case’ shall be defined as a specific, unique and bounded system which presents a useful object of research. This case study is defined by interest in the individual case; a bounded system with certain features within the boundaries of the case, and other features outside. The case study area chosen involved a geography where issues are complex, situated and where problematic relationships reside. The case has its own unique history, it is a complex entity operating within a number of contexts – physical, economic, ethical, aesthetic and so on.
84 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
3.3.3 Scale of Analysis, the River Basin The CASE Award nature of the research justifies the selection of a case study that is related with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), the city region of Greater Manchester. The case study was then further framed using the concept of a river basin, as a management and planning unit which draws its strength as a unit from its naturalness and relevance as a hydrological and management unit. It constitutes a legitimate unit for the application of a technical rationale for solving flood risk management, yet political or administrative boundaries seldom correspond to watershed lines, and the socioeconomic forces and processes as well as the web of power that influence the management of water (Molle 2009). The application of a geographical unit for the case enables the policies to be researched from a perspective of place, recognising Freeman’s (2012) argument that the starting point for policy research should be mobility itself because without mobility, there is no policy.
The river catchment is seen as a fundamental geographical unit for water management (Graefe 2011) and represents a node through which policies pass and which gives them their meaning in practice. The river basin has long been a focal unit of analysis for issues and problem solving. The River Basin can be seen as what Gerring (2009) refers to as a typical-case approach to case selection. Given some general understanding of the problem the River Mersey can be seen to exemplify what is considered a typical-case. This scalar decision leans towards notions of common benefit through governance and communities of common concern in a basin area.
The unit of analysis is a single case, the Mersey Basin, a large river basin covering an area of 4,680 km2, located in the North West of England, UK. This geographical unit was used to enable the complex challenges of contemporary practices of economic development and flood risk management to be studied within a multi-scalar governance landscape. The Mersey Basin comprises of a number of river catchments including Alt Crossens, Douglas, Irwell, Upper Mersey, Mersey Estuary and the Weaver/Gowy catchment.
The basin comprises of a mix of predominantly rural uplands with a highly urbanized lower catchment. The role of the Mersey Basin is multi-faceted: acting as an artery for communication; a resource for commerce; industry; housing; biodiversity; recreation; drainage; and water supply. The basin has a long history of influential periods of economic development, social, cultural and environmental neglect and various
85 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK approaches to partnership working operating at different spatial scales. Human activities for the purposes of agriculture, industry and residential development have greatly modified the catchment (Holland and Harding 1984). The highly urban and rural nature of the catchment provides a useful case whereby a critical analysis of the integration between flood risk policy and economic development policy can be undertaken.
3.3.4 The City Region of Greater Manchester As previously mentioned the partnership with AGMA created by the CASE Studentship award presented an opportunity to work closely with the city regional governance structures, than may normally be possible. Although the case study unit of analysis is a large geographical scale, the Mersey Basin, due to the opportunity of the CASE partnership and challenges associated with institutional reorganisation for all policy at the local and regional scale, the focus was further refined to examine the policy arrangements in Greater Manchester (Chapter 5). This approach provided an urban conurbation for analysis but not neglecting its setting within the context of a larger hydrological catchment. This contextual setting enabled a representation of an established city region which has been and continues to be an experimental space for transformations in institutional structures. It also provides a context in which to test solutions to address territorial capabilities in relation to flood risk management. This scale enables a lens to be placed on contemporary challenges and opportunities arising from national reform in the management of both flood risk and economic development policy. The entire case study seeks to illustrate by reference, how integration of flood risk management and economic development policy is occurring within a contemporary configuration of governance.
Greater Manchester provides a long history of what Bentley and Pugalis (2014, p. 1) refer to as “corpses of policy experiments that have subsequently been deemed to be outright or partial policy failures by independent as well as government sponsored studies”. On the other hand, the region has hosted successful city regional governance arrangements based on over 20 years of voluntary collaboration for the future of the city region, most recently having been awarded statutory city region pilot status by government. As stated by Manchester City Council (2009) “the devolution of powers is fundamental if the City Region is to realise its full economic potential and ensure that
86 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology economic development, transport, housing and planning functions are properly integrated and co-ordinated” (Manchester City Council 2009, p. 15).
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was subsequently established on the 1st August 2011 with a remit to integrate economic development, regeneration and transport functions across functional economic areas. The combined authority offers city regions and other places greater control over functions led by an elected model mayor. The current structure comprises of a mayor with a cabinet consisting of all constituents local authority leaders. All GMCA leaders have a clear portfolio of responsibilities acting as a support and advisory function to the Mayor and the combined authority. The mayor has strategic planning powers and will be able to create a statutory spatial framework for the city region, acting as framework for managing planning across Greater Manchester. Prior to the GMCA, a voluntary joint committee, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) co-ordinated action but had no statutory powers in planning flood policy or economic development. AGMA was created in 1986 and remains as a voice of the ten local authorities of Greater Manchester but within the new governance arrangements of the GMCA.
3.3.5 Localised Embedded Case Studies To allow more detailed understanding of the practical challenges of policy integration, localised embedded case studies from within the AGMA arrangement were used. The localised case studies were identified through a review of local authorities forming the Greater Manchester city region. The parameters of the review to identify case studies were as follows:
· Significant flood risk present · Economic development projects of a city regional importance · Different geographical range/ local administrative context · Sufficient information freely and publically available in order to complete an analysis.
This desk based scoping exercise was undertaken by internet research, supported by verbal advice from the supervisory team. The exercise highlighted only a small number of economic development projects of a regionally important scale whereby flood
87 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK risk management and economic development form an integral part of the development. Three embedded case studies were chosen for more detailed enquiry because of their different settings in relation to their administrative contexts, geographical location and built environments within the Mersey Basin.
The embedded case studies initially chosen were Rochdale Borough Council; Salford City Council; and Manchester City Council, all located in the city region of Greater Manchester and within the Mersey Basin. Early on a decision was made to remove the embedded case of Manchester City Council predominantly focused on the development of Airport City, south of the Greater Manchester conurbation from the research. After further investigation the embedded case did not appear to provide sufficient implications for flood risk management to warrant a detailed case study. Furthermore, no actors invited were able to participate in an interview at the time of research.
A brief description of the two embedded case studies Section 6.4 and 6.5 with a justification for analysis is provided below.
Salford City Council
Salford is a city in Lancashire within the North West of England. The city is part of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and AGMA, located west of the Greater Manchester conurbation. The city is governed by Salford City Council (Salford CC), a directly elected Mayor and executive leaders.
Historically, Salford’s urbanisation and population growth reflected its proximity to the edge of the Lancashire coalfields. As deindustrialisation took place in the late twentieth century much of the employment base was lost and Salford gained a reputation for blight and decay. More recently, the city has been described as being ‘‘tortuously re- narrated as dynamic and cosmopolitan’’, heavily implicated in a boosterish agenda central to the reinvention of the entire Manchester conurbation as an international destination (Wallace 2014, p. 521). A key jewel in the crown is the redevelopment of the quayside and dockland district, now known as Salford Quays, home to hotels, an art centre, the Imperial War Museum North and Media City UK. However, despite on-going pockets of re-development, the local authority of Salford was still ranked 16th out of 326 local
88 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology authorities in England with the highest proportion of their neighbourhoods in the most deprived 10 per cent of neighbourhoods nationally on the Index of Multiple Deprivation in 2015 (Department for Communities and Local Government 2015).
A further facet to the challenging profile of Salford is the issue of flood risk. The city is surrounded on three sides by rivers: the River Irwell to the north which flows through the east of the city into the Manchester Ship Canal, plus the River Glaze and Worsley Brook to the west. These rivers present current and future sources of flood risk alongside risk from canals, surface water and groundwater. Salford has been subjected to a number of flooding incidents, with major events occurring in 1946, 1980, 2007, 2008 and 2015 (Salford City Council 2015). The city is located downstream of the majority of Greater Manchester.
Two development projects provided a focus for the embedded case of Salford, listed in Table 11. The table introduces the key economic development projects. These projects were identified because of their associated links with both economic development policy and flood risk policy.
Table 11 – Mersey Basin, Salford Embedded Case Study
Local Project Economic Development Type Authority Title Development Scope
Ø Transportation Mainly brownfield Ø Logistics with some Port Salford Ø Commercial greenfield
Salford City Ø Employment development
Council Second Ø Regeneration Flood Ø Ecological Greenfield Storage Ø Housing Basin Ø Resilience
Rochdale Borough Council
Rochdale is a town in Lancashire within the North West of England. Rochdale is part of Greater Manchester Combined Authority and AGMA lying north east of the
89 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK conurbation on the edge of the South Pennines between the cities of Manchester and Leeds. The local authority of Rochdale is ranked 17th out of 326 local authorities in England with the highest proportion of their neighbourhoods in the most deprived 10 per cent of neighbourhoods nationally on the Index of Multiple Deprivation in 2015 (Department for Communities and Local Government 2015).
As well as deprivation the borough has widespread flood risk with the spread of risk varying greatly. The uplands of the South Pennine to the north and east of the borough provide important water gathering grounds for industry, agriculture and drinking water. The topography of the area leads to water draining from the steep sided upland area into the river valley towards Rochdale town centre. The River Roch and its tributaries present the main fluvial flood risk in Rochdale because many of the main residential and employment locations are located in close proximity. Although fluvial flood risk is predominant, risk is also present from canals, surface water and groundwater. The borough is located upstream of much of Greater Manchester.
A single large development project provided the focus for the embedded case of Rochdale (Table 12). The embedded case study examined the implications of Rochdale Town Centre re-development and the links with flood risk management policy.
Table 12 – Mersey Basin, Rochdale Embedded Case Study
Local Project Economic Development Authority Title Development Scope Type
Ø Aesthetic/ visual amenity Rochdale Rochdale Ø Commercial Borough Town Brownfield Ø Regeneration Council Centre Ø Historic Ø Ecological
3.4 Component Three: Data Collection, Integration and Reflection This final research methodology component provided the opportunity for critical interpretation and reflection on economic development and flood risk management policy
90 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology integration. To build a picture using the case study to understand what policy integration means for flood risk management and economic development policy within a multi- faceted river catchment. This enabled issues of complexity and fragmentation in terms of the actors involved in policy making and management, and the frames in which action is delivered to be better understood.
3.4.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis This section describes the methods of data collection and analysis including interview, textual and observation methods. Each subsection describes the main aim of the method, the structure of the method and practical concerns and limitations which arose during the research. The case study including the embedded cases was investigated through two main methods, enabling two levels of sampling contexts, the textual cases and interview with the chosen individual actors operating within the case study.
91 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Interviews
Interviews can be considered one of the main data collection tools and most important sources of case study information, particularly in research about human affairs (Yin 2003) and capturing the perception of actors (Silverman 2001). It is the attributes of the interview as a tool for data collection which this research particularly harnesses and seeks to connect with the literature. The interview is perceived as “a form of discourse between two or more speakers or as a linguistic event in which the meanings of questions and responses are contextually grounded and jointly constructed by interviewer and respondent” (Schwandt 1997, p. 79). The interview provides interpretations of what people say they have done, believe, and think they have done. This enabled the researcher to seek clarification, compare experiences and thoughts, and to gain new insights into the approaches, challenges, constraints, tensions and opportunities for policy integration.
The semi-structured interview approach was used to develop an understanding and to give the researcher ability to provide clarification when a question or answer was unclear. This approach also enabling the interviewer to be able to probe an interviewee on occasion where their response to a particular question was unclear and appeared confused.
Interviews were conducted with a range of actors involved in flood risk management and/or economic development policy at a variety of scales of governance - regional, city-regional and local and sectors – public, private and third. The interviewees represented a range professional roles of statutory and non-statutory stakeholders with interest and input into the flood risk management and economic development policy process. Participants were purposively sampled and selected as key stakeholders, identified by various means: web search, documents and expert academic supervisor advice both academic and AGMA recommendations. This selection of ‘targeted’ actors is referred to as the sampling frame, developed to ensure the analysis was drawn, where possible from actors with a variety of perspectives. Also, to strengthen the sample of actors the method of snowballing was undertaken, whereby after an interview had been undertaken participants were asked whether they would recommend anyone to be invited to interview. The original sampling frame comprised of a relatively even distribution of actors from sectors and scales of governance.
Interviewees were invited to participate in the research by email with one chasing email as required to encourage participation. As a preference all interviews were
92 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology undertaken face to face because it is generally thought that a lack of face to face contact is considered to restrict the rapport and a natural interaction of the interview; elements that are considered to be important for generating qualitative data (Fielding and Thomas 2008). Also, tentative research by Irvine et al (2012, p. 100) concludes “in face to face interviews, interviewees tended to ‘hold the conversational floor’ for around 87-90 per cent of the time while in telephone interviews they typically held the floor for somewhere between 76-84 per cent of the time, with relative greater occupation of ‘airtime’ by the researcher during telephone interviews”. During the circumstances where a telephone interview was preferred by the interviewee efforts were made to prime the participant prior to commencement of the interview, reiterating the specific focus of the research and what was expected of them (Holt 2010). This methodological difference as not seen as a problem in addressing the research questions but is something which was accounted for.
An outline of topics explored during each interview is shown in Figure 3. The themes were developed alongside the literature review. The interview design used a funnel sequence with general questions at the start and specific questions at the end. The interviews were undertaken using an Interview Guide (Appendix B). The interview design was tested for flaws, limitations and weaknesses using two pilot interviews which led to further revision of the interview guide. If requested by the participant the Interview Guide was provided to interviewees ahead of the scheduled meeting.
93 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Figure 3 – Initial Themes of Enquiry Used for the Interviews
• Current relationship between flood risk and economic development policy Theme A
• Dynamics of contemporary policy integration Theme B
• Changes in flood risk policy Theme C
• Case study specific Theme D
• Future avenues of policy integration Theme E
The original interviewee sampling frame was 49, in total, 28 interviews were conducted between November 2014 and May 2015, see Table 13 for the distribution of participants across sectors. Three interviews conducted were as a result of the ‘snowball’ method beyond the original interviewee sample frame. In total, 33 actors who were invited to participate in the research declined or did not respond to the invitation, see Table 14 for the distribution of non-participants across the sectors. A response rate of 57% was achieved from the original sample frame. Interviews were easier to set up with those working within flood risk and economic development policy. Less well represented were politicians and private sector actors such as developers, possibly reflecting that most were more focused on residential impacts. Given the topic this shortfall was disappointing but did not fundamentally undermine the research, given the strong representation of other actors.
Each interview was recorded and transcribed with each transcript being seen as a narrative, “as stories about what the person being interviewed or observed thinks happened, should have happened or even wanted to have happened, [or as] accurate accounts of the mental maps that people carry around inside their heads” (Luker 2008, p.
94 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
168). See Interview Methods Table in Appendix F for further detail on each interview including its status, scale, source, saturation, length and recording.
Appendix A also shows that each interview transcript was categorised based on sector either public, private or third. For purposes of analysis each transcript was anonymised and assigned a name and number (where necessary) depending on their professional focus and scale for example local government planner #, regional government flood risk management # and regional charity economic development. Furthermore, a scale is used to enable the interview transcripts to be collectively discussed (in Chapter 5, 6 and 7) with a sense of proportion in relation to the prevalence of views during analysis. The words most, many, some and several are used in analysis and have the below meaning:
· Most, greater or equal to 20 interviewees · Many, between 10 – 19 interviewees · Some, between 6 – 9 interviewees · Several, between 0 – 5 interviewees
95 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 13 – Distribution of Participant Numbers by Organisation and Sector
Format Total No. r No. of o t c Organisation Face to of e Interviews
S Phone Face Interviews Association of Greater 3 3 0 Manchester Authorities New Economy 2 2 0 Manchester City Council 1 1 0
Salford City Council 3 2 1 c i l
b Rochdale Borough Council 2 1 1 17 u P Bolton Borough Council 1 1 0 Environment Agency 3 3 0 Natural England 1 1 0 NW Regional Flood 1 0 1 &Coastal Committee United Utilities 1 1 0 Peel Holdings 1 1 University of Manchester 2 2 0
e t
a University of Liverpool 1 1 0
v 8 i r
P Manchester Chamber of 1 1 0 Commerce Invest in Rochdale 1 1 0 Pennine Prospects 1 1 0 The Canal and Rivers Trust 1 0 1
d r
i 3
h Red Rose Forest 1 1 0 T The National Flood Forum 1 1 0 Total 28 24 4 28
96 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Table 14 – Distribution of Non-Participant Numbers by Organisation and Sector
r No. of Non- o t Organisation Total c
e Participants S
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities 2 New Economy 1 Manchester City Council 2 Trafford Borough Council 1 Wigan Borough Council 1
c i
l Stockport Borough Council 1
b 19 u
P Bolton Borough Council 1 Oldham Borough Council 1 Rochdale Borough Council 3 Environment Agency 2 Highway Agency 1 NW Regional Flood & Coastal Committee 3 Manchester and Cheshire Construction 1 Manchester Airport Group 1 Countryside Properties 1 AxA Insurance 1 Atlantic Gateway 1
e t
a Urban Vison 1
v 12 i r Bruntwood 1 P Co-op Group 1 Orbit Homes 1 David McLean 1 The Claims Desk 1 Argent LLP 1 Ground Work 1
d r i Red Rose Forest 1 3 h T Manchester and Pennine Waterways Trust 1 Total 34 34
97 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Policy and Documentary Analysis
The interview analysis was supplemented by further analysis of a range of documents which had specific relevance to the governance of flood risk management and/or economic development policy. Selection was based on publicly available documents from key proponents such as statutory consultees, councils, developers, charities and consultants at national, regional and local scales of governance. Documents were retrieved by exploring websites and obtained from established sources, published in the last 15 years.
The examination included laws, strategies, plans, policy guidance, and publications from a range of stakeholders. Analysis of documents was at first inductive focused on understanding the convergence between flood risk management and economic development; the objectives underpinning policies and the means by which integration was encouraged. Statements were then categorised thematically (Ritchie and Lewis 2003), by its content in line with the themes of enquiry undertaken for the interviews. Analysis of documents and interviewees were carried out separately.
Further detail on theoretically derived coding for all methods of date collection is provided in Section 3.4.2.
Observations
Opportunities arose during the latter part of the research, coinciding with interviews to conduct observational research. The interviewees themselves opened up opportunities to attend a number of events occurring within the case study locality. Appendix E details the events attended during 2014 – 2015 whereby the research was supported by observation. Attendance at these large stakeholder meeting was as a passive observer with observational data in the form of field notes being collected. As Yin (2003) states, observation allows the distinctive opportunity to perceive reality from the viewpoint of someone ‘inside’ the case study, or as phrased by Silverman (2001), sharing in people’s lives whilst attempting to learn and understand their symbolic world. Notes were taken where discussions arose around the interface between flood risk management policy and economic development policy using the interview discussion guide as a framework for the collection of notes.
98 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
3.4.2 The Exercise of Analysis by Coding Coding was seen as a process, “a dynamic, intuitive and creative process of inductive reasoning, thinking and theorizing…” data (Basit 2003, p. 143). All documents, interview transcripts and field notes were analysed and interpreted in order to discover meaningful themes associated with undertaking policy integration. All coding was conducted by the researcher either by hand or using the Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Software Analysis package, called NVivo.
NVivo was used specifically to analyse interview transcripts based on the themes and sub themes identified in the literature. The process began by reading the textual material and then an exercise called coding of the raw data “…to organise and make sense of [the] textual data” (Basit 2003, p. 143). A code is described by Bazeley and Jackson (2013) as an abstract representation of an object of phenomenon… used to identify themes in a text – the who, what, when, where and how of what is going on. NVivo was seen to be the most appropriate software to support coding of lengthy interview transcripts in Microsoft Word. In contrast, documents including policy, project material and observation notes were analysed outside this software by hand or computer often in PDF using post it notes, highlighters and paper notes.
To build up an understanding of policy integration, codes were attached to chunks of varying sized phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs which allocated units of meaning to the descriptive documents, interview transcripts and observation notes. Firstly, material was coded based on five initial themes of enquiry, A to E (Figure 3). These were then re-framed into three more discrete themes for the purpose of coding.
It was felt that there was duplication of data between themes of enquiry B and C, which could be consolidated (into theme B). It was also felt that data related to theme of enquiry D, could be coded across the other themes. The reframed themes of enquiry were renamed theme A to C.
Based around these initial themes the text was coded widely into sub-themes (Figure 4). Data was then coded to these sub-themes if topics were repeated, the interviewee expressed the importance of something, something seemed different to the concepts within the literature review, or it resonated with concepts in the literature review. Figure 4 shows the consolidated three themes of enquiry and the coded sub- themes. This enabled a wide open minded, approach to analysis.
99 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Figure 4 – Developed Themes and Sub-Themes Used for Coding
Theme A: Current Relationship between Flood Risk and Economic Development Policy e
m • Perception e h t • Impact - b
u • Opportunity S
Theme B: Dynamics of Evolving Policy Integration
• Partnership • Adaptation e • Boundaries m e
h • Scale t -
b • Planning u
S • Process • Resilience
Theme C: Future Avenues of Policy Integration
• Responsibility • Spatial Planning e
m • Finance e h
t • Tools -
b • City Regional u S • Surface water • Education
In addition to coding, these themes sub-themes were then further refined and categorised linking to the research objectives and literature, as shown in Tables 15 – 17, for the purposes of discussion and conclusions in later chapters.
100 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Table 15 – Categories of Analysis - Current Relationship between Flood Risk and Economic Development Policy (Theme A)
Research Questions Analysis by Theme and Category Origin of Theme and Category Ø Economic analysis of the cost of floods (Davies What do actors 2015) perceive as the Ø Links between land management and the Ø Competitive Economy impacts of flood risk catchment (Ewen et al. 2013) o Business, jobs and trade management on Ø Impact of rural land management changes on o Green infrastructure catchment run-off (Hess et al. 2010) economic 2
d development policy? Ø Climate change and water (Watts et al. 2015) n a
1 Ø International Flood Governance (Author, 2014)
e v
i Ø Water security for growth and development (Grey t c e j and Sadoff 2007) b
O Ø Promotion of win-win solutions Ø Benefits of co-operation on river catchments What do actors Ø Promote Consistency between policies (Sadoff and Grey 2002) perceive as Ø Achievement towards long term goals Ø A practical guide: integrated policy and decision opportunities for Ø Promotion of innovation in policy process making by (Stead and Jong 2006) policy integration? Ø Encourage greater understanding of the Ø Collaborative governance for policy (Fish et al. effects of policies on other sectors 2010) Ø International Flood Governance (Author, 2014)
101 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 16 – Categories of Analysis - Dynamics of Evolving Policy Integration (Theme B)
Research Questions Analysis by Theme Origin of Theme and Category
What are the experience of Ø Political key actors when seeking to integrate flood risk Ø Institutional and organisational Ø Spatial planning and policy
3 management on economic e integration a framwork of v i t development policy? c facilitators (Stead and Meijers e
j Ø Economic b 2009)
O How are actors dealing with changing governance Ø Tools for integrating policy into structures? Ø Process and management practice (Runhaar 2015)
What are the challenges of policy integration? Ø Behavioural, cultural and personal
102 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Table 17 – Categories of Analysis - Future Avenues of Policy Integration (Theme C)
Research Questions Analysis by Theme Origin of Theme and Category
Ø Political
Ø Spatial planning and policy
4 Ø Institutional and organisational
e How can flood risk integration a framwork of v i t c management and economic facilitators (Stead and Meijers e j Ø Economic b 2009)
O development policy be better integrated? Ø Tools for integrating policy into Ø Process and management practice (Runhaar 2015)
Ø Behavioural, cultural and personal
103 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
3.5 Drawing Together and Analysis The data collected was analysed around the three themes of enquiry to enable a narrative to be reconstructed to advance understanding of policy integration between flood risk management and economic development policy. The themes have been presented above in detail associating their link to literature (Figure 4 and Table 15-17). These are Theme A: Current Relationship between Flood Risk and Economic Development Policy (Section 5.3 and 5.4); Theme B: Dynamics of Evolving Policy Integration (Chapter 6 and 7); and Theme C: Future Avenues of Policy Integration (Section 8.4).
A method of triangulation was used as a means to ensure that the analysis was well developed and met criteria shown in Table 7. During analysis every effort was made to capture “… the finer nuances of meaning that lie within the text, coding enough in each instance to provide sufficient context, without clouding the integrity of the coded passage” (Bazeley and Jackson 2013, p. 69), whilst recognising that no single method or observer can capture all that is relevant or important (Denzin 2006). Triangulation was used to enable the researcher to explore different perspectives of the same phenomenon specifically the method triangulation of sources, helping to give the reader confidence in analysis. The research has developed by comparing different actors and by using several cases for international review and two for the city regional focus. This use of multiple types of actors (i.e. NGO, politician, and knowledgeable scholar) and cases added credibility, dependability and confirmability to the research because evidence for the analysis has been drawn from multiple sources.
Due to the parameters of time for the research, the scope of study and numerous actors it was believed that on-going interviews would always add new data and that therefore absolute saturation can be seen to be unattainable. However, it was considered that there would be a point of ‘diminishing returns’ where saturation begins to be observed and therefore the collection of raw data stopped at a point whereby new data began to emerge as repetitive and in particular for the interviews, when named ‘snowball’ participants were participants that had already been interviewed. Please see Appendix F indicating whether saturation is considered reached for each group of interviews.
104 Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology
Saturation was deemed to be seen when no new themes emerged during an interview, i.e. when themes became repetitive. As explained by Legard et al 2003. pg. 152) “…until the researcher feels they have reached saturation, a full understanding of the participants perspective”. This research, predominantly focused on interviewee analysis, saturation is difficult to obtain due to the actors targeted by the research often being specific elite actors whose availability for participation in research is a challenge. Notably, saturation was not observed for interviewees in the private sector in particular local actors, developers and politicians. Triangulation of sources also supported the ability to understand when saturation had been achieved. Confidence can also be gained as a result of the limited interviewees being undertaken solely as a result of the ‘snow ball’ methods. This method has been criticised for introducing bias to the research by leading the researcher to become trapped within a network of interlinked respondents who may share similar views on policy integration. Only three of the interviews undertaken are as a result of the ‘snowball’ method.
105 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4. INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO POLICY INTEGRATION
106 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
4.1 Introduction Many countries have experiences with the risk of flooding, yet they differ in their approaches to managing flood risk. As flood risk management is constantly in a status of flux, comparing countries with diverse historical, political, and geographic conditions provides insight into which aspects may lead to different decisions and direction on the development of policy (Bubeck et al. 2017). As highlighted by Wiering et al. (2017) there is limited research that focuses on the reasons why countries adopt a certain portfolios of flood risk management measures. Policy change, such as the drive to integrate flood risk management and economic development policy, is very often triggered by a major flood disaster, on top of incremental change that relies on new scientific understanding, new societal views and new power coalitions (Samuels et al. 2006). Each country therefore will have different triggers which lead to policy change.
Bearing this in mind, an analysis of seven projects situated in five different countries was undertaken to analyse and begin to explain the approaches taken to integrate flood risk management and economic development. The countries are prone to different mixes of flooding type and have different experiences with flood risk, plus different administrative traditions. Each project is being developed to reflect local aspirations for economic development but are also in localities where flood risk is present. The projects provide individual case studies of practical implementation of policy integration. It would be unachievable in this thesis to provide a detailed comparison of the working paradigms in each country but it is possible to sketch typical characteristics and differences between governance systems. Collectively, the case studies represent a scoping exercise used to unpick the differences and similarities in the governance approaches for policy integration which in turn helps to frame the focus of more detailed case studies in England, UK (Section 6.4 and 6.5).
This empirical data arose from preliminary research undertaken for the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) during 2012 – 2013. AGMA’s interest stems after the introduction of the FWMA in 2010 which led to changes in responsibilities and approaches to flood risk management in England and Wales. This legislation prompted an increasing interest from within AGMA in relation to the integration of flood risk policy alongside the regions aspirations for economic growth. Therefore, as part of this CASE studentship, a review was undertaken on international experience seeking out what may be considered best practice for policy integration
107 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
(Objective II). This research was presented to AGMA in 2015 as a standalone report. Drawing on this initial report, seven economic development projects are analysed in this chapter; for a detailed understanding of the methodology refer to Chapter 3. In summary, the conceptual framework, typologies used for this analysis are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 – Conceptual Framework for Comparative Analysis
The seven selected case studies are shown in Table 18 presented in alphabetical order.
108 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
Table 18 – Project Case Studies
Location, Country and Region Project Title
United Kingdom, England, North Atlantic Gateway West
United Kingdom, Scotland, Glasgow Clyde Waterfront Regeneration
Germany, Northern Ruhr Emscher Landscape Park
Australia, South Australia Lower Murray Floodplain Project
The Netherlands, South Holland New Water Pilot Area
United Kingdom, England, South West Thames Gateway
United States of America, Texas, Trinity River Vision Dallas
109 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4.2 Atlantic Gateway
4.2.1 The Vison The vision of the Atlantic Gateway is to maximise investment into the North West region and support delivery of major projects with Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and other partnerships. The geographical area covered by Atlantic Gateway is situated in the North West of England, comprising land along the River Mersey and the estuary between the city regions of Liverpool and Manchester (Figure 6). However, the scope of the project extends beyond the administrative boundaries of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, to include the wider hinterland of both city regions across Warrington, Halton, Ellesmere Port, Chester and North Cheshire. The Atlantic Gateway will seek to drive economic growth within the entire North West region.
Figure 6 – Atlantic Gateway Map
Extracted from: Atlantic Gateway (2018a)
110 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
The Atlantic Gateway is deemed as:
“the most significant opportunity in the UK to attract investment, accelerate growth and rebalance the economy. It is a proposition to create critical mass to achieve a new level of growth not previously achieved in the UK outside London” (Atlantic Gateway 2012, p. 3).
It is claimed by its backers, Peel Holdings, that the Atlantic Gateway has the potential to become a major brand to leverage private sector investment and other funding opportunities. Investment is expected to be attracted by the project’s scale and its ability to deliver major projects which would not proceed at a local level without the coordination, collaboration and scale of funding opportunities that the Atlantic Gateway can provide.
The Atlantic Gateway will utilize the region’s key assets including: the high growth economic sectors; infrastructure; emerging enterprise zones; and workforce to unlock potential in ways which support sustainability. The most significant opportunities for investment and growth to be sought within the area are outlined within the Atlantic Gateway Business Plan (2012) and include:
· Growth – driving growth through innovation in key sectors; · Connectivity – creating a globally connected gateway; · Infrastructure – developing low carbon infrastructure and technologies; · Sustainability – improving the quality of the environment; and · Talent – attracting and retaining talent to drive economic growth.
The recent changes in economic development policy within the UK has led to a restructuring of economic co-ordination and presented opportunities for LEP’s. The Atlantic Gateway supports the LEPs of Cheshire and Warrington, Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region. Such partnership is intended to enable the Gateway to be flexible and responsive to deal with emerging issues and opportunities at different scales of governance. Although much of the material for the Gateway focuses on driving growth it is emphasised within the Atlantic Gateway Vision that the project is not focused on growth at any cost. It is this sentiment which is key to understanding the mediation between economic development and other factors of importance for the city regions such as flood risk within the Mersey catchment.
111 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4.2.2 Developing the Vision The Atlantic Gateway is private sector led and benefits from a board of experienced senior North West business leaders, public sector representatives; and representatives from the three LEPs of Manchester; Cheshire and Warrington; and Liverpool City Regions. Significantly, the board contains environmental representatives including Walter Menzies as an independent advisor on sustainable development and Steve Moore, North West Director of the Environment Agency who is keen to ensure that the Environment Agency plays its part in creating the right conditions for economic growth.
The Board is further assisted by an environmental sub-group which has a role of developing a programme called ‘Adapting the Landscape’ which is one tool being used by the project to ensure conditions for growth occur in tandem with the existing landscape and to ensure benefits of the project are maximised.
Public bodies, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission work closely together to provide a ‘single voice’ approach to advise the Atlantic Gateway Board on how best to encourage integrated delivery of infrastructure to support and enable growth while protecting and enhancing the environment.
The Atlantic Gateway programme identifies flood risk and water management as critical issues that will affect opportunities for new development and existing business across all LEP areas. The changing weather predictions for the North West are for hotter summers, wetter winters, and increased flooding, hence an urgent need to start dealing with the consequences of these changes. The Atlantic Gateway Business Plan (2012) explains that flood risk will constrain development and investment unless there is better collaboration across the LEPs to identify issues, priorities, actions and develop a collaborative approach which is critical to achieving long term growth prospects. However, there is limited indication as to how such collaboration should occur as the project develops.
The importance of flood and water management to the area is shown within the project by its inclusion as a suggested delivery mechanism within the ‘Sustainable Infrastructure and Low Carbon Economy’ theme for growth. A further indicator of commitment to this delivery mechanism is the acknowledgement of the Environment Agency as a key partner to the Atlantic Gateway area. This partnership working should
112 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration help in updating the Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMP) to identify risks and establish a set of actions addressing flood risk at a catchment level. The current CFMP for the Mersey Estuary and the Upper Mersey were produced in 2009.
The Atlantic Gateway Business Plan (2012) is described as a good forum for flood risk management due to the interdependencies between physical development and flood risk. One approach facilitating such management is that the Atlantic Gateway has progressed with a view to accelerating the pace of transformation from a ‘grey to green’ landscape. In the hope that this will benefit business competitiveness and communities as well as the environment with funding being achieved for such transformation through a Community Environment Fund, a voluntary contribution by developers within the Atlantic Gateway.
A commitment is demonstrated to a strategy called ‘Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester’ which follows on from the clean-up of the River Mersey, its tributaries and the entire river basin largely co-ordinated by The Mersey Basin Campaign. Research undertaken by several actors within the North West developed the strategy which comprises of a framework for landscape adaptation and investment that can tackle climate change, support improvements in people’s quality of life and underpin economic growth. The name of this strategy has changed to ‘Parklands – The Landscape for Prosperity’ but its objective remains the same. Parklands presents a framework which is both a project and policy which envisages a paradigm shift in the way the landscape within and connecting the two cities is gradually transforming over a period of at least 25 years. A key concept is that “nature can support economic growth as an opportunity and not a constraint” and includes specific flood defence investment in green infrastructure (Atlantic Gateway 2018b, p. 1).
The governance arrangements required to ensure such a paradigm shift over a considerable period of time is uncertain: however the Atlantic Gateway may provide a suitable framework of governance and offers a different private sector led approach to policy integration.
113 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4.3 Clyde Waterfront Regeneration
4.3.1 The Vision The purpose of the Clyde Waterfront Regeneration was to promote the economic, social and environmental regeneration of thirteen miles of land along the River Clyde from Glasgow city centre to Dumbarton. It is acknowledged as a nationally strategic regeneration priority within the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (Donnelley 2009). A vision “in recognition of the potential that the Clyde Waterfront has to act as an engine for economic growth across the whole city region” (Clyde Waterfront 2009). The vision for the Clyde is to develop a vibrant, thriving River Clyde with many individual regeneration projects over a 20 – 25 year period; leading to a world class waterfront location. In 2001 a Clyde Waterfront Working Group (CWWG) was established to consider regeneration. In 2004 the CWWG published the Clyde Waterfront Regeneration Plan (Clyde Waterfront Working Group 2004) which contained eight action themes as follows:
1. New economic development sites 2. Reclamation of vacant and derelict land 3. Community regeneration 4. Modern high quality public transport 5. Appropriate roads infrastructure 6. Six additional crossing points 7. Riverbank engineering and flood prevention works 8. Public realm and urban design investment
Notably, there is a specific action theme identifying that the Clyde Waterfront is at risk of flooding and that solutions to this within the River Clyde catchment is essential.
4.3.2 Developing the Vision The Clyde Waterfront was a strategic partnership comprising the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council and West Dumbartonshire Council active between 2003 and 2014. These partners were responsible for promoting and co-ordinating the Clyde Waterfront regeneration plan, but not active as a developer. Simply, as with most regeneration initiatives the strategy was to target investment, in this case public sector capital, as a catalyst for economic growth. A
114 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
Strategic Partnership Board supported by an executive team was present to drive the transformation ensuring consistency and utility in all work, specifically responsible for:
· Facilitating strategic infrastructure investment – river engineering and public transport · Promoting and championing the vision and action plan · National and international place marketing of the Clyde Waterfront · Influencing policy makers and stakeholders to stimulate investment · Monitoring and evaluating the whole project
Interestingly, the Board was given a direct responsibility for managing the current impact of flood risk on the success of the Clyde Waterfront. The existing River Clyde Flood Management Strategy highlights the flood risk along the River Clyde, the area is subject to coastal, river and surface water flooding. In its conception the Clyde Waterfront Board anticipates that the most effective solution for flood management within the River Clyde Catchment is likely to comprise a combination of engineered structural defence mechanisms including upgrading quay walls, attenuation and/or the construction of an iconic barrier or barrage downstream of the Kelvin (Clyde Waterfront Working Group 2004). The Clyde Regeneration Plan emphasises that the cost of such work would be significant and is estimated in excess of £600 million (Clyde Waterfront Working Group 2004). Furthermore, the plan highlights the importance of similar engineering schemes which protect assets from flood risk and creates a secure environment in which to invest, develop, work and live referring to Rotterdam, London and Belfast as comparative examples.
The CWWG also examined what would happen without concerted public sector action and spending on flood risk management. Based on professional property market appraisal it is possible to project a pattern of development on the Clyde that might emerge. One finding of this examination is that flood prevention measures were to be implemented in a piecemeal way this would detract from overall investment confidence and could delay the inevitable investment required. Furthermore, the report argues that in the long term it may result in even greater expenditure on remedial and recovery work.
During the active partnership of the Clyde Waterfront, development within the region was supported by a regeneration framework presented within the Glasgow City Plan 2, a local development plan (replaced by the City Development Plan in 2017). This
115 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK plan has been produced by Glasgow City Council providing broad direction for the physical development of the City over the next 20 years including presenting a vision; a strategy of priorities and proposals; the development policies and design guides to be followed; and specific development guides. Therefore, this plan was pivotal in supporting the integration of economic development and flood risk management containing specific policies for the improvement of the physical environment combined with urban regeneration.
The plan was subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), the assessment of the effects of the Plan on the environment which included an assessment against the objective to protect and enhance the water environment, and to reduce impacts of climate change. Overall, the Plan was assessed to have a positive or unknown effect on these objectives (Glasgow City Council 2009). The report assessed the potential effects of development associated with flood risk and recognises that some development can contribute towards a more sustainable urban infrastructure, continuing to make specific reference to Clyde Waterfront being likely to have a significant positive effect on the environment due to the reuse of a large area of previously developed land.
During 2003 and 2013 the government department Enterprise Scotland invested over £100 million, together with the private sector £4 billion (Clyde Waterfront 2014a). According to the Clyde Waterfront projects database completed in 2014 (Clyde Waterfront 2014b) the six projects were recorded to have been identified and progressed for flood risk management. Table 19 provides a description of the projects and a status of the project in 2018. Interestingly despite engineered flood projects being a priority for the Clyde Waterfront from day one, it took 14 years to secure and approve the necessary funding to deal with one of the largest of these challenges – dealing with the quay wall deterioration.
In 2017 Glasgow City Council approved £50 million via the Glasgow and Clyde City Region City Deal for the specific purpose of restoring the quay wall (Glasgow City Council 2017). This city deal was agreed in 2014 between government and the city giving control over decisions that affect the area and how public money should be spent in order to help business grow and create economic growth. A key element of this deal was the establishment of an economically prioritised infrastructure spending programme for which flood risk management was important. In relation to the Clyde quay wall
116 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration investment Councillor Susan Aitken, Leader of the Glasgow City Council in 2017 said the “restoring the quay walls on the Clyde will not only remove barriers to developing sites along the waterfront, bringing jobs, homes and businesses, but will also improve access to the river making it an even more attractive location” (ibid).
The only project completed is the North Renfrew Flood Prevention Scheme costing £10 million. Councillor Mark Macmillan, Leader of Renfrewshire Council commenting on the project stating that “As well as protecting families and homes, we hope that this new scheme will encourage business to invest in the local area…” (Renfrewshire Council 2016). Challenges can be seen in the ability to be able to locate funding sources for a flood risk management strategy even when they present real opportunity for unlocking economic development.
117 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Table 19 – Clyde Waterfront Projects with a Flood Risk Element
Name Description
Flood defence, quay wall stability and public realm improvements including a new Clyde Fastlink stops and bridge to link the north and south banks. Anderson Quay Current status - Approval in 2017 as part of a wider investment in quay walls as part of the Glasgow City Region City Deal.
Originating as a study prepared by Clyde Waterfront in partnership with the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership (GCVGNP) to explore and assess the nature, scope and scale of Green Network opportunities and identify strategic projects to maximise the Clyde Waterfront contribution of the Clyde Waterfront to the existing green Green Network network. The network currently active launched in 2011 and encourages projects which use the landscape for flood risk management to create a natural, resilient place.
Current Status: the project is active as part of the city regional GCVGNP.
Quay at Wanlock Street, a residential area east of the Govan shipyard requires flood defence, remedial work to the quay wall and public realm improvements including Govan Flood walkway and the creation of open space. Management Current status: Approval in 2017 as part of a wider investment in quay walls as part of the Glasgow City Region City Deal.
Flood defence, quay wall stability and public realm improvements including new Clyde Fastlink stops. Lancefield Quay Lancefield quay is part of the national cycle network through Finnieston but currently fenced off due to safety.
118 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
Name Description
Current status: Approval in 2017 as part of a wider investment in quay walls as part of the Glasgow City Region City Deal.
The town centre improvements and upgrade of Levengrove Park are designed to help lift the image and perception of Dumbarton such proposals are prioritised and need to ensure that proposals for flood defence and
Levengrove Park the potential new canal is integrated in a way which assist with place making and improves the image and perception of the town centre.
Current status: although identified as a strategic proposal no further steps to completion are evidenced.
Flood prevention scheme including a flood embankment, retaining wall, diversion of the Mill Burn culvert and ramping of Ferry Road to protect and halt progress of North Renfrew flood water into premises surround canal street and the Flood Prevention town centre. Dredging of sediment from the river bed and Scheme the creation of a new underground pumping station at the Mill Burn at Fingal Road.
Current status: completed 2016.
119 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4.4 Emscher Landscape Park
4.4.1 The Vision The Emscher Landscape Park also known as the International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park was a structural policy aimed at the renewal of the Emscher (Figure 7), a sub-region of the Ruhr district in Germany. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the district was the industrial heartland of Germany existing because of its role in coal, iron and steel production with an accompanying dense population (Shaw 2002). Over the past 150 years the economic, social and political development of the district was determined by these industries and since the beginning of the coal crisis at the end of the 1950 the area across all sectors had begun to decline resulting in economic, social and environmental problems (Danielzyk and Wood 2004). This included but was not limited to a legacy of environmental pollution; a patch work of derelict and underdeveloped land and; high levels of unemployment.
Figure 7 - Map of Emscher Landscape Park
Extracted from: MacDonald (1995)
One state led approach to dealing with the aftermath of this decline and in response to wider observed changes resulting from neoliberalism was the IBA. Although the scale of the IBA was untypical in its geographical size the use of an IBA is a tradition
120 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration in urban policy in Germany, being used previously in Darmstadt (1901), Stuttgart (1929), Hannover (1951) and Berlin (1957). An IBA is used to address problems by inviting all sectors of society to illustrate their solutions to various problems such as abandoned industrial properties, local social housing needs, employment and environmental degradation (Fürst and Kilper 1995).
The IBA Emscher Park was launched in 1989 as a comprehensive renewal programme by the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia and consciously placed to bypass the established political and planning system that had not been able to bring about far reaching renewal; or come to grips with the problems as a result of fundamental changes in the overall socio-economic framework of development (Danielzyk and Wood 2004). The IBA was a 10 year programme between 1989 and 1999. The programme began by a call from the Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Transport for project proposals from all sectors of society (Fürst and Kilper 1995).
The overall goal of the IBA was about living and living quality encompassing architectural, urban planning, social, cultural ecological measures as the basis for economic change on an old industrial region (International Building Exhibition 1999). The aims of the IBA as summarised by Danielzyk (2004) are:
· To improve the environmental situation in the Emscher sub-region. In order to achieve this goal all IBA projects should have a positive ecological net-effect. Upgrading the environmental situation was amongst the highest IBA objectives. This was mainly because the master-minds behind the Building Exhibition were convinced that in future the ecological situation will play a decisive role for the competitiveness of regions. · It was deemed necessary to create an environment favourable for more diversified economic structures. This belief was based upon the conviction that a sustainable improvement of the economic structures of the Emscher could not so much be achieved by a large-scale inward investment but rather by focussing on many and diverse projects. Only through a greater diversity could the desired change of the economic structures be brought about. · The IBA was to promote the formation of diverse lifestyles.
Importantly, the IBA acted as a forum to exchange ideas and experiences for a dialogue among all groups in society, promoted as a workshop for the future of old
121 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK industrial areas (Fürst and Kilper 1995). It was constructed and implemented to revalue the industrially characterised landscape and to initiate new impulses for further development.
The landscape and the economy takes its name from the river system running through it – Emscher. The wider Ruhr region contains four main rivers: the Rhine, Ruhr, Lippe and Emscher all of which have in sections been heavily modified and degraded as a result of industry within the Emscher, a significant part of the IBA was to restore the ecological landscape. These watercourse are also intrinsically linked for the purpose of dealing with lower lying areas at risk of flooding particularly within the densely populated areas (Halbe et al. 2018). It was deemed that projects with a flood risk management element or focus as a result of the IBA programme or its aftermath would help to “improve the urban quality of life and thereby attract more investors into the region” (Salian and Anton 2011). This acknowledges the catalytic role that flood risk management projects can have, in this instance as a result of opportunities presented due to the economic restructuring within the Emscher.
4.4.2 Developing the Vision The development of the Emscher Landscape Park was a partnership to deal with issues of urban planning, architecture and regeneration. The area selected for focus was the Emscher area, the river was used as an anchor point for the regeneration activity. This is distinctly different from the past whereby focus has been placed on the local political culture and its orientation geared to the coal and steel industries. One approach to deal with the notion of holding onto the customary was the establishment of the Emscher Park Planning Company Ltd.
The Emscher Park Planning Company Ltd. was set up to be detached from the IBA and more independently administer the programme’s agenda as a civil law company. It was a self-regulating body without any governmental executive power but was financed by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and had close relations to the Government and access to influential civil servants (Danielzyk and Wood 1993). The company was expected to put work out to tender and bring together expertise; to coordinate projects; make decisions; implement projects and; to motivate all involved to strive for high quality. The incentive to participate in the IBA and to accept the planning company were mainly due to the fact that the government gave funding priority to IBA projects;
122 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration although the IBA did not have its own budget, it could facilitate access to state money (Danielzyk and Wood 2004).
Alongside the Emscher Park Planning Company Ltd. the Emschergenossenschaft played a key role in development as the regional water manager. The Emschergenossenschaft is a non-profit public body which ensured that the future development, flood protection and ecological functionality of the area were promoted. Today, the Emschergenossenschaft is pivotal to the management of flood risk.
Instead of basing restructuring of the region around job creation and economic measures, the IBA was set within a framework of improvements to the environment and quality of life, to try and ensure that economic interests did not dominate. This impetus remains present in the Emscher Valley. Flood protection is acknowledged as a central task of river basin management along the Emscher, not only due to flood risk within the catchment but also due to effects downstream for other countries (Emschergenossenschaft and Lippeverband 2016). The ‘Emscher Future’ Master Plan was developed together and supported by vote with the cities and district councils. The Master Plan covers the following fields of activity:
· The New Emscher · Water meadows near residential areas and ecological networks · The Emscher pathway system · Site development potential in areas: open space · Site development potential in areas: residential space · Integration of third party projects and communications
The project’s development involved public consultation at an early stage. Dutch project partners played an important role during this time by appealing to the region to help solve their flooding problems. Representatives from the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat assisted the public participation process highlighting the cross regional significance of local flood management. This reportedly has positive consequences leading to a reduction in objections during the approval stage.
Funding for Emscher Park was derived from a variety of sources. The process of river regeneration has required an investment of 4.4 billion euros and will take until 2020. The State Government of North Rhine-Westphalia allocated 17.9 million euro for IBA but much of the investment money came from developers, private companies, non-profit
123 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK groups and local town governments that worked specifically on individual projects connected to the park. Financing for continued rehabilitation of the Emscher River was obtained by a finance contract enabling the loan of 450 million euros from the European Investment Bank. The contract was signed by the project promoter Emschergenossenschaft. The strong state government responsibility for the project has become increasingly distributed among actors in the Ruhr District over time as European Union structural funding has become reduced. The new Ruhr Regional Association has taken over responsibility for the Emscher Landscape Park and the North Rhine- Westphalia government is to share in maintenance costs.
As presented by the IBA (International Building Exhibition, 1999) the achievements of the programme measured in quantity or area are as follows:
· 120 projects · 4 billion investment, of which 2/3 public subsidies · 300km2 of green area planting · 350km of open sewage redesign · 3000 new apartments · 3000 refurbished historic buildings
The Emscher Landscape Park formed a central component of an integrated development strategy for the former heavily industrial region of Ruhr in Germany. The project has famously become known as a European flagship project for forward looking remodelling and structural change by transforming one of the most polluted rivers in Europe into a multifunctional network of space (Ahern 2013). The Ruhr region has been a powerful economic region for centuries, historically due to rapid industrialisation instigated by coal mining, steel production with such industrialisation lead to significant environmental degradation. Economic development remains a key character of the Ruhr region, the type of industry has changed with the region undergoing structural, social and environmental change.
Emscher Landscape Park has also been considered as a piloted design experiment used to reduce the risk of innovation and as an experiment in adaptive planning which is thought by Ahern (2011) to be rarely used in urban planning. Today, the Emscher River is a successful symbol of the rise and fall of industrialisation in the region.
124 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
4.5 Lower Murray Floodplain Project
4.5.1 The Vision The Lower Murray Floodplain Project (LMFP) aims to identify the best use of the land along the Murray floodplain through review of soil types, water quality and other environmental and social factors. The project is to ensure that future land use of the floodplain achieves maximum economic, social and environmental prosperity for the region. The project is managed by three stakeholders: Regional Development Australia Murraylands (RDA), the Riverland Inc. South Australia and the Lower Murray Flood Plain Working Group. The lead actor is the RDA which has a vision to “create a vibrant, resilient region that capitalises on change, embraces sustainability, and provides an inspirational living, investment and working environment” (Regional Development Australia Murraylands & Riverland Inc 2014 p.5).
4.5.2 Developing the Vision The project comprises two stages, Stage 1 involves the investigation viable and sustainable land use options of the floodplain and future development opportunities including any necessary amendments to planning regulations that will need to be undertaken to enable these land uses to occur. This stage was completed in October 2013. Stage 2 anticipated to start in 2015 involves the development of projects and initiatives as recommended within Stage 1. The preliminary stage comprised of two key objectives:
1. To identify future viable land use opportunities which deliver the best economic, environmental and social outcomes. 2. To review the current development plan and identify necessary changes that will guide local governance, planning and policy across the partner Councils, and plan for a sustainable mix of future land uses.
The geographical area of the project is defined as all the land titles wholly or partially located within the 1956 flood line, as specified by the South Australian Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR). The delineation of the area is based on the fact that a key focus of the study is the identification of sustainable future options for the reclaimed irrigation areas between Mannum and Wellington, also known as the swamps, or the Lower Murray Reclamation Irrigation Areas. However, in the interest of an integrated view of future land use opportunities, the
125 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK entire flood plain and land connected to it by title has also been considered. This flood plain is the Murray-Darling Basin which discharges <40% natural volumes and approximately 50% of the floodplain wetlands (Yu et al. 2015). Furthermore, the basin is the source of water supply for hundreds of municipalities and regional centres, as well as providing for the demands of 1.3 million people who live outside the basin, in the city of Adelaide (Sullivan 2014).
In terms of flood risk management the national Environmental Protection Agency and the South Australian Murry Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board have a principal role. At this stage of the project flood risk has been a consideration in the Land Use and Development Plan study conducted by private sector company URPS but no specific governance arrangements have been established for flood management. Flood risk is identified within this study as a constraint to economic development but with limited explanation. In this locality understanding flood risk in relation to Development Plan policy is complex, especially as the floodplain is at the end of a complex and dynamic catchment of flood protection and drought prevention measures. The 1956 flood line used to define the study area and the Development Plan is identified to be inconsistent with data held by the DEWNR. This inconsistency has led to ambiguity over the specific location of the flood line, a gap which substantially impacts on Development Plan policy and future land use mapping. Furthermore, consultees as part of the study represent a view that the 1956 flood mark is outdated and that as a result of river management, this level of flooding is unlikely to occur again or will at least be very uncommon (URPS 2013).
Ultimately, the project called for a review of the relationship between the Irrigation Act 2009 and the Development Act 1993 which is the statutory framework for the creation, review and implementation of planning policy, and its alignment with state and regional strategic plans. Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations directly impacts on the area by excluding developments located in the River Murray Flood Zone or the River Murray Zone from the list of developments that are consistently subject to the complying development assessment which creates a barrier to many future development opportunities. It is thought that some forms of development are excluded through having a non-complying classification and that a more flexible policy approach should be taken. This potential risk of flooding, although perceived to be unlikely, led to an inability to
126 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration build permanent structures on the flood plain, a concern raised by the majority of participants during Stage 1. Also, the relationship between the River Murray Act 2003 and the Development Regulation 2008 came into question due to inconsistency between what is meant by the River Murray Flood Plain Area. Due to a lack of clarity around the specific location of the line the project conducted further mapping to fill the information gap (URPS 2013 See Appendix A from within this report).
An adaptive stance was taken by stakeholders, showing widespread support for enabling greater development on the flood plain noting that rather than not doing anything because of potential risk, that development should occur with a view to proactively managing flood risk. This approach supports a broader range of potential land use opportunities. Recommendations from the initial stage include the establishment of a formalised strategic vision amongst regional stakeholders as a framework to progress regional development initiatives, application for funding, and desired state and local government policy changes. Future land use opportunities “will require targeted regional development efforts towards industry development in the form of research and development, pilot projects and support for developing functioning industry bodies that can respond strategically to market conditions” (URPS 2013). The project calls for a proactive support and engagement in strategic and economic development initiatives.
127 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4.6 New Water Pilot Area
4.6.1 The Vision The New Water Pilot Area (Het Nieuwe Water) is a unique development project, at present only a master plan (820,000 m2) that combines living by and on the water with recreation and leisure (Figure 8). This urban planning project acknowledges that “the Dutch and water have always been in a love and hate relationship… [this project contributes to creating] a new relationship with water” (Water Studio 2010). It is situated between the towns of Naaldwijk and s-Gravenzande in the Dutch province of South Holland, Netherlands which forms part of the municipality of Westland. The land is one of the lowest area in Holland between The Hagae, the beach and Rotterdam. In The Hague area the largest economic sector is greenhouse horticulture with almost all polders being used for greenhouses, leaving only a small amount of uncovered soil. In 1996 and 1998 large parts of this area were flooded causing enormous economic damage (Water Studio 2017).
Figure 8 – Visual Representation of the New Water Pilot Area Master Plan
Extracted from: Water Studio (2018)
The project comprises of a section of former greenhouse land once reclaimed from the sea. This master plan proposes this be re-flooded and the area transformed into an ecological zone where living, recreation and water storage combine. The designers states that the “ambition for this project is to set the benchmark for urban development on water in depolderized zones in Holland” (Water Studio 2017). It is understood that the two existing water discharge routes from the Westland region to the North Sea and the Nieuwe Waterweg canal will not continue to provide sufficient drainage over the long
128 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration term. The New Water Pilot Area provides an innovative solution to this problem; an expansion of the water storage basin surface area by roughly 27 hectares. This expansion will enable a 35 centimetre rise in the basin water level, providing additional water storage capacity. In the event of heavy rainfall or higher river levels, the excess water will drain into this lowest point in the Westland region, without impacting proposed new land use.
This aspect of the project fulfils the Delfland Water Authority’s plan for measures to improve the Westland regions water management system and to provide optimum water security while also providing an economic and ecological boost to the region. The project is part of a wider regeneration of the municipality including urban expansion, climate adaptation, recreation, agriculture and the environment.
4.6.2 Developing the Vision To achieve the New Water Pilot Area a public-private partnership called the New Westland Development Corporation (ONW) was created comprising of The Municipality of Westland; the Province of South Holland, Delfland Water Board and a private sector company called BNG Area Development (an area development subsidiary of BNG bank). The ONW is run as an independent, for profit, company engaged with land development in Westlands who commissioned Water Studio to develop the pilot in 2008. The involvement of the water board in the setup of the partnership is unique in the Netherlands. This is one of several projects being conducted by ONW in order to facilitate economic growth within the Westlands. The ONW is responsible for implementing the Integral Westland Development Plan (IOPW) and the Greenport Westlands Strategy 2020. Greenports Westland is one of five officially designated Greenports as part of the national Greenports Holland Strategy, a network, representing the Dutch cluster of business related to horticulture, including arboriculture and floriculture, which is important to the Dutch economy as the largest exporter of fresh produce in Europe. The project supports changes to deal with effects of the changing economic structure of the region while providing a boost to the Westland’s economy. The departure of the horticulture sector to other parts of the country has also led to the need for other sources of income, such as tourism, nature conservation and housing.
The management of flood risk by using pilot projects has become popular in water management in the Netherlands with many water managers, policy makers,
129 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK companies, non-governmental organisations and academics initiating or participating in pilot projects (Vreugdenhil et al. 2010). One of the advantages of pilot projects lies in that they present “opportunities to tinker with new approaches, practices or institutions on a small scale and/or temporarily” (Kivimaa et al. 2017). The New Water Pilot Area is a pilot in order to gain experience in interdisciplinary co-operation between administrative and economic stakeholders in the area. The project seeks to enable economic development via residential development while also providing an innovative solution to managing flood risk. Originally, the polder area was formed by pumping out the water to reclaim the underlying land. This project proposes that the land will be returned to the water basin level, creating both a unique location with exceptional living and recreational facilities but also additional water, acting as a model for dual use of space for living and for other areas that will be reunited with water in the future. The projects architects Waterstudio NL believe that the project is contributing to a new relationship with water whereby “no-one is living next to water but living on water” (Water Studio 2010) and as such have created a Master Plan to realise this ambition.
The project led to tensions between the aspirations for flood risk management and economic development. For instance, the Westland Municipal Council wanted housing yet the Province of South Holland wanted more countryside. Some actors believed that there was a lack of green infrastructure in the Westlands that creates space for recreation and continuous connection of green space and therefore opposition of more development arose. As the project progressed it was the Water Board which assumed the risk-bearing role in the public-private partnership, a distinctly different approach.
When considering the tensions it must be acknowledged that the project was developed during changing planning policies, partly due to the effects of neoliberalism in the Netherlands which are discussed in detail by Waterhout et al. (2013). During the early 1980s a system of equal distribution following a socialist agenda was shifted to a “policy named region [each] under their own steam” which focused on regional competiveness and the economic development agenda (Waterhout et al. 2013 p.146). This change made way for public-private partnerships such as New Water Pilot Area and for government chosen Vinex sites to be used by the private sector. The Dutch have always struggled with what is referred to as the urban-rural dichotomy for which “policy proposed red and green contours to designate the focal areas for construction and ecological preservation,
130 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration respectively, with areas in-between designated “so-called balancing areas”, but for which no clear regime was developed (Priemus 2004, p.580).
This led to debates on the balance between restrictive planning and development planning, fundamentally asking whether the national government or any government layer had the right to issue legislation on land use and the role of spatial planning (Waterhout et al. 2013). Challenges eventually led to a hands-off approach by the national government, planning itself effectively has been decentralised to the 12 provinces, but without granting further instruments and resources leaving some to contest that they are struggling with their role (Waterhout et al. 2013). Unfortunately, the New Water Pilot has not yet been delivered on the ground, despite aspirations for it to be completed by 2017, which could be associated with a lack of instruments and resource.
131 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
4.7 Thames Gateway
4.7.1 The Vision The source of the River Thames is near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, from here the river flows through Oxfordshire southwards to Surrey, through Greater London, becoming the Thames Estuary within parts of Kent and south Essex to the mouth of the estuary into the North Sea. The Thames Gateway refers to an area situated within the Thames River Basin District, specifically an area extending from central London, Canary Wharf to the Thames Estuary, see figure 9. The Thames Gateway is the name given to a focused programme of regeneration predominately on brownfield, ex-industrial land but also marshland and farmland. The announcement of Thames Gateway by government began in 2001.
Due to the area’s large geographical size the Thames Gateway is often split up into 14 ‘zones of change’. Commonly, the Gateway has been divided as follows: the London Thames Gateway; the South Essex Gateway and the North Kent Gateway. The Thames Gateway region faces pressures in respect of both land and property regeneration but also from flood risk (McFadden et al. 2009).
Figure 9 – Map of Thames Gateway
Extracted from the Thames Gateway Planning Framework (Department of the Environment 1995)
The Thames Gateway as a major planning concept was first established in national policy through the South East Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) in 1990, albeit as the East Thames Corridor. In 1995 RPG9a the Thames Gateway Planning Framework
132 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration was published. A revamp and reframing of the governance approach was said to be needed because the corridor was seen to be a “collection of substantial and disparate development sites, some seen as difficult to bring into productive use, in an area with more than its fair share of industrial and environmental degradation” (Department of the Environment 1995, p. 7). For the Government “the revised policy approach creates the potential for Thames Gateway to become a focus for new jobs and new homes, offering an improved quality of life for those who live and work there” (ibid, p. 8).
More recently, the Thames Gateway has again be revamped and reframed into another government led initiative with a new name - Thames Estuary 2050. This is a growth commission which was unveiled in 2016, led by Lord Heseltine and is charged to:
“…develop an ambitious vision and delivery plan for North Kent, South Essex and East London up to 2050. This will focus on supporting the development of high productivity clusters in specific locations. It will examine how the area can develop, attract and retain skilled workers. It will also look at how to make the most of opportunities from planned infrastructure” (Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, 2017).
A comparative change in the approach taken by the new Thames Estuary 2050 is that government have initially invited all interested parties, both within and outside the Thames Estuary to put forward their ideas. For the purposes of this case study a focus in placed on the Thames Gateway.
The objectives of Thames Gateway as presented in the Planning Framework were:
· To improve the economic performance, enhancing London’s position as a major world and European city; · To maximise the opportunities, for new economic activity and jobs, created by the improving transport connection to continental Europe; · To work with the market, building on existing economic and community strengths and at the same time attracting new economic investment, strengthening existing communities as well as attracting new residents; · To encourage a sustainable pattern of development, optimising the use of existing and proposed infrastructure and making the fullest possible use of the many vacant, derelict and under-used sites which previously supported other activities;
133 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
· To safeguard and enhance natural and manmade environmental assets and where necessary, raise the quality of the local environment; to encourage the highest quality in the design, layout and appearance of new developments.
The Thames Gateway Delivery Plan published in 2009, set out its programmes of investment.
4.7.2 Developing the Vision The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was responsible for the Thames Gateway. The role of the department was to provide leadership, coordinate the activities of its partners, and provide direct intervention with its partners where necessary (National Audit Office 2007). However, the department had limited formal control over its partners, who will actually deliver the infrastructure, jobs and new homes. The Department relied on influence, persuasion and strategic use of its funding to enable it to steer the program and coordinate the vision with much of the local planning being done by local authorities who are accountable to their local electorate and not the DCLG.
The public sector involvement in the Thames Gateway was extensive, as an example the distribution of public sector involvement in 2006 is shown in Figure 10.
134 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
Figure 10 – Map of Public Sectors Involved in the Thames Gateway
Extracted from: The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations (National Audit Office 2007)
135 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
A Planning Framework was used to draw together aspirations of local authorities, businesses, land owners, transport operators, environmental groups and community interest into a “context for action on all fronts needed for growth to be a successful stimulus to regeneration” (Department of the Environment 1995, p. 3). The Planning Framework confidently stated that there is “no doubt that over time the market will respond to the new opportunities” (Department of the Environment 1995, p. 7).
The Planning Framework sought too:
· Establish a set of principles to guide future proposals for development and environmental enhancement of the area; · Set out agreed strategic objectives for economic and housing development, transport and the environment; and · Outline a land use vision for the sub-region, together with more detailed guidance on how that might be reflected at the local level.
In the government’s recent communication about the Thames Estuary 2050 ‘Call for Ideas’ the previous attempts to set a vision for the area are acknowledged, stating that much of what was promised in these visions has been delivered. In many ways the Thames Gateway was a success and did deliver economic development across a large geographical area but in terms of policy integration for economic development and flood risk, challenges resided as the vision developed.
Despite its vision for change the Thames Gateway has been criticised for retaining a persistent hierarchical, formal regulatory approach which may have hindered the ability to harness collaborate, co-ordinate and integrate across all actors, leading to a “web of agencies struggling to steer Europe’s biggest development project” (Greenwood and Newman 2010, p. 111). It is perhaps the high profile, national importance of the programme which led to decision making being to a large degree kept at a centralised position, with a “continuing presence of strong central direction… justified as a means to legitimise decisions in a more traditional approach investment expenditure” (Greenwood and Newman 2010, p. 111). Steering agencies have included the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC), the Major’s London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), and Greater London Authority, some of which have at times overlapped in responsibilities and goals.
136 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
It is necessary to place the Thames Gateway in the context of national reforms to the planning system and devolution, often driven by a continual search for the ‘right’ scale for achieving better integration of governance. It has been argued that the effects of national rescaling and reform of planning and governance are nowhere more evident than within the Thames Gateway (Raco 2005; Allmendinger and Haughton 2009; Greenwood and Newman 2010). Furthermore, reflecting on the scale and ambition of the Thames Gateway in this context Allmendinger and Haughton (2009, p. 617) refer to the initiative as “arguably the most demanding contemporary governance challenge” in the UK.
The vision for regeneration that is based on landscape and environmental improvements is rooted in the Thames Gateway Parklands Vision (Department for Communities and Local Government 2008). This policy sought to promote the Thames Gateway not only as an economic hub but also a landscaped area of high quality for tourism and recreation. The vision is conceptualised in a spatial framework of blue, green and brown landscapes. It was supported by the Eco-region concept whereby the Thames Gateway was seen to be the first of its kind in the UK, an exemplar for regeneration with higher environmental standards, new environmental technologies and associated jobs.
The Parklands vision sought to regenerate and develop urban and rural open spaces that are connected to create an accessible and coherent landscape. It outlined the potential increase in flood risk due to climate change, offering a solution focused on the role of structural defences alongside a recognition of natural flood defence both upstream and downstream within the landscape (Department for Communities and Local Government 2008). Also acknowledging that a substantial part of Greater London is built on the floodplain of the River Thames and its tributaries.
The area is at risk from flooding and without the protection afforded by the defences, the area would flood regularly (Dawson et al. 2011). The majority of the new Thames Gateway development can be found in areas of flood risk, changing the development footprint in the Thames River Basin. Concerns have been raised throughout the Thames Gateway’s evolution about the additional development pressure, the types of development, their life span, and maintenance and funding of the existing and future structural flood defences. Such challenges, assessment and solutions are considered jointly by the Thames Gateway and the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (formally the Thames Flood Defence Committee) alongside the Environment Agency.
137 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
During the development criticism was placed on the use of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA’s) to inform policy makers and developers about flood risk. Although the Thames Gateway had a SFRA it was some time before a SFRA was produced for a wider regional perspective. This lack of strategic guidance is reported to have affected developers having been “a major problem… what it means is that we have to make assumptions about what is in their [Environment Agency] model in order to inform our own model. When it goes back to them, they may decide that our assumptions are wrong” (Greater London Authority 2005, p. 19). This shows that policy makers and developers at times, did not have sufficient information to be able to strategically plan taking into account flood risk.
Despite the existence of this inclusive environmental vision concerns have been raised about ensuring that environmental issues attain the same priority as targets for houses and jobs. An Environment Committee report in 2005 expressed concerns that the Thames Gateway development was progressing rapidly and that there was a danger that sites most suitable for natural flood management measures, as part of a green grid, were already developed for new homes and businesses (ibid). Plans for a green grid appeared to have progressed too slowly considering the speed for development. Furthermore, there was also no mechanism for funding, development or maintenance of the land. Although a vision was established there was no formally designated land or funding for a green grid.
Overall, the high number of organisations and institutions producing policy and strategies, and the degree to which this was co-ordinated became a problem for the integration of flood risk management and economic development. The Greater London Authority, Environment Committee report (2005, p. 17) stated that “The Committee is very concerned about the number of bodies which produce policy and strategies which are relevant to the Thames Gateway and the degree to which this is co-ordinated” explaining that at times developers and architects were unsure of what standards were needed or who should be consulted on plans making a barrier to strategic decisions across policy including flood risk management.
138 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
4.8 Trinity River Vision
4.8.1 The Vision The Trinity River Vision (TRV) is a master plan for the Trinity River in Fort Worth, Texas, formally adopted by the Fort Worth City Council in 2003. The master plan is a spatial strategy that focuses on eight segments of the Trinity River and its tributaries: Clear Fork North, Clear Fork South, Marine Creek, Sycamore Creek, West Fork East, West Fork West and the Central City Area (Panther Island). Its purpose is to deal with flood risk and address wider issues associated with the environment, ecosystem, recreation, access to waterfronts and urban revitalisation. As explained by the Major of Fort Worth:
“The Trinity River Vision is a game-changer. This magnificent project will provide unparalleled flood protection, restore delicate eco-system, help revitalise the central city and create new and exciting recreational amenities. Add the positive economic impacts and jobs creation, and it’s an extraordinary opportunity that will allow residents to reconnect with our city’s greatest natural asset – the Trinity River” (TRVA, 2018c)
The TRV is an organisation focused on developing the Trinity River in Fort Worth in a way which addresses flood risk with over 90 individual projects but taking centre stage in the vision is Panther Island, a central city area. A strategic approach has been developed to manage flood risk across Fort Worth which will eliminate the need for the original solution to flooding, the large levee system and instead enable Panther Island to be redeveloped as an urban waterfront community. To enable this goal to be achieved public funding to build flood defence infrastructure has been realised including the construction of a bypass channel, a dam, three V-pier bridges, three flood gates and upstream water storage. Figure 11 shows a visual representation of Panther Island which provide an 800 acres development opportunity once flood concerns have been addressed. It is estimated that this specific project, Panther Island will generate more than $600 million in economic development activity in the first decade (TRVA, 2018c).
139 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Figure 11 – Visual Representation of Panther Island
Source: Trinity River Vision Authority (2018 b)
4.8.2 Developing of the Vision The organisation responsible for implementation of the vision is the Trinity River Vision Authority (TRVA) formed in 2006 as a partnership with the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Streams and Valleys and the Tarrant Regional Water District while also working closely with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Texas Department of Transport. Specifically, the authority is responsible for the implementation of public infrastructure project which will provide the needed flood protection and fosters the development of pedestrian orientated urban waterfront districts in Fort Worth while also delivering a large urban programme of parks called Gateway Park. It is a non-profit corporation that is able to act on behalf of the Tarrant Regional Water District regarding the Trinity River Vision Project.
The timeline of events leading to the TRV concept began in the aftermath of an historic flood event in the 1920/40s (See Appendix G). This flooding led to central government action whereby Congress authorised the Fort Worth Floodway Program, a
140 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration structural flood protection system developed and constructed by the USACE. The USACE still remain a key part of flood risk management but since the mid-1980s the USACE has worked in cooperation with the Tarrant Regional Water District and other regional sponsors who further advanced planning and flood management initiatives for the TRV.
Today, the TRVA has a significantly broader remit than its initial starting point of structural flood defence, however although evolved the primary focus remains to provide flood control throughout the Trinity River but combined with other benefits. Although the vision is thought to be setting a new standard for flood control by fully integrating wider considerations while providing flood protection. The regional importance of on-going management of flood risk has been emphasised by Congresswoman Republican Kay Granger in response to a question in relation to state funding for TRV projects:
“[Granger] is confident we will get the funding necessary for completion of this project… [Fort Worth] is growing at a record pace and has outgrown our current levee system… so flooding is only a matter of time. We are working hard to address the problem before tragedy occurs, like what has happened to Colorado and Louisiana” (Smith 2013).
The TRVA is largely funded by central government via a fund from the Tarrant Regional Water District with each project contributing to the TRV being managed as an independent financial enterprise with a broad spectrum of funding. The TRVA’s revenue is large, in the fiscal year of 2017 the programme management budget was $16.16 million (TRVA 2018a). The Tarrant Regional Water District is a component unit of the TVRA and the local sponsor of the Fort Worth Floodway and responsible authority for operation and maintenance of thirty miles of the river. By way of example, Panther Island is 50% funded by federal government, 15% from the Tarrant Regional Water District, 6 % from the city of Fort Worth, and 3 % from Tarrant County this type of multi-agency funding is considered extremely rare (Granger 2014).
The vison is directed by a board of directors with seven representatives including top administrative and elected officials from Tarrant County, City for Fort Worth, the Tarrant Regional Water District and Streams and Valleys, Inc. There is also a Citizens Advisory Committee which provides the board and project partners with feedback and
141 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK direction. One means to achieve integration is by an established development review process that includes flood risk management in combination with other objectives. All private contractor projects are subject to review by the TRVA Review Committee and/or the Urban Design Commission for compliance with the TRV standards and guidelines. All buildings, streets and public spaces are subject to review. However, the board mainly comprises of public sector member, there is a lack of private members leading to a significant proportion of public sector decision making and funding which has been criticised.
Although the vision covers the area immediately surrounding Fort Worth, the river system is much greater in extent. The TVR is upstream of a second project, the Trinity River Corridor Project, which focuses on restoring structural flood defence systems, both of which are located within the important economic area and rapidly urbanising areas between Fort Worth and Dallas. At a public meeting for the Trinity River Corridor a member of the public expressed concerns with the options being considered suggesting that long term plans which could remove the requirement of levee systems would be beneficial. Concerns were raised about the reduced opportunity for economic development due to the expansive structural flood management options.
Since 2008 large sums of government funding has been provided to the TRVA annually to develop the TRV. Also TVRA has revenue stream of its own from hosting recreational activities and investment. However, the majority of funding is from government which is enabled infrastructure works to have been designed and programmed with some initial construction works beginning in 2014. In 2017 this included commencing construction of the valley storage, some areas of Gateway Park and the bases to three V-pier bridges. There has been some private sector responses to the TRV commitment with interest in Panther Island and land within its vicinity. For the project to be a long-term successful beyond this national investment TVRA will need to continue to secure private sector investment.
142 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
4.9 Summary This chapter, explores the interaction between environmental management and economic development policy by providing illustrative examples of development projects. Examples have been documented from a variety of projects located both within the UK and internationally, namely: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, United States of America, Australia and Germany. The six countries face a variety of flood problems and have differing capacities to deal with these problems in tandem with economic development.
4.9.1 Project Case Studies Summary The Atlantic Gateway is seen as a brand and a strategy to maximise investment and to support the delivery of major projects across a landscape. This is different to the previous project case studies, as the Atlantic Gateway is led by the private sector. It could be suggested that initially the mechanism of delivery is more market led as opposed to more typical strategic working or cooperation. This approach it seems able to align well with the recent government reforms and the voluntary LEPs between local authorities and business which have been established solely to help determine local economic growth.
However, despite strong agendas for growth the policy and project are not set on growth at any cost, rather they provide a new forum for policy integration across the landscape scale and acknowledges the challenges of flood risk as part of this. It is a new governance arrangement rooted in the private sector that may begin to remove some of the state originated barriers to economic growth and policy integration. However, it is difficult to see how the private sector will really be able to lead in the integration of public sector policy due to its typically more short term need for economic growth.
The Clyde Waterfront is a long term (25 year) regeneration plan that attempted to support economic, social and environmental regeneration including flood risk. The partnership was active until 2014, but the momentum created by the Clyde Waterfront is expected to continue until 2025. The delivery of the plan was the responsibility of government with a strategic partnership approach to delivery.
Significantly this case study illustrates the challenges of releasing large sums of money. Despite the need for significant capital investment for structural defence from central government and the partnership being government led, it still took over a decade to undertake the necessary works to begin to unlock economic growth. The case study
143 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK also demonstrates that SEA can be used as a tool to assess the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy.
The Emscher Landscape Park is a government commitment to the renewal of Emscher addressing housing, employment and environmental degradation. An integrated strategy of structural policy, funding mechanisms was initiated with a call to all sectors for innovative proposals to provide solutions to the region’s problems. This clear, government funded strategy gave confidence and reduced risk of innovation to private sector actors while developing innovative proposals which would combine flood risk and economic development policy.
Distinctly different is that instead of basing restructuring around jobs creation and economic measures, the regeneration was set within a framework of improvements to the environment and to quality of life. This, helped to ensure that purely economic interests did not dominate and regeneration could be achieved in practice across the region including flood risk management.
The Lower Murray Floodplain Project is an initiative to ensure that the future land use of the floodplain achieves maximum economic, social and environmental benefits. The project used land use mapping and consultation as a means to identify viable opportunities, for development but struggled in understanding water management due to the location of the project being a floodplain at the downstream extend of a large basin.
The case study illustrates the frustrations from land owners and some of the challenges that arise when flood risk is acknowledged as a constraint on development particularly when necessary legislation and policies are considered to be out of date. This became a real problem for the progression of the project and resulted in a lengthy, but necessary, review being undertaken to reconcile policy and legislation for flood management and economic development.
The New Water Pilot Area, presents a master plan approach to development which was conceived in an attempt to spur development in an otherwise barren flooded polder. The pilot has sought to deal with challenges of flood risk, economic decline and limited housing with an ‘edgy’ design boasting floating apartment blocks, homes and recreation connected directly with water. The project places much attention on the desirability of economic development within a green landscape.
144 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration
The pilot has progressed forward as a result of a public-private partnership between municipal government, the water board and a private development company. Whilst policy integration is seen within this pilot, its aspirations have not yet been realised on the ground and could be as a result of a lack of institutional apparatus and resource, over-ambition or due to tensions between stakeholders and competing attention across the municipality.
The Thames Gateway is an ambitious regeneration programme, large in scale both in terms of its geographical region and stakeholder involvement. It presented a different approach to regeneration not only due to its scale but its drive to collaborate across government departments and scales to deliver a nationally important programme of growth. However, the case study illustrates that despite the drive for economic growth, its size led to fragmented and often changing governance structures which arguably contributed to its inability to fully achieve its objectives. However, perhaps fragmented and changing structures were inevitable for a programme of its size.
In many ways it is environmental and flood risk approaches remained subservient to, and often at arms-length from the economic development aspects of the Thames Gateway. It was only once the Thames Gateway lost its central place in regeneration policy, from around 2007-8, that environmental actors were able to come together and make meaningful progress on a strategic framework. Whilst policy integration was paid lip service, it was only when the foot was taken off the economic development accelerator that actors were able to make more substantial progress on a new flood strategy.
The Trinity River Vision is a spatial strategy which requires large amounts of public money annually to be delivered. The approach in this project case study has been criticised by private stakeholders for being too much led by public sector decision making. The project case study shows the need for capital investment and for strategies within large river systems to be planned spatially within the catchment but not solely led by the private sector. Instead demonstrating a need for the strategy to be combined with private sector involvement and funding to integrate flood risk management policy with economic development policy at a larger scale.
145 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Implications for Research
Collectively, the case studies demonstrate an international trend to move away from traditional, regulatory instruments of government to a proliferation of new partnership approaches to policy delivery (Greenwood and Newman 2010). The project examples helped to tease out key of the contemporary challenges which can arise during policy integration between flood risk management and economic development. An understanding of the impacts of flood risk management policy on economic development policy was developed illustrating that impacts both detrimental and advantageous are framed around establishing a competitive economy using the relationship to support business, jobs and trade or to promote the desirability of green infrastructure. Although challenges can be seen as locally specific, generally speaking comparative work can be used to help develop a framework to conduct more detailed analytical investigation about policy integration.
New approaches emerging to integrate economic development and flood risk management illustrate several issues. First, a drive towards a broader awareness of the potential role and ambitions sought by an increasingly wider range of actors. Second, all projects show a shift of varying degrees towards a greater involvement of the private sector and civil society. Third, and related, all projects have adopted a wider framing of their purpose, a multi-functional approach which is seen as necessary to catalyse the delivery of economic development and flood risk management objectives. Fourth, new approaches and consortiums have led to new challenges in sharing knowledge and agreeing priorities e.g. reworking a new skill set for those involved in policy integration.
Interestingly, despite flood risk management being an important issue in each locality, the projects appear to be predominantly driven by economic development policy objectives. As such, the environmental agenda of each project appears to be framed and moulded by a larger picture of economic growth. Even when economic growth potential was thought to be released as a result of investment in flood infrastructure, projects stumbled to completion, if at all.
Notwithstanding attempts to reduce regulatory burdens, all the projects persisted with a degree of administrative complexity which has challenged those seeking to deliver the projects; an aspect which to a certain degree is seen as inevitable due to the wider spectrum of actors and objectives. Nevertheless, the projects all needed an overall
146 Chapter 4 – International Approaches to Policy Integration governance strategy to support effective integration which was not always present. The research into these projects showed a varying degree of difference between the direction, driver and approach taken by the project case studies to achieve policy integration. These differences are presented in a Matrix of Typologies, Table 10.1 within Appendix H. The three main typology groups are summarised below.
Direction
Public and private partnership was seen within all projects, with a lower correlation to this typology seen within the Australian project (Lower Murray Floodplain Project) and high correlation in the UK (Atlantic Gateway) and the Netherlands (The New Water Pilot Project). The majority of projects are directed by the public sector with a large part of funding being provided by the private sector. It is considered that this partnership especially where a project board was present assisted in handling tensions between flood risk management and economic development.
Driver
Economic development was the main driver of the development projects with all projects showing a very strong to strong correlation to the typology. Flood risk superseded a focus on economic development for the Trinity River Vision in America and was an equal focus for the New Water Pilot Project in the Netherlands. River restoration was least correlated to the projects, presented as a driver for four projects (Atlantic Gateway, Clyde Waterfront, Emscher Landscape Park and Trinity River Developments).
Approach
The landscape approach was used for all projects most notably within the UK (Atlantic Gateway), the Netherlands (New Water Pilot Project) and Germany (Emscher Landscape Park). Utilising the hydrological catchment approach was used greater by the projects which had a higher correlation towards flood risk as a driver. Flood risk was managed often with a variety of actors and technics including advisory groups, strategic assessments and stand-alone reports. Engineered risk management approaches were important often supplemented with a natural/ecological risk management approach.
The analysis of the project case studies were used to guide further data collection by guiding the development of the initial themes of enquiry. The project case studies provided the first data on how flood risk management and economic development is integrated through the investigation into five aspects: the hydrological catchment; key
147 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK actors; the implementation of flood risk governance; financing and potential tension. Therefore, this analysis provided a glimpse into the contemporary practice of policy integration and refined the themes of enquiry for subsequent methods of data collection. The initial themes of enquiry were to firstly understand the current relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy; then the dynamics of contemporary policy integration; to consider changes in flood risk policy and the future opportunities for policy integration (Figure 4). The observations in this data collection also support the later refinement of themes (Table 15, 16 and 17).
148 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development
5. THE INTERFACE BETWEEN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
149 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
5.1 Introduction This chapter seeks to establish an understanding of the perceptions, impacts, and opportunities associated with the contemporary practice of policy integration for flood risk management and economic development policy in England. This chapter addresses research objective I, examining how actors within a multi-scalar governance context perceive impacts and opportunities between flood risk management and economic development policy. Also, the chapter begins to address Objective II by analysing what actors perceive to be the opportunities resulting from policy integration between flood risk management and economic development.
Policy integration remains a central concept in literature as explained in Chapter 2, and a desirable approach for the management of flood risk and economic development policy. However, despite being commonly recognised as an important concept, there are challenges in translating the theoretical notion of policy integration into contemporary practice. This chapter begins to bridge the gap between literature and practice by exploring the challenges of such integration. As described by one of the interviewees “people only really generally look at stuff from two silos – one, it’s a problem or [two] it’s an opportunity” (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015).
The connection between flood risk management and economic development policies is presented from the perspective of actors involved in the policy process. Firstly, by understanding how the relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy is perceived by actors; secondly, by investigating the impacts of policy integration; and finally, engaging with the reasons for policy integration and the potential opportunities which may be sought from aspiring towards policy integration.
5.2 Finding Common Ground? The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (Defra 2011a) falls in line with other national policy emphasising that communities, individuals, voluntary groups and private and public sector organisations will work together to achieve multiple environmental, social and economic benefits. However, one of the early themes identified during the course of the interviews was a clear divergence in perception of what policy integration means between interviewees positioned in environmental and economic development roles. Interviewees appeared to position
150 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development themselves, mainly by understanding the policy relationship from their own focused perspective, be it environmental or economic. For example, one interviewee stated that “I think it’s fair to say that I am coming from an environmental flood risk side… if you talk to other people… they would give you a completely different view” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). This quote initially identifies a challenge to policy integration that requires actors to interpret and manage completely different views. Whilst to a certain degree this divergence in perception between economic and environmental focused actors may be readily anticipated and is unsurprising, it is acknowledged within most interview transcripts, highlighting it as a fundamental and complex challenge for the aspirations of policy integration.
Policy integration requires actors to seek common ground between sometimes completely different views and policy goals. It is also reliant on their ability to negotiate differing interpretations, opinions and outcomes of policy. It is thought that such aspirations for policy integration are crucially reliant on our ability to properly understand and communicate policy (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). The two policy areas, flood risk management and economic development instigate a complex situation of competing agendas but at the same time, although sometimes unknowingly, these agendas can be complementary as previously discussed in Chapter 2. However, most individual actors appear to be highly focused on their personal or organisational remit of work and struggle to diverge into a wider policy discourse and engagement required for the aspirations of policy integration.
A proposed way of reconciling divergence and engagement from this way of thinking is whether actors were able to demonstrate their ability to negotiate, to find and work within areas of what can be referred to as common ground. This realisation of common ground between actors and policy aspirations could be used as a platform/focus and dialogue for integration and hence, realising mutually desirable policy outcomes. One potential area of common ground, where both policy areas meet and share a common goal, is the concept of sustainability - a politically charged area where mutual objectives to sustain a place for the entire community can be seen. This was supported by one actor, who saw policy integration as a brand new policy area about “our ability to be able to market and sustain a place” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). This aspiration of being able to market and sustain a place presents a strategic and commercial way of thinking about a locality which may incorporate mutually agreeable agendas for both
151 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK economic growth and flood risk management. The term ‘sustain’ was observed as a common theme across most of the interviews often referring to a sustained approach, or within the concept of sustainability or sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is widely recognised as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 p.54). The term became associated with a win-win rhetoric in the 1980s during which time it gained wide ranging support and global endorsement. However, challenges with the concept have been raised and in its infancy the economist Tisdell (1988) stated that the aim for a sustainable society in which we could achieve the virtues of sustainable economic development and sustainable productive systems reflects the outlook of ecologists rather than the majority of economists. Today, some would argue that the current drivers for economic growth hinder whether a place is able to be sustained for the long term future of communities (Knowledgeable Scholar 2, 12.03.2015). Despite clear limitations in the term it remains a common theme linking the relationship between economic development and flood risk management in the perceptions of those interviewed and resonating with Scoones (2007) it seems to be a powerful and influential meeting point of ideas and politics for a number of interviewees.
5.3 Impacts Associated with Flood Risk Management Policy and Economic Development Policy It can be noted that interviewees found it difficult to identify specific impacts of flood risk management on economic development. It was felt by one interviewee that “the most common perception is that flood risk is a block on economic development” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). This is a discourse that has historically been a prominent feature of the media's analysis of approaches to flood risk management and has remained prominently in the public and private sectors mind-set. However, this discourse of flood risk being a block to development has begun to change, with all interviewees acknowledging an understanding of the wider impacts of flood risk management policy on economic development policy and not solely that flood risk management detrimentally affects economic growth. This section presents contemporary impacts of flood risk management policy on economic development policy as perceived by interviewees. It can be noted that interviewees appeared to find difficulty in explaining
152 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development clearly what they perceive to be the impact of flood risk management policy on economic development policy often talking widely around the relationship between the two policies or initially side stepping the question, before being promoted to return to its consideration.
This analysis unfolds from the overarching theme for a competitive economy with two subset themes as shown below. These themes have derived as a result of the international case studies, the interview transcripts and literature in Chapter 2 shown within (Table 15), namely:
· Competitive Economy o Business, Jobs and Trade o Natural Environment
5.3.1 A Competitive Economy Most interviewees expressed concerns with the ability of flood risk policy to have the potential to stifle economic development and hold back growth. One interviewee stated that “it’s the one thing you sort of most often hear about at the individual site level or a strategic site level… we’ve got this flooding problem and its stopping development or its stopping our growth” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). Another stated that “I think for most people the main impact from flood risk is the potential to kind of stifle economic development” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). Flood risk itself has been identified as a “barrier to investment” (Local Government Economic Development 1, 5.11.2014). That “the presence of flood risk questions the economic viability of development (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015) causing physical, confidence and cost limitations to developers (Local Government Economic Development 3, 24.03.15). Therefore, several interviewees believed that the flood events and the risk of flooding is detrimental to the local economy and its ability to build a strong economy.
The media is also seen to play a role in undermining the aspirations of a strong competitive economy with one interviewee raising concerns about the negative messages presented by the media during and in the aftermath of a flood event. One interviewee explained that:
153 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
“you only need one or two examples playing out in the media – Somerset levels or the stuff that happened in Cumbria and people start to relate tragic flood events with quite negative messages around flood risk and from an economic development perspective that is really dangerous because you start to paint a picture of real challenge in terms of investment particularly in terms of traditional investment over the longer term” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15).
The danger associated with flood events and, in particular, the image projected is explained by one interviewee as “the last thing we want to do is have our logos and our branding in anyway associated with sites that then flood from our own waterways” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015). The negative image associated with flood events is a main reason encouraging actors to take action “around minimising flood risk, it’s about harnessing, stopping and preventing” (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 1, 26.03.2015). Resilience to flood events is seen as a desirable outcome that will bring about a “long term economic competitive advantage” (Local Government Economic Development 1, 05.11.2014). However, in order to open up the economic opportunities “we need a clear understanding of the cost of flooding and the benefits of investing money sooner into flood risk management schemes” (Local Government Economic Development 2, 04.12.14).
Managed flood risk has also become a marketing point for a locality due to the detrimental consequences of flood events being in the forefront of people’s minds as a result of re-occurring floods nationally. One interviewee explained this as a particular advantage:
“If we are looking at… selling Greater Manchester, the location, selling the area and strategic sites then companies coming into the area want sites that are low risk. If we say, well this site, yes it’s well connected in terms of roads and rail and digital connectivity and also it’s near, you know here is limited risk of flooding compared to different sites elsewhere. That would hopefully put Greater Manchester at a particular advantage”. (Local Government Economic Development 2, 04.12.14)
However, it has been observed that in some cases the potential flood risk does not actually adversely affect locations for development. One interviewee stated that:
154 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development
“I think it’s quite difficult with economic development because when we look at our key strategic development sites… some of those have got some of the biggest draws and it does have a high degree of flood risk but it doesn’t seem to have stopped in anyway shape or form that development… it doesn’t seem to have been a huge stop” (Regional Private Developer, 13.04.2015).
Flood risk management policy can help build resilience and support the long term vitality of economic centres. However, it was explained by an actor that when “places that are less resilient the reverse is true, they get hit and there is a danger of blight” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 1, 17.12.14). Furthermore, that “there is great importance in understanding the tangible benefits that come from investing in flood risk management because some see the investment as an un-useful spend which can impact the viability of development” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015). Such conflicts are also recognised within national policy with the government providing specific guidance to support risk managers on contributing to sustainable development in the context of flood risk management which includes “improving the resilience of communities, the economy and the natural, historic, built and social environments to current and future risk” (Defra 2011b, p. 4) but also how flood risk investment can provide multiple benefits and the “reconciliation of social, economic and environmental goals is central to this sustainable approach” (Defra 2011b, p. 13).
Business, Jobs and Trade
There are both negative and positive impacts on business, jobs and trade from flood events. For example, one interviewee explains that the impacts in the aftermath of a flood event from a UK business perspective can be considered as a positive benefit because:
“trade is moved in from elsewhere and you then get investment in re-building and so on and so forth… places that are very resilient would use it as an opportunity to build resilience and a launch pad for further economic development…” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 1, 17.12.14)
This can be seen across the UK and internationally, examples including post flood responses in Cockermouth, Cumbria, England and New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America. After a substantial flood event these areas receive significant financial
155 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK investment by government and non-government organisation to aid recovery and to develop future resilience towards flood events. Furthermore, flood risk management schemes as standalone developments “can promote growth itself and can create job growth but I don’t think that’s often recognised within the ‘growth community” (Local Government Economic Development 3, 24.03.15). The role flood risk management schemes can have in supporting business, jobs and trade is not promoted as well as it could be, since it can be challenging to quantify such benefits.
Some would argue that a locality needs to build an economic character that is resilient to flood events. However this is difficult, with a number of businesses particularly the secondary and tertiary type small businesses ceasing trading due to the negative consequences of floods. One interviewee suggests that from their understanding around 80% of small businesses hit by a flood cease trading within the 18 months following the flood event (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 1, 17.12.14). The impacts on the supply chain, customers and secondary impacts are often not talked about (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 1, 17.12.14) each of which can have significant impacts on the business community. Another interviewee stated that in the marginal area [of a city region] “businesses are so less resilient that even quite a small flood means in some of our town centres that actually put it out” of business (Local Government Planner 1, 16.01.15)
Natural Environment
The natural environment was raised for many reasons by interviewees, one instance of advantage to policy integration is “the fact that waterways can act as a catalyst for regeneration and provides corridors for wellbeing and amenity… provided to all kinds of users, boaters on waterways, canoeist, anglers, dog walkers, cyclist, people of the community” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015). People show a desire to live, work, and socialise in and around the natural environment. Residential developments are often located alongside canal and river networks within city centres such as London, Birmingham and Manchester. Therefore, such development in association with flood risk management policy can create a positive impact for both the economic prosperity of the development, area and the health of the natural environment.
156 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development
Flood risk management schemes in collaboration with developers can lead to a beneficial impact on economic development and the natural environment. One interviewee provides an example of a development whereby the local natural environment was enhanced due to the incorporation of a natural flood risk management scheme. This scheme resulted in a landscape surrounding the development which was reported to have increased the individual house prices of the development due to the recreational and visual amenity of the resulting green space (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 1, 26.03.2015). The desirability of the development was increased with an associated monetary value due to the flood risk management scheme creating a natural environment of multifunctional benefit.
However, a conflicting and debated topic nationally, and a key policy discussion in Greater Manchester , is whether the current green belt boundaries should be modified as part of a plan to provide land for jobs and homes, an issue which resonates with the boundary mapping conflicts in the Trinity River Case Study. This conflict is most acute for the development of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework as this framework presents a formalised plan for economic development across the city region, a topic which was discussed by a small number of interviewees. The framework is currently being rewritten, post public consultation with a revised version due to be published in summer 2018. Whilst briefly reflecting on some of the consultation responses a conflict between economic development and green space being used as natural flood management is present (Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2018).
5.4 Opportunities Created by Policy Integration? The previous section discusses some of impacts of flood risk management policy on economic development policy. This section engages with the opportunities created by policy integration. The potential of integration between economic development and flood risk management policy is seen by most interviewees to present positive opportunities which can be seized by actors, but these opportunities are seen with varying degrees of optimism. For instance, on the one hand the notion of policy integration itself is seen to create “opportunities for a different type of economic growth… opportunities of looking at flood risk in a different way, [and that] it’s not always about reducing flood risk where it happens” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). This interviewee acknowledges the limitations of current approaches to economic growth and
157 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK suggests that thinking in a different way could present an opportunity for a different type of economic growth, not omitting the associated challenges to such a radical change. On the other hand, another interviewee was less optimistic, stating that “opportunities are present as win-win situations but these are seen to be few and far between” (Local Government Economic Development 1, 05.11.2014). Another interviewee, expressed confidence in opportunities from integration but acknowledged that opportunities are not necessarily being enhanced by either sector in reference to flood risk management and economic development policy sectors (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 1, 26.03.2015). Hereafter, the section presents what interviewees considered to be the opportunities created by policy integration. Based on the themes derived as a result of the international case studies, the interview transcripts and literature in Chapter 2 shown within (Table 15), namely:
· Promotion of Win-Win · Promotion of Consistency between Policies · Improved Achievement of Long Term Goals · Improved Relations · Promotion of Innovation · Greater Understanding of the Effects of Policies on Other Sectors
158 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development
5.4.1 Promotion of Win-Win Solutions Integration between flood risk management and economic development policy is supported in the expectation that it promotes synergies between the two policies, often referred to as ‘win-win’ solutions between the sectors. The majority of interviewees supported the integration of flood risk management and economic development to enable better support for aspirations of economic development. It enables ‘‘you to get development in locations that wouldn’t usually be viable, if you have good flood risk policy and you adhere to it and you make the right investment choices so you can unlock locations that would otherwise be too risky’’ (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015). It is about positively looking at a locality, seeing “there’s opportunities for growth here and actually the fact that it floods means we can do this, we can do that… rather than going there’s opportunities for growth but it’s at risk of flooding” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). Others thought flood risk management was seen as “a sort of enabler for economic growth rather than a driver of it per se” (Local Government Economic Development 2, 04.12.14). This pragmatic view as an enabler has perhaps been enabled by better understanding of policy integration with economic development in recent years. The term unlocking development was a common phrase used by many interviewees seeing flood risk management as a positive opportunity for economic growth when set in the context of policy integration supporting win-win solutions between the sectors.
One interviewee discussed the extent to which you achieve a win-win solution in terms of either not receiving quite as much of a win, or as quickly as you would have wanted; linking the win-win rhetoric to the idea of policy trade-offs, ultimately stating that win-wins can become a “very hard argument” (Local Government, Planner 2, 02.02.2015) for planners to achieve. Furthermore, that “your win-win is harder to get when you’re looking at lower value developments in essentially lower value centres” and the perfect win-win solutions are not always an option (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Despite the balanced win-win solutions sometimes not being attainable, it is a rhetoric used as a means to promote and brand the integration of both policies with most interviewees able to recite examples of development projects where synergies between the policies can be identified as a result of promoting policy integration.
159 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
5.4.2 Promotion of Consistency between Policies The process of policy integration itself can be used to obtain consistency between policies in different sectors both horizontal and vertical at different decision making points. An opportunity identified by an interviewee was to think about what government refer to as the ‘Infrastructure UK team’ and what at a national level is being done to integrate flood defence work, particularly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It was recognised by this interviewee that “the [National] infrastructure plan is probably an important document in terms of setting out or at least creating the space for having a representation of environmental and flood” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). The interviewee felt that it would be interesting to see what feeds into the national level infrastructure plan and what needs doing in terms of flood risk investment and that an opportunity is presented by this plan to integrate economic development and flood risk management policy across levels of decision making.
Furthermore, a link is acknowledged between policies for human health, green infrastructure and flood risk management of which need to work consistently together. See Vardoulakis et al, (2015) for a summary of the direct and indirect impacts of flooding and associated health risks, and Ellis (2013) for a summary of the impacts of green infrastructure on surface water flooding. An interviewee provided an example of a green infrastructure project in Manchester, Stevenson’s Square where planting has not only helped to manage surface water flood risk but also to improve human heath by increasing the vegetation to an urban environment (Regional Charity Environment, 28.04.15). Such a local level project is representative of what another interviewee referred to as “clearer more relevant decisions being taken” at the local level to build consistency between policies (Knowledgeable Scholar 1, 12.11.14).
Scale plays a part in enabling opportunities of policy integration to be realised with scale being identified by many interviewees both public and private sector as significant in enabling opportunities of consistency between policies to be realised. A local, government, economic development focused interviewee explained that the governance structures in place in Greater Manchester involved:
“lead individual districts so that there is consistency and economy of scale [establishing] opportunity to tie in and try and make the bridge between that flood risk management agenda and economic agenda because you have one
160 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development
point, one focal point for it” (Local Government Economic Development 1 , 05.11.2014).
Previously, it could be contested that such a focal point may have been provided by Regional Development Agencies but after their removal a void became apparent. A form of restructuring of the decision making can be seen whereby confidence in decisions at the local level is gained by strategic decision making being taken at the city regional scale.
5.4.3 Improved Achievement of Long Term Goals Policy integration can be used to improve the achievement of long term goals and in the words of a public sector interviewee to “make sure that the money we invest has longer term benefits” (Local Government Planner 1, 16.01.15). This consideration also indicates that the public sector is under pressure to obtain value for money over the long term. A private sector interviewee also explained that money can be saved by being able to think in the long term although this is not necessarily occurring;
“we are still in a mode of these five year cycles, people still haven’t really got a longer term thing. It actually saves you money over the long term. It comes back to regulatory Ofwat because they are still in a mode of its all about the amount of money, the price of charges you can put up over the five years. Well what about the long term” (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015)
This interviewee is referring to the short term, five year cycle used in the water industry called the Asset Management Plan (AMP) where each water company in England and Wales report to Ofwat with a detailed breakdown of their business plan for asset management for the coming five years. As a result of this information, prices are set for the timeframe of this AMP cycle. This relatively short term cycle of investment has been criticised for presenting short windows for decision making and not enabling opportunities to be realised for the longer term.
In the expression of the long term opportunities as a result of policy integration, most used the concept of resilience. Resilience was used to describe as an achievable state of being for a locality, city, community and as something that society needs more of. It is
161 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK also a concept used repeatedly in policy documents across scales of governance. The use of the concept is as a goal for policy integration is described below:
“the opportunities are hopefully fairly obvious in that you don’t want to be in a situation where Greater Manchester in terms of it trying to become a resilient city and have sustainable economic growth, doesn’t [then] find itself in a position, where, you know its economic growth is at risk of flooding” Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 20.01.2015.
As identified in Section 5.3.1 that the impact of flood risk management on economic development can be seen as a positive opportunity whereby flood risk management policy can help to build resilience and support the long term vitality of a locality.
5.4.4 Improved Relations The majority of actors across sectors talked about partnership and the worth of relationships between actors. This to a certain degree could be expected as a high proportion of interviewees linked to Greater Manchester are likely to have witnessed the historic collaborative governance arrangements within the city region, see Section 6.3.1 for further detail. Additionally, relations enabling integration have been attributed to the FRMA legislation, with one actor stating that:
“There is a duty in the act for people to co-operate first and foremost and it’s through the act that we really came up with the five flood risk partnerships which has really helped for those partners to come to the table and share evidence, information around flood risk but also around future developments and potential growth” (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 20.01.2015).
The FWMA provides the impetus to change the way of working within the North West of England resulting increased relationships between actors. Furthermore, as a result of the working relationship between the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the private sector one interviewee put it that stakeholders “can slag us off and you feel completely comfortable with that, you don’t feel as though you are in conflict, you are just being frank and open because good personal relationships have evolved to keep
162 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development people meeting” (Regional Politician, 18.12.14) and reiterated by a another interviewee is that “it’s about having honest conversations (Knowledgeable Scholar 2, 12.03.2015).
One interviewee feels that it is the intersection between the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy that acts as a “mechanism to bring those partners round the table in a way that, perhaps the driver just wasn’t there before” (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 20.01.2015). Fundamentally, an “integrated approach is going to be a more efficient use of resource” (Knowledgeable Scholar 1, 12.11.14) for all sectors that are impacted by and have positive opportunities to be gained from policy integration and improved relations. This is an indication towards policy integration contributing towards the achievement of sustainable development through improved relations.
5.4.5 Promotion of Innovation One public sector interviewee felt that policy integration presented opportunity to look at “the cost of flooding and sort of the benefits of investing more money sooner and differently in order to open up the economic opportunities… seeing it from a very sort of economic point of view would potentially enable you to invest differently” (Local Government Economic Development 2, 04.12.14). This was supported by a private sector interviewee stating that “a problem is an opportunity to do something different or in a different way [and that] opportunity could be a problem, we just haven’t realised it yet’’ (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015). However, there were no specific examples of where policy integration had led to innovation in the policy process but there is acknowledgment of opportunities.
5.4.6 Greater Understanding of the Effects of Policies on Other Sectors Integration of flood risk management and economic development policy also acts as a “spring board for further integration in other policy areas” (Knowledgeable Scholar 1, 12.11.14). Examples of policy sectors which are affected by policy integration between flood risk management and economic development include infrastructure development, habitat management, job creation and public health. However, where one flood risk management projects’ may provide an opportunity to look at additional
163 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK upstream and downstream projects such as additional planting and wet land creation, it can be “difficult to pin down a direct benefit from these things and again perhaps with development it may be difficult to prove conclusively that by building that development and regenerating that area that might actually reduce flooding downstream” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). Nevertheless, opportunities are created by policy integration.
A developer’s perspective of the cascading effect which can be created by policy integration is explained here:
“if somebody is in a decent environment they are more likely to be healthy. If they are more likely to be healthy, they are far more likely to be working. If they are working they are far more likely to be healthy and so it goes… from an economic perspective… we create better environments because better environments attract people. They raise aspirations for the community. The community starts to think about what training it might undertake. Where are those training providers? What are the opportunities? Where you create opportunities you create demand. Where you create demand you can create buildings” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15)
Concern is also raised about “where one policy works in one direction and one works in the other and the benefits can be counter in affect, they can be wiped out by less integrated activity” Knowledgeable Scholar 1, 12.11.14. Although this research focuses on the integration of flood risk management and economic development, several interviewees across scales both public and private felt that integration should not be isolated to these two policy areas. Integration between a wider spectrum of policy areas was need to deliver long term objectives for flood risk management and to assess the effects of one policy on another.
164 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development
5.5 Summary Although opportunities were identified by many interviewees, some struggled to clearly identify specific opportunities as a result of policy integration. This shows the complicated intersection between the policy areas and that it is not always easy to identify opportunities. A role was seen for planning policy to identify structured opportunities’, one actor stated that “there should be a strong planning policy to ensure that every opportunity is taken to use the natural environment to naturally control surface and riverine flooding potential” (Regional Charity Environment, 28.04.15). Planning policy is often seen as a mechanism to integrate the flood risk management and economic development policy. However, current planning policy does strongly favour economic development and therefore this approach may not be suitable on its own to support the appraisal of integrated opportunities.
Interviewees raised concerns about how potential opportunities are realised, communicated, managed and delivered. Despite wide-ranging opportunities being identified, the “opportunities again need to be facilitated and managed, spelt out, articulated and seen through. That’s not easy to happen” (Regional NGO, Flood Risk Management, 20.04.2015). There is little benefit from identifying opportunities and then not having the governance arrangements in place to be able to deliver the opportunities in real situations. Several interviewees felt that opportunities as a result of improved policy integration are unlikely to be achieved in practice. One interviewee used the challenges associated with the uptake of Sustainable Urban Drainage as an example of an opportunity which is not being realised stating that “they have not put enough into that, enough effort to try and make it happen” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 05.11.2014). The potential for policy integration between flood risk management and economic development and the opportunities from such integration is dependent on the effort of actors involved in both policy areas. Optimistically, one interviewee when discussing the main impacts of flood risk on economic development policy stated that “when I talk about the main impacts on economic development policy you perhaps don’t see it as impacts, you see it as a way of working” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14).
This chapter establishes an understanding of the perceptions, challenges and opportunities associated with the contemporary practice of policy integration for flood risk management and economic development policy. The chapter reflects on the progress
165 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK towards the aspirational goal of policy integration. Such reflection was seen by one interviewee who explained that:
“I think we’re probably already a lot further down the road than perhaps we always realise and again that’s probably the time to stop turn around and think where have we come from and where are we are now and oh, actually we have integrated things quite well.” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15).
The chapter begins to help us understand where we are now in terms of policy integration. In reference to the above quote some interviewees believe that policy integration between flood risk management and economic development is occurring and that some policy actors are seeking out opportunities while others are not. Although interviewees provide their personal insight, their views are influenced by historic and current media and public engagement in the policy areas. Their perceptions are based on a practical, working insight into the flood risk management discourse and its relationship with economic development policy.
There is a divergence in perception of what policy integration means between interviewees, with most interviewees often aligning themselves to their own focused perception based on discipline area or organisational position. Additionally, most interviewees focused on their specific administrative, institutional or geographical setting and struggle to facilitate integration where these boundaries are removed. There is a challenge in altering these perceptions, to embrace a broader consideration of the role flood risk management policy can have in supporting aspirations for economic growth and not residing as a barrier to economic development. Further, actors need to actively engage in a wider policy discourse which would support integration and the achievement of wider scoped objectives for combining the individual aspirations of flood risk management and economic development policy. Recognition of the need for a more integrated approach reflects not only contemporary understandings of management challenges that have to be addressed, but also awareness of the shortcomings of previous frameworks in dealing with these challenges.
Flood risk management is still widely perceived as a barrier to economic development but most interviewees understand the need to reconcile these differences. It is thought that the policies of flood risk management and economic development
166 Chapter 5 – Interface between Flood Risk Management and Economic Development themselves have an important role to play in bringing together actors, by creating and orchestrating the landscape within which they exist. However emphasis is placed on the dominance of economic development policy, which is deeply ingrained into the history of governance within England, with flood risk management policy often seen as an advantageous bolt on rather than as playing a key role in unlocking potential economic benefits by removing potential barriers to growth. However, a greater understanding is developing that flood risk management has a role to play in facilitating economic development. Economic development policy is seen to have a legacy of overriding policy outcomes to that of flood risk management policy. The drivers for economic growth are seen as both a competing and complementary agenda to that of flood risk management discourse.
It is contested by many interviewees that actors need to find areas of common ground between the policy areas. In many governance contexts, regimes have allowed for sectoral policy communities with a focus on their particular functions, for example economic development, transportation, housing and health, to develop as isolated bastions each having its own relations to business and pressure groups, paying little attention to the intersection of policies with the realities of economic organisation, social life, and bio- sphere systems (Healey, 1999). Most interviewees refer to the concept of sustainable development as a joining drive for policy integration.
The chapter presents wide ranging impacts associated with flood risk management policy and economic development policy, which have been themed into four main categories: a strong competitive economy; human health and wellbeing; the natural environment; supporting business, jobs and trade; and planning for the long term. Local actors tended to relate impacts to specific tangible actions associated with business, jobs and trade whereas regional interviewees discussed impacts in terms of long term aspirations of economic growth and planning for the long term.
Finally, the chapter analyses what actors perceive as opportunities for policy integration between flood risk management and economic development policy. All actors felt that there is a benefit in attempting to integrate the policy areas and that they are mutually inclusive of one another. The private sector interviewees tended to say that everything is an opportunity for growth whereas public sectors interviewees tended to more reserved in what could be achieved and aware of the practical limitations of in particular win-win opportunities.
167 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
6. DYNAMICS OF POLICY INTEGRATION: THE CHALLENGES OF MULTIPLE SCALES AND NEGOTIATING POLICY INTEGRATION
168 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
6.1 Introduction The key aim of this research is to understand the challenges of policy integration across multiple scales of governance and the extent to which actors have been successful in promoting integration of flood risk management and economic development. The multiple scales of governance are analysed using the River Mersey Basin, specifically the positioning of Greater Manchester within this catchment as a means to consider policy integration.
This chapter will begin by exploring the River Mersey Basin by providing a brief overview of its history and its importance to the city region of Greater Manchester. It will examine case examples of projects within the areas of Salford and Rochdale which begin to unpick the challenges of policy integration, addressing objectives II and III.
6.2 Exploring the River Mersey Basin The Mersey Catchment is a large river basin within the North West region of England. It is located is within one of the first regions in the world to experience the full force of industrialisation and urbanisation which was rooted in the textile industry during the 18th century (Wood and Handley 1999). The river system has been a pivotal part of this expansion and remains an artery for communication and a resource for commerce, industry, biodiversity and recreation. The economic history of the Mersey Basin has been referred to as one of stark contrasts (Boland 1999).
In the 19th and 20th century the Mersey Catchment was famed for its international maritime industry which helped drive the expansion of the British economy and gained its title of the “western gateway to the world” (Lane 1997, p. 1). The Mersey Catchment arguably became the world’s greatest manufacturing region with industrial and commercial activities centred on the conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester, with further satellite towns such as Rochdale, Oldham, St Helens and Burnley. However, a contrasting image started to arrive in the 1920’s due to global competition; decline gathered pace in the 1930s, reaching its peak during the 1950s and 1960s. The onset of acute economic restructuring in the 1970s and 1980s caused by the decline of the port and manufacturing sectors, shifted the comparison to that of an “unwanted mausoleum” of the British economy (Merseyside Socialist Research Group 1980, p.7). This major decline
169 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK left some deep rooted structural problems such as: mass unemployment and labour market disintegration; ingrained social problems; political radicalism, urban degradation and environmental damage (Boland 1999).
The approaches taken by policy makers to deal with some of these problems are important contextually to help understand approaches to contemporary challenges. The Mersey Basin Campaign, a government-led initiative, has received regional, national and global recognition for its success in integrating policy. During 1985 the government launched a 25 year campaign, unusual in its longevity, to deal with widespread problems across the river basin associated with the economic decline of the previous decades. The Mersey Basin Campaign was unique during its conception as a partnership focused delivery body with three overarching objectives: improving river basin quality; encouraging sustainable waterside regeneration and engaging individuals, businesses and communities in the process. Significantly, the campaign grew from a fundamental understanding of the relationship between environmental improvement and economic regeneration.
The campaign showed that a new institutional design could be used to address the challenges presented by regional scale environmental and economic problems (Wood et al. 1999). As discussed, the institutional design was based on a partnership approach which can be attributed to the success of the Mersey Basin Campaign. In 2010, the Mersey Basin Campaign ceased as an entity after running its course of 25 years. Today a charitable organisation, the Healthy Waterways Trust, continues some aspects of the Mersey Basin Campaign. The mission statement for the Healthy Waterways Trust is to promote and encourage the preservation, restoration and development of urban and rural waterways and their environs for the benefit of the public. The charity continued to use the catchment based approach used by the Mersey Basin Campaign.
The river basin is a scale which has demonstrable value for combining economic growth and environmental improvements, as seen with the Mersey Basin Campaign. The basin presents a complicated geography of multiple scales which were successfully navigated for the vision of the campaign focused on water quality, regeneration and engagement. However, the MBC had a great amount of central government support and resource to make its objectives a success. Today, the partnership working of the Mersey Basin Campaign remains in the mind set of actors within the North West. It is the scale of
170 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration the campaign across administrative boundaries and the diverse number of partnerships that make the approach different from many others.
Facilitating economic regeneration was an objective of the Mersey Basin Campaign and its effective integration with environmental and social objectives can be used to understand contemporary aspirations for economic development can be integrated with flood risk management policy. Although, not a direct objective of the campaign, the campaign did indirectly help flood risk management policy. In the later years of the Mersey Basin Campaign, flood risk management increasingly became a consideration for the management of a river basin. The Mersey Basin Campaign became involved in partnership projects focused on future uncertainty of how the environment, economic and social forces that shape the growth and development of a region will evolve such as the Waterproof Northwest project.
The Mersey Basin is often placed in a regional context within the North West of England. Despite regional governance arrangements diminishing over recent decades such as the loss of the Regional Development Agency, flood risk management under the 2010 Act required a regional governance structure and introduced the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCC). The committees were established by the Environment Agency and in summary their remit is to ensure that there are coherent plans for identifying, communicating and managing flood and coastal erosion risks across catchments. The Mersey Basin resides in the North West RFCC which is said to be slowly becoming more effective, run by a partnership committee with less prescription solely from the EA. In reference to the programme of works agreed by the RFCC, one interviewee stated that “we now approve the programme, we are not just there to rubber stamp whatever the Environment Agency wants, I think officers are attuned to that” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14).
The RFCC is a relatively new governance arrangement and it can be expected that its value will grow in time as actors become familiar with the arrangements, purpose and working patterns of the committee and the river catchments. The EA is required to consult with the RFCC about flood risk management in their region and take their comments into consideration. The local governance arrangement within the individual catchments need to adapt to the role of the RFCC for decision making which affects local areas - cities, towns and villages. Also, as a result of this new regional flood risk
171 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK management scale of governance, a wider range of stakeholders are now able to participate in consultation. However, one interviewee was less positive in reference to the RFCC that “I think they could do with a kick up the back side because they are led by the local authorities and there still is that local authority mentality of, it’s a bit of a talking shop rather than them setting the strategic direction for the whole area” (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015).
6.3 Dynamics of Evolving Integration in a City Region Davies (1973, p. 1) defines a city as “concentrations of many people located close together for residential and productive purposes”. This definition highlights the role of a city as an engine for economic development but also its vulnerabilities; in terms of the residents and productive entities which utilise the city. The definition omits reference to the natural world which represents a classic view of the modern city being referred to as distinct, independent and autonomous from nature; a city being seen as a different ‘space envelope’ (Lefebvre and Nicholson-Smith, 1991). However, the observed impacts of flood events on cities in modern history suggests that this notion of cities being truly distinct and independent from nature is considered problematic. The modern desire to have a city with economic and environmental resilience requires that there is a functioning passive membrane between the space envelopes of the natural world and the economic engine of a city and that a city cannot sustain economic development which is isolated from a consciousness of the natural world. This problem of integration between cities and the natural world is evident in the study of flood risk and economic development which have been seen as environmental and non-environmental entities in isolation, identified by Castree (2002) as being misconceived due to the co-implicated nature of the two entities. A reformulating exercise is required to enable effective exchange between space envelopes of the natural world and economic development.
Amongst academics, the debate on urban development has seen a shift from the city to a city region as the primary unit of analysis. As indicated by Parr (2008, p. 3017) the increasing interest in the city region as a unit of analysis echoes a growing appreciation that in certain important respects the city is not a satisfactory unit of analysis, since many of its external interactions are within adjacent areas”. The city region concept
172 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration is linked to the assumption that a ‘city region’ corresponds with a ‘functional reality’ of integrated economics, political and social relations (Healey 2009). Therefore, it is described as a useful concept that is highly applicable within the planning discourse whereby planning has traditionally looked to the ‘city region’ as a focus for ‘comprehensive’ place development strategies. Healey (2009 p. 832) however argues that “the idea that public policy could ‘comprehensively plan’ complex urban areas has long been demolished”. Healey (2009) highlights one of the main challenges being that the ‘functional reality’ of a city region does not align readily with administrative jurisdictions which have contained within them the critical relations upon which the future development trajectories of settlements depend. Also, the ‘functional reality’ of the hydrological system within our city region does not readily align with administrative jurisdictions but a means by which both can be governed is required. This distinction between a city region not aligning with administrative jurisdictions has led to Balsiger and Debarbieux (2011) describing the term ‘region’ as the output of the spatial and cognitive framing of environmental reality. This is in contrast to the ‘Region’ referring to the institutional construct which results from the decision to organise stakeholders or pre- existing institutions for coping with environmental issues in this frame. Hence, ‘region’ refers mainly to problem setting within its environmental reality and ‘Region’ to problem solving by administrative jurisdiction.
It can be argued that the existing administrative boundaries have become less representative of the real parameters of a city whereas the ‘city region’ perspective provides a realistic economic development focus for cross-boundary collaboration across urban areas. However, attempts to tie critical economic, political and environmental relationships to a concept of a relationally integrated urban place have become increasingly difficult. Different relational webs connect people, firms and non-human processes to all sorts of other places, often in more closely ‘integrated’ ways than to spatially contiguous neighbours (Healey 2009), which can be linked to the shifting process of governance. Although a city regional perspective faces criticisms and challenges the concept remains useful in the framing of policy development and during encounters between social, environmental and economic agendas for a region. Therefore, it is contended that a city region is a useful scale for managing flood risk management and economic development but the scale should not be used in isolation to the environmental reality also associated with flood risk management. However, building
173 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK local governance capacity to develop and pursue place development agendas which can resolve the conflicts and tensions between competing conceptions of place qualities is very difficult (Healey 2009). The ‘city region’ is perhaps often too biased towards economic agendas and requires a re-think of how governance can occur for a city region which successfully incorporates a region’s hydrological infrastructure to manage flood risk.
The economic impacts of flood events can be significantly detrimental to a city region which can be seen to represent an area where struggles for environment, sustainability and economic development occur. While the initial debate in the aftermath of flooding events often centres on the immediate recovery effort, more fundamental questions exist, concerning how cities should prepare or transform in order to cope with increased exposure to flooding events (Scott et al., 2013). City regions typically have a high population density and are focal areas for employment, leading to a greater potential for people and assets to be in locations vulnerable to flooding (Evans et al., 2004,). Also, larger economies have more resources to manage flood risk. Economic development can improve the adaptive capacity of a city region and alter the sensitivity of the region to future predicted flooding events associated with climate change and urbanisation. It has been argued that the ability to absorb climate stress, in particular, depends on factors that are highly correlated with economic growth (Tol and Yohe 2007). Therefore, economic growth is identified as an important element of attempts to reduce vulnerability to climate change (Persson and Klein 2009). City regions need to be resilient and adaptive to all risks which threaten their competitive advantage including flood risk. Therefore, planners, policy, engineers and development professionals are required to be creative in order to assist in dealing with flood risk.
174 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
6.3.1 Greater Manchester Greater Manchester as a city region is uniquely distinct as discussed in Section 3.3.4, in that it is an area which is seen to have a sense of shared purpose. An example of the functionality of this shared space with shared objectives can be seen with the voluntary arrangement of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) whereby:
“…people don’t distinguish between the voluntary arrangements between the AGMA and the statutory collaboration though the GMCA [Greater Manchester Combined Authority]. People see them as one body acting on the same principles and because we’ve worked together for so long and everybody has expectations that other partners will deliver… it makes people more willing to work together to deal with things” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14).
The city regional arrangement “gives us the confidence to do things, there is a reason we’re doing it and it’s because we all bought into the fact that somethings are done better at a Greater Manchester level or that there are some decisions that are more painfully locally” (Local Government, Planner 2, 02.02.2015). However, some would argue contrary to this point that actually “they [AGMA] put up a façade about being joined up but in an awful lot of cases it is just a façade. They still have this back stabbing attitude amongst all the authorities. If they really got their act together and said they are one authority of Greater Manchester it would be so much easier and better, and they would be able to get some much more out of it” (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015).
In 2010 the FWMA can be seen to have strengthened the city regional governance arrangements within Greater Manchester. One example where this can be seen is the Greater Manchester Flood & Water Management Board (the Board), an informal, local partnership formed at a regional level with local government, United Utilities and the Environment Agency; which provides an effective structure for working both regionally and locally. This is seen as a positive governance tool for policy integration and is a sub-group of the RFCC. The benefit of the Act in Greater Manchester is because “the Act started to bring the parties together in a formal way, but the benefits of doing that is all the informal links that then arise from that” (Regional Politician,
175 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
20.11.14). “Prior to all of this [referring to the Board], going back even five of ten years flood risk was very much a peripheral thing.” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
Despite attempting to include a wider spectrum of actors in a participatory approach, the traditional planning apparatus is still seen as the forefront tool suggested by an interviewee as a means to integrate policy:
“The flood board, the key representatives there tend to be the Head of a Planning Authority, so again it seems to be the planning system which is the vehicle which links all of this together and really through the planning officers and the flood board” Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015.
In Greater Manchester there is a “recognition at a strategic Greater Manchester level that there needs to be a lot more integration between flood risk management, areas of economic opportunity and trying to develop partnership approaches to try and make that happen” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015. “We are all massively interconnected so it makes a lot of sense to do quite a bit together and certainly our strategic work. The operational stuff is often more sensible at the local level but the strategic stuff is often more sensitively done at the Greater Manchester level. I think that’s where the added value comes from” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
AGMA is seen to be “useful in that it brings together lots of disparate voices and an umbrella within which they have to align. I think it can be powerful” (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 1, 26.03.2015). For instance, information can be distributed to the ten local authorities during one meeting board meeting. However, “I think in AGMA the environment is kind of not necessarily seen as of much importance and we can see that through dwindling resources across the local authorities and through the body itself in terms of its input into the environment and environmental management” (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 1, 26.03.2015). This was supported by another interviewee stating that “you take a look at GM [Greater Manchester] plans and environment is almost absent, it’s very, very low on the radar and although they have the structures for a decent conversation about the environment, it doesn’t really feature in the economic growth aspect” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15).
In the Greater Manchester context there was some concern that “There is a danger… that we start to be too inward looking and forgetting that there’s people outside of us that affect us and we have an effect on other people” (Regional Government Flood
176 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). Furthermore, it was argued that “we are concentrating so much on what we’re doing as the ten [local authorities] that actually looking outside is quite hard and from a spatial planning perspective we have to learn to do that because our relationship extend beyond the boundaries” (Local Government, Planner 2, 02.02.2015). Also, there were some concerns that AGMA actually
“…causes as many problems as it resolves in that sense. When I look at the structures of others, where they have a county, the county seems to have the power to say this is the way it will be but as we are trying to do things in a more democratic way and it’s the agreement of ten authorities. It’s like herding cats” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 05.11.2014).
The individual local authorities were also said to have a protective manner whereby if they took a different approach to AGMA the response has been “Don’t tell them what we are doing because they will stop us doing it” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 05.11.2014). On the one hand the city regional governance of AGMA supports integration and on the other arguably it adds a scale of complexity not necessary for flood risk management. It could be contested that the management of flood risk on its own is most suitably aligned to the environmental boundaries of the hydrological geography but when it is considered alongside its implications for flood risk new boundaries are useful. The value of the city region can be linked to the regional drive for economic growth and flood risk management mainly considered, out of fear of the detrimental consequences to local constituents. AGMA is seen as a focal point to resolve conflicts as much as a marshalling resource for local authority decision making.
AGMA is also seen to be of limited value when delivering policy outcomes; its use is seen as a ‘talking shop’ and a producer of policy as opposed to a tool to support the delivery of policy (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015). The scale of the city region in theory supports collective policy integration but resources are spread thinly across the organisation. Never the less, the policy for the city region is beneficial in providing an anchoring point for actors to progress more localised policy agendas. One interviewee stated that “I think to be quite honest we try to do some things on a local authority area by area basis. I think that’s a complete waste of time. Forget that, let’s look at the bigger picture from a Greater Manchester perspective” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
177 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
However, AGMA have members on the RFCC representing GM but “the problem is 9 times out of 10 they don’t turn up… if they don’t turn up then there isn’t really any point having the board” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 05.11.2014). The board is supposed to make decisions but “on the couple of times I have asked them [the RFCC] to make a decision and its usually around where we have had to make a local choice at a GM level for funding purposes, that they have got into such a state and tizz about it, it has been an absolute nightmare” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 05.11.2014).
At the time interviews were conducted AGMA were also moving forward proposals for spatial planning of Greater Manchester. Several interviewees thought that the spatial planning exercise could make a positive contribution to policy integration for flood risk management and economic development policy. The mapping has the potential to reduce but also highlight conflicts across Greater Manchester. This strategic planning approach should no longer place AGMA as a means to allocate resources and resolving problems but strengthen the role of governance to search for creative solutions by mobilising various actors, with different and even conflicting interests, objectives and strategies. However, although the spatial plan was generally referred to as positive, one interviewee was concerned about the controversial nature of such a plan and the stages before adoption stating that:
“It seems really positive, the only thing is that at a GM level as much as a local level, the whole spatial planning process seems to be so fundamentally difficult to actually get one through so there will be a point… I can’t remember if there is local election this year or… there will be people elected to undermine the GM spatial framework because it will start to ask questions about green belt” (Local Government Flood Risk Management 1, 30.01.15).
The decision whether to keep all designated green belt land intact or to refine the boundaries of the green space across the region is a controversial aspect of the Spatial Planning Framework which also has implications for the use of green space for natural flood risk management. This contention around the use of green belt land may place additional pressure on the need to unlock area of land designed as flood risk zones for economic development. This adds some understanding to the complexity of decisions required across the city regional scale.
178 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
The value and function of our green spaces is something which is anticipated to become a contentious topic. In Greater Manchester due to the region’s aspirations for growth. One interviewee stated that:
“there is clearly a tension between that [aspirations for growth, housing and employment land] and the green belt, and the current government has some very strong messages about the green belt, about wanting to preserve it so that is going to put more pressure on other areas within the city region and some of those areas might be vulnerable to flood risk” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015).
The Green Belt local plan for Manchester was produced in 1984 and has been reviewed on a piece meal basis with little change. Compared, to ongoing changes in flood risk mapping the idea that this original green belt plan is still appropriate is “strange” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). The consistent political mindset to protect the Green Belt under any circumstances may then mean that other areas including those at flood risk may be developed despite the flood risk. It was hoped by many interviewees that the Greater Manchester Spatial Strategy would go some way towards helping to reconcile these differences between green space, flood risk and development across the region. It was seen to provide an appropriate scale to review the collective value and function of future landuse.
Fundamentally, the difficulty in reconciling flood risk and economic development policy is recognised by national government. Nevertheless, locally, flood risk managers are expected to contribute to sustainable development through flood risk management. with national government providing guidance specifically to support local in this context which includes “improving the resilience of communities, the economy and the natural, historic, built and social environments to current and future risk” (Defra 2011b, p. 4). Furthermore, how they could manage flood risk in a way which provides multiple benefits and the “reconciliation of social, economic and environmental goals is central to this sustainable approach” (Defra 2011b, p. 13).
179 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
6.4 City of Salford Salford City is currently experiencing considerable growth and it is stated within the current draft Local Plan that the city has “seen a turnaround in its fortunes over recent years, reversing decades of population decline… the city is now delivering high levels of growth, in both new housing and new jobs, and is helping to drive forward the Greater Manchester economy” (Salford City Council 2016). The Local Plan sets out how Salford should develop until 2035 and is entwined with actions in relation to minimising the risk, the probability and potential consequences of flooding. It also acknowledges that managing flood risk “is essential to ensuring that Salford continues to be an attractive location for investment and provides good quality of life for its residents” (Salford City Council 2016). However, interestingly the Local Plan also notes that:
“The economic and social benefits of continuing to secure investments within areas of Salford that could be subject to flooding are considered to significantly outweigh the potential risks and costs” (Salford City Council 2016).
This consideration is complementary to the National Planning Policy Framework which presents a “presumption in favour of sustainable development seen as the basis for every plan, and every decision” (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012, p.ii). A local interviewee explained that “the overriding importance of regeneration schemes sometimes, you know, it may be too easy to say yes, we need to do this because it’s a priority regeneration area and we need to crack on” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015), identifying pressure to pursue regenerative development and potential frustration associated with additional complications such as those introduced by flood risk.
The management of flood risk has always been a concern for Salford City Council, which was the first authority in the North West to have undertaken a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in 2005. The SFRA is an independent analysis of the risk posed by all sources of flooding, aimed at providing evidence to inform the location of future development. The original SFRA undertaken in 2005 was followed by a wider sub- regional SFRA for the whole of Greater Manchester in 2008. Reflecting the local aspects of the risk assessment, the council published detailed planning advice “which was actually more strict than the national planning guidance” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). The SFRA has been maintained as a living document, most
180 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration recently revised for the area in 2011 with an additional specific Surface Water Management Plan being produced in 2013.
6.4.1 Background Salford City Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for the Borough of Salford, and therefore responsible for managing local flood risk and for preparing local flood risk management strategies. The current Local Flood Risk Management Strategy was adopted in May 2015 and aims amongst other things to achieve economic benefits from flood risk management, consistent with the principles of sustainable development (Salford City Council 2015). The probability of flooding in Salford is mainly due to high water tables, and surcharged watercourses, culverts and sewers. The hydrological connections between Salford and other districts is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12 – Hydrological Connections of Salford within Greater Manchester
Extracted from: Scott Wilson (2008)
The city has a clear policy (Policy EN 19 Flood Risk and Surface Water/Policy EN 20 River Irwell Flood Control/ Policy DES 6 Waterside Development/ Policy E1
181 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Strategic Regional Site, Barton), available assessments, plans and maps to help stakeholders understand flood risk management and development. Notwithstanding, one interviewee has reported that the issues do not seem high on stakeholders’ agenda:
“Developers don’t necessarily tend to think about it too much and neither do… a lot of people don’t think about it too much to be absolutely frank. It is in the nature of flooding, it is a rare event. I mean the last really big event in Salford was in 1946; there was some flooding in the 1980s but the last really big one was in 1946 which is now some considerable time ago, you’re talking almost 70 years” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
This interviewee also provided a local example showing that other priorities have often taken precedence over flood risk management, “In Broughton we have had some difficulty persuading local people who in any event, have other challenges in their lives because they are quite a deprived community to actually think very seriously about it” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015). Furthermore, that:
“Local authorities are multi-purpose beasts so the challenges often – are how do you deal with the care of the elderly, how do you deal with educating your children, how do you make sure your vulnerable people are properly cared for, how do you make sure the bins are collected and everything else. Something like flood risk management only becomes a big issue when there is a major flood and people’s homes are under water and people are then pointing the finger.” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
This raises the biggest issue of how flood risk and economic development policies must also respect and in a sense ‘integrate’ with wider policy concerns.
The Winter Floods of 2013 – 2014 in Somerset were raised by some interviewees as a critical moment, raising questions at both a national level but also in Salford, one of which being – “what would the economic impact on Greater Manchester be of a big flood? The answer to that is that we are not absolutely clear” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015). This quote shows that there have been times when the council has been unsure of the economic impacts of a flood event in Salford but also that the council thinks collectively in terms of ‘we’ as in Greater Manchester.
182 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
Following the winter floods, the governance of flood risk management was widely critiqued:
“…it was very much the Environment Agency which seemed to be blamed. Eric Pickles at one point seemed to blame the EA… the army were called in, people have to be seen to take action but interestingly there was virtually no mention at all in the media of the role of the local authority… I don’t think anyone ever mentioned a lead local authority or mentioned the role of Somerset County Council” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
Douglas et al. (2010) discuss this apportionment of blame as being nothing new, something which has a tendency to occur in England. One agency will apportion the blame of flooding to another agency which shows the need to readdress current relationships and to encourage more effective and integrated working relationships.
6.4.2 Turning around Barriers and Challenges? If you compare the flood risk maps and the location of regeneration projects taking place in Salford you can see that “there is a tension and like I said, some areas like the Cambridge Industrial Estate are very, very challenging at the moment and we can’t really work out a way to take the redevelopment forward because of flood risk issues’’ (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). This is one project example where the presence of flood risk has become a barrier to economic development. The risk of flooding is not portrayed as a block on development by a large number of those interviewed however in this project the perception and actual presence of flood risk does present a complicated barrier requiring skills and resource to be overcome. The planning system has traditionally and still remains a fundamental system in place to help overcome such barriers but it does have limitations.
The statutory planning system “has a big role to play, if it is done correctly in balancing the challenges of flood risk against the need for regeneration” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). The two policies “tends to get integrated through the planning system, you know, inevitably because it is the planning which deals with matters at a spatial level and other areas of policy and operation aren’t spatial in the same way.” (Local Government, Planner 2, 02.02.2015). The above quote
183 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK initially raises one challenge with the planning system in that its potential to integrate is evident but only if it is done correctly. Current criticism of the current National Planning Policy Framework is that it is more widely open to interpretation than previous guidance. Furthermore, there has also been issues with the application of the Sequential Test with one interviewee stating that it has “not been enforced as much as it should have done really” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). The Sequential Test is to ensure that a sequential approach is followed to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding.
Another interviewee reported the importance of including developers within the landscape of policy integration with respect to the process of economic development. “It’s making sure they have been a part of the regeneration programme, more integrated with investment than they have been in the past so that’s been a bit of a challenge to us” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015). However, involvement with developers is not always seen to be beneficial and is a relationship which needs to be managed. One interviewee stated that: “I think it’s an issue that the way engagement in district-wide plans happens, it very much favours the developers… when we’ve done consultation exercises you get a lot of comments from developers who can pay consultants to look at it. It’s much more difficult for ordinary residents to respond in the same way so that’s a challenge” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015).
The responsibility for flood risk management is one key facet of the Pitt Review whereby a lack of clarity over who was in charge of flood risk management was a main recommendation. However, the response to distribute responsibility between agencies “immediately brought in a bit of confusion” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015) which was thought to still be present at the local level. Other relationships have benefited from changes whereby the relationship is closer and effective.
Although there was praise for the various agents involved in policy integration, concerns were raised about the quantity of available resource. One interviewee stated that “we are not adequately resourced and we are not going to be. We have to do the best with what resource we have, the reality is that the budgets have been reduced and they will continue to be so” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
The ability to work well in partnership is dependent on communication, in particular “big challenge for the future is making sure that people see the benefits, the
184 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration economic benefits and are encouraged to contribute and see the consequences…” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14). Matching the connection to economic development this interviewee went on to say “I think that is one thing the Environment Agency have got to become better at actually – selling the benefits and making sure there are benefits… it’s about the procurement strategy of the Environment Agency instead of just getting a company to do the work they should be doing and employing some local labour” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14).
Interestingly, another interviewee felt that there was still “a gap in the market at the moment for someone taking that strategic overview of flood risk and that is an issue about looking at flood risk on that scale… we haven’t got any regional bodies left and the EA sort of retrenched its control to its core a bit, its core services” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). This statement stemmed from a perception that the EA was pulling itself back from things that it has previously done with one interviewee stating that “you can see all the time that it’s paring back and saying that this is all the capacity we have to deliver. You will have to provide this guidance yourself now and this is quite noticeable really. They are pulling back from everything they can pull back from in response to their resource challenges” Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015. This EA response has a knock on effect for the partnership approach taken to flood risk management.
At the time of interview a private interviewee was concerned about how new responsibilities will be managed at the local level. One such example of this is the implementation of governmental drive to promote the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) for new development.
“…one of the big challenges for us moving forward is how we deal with sustainable urban drainage and clearly with the government not having sorted out anything around that yet. That’s been an area where we have thought – where is all that going to end up and the government announced about the planning system handling all of that. What liabilities for local authorities? Has anyone actually thought this through? I think the answer is no” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
In March 2015 DEFRA produced non-statutory guidance for sustainable drainage systems to supplement the National Planning Policy Framework, again the use
185 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK of SUDS is non-statutory and optional despite recommendations over 9 years ago from Sir Michael Pitt that SUDS should be compulsory in new developments. Interviewees in Salford raised concerns about the effect of SUDS proposals for the local area and that the progress for implementation was uncertain and slow.
Lower Broughton and Lower Kersal, Cambridge Industrial Estate
The Cambridge Industrial Estate area is in a prime location for economic development being near the city centre and in the Irwell Valley, “in an ideal world that would be an area where we would focus a lot of regeneration activity” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). However, the area has the most severe flood risk in Salford, with some developments going ahead on the basis of a formal evacuation plan due to the potential for rapid flooding. The regeneration in this area is being led by the Salford Regeneration team. The location places integration of flood risk management and economic development policy ‘head to head’ and has forced the council to think very carefully about what type of development is placed within the area.
A second flood storage scheme has recently been approved upstream of Salford at Castle Irwell on the site of an old racecourse now owned by Salford City Council and the University of Salford. The scheme will store water from the River Irwell when in flood, preventing it flowing downstream and flooding properties in Salford including Cambridge Industrial Estate. Therefore, the scheme supports future economic development downstream by reducing the risk of flooding.
This scheme demonstrates the importance of working upstream in order to reduce flood risk downstream and the benefits this can have for unlocking downstream land for development. It also shows the need for actors to be able to effectively work across geographic and administrative boundaries.
Manchester Ship Canal
The Manchester Ship Canal opened in 1894, constructed by canalizing sections of the Rivers Irwell and Mersey above Latchford. At the time of opening, the canal became the largest river navigation in the world allowing deep sea shipping to the heart of Manchester (Peel Ports Group 2016). The Manchester Ship Canal adds to the complexity
186 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration of managing flood risk across the Mersey catchment and indeed for Salford as it is situated along the canal. Water levels for safe navigation along the canal are managed by various locks, sluices and weir structures that regulate the passage of water. The canal is not a designated main river, rather it is designated as an ordinary watercourse, whereby, as a result of the FWMA 2010, the local authority will lead on consenting and enforcements. However, the Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited is the statutory harbour authority for both the harbour and the Port of Manchester. For Salford it is:
“the responsibility of Peel Port and the EA in terms of how the ship canal works in flooding depths, but as lead local flood authority we ought to have some understanding of that ourselves… We have raised significant issues about how we deal with the ship canal and the options which I think Peel were not very happy with and I think they have had to speak the EA about that. That’s something which we are working on, again we would not be working on that if we were not the lead local authority. That has changed how we operate” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
A flood event overcoming the effective working of the Manchester Ship Canal was deemed to be extremely unlikely (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). However, such an event occurred during the Boxing Day floods in 2015, where widespread flooding was seen across the North of England including Greater Manchester. Due to the significant flows experienced, lengths of the canal banks were washed away, infrastructure was damaged and in some areas banks were breached by the flood water. Further flooding also occurred due to damaged sluice gates. The events of winter 2015 “confirmed the… need to broaden the understanding of how the Canal’s water levels are managed and how this relates to the wider flood management for areas adjacent to the Canal” (Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2016). This is particularly important due to the land that resides by the side of the Manchester Ship Canal including residents, infrastructure, commercial property, businesses, leisure facilities and North West England’s largest Waste Water Treatment Works which drains the west side of Greater Manchester.
187 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Port Salford – The Game Changer?
The Port Salford development is described as one of the “most strategically important projects… because it brings multi-modal transport infrastructure into the core of Greater Manchester and essentially means that Greater Manchester can become a national distribution hub rather than a regional distribution hub” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). The potential for flood events at Port Salford has not been seen as a conflict with the progress of the development “it’s just hasn’t been a factor because of planning permission” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). However, discussion with another interviewee did raise wider catchment wide concerns:
“Now clearly downstream there are significant issues in and around Warrington where there has been quite a bit of investment and flood protection, clearly we wouldn’t want to do anything at Port Salford which would exacerbate any issues down there, that would be a matter of concern for the Environment Agency. So again, they will be looking at those issues in relation to Port Salford and how those issues will be managed moving forward” (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015).
This again reiterates the progressive thinking of flood risk management in terms of catchment hydrology and the need for transparency, partnership and collaboration well beyond the local area.
European Union LIFE Project
Salford is the lead authority acting on behalf of Greater Manchester for the EU LIFE Integrated Water Management Project. The Environment Agency and Greater Manchester was awarded 20M Euros from the LIFE programme to help increase their capacity to deliver the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. One objective of the project, of relevance to this research is that it seeks to reduce the barriers to the adoption of an integrated approach by reducing policy and legal conflicts, improving financial instruments, increasing delivery capacity and providing appropriate management infrastructure. Greater Manchester is a pilot site for the project with a focus on the River Irwell Catchment. This research should provide a valuable opportunity to develop knowledge on policy integration related to the EU Water Framework Directive.
188 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
6.5 Borough of Rochdale The Rochdale Development Agency refers to the town of Rochdale as ambitious and going through an exciting period of transformation, investment and renaissance with untapped potential (Rochdale Development Agency 2016a). This is a positive rhetoric despite the area’s planning policy win-wins being “harder to get when you’re looking at lower value developments in essentially lower value centres… Eastern and Northern centres around Greater Manchester do have bigger problems of recession than perhaps the city centre and some of the core areas around that” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Rochdale is seen to be a satellite town which is generally less economically attractive than Manchester city centre and therefore “harder to sell” (Local NGO Economic Development 1). However, despite these challenges and recent flood events, developers do not appear to have been deterred due to the probability and consequences of flooding from investing within Rochdale, with a number of high profile developments occurring to support its current period of renaissance. Examples include Kingsway’s Business Park and Riverside Rochdale, Wheatsheaf Shopping Centre and a leisure facility in the centre of Rochdale town centre. Optimistically speaking, one interviewee thought that such inward investments have “cemented Rochdale’s place as an integral player in the Northern Power story” (Rochdale Development Agency 2016a), a reference to the government’s conceptual initiative for a ‘Northern Powerhouse’, a collection of the major northern economies including the city regions of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool and Hull.
The basis of the Northern Powerhouse is centred on the collective worth of these locations being greater than the sum in parts, a government plan to boost the economy across the North of England. The recent wave of devolution of powers to Greater Manchester has strengthened this realisation and is further supported by financial commitment in the National Infrastructure Plan 2016 - 2021 which encompasses flood risk management projects. This plan intrinsically recognises that local economic growth and wider economic benefits on the ground is directly linked to infrastructure investment. Rochdale presents a case study whereby investment in infrastructure has catalysed both economic development and wider flood risk management.
189 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
6.5.1 Background The greatest potential for flooding across Rochdale and the severity of its impact is centred on key locations where cumulative factors such as topography, urban form, hydrology and geology and the capacity of the local drainage infrastructure make the incidence of potentially significant flooding, more probable (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2014). These key locations, subject to a combination of pluvial and fluvial flood risk, include Littleborough, Milnrow, Newhey, Heywood, Wardleworth and Rochdale town centre. There is a widespread probability of flooding across the borough with the main source being fluvial flooding from the River Roch and its tributaries, with downstream hydrological impacts along the River Irwell and the Manchester Ship Canal. Other main rivers in Rochdale include the River Beal, Irk and Spodden. A concern which is acknowledged in the Core Strategy (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2016) stating that flood risk is an environmental issue the strategy must address.
Rochdale Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for the Borough of Rochdale, and therefore responsible for managing local flood risk and for preparing a flood risk management strategy setting out significant risks and how it attends to address the risk. The current flood risk management strategy is for ten years, 2014 until 2024. Flooding in Rochdale mainly occurs due to its location south west of the South Pennines uplands, forming part of the wider River Irwell Catchment which ultimately drains downstream into the River Mersey through Greater Manchester.
Flood Risk Management in Rochdale was regarded by one interviewee as:
“a bit of an quandary at times… some of the adjoining areas, inner Rochdale, the older residential, older industrial areas… in the past [they have been] difficult sites to actually encourage development on, they have to be very robustly flood-proofed or the flood mitigation has to be a major issue within that and at the same time you’re wanting to promote an opportunity for development and bring some real benefit to the community, to the economy of those areas and the wider borough” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015).
The presence of flood risk within the area has become an additional challenge which actors have needed to overcome to enable economic development. The management of flood risk has not been seen in par with economic development but has been a challenge to address prior to development. Water is seen as a characteristic of the
190 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration borough which needs to be managed more effectively in the interest of the public, property, infrastructure and conservation (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2016).
6.5.2 Turning around Barriers and Challenges? Policy integration in Rochdale is thought locally to be more problematic than in some other areas because it is an older urban area, combined with several pockets of highly deprived and culturally diverse communities. These deprived communities are unlikely to be able to adapt and mitigate to the risk of flooding and be able to quickly respond and be resilient in the event of a flood. Therefore the consequences from a flood event are high. These communities are also more likely to require support from other actors to be able to prepare and recover from a flood event. Such characteristics led to Rochdale being selected, after application by the council to become part of a national policy intervention funded by Defra called the Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder scheme. This scheme ran between 2012 and 2015 and focused on enabling and stimulating communities at significant or greater risk of flooding to work with key partners to develop solutions to enhance awareness and improve financial resilience to flood events. The policy is firmly directed at empowering communities to take a role in managing flood risk, embracing localism and although the framework for the policy does contain an economic element this is solely focused on individuals and community access to flood insurance. Although despite this narrow window from an economic perspective observation at the Pathfinder event attended in December 2015 did indicate that a small number of individuals were concerned about the wider implications of flood events on the potential for economic development.
In Rochdale, the problem with policy integration was felt to stem from people having different political aspirations which can result in “different agendas not moulding together particularly well” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Barriers to policy integration arise because of the differences in agendas and the inability of actors to reconcile differences. As a result “high risk [referring to flood risk] and high aspiration [for economic development] in an area can result in real tension” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015) something which has apparently been observed in Rochdale as projects have attempted to integrate policy.
191 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
Revealing of the River Roch
Historically and as a result of local industry the water quality of the River Roch which runs through the town centre of Rochdale was exceptionally poor. As a solution to the impacts of this the water course was culverted during the early 1920s. This decision left the now designated Conservation Area, The Butts, The Ginnel and part of the Town Hall Square being perceived as confusing, due to the spaces seeming to be accidental in position rather than a result of the buildings and street orientation relating to the now hidden river (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2013). In the mid-1990s ongoing repairs to the culverted watercourse prompted the notion of un-culverting the River Roch and revealing the historic bridge which dated back to the thirteenth century.
Over the past six years this project to restore the urban landscape of Rochdale town centre has become a focal point of a £5m regeneration project, forming part of a wider £250m town centre regeneration scheme. The project is called ‘Revealing the Roch’ and has been referred to as “bringing the heart back into Rochdale town centre” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). It is anticipated that the river re-opening will bring an extra £6.72m into Rochdale’s economy over the next ten years (Rochdale Development Agency 2016b). The official analysis of benefits and associated value for the project are provided below in Table 20.
192 Chapter 6 – Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy Integration
Table 20: Revealing the River Roch Benefits Analysis
Measure/ No. Benefit Description Benefit Category Value
Reduced surface water flood risk. EA surface water mapping shows that approximately 500 1 Risk mitigation £0.60m properties in the town centre are at risk from flooding in an extreme (1000 year) flood event.
Reduced flood risk from blockage in the opened channel with ease of access to maintain the 2 Risk mitigation £4.42m remaining culvert. Benefit to 40 properties by reducing overland flood water flow path.
Local economic benefit. Additionally in local expenditure due to capital expenditure on heritage 3 Value for money £3.56m using the multiplier identified in Amion Locum research.
External funding leveraged. Investment from: Heritage Lottery Fund: £1.28m / CAG: £0.70m 4 Value for money £2.98m /Environment Agency: £1.0m.
Cost saving through reduced maintenance liability. Re-waterproofing and structural liability to 5 Value for money £0.29m historic bridge required in year 5. Assumes construction inflation of 3% p.a.
Cost saving through reduced maintenance liability. Re-waterproofing and structural liability to 6 Value for money £1.88m historic bridges required in year 30 and year 55. Assumes construction inflation of 3% p.a.
7 Cost saving through reduced maintenance liability. Repairs to 20th century culvert structures. Value for money £0.35m
193 Protecting Communities, Protecting Livelihoods: Integrating Flood Risk Management and Economic Development in the North West of England, UK
No figures 8 Rateable value of commercial properties adjacent to the project increased. Value for money available
Environmental No figures 9 Water Framework Directive compliance. improvement available
Social benefits through education and engagement. The estimated aggregate number of local 10 Social benefits 6,184 people who will be directly engaged through the Activity Plan.
Social benefits through education and engagement. The number of local people who will upgrade 11 and gain new skills in heritage restoration from participation in the Heritage Skills Training Social benefits 242 Programme which is part of the Activity Plan.
Social benefits through education and engagement. An estimate the number of local people who 12 Social benefits 18 will gain a formal Construction Skills Certification Scheme qualification.
Social benefits through education and engagement. Total number of planned volunteers hours 13 from the Activity Plan multiplied by the Heritage Lottery Fund rate per hour for volunteer Social benefits £23,000 workers.
Social benefits through education and engagement. Estimated number of casual visitors to the 14 Social benefits 950 Exhibition & Information Centre and project office over the lifetime of the project.
Source: Rochdale Borough Council (2014)
194 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration
There are also many other economic development proposals for the town centre, including Rochdale Riverside, Wheatsheaf Shopping Centre, Town Centre East, Number One Riverside (council offices), the Transport Bus Interchange and Rochdale Sixth Form College. However, the Revealing of the Roch project has been seen as a focal point and a catalyst for further regeneration. The project supports Rochdale Council’s view that the re-opening of the river will make the town centre more attractive to visitors and a centrepiece of efforts to broaden the economic vitality by encouraging heritage and leisure development.
During business case development for the project the historic importance of the river and the medieval bridge were significant facets to the case, whereas the associated benefits of reduced flood risk received little attention. There was no specification to incorporate flood risk management measures into the design brief of the urban area. However, the impact of the project on flood risk management in the town centre was given full consideration after Storm Eva caused widespread flooding across Greater Manchester on Boxing Day 2015. Many parts of the Rochdale borough were flooded including the town centre, 150 businesses, the newly opened Number One Riverside, the bus station and the tram terminus. Also, downstream of the town centre, the ASDA Superstore, St Marys Gate Subway and Rochdale Sixth Form College were flooded. The opening up of the culverted watercourse is likely to have reduced the potential impact of the flood event, by reducing flood depths in the town centre and preventing the Grade I listed Town Hall from flooding (Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2016). The project enabled water to re-enter the river near the bottom of Yorkshire Street which also reduced the duration of flooding in the town centre (Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2016).
On this occasion, the council had recently completed the Revealing the River Roch project which helped reduce flood risk during Storm Eva. However, one interviewee raised concerns about typical approaches usually being reactionary to an event:
“If there are problems we will come back to it but then the problem’s happened? You’re not managing to prevent, your managing to react which is
195 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration
slightly different and a non-satisfactory approach but there is this pressure to allow things to happen rather than the planning process [being] seen as a blockage. It’s a game between government and developers to a certain degree” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015).
The Revealing the River Roch project was led by the local authority in partnership with the Environment Agency therefore presenting a different governance approach to other economic development projects which are often led by the developers. It is perhaps this local authority leadership which helped to make the scheme a success in some ways by reducing barriers of conflict. Due to its high profile nature the project it is also noted to have had “a wide partnership in terms of stakeholders” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015) which may have helped to reduce conflicts and barriers quickly as they arose during its delivery. The wide consultation could have also enabled benefits to be maximised and coincides with research suggesting that integration is dependent on leaders being able to look for the right partners with compatible needs to pursue policy integration.
One negative, is the time it took to instigate and complete the project which took many years after conception in the mid-1990s before finally being delivered during summer 2016, two years after the original proposed completion date of summer 2014. These delays have been due to changing local leadership re-opening the decision about whether or not to proceed with the project, changing governance, reduced budgets as a result of government cuts, the release of partnership funds and changing construction timeframes. The overriding reason for delay was due to the decision as to whether public money should be spent on the scheme and whether it would derive the ‘best value for money’ from the increasingly reduced allocation of public funds. As a means to spread the cost the Council sought partnership funding from the Environment Agency and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
196 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration
Littleborough
A flood storage reservoir in Littleborough has recently been completed which stores excess water from the Calder Brook feeding the River Roch and reducing the residual flood risk to Rochdale town centre. As well as helping to manage wider flood risk issues the project also protects properties in Littleborough. The project is particularly important because parts of Littleborough and central Rochdale are designated as flash flooding areas where water levels can rise quickly in heavy rainfall.
This scheme is seen as complementing the Revealing of the River Roch project, as the reduction in potential flood risk in turn opens up opportunities for economic development within the town centre. The schemes takes a catchment wide approach and has been successful at gaining funding from the council, the RFCC and DEFRA’s Flood Defence Grant in Aid programme. However, one interviewee noted the challenges of gaining funds for projects where the benefits are some way away from the location of the actual project, stating:
“How do you get development here to help pay for something up there which is five miles away, up in the base of the hills and that’s going to store flood water which reduces the risk here. The mechanism isn’t there” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015).
It can be difficult to co-ordinate catchment wide schemes and arrange funding to ensure projects are completed when economic benefits are realised in a different location downstream. This project shows the barriers to gaining funds from sources other than government. This scheme and the Revealing of the Roch project has been led by the local authority with the majority of funding was received from the local authority. Some have argued that this should not be the case, “that business should be paying” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14) for projects which manage flood risk and unlock economic development potential. The project slowed down significantly due to concerns around sufficient funding.
Rochdale Borough Council has placed flood risk management and its responsibilities as a LLFA in the Economy Directorate Plan, listing the management of flood risk as a key activity, demonstrating the importance and commitment to the
197 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration integration of the two policy areas (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2015). However, one interviewee explained that for policy success, it is not enough to simply have an integrated policy in place:
“The policy is there but it’s the case by case development management and then the elected members making the decision that really needs to keep that mind set going, you know… that they should be taking on board the advice of the LLFA, the EA, United Utilities; that they should be looking at not just the site but the bigger issues and that’s a hard ask for development management, policy planners because they have a lot of things to take in and they’re not specialists” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015).
One topic discussed by several interviewees (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015, Local NGO Economic Development 1, 14.12.15 and Local Government Economic Development 4) within Rochdale was the role of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and “whether the LLFA should be consulted on every proposal and whether SUDS should be applied to every proposal or should it be selectively applied for major development” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). The responsibility for surface water flood risk now lies with local planning authorities so it is perhaps not surprising that it was frequently raised as a topic during the interviews. At the time, clarity on the application of SUDS was unclear, direction was required by central government. It was not seen to be wise for a local authority to become particularly strict towards developers on the requirement of SUDS for fear of gaining a negative reputation and that developers may look elsewhere for a more favourable development location with a more lenient local authority. This shows a potential benefit of agreement on policy throughout the Greater Manchester area. The issues also reiterates that problems associated with the legacy of privatisation of the water industry in England and Wales in 1989 remain. This approach created large regional monopolies of companies responsible for water supply, United Utilities in the North West, whose priorities orientate towards business and profit. This has created a difficult environment for costly improvements such as urban drainage systems and ultimately a poor uptake of SUDS (Ellis 2012).
198 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration
Interviewees across Greater Manchester talked favourably about the combined authority, with one interviewee from Rochdale stating that: “If you think of a district like Rochdale battling on its own, it’s a fairly small fish when all is said and done… but in the context of Greater Manchester then quite clearly it’s part of a much bigger economic entity…” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). This person went on to discuss the value of a city regional approach and support for a shared area of economic opportunity, “you don’t have to work within your own personal administrative silos for your own area” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Although most interviewees are comfortable working within their own area, it was widely held that the city regional governance arrangement make it easier for actors to work beyond their immediate local boundaries and work within a larger scale. It is a guiding principle of the Rochdale Flood Risk Management Strategy to take a catchment approach, ensuring that risk is not transferred or increased elsewhere. Also, the city region was felt to support healthy competition between areas to drive efficiency and delivery of policy integration.
Local businesses had protested about the project’s development due to concerns of disrupting in trade. The town centre had recently been through years of interruption to trade in the town centre due to the development of Metrolink, a tram system running through Rochdale. This disruption during construction is a known risk whereas the potential for flood risk is uncertain. Despite such concerns about temporary impacts all the interviewees felt it had been successful over the long term.
6.6 Summary The chapter shows that there are a wide number of institutions both governmental and non-governmental that form the governance landscape of flood risk management and economic development, involved with multiple scales for negotiating policy integration. One interviewee argues that whilst “the institution will be organised within those boundaries but I think anyone that is involved in planning, whether it is spatial or whether it is environmental planning looking at flood risk, you have just got to think about the system as a whole and forget about the boundaries” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14). However, forgetting about the boundaries and thinking about the system as a whole is not something which is easily achieved when policy conflicts easily arise
199 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration throughout the multi-scalar governance arrangement. Policy conflicts such as who pays for the planning, construction and maintenance of a scheme and who receives the ‘pain and gain’ during a schemes development have combined to slow progress. Such conflicts also hinder the ability of the actors to think strategically about the flood risk of the catchment, the hydrological boundaries rather than administrative or political boundaries of the actor. These two case studies support arguments by Peters that institutions are key to understanding policy and related implementation and that institutions influence policy integration (Peters 2005).
The aspirations for economic growth across Greater Manchester are high which is seen as one of the main tensions between flood risk management and economic development policy. The “growth aspirations are quite challenging in terms of finding the space to allocate the amount of new business and the amount of new housing that is required to meet those growth aspirations” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). This challenge of a lack of available space places pressure on all areas of land and raises the need to adequately manage flood risk to enable locations to become available for development. The tension can be caused by the local authority if they choose to ensure developers abide to strict flood and water management policy such as incorporating SUDS. Such an approach could lead to developers and potential investment moving out of an area to avoid tighter and potentially costly restrictions due to the approach taken with respect to flood risk management.
The case studies of Rochdale and Salford reveal a number of conflicts during the policy integration of flood risk management and economic development. The case studies show two distinctly different geographic and administrative areas which have faced different challenges but also a common partnership within the political frame of the Greater Manchester city region. Despite differences they have both been able to secure funding for flood risk management in combination with economic development benefits. Although the funding has predominantly been sourced from central government and not negotiated to fruition from a wider source of private sector actors.
Although the areas are very different due to the geographic location, Salford is intrinsically linked to Rochdale in terms of flood risk management, “If we turn on the taps
200 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration in Rochdale then somebody in Salford gets wet feet” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Therefore, policy is required to be adaptable, to be able to be delivered both locally but to also account for regional aspirations. In reference to local economic development operating at a different geographical scale to flood risk management one interviewee noted that despite progress, still it “is a fundamental tension in anything that happens, trying to plan and coordinate activities across space” (Regional Politician, 20.11.14). In particular, a downstream local authority may feel the need to improve planning and co-ordination across a catchment, since action by another upstream local authority can cause consequences to the downstream authority.
It was noted by one interviewee that “policy is only as good as the delivery mechanism otherwise it is just policy and that increasingly… the shelves are littered with policies, some good and some not very good” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). The actor continued to explain that:
“the ones that are not very good are because they are not very well targeted and nobody has thought through who needs to deliver this, how they need to deliver it and how they can work together to deliver it and over what timescale…” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015).
Policy integration must be considered in context to ensure that it is targeted in terms of approach, actors involved and timescales. There is a protective element to the image and asset of Greater Manchester, with one interviewee explaining that the means of policy integration is “really… about making, ensuring if you like, that Greater Manchester gets its pound for its buck’’ (Local Government Planner 2, 02.02.2015). The political and administrative arrangement of Greater Manchester has supported the ability of the area to resolve conflicts; allowing the boundaries between agencies, organisations and boroughs to blur. The arrangement collectively provides a strong position on policy across the large area of Greater Manchester and partnership for the resolution of conflict. Throughout the interviews one focal point of the political arrangement of Greater Manchester was AGMA which was referred to as the ‘ivory tower’ of decision making. For some the ‘ivory tower’ was blamed for making difficult policy decisions and conversely, others praised it for beneficial outcomes. Interviewees generally showed a
201 Chapter 6: Dynamics of Policy Integration: The Challenges of Multiple Scales and Negotiating Policy
Integration respect for the Greater Manchester structure and felt able to work within and beyond its boundaries to manage flood risk management and economic development policy.
The Greater Manchester approach needs to be seen in context. A typical feature of water governance in countries all over the world has been a fragmented, competing and contradictory disconnect between national, regional and local level activities and a lack of effective planning and management at the catchment level (Kidd and Shaw 2007). In many respects then the Greater Manchester arrangements are an experiment in addressing intractable policy issues, balancing policy priorities across sectors and across scales.
This chapter has demonstrated the value of finding new working arrangements which blur traditional boundaries of governance and to encourage ways of working which enable negotiation of policy integration across multiple scales. As explain by one interviewee blurring of the boundaries occurs because the “boundaries become irrelevant because you can draw any boundary you want” (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015). Work on policy integration between flood risk and economic development is widely seen as a desirable approach but it is acknowledged that challenges remain in achieving integration across multiple scales. The challenges often relate to the system’s abilities to fully present the wider benefits that can be achieved from its work on integrating flood risk management and economic development. Actors are often required to be adaptable to changing landscapes of governance and varying responsibilities which requires different set of skills and resources.
202 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
7. DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING POLICY
203 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
7.1 Introduction This chapter discusses an evaluation of the impacts between flood risk management and economic development policy, the opportunities arising from policy integration and the challenges of negotiation across multiple scales and actors in practice. The chapter draws together the material from chapters 5 and 6, locating the research findings within the literature and beginning to build an understanding of how policy integration between flood risk management and economic development can be improved.
7.2 Impacts and Opportunities of Policy Integration This research presents insights into policy integration in practice firstly by investigating the perception of impacts between flood risk management and economic development policy in order to understand the challenges of policy integration between flood risk management and economic development. It was helpful to get a feeling for what actors perceived to be impacts between the two policies across the scales of governance. This section further discusses the prominent perceived impacts and opportunities considered by actors within this multi-scalar governance context.
Previous research often discusses impacts as a result of a flood events and often reported in terms of the direct and indirect resulting impacts on other policy sectors as presented by Chatterton et al. (2010). Overall, both regional and local scale interviewees discussed positive and negative impacts and engaged with impacts considered to be direct and indirect. However, interviewees often and across the range of sectors and scales struggled to articulate specific policy implications and in some instances were rather broad in response requiring further gentle probing during the interview. For example, a broad initial response from an interviewee after being asked - from your professional perspective what do you consider to be the main impacts of flood risk management on economic development policy? An actor stated that “the main impact to me is on sustainable flood risk management… it’s the drivers for growth. I don’t think it’s sustainable” (Local Government Planner 4, 11.12.2014). After further gentle probing, the interviewee went on to explain that the main impact from their perspective was
204 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy inappropriate development on floodplain and development which did not make consideration of future flood risk.
Uncertainty in being able to consider implications of one policy on another and difficulty in articulation was observed. Interviewees and policy documents engage with the idea of policy integration but lack depth to clearly identify the impacts. Such difficulty in identifying, appraising and articulating positive and negative impacts may itself be seen as a challenge for policy integration, where the active seeking of opportunities for and from integration may be restricted.
It is felt that those involved in policy integration would benefit from a greater understanding of how policies interact specifically the relationship between flood risk management and economic development and such awareness and understanding may be an important enabler for integration. In order to fully understand impacts, actors would need to be open and honest but also have, or have the means, to obtain specialist knowledge as required to further understand the implications of policy integration.
Overall, it was felt that flood risk management policy has a positive impact on economic development policy with actors able to provide practical examples of projects whereby flood risk management policy had supported the potential for economic development. The international case studies illustrate that attempts to deal with flood risk are incorporated into the solutions to drive economic growth. The Rochdale and Salford embedded case studies show what can be achieved with political commitment and leaders who are able to convey the bigger picture and pursue integration in practice. Although these case studies go some way to demonstrating policy integration it is felt that without the political commitment as a result of the public and high profile nature of the case study projects, such results may not have been realised.
Most interviewees were enthusiastic about the positive impacts that could be achieved locally as a result of integration, which was also observed to have been reflected in policy documents. However, this observation could go some way towards evidencing that actors are strategic in fostering their interest depending on how well it fits with their established practice (Russel et al. 2018), given that although some local actors did identify concerns in relation to the responsibility for flood risk management they were
205 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy always positive in response to financial revenue and their resulting established practice of localism.
Local actors in particular were keen to discuss the opportunities that are presented as a result of flood risk within a particular location perhaps because this risk is known to unlock relatively large sums of capital funding. Such thinking is reflective of the national government’s commitment to capital expenditure for flood risk schemes therefore it only seems logical for actors to wish to facilitate more winners and less losers resulting from this capital expenditure.
Whilst there is a strong rhetoric for the support of economic growth across the multi-scalar governance landscape, some regional interviewees were more critical towards the relationship between flood risk management and economic development. This is perhaps reflective of flood risk management being seen as a complicated restriction making economic growth more of a challenge. However many interviewees were also positive towards the economic opportunities created by flood risk management particularly in terms of infrastructure schemes’ ability to draw in investment. There is a feeling that policy integration presented a positive opportunity for economic development, one which may join the often seemingly incompatible goals of economic competition, social development and environmental protection.
As argued by Gunningham and Sinclair (1998) working across policy sectors may also offer the opportunity to produce complementary influences on society. In this thread the research shows that a large number of actors frame this opportunity as society being resilient. The origins of resilience stem from ecological debates on the adaptability of populations, species and eco-systems with two competing perspectives; one, that an ecosystem has capacity to absorb disturbances and maintain function in a steady state; and two, that an ecosystem has the ability to fundamentally change to an alternative state slowly or rapidly with existing ecosystems either being exceeded or replaced (Raco and Street 2012). The concept parallels with sustainable development but also the concept readily fits with the neoliberal discourse, making it an easily used concept (Joseph 2013) able to cross the sector boundary between flood risk management and economic development readily. However, it is argued that in real terms the concept does not mean very much, lacks any deeper meaning and is a shifting concept, ultimately, “little more
206 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy than a buzzword that might easily be exchanged for some other term” (Joseph 2013, p. 51) and makes very little meaningful effects on the ground other than to vary in meaning, place and level depending on the local object of governance and is used by actors to explain why policy integration is important. The resilience concept is used to articulate the current drive of “future proofing Greater Manchester so it is sustainable in that longer term” (Local Government Planner 1, 16.01.15). A contrast in response to previous policy agendas solely focused on managing and mitigating economic growth seen in the 1990 – 2000’s and is more of a wary approach to economic growth in response to the subsequent economic recession.
This rhetoric of resilience supports arguments by Folke (2006) Bristow (2010) and Raco and Street (2012) that resilient planning is becoming more significant in relation to economic development. In support of this argument Raco and Street (2012) conclude their research stating that whether resilience really does have the potential to reframe prioritise and turn them away from the principal of sustaining success remain to be seen. It could be argued that priorities focused on rationalities of sustaining success have not changed, development is still seen as the solution to a problem but there is a change in how the development should be processed. This is where benefits to policy integration need to be facilitated.
7.3 Challenges of Policy Integration This section discusses the main challenges of integrating flood risk management and economic development policy with particular reference to experience with river catchments within the North West of England. The challenges are grouped thematically for the purposes of discussion.
7.3.1 Political - Perception and Finding Common Ground This thesis has developed the contemporary practice of policy integration by exploring perceived impacts between flood risk management policy and economic development policy. These impacts, whether seemingly negative or advantageous, arise at
207 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy the interface between the two policies and present a politically charged challenge both in terms of the policy impacts and policy integration itself. There is a conflict between different political and economic interests which drives the policy process and where policy aspirations conflict, a barrier to policy integration arises.
A divergence in perception of what policy integration means is seen between interviewees, with most interviewees often aligning themselves to their own focused perception based on discipline area and/or on their specific administrative and institutional boundaries. This is a significant challenges that all policy actors need to address and is reflective of other research which discusses that actors are often are bound and locked into a pre-prescribed normative way of thinking and struggle to diverge away from current political goals.
A political will for improved flood risk management in Rochdale, Salford and Greater Manchester has facilitated flood risk management and economic development policy integration. This improvement is demonstrated by the win-win rhetoric of opportunities achieved for projects within Greater Manchester. However, it is questioned as to whether this is deeply rooted policy integration or whether it is superficial opportunistic policy outcomes resulting from different policy actors being brought together in these localised examples and short term political achievement. By way of explanation, governance on its own improves the effectiveness of policy integration by both bringing together a greater knowledge pool to increase the chances of identifying previously unknown win-win policy outcomes and the ability to spot policy contradictions. Although this does support policy integration it is considered that in-depth policy integration embedded into governance as opposed to a politically charged policy rhetoric is evident. In particular, the need in these embedded cases studies to politically legitimise action for both flood risk management and economic development due to the public expenditure and the public perception that state should manage the risk and opportunities from each policy domain. Despite concerns raised by actors that flood risk management remains as a barrier to economic development, policy rhetoric suggests that flood risk management does not reside as a barrier to economic development but as an opportunity.
208 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
The mobilisation and commitment to integrate flood risk management and economic development policy in Salford and Rochdale was seen to be framed by the public sector a space of common ground was created and defined. However, the framing of the economic development aspiration is not exclusively lead by the public sector as more recently shown in the New Water Pilot Project and the Atlantic Gateway case studies. Notwithstanding, the public sector framing has strengthened conviction for policy integration by co-ordinating multiple actors across governance which may in theory be more readily achieved at a local scale as a result of responsibilities for flood risk being placed with the local authority. The mobilisation of policy integration is also more comfortably achieved at the local scale with limited action from the public and private sector to actively integrate policy at the wider catchment scale, where political drive frames policy problems at the local or regional level.
Overall, actors need to be able to navigate in a politically charged environment in order to seek common ground between sometimes completely different views and policy goals, and negotiate differing interpretations, opinions and outcomes of policy. Aspirations for policy integration are crucially reliant on our ability to properly understand and communicate policy. More often, in many governance contexts, regimes have allowed for sectoral policy communities with a focus on their particular functions, for example economic development, transportation, housing and health, to develop as isolated bastions each having its own relations to business and pressure groups, paying little attention to the intersection of policies with the realities of economic organisation, social life, and bio-sphere systems (Healey, 1999). Actors are grappling with changing governance and political goals to move away from isolated bastions and be ‘seen’ to be and ‘actively’ be more integrative with policy. A common ground needs to be found to be able to allow actors to understand and negotiate mutually beneficial policy aspirations and outcomes but also conflicts.
7.3.2 Institutional and Organisational - Challenge of Rebalancing the Dominance of Economic Development Despite the two policy areas being interlinked and presenting what can be seen as a two-way relationship, the aspirations for economic growth have remained at the
209 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy forefront of decision making and drives what might be perceived as more of a one-way relationship with flood risk management being a subsequent undertaking. Such an understanding of the one-way relationship has been developed throughout this research and simply put into words by one local interviewee as “the most important thing is to allow the regeneration to proceed and things that help that to happen” (Local Government Economic Development 2, 04.12.14). This was not unexpected given the effect of the neoliberal project on the landscape of institutional economic and political context (Chapter 2). This finding is consistent with research undertaken by Schmidt and Morrison (2012) which argues that there is a deep rooted connection between local government and private development and that the long standing notion that all development is good development should be exploited. Such exploitation of this notion could lead to rebalancing away from a narrow pursuit of economic development to a more complex understanding between the relationships of flood risk management and economic development. The research shows that flood risk management is integrated with economic development policy often in order to strengthen a deep-rooted connection between local government and private developers. Flood risk management and in particular as a means of accessing large sums of capital funding is being used as a means to unlock economic development potential.
Contrary to the notion that all development is good development one interviewee expressed frustrations with private developers stating that “economic growth isn’t just about making a few people richer and developers are all greedy trying to maximize every single square inch of development sites to make more profit” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15). This shows a frustration with the current deep- rooted connection between local government and private developers. This is may be seen as a public sector institutional problem which makes opportunities resulting from policy integration and working across different scales of importance for flood risk management difficult to achieve due to the focus on localised delivery. The research has showed that economic development actors did not want to deter developers away from development opportunities as demonstrated by a lack of conviction to incorporate SUDS within development schemes but also that it can be difficult to conclusively prove that economic regeneration may reduce flooding. This institutional context could hinder the ability of flood risk management to be integrated locally and significantly hinder the ability to
210 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy progress policy integration at the landscape level due to there being a limited economic driver at this scale. From an institutional and organisational perspective, it is much more challenging to engage with larger natural landscapes, it is more tangible to deal with local policy outcomes.
As discussed by Peet and Watts (1996), understanding policy within its contextual setting is an important component particularly as policies emerge from, and are responses to, local sets of social and political conditions. This can be seen here within the embedded case studies of Rochdale and Salford where both show a different local set of social and political conditions, not only in terms of spatial location within the River Mersey Basin but also in terms of types of flood risk and opportunities to drive economic development where both are anchored together by city regional aspirations and finance. The case studies show aspirations to integrate flood risk management beyond their local authority boundaries but difficulties relating to the more fluid, flexibility of governance required beyond the city regional context. In relation to the city regional governance arrangements one interviewee explained this challenges as “a danger…that we start to be too inward looking and forgetting that there’s people outside of us that affect us and we have an effect on other people” Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15.
Scale of governance is important in enabling a two-way relationship between policies. For example several interviewees talked about the positive relationship which has developed as a result of the abolishment of the Regional Development Agencies (RDA). One private sector interviewee explained that they can now have a direct conversation with government about interests, concerns and opportunities affecting economic growth “not filtered in a way that we might have [when we] approached the RDA in relation to a site or an issue or whatever” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15). In contrast to this view another interviewee stated that “in terms of strategic development and economic growth I think we’ve probably missed that kind of regional layer… I think it would be a great opportunity if we still had the RDA for them to speak to the RFCC and sort of look at things at that regional level. In some ways the RFCC, it seems to be a bit of a dinosaur in those terms, it [government] seems to survive the culling of every regional thing going” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15).
211 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
As a result of the void posed by the RDA and the lack of formal regional governance, benefit is seen from the combination of the ten local authorities in Greater Manchester with one interviewee referring to the situation being a nightmare if each were fighting one another to get the development in their area. The Greater Manchester arrangement enables decisions to be made strategically from a regional perspective and reduces conflict between policies by co-ordinating and establishing process and management. However, this suggests that although localism has its benefits in terms of policy integration there is a need from actors for a formal structure beyond the city regional scale.
It is thought that at the local scale of Rochdale and Salford policy integration was predominately driven by the national pursuit for economic development and not improved governance for policy integration. Further it is contested that policy integration is only occurring locally as a result of strong institutional apparatus and political drive and decision making for the Greater Manchester city region. Where similarities between the different agencies in terms of policy aspirations, this tends to influence the degree to which policy is integrated with much discussion being focused on actors being able to find common ground as a starting point to policy integration.
7.3.3 Process and Management - Planning for the Long-term Policy documents, observational and interviewee data frequently refers to the policy outcome of sustainable development. In practice the concept of sustainable development can be a challenge to achieve or be enigmatic in its achievement at all. As explained by the National Planning Policy Framework the concept of sustainable development gives rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles economic, social and environmental (Department of Communities and Local Government 2012). However, a most interviewees noted emphasis on the dominance of economic development policy, which is deeply ingrained into the history of governance within England and as explained previously flood risk management is often seen as an advantageous bolt on rather than as playing a key role in unlocking potential economic benefits by removing potential barriers to growth. However this research traces an understanding that flood risk management can and in some cases has been seen to facilitate economic development in informal and formal processes.
212 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
A many interviewees acknowledged the difficulty in articulating the business case for flood risk management projects, and that appraisal work to understand this could be improved. As an example one interviewee referred to the Warrington Flood Defence scheme which protected 300 homes from a tidal surge in December 2013, within two weeks of completion. This phase of the project cost approximately £10 million and reportedly paid for itself in one single flood event (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 20.01.2015). However, in response to this monetary figure the interviewee explained that the figure is representative of “just damages avoided to homes and residential properties. But it doesn’t really capture the economic cost of any business that would have been affected, road closures, and all the social and health impacts of the flooding” (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 20.01.2015). This confers with what other actors and policy documents demonstrating that it is difficult to express formally the beneficial relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy suggesting further that our ability to integrate the policies together to support decision making for the long term is not realised. This process of policy analysis needs to be improved to understand the beneficial economic costs resulting from integrating flood risk management and economic development policy. Such understanding would then in turn be able to improve actors’ ability to communicate and negotiate policy integration.
Planning for the long term requires all actors to develop a greater understanding of impacts to enable strategic decision making for the long term to be improved. An interviewee residing in an organisation which owns property adjacent to the waterways acknowledged the need for long term planning explaining that they felt the risk posed by flooding is driven by economic planning policy, whether it be focused on regeneration or new build. This then “affects the way our network is impacted by the development [and as such] we get involved with Strategic Flood Risk Assessments” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015). An assessment process can support decision making by identifying, characterising and evaluating the likely significant effects of a plan or programme on the environment but also determining how any adverse effects may be mitigated or where any beneficial effects may be enhanced. Therefore, in part Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is seen to support the assessment of impacts of economic development plans and programmes on flood risk management.
213 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
Surprisingly, typical planning tools such as EIA, SEA and appraisal with an integration component for environment and economic factors were discussed on several occasions by interviewees as a means to facilitate and/or understand opportunities or barriers to policy integration. Such limited use has also been observed by other research focused on policy integration (Nilsson and Persson 2003; Runhaar 2015). Runhaar (2015) suggests that if they are used then they do not usually make much of a difference in policy making and planning and further suggests that this problem can be attributed to the tools being unable to involve multiple interests or be able to deal with controversies, that they tend to “ignore the political aspects of policy and planning” which can explain why planning tools at the intersection of flood risk management and economic development seem of limited use (ibid 2015, p. 6).
Actors need to be able to appraise and communicate convincingly the future benefits and opportunities of policy integration across scales of governance and in formal and informal policy interventions. One interviewee explained that the challenge is all “about us being able to explain the benefits of flood risk investment and being able to set that in an economic context properly (Regional Government, Flood Risk Management 2, 20.01.2015). The aspirations of policy integration itself can be used to link policy actors, organisations and networks across boundaries working to new geographies and to strengthen process and management apparatus. The ability to be able to demonstrate in economic terms that the benefits of policy integration is important so that actors can co- operate, share knowledge, compete or conflict as required. This is perhaps why economic development policy is often seen as prevailing over flood risk management policy, taking centre stage when decisions are made. One interviewee while referring to the previous Coalition government explained that flood risk management has often been handled as a bolt-on to economic policy stating that:
“I think it is very clear that the Coalition government pitch is how their economic growth is at the heart of what it is trying to do and other things have been, policy makers and the delivery agencies have all tried to bolt in other considerations such as flood risk management” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 2, 26.01.2015)
214 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
Repeatedly the planning system was referred to by interviewees as the right platform to support policy integration. For instance, if it was not for the planning system flood risk management “would just be viewed as a constraint on development… and that is why the planning process is there, to make sure we understand constraints” (Local Government Planner 4, 11.12.2014). This is somewhat unsurprising as “planning has been the primary arena in which competing objectives for future land use in the UK are played out, striving to achieve reconciliation between often conflicting objectives and aspirations” (Allmendinger and Haughton 2012, p. 89). There is an expectation that the planning system is able to deal with local needs and priorities.
However, despite reliance on the planning system, to support policy integration and to negotiate conflicts it has been suggested that the planning system is not working properly with one interviewee stating:
“There is a lot of criticism with the planning system about saying it’s a restriction on growth but actually it’s the issue, the issue is actually that the planning system isn’t working properly. If it was working properly then it would be a real driver for environmental benefit, it would be a real driver for flood risk management” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 1, 17.12.14).
It is important for actors to be involved in the planning process, to be able to actively support long term planning for flood risk management and economic development but most importantly actors need faith in its ability to support policy integration. Although this research would suggest that despite attempts since 2010 to shift power from central government towards the local level as a process of decentralisation to improve the planning system interviewees still felt that the planning system is not working properly in terms of integrating flood risk management policy.
From a local authority perspective the authority now has a double hat, one for flood risk management and one for development approval which is causing conflict (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). One interviewee discussed a challenge witnessed during the production of a Local
215 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
Development Plan that the Planning Inspector identified that the Local Authority had not carried out sequential testing in the allocation of sites. On reflection, the interviewee stated:
“if you’re looking at policy and how you enforce it and how that can play a role, my own view, not Salford’s [Local Authority] obviously, is that sometimes those things do not get applied as rigorously as they could do. Part of the reason might be that actually no one is actually policing them but if the inspector started to pick on it but then that would require strong leadership at the national level which you probably won’t get with the current government” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015).
The removal of the regional tier of the planning system has returned greater decision making powers on housing and planning to local authorities but evidence is present indicating that this new responsibility is taking time to comprehend in practice and presents a new relational geography. While talking about the usefulness of Local Development Plans one interviewee expressed concern with their value stating that “typically, we’ve got very good development plans written and that’s the problem and the process becomes so convoluted and bogged down in the detail that actually their value, and [that they are] politically charged as well, that their value is much less than it should be” (Regional Charity, Flood Risk Management 1, 17.12.14). There is pressure for the local authority to make the right decisions for flood risk management and economic development and now more than ever to collaborate across different geographies. However, as explained by Allmendinger and Haughton (2012) although devolution should be a process that leads to greater local empowerment and provide more meaningful planning it is not necessarily accompanied by greater resource to new planning bodies.
Another new geography is the Local Enterprise Partnership which forms one of a combination of measures to ensure that strategic planning operates and is intended to work with planners. Slightly different in Greater Manchester because the LEP is very much also integrated into the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Their role is quite rightly limited to a non-statutory body but one actor felt that they should have more power but in doing so did acknowledge that “if LEPs are to take
216 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy on a more formal role in the statutory planning process, it is probable that significant tension will arise between the needs of business and of democratic accountability” (Regional NGO Environment, 19.03.15). Several interviewees felt that more work was needed to connect and share knowledge with LEP’s about flood risk management especially due to their strong link with business and councils and taking over the economic development role of the former regional planning bodies. As argued by Waterhout et al, (2013) LEP’s are heavily dependent on partnership with the private sector and have by purpose a specific focus on economic growth. Their partnership to the private sector is important for the context of policy integration due to the current policy of ‘Partnership Funding’ which requires project costs to be shared between national and local funding sources encouraging the release of government funds in some instances only as a result of third party contribution to the project. However, a local authority interviewee felt that the LEP’s could be taken out of the equation because they focus on business and promotional work as opposed to being involved in the spatial or the physical (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Also, starkly in contrast a private sector interviewee has “been trying since the LEPs were created to try and get a foot in the door to get them to understand how we can help them” (Regional Private Infrastructure, 5.02.2015).
Potential areas of common ground have been identified where both policy areas meet and share common goals. This has been observed within the case studies as being framed by the concepts such as sustainability and resilience. In practice the framing is achieved by processes such as the statutory planning system, formalised working groups such as the RFCC Board, its sub-groups and initiatives such as the EU LIFE Project all arguably seeking to reconcile and delivery policy outcomes. These processes have limitations but appear necessary in some form or another to be able to facilitate policy integration. The majority of interviewees felt that it was important for institutions and organisations to organise themselves.
7.3.4 Economic and Financial - Challenge of Resource The challenge of resource comprises of two interrelated facets, the resource of people and the resource of finance. Governance by its nature requires a wide functioning
217 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy group of actors both aware of and available to participate in policy integration. However, principally identified within this research is the lack of people resource to engage in policy integration, likely to have resulted from local public sector budgets reduction, in parallel with increased responsibility over recent years but also wider public and private sector underestimation of the resource needed for policy integration. For instance, specific changes to the management of flood risk implemented by the FWMA in 2010 has given local authorities a greater role and responsibility for local flood risk. However, many interviewees talked about fewer resources being available to support delivery of the revised governance resulting from the FWMA.
Despite Government making available funds, £21million for 2011/2012 and £36million for 2012/2013 (Defra 2010), accessible by a risk based grant system to fully cover the local authority costs for putting into place and carrying out new responsibilities, in practice limitations were reported. One interviewee explained that the major resulting impact of the FWMA was one of panic “districts suddenly felt that there was a lot of duties imposed on them and although they were getting DEFRA funding, that wasn’t ring fenced so for some districts it was taken away” (Local Government Planner 1, 16.01.15). Also, one interviewee has observed “the EA pulling back from how involved they get in planning applications and you could argue that they should have a greater role in exception tests and the sequential test, that local authorities are doing that properly and fully. They don’t really do that” (Local Government, Flood Risk Management 3, 11.03.2015). This concern of people resource for supporting policy integration was also a finding in research undertaken by Russel et al. (2018) on climate change integration. In this research resource was also limited for individuals operating across scales of governance.
As a result of changing landscapes of governance (Johnson and Priest 2008) more demand is placed on organisational actors. However, organisations seem to be insufficiently prepared for new tasks of incorporating flood risk management (Scott et al. 2013). The case study of Greater Manchester aligns with this research particularly from a local authority perspective whereby actors tended to describe a feeling of overwhelming unfairness, one in particular explaining that “they had a lot of duties enforced but weren’t actually geared up to deal with them” (Local Government Planner 1, 16.01.15). Such
218 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy evidence is contrary to the promoted reasons behind decentralisation and effective local risk management.
It is argued by Scott et al, (2013) that within changing contexts of increasing complexity due to shifts towards a multi-scalar governance, the idea of social capacity building, including aspects of knowledge, motivation, network, financial and governance, are required to deal with the changing context. This research supports the need for actors to develop social capacity building for policy integration especially because organisations and authorities not only develop other actors’ capacities but need continuous capacity building themselves as a result of resource limitations across governance scales.
In the Greater Manchester context, the city regional governance arrangements have actually attempted to support this lack of resource by promoting the need for both people and financial resource. Ultimately managing to “get them [local councils], some of them anyway, to ring fence some of the budgets received from DEFRA to actually keep it on flood risk so there is a real result and capacity in each district” (Local Government Planner 1, 16.01.15). This shows the relationship between actors at the city regional scale and the local scale to be pivotal and advisory but importantly respected as the actor continues to explain that some districts did set aside finance for specific flood risk projects.
In respect to the policy process and the development of projects and programmes a long period of time is often present between inception and implementation, as was demonstrated throughout the international case studies (Chapter 4). Therefore, throughout this period of time it can be expected that many people will become involved and uninvolved with the policy process. This change in actors can make it difficult to retain knowledge, relationships and continuity for those involved and in turn affect policy integration and the realisation of its opportunities. A challenge which could be somewhat relieved by improving individual actors social capability building.
If resource is considered in terms of the actors and linking to Freeman’s (2012) notion that power is strongly associated with activities that policy actors do simply as the capacity of talking and writing, then limited resource to be able to feed into the policy process will inhibit policy integration. One actor explains that:
219 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy
“Increasingly the shelves are littered with policies some are good and some are not very good. The ones that are not very good are because they are not very well targeted and nobody has thought through who needs to deliver this, how they need to deliver it and how they can work together to deliver it and over what times scales and are there any niggles in that, are there any showstoppers, are there any blockages which need to be thought through in advance rather than just hitting them and then worrying” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015).
This quote indicates frustrations that policy actor’s hold towards the build-up of policies, some of which are seen to have no merit at the local level. This also resonates with the lack of progress with SUDS, of particular note within the Salford case study where frustrations were felt due to the lack of clear policy on SUDS but also anticipation of the local resource which would be required to enforce and negotiate SUDS. Not only do these challenges raise significant issues for the facilitation of policy integration at the local level but wider implications for being able to actually deliver integration across scales of governance. Policy integration would be impossible without all sectors allocating resource both time and money to facilitate integration in practice.
7.3.5 Behaviour, Cultural and Personal - Challenge of Integrating Actors Chapter 2 argued for a perspective that views spaces, territories and governance as fluid and flexible, with more static territorial governance arrangements interweaving with spaces in which various forms of connectivity and associated partnership working are continually formed and reformed to the changing world (Delanty and Rumford 2005; Kidd and Shaw 2013). This perspective is in contrast to using a place-based conception of space; instead new scales comprising a mix of formal and informal policy intervention are constantly being reworked, creating new space of ‘scalar flux’ or ‘scalar complexity’ (Brenner 1999; Jones 2001). Having established an area of common ground, a further challenge exists in respect of fostering the relationships between the wide spectrum of actors drawn upon by the concepts of multi-scalar governance and related geographies. The challenge of integration, must therefore, not just be considered in terms of policy, but also those who are a stakeholder of integration. In order to foster these relationships, actors need to be able to communicate their own policy aspirations and understand those
220 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy of others. However, this in itself requires elements of a skill set which is considered new to some actors, that of negotiation and an understanding of concepts beyond their own discipline and personal field of expertise, a challenge which was further discussed in Section 7.3.4.
One interviewee, while critically talking about current attempts towards policy integration, stated that:
“it’s easiest to jump straight to the idea that if we integrate better between flood risk management and economic development that we’ll solve flooding problems and we’ll improve economic growth, actually I think… we would just understand each other better” (Regional Government Flood Risk Management 3, 12.02.15)
A specific facet of this challenge relates to the varying scales of governance. This research shows that there are a number of actors, both governmental and non- governmental, that form a fluid and flexible governance landscape. This presents multiple scales through which to negotiate and implement policy integration. There are benefits to working through multi-scalar governance arrangements, as shown by the case of Greater Manchester. However, policy conflicts also arise, both spatially and between the scales of governance. Such conflicts hinder the ability of actors to think strategically about flood risk management. This applies at a local level, but also presents conflicts in relation to the implementation of national initiatives, locally. Some interviewees raised concerns with a lack of guidance in relation to such initiatives, for example in the case of SUDS. Again, the ability of actors to communicate effectively, is seen as crucial to successfully navigating the complex governance landscape and ultimately integrating policy.
Furthermore, the effects of state rescaling has rationalized previously known resources, roles and responsibilities. Such rescaling has involved changes to the functional and indeed relational boundaries of governance in England, altering traditional roles of key actors and adding an element of complexity to what is already considered to be a broad and ambitious challenge of policy integration. Although the changing dynamics of governance is nothing new, actors appear to struggle to adjust to a changeable governance landscape. Being able to navigate altering scales of governance, some newly created and other legacy ways of working which remain in the mind set of
221 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy actors, presents a further barrier to integration, as roles and responsibilities are not always clear, and are frequently seen to change, inhibiting continual progress in a cohesive direction. One interviewee stated precisely that “the challenge is how we can bring together their [local authority] agenda because although local authorities have the responsibility, I think there is still an uncertainty at least from my personal perspective in terms of how those organisations are working together” (Regional Private Developer, 13.03.15).
For improved policy integration, in practice, actors are required to actively engage in wider policy discourses and wider policy objectives than may have been previously required to be able to combine the aspirations of flood risk management and economic development policy. Seeking policy integration recognises the need for a more integrated approach which reflects not only contemporary understandings of challenges that have to be addressed, but also awareness of the shortcomings of previous frameworks in dealing with these challenges.
Understanding such a challenge of perception requires actors to consider what policy is and their role in the practice of policy making themselves specifically – what it is that policy makers do? (Freeman 2012). It is contested by Freeman (2012) that power lies in the capacity of talking and writing: to determine who attends and who speaks, who records and who writes and who says and does nothing. Policy integration requires actors to be aware of the power they have in moving and changing policy practice across governance scales and actors. Fundamental to this challenge is that policy actors needs to be aware that policy integration should be understood as a process that entails various elements that do not necessarily move in a concerted way but may develop at different paces or even in opposite directions (Candel and Biesbroek 2016).
7.4 Summary This chapter discusses the main challenges of integrating flood risk management and economic development policy. Highlighting that actors need to be able to navigate in a politically charged environment in order to seek common ground between sometimes completely different views and policy goals. That the scale and re-workings of
222 Chapter 7: Discussions Surrounding the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Policy governance has a significant role in enabling improved policy integration and that planning for the long-term needs to be supported by clear processes and management approaches. Furthermore, that resource both in terms of financial and people needs to be available and managed. Policy actors need to be able to understand and communicate about policy and how it is integrated.
223 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
224 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Introduction This chapter sets out the final conclusions of the thesis. Firstly, by providing a high level contextual summary of the early chapters of the work together with relevant conclusions structured around the research objectives; secondly, identifying the main contribution to knowledge from the research; before finally, consideration is given to limitations of the research and recommendations for where further research can be undertaken in order to further contribute towards knowledge in the research area.
8.2 Interpretation and Reflection
8.2.1 Contextual Summary Chapter 1 defined the research problem and introduced the central aim of the thesis which is to understand the challenges of integrating flood risk management and economic development policy across multiple scales of governance with particular reference to experience with river catchments within the North West of England. The chapter also sets out the objectives used to answer this aim.
Chapter 2 reviewed the literature on spaces of governance and the implications for policy integration. A conceptual framework was developed to help improve understanding of the relationship between economic development and flood risk management policy and how their aspirations can be reconciled. The chapter introduced some of the associated concepts which influence our governance of space such as neoliberalism, governance, the river basin, and begins to critically engage with the challenges of policy integration. Firstly, the chapter examined the concepts of governance and its evolution, outlining the contemporary implications of our ability to consider political government as an activity rather than an institution. Secondly, this political and economic restructuring was discussed in terms of its continual impacts upon how we perceive, manage and plan urban space by governance. It illustrated that negotiating multi-scalar governance was more difficult perhaps at the intersection of policy domains than it was within a single policy domain. Finally, the chapter considered how such governance dimensions can become a useful analytical frame to unpick the problems associated with policy integration.
225 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 3 set out the research design and methodological approach adopted during this research. The approach was designed to connect the existing theoretical framework and questions established in Chapter 2 into a clear strategy of enquiry relevant to the present contemporary empirical context. The chapter presented the overall research strategy by describing and justifying the theoretical underpinnings, the data obtained and the character of the approach. Crucially, the research was undertaken as an ESRC CASE award in partnership with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), providing an opportunity to enable regionally specific aspirations for economic development and local regeneration within the locality of Greater Manchester to be closely engaged with the research.
8.2.2 Collaborative Research This research was a CASE Studentship whereby AGMA as an external partner (CASE partner) collaborated with Manchester University to co-supervise the research. This is an approach that is often referred to as the co-production of knowledge, providing an alternative to non-CASE Studentships with the academics and the CASE partner initially agreeing the research focus. In this instance a research focus was placed on the challenges of policy integration between flood risk management and economic development in Greater Manchester. Also, predefined was the requirement to undertake a review of ‘internal’ institutional experience in policy integration.
This research approach is attractive as it helps to ensure that academic research has benefits beyond academia, hopefully with application to the wider society. The relationship between academia and the CASE partner has been positive enabling several enhancements throughout the research process. Firstly, the partnership enabled a direct link to AGMA via a single point of contact who acted as a third supervisor throughout the duration of the thesis. A single person of contact enabled open discussions which was particularly useful during the early stages of research when the questions were being framed and established into an aim and objectives. The ability to have one to one conversations and supervisory meetings during this time challenged my thinking about what was being reviewed within the academic literature but also supplemented its development by adding an intrinsically practical aspects to the academic articles being
226 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations read. This helped to gain confidence that the research was progressing while being grounded by practical challenges. For instance, the interview discussion guide was reviewed by the CASE partner resulting in amendments before interviews commenced. However, at this time it was a challenge to link the detailed discussions on practice to the theory and then develop a conceptual framework.
A substantial benefit was realised as a result of the established network of policy actors working with AGMA, which led to a greater accessibility to these actors through AGMA rather than as a sole researcher. There was also an element of credibility and opportunity in terms of the stakeholders interviewed as a result of the collaboration with the CASE partner. Some interviewees expressed an eagerness to participate in the research and a willingness to share their thoughts as a result of the collaboration. However, for those interviewees who declined, were unable or did not respond to participate, the reason for this was not challenged and could have been as a result of the collaboration with AGMA. It is felt that this is unlikely but could be a limitation, influencing the balance of interviewees from different sectors agreeing to participate.
On reflection, the collaboration for this research has been positive in terms of access to actors and material. However, it must be acknowledged that some critiques exist for research undertaken by co-production of knowledge. The CASE partner did allow for a large amount of independence in terms of the research framing and did not take a lead in its development. However it was able to influence the research and no doubt would have had pre-determined agendas and motives. It could be argued that this leads the academic research to lose its long standing traditional of independence due to the nature of co- production itself (O’Hare et al. 2010). However, in this instance it was felt that the research was not co-produced in terms of equal responsibility rather an element of power was given to the CASE partner early on to help predefine the research agenda. Academic independence was respected throughout by the CASE partner. In part it has been a challenge to ensure that the research is robust in terms of academic achievement and contributes to useful practical outcomes for the CASE partner, within timeframes acceptable to both parties. However, this research process extended considerably beyond the timeframes originally anticipated and as such there was a need for careful negotiation by the supervisory team to manage the expectations of the CASE partner.
227 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, the research has developed as a result of careful mediation by the academic supervisory team and the ability to be able to gain the right balance between academic research and practical policy implications. This was not least achievable due to the understanding demonstrated by the CASE partner of the academic process.
8.3 Perception, Practice and Challenges
8.3.1 Introduction This section discusses how Objective I, II and III have been met. Firstly, Objective I to examine how actors within a multi-scalar governance context perceive impacts between flood risk management and economic development policy. Secondly, Objective II the analysis of international and national contemporary practice in the integration of flood risk management and economic development to understand the approaches and opportunities from policy integration. Finally, Objective III to use detailed case studies to explore the challenges of integrating flood risk policy and economic development policy in the city regional governance context of Greater Manchester.
8.3.2 Perceptions of the Integration of Flood Risk Management and Economic Development Policy The first objective of the research was to examine how actors within a multi- scalar governance context perceive impacts between flood risk management and economic development policy.
This research provides a detailed and critical account of the perceptions of impacts and opportunities associated with the practice of policy integration for flood risk management and economic development policy. The research sets out an understanding of where we are now in terms of the aspirational goal of policy integration, with some interviewees observing that policy integration between flood risk management and economic development is occurring and that some actors are seeking out opportunities while others are not. A divergence in perception was observed, of what policy integration
228 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations means between actors, with actors often aligning themselves to their own focused perception based on discipline area, organisational position or geographical setting and struggling to facilitate integration where these boundaries are removed. Altering these perceptions was identified as a key challenge in embracing a broader consideration of the role flood risk management policy can have in supporting aspirations for, rather than acting as a barrier to, economic growth with actors not actively engaging in a wider policy discourse, supporting integration and achieving wider objectives for policy integration.
Flood risk management is still widely perceived as a barrier to economic development but most actors understood the need to try to reconcile these differences. The policies of flood risk management and economic development themselves were thought to play an important role in bringing together actors, by creating and orchestrating the landscape within which they exist, but emphasis remained on the dominance of economic development policy, rather than flood risk management as a means for removing potential barriers to growth and playing a key role in unlocking potential economic benefits. Notwithstanding, a greater understanding was seen as beginning to develop for a potential role of flood risk management in facilitating economic development. Economic development policy is seen to have a legacy of dominance over flood risk management policy, with the drivers for economic growth seen as both a competing and complementary agenda to that of flood risk management discourse.
It was found that areas of common ground between the policy areas had not been identified by actors although most interviewees referring to the concept of sustainable development, resilience and spatial planning as a potential joining mechanism for policy integration.
8.3.3 International and National Contemporary Practices in the Integration of Flood Risk Management and Economic Development Policy The second objective of the research was to analyse international and national contemporary practice in the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy to understand the approaches and opportunities arising from policy integration.
229 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
This research has provided a critical review of international project examples where aspirations for economic development and management of flood risk were a prominent consideration. Each project provided an individual case study and collectively represented a scoping exercise used to unpick the differences and similarities in approaches to policy integration. The review was requested by the CASE partner, AGMA and arose from preliminary research undertaken on their behalf and as part of this research during 2012 – 2013, from which further analysis was undertaken. Fundamentally, the review illustrated that economic development projects at the intersection of delivering flood risk management and economic development policy used different approaches to handle conflict and execute the projects; and that the different scales and boundaries of both the institutional and natural landscape was a challenge to reconcile in practice.
The projects collectively demonstrated an international trend to move away from traditional, regulatory instruments of government to a new governance approach to policy delivery (Greenwood and Newman 2010). The review helped to scope the contemporary challenges which can arise during policy integration between flood risk management and economic development. All projects showed a shift, of varying degrees towards a greater involvement of the private sector and civil society, together with a wider framing of actors seen as necessary to catalyse the delivery of economic development and flood risk management objectives. New approaches and consortiums have led to new challenges and a new skill set for those involved in policy integration. Each project appeared to be predominantly driven by and concentrated on economic development policy objectives, despite flood risk being locally and regionally significant in each case. In some aspects the ability to spatially plan was not evident, with individual projects advancing independent from the wider economy and environmental issues. All projects evolved with a degree of administrative complexity, challenging delivery despite attempts to reduce regulatory burden, in part due to the wider spectrum of actors and objectives. Nevertheless, the projects all needed an overall governance strategy to support effective integration.
230 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
8.3.4 Challenges of Integration of Flood Risk Management and Economic Development Policy at the Multiple Scales of City Regional Governance The third objective of the research was to use detailed case studies to explore the challenges of integrating flood risk policy and economic development policy, focusing on the multiple scales of city regional governance in Greater Manchester.
This research has provided new insights into the challenges of policy integration across multiple scales of governance and explored the extent to which actors have been successful in promoting integration of flood risk management and economic development. An initial focus was placed on the scale of the River Basin, with subsequent focus on the positioning of Greater Manchester within this catchment. A brief overview of the history of policy at the scale of the River Mersey Catchment identified its importance to the city region of Greater Manchester and case examples of projects within the areas of Salford and Rochdale were used to begin to unpick the opportunities and practicalities of policy integration.
A considerable number of governmental and non-governmental activities now form the governance landscape of flood risk management and economic development, presenting multiple scales through which to negotiate policy integration. Policy conflicts, which are seen to slow progress and hinder the ability of actors to think strategically about trans-boundary flood risk, easily arise throughout the multi-scalar governance arrangement. For example, the question of who is responsible for and receives the costs and benefits of a scheme respectively, not least in relation to upstream and downstream areas.
One of the main tensions between flood risk management and economic policy was seen to be the high aspirations for economic growth across Greater Manchester. The challenge of a lack of available development land was said to put pressure on all areas of land, helping to drive the need to adequately manage flood risk to unlock locations for future development. Potential tensions were seen to exist and be caused by the local authority choosing to ensure developers abide to, potentially costly, strict flood and water management policy, which may result in a loss of potential development and investment in the area.
231 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
A number of conflicts were revealed by the embedded case studies of Rochdale and Salford. The case studies concerned two distinctly different geographic and administrative areas which have faced different challenges but also a common partnership within the political framework of the Greater Manchester city region. Both have been able to secure funding for flood risk management in combination with economic development benefits, although this has predominantly been sourced from central government rather than negotiated from a wider source of private sector actors.
Although very different in flood risk profile due to geographic location, both embedded case studies are intrinsically linked in terms of flood risk management, “If we turn on the taps in Rochdale then somebody in Salford gets wet feet” (Local Government Planner 3, 18.02.2015). Policy is therefore required to be both adaptable and scalable – to account for local delivery and impacts, but also regional aspirations and impacts. Fundamental tensions emerged between different geographical actors, as a result of the hydrological connectivity between spaces, and the need to plan and co-ordinate activities across space.
Policy integration was widely accepted as a desirable approach, however, research demonstrated a need to blur traditional boundaries of governance and to encourage ways of working which enables negotiation of policy integration across multiple scales. Challenges remain in relation to actors’ abilities to fully present the wider benefits potentially achieved from policy integration, with actors often required to be adaptable to changing landscapes of governance and varying responsibilities requiring a different set of skills and resources.
The literature and policy review both highlight concerns about governance confusion in relation to flood risk policy. What this thesis revealed was that this confusion remained, despite the Water and Flood Act which clarified lead roles. The reason for this can be attributed to the way in which floods policy necessarily intersects with other policy domains, not least planning and economic development.
The case study demonstrates how actors were still working through ways of improved working at and across multiple scales, a process that was particularly intricate when it came to the interface between economic development aspirations and flood management priorities. However the case studies revealed the extent to which whilst
232 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations concerns were widespread across all actors, there was nonetheless evidence of where locally considerable progress had been made. The Salford and Rochdale examples were instructive here. Though neither case study was without room for criticism, in both cases those interviewed felt that considerable progress had been made in bringing together the diverse partners to agree on the need for and shape new policy interventions, the embodiment of policy integration.
The Salford and Rochdale case studies revealed that negotiating multi-scalar governance was more difficult perhaps at the intersection of policy domains than it was within a single policy domain, as work on policy integration would suggest (Chapter 2). Where this study revealed fresh insight was in revealing the extent to which national government funding was implicated in the success or otherwise of moving forward with a policy integration agenda. In both Salford and Rochdale, progress was made in improving the delivery of integrated policy, drawing on both the shared work of regional and local actors, but also crucially on national government recognising the value of such work and rewarding it with sufficient funding to bring forward projects. This suggests that policy integration needs to be seen in future academic work in relation to the power dynamics of multi-scalar governance, recognising the ways in which local actors may well be able to progress integrated approaches locally at the level of ideas, but only when there is buyin from funders at regional, national or European scale is there likely to be progress on the ground.
The high hopes of developer contributions to policy at this intersection remained largely hopes still, with barriers remaining to getting developers, and indeed local communities, to accept that the best place for better improvement might not be on site, but somewhere outside the local area, possibly even in a different local authority altogether, as demonstrated by the upstream interventions in Salford and Rochdale.
The results chapters (Chapters 4, 5 and 6) suggest the pervasiveness of the local competition aspects of neoliberal policy, but with the important distinction that such agendas were much more evident in the field of economic development than flood risk management. When the two policy areas came into conversation, perhaps inevitably the discourses of promoting growth as a means to provide social outcomes tended to dominate the conversation. In other words, whilst the general policy context might have
233 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations been neoliberal with its promotion of economic growth and scepticism about the role of government and regulation in intervening in markets, in practice it can be seen that the work on flood risk informed economic development and actually is a way of helping growth by reducing risks and opening up new, better protected areas for growth activities, whether it be new houses as in Salford and parts of Rochdale, or new businesses in Rochdale town centre and Port Salford. In this instance the neoliberal discourse did not mean that rationalities and policy outcomes for flood risk management were narrowed or reduced but strengthened as a result of renegotiated policy integration. Flood risk management policy is a progressive agenda for the city region and can support economic growth.
8.4 Recommendations for Improved Policy Integration The fourth objective of the research was to make recommendations regarding improved integration of flood risk management and economic development policy.
The recommendations and their intended outcomes are not intended to be comprehensive, and although this research has indicated potential benefits associated with resolving specific issues, it must be remembered that full policy integration is considered a long term ambition requiring comprehensive policy evolution or to put it another way, each solution to any policy problem is likely to throw up fresh challenges needing new solutions.
Recommendations for improved policy integration are presented below categorised by political; institutional/organisational; economic/financial; process and management; and behavioural, cultural and personal recommendations. The recommendations are suggested based on the challenges of policy integration identified throughout the research and reflective of stakeholder opinions, each being assigned to particular actors for targeted implementation where appropriate.
Specific recommendations for improved policy integration, categorised thematically as political; institutional/organisational; economic/financial; process and management; and behavioural, cultural and personal recommendations are included in section 8.4.5 below.
234 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
8.4.1 Political The research identifies a divergence in perception amongst policy actors together with varying and conflicting views and policy goals demonstrating a need to establish common ground where mutually beneficial policy aspirations and outcomes can be understood, negotiated and achieved: i.e. identify, communicate and strengthen potential areas of common ground as platforms to begin to reconcile divergence and engagement (Section 7.3.1). Such work should in turn help to create dialogue and ground for negotiation and collaboration to realise mutually desirable policy outcomes. These areas of common ground either being created by problem definition, interest or approaches to working should be recognised and understood for their merits in facilitating policy integration. The strong political factors are able to facilitate and inhibit policy integration but such factors also present opportunity to greater understand the needs and perceptions of other actors. All actors should be involved as key stakeholders in a common ground approach, however it is noted that such an initiative would need to be led by strategic influencers across the governance landscape. For example, highly political configurations such as LEPs have the potential for greater engagement across the direct relationships between flood risk management and economic development policies, which this research shows to be present.
Policy integration is very much dependent on political commitment at all scales of governance with leaders who are able to convey the wider context of a problem. Therefore, it is recommended that all political leaders across the governance landscape demonstrate a strong commitment to improved policy integration between flood risk management and economic development (Section 7.3.1). Commitment can be achieved by formally and informally promoting the benefits and opportunities of policy integration both internally within their institution/organisations and externally. Establish a goal to seek out compatible partners to foster integration around common ground and set aside time to realise this goal.
It could also be acknowledged that it is a challenge for actors to operate with political neutrality towards common ground. These actors operate within a politically charged context where there is conflict between different political and economic interests. Further actors often align themselves to their own focused perception based on disciplines area and/or on their specific administrative and institutional boundaries. The research also
235 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations identified the importance of political will mobilisation and recognised the existing prevalence of the dominance of economic development policy. It is recommended that a campaign initiative to increase awareness and understanding of policy integration, together with promoting its effectiveness as a tool for economic growth and challenging the existing drive for economic development is championed by key leaders and influencers (Section 7.3.2).
The mobilisation of policy integration was seen to be more comfortably achieved at the local scale with limited delivery from the public and private sector to actively integrate policy at the wider catchment scale, where political drive frames policy problems at the local or regional level. Further effort should be given to politically strengthening the use of the catchment based approach for policy integration (Section 6.4.2 and Section 6.5.2).
Due to strong affiliation amongst policy actors towards the term resilience and the previously discussed limitations of the concept, it is recommended that consideration is given to further definition and development of the term and how the concept can be used meaningfully to bridge the gap between flood risk and economic development rather than it being used as a political ‘buzz’ word (Section 7.2). Instead, a clear definition and strategy could be developed by AGMA to operationalise its managing across the city region and beyond.
At present there is much political focus on the development of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework which provides an opportunity to embed policy into the framework. It is recommend that AGMA ensure and maintain that the relationship between economic development policy aspirations and flood risk management are fairly portrayed within the Greater Manchester Spatial Plan (Section 6.3.1). The plan presents an approach to demonstrate the influence that flood risk management policy can have on unlocking economic development policy but also the importance of flood risk management.
236 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
8.4.2 Institutional/ Organisational Some degree of difference and fragmentation between flood risk management and economic development policy areas is inevitable due to their disparate nature and specialisation amongst associated institutions and organisations involved in their implementation. However, despite this it is essential that institutions and organisations are able to collaborate for the purposes of facilitating policy integration. Therefore, it is recommended that a capacity for centralised overview of policy integration be developed responsible for achieving cross sector policy and development of long term agendas (Section 5.4.3). It is felt that this capacity should be developed by a committee of representatives from key institutions and organisations involved in flood risk management and economic development policy who would be responsible for development and implementation. Process and management to support the capability would also need to be developed (Section 8.4.2).
A strategy should be developed to promote the transfer and reduce the loss of knowledge and to maintain relationships for flood risk management and economic development policy integration within each institution/organisation (Section 7.3.4). As will be discussed in Section 8.4.5 the individual actors themselves are pivotal in driving policy integration therefore turnover of actors within and between roles can inhibit policy integration. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the institutional and organisational apparatus for dealing with changes in actors.
All organisations need to ensure that opportunities for flood risk management are considered alongside economic development projects. AGMA and local authorities should lead and develop the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework as an opportunity to facilitate the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy (Section 6.3.1).
8.4.3 Process and Management As the concept of policy integration is demanding for both the private and public sectors to realise in practice, formal and informal process and management approaches are necessary and important. It is recommended that a clear set of processes should be
237 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations developed to help ensure that all opportunities resulting from flood risk management are considered alongside economic development, to ensure that policy integration is occurring and to give actors a strategy for implementation (Section 7.3.3). Strategies including process and management approaches go some way to instilling collective confidence and impetus to drive policy forwards across governance scales. However, such approaches do need to be flexible. Although merit can be seen in procedural and management processes these should not be too prescriptive and be developed for the institution/organisation individually as rigid approaches may give rise to conflict themselves. This recommendation is focused on all stakeholders understanding what their residing organisation considers as means to facilitate policy integration.
A void is observed where economic development policy at a regional level does not have a governance structure such as that which is seen in the city region of Greater Manchester. The RFCC goes some way towards providing direction at a catchment level, however there is no formalised process for addressing flood risk management and economic development policy integration beyond local and city regional scales. Such processes need to foster open policy networks within and between organisations. In the case of AGMA it is recommended that effort needs to be given to the development of approaches which stretch current policy beyond the city region of Greater Manchester for the context of flood risk management and economic development policy. In doing so, AGMA and local authorities should fully engage with a policy integration agenda and the geographies beyond the city region to explore conflicts and opportunities. An example of particular relevance would be the hydrological connections upstream and downstream and their relationship between flood risk management and economic development policy.
In addition and at a local level, individual officers for flood risk management would benefit from increased connectivity to policy makers, discussed further as areas of common ground (Section 7.3.1).
It is recommended that formalised processes are developed to anticipate, detect and resolve policy conflicts so that these do not prevent policy aspirations from being achieved (Section 7.3.3). The processes should have a degree of flexibility to allow adjustment in light of new information, progress and/or changing circumstances. Further,
238 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
AGMA could strengthen formalised structures which support engagement across the city region so that policy conflicts are identified and managed as early as possible.
AGMA and local authorities need to show support and commitment to the use of policy integration processes such as planning tools, workshops and focus groups to identify impacts, opportunities and conflicts. Actors in all sectors need to be provided with the necessary resource to be able to reflect on the policy relationship across scales of governance (Section 7.3.4). Although the city region is considered to have consistent policies for flood risk management a review of policy integration with each local authority would also be beneficial. In parallel, an AGMA led review, with support from local authorities, to determine how well planning tools support policy integration and decision making to reconcile policy priorities could identify focus areas for improvement.
It was observed that there was a difficulty in articulating the economic business case for policy integration. The process of policy analysis could be improved to facilitate greater understanding and portrayal of the beneficial economic costs resulting from policy integration. Such understanding would then in turn be able to improve actors’ ability to communicate and negotiate policy integration. It is felt that this would be best achieved at a regional level, although all actors would need access to and gain benefit from this process.
8.4.4 Economic/ Financial Integration is often associated with efficiency: it allows economies of scale, limits uncertainty and shares risk. However, there are also major costs involved for the actors involved in the process of integration. Although there is a strong agenda and expectation for any policy to achieve social, environmental and economic benefit there is often no allocated finance to support specific objectives for policy integration. It is recommended that incentive structures and appraisal systems are developed in order to promote and reward policy integration (7.3.4).
Building upon recommendations made in section 8.3 and due to the challenges of conveying the economic benefits of policy integration, it is recommended that an evidence base for the cost-benefit analysis of projects in relation to the integration of flood risk management and economic development is developed. In doing so, it is hoped
239 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations that such improvements to cost benefit analysis may support the identification and prioritisation of viable land uses for development.
It is important to understand the gains in resource from policy integration and the sharing of costs and risks as policies are developed and integrated. For benchmarking purposes, it would be useful if the extent of policy integration and degree of financial benefit could be measured.
In order to prevent further erosion of resources in relation to both available finance and time, it is suggested that funding associated with flood risk management and policy integration is ring-fenced. Furthermore, a mechanism for cross-boundary funding should be developed in order to support catchment wide initiatives. Further, funding initiatives could be co-ordinated at a city regional scale rather than being individually submitted by local authorities with AGMA having a central overview and remit.
8.4.5 Behavioural, Cultural and Personal Many of the facilitators and inhibitors of policy integration centre on the relationship between organisations and individuals with cultural factors being a key component being able to facilitate policy integration.
It is recommended that all organisations foster a positive attitude and culture towards working with other organisations for joint endeavours (Section 7.3.5). Such a cultural change could be supported by producing a directory of actors and their objectives, to strengthen the current network of actors and enabling them to more easily engage beyond their typical boundaries of work.
The behaviour and culture of an organisations needs to support actors being able to be comfortable, trusted and supported to stretch beyond the parameters of their specific policy role. It is felt that this is a function of strong leadership and organisational commitment discussed in Section 8.4.2.
There is currently limited visibility of the extent of stakeholder networks and to what degree they interact. This could be mapped to provide clarity on those involved with policy integration and provide a useful roadmap for identifying common ground as discussed in Section 7.3.1 above.
240 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
A focus should be placed on actors being able to understand their own contribution to aspirations for policy integration between flood risk management and economic development but also that of others within their network. This network should be considered as stakeholders both within and beyond their current organisation to foster broader collaboration together with accountability to the institution they represent. Further, strategies should be developed to reduce the loss of knowledge and maintain relationships for flood risk management and economic development policy integration.
241 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
8.5 Contribution of this Research Unequivocally, the PhD is a piece of research designed to add an original contribution to knowledge. This thesis was developed based on the understanding that existing academic literature on the perspectives of actors towards aspirations for policy integration between flood risk management and economic development policy was limited. Despite policy integration rising as an academic concept and policy aspiration since the mid-1990s there is limited research on the activity of policy integration between flood risk management and the pursuit for economic development in practice.
This research adds to the existing academic literature on contemporary governance by analysing policy integration between flood risk management and economic development policy. It considers policy integration by examining how actors perceive impacts between flood risk management and economic development policy. It analyses the contemporary challenges and opportunities for the actors residing within the relatively newly established multi-scalar governance arrangements for flood risk management and economic development. The rescaling of governance encourages creative responses to the challenges of change which is analysed through work undertaken in the Mersey Basin, specifically the city region of Greater Manchester.
The research generated new insight into these challenges, providing a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities for flood risk management and economic development policy. The research drew on literature focused upon governance, policy integration and flood risk management, contributing to ongoing debates on integration and provided new, empirical findings. This led to a series of recommendations for improved integration of flood risk management and economic development policy.
The main challenges for policy integration include conflicts which arise between the political and economic interests of actors; the ability of actors to rebalance from the dominance of economic development policy and to articulate the drivers for policy integration; the capability and power of actors to be able to influence strategies for the long term and; the limited availability of people and financial resource to facilitate policy integration. Despite challenges being far reaching across scales of governance, the opportunities for policy integration were seen to exist especially in relation to policy
242 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations integration being a facilitator to the release of funding and having a role in engaging and fulfilling goals within a wider policy discourse.
The case studies showed that policy integration is occurring. However, recommendations for improved policy integration are identified which are primarily focused on improving policy integration across the scales of governance. Fundamentally, strengthening the definition and the promotion of the benefits which can be achieved through policy integration across all scales of governance. There is a need to develop a capacity for a centralised overview of policy integration for the long term in order to strengthen both the financial, process and management challenges.
The research has contributed to knowledge by providing an understanding of the challenges actors face within the North West of England with respect to integrating flood risk management and economic development policy. Understanding how different actors perceive and deal with flood risk and economic issues has provided an insight into the problems which can arise within the governance process, and can assist policy integration. Fundamentally, the research aim of understanding the challenges of policy integration across multiple scales of governance and the extent to which actors have been successful in promoting integration of flood risk management and economic development policy has been achieved.
8.6 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research The research has necessarily focused on specific themes and methods to investigate the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy across the Mersey Catchment in the North West of England. This section presents briefly the limitations of this thesis, and suggestions for further research.
The research acknowledged that it is necessary to recognise the wider framing of policy development and understand what a policy expression may look like, in particular how it might be constructed and assembled beyond previously located national boundaries or scalar hierarchies (Cochrane and Ward 2012). Such drivers for enquiry present methodological challenges which have only partly been addressed within the research by asking only regional and local flood actors about wider contextual issues.
243 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations
Given more time and resource, further analysis across the multi-scalar governance landscape of the Mersey Basin would have strengthened the conclusions of the research, in particular interviewees within national and EU policy actors.
Furthermore, the recognition of a wide framing of policy caused challenges in relation to the framing of the case study itself, leading the researcher to consider where boundaries can or should be placed and how this might limit the research. For this research, due to the CASE partnership the research was focused on Greater Manchester but to recognise the need to widely frame policy integration, the city regional context was set within the river catchment. Although these geographical boundaries have been placed within the research the data collection indicated policy moving beyond such a geography; policy was seen to be both relational and territorial within and beyond this geography.
A proposed area of further research is to understand the challenges of policy integration from a different geographical framing of policy. As discussed, this research was linked to the designated Combined Authority of Greater Manchester and the changing multi-scalar governance associated with this city region due to the CASE partnership. However, further research could explore the challenges of policy integration from a different contextual setting where there is no combined authority such as Birmingham City region. This may strength the ability to explore how policy is experienced in practice with different political and governance arrangements.
Although there are methodological challenges to comparative analysis and time limitation for a single thesis, it would have been valuable to have been able to extend the case studies forming the international review and be able to compare and contrast the challenges of integrating flood risk management and economic development policy.
The research has provided wide reflection on the interface between flood risk management and economic development and has discussed some of the challenges and opportunities being sought by actors. It also identified the means by which actors are dealing with policy integration in practice. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of such tools, one of which generated great interest in Greater Manchester is the Spatial Planning Framework. The role of the Spatial Planning Framework and how it may be used to reconcile policy integration is an avenue for future academic enquiry.
244 Chapter 9: References
9. REFERENCES
245 Chapter 9: References
Adam, W. M. (1997). ‘Rationalization and conservation: Ecology and the management of nature in the United Kingdom’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(3), pp. 277–291, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00277.x (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Adams, J. (1995). Risk. London: University College London Press.
Adger, W. N. and Barnett, J. (2009). ‘Four reasons for concern about adaptation to climate change’. Environment and Planning A, 41, pp. 2800–2805, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a42244 (Accessed: 24 April 2018).
Ahern, J. (2011). ‘From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), pp. 341-343, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021 (Accessed: 22 February 2018).
Ahern, J. (2013). ‘Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design’. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), pp. 1203–1212, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Alfieri, L., Burek, P., Feyen, L. and Forzieri, G. (2015). ‘Global warming increases the frequency of river floods in Europe’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19, pp. 2247-2260, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2247- 2015 (Accessed: 22 February 2018).
Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2009). ‘Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(3), pp. 617–633, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a40208 (Accessed: 22 February 2018).
Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2012). ‘Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), pp 89-103, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 5661.2011.00468.x (Accessed: 25 April 2018)
246 Chapter 9: References
Arnell, N.W. (2002). Hydrology and Global Environmental Change. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Arts, B. and van Tatenhove, J. (2006). Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance. In Arts, B. and Leroy, P. (eds.) Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 21–43.
Atlantic Gateway. (2012). Atlantic Gateway Map. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk (Accessed: 02 August 2017).
Atlantic Gateway. (2018a). Atlantic Gateway Business Plan. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/_assets/downloads/ag-businessplan.pdf (Accessed: 02 March 2018).
Atlantic Gateway. (2018b). Atlantic Gateway Parklands. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/_assets/downloads/ag-parklands.pdf (Accessed: 02 March 2018).
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004). Themes and Issues in Multi-Level Governance. In (eds.) Bache, I. and Flinders, M. Multi-level Governance. pp. 1–13. Oxford Scholarship, [Online]. Available at: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199259259.001.0001/acprof- 9780199259250 (Accessed: 23 March 2013).
Baker, M., Hincks, S. and Sherriff, G. (2010). ‘Getting involved in plan making: Participation and stakeholder involvement in local and regional spatial strategies in England’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4), pp. 574–594, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/c0972 (Accessed: 02 April 2013).
Baker, N. F. (1927). ‘The problem of the metropolitan area or region’. The University Journal of Business, 5(1), pp. 35–53, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2354732 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Balsiger, J. and Debarbieux, B. (2011). ‘Major challenges in regional environmental governance research and practice’, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 14, pp. 1-8, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.010 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
247 Chapter 9: References
Bamforth, N. (2011). ‘Current issues in United Kingdom constitutionalism: An introduction’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(1), pp. 79–85, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor029 (Accessed: 16 May 2013).
Baptista, I. (2013). ‘The travels of critiques of neoliberalism: Urban experiences from the ‘Borderlands’, Urban Geography, 34(5), pp. 590–611, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.780398 (Accessed: 16 May 2013).
Barker, D. (1985). Harvest home: the story of the great floods of 1947. Cambridge: Providence Press.
Barredo, J. I. (2007). ‘Major flood disasters in Europe: 1950-2005’, Natural Hazards, 42(1), pp. 125–148, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006- 9065-2 (Accessed: 10 January 2013).
Barrow, C. J. (1998). ‘River basin development planning and management: A critical review’, World Development, 26(1), pp. 171–186, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10017-1 (Accessed: 10 January 2013).
Basit, T. N. (2003). ‘Manual or electronic: the role of coding in qualitative data analysis’. Educational Research, 45(2), pp. 143–154, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548 (Accessed: 22 March 2013).
Bazeley, P. and Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. (2ndedn). London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Becker, A. and Grunewald, U. (2003). ‘Disaster management - Flood risk in central Europe’, Science, 300, pp. 1099–1099, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1083624 (Accessed: 22 March 2013).
Bell, S. (2015). ‘Renegotiating urban water’. Progress in Planning, 96, pp. 1–28. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.09.001 (Accessed: 12 March 2016).
Benson, D., Gain, A. and Rouilard, J. (2015). ‘Water governance in a comparative perspective: From IWRM to a ‘nexus’ approach?’, Water Alternatives, 8(1), pp. 756–773, Taylor and Francis [Online]. Available at:
248 Chapter 9: References
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02690942.2010.532356 (Accessed: 09 January 2016).
Bentley, G. and Pugalis, L. (2013). ‘New directions in economic development: Localist policy discourses and the Localism Act’, Local Economy, 28(3), pp. 257–274, [Online]. Available at: http://lec.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/0269094212473940 (Accessed: 06 April 2013)
Bentley, G. and Pugalis, L. (2014). ‘Shifting paradigms: People-centred models, active regional development, space-blind policies and place-based approaches’, Local Economy, 29(4–5), pp. 283–294, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094214541355 (Accessed: 02 April 2013).
Bentley, G., Bailey, D. and Shutt, J. (2010). ‘From RDAs to LEPs: A new localism? case examples of West Midlands and Yorkshire’, Local Economy, 25(7), pp. 535– 557, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02690942.2010.532356 (Accessed: 02 April 2013).
Berz, G. (2000). ‘Flood disasters: lessons from the past - worries for the future’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Maritime and Engineering, 142(1), pp. 3–8, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1680/wame.2000.142.1.3 http://www.icevirtuall (Accessed: 16 January 2016).
Birkmann, J. Garschagen, M., Kraas, F and Quang, N. (2010). ‘Adaptive urban governance: New challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change’, Sustainability Science, 5(2), pp. 185–206, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0111-3 (Accessed: 02 April 2013).
Bohensky, E. and Leitch, A. (2013). ‘Framing the flood: a media analysis of themes of resilience in the 2011 Brisbane flood’, Regional Environmental Change, 14(2), pp. 475–488, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0438-2 (Accessed: 09 March 2014).
249 Chapter 9: References
Boland, P. (1999). ‘Merseyside and Objective 1 Status, 1994-1999: Implications for the Next Programming Period’, Regional Studies, 33(8), pp. 788–792, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409950079232 (Accessed: 09 March 2014).
Brázdil, R., Kundzewicz, Z. and Benito, G. (2006). ‘Historical hydrology for studying flood risk in Europe’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51(5), pp. 739–764, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.5.739 (Accessed: 15 March 2014 ).
Brenner, N. (1999). ‘Globalisation as reterritorialisation: The re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union’, Urban Studies, 36(3), pp. 431–451, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993466 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Brenner, N. (2000). ‘The urban question as a scale question: Reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), pp. 371–378, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00277.x (Accessed: 13 April 2013).
Brenner, N. (2011) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brenner, N., Peck J. and Theodore, N. (2010). ‘Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways’, Global Networks, 10(2), pp. 182–222, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00277.x (Accessed: 29 March 2013).
Briggs, A. (1986). Victorian Cities. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Bubeck, P., Kreibich, H., Penning-Roswell, E.C., Botzen, W.J.W., de Moel, H. and Klijn, F. (2017). ‘Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and in the USA – A comparative analysis’, Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10(4), pp. 436-445, [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12151 (Accessed: 21 February 2018).
Bulkeley, H. (2005). ‘Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks’, Political Geography, 24(8), pp. 875–902, [Online].
250 Chapter 9: References
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.002 (Accessed: 29 March 2013).
Burchell, G. Gordon, G and Miller, P. (1991). The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. (eds). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Burchell, G. (1993). ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’. Economy and Society, 22(3), pp. 267–282, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149300000018 (Accessed: 13 March 2015).
Burrell, B.C., Davar, K and Hughes, R. (2007). ‘A Review of Flood Management Considering the Impacts of Climate Change’. Water International, 32(3), pp. 342–359, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060708692215 (Accessed: 13 March 2015).
Burton, I. (2008). ‘Gilbert White: Progress in geography’. Progress in Human Geography, 32, pp. 448–450, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325080320030802 (Accessed: 13 March 2015).
Butler, C. and Pidgeon, N. (2011). ‘From ‘flood defence’ to ‘flood risk management’: Exploring governance, responsibility, and blame’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(3), pp. 533–547, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/c09181j (Accessed: 16 November 2012).
Candel, H. and Biesbroek, R. (2016). ‘Towards procedural understanding of policy integration’, Policy Sciences, 49(3), pp.211-231, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y (Accessed: 03 March 2018).
Cameron, J. Odendaal, N. and Todes, A. (2004). Integrated area development projects: working towards innovation and sustainability. Urban Forum, 15(4), pp. 311– 339, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-004-0012-6 (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Castree, N. (2002). ‘Environmental issues: from policy to political economy’, Progress in Human Geography, 26(3), pp. 357–365, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph374pr (Accessed: 12 April 2012).
251 Chapter 9: References
Castree, N. (2008). ‘Neoliberalising nature: Processes, effects, and evaluations’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40, pp. 153–173, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a39100 (Accessed: 10 March 2012).
Cavallo, E. and Noy, I. (2011). ‘Natural disasters and the economy — A survey’, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(1), pp. 63– 102, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000039 (Accessed: 11 December 2012).
Challis, L. Fuller, S. Henwood, M. Klein, R, Plowden, W, Webb, A. Wittingham P. and Wistow G. (1988) Joint Approaches to Social Policy: Rationality and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chatterton J, B., Viavattene, C., Morris, J., Penning-Rowsell E, C. and Tapsell, S. (2010) The cost of the summer floods in England. Project: SC070039/R1. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Clyde Waterfront Working Group. (2004). The Clyde Waterfront regeneration plan: A river reborn. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/local- authorities-receive-additional-funding-to-prepare-for-floods, (Accessed: 24 January 2018).
Clyde Waterfront. (2004a). Clyde Waterfront: About the partnership. Available at: http://www.clydewaterfront.com/about/about-the-partnership, (Accessed: 24 January 2018).
Clyde Waterfront. (2004b). Clyde Waterfront Projects. Available at: http://www.clydewaterfront.com/projects, (Accessed: 24 January 2018).
Cochrane, A. and Ward, K. (2012). ‘Researching the geographies of policy mobility: Confronting the methodological challenges’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44(1), pp. 5–12, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a44176 (Accessed: 11 December 2012).
Cohen, A. (2012). ‘Rescaling Environmental Governance: watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of science, neoliberalism, and participation’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(9),. pp. 2207–2224, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a44265 (Accessed: 29 May 2012).
252 Chapter 9: References
Cohen, A. and Davidson, S. (2011). ‘The watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit’, Water Alternatives, 4(1), pp. 1–14, [Online]. Available at: http://www.water- alternatives.org/index.php/allabs/123-a4-1-1/file (Accessed: 29 May 2012).
Cole, G. (1976). ‘Land drainage in England and Wales’, Journal of the Institute of Water Engineers and Scientists, 30, pp. 345–67
Coulthard, T.J and Frostick, L.E (2010). ‘The Hull floods of 2007: implications for the governance and management of urban drainage systems’, Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(1), pp. 223-231, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2010.01072.x (Accessed: 29 May 2012).
Crabbé, A. and Leroy, P. (2008). The Handbook of Environmental Policy Evaluation. London: Earthscan.
Danielzyk, R. and Wood, G. (1993). ‘Restructuring old industrial and inner urban areas: A contrastive analysis of state policies in Great Britain and Germany’, European Planning Studies, 1(2), pp. 123–147, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319308720205 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Danielzyk, R. and Wood, G. (2004). ‘Innovative strategies of political regionalization the case of North Rhine-Westphalia’, European Planning Studies, 12(2), pp. 191– 207, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000183932 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Davies, J. B. (2015), ‘Economic analysis of the costs of flooding, Canadian Water Resources Journal, 41(1), pp. 1–17, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1055804 (Accessed: 17 April 2016).
Davies, R. (1973). ‘Urban Trends’, Atlantic Quarterly, 23, pp. 34–38.
Dawson, R. J., Ball, T., Werritty, J., Werritty, A., Hall, J. and Roche, N. (2011). ‘Assessing the effectiveness of non-structural flood management measures in the Thames Estuary under conditions of socio-economic and environmental change’, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), pp. 628–646, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.013 (Accessed: 17 April 2016).
253 Chapter 9: References
Deas, I. (2014). ‘The search for territorial fixes in subnational governance: City-regions and the disputed emergence of post-political consensus in Manchester, England.’ Urban Studies, 51(11), pp. 2285–2314, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013510956 (Accessed: 08 April 2014).
Deas, I., Hincks, S. and Headlam, N. (2013). ‘Explicitly permissive? Understanding actor interrelationships in the governance of economic development: The experience of England’s Local Enterprise Partnerships’, Local Economy, 28(7–8), pp. 718– 737, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094213500625 (Accessed: 04 January 2013).
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2010). Local authorities receive additional funding to prepare for floods. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/local-authorities-receive-additional- funding-to-prepare-for-floods, (Accessed: 24 April 2018).
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2011a). The national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England: Understanding the risks, empowering communities, building resilience. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-flood-and-coastal- erosion-risk-management-strategy-for-england (Accessed: 24 April 2018), London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Environment, Flood and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2011b). Guidance for risk management authorities on sustainable development in relation to their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/69447/pb13640-sdg-guidance.pdf (Accessed: 24 April 2018).
Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social theory and the implications of Europeanization. London: Routledge.
Demeritt, D. and Lees, L. (2005). ‘Research relevance, ‘knowledge transfer’ and the geographies of CASE studentship collaboration’, Area, 37(2), pp. 127–137, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00615.x (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
254 Chapter 9: References
Denzin, N.K. (2006). Sociology methods: A sourcebook (5th edn.). New York: Aldine Transaction.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (5th eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008). Thames Gateway Parklands Vision: Part 1. Available at: http://www.medway.gov.uk/pdf/Thames Gateway Parklands Vision Part1.pdf (Accessed: 22 February 2016). London: The Stationary Office.
Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2009) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77 72/pps25guideupdate.pdf (Accessed: 05 January 2017). London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60 77/2116950.pdf (Accessed: 05 January 2017). London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Communities and Local Government (CCLG) (2015). The English Indicies of Deprivation. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/46 5791/English_Indices_of_Deprivation_2015_-_Statistical_Release.pdf (Accessed: 6 April 2016). London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2002). Directing the flow. Priorities for the future water policy. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.go v.uk/environment/quality/water/strategy/pdf/directing_the_flow.pdf (Accessed: 22 February 2016). London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2005). Making Space for Water: Taking Forward a New Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal
255 Chapter 9: References
Erosion Risk Management in England: A consultation exercise. Available at: http://www.lookup.org.uk/2013/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Making-space-for- water.pdf (Accessed: 05 January 2017). London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2010). Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee - First Report Future flood and water management legislation. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvfru/522/52 202.htm (Accessed: 04 January 2017). London: The Stationary Office.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2011). Mainstreaming sustainable development The Government’s vision and what this means in practice. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mainstreaming-sustainable- development-the-government-s-vision-and-what-this-means-in-practice (Accessed: 17 December 2016). London: The Stationary Office.
Department of the Environment (1995). The Thames Gateway Planning Framework, Regional Planning Guidance 9a. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100519214233/http://www.commu nities.gov.uk/documents/thamesgateway/pdf/147561.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2018). London: The Stationary Office.
Dinan, D. (2010) Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration. 4th edn. Boulders: Lynne Reiner Publishers.
Dore, J. and Lebel, L. (2010). ‘Deliberation and Scale in Mekong Region Water Governance’, Environmental Management, 46(1), pp. 60–80, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9527-x (Accessed: 17 March 2013).
Donnelley, R.R. (2009). National Planning Policy Framework for Scotland. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/278232/0083591.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2017)
Douglas, I. Garvin, S., Lawson, N, Richardson, J., Tippett, J. and White, I. (2010). ‘Urban pluvial flooding: A qualitative case study of cause, effect and non- structural mitigation’, Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(2), pp. 112–125,
256 Chapter 9: References
[Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2010.01061.x (Accessed: 12 September 2014).
Eaton, J.W. (1989). ‘Ecological aspects of water management in Britain’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 26(3), pp. 835–849, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2403695 (Accessed: 12 September 2014).
Edelenbos, J. and Teisman, G.R. (2011). ‘Symposium on water governance. Prologue: water governance as a government’s actions between the reality of fragmentation and the need for integration’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(1), pp. 5–30, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852310390090 (Accessed: 10 April 2013).
Ellis, J.B. (2013). ‘Sustainable surface water management and green infrastructure in UK urban catchment planning’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56, pp. 24–41, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.648752 (Accessed: 10 April 2013).
Emschergenossenschaft and Lippeverband (2016). The New Emscher Valley – providing impetus in the region. Available at: http://www.eglv.de/en/emschergenossenschaft/emscher-conversion/the-new- emscher-valley/ (Accessed: 16 February 2016).
European Commission (2007). Council Directive 2007/60/EC 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (Floods Directive). Brussels: European Commission.
EM-DAT (2015). EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED international disaster database. Available at: http://www.emdat.be/database (Accessed: 28 November 2016).
Evans, E. P., Ashley, R., Hall, J, W., Penning-Rowsell, E. P., Saul, A., Sayers, P.B., Thorne, C.R. and Watkinson, A. (2004). Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence Project: Scientific Summary Volume 1: Future Risks and their Drivers. Office of Science and Technology: London.
Ewen, J., O’Donnell, G., Bulygina, N., Ballard., and O’Connell, E. (2013). ‘Towards understanding links between rural land management and the catchment flood hydrograph’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 139(671),
257 Chapter 9: References
pp. 350–357, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2026 (Accessed: 15 March 2014).
Falconer, R.A. and Harpin, R. (2009). ‘Catchment Flood Management’, Water International, 30(1), pp. 37–41, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060508691831 (Accessed: 15 November 2012).
Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience. Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Fielding, N. and Thomas, H. (2008). Qualitative Interviewing, In: Gilbert, N. (eds). Researching Social Life. 3rd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Fish, R.D., Ioris, A. and Watson, N. (2010). ‘Integrating water and agricultural management: Collaborative governance for a complex policy problem’. Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), pp. 5623–5630, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.010. (Accessed: 10 April 2012).
Fook, J. (2002). Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ford, J.D. and Smit, B. (2004). ‘A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change’. Arctic, 57(4), pp. 389–400, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40512642 (Accessed: 14 March 2012).
Foucault, M. (1982). ‘The Subject and Power’, Critical Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 777–95, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197 (Accessed: 10 April 2012).
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality, In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.) Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvest Wheatsheaf.
Freeman, R. (2012). ‘Reverb: Policy making in wave form’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(1), pp. 13–20, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a44177 (Accessed: 05 January 2013).
Fürst, D. and Kilper, H. (1995). ‘The innovative power of regional policy networks: a comparison of two approaches to political modernization in North Rhine –
258 Chapter 9: References
Westfalia’. European Planning Studies, 3(3), pp. 287–304, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319508720308 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Gewirtz, S. and Cribb, A. (2006). ‘What to do about values in social research: the case for ethical reflexivity in the sociology of education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(2), pp. 141–155, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690600556081 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Granger, J.D. (2014). ‘A fort worth renaissance’, Economic Development Journal, 13(2)’ [Online]. Available at: https://manchester.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search- proquest-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/docview/1553303789?accountid=12253 (Accessed: 27 May 2015).
Greater London Authority. (2005). London under treat? Flooding risk in the Thames Gateway, Environment Committee, October 2005. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/archi ves/assembly-reports-environment-flood_thamesg.pdf (Accessed: 06 March 2018)
Greater Manchester Combined Authority. (2018). Draft spatial framework – consultation responses. Available at: http://gmsf- consult.objective.co.uk/common/search/advanced_search.jsp?lookingFor=repres entations&searchQuery=flood&letters=&x=0&y=0&tab=find (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Giddens, A. (1991). Fate, Risk, and Security. In: Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Glasgow City Council. (2009). Glasgow City Plan 2 Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13598&p=0, (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Glasgow City Council. (2017). Council approves action to allow £50 million investment in quay wall on the Clyde. Available at: http://gmsf- consult.objective.co.uk/common/search/advanced_search.jsp?lookingFor=repres entations&searchQuery=flood&letters=&x=0&y=0&tab=find, (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
259 Chapter 9: References
Glasson, J. and Marshall, T. (2007). Regional Planning. London: Routledge.
Goode, W. and Hatt, P. (1952). Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graefe, O. (2011). ‘River basins as new environmental regions? the depolitization of water management’, Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 17, pp. 24–27, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.014 (Accessed: 29 November 2012).
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2016). Flood Investigation Report, Greater Manchester 26th December 2015. Available at: https://www.greatermanchester- ca.gov.uk/downloads/file/199/boxing_day_flood_report_2015 (Accessed: 14 September 2016).
Greenwood, D. and Newman, P. (2010). ‘Markets, Large Projects and Sustainable Development: Traditional and New Planning in the Thames Gateway’, Urban Studies, 47(1), pp. 105–119, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009346864 (Accessed: 29 November 2012).
Grey, D. and Sadoff, C.W. (2007). ‘Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development’, Water Policy, 9(6), pp. 545–571, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.021 (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Griffin, L. (2012). ‘Where is power in governance? Why geography matters in the theory of governance’, Political Studies Review, 10(2), pp. 208–220, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00260.x (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Grove-White, R. (1991). ‘Land use law and the environment’. Journal of Law and Society, 18(1), pp. 32–47.
Hager, C. (2012). ‘Revisiting the ungovernability debate: regional governance and sprawl in the USA and UK’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(4), pp. 817–830, Urban Studies, 47(1), pp. 105–119, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.01017.x (Accessed: 29 November 2012).
Hajer, M.A. (1997). The Politics of Environmental Discourse, Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Scholar.
260 Chapter 9: References
Hajer, M. (2003). ‘Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void’. Policy Sciences, 36(2), pp. 175–195, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939 (Accessed: 29 November 2012).
Halpert, B. (1982). Antecedent, In Rogers, D and Whetten, D. (eds) Interorganisational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Hall, J. W., Dawson, R. J., Sayers, P., Rosu, C., Chatterton, J. B. and Deakin, R. (2003). ‘A methodology for national-scale flood risk assessment’, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers – Water an Martine Engineering, 156(3), pp. 235- 247, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1680/wame.2003.156.3.235 (Accessed: 04 November 2018)
Hamlin, C. (1992). ‘Edwin Chadwick and the engineers, 1842-1854: Systems and antisystems in the pipe-and-brick sewers war’, Technology and Culture, 33(4), pp. 680–709, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3106586 (Accessed: 24 May 2013).
Hammond, M. J., Chen, A.S., Djordjević, D., Butler, D. and Mark, O. (2013). ‘Urban flood impact assessment: A state-of-the-art review’, Urban Water Journal, 33(4) pp. 14–29, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.857421 (Accessed: 24 May 2013).
Harding, A. (2007). ‘Taking city regions seriously? Response to debate on ‘city-regions: New geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(2), pp. 443–458, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00736.x (Accessed: 14 December2012).
Haughton, G. and Allmendinger, P. (2015). ‘Fluid spatial imaginaries: Evolving estuarial city-regional spaces’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(5), pp. 857–873, [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2427.12211 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Healey, P. (1999). ‘Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping Places’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), pp. 111–121,
261 Chapter 9: References
[Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9901900201 (Accessed: 28 February 2018).
Healey, P. (2006). ‘Transforming governance: Challenge of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space’, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp.299-320, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500420792 (Accessed: 28 February 2018).
Healey, P. (2009). ‘City regions and place development’. Regional Studies, 43(6), pp. 831–843, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701861336 (Accessed: 28 February 2018).
Healey, P. (2013). ‘Circuits of knowledge and techniques: The transnational flow of planning ideas and practices’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), pp. 1510–1526, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12044 (Accessed: 28 February 2018).
Healey, P. (2016). Introduction to Part One. In: Hiller, J. and Healey, P. (eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning. New York: Routledge, p. 45 - 56.
Hertz, R. (1997). Introduction: Reflexivity and voice. In: Hertz, R. (eds.) Reflexivity and Voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hess, T.M., Holman, P. I., Rose, S. C., Rosolova, Z. and Parrott, A. (2010). ‘Estimating the impact of rural land management changes on catchment runoff generation in England and Wales’, Hydrological Processes, 24, pp. 1357–1368, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7598 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Heurkens, E. and Hobma, R. (2014). ‘Private sector-led urban development projects: Comparative insights from planning practice in the Netherlands and the UK’, Planning Practice and Research, 29(4), p. 350-369, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2014.932196 (Accessed: 24 May 2013).
HM Treasury (2012). £120 million boost to flood defences will protect homes and businesses and help drive growth. Press Release. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/120-million-boost-to-flood-defences-will-
262 Chapter 9: References
protect-homes-and-businesses-and-help-drive-growth--121. (Accessed: 15 January 2013). London: The Stationary Office.
HM Treasury (2013). Investing in Britain’s future. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-britains-future (Accessed: 15 July 2013). London: The Stationary Office.
Hogl, K. Kleinschmit, D. and Rayner, J. (2016). ‘Achieving policy intergration across fragmented policy domains: Forests, agriculture, climate and energy’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 3(34), pp. 399-414, [Online]. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X16644815 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Holland, D.G. and Harding, J.P.C. (1984). The Mersey. In: Whitton, B. A. (eds.) Ecology of European Rivers. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Holt, A. (2010). ‘Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: A research note’, Qualitative Research, 10, pp. 113–121, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109348686 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001). Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Hooghe, M. (2012). ‘Does Multi-Level Governance Reduce the Need for National Government?’, European Political Science, 11(1), pp. 90–95, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.58 (Accessed: 17 January 2013).
Houdret, A., Dombrowsky, I. and Horlemann, L. (2014). ‘The institutionalization of River Basin Management as politics of scale - Insights from Mongolia’, Journal of Hydrology, 519(Part C, 27), pp. 2392–2404, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.037 (Accessed: 17 April 2015).
Humphreys, D. (2015). ‘Integers, integrants and normative vectors: The limitations of environmental policy integration under neoliberalism’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(3), pp. 433–447, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614721 (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
263 Chapter 9: References
Huntjens, P., Paul-Wostl, C., Rihouz, B., Schiüter, M., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R., Dickens, C. and Kiti, I.N. (2011). ‘Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(3), pp. 145–163.
Inda, J. (2005). Analytics of the Modern: An Introduction. In Inda, J. X. (eds.) Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality, and Life Politics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Institute of Civil Engineers (1954). Evidence submitted to the Waverley Committee on 20 April 1953. Departmental Committee on Coastal Flooding 1953-1954: evidence and minutes of meeting Public Records Office Kew. MAF 135/341.
International Building Exhibition. (1999). Emscher Park 1989 – 1999, Facts and Figures. Available at: http://www.iba.nrw.de/iba/daten.htm (Accessed: 26 March 2018).
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, A., Drew, P. and Sainsbury, R. (2012). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews’, Qualitative Research, 13(1), pp. 87–106, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086 (Accessed: 05 January 2013).
Jessop, B. (2004). Multi-level governance and multi-level meta-governance. In Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (eds.) Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–75.
Jha, A.K., Bloch, R. and Jessica, L. (2012). Cities and flooding : a guide to integrated urban flood risk management for the 21st century. Washington D.C: World Bank.
Johnson, C., Penning-Rowell, E. and Parker, D. (2007). ‘Natural and Imposed Injustices: The Challenges in Implementing ‘Fair’ Flood Risk Management Policy in
264 Chapter 9: References
England’, The Geographical Journal, 173(4), pp. 374–390, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00256.x (Accessed: 01 April 2018).
Johnson, C. (2012). ‘Toward post-sovereign environmental governance? Politics, scale, and EU water framework directive’, Water Alternatives, 5(1), pp. 83–97, [Online]. Available at: http://www.water- alternatives.org/index.php/volume5/v5issue1/159-a5-1-6/file (Accessed: 12 March 2013).
Johnson, C.L., Tunstall, S. M. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. (2005). ‘Floods as catalysts for policy change: historical lessons from England and Wales’, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 21(4), pp. 37–41, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620500258133 (Accessed: 12 March 2013).
Johnson, C.L. and Priest, S.J. (2008). ‘Flood Risk Management in England: a Changing Landscape of Risk Responsibility?’, Water Resources Development, 24(4), pp. 513–525, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620801923146 (Accessed: 26 April 2018).
Jonas, A.E.G. (2012). ‘City-regionalism: Questions of distribution and politics’, Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), pp. 822–829, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511432062. (Accessed: 12 March 2013).
Jonas, A.E.G. and Ward, K. (2007). ‘There’s more than one way to be ‘serious’ about city-regions’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), pp. 647–656. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00744.x (Accessed: 12 March 2013).
Jones, M. (2001). ‘The rise of the regional state in economic governance: ‘Partnerships for prosperity’ or new scales of state power?’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(1), pp. 1185–1211, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a32185 (Accessed 23 April 2018).
Jones, K.T. and Popke, J. (2009). ‘Re-Envisioning the City: Lefebvre, HOPE VI, and the Neoliberalization of Urban Space’, Urban Geography, 31(1), pp. 114–133,
265 Chapter 9: References
[Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.31.1.114 (Accessed 23 April 2018).
Jones, P. and Macdonald, N. (2007). ‘Making space for unruly water: Sustainable drainage systems and the disciplining of surface runoff’, Geoforum, 38(3), pp. 534–544, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.10.005 (Accessed 23 April 2018).
Jongman, B., Ward, P.W. and Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2012). ‘Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long term trends and changes’, Global Environmental Change, 22, 823-835, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004 (Accessed 22 February 2018).
Jonkman, S.N. (2005). ‘Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods’. Natural Hazards, 34(2), pp. 151–175, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-004-8891-3 (Accessed: 12 March 2013).
Jordan, A. (2008). ‘The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock and looking forwards’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1), pp. 17–33, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/cav6 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Joseph, J. (2013). ‘Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: a governmentality approach’, Resilience: international policies, practices and discourses, 1(1), pp. 38–52, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2013.765741. (Accessed: 12 July 2014).
Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A. (2010). ‘Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), pp. 147–158, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539 (Accessed: 18 April 2018).
Kaika, M. (2003). ‘The Water Framework Directive: A new directive for a changing social, political and economic european framework’. European Planning Studies, 11(3), pp. 299–316, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310303640 (Accessed: 12 July 2014).
Kaika, M. (2005). City of Flows: Modernity, Nature and the City. London: Routledge.
266 Chapter 9: References
Kapp, K.. (1983). Social Costs, Economic Development, and Environmental Disruption. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Khatibi, R. (2011). ‘Evolutionary systemic modelling of practices on flood risk’, Journal of Hydrology, 401(1–2), pp. 36–52, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.006. (Accessed: 28 July 2013).
Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2007). ‘Integrated water resource management and institutional integration: realising the potential of spatial planning in England’, The Geographical Journal, 173(4), pp. 312–329, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00260.x. (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2013). ‘Reconceptualising territoriality and spatial planning: insights from the sea’, Planning Theory & Practice, 14(2), pp. 180–197, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.784348 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Kivimaa, P. Hildén, M. Huitema, D. Jordan, A. and Newig, J. (2017). ‘Experiments in climate governance – a systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, pp.17-29, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Parry , M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, P. L., van der Linden, C. E. and Hanson, C. E. (2007) Climate change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Persson, Å. and Klein, R. (2009). Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change into official development assistance: Challenges to foreign policy integration. In Harris P. (eds) Climate Change and Foreign Policy: Case Studies from East to West. Routledge: London
Krieger, K. (2013). Putting varieties of risk-based governance into institutional context : the case of flood management regimes in Germany and England in the 1990s and 2000s. PhD. University of London.
267 Chapter 9: References
Kron, W. (2005). ‘Flood risk = hazard centre dot values centre dot vulnerability’, Water International, 30(1), pp. 58–68, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060508691837 (Accessed 25 April 2018).
Krueger, R. and Savage, L. (2007). ‘City-regions and social reproduction: A ‘place’ for sustainable development?’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), pp. 215–223, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00716.x (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Lamb, A.H. (1967). ‘Britain’s Changing Climate’, The Geographical Journal, 133(4), pp. 445–466, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1794473 (Accessed 25 April 2018).
Lane, S. N., November, V., Londstrom, C and Whatmore, S. (2013). ‘Explaining Rapid Transitions in the Practice of Flood Risk Management’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), pp. 330–342, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754689 (Accessed: 11 November 2015).
Lane, T. (1997). Liverpool: City of the Sea. 2nd edn. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Larner, W. (2003). ‘Neoliberalism?’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(5), pp. 509 – 512, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/d2105ed (Accessed: 11 November 2015).
Larner, W. and Laurie, N. (2010). ‘Travelling technocrats, embodied knowledges: Globalising privatisation in telecoms and water’, Geoforum 41(2), pp. 218–226, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.11.005 (Accessed: 12 January 2013).
Larner, W. and Walters, W. (2004). ‘Globalization as Governmentality’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 29(5), pp. 495–514, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40645138 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
268 Chapter 9: References
Legard, R. Keegan, J. and Ward, K. (2003). In-depth Interviews. In Ritchie, J. and Lewis. J. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage: London.
Lewis, C. (2012). The New Ecology of Risk: Balancing Economic Development and Flood Risk Mitigation on The Humber Estuary. PhD. University of Hull.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Luker, K. (2008). Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info- glut. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
MacDonald, R. (1995). Urban Design Quarterly. Available at: http://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/56%20OCTOBER%20199 5%20-%20ISSUE%2056%20text%20under%20image.pdf, (Accessed: 01 May 2018).
MacKinnon, D. (2011). ‘Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics’, Progress in Human Geography, 35(1), pp. 21–36, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510367841 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Manchester City Council. (2009). Executive Meeting, Item 5 - City Region Pilot and Governance. Available at: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/984/executive, (Accessed: 06 August 2016).
Marsh, T. J. and Dale, M. (2002). ‘The UK floods of 2000-2001: A hydro- meteorological Appraisal’, Water and Environment Journal, 16(3), pp. 180–188. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2002.tb00392.x (Accessed: 10 May 2013).
Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
McCarthy, J. and Prudham, S. (2004). ‘Neoliberalising nature and the nature of neoliberalism’, Geoforum, 35, pp. 275–283.
Mcewen, L., Jones, O. and Robertson, I. (2014). ‘A glorious time?’ Some reflections on flooding in the Somerset levels’, Geographical Journal, 180(4), pp. 326–337,
269 Chapter 9: References
[Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12125 (Accessed 28 April 2018).
McFadden, L. Penning-Rowsell, E and Tapsell, S. (2009). ‘Strategic coastal flood-risk management in practice: Actors’ perspectives on the integration of flood risk management in London and the Thames Estuary’, Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(12), pp. 636–645, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.10.001 (Accessed 25 April 2018).
McGinnis, M.V. (1999). ‘Making the watershed connection’, Policy Studies Journal, 27(3), pp. 497–501, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541- 0072.1999.tb01982.x (Accessed: 28 April 2018).
McGuirk, P. (2007). ‘The political construction of the city-region: Notes from Sydney’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), pp. 179–187, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00712.x (Accessed: 22 January 2018).
Merseyside Socialist Research Group (1980). Merseyside in Crisis. Manchester: Manchester Free Press.
Merz, B. Hall, J. Disse, M. and Schumann, A. (2010). ‘Fluvial flood risk management in a changing world’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(3), pp. 509– 527, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-509-2010 (Accessed: 22 January 2018).
Miller, P and Rose, N. (2008). Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2017). Thames Estury 2050 Growth Commission priorities confirmed. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thames-estuary-2050-growth- commission-priorities-confirmed (Accessed: 05 March 2018).
Mitchell, B. (2005). ‘Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 37(8), pp. 1335–1352, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a37224 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
270 Chapter 9: References
Molle, F. (2009). ‘River-basin planning and management: The social life of a concept’, Geoforum, 40(3), pp. 484–494, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.004 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Montgomery, D. R., Grant, G. E. and Sullivan, K. (1995). ‘Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management’, Water Resources Bulletin, 31(3), pp. 369–386, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1995.tb04026.x (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Morgan, K. (2007). ‘The Polycentric State: New Spaces of Empowerment and Engagement?’, Regional Studies, 41(9), pp. 1237–1251, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543363 (Accessed: 28 April 2018).
Mori, K. (2012). ‘Can we avoid overdevelopment of river floodplains by economic policies? A case study of the Ouse catchment (Yorkshire) in the UK’, Land Use Policy, 27(3), pp. 976–982, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.001 (Accessed: 28 April 2018).
National Audit Office (2007). The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-thames-gateway-laying-the-foundations/ (Accessed: 22 February 2016). London: The Stationary Office.
Nilsson, M. and Persson, A. (2003). ‘Framework for analysing environmental policy integration’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5(4), pp. 333–359, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908032000171648 (Accessed: 28 April 2018).
Norman, E.S., Bakker, K. and Cook, C. (2012). ‘Introduction to the themed section: Water governance and the politics of scale’, Water Alternatives, 5(1), pp. 52–61, [Online]. Available at: http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/allabs/157- a5-1-4/file (Accessed: 18 May 2014).
O’Hare, S., Coaffee, J, and Hawkesworth, M. (2010) ‘Managing sensitive relations in co- produced planning research’, Public Money and Management, 30(4), 243-250, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2010.492188 (Accessed: 24 April 2018).
271 Chapter 9: References
Okely, J. (1992). Anthropology and autobiography: Participatory experience and embodies knowledge. In: Okely, J. and Callaway, H. (eds.) Anthropology and Autobiography. London: Routledge. van den Honert, R.C. and McAneney, J. (2011). ‘The 2011 Brisbane floods: Causes, impacts and implications’, Water, 3(4), pp. 1149–1173, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/w3041149 (Accessed: 14 December 2012).
Van Oosten, C., Uzamukunda, A and Runhaar, H. (2018). ‘Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration at the landscape level. A framework illustrated with an analysis of landscape governance in Rwanda’, Environmental Science and Policy, 83, pp. 63-70, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.002 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Parker, D.J. (2000). Floods. London: Routledge.
Parr, J.B. (2008). ‘Cities and regions: problems and potentials’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 96, pp. 3009–3026, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a40217 (Accessed: 25 May 2014).
Parry, M. (2009). ‘Closing the loop between mitigation, impacts and adaptation’. Climatic Change, 96(1), pp. 23–27, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9646-7 (Accessed: 25 May 2014).
Pearse, P.H. (1992). ‘From open access to private property: Recent innovations in fishing rights as instruments of fisheries policy’, Ocean Development & International Law, 23(1), [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00908329209545975 (Accessed: 25 May 2014).
Peck, J. (2013). ‘Explaining (with) Neoliberalism. Territory, Politics, Governance’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 1(2), pp. 132–157, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2013.785365 (Accessed: 25 May 2014).
Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2012). ‘Follow the policy: A distended case approach’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(1), pp. 21–30, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a44179 (Accessed: 12 May 2015).
272 Chapter 9: References
Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C. and Mouton, F. (2009). ‘Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the disaster risk index’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9, 1149-1159, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1149-2009 (Accessed: 13 March 2018).
Peel Ports Group. (2016). Unique inland shipping port. Available at: https://www.peelports.com/ports/manchester-ship-canal (Accessed: 22 December 2016).
Peet, R. and Watts, M. (1996). Liberation Ecologies. Environment, Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge.
Pemberton, S. and Morphet, J. (2014). ‘The rescaling of economic governance: Insights into the transitional territories of England’, Urban Studies, 51(11), pp. 2354– 2370, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013493484 (Accessed: 13 May 2014).
Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Handmer, J. (1988). ‘Flood hazard management in Britain: A changing scene’, The Geographical Journal, 154(2), pp. 209–220, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/633847 (Accessed: 28 November 2012).
Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Priest, S,. and Johnson, C. (2014). ‘The evolution of UK flood insurance: incremental change over six decades’, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(4), pp. 694–713, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.903166 (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
Pickles, E. and Cable, V. (2010). Economy needs local remedies not regional prescription. The Financial Times, 6th September [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/economy-needs-local-remedies-not- regional-prescription (Accessed 05 January 2017).
Pielke, R., Prins, G., Rayner, S and Sarewitz, D. (2007). ‘Climate change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation’, Nature, 445(7128), pp. 597–598, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/445597a (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
Pillow, W. S. (2003). ‘Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research’, International Journal of
273 Chapter 9: References
Qualitative Studies in Education Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), pp. 175–196, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635 (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
Pitt, M. (2008). The Pitt Review: Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods, an Independent Review by Sir Michael Pitt. Whitehall, London.
Popper, K.R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Routledge.
Porter, J. and Demeritt, D. (2012). ‘Flood risk management, mapping, and planning: The institutional politics of decision support in England’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(10), pp. 2359–2378, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a44660 (Accessed: 15 April 2014).
Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. 2nd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Priemus, H. (2004). ‘Spatial memorandum 2004: A turning point in the Netherlands’ spatial development policy’, Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 95, pp. 578–583, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0040- 747X.2004.00341.x (Accessed: 12 April 2014).
Priest, S. J., Parker, D. J., Hurford, A. P., Walker, J. and Evans, K. (2011). ‘Assessing options for the development of surface water flood warning in England and wales’, Journal of Environmental Management, 92(12), pp. 3038–3048, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.041 (Accessed: 05 April 2013).
Prince, R. (2012). ‘Metaphors of policy mobility: Fluid spaces of ‘creativity’ policy’, Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 94(4), pp. 317–331, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12001 (Accessed: 28 April 2018
Pugalis, L. and Townsend, A., R. (2012a). ‘Rescaling of planning and its interface with economic development’, Planning Practice and Research, 28(1), pp. 104–121, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.699236 (Accessed: 05 April 2013).
274 Chapter 9: References
Pugalis, L. and Townsend, A., R. (2012b). ‘Rebalancing England: sub-national development (once again) at the crossroads’, Urban Research & Practice, 5(1), pp. 157–174, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.656461 (Accessed: 24 January 2013).
Pugalis, L. and Townsend, A., R. (2014). ‘The emergence of ‘new’ spatial coalitions in the pursuit of functional regions of governance’, Regional Science Policy & Practice, 6(1), pp. 49–67, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12027 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Purcell, M. (2009). ‘Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter- Hegemonic Movements?’, Planning Theory, 8(2), pp. 140–165, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Raco, M. (2005). ‘A step change or a step back? The Thames Gateway and the re-birth of the urban development corporations’, Local Economy, 20(2), pp. 141–153, Taylor Francis [Online]. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13575270500053241?needAccess =true&instName=University+of+Manchester (Accessed: 01 May 2018)
Raco, M and Street, E. (2012). ‘Resilience planning, economic change and the politics of post-recession development in London and Hong Kong’, Urban Studies, 49(5), pp 1065-1087, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011415716 (Accessed: 01 May 2018).
Reed, M. and Bruynrrl, S. (2010). ‘Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: A three-dimensional review’, Progress in Human Geography, 34(5), pp. 646-653, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509354836 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Rees, J. (1973). ‘The Demand for Water in South-East England’, The Geographical Journal, 139(1), pp. 20–36.
Regional Development Australia Murraylands & Riverland Incorporated. (2014). Regional Roadmap 2013-2016, Revised 2014. Available at:
275 Chapter 9: References
http://www.rdamr.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Murraylands/Docs/380_RCMB _Roadmap_2014_UPDATE2_lowres.pdf, (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Renfrewshire Council. (2016). New flood scheme will protect 300 Renfrew homes. Available at: http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article/2995/New-flood-scheme- will-protect-300-Renfrew-homes, (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rochdale Development Agency. (2016a). Rochdale: Right Place Right Time Breakfast 2016. Available at: http://investinrochdale.co.uk/news/post/rochdale-right-place- right-time-breakfast-2016, (Accessed: 12 October 2016).
Rochdale Development Agency. (2016b). Rochdale’s transformation continues with completion of £5m scheme to re-open the River Roch. Available at: http://investinrochdale.co.uk/news/post/rochdales-transformation-continues- with-completion-of-5m-scheme-to-re-open, (Accessed: 2 July 2016).
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. (2013). Urban Competition: Urban Design and Urban Life Competition Brief for Rochdale Town Centre. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/CompetitionsOffi ce/LiveCompetitions/2013/RochdaleStageOneCompetitionBrief.pdf, (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. (2014). Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for Flood Risk Management 2014-2014. Available at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/pdf/2014-04-10_flood_strategy_march_2014.pdf, (Accessed: 14 December 2016).
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. (2015). Economy Directorate Plan 2016-17. Available at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/pdf/2016-06-14-Economy-Directorate- Plan-2016-2017.pdf, (Accessed: 14 December 2016).
De Roo, A. Odijk, M., Schmuck, G., Koster, A. and Lucieer, A. (2001). ‘Assessing the effects of land use changes on floods in the Meuse and Oder catchment’, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 26(7–
276 Chapter 9: References
8), pp. 593–599, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464- 1909(01)00054-5 (Accessed: 08 May 2015).
Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rouillard, J. J. Heal, K. V. Ball, T. and Reeves, A. D. (2013). ‘Policy integration for adaptive water governance: Learning from Scotland’s experience’, Environmental Science and Policy, 33, pp. 378-387, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.003 (Accessed: 01 May 2018)
Rowe, J.E. (2010). ‘Restructuring economic development in the Auckland region’, Regional Science Policy & Practice, 2(2), pp. 121–134, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7802.2010.01021.x (Accessed: 08 May 2015).
Rowe, W. D. (1977). An Anatomy of risk. New York, Wiley-Interscience.
Royer, D. L., Brenner, R. A., Montanez, I. P., Tabor, N. I. and Beerling, D. J. (2004). ‘CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate’, Geological Society of America Today, 14(3), pp. 4–10. [Online]. Available at: https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf, (Accessed: 05 November 2014).
Russel, J. Roos M. and Laura, V. (2018). ‘Understanding policy integration in the EU - Insights from multi-level lens on climate adaptation and the EU's coastal and marine policy’, Environmental Science and Policy, 82, pp. 44-51, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.009 (Accessed: 08 January 2018).
Sadoff, C. and Grey, D. (2002). ‘Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers’, Water Policy, 4(5), pp. 389–403, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00035-1 (Accessed 25 April 2018).
Salford City Council. (2015a). Flood Risk. Available at: https://www.salford.gov.uk/flood-risk.htm, (Accessed: 30 March 2016).
Salford City Council. (2015b). Salford Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. Salford. Available at: https://www.salford.gov.uk/media/388120/6- 4578_floodriskmanagement_v7_web-2.pdf, (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
277 Chapter 9: References
Salford City Council. (2016). Salford Draft Local Plan. Salford. Available at: http://www.salford.gov.uk/planning-building-and-regeneration/planning-policies/local- planning-policy/salfords-development-plan/salford-local-plan/, (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Salian, P. and Anton, B (2011). The Emscher Region - the opportunities of economic transition for leapfrogging urban water management. A case study investigating the background of and the drivers for, sustainable urban water management in the Emscher Region. Available at: http://www.switchurbanwater.eu/outputs/pdfs/W6- 1_CEMS_DEM_D6.1.6_Case_study_-_Emscher.pdf, (Accessed: 05 January 2017).
Samuels, P., Klijn, F., and Dijkman, J. (2006). ‘Analysis of the current practice of policies on river flood risk management in different countries’, Irrigation and Drainage, 55(1), 141-150, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.257 (Accessed 25 April 2018).
Schmidt, P. and Morrison, T.H. (2012). ‘Watershed management in an urban setting: Process, scale and administration’, Land Use Policy, 29(1), pp. 45–52, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.003 (Accessed: 05 May 2013).
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Scoones, I. (2007). ‘Sustainability’, Development in Practice, 17(4–5), pp. 589–596, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469609 (Accessed 25 April 2018).
Scott, A. J. and Storper, M. (2003). ‘Regions, globalization, development’, Regional Studies, 37(6/7), pp. 579–593, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108697a (Accessed: 05 May 2013).
278 Chapter 9: References
Scott, M., White, I., Kuhlicke, C., Steinfuhrer, A., Sultana, P., Thompson, P., Minnery, J., O’Neil, E., Cooper, J., Adamson, M. and Russell, E. (2013). ‘Living with flood risk/The more we know, the more we know we don’t know: Reflections on a decade of planning, flood risk management and false precision/Searching for resilience or building social capacities for flood risks?/Participatory floodplain manage’. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(1), pp. 103–140, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.761904 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Scrase, J. I. and Sheate, W. R. (2005). ‘Re-framing flood control in England and Wales’, Environmental Values, 14(1), pp. 113–137, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30302056 (Accessed: 09 October 2012).
Shaw, R. (2002). ‘The International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park, Germany: A model for Sustainable Restructuring?’, European Planning Studies, 10(1), pp. 77-79, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120099272 (Accessed: 11 October 2013).
Shaw, K. and Greenhalgh, P. (2010). ‘Revisiting the ‘Missing Middle’ in English Sub- National Governance’, Local Economy, 25(May 2015), pp. 457–475, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02690942.2010.525999 (Accessed: 09 October 2012).
Sheail, J. (2002). ‘Arterial drainage in inter-war England: The legislative perspective’, Agricultural History Review, 50, pp. 253–270, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40275808 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. (2nd edn) London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Smit, B. and Wandel, J. (2006). ‘Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp. 282–292), [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Smith, A. and Raven, R. (2012). ‘What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability’, Research Policy, 41(6), pp. 1025-1036, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2011.12.012 (Accessed: 25 April 2018)
279 Chapter 9: References
Smith, J. Z. (2013). Trinity River Vision: Funding flights in future. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/newsandinfo/2013/09/23/trinity-river-vision- funding-fights-in-future (Accessed: 25 February 2016).
Stead, D. de Jong, M. (2006). Practical Guidance on Institutional Arrangements for Integrated Policy and Decision Making (ECE/AC.21/2006/7 - EUR/06/THEPEPST/7). Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11176/349759 (Accessed: 12 April 2015).
Stead, D. (2011). ‘Policy and Planning Briefing: European macro-regional strategies: indications of spatial rescaling?’, Planning Theory & Practice, 12(2), pp. 163– 167, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.545664 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Stead, D. and Meijers, E. (2009). ‘Spatial Planning and Policy Integration: Concepts, Facilitators and Inhibitors’, Planning Theory & Practice, 10(3), pp. 317–332, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903229752 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Steadman, M. B. (1958). ‘The Townscape of Birmingham in 1956’, Transactions and Papers the Institute of British Geographers, 25, pp. 225–235, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621189 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Steers, J. A. (1953). ‘The East Coast Floods’, The Geographical Journal, 119(3), pp. 280–295, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1790640 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change : the Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press van Stigt, R., Driessen, P. J. and Spit, T. J. (2013). ‘Compact city development and the challenge of environmental policy integration: A multi-level governance perspective’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(4), pp. 221–233, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1615 (Accessed: 25 April 2018), van Stokkom, H. T. C., Amits, A. J. M. and Leuven, R. S. E. (2005). ‘Flood defence in the Netherlands: A new era, a new approach’, Water International, 30(1), pp.
280 Chapter 9: References
76–87, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060508691839 (Accessed: 25 April 2018),
Sullivan, C.A. (2014). ‘Planning for the Murray-Darling Basin: Lessons from transboundary basins around the world’, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28(123), pp. 123–136, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0789-8 (Accessed: 25 April 2018),
Tapsell, S.M., Penning-Rowsell, S.M., Tunstall, T.L. and Wilson, T.L. (2002). ‘Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1796), [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1013 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Thames Gateway. (2014). Thames Gateway Planning Framework RPG 9a. Available at: http://regulations.completepicture.co.uk/pdf/Planning/The%20Thames%20gatew ay%20planning%20framework.pdf, (Accessed: 22 February 2016).
The Cabinet Office (2010). The Coalition: our programme for government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78 977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf (Accessed: 05 January 2017). London: The Stationary Office.
The Times (1928). The London Flood. Health Minister’s Statement. Without Precedent for 700 Years. 3 February, pp. 14.
The Times (1953). Relief and Repair After the Floods. 20 February, pp. 4.
Thomas, W. and Hollinrake, S. (2014). ‘Policy-makers, researchers and service users – resolving the tensions and dilemmas of working together’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), pp. 31–45, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.777276 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Tickell, A. and Peck, J. (2002). ‘Neoliberalizing Space’, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 380–404, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00247 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
281 Chapter 9: References
Tisdell, C. (1988). ‘Sustainable development: Differing perspectives of ecologists and economists, and relevance to LDCs’, World Development, 16(3), pp. 373–384, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(88)90004-6 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Trinity River Vision Authority. (2018a). Trinity River Vision Authority, Fort Worth Texas, Annual Financial Report As of and for the year ended September 30, 2017. [Online]. Available at: http://trinityrivervision.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/TRVA-Annual-Financial-Report_2017.pdf (Accessed: 30 April 2018).
Trinity River Vision Authority. (2018b) Urban Revitilization: Focused on giving new life to an aging section of the city. Available at: http://trinityrivervision.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/Panther-Island-December-2016_NoLabels.pdf (Accessed: 30 April 2018).
Trinity River Vision Authority. (2018c). Trinity River Vision Authority, Press Kit. [Online]. Available at: http://trinityrivervision.org/in-the-news/trinity-river- vision-nearing-reality-2/
Tulumello, S. (2015). ‘Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: urban regeneration policy in a dense space in Lisbon’, Urban Geography, 37(1), pp. 117-140, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1056605 (Accessed: 27 April 2018). de Vaus, D. (2001). Tools for Research Design. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Vardoulakisa, S., Dimitroulopoulou, C. Thornes, J. Ka-Man, L., Taylor, J. Myers, I., Heaviside, C., Mavrogianni, A., Shrubsole, C., Chalabi, Z., Davies, M. and Wilkinson, P. (2015). ‘Impact of climate change on the domestic indoor environment and associated health risks in the UK’, Environment International, 85, pp. 299-313, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.09.010 (Accessed 01 October 2018).
Vogel, E. (2012). ‘Parcelling out the watershed: The recurring consequences of organising Columbia river management within a basin-based territory’, Water
282 Chapter 9: References
Alternatives, 5(1), pp. 161–190, [Online]. Available at: http://www.water- alternatives.org/index.php/volume5/v5issue1/163-a5-1-10/file (Accessed 23 April 2015).
Vreugdenhil, H.. Slinger, J., Thissen, W. and Kas Rault, P. (2010). ‘Pilot projects in water management’. Ecology and Society, 15(3), p. 13, [Online]. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art13/A (Accessed 23 April 2015).
Walker, G., Whittle, R., Medd, W. and Walker, M. (2011). ‘Assembling the flood: Producing spaces of bad water in the city of Hull’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43(10), pp. 2304–2320, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a43253 (Accessed 21 April 2015).
Wallace, A. (2014). ‘Gentrification Interrupted in Salford, UK: From New Deal to ‘Limbo-Land’ in a Contemporary Urban Periphery’, Antipode, 47(2), pp. 517– 538, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12124 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Waterhout, B., Othengrafen, F and Sykes, O. (2013). ‘Neo-liberalization Processes and Spatial Planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An Exploration’, Planning Practice and Research, 28(1), pp. 141–159, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.699261 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
Water Studio. (2010). Projects. Available at: http://www.waterstudio.nl/projects/47#, (Accessed: 24 February 2016).
Water Studio (2017). New Water, Naaldwijk, The Netherlands – Water Studio. Available at: https://www.waterstudio.nl/projects/new-water-naaldwijk-the-netherlands/, (Accessed: 19 May 2018).
Water Studio (2018). New Water, Naaldwijk, The Netherlands. Available at: https://www.waterstudio.nl/projects/new-water-naaldwijk-the-netherlands/, (Accessed: 01 May 2018).
Watts, G., Battarbee, R., Bloomfield, J., Crossman, J., Daccache, A., Durance, I., Elliott, A,. Garner, G., Hannaford, J., Hannah, D., Hess, T., Jackson, C., Kay, A., Kernan, M., Knox, J., Mackay, J., Monteith, D., Ormerod, S., Rance, J., Stuart, M., Wade, A., Weatherhead, K., Whitehead, P. and Wilby, R. (2015). ‘Climate
283 Chapter 9: References
change and water in the UK : past changes and future prospects: a climate change report card for water’, Progress in Physical Geography, 39(1), pp. 6-28, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133314542957 (Accessed: 11 March 2016).
Waverley Committee (1954). Recommendations of the Waverley Committee. Report of the Departmental Committee on Coastal Flooding (Cmd 9165). London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Weis, L. and Fine, M. (2000). Speed Bumps: A Student-Friendly Guide to Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wiering, M., Kaufmann, M., Mees, H., Schellenberger, T., Ganzevoort, W., Hegger, D.L.T., Larrue, C., and Matczak, P. (2017) ‘Varieties of flood risk governance in Europe: How do countries respond to driving forces and what explains institutional change?’, Global Environmental Change, 44, pp. 15-26. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.02.006 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Wheater, H. and Evans, E. (2009). ‘Land use, water management and future flood risk’, Land Use Policy, 26(Supplement 1), pp. S251–S264, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.019 (Accessed: 22 February 2015).
White, G. F. (1936). ‘The limit of economic justification for flood protection’, The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, 12, pp. 133–148, [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3158294 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
White, G. F. (1945). Human adjustments to floods; a geographical approach to the flood problem in the United States. PhD. University of Chicago.
White, I. (2008). ‘The absorbent city: urban form and flood risk management’, Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning, 161(4), pp. 151–161, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2008.161.4.151 (Accessed: 27 April 2018).
White, I. (2010). Water and the City: risk, resilience and planning for a sustainable future. London: Routledge.
284 Chapter 9: References
Wilby, R. L. and Keenan, R. (2012). ‘Adapting to flood risk under climate change’, Progress in Physical Geography, 36(3), pp. 348–378, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133312438908 (Accessed: 25 April 2018).
Williams, C. (2015). ‘Famine: Adam Smith and Foucauldian Political Economy’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), pp. 171–190, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjpe.12069 (Accessed: 22 February 2015).
Wolf, S., Hinkel, J., Hallier, M., Bisaro, A., Lincke, D., Ioneseu, C. and Klein, R. (2013). ‘Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalisation’, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 5(1), pp. 54-70, [Online]. Available at: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/loi/ijccsm (Accessed: 03 November 2018)
Wong, C., Baker, M and Kidd, S. (2006). ‘Monitoring spatial strategies: The case of local development documents in England’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, pp. 533–552, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/c0553 (Accessed: 29 April 2018).
Wood, R. l., Handley, J. and Kidd, S. (1999). ‘Sustainable Development and Institutional Design: The Example of the Mersey Basin Campaign’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(3), pp. 341–354, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569911127 (Accessed: 12 April 2013).
Wood, R. and Handley, J. (1999). ‘Urban Waterfront Regeneration in the Mersey Basin, North West England’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(4), pp. 565–580, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569911064 (Accessed: 22 May 2015).
World Bank and United Nations 2010. Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. World Bank: World Bank. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8050-5 (Accessed: 15 February 2016).
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
285 Chapter 9: References
Yang, C. (2005). ‘Multilevel governance in the cross-boundary region of Hong Kong – Pearl River Delta, China’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 37(12), pp. 2147–2168, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/a37230 (Accessed: 22 April 2013).
Yanow, D and Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. London: Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Yohe, G. W and Tol, R.S.J. (2007). ‘The Stern Review: Implications for Climate Change’, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49(2), pp. 36-43, [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.49.2.36-43 (Accessed: 03 May 2018).
Yu, L. Garcia, A., Chivas, A., Tibby, J. Kobayashi, T. and Haynes, D. (2015). ‘Ecological change in fragile floodplain wetland ecosystems, natural vs human influence: The Macquarie Marshes of eastern Australia’, Aquatic Botany, 120(Part A), pp. 39–50, [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2014.07.002 (Accessed: 22 April 2016).
286 Chapter 10: Appendices
10. APPENDICES
287 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX A - High Level Summary of Estimated Economic Costs of Summer 2007 Floods in England
Best % of Impact estimate total £ million
Households (buildings and contents) 1200 38
Businesses (Buildings, contents and disruption) 740 23
Temporary accomodation 94 3
Vehicles 80 3
Local Government – infrastructure (excluding roads £83 134 4 (7) million) and non-emergency services
Emergency services (LGA, police, fire and rescue) 8 <1
Environment Agency (23% of cost for emergency) 19 1
Utilities (electircity, gas and water) 325 10
Communications (roads, rail and telecon) 227 7
Public health and fatalities (including distress, impact on 287 9 education and fatalities)
Agriculture 50 2
Unqualified costs, tourism, nature conservation, n/a community services, military services
Total 3,164 100
This table is based on the tables contained in the Appendix of the main report. Economic costs are borne by the national economy and may differ from financial and organisational.
Source – Chatterton et al,. (2010)
288 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX B – Interview Discussion Guide
THEME A: CURRENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOOD RISK AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
1. Can you tell me a little bit about your current job role and in summary its links with economic development policy and flood risk management? 2. From your professional perspective, what do you consider to be the main impacts of flood risk management on economic development policy? And visa versa? 3. Are you able to provide examples of development projects where consideration of flood risk management has come into conflict with a development opportunity? 4. Economic growth is a key government agenda both nationally and locally. How do you think flood risk management fits in with this agenda in Greater Manchester? 5. Can you explain how Local Development Plans feed into your work? Are local and neighbourhood plans useful, particularly in site level planning issues?
THEME B: DYNAMICS OF POLICY INTEGRATION
1. Flood risk policy and economic development policy can cause ‘policy silos’. Can you reflect on how you operate and explain how goals associated with the policies are achieved? 2. ‘Integration’ is often viewed as an aspirational goal. In the context of food risk management and economic development policy, what do you think are the potential challenges and opportunities of integration between these two policy areas? 3. Have you found any approaches to achieving a win-win resolution? If not, what were the main tensions and how were policy trade-offs dealt with? 4. Is there anywhere in Greater Manchester where policy integration in this area is working particularly well? 5. Are you aware of anywhere else in the UK or internationally where this issues is successfully addressed?
THEME C: CHANGES IN FLOOD RISK POLICY
1. There has been a change in responsibilities for flood risk management since the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act. What have been the results of this, for better or worse in terms of supporting economic development?
289 Chapter 10: Appendices
2. Does it matter that local economic development tends to operate to different geographical boundaries than flood risk policy? (Inc. upstream and downstream reference)
THEME D: CASE STUDY SPECIFIC – Rochdale Town Centre, Port Salford (Case Study Participants Only)
1. Can you explain who were the key actors involved in managing the economic development aspirations of the project, and promoting local and national flood risk policy? 2. How have the key actors exerted an influence on policy and decision making during the progression of the project? 3. How has consideration been given to the impacts of the development on upstream and downstream aspirations for economic development and flood risk? What were the challenges? 4. Can win/win approaches be achieved during the development or is policy trade-offs likely to be resorted to?
THEME E: FUTURE AVENUES OF POLICY INTEGRATION – Tailor towards case studies as required
1. Which approaches do you think are most effective in managing policy tensions at different scales of governance? (Local Authority, LEP, River Catchment areas, National, European). 2. What value do you feel is added with a city regional governance structure such as AGMA in Greater Manchester? 3. How do you think the management of flood risk and economic development policy can be done better (at various scales, and working across scales, both temporal and geographical)
290 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX C – Participant Consent Form
PhD Thesis Title - Protecting communities, protecting livelihoods: integrating flood risk management, strategic planning and economic development within Greater Manchester
In summary, the research is to analyse the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy within the multi-scalar governance landscapes of a river catchment. A focus is placed on the experience of actors operating within the city region of Greater Manchester. Further detail on the research can be obtained from the Participant Information Sheet. After consideration, please initial and sign this form to demonstrate your understanding and agreement to participate in the research.
UNDERSTANDING OF CONSENT
STATEMENT OF CONSENT INITIAL STATEMENT
1) I confirm that I understand the purpose of the study and have had the opportunity to consider whether to take part in the research and to ask questions.
2) I understand that my participation in the research is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw consent at any time without giving reason.
3) I understand that the interviews will be audio recorded.
4) I agree that any data collected may be published in anonymous form in academic books, reports and journals.
5) I agree to the use of anonymous quotes
6) I understand that the information provided by me will be held confidentially and stored securely.
I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY CONDUCTED BY EVELYN PROSSER, UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROFESSOR GRAHAM HAUGHTON
______/_____ /______
Name of the participant (PRINT) Date Signature
______/_____ /______
Name of the person taking consent (PRINT) Date Signature
291 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX D – Observation Activities
Event Details Event Purpose
Workshop Title: Upper Mersey Catchment Partnership
Date: 03.04.2014 A stakeholder workshop with the objective of opening up conversations Chief Healthy Rivers Trust on priorities, plans and projects for the Organiser: Upper Mersey Catchment plan.
North West, England, Attended by: Any interested public and Location: Stockport private sector organisation or individual.
Conference Title: Manchester and Pennine Water Forum
Date: 03.04.2014 Diverse forum open to anyone interested in waterways their Chief Canal and Rivers sustainable future and the vital role of Organiser: Trust our canals and rivers in the community
North West, England, Attended by: Any interested public and Location: Manchester private sector organisation or individual.
Workshop Title: Upper Mersey Catchment Partnership River Basin Management Planning Workshop
Date: 25.02.2015 The Environment Agency presented on information pack to help the catchment Chief Environment Agency partnership to understand and be able Organiser: to respond to the River basin Management Plan Consultation for the North West, England, Upper Mersey Catchment Location: Sale Attended by: Any interested public and private sector organisation or
292 Chapter 10: Appendices
Event Details Event Purpose individual. The event was led by the Environment Agency.
Conference Title: Flooding – Communities at Risk and the Pathfinder Experience
16.03.2015 Held to highlight the achievements and Date: learning being generated through the Chief The National Flood DEFRA’s funded Flood Resilience Organiser: Forum Community Pathfinder projects. The presentations gave an overview of the starting point for each project and how they engaged with stakeholders. The conference also sought to put the Pathfinders in the context of national and regional priorities for communities North West, England, Location: at risk of flooding and presented the Rochdale North West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee 2030 Vision.
Attended by: Any interested public and private sector organisation or individual.
Exhibition Title: The National Flood Expo
Date: 15.10.2015 International exhibition and conference on all aspects of flood management Chief The Prysm Group focused on solving problems and Organiser: providing solutions. Showing the latest strategies in predicting, managing, South East, England, preventing and recovering from floods. Location: London Attended by: assessor, analyst, project managers, conservationist, consultants,
293 Chapter 10: Appendices
Event Details Event Purpose drainage engineer, flood risk engineer, flood risk manager, hydrologist, infrastructure engineer, planning officers.
Conference Title: Flood Resilient Communities: Evaluating the DEFRA Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder
Date: 02.12.2015 The conference presented the key findings from DEFRA’s Flood Resilience Chief DEFRA Community Pathfinder initiative ran Organiser: between April 2013 and March 2015. South East, England, Location: An event held twice once in the North London West and once in the South East. Chief Healthy Rivers Trust The event was sponsored by Organiser: Collingwood Environmental Planning and the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management. North West, England, Location: Attended by: Any interested public and Manchester private sector organisation or individual.
294 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX E – Stakeholder Organisations Interviewed and Background Information
Stakeholder Organisation Aims and Background/ Nature of Input
Greater Manchester is an area made up of the council districts of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Association of Greater Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan. The 10 councils maintained their relationship Manchester through the AGMA, which acted as a joint committee in respect of certain functions operated on a Greater Authorities (AGMA) Manchester basis.
New Economy delivers policy, strategy and research advice to promote economic growth and prosperity in New Economy Greater Manchester, working on behalf of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership.
A committee established by the Environment Agency under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that brings together members appointed by the Lead Local Flood Authorities and independent members with
North West Regional relevant experiences for three purposes:
Flood and Coastal · to ensure there are coherent plans for identifying, communicating and managing flood and coastal Committee erosion risks across catchments and shorelines · to encourage efficient, targeted and risk-based investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management that represents value for money and benefits local communities
295 Chapter 10: Appendices
· to provide a link between the Environment Agency, LLFAs, other risk management authorities, and other relevant bodies to build understanding of flood and coastal erosion risks in its area
Manchester City Council is the local government authority for Manchester, a city and metropolitan borough Manchester City in Greater Manchester. The local authority is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and has the power and Council duties for managing flooding from local sources, namely ordinary watercourses, surface water and groundwater.
Salford City Council is the local government authority for Salford, a city and metropolitan borough in Greater Salford City Council Manchester. The local authority is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and has the power and duties for managing flooding from local sources, namely ordinary watercourses, surface water and groundwater.
Rochdale Borough Council is the local authority of the metropolitan Borough of Rochdale in Greater Rochdale Borough Manchester. The local authority is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and has the power and duties for Council managing flooding from local sources, namely ordinary watercourses, surface water and groundwater.
Bolton Borough Council is the local authority of the metropolitan Borough of Bolton in Greater Manchester. Bolton Council The local authority is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and has the power and duties for managing flooding from local sources, namely ordinary watercourses, surface water and groundwater.
296 Chapter 10: Appendices
The Environment Agency is a non-executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Environment Agency Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Responsibilities for managing the risk of flooding from main rivers, (EA) reservoirs, estuaries and the sea in England reside with the EA.
Natural England is the governments adviser for the natural environment in England with responsibilities for:
· promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity · conserving and enhancing the landscape · securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of Natural England the natural environment · promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging open-air recreation · contributing in other ways to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment
A public research university including the School of Environment, Education and Development which brings University of together five interrelated specialisms: architecture, geography, planning and management, education and Manchester global development.
University of A public research university including the Department of Geography and Planning. Liverpool
297 Chapter 10: Appendices
A private water company responsible for providing water and waste water services to the North West of United Utilities England, responsible for delivering over £3 billion in infrastructure expenditure between 2015 and 2020.
A unique rural regeneration company created in 2005 as a champion for the South Pennines. It is an award winning partnership organisation that has attracted over £5 million of national and European funding to Pennine Prospects deliver a wide range of projects aimed at promoting, protecting and enhancing the built, natural and cultural heritage of the South Pennines.
Manchester Chamber A private business that is committed to provide businesses with a platform to connect with other businesses, of Commerce communicate their message and create opportunities for a skilled workforce.
A local economic development agency, a standalone company with the mission to promote the economic Invest in Rochdale well-being of the borough of Rochdale by helping to deliver new economic investment, development and local jobs.
Private owned investment enterprise primarily focused on the North of England. The Peel Group includes five distinct groups of investments; Transport and Logistics; Land and Property; Retail and Leisure; Energy The Peel Group and Media. The groups aim is to reinvest to regenerate by recycling capital over the long-term. By continually reinvesting in new projects and making strategic acquisitions, our approach is to grow the value of our assets over many decades.
298 Chapter 10: Appendices
A national charity established in 2002 with start-up money from the Environment Agency. The role of the charity if to support and represent individuals and communities at risk of flooding. The charity is governed National Flood Forum by a Board of non-executive Trustees and operates through a small team of professional staff. It has a commercial arm, NFF Services CIC, recently created to generate funding for the charity.
Red Rose Forest was a community forest covering Greater Manchester, England. It was the public face of Community Forest Trust’s (CFT) work in the city region operating for over 25 years. In 2015 a partnership City of Trees between the charitable organisations of The Oglesby Trust and the CFT was launched called the City of Trees. (Formerly Red Rose The organisation continues the work of Red Rose Forest to bring people, organisations and companies Forest) together to green Greater Manchester. This includes projects on the ground throughout the region focussed around; planting trees and managing woodlands; urban orchards; school projects, and GreenStreets.
A charity in England and Wales established in 2012. The main role of the charity is to preserve, protect, Canal and Rivers Trust operate and manage inland waterways for public benefit. The charity is governed by a Board of non- executive Trustees, Council of Members, Appointments Committee and waterway Partnerships.
299 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX F – Interview Method Table
Length Interviewee Codes Scale Status/ Notes Source Saturation Min.Sec
Category 1 – Private Sector (PrS)
Conducted in person 12.11.2014 PrS Knowledgeable Scholar 1 Regional Sample frame 45.16 Pilot interview
Referred by knowledgeable Yes PrS Knowledgeable Scholar 2 Regional Conducted in person 12.03.2015 60.02 scholar 3
PrS Knowledgeable Scholar 3 Regional Conducted in person 14.04.2015 Sample frame 56.49
PrS Infrastructure Regional Conducted in person 05.02.2015 Sample frame No 60.25
PrS Developer Regional Conducted in person 13.03.2015 Sample frame No 60.18
Category 2 – Public Sector (PS)
Conducted in person 05.11.2015 PS, Economic Development 1 City Regional Sample frame 52.54 Pilot interview Yes
PS, Economic Development 2 City Regional Conducted in person 04.12.2014 Sample frame 47.17
300 Chapter 10: Appendices
PS, Economic Development 3 City Regional Conducted in person 24.03.2015 Sample frame 41.16
Conducted in person 10.11.2015 PS, Economic Development 4 Local Sample frame 46.43 Case Study, Rochdale
PS, Flood Risk Management 1 City Regional Conducted in person 30.11.2015 Sample frame 60:14
Conducted in person 05.11.2014 PS, Flood Risk Management 2 City Regional Sample frame 42.59 Pilot interview Yes
Conducted in person 11.03.2015 PS, Flood Risk Management 3 Local Sample frame 44.15 Case Study, Salford
PS, Planner 1 City Regional Conducted in person 16.01.2015 Sample frame 60.23
Conducted by phone 03.12.2014 PS, Planner 2 Local Sample frame 55.05 Case Study, Salford Yes Conducted in person 11.03.2015 Referred by Government, PS, Planner 3 Local 60.53 Case Study, Rochdale Flood Risk Management 1
PS, Planner 4 Local Conducted in person 11.12.2014 Sample frame 60.02
301 Chapter 10: Appendices
PS, Planner 5 Local Conducted in person 11.12.2015 Sample frame 40.03
PS, Flood Risk Management 1 Regional Conducted in person 26.03.2015 Sample frame 28.21
PS, Flood Risk Management 2 Regional Conducted in person 20.01.2015 Sample frame Yes 47.50
PS, Flood Risk Management 3 Regional Conducted in person 12.02.2015 Sample frame 60.29
Politician Regional Conducted in person 18.12.2014 Sample frame No 60.23
Category 3 – Third Sector (TS)
TS, NGO, Economic Local Conducted in person 25.03.2015 Sample frame No 42.58 Development 1
TS, NGO, Economic City Regional Conducted in person 14.12.2015 Sample frame No 46.56 Development 2
Conducted in person 19.03.2015 TS, NGO, Environment Regional Sample frame No 39.12 Hand written notes
TS, NGO, Flood Risk Referred by Regional Regional Conducted by phone 20.04.2015 No 47.17 Management Politician
302 Chapter 10: Appendices
TS, Charity, Flood Risk Regional Conducted in person 17.12.2014 Sample frame No 29.47 Management 1
TS, Charity, Flood Risk Regional Conducted by phone 29.01.2015 Sample frame No 45.31 Management 2
TS, Charity, Environment Regional Conducted in person 15.01.2015 Sample frame No 60.12
303 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX G – Timeline, Trinity River Vision
Timeline
· The Trinity River flooded over 3,000 acres, killing 37 people and destroying many more businesses and homes. The existing levees 1922 which were constructed after the 1908 flood, did not prevent damage, so they were increased in height following this event.
· North Central Texas was inundated with torrents of rain in the Upper Trinity River Basin. In spite of levees whole sections of communities’ downtown were beneath 10 feet of water. Thousands were left 1949 homeless, 10 people died, and property damages reached $15 million. · United States Army Corps of Engineers opened a Fort Worth office and began building a flood protection system on the Trinity River that included the present levee system.
· Federally funded improvements were completed, including the construction and strengthening of the levees. The plan also 1957 straightened the Clear Fork and West Fork channels of the river, which removed the natural meander of the river in favour of a channel system. Thousands of trees along the banks were removed.
· As a result of the levee project, the Trinity River was left a dry, 1969 littered ditch for most of the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, but one that served as a level of flood defence.
· A group of local citizens formalized as Streams and Valleys, an organization charged with the beautification and recreational development of the Trinity River and its tributaries. · Streams and Valleys commissioned Halprin and Associates to study 1971 the Trinity River in Fort Worth. The resulting “Halprin Plan” recommended low-level dams to regulate water level, extensive multiuser trail systems, lighting, planting thousands of trees, and vastly improving public areas.
304 Chapter 10: Appendices
· EDAW, a noted urban planning firm from Alexandria, Virginia, was 1988 commissioned to develop a new plan that focused on expanding public access to the river.
· The Trinity River Master Plan was designed to provide flood protection, recreation, scenic beauty, and accessibility to the public. It 2002 also is a prevention plan – unlike preceding plans which were drawn up in response to disasters, this plan is designed to avert foreseeable damage and destruction and provide continuing safety.
· The TRVA was formed to manage and coordinate the project based on local partnerships with the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, 2006 Streams and Valleys, and the Tarrant Regional Water District, working closely with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Department of Transportation.
· The first year for substantial above-ground development. First, bridge construction will break ground late summer for the three new bridges necessary for the project. Additionally, two private developments 2014 exceeding a total of $60 million will begin in 2014. They are expected to bring several hundred housing units to the district and will be the first residential developments to exist on Panther Island.
Source: Adapted from Granger (2014).
305 Chapter 10: Appendices
APPENDIX H – International Flood Risk Governance – Report
(Overleaf)
306
INTERNATIONAL FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE
An International Review of initiatives for integrating economic development and flood risk
Practical examples from England – Scotland – Germany – Netherlands – Australia – America TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
1.0 Introduction ______4 2.0 Methodology ______6 3.0 Atlantic Gateway Case Study ______11 4.0 The Thames Gateway Case Study ______19 5.0 Clyde Waterfront Case Study ______27 6.0 The New Water Pilot Area Case Study ______32 7.0 Emscher Landscape Park Case Study ______37 8.0 Lower Murray Floodplain Project Case Study ______43 9.0 Trinity River Vision Case Study ______49 10.0 Summary ______58
Photography: Canal in Amsterdam taken by author July 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
This report has been prepared by Evelyn Alexis Bateman, a PhD candidate at the University of Manchester within the School of Environment, Education and Development (SEED). The primary aim of the report was to obtain an initial understanding of international best practice in the integration of flood risk management and economic development policy.
Economic development projects within different geographical landscapes provide a useful scale to explore the tensions between flood risk management and aspirations for economic development. Therefore, the approach used within this report comprises of seven economic development projects reviewed as individual case studies: Atlantic Gateway; Thames Gateway; Clyde Waterfront; New Water Pilot Area; Emscher Landscape Park; Lower Murray Floodplain Project and Trinity River Vision. The case study selection provides examples of projects from an international pool of cases.
Typologies have been used to analyse information obtained on pre-defined aspects for each case study, in order to inform on the direction, driver and approach to flood risk management for the project. All projects consider flood risk management but the direction, driver and approach towards the management vary between case studies.
Public-private partnership is seen across all case studies but the majority of projects were directed by the public sector, with funding predominantly provided by the private sector. The Atlantic Gateway in England stands out as a case because it comprises of board members with a concerted environmental interest, whereas strategic boards, although present for other projects, did not comprise of specific environmental expertise. Also notable is the role of the national water board in the set-up of the partnership within the New Water Pilot Project in the Netherlands.
Economic development is seen as the main driver with all projects showing a ‘very strong’ to ‘strong’ correlation to the typology. Flood risk was more of a focus than economic development for the Trinity River in America and was an equal focus for the New Water Pilot Project in the Netherlands.
A landscape approach is used for all projects, most notably within the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany. Utilising a hydrological catchment approach was used greater by the projects which had a higher correlation towards flood risk as the main driver. Flood risk was managed with a variety of actors and techniques including advisory groups, strategic assessment and stand-alone reports. The ability to locate and secure funding is seen as a common challenge to all cases regardless of the management approach observed.
Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Further research is required in a number of areas, in particular: undertaking specific detailed case studies to provide an in depth understanding; assessment of the governance landscapes and appraisal of initiatives to mediate flood risk management and economic development policy.
Page 3 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This report has been produced by Evelyn Alexis Bateman as part of a European and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded Case Award PhD in flood risk management being undertaken at the University of Manchester. Supervision of the PhD is conducted by Professor Graham Haughton (The University of Manchester), Sue Kidd (The University of Liverpool) and the Case Award partner - the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA). The PhD title at the time of writing this report is Protecting communities, protecting livelihoods: integrating flood risk management and economic development within Greater Manchester. This report presents findings from an initial desk-based review to identify examples of international best practice in relation to the integration of flood risk management and economic development.
This report examines the main characteristics of approaches used to manage flood risk during the development of economic development projects and seeks to highlight some of the key tensions encountered between the two policy areas. A comparison of seven international projects at different geographical settings has been undertaken.
1.1 BACKGROUND Flood events are a widespread occurrence globally, occurring in all regions of the world compared to other natural disasters which are primarily restricted in their distribution, for example earthquakes to tectonic plate boundaries and hurricanes to tropic regions1. This widespread distribution, together with the high incidence of flood events has led to flooding being described as the most frequent and damaging natural hazard; affecting 178 million people and causing losses that exceeded US$ 40billion in 20102. Severe flood events cause the loss of human lives and serious material damage3. As an example of such events the region of South East Queensland, including the state capital of Brisbane, experienced one of its largest recorded floods in January 2011, reportedly the most expensive natural disaster in Australian history45. At the time of writing
1 Kron, W. 2005. Flood risk = hazard.values.vulnerability, Water International, 30, pp.58-68. 2 Jha, A. K., Bloch, R. and Lamond, J. 2012. Cities and flooding: a guide to integrated urban flood risk management for the 21st century. World Bank: Washington D.C.
3 Brazdil, R., Kundzewicz, Z. W. and Benito, G. 2006. Historical hydrology for studying flood risk in Europe, Hydrological Sciences Journal. 51, pp.739-764. 4 Van den Honert, R. C. and McAneney, J. 2011. The 2011 Brisbane Floods: Causes, Impacts and Implications. Water, 3, pp.1149-1173.
Page 4 INTRODUCTION
this report, the United Kingdom has been subjected to a period of sustained and severe flooding which has increased both political and public scrutiny of approaches to management, with the government receiving widespread criticism from the UK media for failing to act sufficiently to protect businesses and homes.
The potential cost of future flood events has driven a renewed interest in flood risk management6. In the UK the National Environment Research Council reported that in 2013 the UK had assets worth over £132 billion at risk from coastal flooding and £82 billion from river flooding7. This is further combined with an unquantified value of assets at risk from other sources of flooding such as ground water and surface water.
A major shift in approaches to the management of flooding, driven by an increase in severe floods and the recognition of an upward trend in vulnerability to flood events, has been documented in many countries worldwide. Concurrently, a change in the locus of power, as governments seek more effective and efficient institutional arrangements, has seen a change in governance, which in turn affects approaches to the management of flooding. An increase in flood risk concurrent with an increase in development pressures poses a complex conundrum for the future well–being of key economic locations in the UK and the ability of the UK to manage its future accommodation and social needs in a sustainable manner. There is a problematic interface on improving flood risk management in ways that might enhance rather than undermine the economic development aspirations of a region.
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES The key aim of this report is to share practical examples of how flood risk management is being undertaken without compromising aspirations for economic development. To meet this aim a series of objectives were developed with AGMA, to undertake a comparative study of international development projects to identify and assess:
1. How flood risk is managed during the evolution of economic development projects; 2. Tensions between flood risk management and economic development policy; and 3. Methods used to mediate tensions between flood risk management and economic development policy.
5 Bohensky, E. & Leitch, A. 2013. Framing the flood: a media analysis of themes of resilience in the 2011 Brisbane flood. Regional Environmental Change, [online] 13(1), pp.475-488 [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10113-013-0438-2#page-2 6 Scott, M. et al. 2013. Living with flood risk. Planning Theory & Practice. 14, pp. 103-140. 7 Hardaker, P. and Collier, C. 2013. Flood Risk from Extreme Events: A National Environment Research Council directed programme. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. 139, p. 281.
Page 5 METHODOLOGY
2.0 Methodology
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH To meet the objectives of this report, a representative sample of international development projects has been selected by a series of internet searches that sought economic development projects of a regional scale with flood risk concerns.
The selected development projects have been presented as individual case studies of flood risk management from an international perspective, outlining the approaches used to facilitate flood risk management without compromising aspirations for economic development.
Differences and similarities, within the context of challenges to flood risk management between the international case studies have been compared.
2.2 CASE STUDY SELECTION In order to select case studies, a series of internet searches was undertaken using the following selection criteria:
· Projects of a regional scale; · Projects with potential to influence flood management; · Projects from a varied geographical range; and · Projects with sufficient information freely and publicly available, in order to complete an assessment as per the methodology outlined herein.
For the purpose of this assessment, three UK projects and four international projects have been selected in order to enable a comparative assessment within the UK, in addition to a comparative assessment between the UK and international approaches to flood risk management. A range of project examples were chosen to reflect management approaches from across the world including case studies from Europe, Australia and America.
Case studies selected as part of this assessment are outlined in Table 2.1.
Page 6 METHODOLOGY
TABLE 2.1 – THE CASE STUDIES
HYDROLOGICAL COUNTRY CASE STUDY AREA PROJECT CATCHMENT
United Kingdom England, South East Thames Gateway River Thames
United Kingdom England, North West Atlantic Gateway River Mersey
United Kingdom Scotland, Clyde Clyde Waterfront River Clyde
The Netherlands South Holland The New Water Pilot Area ------
Germany Northern Ruhr Emscher Landscape Park River Rhur
Australia South Australia Future of Lower Murray River Torrens Floodplain
United States of Texas, Dallas Trinity River Vision River Trinity America
Page 7 METHODOLOGY
2.3 MAIN FOCUS The comparative assessment has focused on five key aspects of the development projects in order to assist answering the main research objectives, outlined in Table 2.2 below.
TABLE 2.2 – ASPECTS INVESTIGATED FOR EACH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ASPECT DESCRIPTION
The Hydrological Describes the area of land and the main water drainage area within which the Catchment development project resides.
Identifies the principal organisation or representative actively involved in the Key Actors development project and those taking a role in flood risk management.
Implementation of Flood Risk Considers how flood risk has been incorporated into the development project. Governance
Financing Identifies outline funding arrangements for flood risk management.
Identifies potential tensions which may have arisen between the aspirations Tensions for economic development and flood risk management.
The principal method of investigation for each aspects was internet searches to gather documented data, where publically and freely available, on each project. The scope of this comparative assessment has been limited to the aspects identified above, as a means of data reduction, enabling focused analysis and application of a typology to each case study. The typologies have been presented as a matrix in order to display the data in a readily comparable format and to enable conclusions to be drawn.
Page 8 METHODOLOGY
The typologies considered for each development project are outlined within Table 2.3.
TABLE 2.3 – PROJECT TYPOLOGIES
TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Private and Public A development project in which the private sector and public sector Developer Led take an equal share to lead the development of an area.
n A development project in which private actors take a leading role and o i t Private Developer Led public actors adopt a facilitating role to manage the development of c
e 8
r an area . i
D
A development project in which public actors take a leading role and Public Developer Led private actors adopt a facilitating role to manage the development of an area. A regulatory impact on the development project is present.
River Restoration Focus River restoration is a central consideration in providing appropriate flood protection and as a driver for the development of an area.
r e
v Flood Risk Focus Risk is a central consideration in providing appropriate flood i r protection and as a driver for the development of an area. D
Economic Development Fiscal advantage is a central consideration in providing appropriate Focus development and a driver for the development of an area.
Concept for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, Landscape Approach and environmental objectives.
h
c River and floodplain focused enhancement that considers catchment
a Hydrological Catchment
o scale hydrological processes and associated land management r Approach p pressures. p
A Engineered Flood Risk Engineered structural features to reduce flood risk. Management Approach Natural/ Ecological Food Alteration, restoration or use of natural landscape features to reduce Risk Management flood risk. Approach
8 Heurkens, E. 2012. Private Sector-Led Urban Development Projects: Management, Partnership and Effects in the Netherlands and the UK. Architecture and the Built Environment. 2(4), p.1.
Page 9 METHODOLOGY
Scoring The typologies outlined within Table 2.3 have been assessed for each project and scored using a numeric classification between 0 and 5. This is a subjective assessment to demonstrate the degree to which a project correlates to the defined typology, the scoring system used is shown within Table 2.4. The assessment is based on the researcher interpretation of data and identified sources of information; it provides only an indication of the degree of correlation. A matrix containing scoring from all projects is presented at the end of the assessment in order to facilitate comparison.
TABLE 2.4 – SCORING SYSTEM
SCORE CORRELATION 0 None 1 Very Weak 2 Weak 3 Moderate 4 Strong 5 Very Strong
2.3 LIMITATIONS The following limitations have been noted in relation to this assessment.
· The assessment is conducted based on freely and publically available information, in the English language; · This assessment is desk-based. This assessment provides only a ‘snap-shot’ of the integration between flood risk management and economic development. · No attempt has been made as part of this assessment to contact actors or other parties for information or interviews; and · The assessment is based on the researcher interpretation of information identified at the time of writing this report.
Page 10 UK, ENGLAND
3.0 Atlantic Gateway Case Study
‘If anywhere in the UK can develop the critical mass and momentum to become an alternative growth pole to London, it is Atlantic Gateway9’ (Lord Heseltine CH and Sir Leahy T, 2011)
3.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The vision of the Atlantic Gateway is to maximize investment into the North West region and support delivery of major projects with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and other partnerships. The geographical area defined as the Atlantic Gateway is situated in the North West of England, comprising land along the River Mersey and the estuary between the city regions of Liverpool and Manchester. However, the scope of the project extends beyond the administrative boundaries of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, to include the wider share hinterland of both city regions across Warrington, Halton, Ellesmere Port, Chester and North Cheshire. The Atlantic Gateway will seek to drive growth within the entire North West region.
The Atlantic Gateway is deemed as ‘the most significant opportunity in the UK to attract investment, accelerate growth and rebalance the economy. It is a proposition to create critical mass to achieve a new level of growth not previously achieved in the UK outside London’10. It is claimed that the Atlantic Gateway has the potential to become a major brand to leverage private sector investment and other funding opportunities. Investment is expected to be attracted by the projects scale and its ability to deliver major projects which would not proceed at a local level without the coordination, collaboration and scale of funding opportunities that the Atlantic Gateway can provide.
The Atlantic Gateway will utilize the region’s key assets including: the high growth economic sectors; infrastructure; emerging enterprise zones; and workforce to unlock potential in ways
9 Heseltine, C.H. and Leahy, T. 2011. Rebalancing Britain: Policy or Slogan? Liverpool City Region – Building on its Strengths: An independent report. [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014.] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rebalancing-britain-assessing-opportunities-for-growth-in- the-liverpool-city-region 10 The Atlantic Gateway Website. 2014. The most significant opportunity. [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/home
Page 11 UK, ENGLAND
which support sustainability. The most significant opportunities for investment and growth to be sought within the area are outlined within the Business Plan11 and include: · Growth – driving growth through innovation in key sectors; · Connectivity – creating a globally connected gateway; · Infrastructure – developing low carbon infrastructure and technologies · Sustainability – improving the quality of the environment; and · Talent – attracting and retaining talent to drive economic growth.
The recent changes in economic development policy within the UK has led to a restructuring of economic co-ordination and presented opportunity for LEPs. The Atlantic Gateway supports the LEPs of Cheshire and Warrington, Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region. Such partnerships enable the gateway to be flexible and responsive to deal with emerging issues and opportunities. Although much of the literature for the gateway focuses on driving growth it is emphasised within the ‘Atlantic Gateway Vision’ that the project is not focused ‘on growth at any cost’12. It is this focus which is key to understanding the mediation between economic development and other factors of importance for the city regions such as flood risk within the river Mersey catchment.
3.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHMENT Atlantic Gateway broadly embraces the hydrological infrastructure within the area referring to the link between Manchester, Liverpool and the Atlantic Ocean via the River Mersey. The River Mersey originates at the confluence of the River Tame and the River Goyt in the town centre of Stockport within Greater Manchester. It flows west, towards Liverpool, passing through South Manchester before flowing into the Manchester Ship Canal at Irlam and travels towards Warrington. West of Warrington the river widens and then narrows as it passes through the Runcorn Gap between the towns of Runcorn and Widnes, in Halton. From here the river widens into a large estuary, the course of the river then heads north, with Liverpool to the east and the Wirral Peninsula to the west. The Mersey Estuary continues through the ‘Narrows’ a straight narrow channel with depths of up to 30m and then forms the outer estuary, a large area of inter-tidal sand and mud banks as it flows into Liverpool Bay on the Irish Sea.
11 Atlantic Gateway. 2012. Atlantic Gateway Business Plan. [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/_assets/downloads/ag-businessplan.pdf. 12 The Atlantic Gateway Website. 2014. Our Vision. [Online]. [Accessed: 01 August 2013]. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/our-vision
Page 12 UK, ENGLAND
The Lower Mersey catchment comprises over 19,000 residential and commercial properties at risk from a 1 in 100-year (1% annual risk) flood event, with 4,675 properties in the Upper Mersey and 1,134 properties in the Weaver Gowy catchment13. Over the next 100 years the impacts of climate change are expected to increase the number of residential and commercial properties at risk from a 1 in 100-year flood event. In the Lower Mersey this may increase to 24,843 properties, 19,350 in the Upper Mersey, and 1,392 in the Weaver Gowy catchment14. The level of risk and potential financial cost associated with a 100 year event is a strong rationale for flood risk management across the Atlantic Gateway.
3.3 KEY ACTORS The Atlantic Gateway is private sector led and benefits from a board of experienced senior North West business leaders; public sector representatives; and representatives from the three LEPs of Manchester; Cheshire and Warrington; and Liverpool City Regions. Significantly, the board contains environmental representatives including Walter Menzies as an independent advisor on sustainable development and Steve Moore, North West Director of the Environment Agency who is keen to ensure that the Environment Agency plays its part in creating the right conditions for economic growth.
The Board is further assisted by an environmental sub-group which has a role of developing a programme called ’Adapting the Landscape’ which is one tool being used by the project to ensure conditions for growth occur in tandem with the existing landscape and to ensure benefits of the project are maximized. Further information is provided on ‘Adapting the Landscape’ within Section 3.4.
Public bodies, The Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission work closely together to provide a ‘single voice’ approach to advise the Atlantic Gateway Board on how best to encourage integrated delivery of infrastructure to support and enable growth while protecting and enhancing the environment.
13 URS and NWDA. 2009. Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester: Final Report. [Online]. [Accessed: 01 August 2013]. Available at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/09-12- 22_ATL_Final_Report_highres.pdf 14 URS and NWDA. 2009. Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester: Final Report. [Online]. [Accessed: 01 August 2013]. Available at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/09-12- 22_ATL_Final_Report_highres.pdf
Page 13 UK, ENGLAND
3.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE The Atlantic Gateway program identifies that flood risk and water management is a critical issue that will affect opportunities for new development and existing businesses across all LEP areas. The changing weather predictions for the North West are for hotter summers, wetter winters, and increased flooding, hence an urgent need to start dealing with the consequences of these changes.
The Atlantic Gateway framework promotes collaboration between the Manchester and Liverpool city regions in order to work together to resolve common barriers and challenges to growth, across the gateway area. Flooding is identified as a key climate change challenge across the Mersey Basin that will act as a significant constraint on economic development by constraining development and investment. The 2013 Business Plan15 explains that flood risk will constrain development and investment unless there is better collaboration across LEPs to identify issues, priorities, actions and develop a collaborative approach which is critical to achieving long term growth prospects. However, there is limited indication as to how such collaboration should occur as the project develops.
The importance of flood and water management to the area is shown within the project by its inclusion as a suggestive delivery mechanism within the ‘Sustainable Infrastructure and Low Carbon Economy’ theme for growth. A further indicator of commitment to this delivery mechanism is the acknowledgment of the Environment Agency as a key partner to the Atlantic Gateway, acting as both regulator and advisor on flood risk. At the time of reporting, the Environment Agency are undertaking several pieces of work across the Atlantic Gateway area, including the consideration of flood issues, strategies and assessment. This includes the updating the Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMP) to identify risks and establish a set of actions addressing flood risk at catchment level. The current CFMP for the Mersey Estuary and the Upper Mersey were produced in 20091617.
Adapting the Landscape The Atlantic Gateway is described as a good forum for flood risk management due to the interdependencies between physical development and flood risk within the Atlantic Gateway
15 Atlantic Gateway. 2012. Atlantic Gateway Business Plan [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/_assets/downloads/ag-businessplan.pdf. 16 Environment Agency. 2009. Upper Mersey Catchment Flood Management Plan [Online]. [Accessed: 22 February 2014]. Available at: https://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/genw0309bpts-e-e.pdf 17 Environment Agency. 2009. Mersey Estuary Catchment Flood Management Plan [Online]. [Accessed: 22 February 2014]. Available at: https://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GENW0309BPKS-E- E.pdf.
Page 14 UK, ENGLAND
Business Plan 2012. One approach facilitating such management is that the Atlantic Gateway is progressing with a view of accelerating the pace of transformation from a ‘grey to green’ landscape, hoping that this will benefit business competitiveness and communities as well as the environment. The Atlantic Gateway has demonstrated a commitment to a strategy called ‘Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester’18 which follows on from the clean-up of the River Mersey, its tributaries and the entire river basin largely co-ordinated by The Mersey Basin Campaign. Recent research undertaken by several actors within the North West have developed the strategy which comprises of a framework for landscape adaptation and investment that can tackle climate change, support improvements in peoples quality of life and underpin economic growth. The framework is both a project and policy which envisages a paradigm shift in the way the landscape within and connecting the two cities is gradually transformed over a period of time. The governance arrangements required to ensure such a paradigm shift over a considerable period of time is uncertain however the Atlantic Gateway may provide a suitable framework of governance.
Atlantic Gateway Landscape Park The Atlantic Gateway Landscape Park is another initiative which will build on analysis and scenarios of Adapting the Landscape with the primary objectives of supporting economic growth to enable leadership, coordination and focus for an integrated environmental improvements programme. There is currently no further detail on the leadership, coordination or focus of this program of environmental improvements.
3.5 FINANCING The Atlantic Gateway is acknowledged to stand apart because of its strategic scale, and the way in which its assets and opportunities can be managed and co-ordinated. It is hoped this will help attract major institutional investment not available in smaller geographies or for smaller scale projects promoted on an individual basis. Projects will largely move forward due to private sector investment. This scale, approach and co-ordination, in order to gain finance, may also have beneficial outcomes for the holistic management of flood risk across the Atlantic Gateway.
The Atlantic Gateway Community Environment Fund involves a voluntary levy of 1% on the total value of capital investment by partners in the Atlantic Gateway. This funding will be used to invest in environmental improvements while working closely with third sector organisations. It is
18 URS and NWDA. 2009. Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester: Final Report. [Online]. [Accessed: 01 August 2013]. Available at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/09-12- 22_ATL_Final_Report_highres.pdf.
Page 15 UK, ENGLAND
unknown at this stage whether some of this funding may be used specifically for flood risk management schemes.
Adapting the Landscape may gain funding by the European Structural and Investments Funds through Local Enterprise Partnerships. Local Nature Partnership are identified as one of a number of partners that LEPs should consult as they develop their strategies.
3.6 TENSIONS The Atlantic Gateway Board structure, specifically the presence of key environmental stakeholders, is likely to proactively reduce tensions between economic and environmental decision making. Furthermore, the board is supported by the Atlantic Gateway Sustainability and Environmental Group which advises on flood risk management therefore decision should be further informed.
The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· Adapting the Landscape is presented with a number of options for the governance and management of the concept comprising of two extremes including ‘do-nothing’ and creating a new organisation, purposely designed for the task. This project and policy is innovative and ambitious with tensions likely to arise when consideration is given to deciding on the appropriate governance and management arrangements to move the concept forward. · Adapting the Landscape outlines various options including a ‘do-nothing’ approach which is criticised as unlikely to achieve a successful outcome. In contrast, creating a new organization would require a huge design and engagement effort. Tensions are likely to be present in deciding which arrangements are appropriate. Furthermore, no specific measures are outlined to facilitate flood risk management. · Liverpool and Manchester economies interlock with the Atlantic Gateway vision but in general they operate in isolation and independent from one another19.
19 Harrison, J. 2013. ‘Rethinking city-regionalism as the production of new non-state spatial strategies: the case of peel holdings Atlantic Gateway’, Urban Studies, pp. 1-21, [Online]. [Accessed 26 March 2012]. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/19/0042098013493481
Page 16 UK, ENGLAND
3.7 SUMMARY Table 3.1 below describes the key findings in relation to the Atlantic Gateway Case Study.
TABLE 3.1 – SUMMARY ATLANTIC GATEWAY TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE · The Environment Agency, a national body and regulator, advises directly to the board and has an active role in decision making as a board member. · The Environment Agency are further supported by Private and Public 5 Natural England and the Forestry Commission as a Partnership Led ‘single voice’ approach. As such, the Environment Agency’s role on the board, is influenced by key stakeholders in relation to flood risk management. · Diverse board of private sector partners. · Significant proportion of private sector decision Private Sector Led 5 making and funding. · Voluntary environmental levy scheme from partners. · Key public actors involved in decision making and Public Sector Led 3 advisory roles, but not funding. · Commitment to implementing a development strategy which embodies the principles of Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester, which specifically includes consideration of flood risk management provided by natural attenuation Landscape Approach 4 resources. The concept provides a strong landscape approach to the management of flood risk and economic development but how this will be achieved is not yet determined. · Facilitation of environmental improvements via the Atlantic Gateway Landscape Park. · The Atlantic Gateway framework enables collaboration between organisations within the Mersey Basin Catchment. Facilitating the ability to work together to resolve common barriers and challenges to growth, Hydrological 5 across the gateway area. Catchment Approach · At the time of reporting, the EA are undertaking several pieces of work across the Atlantic Gateway area, including the development of CFMP to address flood risk at the catchment level.
Page 17 UK, ENGLAND
· The project represents a strategic vision across a large spatial scale. As such, flood risk management can potentially be considered at a regional/catchment level concurrently with other project objectives · The Atlantic Gateway has demonstrated a commitment to focus on ‘Adapting the Landscape’ which follows on from the clean-up of the River Mersey, its tributaries River Restoration 2 Focus and the entire river basin largely co-ordinated by The Mersey Basin Campaign. However, river restoration is not a key focus of the scheme. · The Atlantic Gateway programme identifies flood risk Flood Risk Focus 3 as a critical issue. · Local Economic Partnerships (LEP) a new spatial scale and interface for economic management. Working with Economic 5 Development Focus LEP’s is key to the success of the project. · Primary objective to support economic growth. Engineered Risk · No direct references to engineered flood defences 0 Management falling within the remit of the project. Approach Natural/ Ecological Flood Risk · Adapting the Landscape suggests the implementation 3 Management of natural flood risk management measures. Approach
Page 18 UK, ENGLAND
4.0 The Thames Gateway Case Study
‘’We know that flood risk is something we are going to have to deal with more and more as a result of climate change. We need to ensure we deal with it in the Thames Gateway’’
(Minister for Planning and Housing, Rt Hon Keith Hill MP, 16.07.2004)
4.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Thames Gateway is an initiative across the Thames River Basin that forms a focus for targeted housing growth, regeneration and economic development which has been evolving since the early 1990s20. The Thames Gateway is an area of land stretching 40 miles eastwards from East London including Stratford, the Olympic Village and Canary Wharf on both sides of the River Thames and the Thames Estuary, as far as Southend-On-Sea and the Isle of Sheppey. There are three principal regions within the Thames Gateway - Thames Gateway Essex; Thames Gateway London and Thames Gateway Kent.
The project aims to boost the economy of the whole Thames Estuary region including London, Kent and Essex through the development of marshland, farmland and brownfield land. It aspires to reverse more than two hundred years of relative decline in the East London and Thames corridor and to make it a world class region with unrivalled locations for working and living. The project has been described as ‘the country’s largest regeneration challenge, it is also arguably it’s most demanding contemporary governance challenge’21. The scale of the Thames Gateway project, the speed of development and the vulnerability to different types of flooding including coastal, river and surface water means that the flood risk and the potential for flood losses are great.
4.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHMENT The River Thames including its basin district covers an area of 16,133 square kilometres22. The source of the River Thames is at Thames Head in the Cotswold’s and then travels through rural areas of Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and parts of Kent and Essex. Further downstream, the Thames
20 20 Thames Gateway. 2014. Thames Gateway Planning Framework RPG 9a [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://regulations.completepicture.co.uk/pdf/Planning/The%20Thames%20gateway%20planning%20fra mework.pdf 21 Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A. 41(3) pp. 617 – 633. 22 Environment Agency. 2014. More about the Thames River Basin District [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014] Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33130.aspx.
Page 19 UK, ENGLAND
flows through the heavily urbanised eastern and northern parts of Greater London before entering the Thames Estuary into the North Sea.
A substantial part of London is built on the floodplain of the Thames and its tributaries and is prevented from flooding by a complex system of flood defences. The flood risk management scenario for London is further complicated by the fact that flood risk would be high in many areas if there were no structural defences, but with maintained defences the residual risk is low. The new developments created as part of the Thames Gateway will fundamentally change the development footprint in the Thames river catchment.
4.3 KEY ACTORS The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was responsible for coordinating the Thames Gateway project. The role of the Department was to provide leadership, coordinate the activities of its partners, and provide direct intervention with its partners where necessary23. The Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership involves stakeholders from across the area and certain government agencies and is chaired by the Minister of Housing and Planning.
The Department has limited formal control over its partners in the Thames Gateway, who will actually deliver the infrastructure, jobs and new homes. Much of the local planning was done by Local Authorities who are accountable to their local electorate and not the Department. The Department relied on influence, persuasion and strategic use of its funding to enable it to steer the program and coordinate its partners to achieve the goals of the project.
London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) was established in 2004 to lead the economic, social and environmental revival of a large area of London, characterised by dereliction, contamination, under achievement and disadvantage. The LTGDC included the Thames Gateway, although planning was a part of its remit there was no clear commitment to the management of flood risk whist delivering this remit. The LTGDC was dissolved on 28 February 2013. All of its powers were transferred either to the Mayor’s London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), or the Greater London Authority (GLA) or the appropriate London borough.
23 National Audit Office. 2007. The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations. London: The Stationary Office, [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://www.lddc- history.org.uk/other/naothamesgatewayreport0507.pdf
Page 20 UK, ENGLAND
The project has required coordination at the national, regional and local level. The public sector involvement in the Thames Gateway project was large, as an example the distribution of public sector involvement is shown during 2006 within Figure 3.1.
Page 21 UK, ENGLAND
FIGURE 3.1 – SECTORS INVOLVED IN THAMES GATEWAY AND PUBLIC ACTORS24
24 Extracted from The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations Report - National Audit Office. 2007. The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations. London: The Stationary Office, [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/other/naothamesgatewayreport0507.pdf
Page 22 UK, ENGLAND
4.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE The institutional and policy context of the Thames Gateway is complicated25. The development in the Thames Gateway area has been subject to a web of agencies with overlapping responsibilities as identified within section 4.3.
The Thames Gateway recognised the need to understand the relationship between economic development and flood risk. A study conducted by The Association of British Industry in 2005 outlined that 91% of new homes and 1 million square metres of commercial property proposed for Thames Gateway were likely to be located on the floodplain26. The responsibility for flood defence was shared by the Department for Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Environment Agency, and the Thames Flood Defence Committee, the Boroughs, the Greater London Authority and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Collectively, they were responsible for ensuring that individual sites have defences when they are developed, and the boroughs are responsible for ensuring that planning obligations were met.
The principal tool used to manage flood risk within the Thames Gateway is Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) to provide information on the flood risk across the area. SFRA were conducted for the three Thames Gateway Strategic Partnerships covering East London, Kent and South Essex. Sites within higher flood risk areas and where a local authority considers development is appropriate then had further flood risk assessment conducted on a site by site basis.
Parklands Vision The Thames Gateway also comprised of a ‘Parklands’ vision (also referred to as the Green Grid) to regenerate and develop urban and rural open spaces which are connected together to create an accessible and coherent landscape. It acknowledges the Estuary’s industrial and functional past, and its strategic importance as the engine room of the regional economy, now and in the future. The Thames Gateway was branded as the UK’s first eco-region as part of the Parklands vision.
The Parklands vision outlines the potential increase in flood risk due to climate change as a concern with focus placed on the role of structural defences including the Thames barrier but also
25 Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway, Environment and Planning A, 41(3) pp. 617 – 633. 26 Association of British Insurers. 2005. Making communities sustainable: Managing flood risk in the Government's growth areas Final Technical report Volume 1, London: Association of British Insurers.
Page 23 UK, ENGLAND
a recognition of natural flood defence both upstream and downstream27. The Parkland vision comprises of management whereby the parklands are conceptualised with a combination of blue, green and brown landscapes in a spatial framework.
Thames Estuary 2100 The Environment Agency have developed a long term strategy for flood risk management in the Thames Estuary called the TE2100. The project develops an understanding of the estuary and flood risk, in order to anticipate change in the future and increasing risk. The project includes a comprehensive action plan to manage flood risk and is closely linked to the development of the Thames Gateway.
4.5 FINANCING The public sector has had a key role in enabling development and in unlocking potential for economic development. Most of the finance for the development of housing and other infrastructure in the Thames Gateway has been achieved by private sector investment.
The SFRA were funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime minister. The council specific additions were funded by each authority from local funds and private developers.
4.6 TENSIONS The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· Concerns have been expressed about ensuring that environmental issues attain the same priority as meeting targets for houses and jobs. A committee report in 200528 expressed concerns that the Thames Gateway development was progressing rapidly and that there was a danger that sites most suitable for natural flood management measures, as part of the Green Grid were already developed for new homes and business. Plans for the Green Grid are progressing too slowly considering the speed of development in the Thames Gateway. Furthermore, it was unknown how much land would be required for a functional
27 Department for Communities and Local Government. 2008. Thames Gateway Parklands Vision: Part 1, [Online]. [Accessed: 10 August 2013]. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http:/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/ regeneration/pdf/part1.pdf. 28 London Assembly. 2005. London under threat? Flooding risk in the Thames Gateway, [Online]. [Accessed: 10 August 2013]. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london- assembly/publications/london-under-threat-flooding-risk-in-the-thames-gateway
Page 24 UK, ENGLAND
Green Grid. There was also no mechanism for funding the development or maintenance of the land, no land was formally designated for this use. · Previous National planning policy on flooding (Planning Policy Statement 25)29 outlined how planning authorities should take into account the level of flood risk when deciding whether to grant planning permission for new developments. This statement gave a hierarchy of response according to risk with new developments not permitted on high risk areas and expected to be flood resistant in low to medium risk areas. The context for the Thames Gateway is complicated by the fact that flood risk would be high in many areas if there were no defences, but residual risk is often low. In the Thames Gateway, the area vulnerable to flooding is so extensive that any site is likely to be dependent on defences owned by numerous different landowners. As flood risk is increasing this guidance may have led to different defences being built to different standards as opposed to acting together to protect a wider area. · The high number of bodies which produced policy and strategies and the degree to which this is co-ordinated within the Thames Gateway became a problem, leading to developers and architects unsure of what standards are needed or who should be consulted on advance of submission of planning applications. This complexity acts as a barrier to creating an overarching approach to flood risk management.
4.7 SUMMARY Table 5.2 below describes the key findings in relation to the Thames Gateway Case Study.
TABLE 5.2 – SUMMARY THAMES GATEWAY TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE · Anticipation of a strong private and public partnership however the strength of this relationship appears to Private and Public 4 have strained due to the complex institutional Partnership Led structure. · Uncertain division of responsibility. Private Sector Led 3 · Financial resource from private sector funding. · Key public actors involved in decision making and Public Sector Led 4 advisory roles. · Responsible for some aspect of funding.
29 Department for Communities and Local Government. 2010. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. London: HMSO [Online]. [Accessed: 10 August 2013]. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planni ng/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicystatements/pps25/
Page 25 UK, ENGLAND
· The Parklands Vision comprises of management which conceptualised the blue landscape as a spatial Landscape Approach 3 framework. Also, acknowledging the role of the blue landscape in flood risk management. It is unclear the extent to which this approach has been delivered. · The river Thames catchment is used as a landscape Hydrological 3 Catchment Approach within the Parklands Vision. River Restoration 0 · Restoration of the river is not a driver for the project. Focus · Presence of a Thames Flood Defence Committee with Flood Risk Focus 3 close links to the Thames Gateway now replaced by the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. · Large economic development focus with attempts to link low carbon growth and sustainable growth by Economic 5 Development Focus establishing plans to transform the Gateway into the UK’s first ‘eco-region’. · Large emphasis on structural defences currently Engineered Risk operational within the Thames Gateway including the Management 4 Thames Barrage, concerns raised over the life span, Approach maintenance and funding of the defences. Natural/Ecological · Emphasis on structural defences currently operational Risk Management 2 and proposed within the Thames Gateway. Approach
Page 26 UK, SCOTLAND
5.0 Clyde Waterfront Case Study
‘’the city that refused to die30’’
(Keating, M, 1988)
5.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The purpose of Clyde Waterfront is to promote the economic, social and environmental regeneration of 13 miles of land along the River Clyde from Glasgow city centre to Dumbarton. The vision for the Clyde is to develop a vibrant, thriving River Clyde with regeneration projects planned over a 20 – 25 year period; leading to a world class waterfront location. The Clyde regeneration strategy started in 2001 and focuses on a number of key areas for action, as follows: · Connecting disadvantaged communities to new economic opportunities; · Physical renewal to help create attractive communities for living and working and help retain talented people in Scotland; · The creating of thousands of new jobs and training opportunities; · Encouraging growth of modern industries while also helping to reenergize traditional riverside industries; · Developing new transport links which will be at the heart of the Clyde’s rebirth, connecting the riverfront to the city region and beyond.
5.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHEMENT The River Clyde is formed at the confluence of two streams, the Daer Water and the Potrail Water. Between the towns of Motherwell and Hamilton the course of the river has been altered to create an artificial river within Strathclyde Park. The river then flows through Blantyre and Bothwell past Uddingston and into the southeast of Glasgow where the river begins to widen, meandering a course through Rutherglen and Dalmarnock. The river flows out west of Glasgow to Dumbarton on the Firth of Clyde.
5.3 KEY ACTORS The Clyde Waterfront is a strategic partnership comprising the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council and West Dumbartonshire Council also known as the ‘working group’. These partners are responsible for developing the Clyde Waterfront
30 Keating, M. 1988. The City that Refused to Die – Glasgow, The Politics of Urban Regeneration. Aberdeen University Press: Aberdeen.
Page 27 UK, SCOTLAND
regeneration plan. A Strategic Partnership Board is present to drive the transformation and ensure all efforts along the river are carefully planned and co-ordinated. The board has a ‘cross-boundary’ remit to ensure consistency and unity in all the work taking place or planned along the river corridor.
Partnership is identified as key with public and private sectors working together on the regeneration of large tracts of land along the river and the revitalisation of local communities.
5.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE The existing River Clyde Flood Management Strategy31 highlights the importance of flood risk along the River Clyde, the area is subjected to coastal, river and surface water flooding. The Clyde Waterfront Board anticipates that the most effective solution for flood protection within the River Clyde catchment is likely to comprise a combination of engineered structural defence mechanisms including upgrading quay walls, attenuation and/or the construction of an iconic barrier or barrage downstream of the Kelvin. The Clyde Waterfront Regeneration Plan emphasises that the cost of such work would be significant and is estimated in excess of £600 million32. Furthermore, the plan highlights the importance of similar engineering schemes which protect assets from flood risk and creates a secure environment in which to invest, develop, work and live namely, Rotterdam, London and Belfast.
The Working Group have also examined what would happen without concerted public sector action and spending on flood risk management. Based on professional property market appraisal it is possible to project a pattern of development on the Clyde that might emerge without the proposed regeneration plan. One finding of this examination is that flood prevention measures would be implemented in a piecemeal way which would detract from the overall investment confidence and could delay the inevitable investment required. Furthermore, the report argues that in the long term it may result in even greater expenditure33.
Projects within the Clyde Waterfront comprise flood risk management strategies which do appear to be developing in a piecemeal way. An example of a scheme is the North Renfrewshire Flood Prevention Scheme which includes the construction of flood embankments, retaining walls, a
31 Halcrow and Fairhurst. 2006. River Clyde Flood Management Strategy: River Corridor Supplementary Development Guide [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014]. Available at https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4855 32 Clyde Waterfront Working Group. 2004. The Clyde Waterfront Regeneration Plan: A river reborn, [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014]. Available at http://www.glasgoweconomicfacts.com/GetFile.aspx?itemid=65 33 Clyde Waterfront Working Group. 2004. The Clyde Waterfront Regeneration Plan: A river reborn, [Online]. [Accessed: 14 February 2014]. Available at http://www.glasgoweconomicfacts.com/GetFile.aspx?itemid=65
Page 28 UK, SCOTLAND
culvert, a pumping station and river dredging. In addition, the Brromielaw – Tradeston Bridge development built as a catalyst for investment and to connect Tradeston and the International Financial Services District also includes strengthening to the quay wall and the installation of flood prevention and drainage systems.
Green Network Strategy The Clyde Waterfront includes a Green Network strategy which seeks to create a series of connected, complimentary and high quality green spaces across the Glasgow Metropolitan Region. Central to the Green Network concept is recognition that spaces can and should provide multiple functions and that environmental management should be conducted in a joined up approach.
The main objective of this Green Network Strategy is to set out a bold and imaginative framework for the Clyde Waterfront that can help deliver a step change in the quality of its green space assets. This includes the role that Green Infrastructure can play in managing surface water run-off but also flood water storage. The report has been produced by consultants AECOM and concludes that the provision of structural defences is considered the most suitable strategy for protecting Glasgow and other neighbouring local authorities34. This is consistent with the River Clyde Flood Management Strategy.
Strategic Environmental Assessment The Glasgow City Plan 2, a plan produced by Glasgow City Council to ensure the city has a regeneration framework which remains up to date and equipped to tackle issues and realise development opportunities has been subjected to Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment. The Glasgow City Plan 2 includes the Clyde Waterfront as a regeneration strategy and specifically assesses water, flooding and sewerage35. There is no mention of specific flood management schemes within the SEA.
5.5 FINANCING The Clyde Waterfront has stimulated approximately £2 billon of investment to the river which has largely been received from the private sector. This has created 20,000 new jobs, 9,000 new homes and 313,000 sq. meters of commercial spaces. It is anticipated that the total value of investment between 2003 and 2025 is estimated at around £5-6 billon with approximately 50,000 new jobs, 25,000 new homes and 2.8m sq. meters of new commercial space.
34 AECOM. 2010. Clyde Waterfront Green Network Strategy, [Online]. [Accessed: 03 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.clydewaterfront.com/media/1272421/100826_clydewaterfrontfinal_lowres.pdf 35 Glasgow City Council. 2009. Glasgow City Plan: Strategic Environmental Assessment – Environmental Report, [Online]. [Accessed: 05 March 2014]. Available at http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13598&p=0
Page 29 UK, SCOTLAND
The projects have a mixture of public and private funding sources, the specific details for flood risk management are unknown. It is know that Brromielaw-Tradeston Bridge cost £6 million36 and North Renfrew Flood Prevention Scheme cost approximately 8 million37.
5.6 TENSIONS The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· Challenges arise when seeking to locate funding resources for a flood risk management strategy which is focused on high expenditure structural defence. · The Council, Scottish Eater and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) consider that the Clyde Waterfront required a master planning approach. However, rather than a single masterplan, the Clyde Waterfront is likely to involve a mixture of masterplans and action plans, delivering integrated local development strategies38.
5.7 SUMMARY Table 5.1 below describes the key findings in relation to the Clyde Waterfront Case Study.
TABLE 5.1 – SUMMARY CLYDE WATERFRONT TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE · A number of projects with demonstrated private and public partnership including schemes to facilitate flood risk management. Private and Public 4 · The Clyde Waterfront reeragtion plan is being Partnership Led developed mainly with the public sector, central government and councils but also Scottish Enterprise (SE). SE board members include the private sector. · A proportion of private sector decision making and Private Sector Led 3 funding. · Private sector funding important.
36 Clyde Waterfront. 2014. Brromielaw-Tradeston Bridge. [Online]. [Accessed: 10 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.clydewaterfront.com/projects/glasgow-city centre/infrastructure/broomielaw_tradeston_bridge 37 Clyde Waterfront. 2014. North Renfrew Flood Prevention Scheme. [Online]. [Accessed: 10 February 2014] Available at: http://www.clydewaterfront.com/projects/renfrew-riverside-- scotstoun/infrastructure/north_renfrew_flood_prevention 38 Glasgow City Council. 2009. City Plan 2, Development Strategy Priorities and Proposals: Key Regeneration Area, [Online]. [Accessed: 10 February 2014]. Available at http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6063
Page 30 UK, SCOTLAND
· Strategic Partnership between the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City, Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire Councils. Public Sector Led 4 · Glasgow Council conducted a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which includes the Clyde Waterfront and the consideration of flood risk · Limited implementation of a landscape approach to development observed. Landscape Approach 1 · Development of flood risk management schemes in a piece-meal way. · A high river catchment approach to development is observed. · The Green Network is a vision closely linked to the Clyde watercourse and provides a comprehensive assessment of projects which contribute to Hydrological 3 establishing this vision. Catchment Approach · The Clyde Waterfront website includes a Clyde wide Green Network interactive map whereby progress can be monitored. · Development of flood risk management schemes in a piece-meal way. · One of the Clyde Waterfront goals is to promote environmental regeneration along the river and to River Restoration 3 Focus connect green spaces beyond the immediate waterfront. · Flood risk is identified as a concern to regional growth Flood Risk Focus 3 and is a key aspect of the Clyde Waterfront. · SEA conducted which includes flood risk Economic 4 · Pre-dominate focus on economic development. Development Focus · A number of projects comprise of engineered flood Engineered Risk defence schemes, privately and publicly funded. Management 4 · The board favour the use of engineered risk Approach management options. · Green network concept seen to have a role in flood Natural Flood Risk management but structural flood defences seen as the Management 3 solution. Approach · Green Network Strategy including management of surface water and flood storage.
Page 31 THE NETHERLANDS
6.0 The New Water Pilot Area Case Study
‘’…rather than being a problem, the water becomes a unique selling proposition’’
(Steven Elfring , Planning Manager BNG Gebiedsontwikkeling)
6.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The New Water Pilot Area (Het Nieuwe Water), between the towns of Naaldwijk and s- Gravenzande in the Netherlands is a unique development project that combines living by and on the water with recreation and leisure in an unprecedented way. Naaldwijk and s-Gravenzande are towns in the Dutch province of South Holland and form part of the municipality of Westland where the largest economic sector is greenhouse horticulture. The project comprises of a section of former greenhouse land once reclaimed from the sea, to be re-flooded and transformed into an ecological zone where living, recreation and water storage come together.
The two existing discharge routes from the Westland region to the North Sea and the Nieuwe Waterweg canal will not continue to provide sufficient drainage over the long term. The New Water Pilot Area provides an innovative solution to this problem: an expansion of the water storage basin surface area by roughly 27 hectares. This expansion will enable a 35-centimeter rise in the basin water level, providing additional water storage capacity. In the event of heavy rains or high river levels, the excess water will drain into this lowest point in the Westland region, without impacting proposed new land use. This feature of the project fulfils the Delfland Water Authority's plan for measures to improve the Westland region's water management system and to provide optimum water security while also providing an economic and ecological boost to the region.
6.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHMENT The morphology of the Westlands is determined by the water including the North Sea to the North West, the River Meuse, tidal creeks and canals which form a complex system of waterways. The original peat marshes which extended beyond the tidal creeks were drained to become agriculture land. The canals were originally constructed to drain and cultivate the peat area which led to polders. The New Water Pilot Area is situated along 2.5 km of the Nieuwe Vvaart canal and is further connected to the Westland waterway network including the Poelwatering, Molensloot and the Gantel canal.
Page 32 THE NETHERLANDS
6.3 KEY ACTORS To achieve the New Water Pilot Area a public-private partnership called the New Westland Development Corporation (ONW) was created comprising of The Municipality of Westland; the Province of South Holland, Delfland Water Board and a private sector company BNG Area Development, the area development subsidiary of BNG Bank. The ONW is run as an independent, for profit site development company who is engaged with land development in Westlands. The involvement of the water board in the setup of the partnership is unique in the Netherlands.
This project is one of several being conducted by ONW in order to facilitate economic growth within the Westlands. The ONW is responsible for implementing the Integral Westland Development Plan (IOPW) and is helping to implement the Greenport Westlands strategy 2020. Greenport Westlands is one of five officially designated greenports as part of the national Greenports Holland strategy. A network, representing the Dutch cluster of businesses related to horticulture, including arboriculture and floriculture, which is important to the Dutch economy as the largest exporter of fresh produce in Europe.
The key actors involved in the New Water Pilot Area are outlined within Table 6.1 which shows the public – private partnership occurring principally at a regional level.
TABLE 6.1 – PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTORS NEW WATER PILOT AREA39 PUBLIC PARTNERS NATIONAL REGIONAL LOCAL The Municipality of
Westland Province of South Holland Delfland Water Board PRIVATE PARTNERS ONW BNG Area Development Architects Waterstudio Van der Waal & Partners OPP
6.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE The management of flood risk by using pilot project has become popular in water management in the Netherlands with many water managers, policy-makers, companies, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and academics initiating or participating in pilot projects40. The role of a
39 Adapted from Het Nieuw Water. 2014. Project Partners. [Online]. [Accessed: 10 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.hetnieuwewater.com/en/contact/partners 40 Vreugdenhil, H., J. et al. 2010. Pilot projects in water management. Ecology and Society 15(3), pp. 13.
Page 33 THE NETHERLANDS
pilot projects in policy is complex, New Water Pilot Area appears to be a pilot in order to gain experience on interdisciplinary cooperation between administrative and economic stakeholders in the area. The project seeks to enable economic development via residential development while also providing an innovative solution to manage flood risk.
Originally, the Poelpolder area was formed by pumping out the water to reclaim the underlying land. This project proposes that the land will be returned to the water basin level, creating both a unique location with exceptional living, recreational facilities but also additional water storage capacity. The New Water Pilot Area will be the first neighbourhood to be built on water acting as a model for dual use of space for living and for other areas that will to be reunited with water in the future.
6.5 FINANCING Limited detailed information has been accessible on the funding arrangements for the New Water Pilot Area. It is known that the New Westland Development Corporation includes the private sector company of BNG Area Development, the area development subsidiary of BNG Bank. BNG Bank actively invest in the development of large-scale residential developments and business parks. BNG facilitate the delivery of the Westland Integrated Development Plan by investing in regional development which includes the New Water Pilot Area.
The tender process for New Water Pilot Area comprised several banks at the start of the project; BNG Bank is said to have offered the best offer for the project finance. BNG has a 50% holding and is the biggest shareholder in the project within the municipality. The Dike Board and the provincial authority are all shareholders. BNG Bank is providing the entire project funding from the preparatory phase until the properties are sold.
6.6 TENSION The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· The Westland Municipal Council wanted housing yet the Province of South Holland wanted more countryside. · The water board assumed a risk-bearing partnership in the public-private partnership. · It has been noted that there is a lack of green structure in the Westland’s that creates space for recreation and continuous connections through the Westlands there some opposed the need for further development.
Page 34 THE NETHERLANDS
· The private parties are focused on profit while the public parties are focused on achieving social objectives which in the case of the water board is the integrated tackling of local water problems.
6.7 SUMMARY Table 6.2 below describes the key findings in relation to the New Water Pilot Area Case Study.
TABLE 6.2 – SUMMARY NEW WATER PILOT AREA TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE · Partnership comprising of the Municipality of Westland; the Province of South Holland, Delfland Private and Public 5 Partnership Led Water Board and a private sector company BNG Area Development. · ONW is run by an independent site development company who is engaged with land development in 4 Private Sector Led Westlands. · Funding predominatly provided by BNG Bank. · Steering provided by public sector · Defland Water Board wanted a solution to the flooding Public Sector Led 3 in the Poelpolder bear ‘s-Gravenzande, the lowest polder in the Westlands. · New Water Pilot Area comprises of a residential neighbourhood and an ecological zone which considers the landscape. The Poelpolder area has been Landscape Approach 4 designated by Westland Country as a ‘blue-green’ corridor, connecting coastal dunes with the richly forested area of Naaldwijk. · Consideration undertaken of the wider hydrological Hydrological catchment and benefit to the Westland region by 5 Catchment Approach flooding the polpolder to provide extra water storage capacity. River Restoration 0 Focus · The project architects Waterstudio believe that the project is contributing to a new relationship with water whereby ‘no-one is living next to water but living on water instead’. This shows an early consideration of 4 Flood Risk Focus water into the project’s design. · The project is a pilot for regional flood risk management occurring alongside economic development.
Page 35 THE NETHERLANDS
· Concerns over regions water storage capacity and drainage ability outlined from the start. · Supports Greenports, a national strategy which is important to the entire Dutch economy. · Supports changes in ways to deal with effects of the changing economic structure of the region while Economic 4 providing a boost to Westland’s economy. The Development Focus departure of the horticulture sector to other parts of the country has also led to the need for other sources of income, such as tourism, nature conservation and housing. Engineered Risk · Engineered to simulate the flood storage capacity of Management 4 the area. Original engineered flood defences removed Approach to allow area to be re-flooded. Natural/Ecological · Natural flood risk management developed into the Flood Risk 4 project by altering functional of land use back to its Management original use of a flooded polepolder. Approach
Page 36 GERMANY
7.0 Emscher Landscape Park Case Study
7.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Emscher Landscape Park was the central component of an integrated development strategy for the former industrial region of Ruhr. The Emscher River was degraded to a sewer at the beginning of the 20th century due to rapid industrial and demographic growth of the Ruhr region. The river system began to be reconstructed into an attractive river system, integrated with its surroundings in the late 1980s. Significantly, in 1989 the government started the International Building Exhibition (IBA), including Emscher Landscape Park which promoted itself as a ‘’workshop for the future of old industrial areas’’41.
The Emscher Landscape Park was a key pilot project within the IBA Emscher Park framework and thus integrated into a structural programme for the ecological, social, and economic redevelopment of the northern Ruhr District. The IBA Emscher Park was a state led, ten year urban restructuring programme that proclaimed capable of revitalising the multitude of abandoned industrial properties, addressing the local social housing needs, and reversing environmental problems. The main mission of the Emscher Landscape Park was to channel the process of transforming the industrial landscape to create a new regional park. The projects objectives are as follows:
· Preserving the remaining leftover landscape · Linking up the isolated, separate areas in the agglomeration · Re-zoning separate areas as parklands · Researching agreements both regionally and locally on individual projects with a long term perspective and; · Maintaining and managing the new open spaces in a permanent regional park association.
The ambition, restoration of the area, was central to the regional government’s vision for economic regeneration. It was implemented and constructed to revalue the industrially characterised cultural landscape and to initiate new impulses for further development. The
41 Fü rst, D. and Kilper, H. 1995. The innovative power of regional policy networks: a comparison of two approaches to political modernization in North Rhine-Westfalia, European Planning Studies. 3(3), pp. 287– 304.
Page 37 GERMANY
program began by a call from the Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Transport for single project proposals from all sectors of society42.
7.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHMENT During the 19th century the Emscher flowed through a thinly populated landscape dominated by meadows, woodlands and swampy heaths. The river would cause widespread flooding due to its low gradient and lack of permanent river bed. Over a century ago this sparsely populated landscape transformed into an industrial conurbation and the Emscher turned into a man-made system. The commencement of mining within the basin led to the Emscher region losing its rural character. The increasing number of mines and industrial enterprises established in the area led to a high disposal of wastewater into the Emscher and its tributaries. Floods became regular occurrences and foul water in flooded depressions led to intolerable hygienic conditions. The Emscher has a long history of individual initiatives to solve problems along the river system but often these tasks have been defeated due to their small size.
The Emschergenossenschaft is Germany’s first water management association founded in 1899 to more strategically solve the problems caused by increasing industrialisation, volumes of sewage, health problems and underground coal mining in the Emscher catchment. The organization today still has a key role to play in water management for the region. Over a long period of time the association has led to changes in the Emscher’s course, shortening and deepening its path, the construction of dykes and polder and conversion of the river to canals. The surrounding areas gradually become multi-structured with alternate green areas, woodland, or agricultural landscapes and the dominant industrial landscape. In the 1990’s Emschergenossenschaft started redevelopment of the whole river system with an underground sewer to be finalised in 2010 with ecological improvement to the river system implemented by 2027.
7.3 KEY ACTORS The development of the Emscher Landscape Park is a partnership approach. The regional partners consist of 20 municipalities, two districts, three administrative districts, the Regionalverband Ruhr, the Emschergenossenschaft, the state of Northrhine-Westphalia and private actors. A key initial actor in the Emscher Landscape Park is the Emscher Park Planning Company Ltd. which
42 Fü rst, D. and Kilper, H. 1995. ‘The innovative power of regional policy networks: a comparison of two approaches to political modernization in North Rhine-Westfalia, European Planning Studies. 3(3), pp. 287– 304.
Page 38 GERMANY
was set up to administer programs on the projects agenda. It was a self-regulating body without any governmental executive power but was wholly financed by the State of North Rhine- Westphalia and had close relations to the Government and access to other influential members of legislature and civil servants43. The company was expected ‘’to put work out to tender and bring together expertise, to coordinate projects and to motivate all involved to strive for high quality’’44.
Alongside the Emscher Park Planning Company Ltd. the Emschergenossenschaft played a key role in the development of Emscher Landscape Park as regional water manager. The Emschergenossenschaft is a non-profit public body who ensured that the future development, flood protection and ecological functionality of the area were promoted. Emschergenossenschaft seeks to balance the different demands that economy, people and nature make on the Emscher River. Today, the Emschergenossenschaft is pivotal to the management of flood risk.
7.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE Instead of basing restructuring of the region around job creation and economic measures, the IBA was set within a framework of improvements to the environment and quality of life, to try and ensure that economic interests did not dominate45. This impetus remains present in the Emscher Valley.
Flood protection is acknowledged as a central task of river basin management along the Emscher not only due to flood risk within the catchment but also due to effects downstream within other countries46. The ‘Emscher Future’ Master Plan47 was developed together with the cities and districts, and supported in a vote by the city and district councils. The Master Plan covers the following fields of activity:
· The New Emscher · Water meadows near residential areas and ecological network
43 Danielzyk, R. and Wood, G. 1993. Restructuring old industrial and inner urban areas: A contrastive analysis of state policies in Great Britain and Germany. European Planning Studies. 1(2), pp. 123-147. 44 Internationale Bauausstellung Emscher Park (IBA). 1989. Workshop for the Future of Old Industrial Areas. Memorandum on Content and Organization. Gelsenkirchen: IBA 45 Shaw, S. 2002. The International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park, Germany: A Model for Sustainable Restructuring?’, European Planning Studies. 10(1), pp. 77-97. 46 Emschergenossenschaft and Lippeverband. 2014. Flood Protection. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.eglv.de/en/waterportal/river-basin-management/flood-protection.html 47 Emschergenossenschaft and Lippeverband. 2014. The New Emscher Valley – providing impetus in the region. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.eglv.de/en/waterportal/emscher- conversion/the-new-emscher-valley.html
Page 39 GERMANY
· The Emscher pathway system · Site development potential in areas: open spaces · Site development potential in the area: residential spaces · Integration of third party projects and communications
The projects development comprised public consultation at an early stage. Dutch project partners played an important role during this time by appealing to the region to help solve their flooding problems. Representatives from the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat assisted the public participation process highlighting the cross regional significance of local flood management. This reportedly has positive consequences leading to a reduction in objections during the approval stage.
7.6 FINANCING Funding for Emscher Park was derived from a variety of sources. The process of river regeneration has required an investment of 4.4 billion Euros and will take until 2020. The State Government of North Rhine-Westphalia allocated 17.9 million EUR for IBA but much of the investment money came from developers, private companies, non-profit groups and local town governments that worked specifically on individual projects connected to the park.
Financing for continued rehabilitation of the Emscher River was obtained by a finance contract enabling the loan of 450 million Euros from the European Investment Bank. The contract was signed by the project promoter Emschergenossenschaft.
The strong state government responsibility for the project has become increasingly distributed among actors in the Ruhr District over time as European Union structural funding has become reduced. The new Ruhr Regional Association has taken over responsibility for the Emscher Landscape Park and the North Rhine-Westphalia government is to share in maintenance costs.
7.7 TENSIONS The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· Proposed new floodplain creations caused impact to the groundwater levels near housing estates. Expertise and careful public consultation was required to ascertain the impacts and advise on proposed changes to groundwater. · Measures applied along the Emscher helped to significantly reduce peak discharges along the River Rhine.
Page 40 GERMANY
7.8 SUMMARY Table 7.1 below describes the key findings in relation to the Emscher Landscape Park Case Study.
TABLE 7.1 – SUMMARY EMSCHER LANDSCAPE PARK TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE Private and Public 3 · Partnership present. Partnership Led Private Sector Led 3 · Development and funding of individual projects. · The project presents the Government’s vision for economic regeneration in the region. · Key public actors involved in decision making and advisory roles. Public Sector Led 5 · Significant aspect of project funded by public sector. · Emscher Park Planning Company Ltd. established and financed by the public sector. · Emschergenossenschaft has a key role in the development of Emscher Landscape Park. · Practical, goal orientated incentive for landscape Landscape Approach 4 development. · Dutch Rijkswaterstaat and engineer’s participation in the project due to greater catchment wide concerns Hydrological 4 about flood risk. Catchment Approach · Cross catchment approach taken including flood risk management downstream of Emscher Landscape Park. · The regeneration provides a highly visible symbol of positive change that is hoped to have a lasting benefits River Restoration 4 for the Rhur valley. Focus · Restoration of the natural river system as a key aspect of the project. Flood Risk Focus 3 · Flood risk considered as an integral part of the project. · European flagship for a forward-looking urban remodelling and structural change. Economic 4 · Restructuring of the region based on environmental Development Focus improvements to ensure that economic interests do not dominate. Engineered Risk · Conversion of wastewater from the Emscher and its Management 4 tributaries into closed conduits and re-establishment of Approach the rivers natural water way.
Page 41 GERMANY
Natural/ Ecological · Development of the original river system, water Management 4 meadows, floodplains and ecological networks. Approach
Page 42 AUSTRALIA
8.0 Lower Murray Floodplain Project Case Study
8.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Lower Murray Floodplain Project (LMFP) aims to identify the best use of the land along the flood plain through review of soil types, water quality and other environmental and social factors. The project is to ensure that future land use of the floodplain achieves maximum economic, social and environmental prosperity for the region. The project is managed by Regional Development Australia Murraylands, Riverland Inc. South Australian and the Lower Murray Flood Plain Working Group.
The project area is defined as all the land titles wholly or partially located within the 1956 flood line. The delineation of the area is based on the fact that a key focus of the study is the identification of sustainable future options for the reclaimed irrigation areas between Mannum and Wellington, also known as the “swamps”, or the Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Areas. However, in the interests of an integrated view of future land use opportunities, the entire flood plain and land connected to it by title has also been considered.
The project comprises of two stages, stage 1 involves the investigation of viable and sustainable land use options of the floodplain and future development opportunities including any necessary amendments to planning regulations that will need to be undertaken to enable these land uses to occur. This stage was completed in October 2013. Stage 2 will involve the development of projects and initiatives as recommended within Stage 1.
Stage 1 of the project has two key objectives achieved through investigation of existing data/ information and discussions with key stakeholders: The objectives are presented below.
1. To identify future viable land use opportunities for the Lower Murray floodplain which will deliver the best economic, environmental and social outcomes for this valuable natural resource
2. To review the current development plans relevant to the floodplain and identify necessary changes that will guide local government planning and policy instruments to:
i. Provide a consistent approach to governance, planning and policy across the partner Councils, and
ii. Plan for a sustainable mix of future land uses that:
· Improve amenity, enhance tourism and recreational uses of the floodplain
Page 43 AUSTRALIA
· Are compatible with and allow for future development of primary production, and · Provides for the identification and protection of important areas of conservation significance
8.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHMENT The Murray-Darling Basin is a large geographical area in the interior of south-eastern Australia, whose name is derived from its two major rivers - the Murray River and the Darling River. The Murray- Darling river system drains most of inland Victoria, New South Wales and Southern Queensland. The Murray River is Australia’s longest river, rising in the Australian Alps draining the western side of Australia's highest mountains and, for most of its length, meanders across Australia's inland plains, forming the border between the states of New South Wales and Victoria as it flows to the northwest, before turning south into South Australia, reaching the ocean at Lake Alexandrina.
8.3 KEY ACTORS The lead actor in the project is Regional Development Australia (RDA) & Riverland Inc. which was formed in 2010 as an amalgamation of the former Murraylands Regional Development Board and Riverlands Development Corporation. The aim of RDA M&R is to facilitate business development and business education, tourism development, economic development and involvement in labour market programs. The vision of the organisation is to create a vibrant, resilient region that capitalises on change, embraces sustainability, and provides an inspirational living, investment and working environment. The role of the RDA committee to achieve this vision is to:
· Consult and engage with the Murraylands and Riverland communities · Promote and participate in regional programs and initiatives · Provide information and advice on our region to all levels of government, and · Support informed regional planning
The key actors involved in the Lower Murray Floodplain project are outlined within Table 8.1.
Page 44 AUSTRALIA
TABLE 8.1 – PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTORS48 PUBLIC PARTNERS NATIONAL REGIONAL LOCAL Regional Development Australia & Riverland Inc. Rural City of Murray
Bridge Mid Murray Council Coorong District Council Primary Industries
and Regions SA Environment
Protection Agency SA Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board Department of Planning,
Transport and Infrastructure PRIVATE PARTNERS URPS Mark Siebentritt &
Associates Rural Solutions SA EconSearch Plt Ltd.
8.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE The project partners include the national Environmental Protection Agency and the South Australia Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board who have key roles in the management of flood risk. At this stage of the project flood risk has been a consideration within the Land Use and Development Plan Study conducted by URPS but no specific governance arrangements have been established for flood risk management. Flood risk is identified within this study as a constraint to economic development.
An additional aspect which makes planning important is that the River Murray-Darling Basin is the source of water supply for hundreds of municipalities and regional centres, as well as
48 Regional Development Australia. 2014. Lower Murray Flood Plain Project. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.rdamr.org.au/lmfp.html
Page 45 AUSTRALIA
providing for the demands of 1.3 million people who live outside the basin in the nearby city of Adelaide49.
8.5 FINANCING The funding partners include the Regional Development Australia Murrylands & River Inc., Rural City of Murray Bridge, Mid Murray District Council, Coorong District Council, Primary Industries & Resource South Australia and SA Murray Darling basin Natural Resource Management Board. Further detail on the quantity and allocation of funding has not been obtained.
8.6 TENSIONS The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· Complexities exist around understanding the flood hazard associated with the Lower Murray floodplain in relation to Development Plan policy, especially as the floodplain is at the end of a complex and dynamic catchment of flood risk and drought measures. · The 1956 flood line used to define the study area and the Development Plan is identified to be inconsistent with data held by the South Australian Department for the Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR). This inconsistency has led to a lack of clarity over the specific location of the flood line. This is an important gap which substantially impacts on Development Plan policy and future land use mapping in the study area. Furthermore, consultees as part of the study represent a view that the 1956 flood mark is outdated and that as a result of river management, this level of flooding is unlikely to occur again, or will at least be very uncommon50. · The inability to build permanent structures on the flood plain was raised by the majority of survey participants due to the potential risk of flooding51.
49 Sullivan, C. 2014. Planning for the Murray-Darling Basin: lesson from transboundary basins around the world. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 28, pp. 123-136. [Online]. [Accessed: 7 March 2014]. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00477-013-0789-8#page-1 50 URPS. 2013. Land Use Study and Development Plan Review for the Lower Murray Flood Plain [Online]. [Accessed: 23 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.rdamr.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Murraylands/Docs/Reports/Lower_Murray_Flood_Plain_ Land_Use_Study_and_Development_Plan_Review_2013.pdf 51 URPS. 2013. Land Use Study and Development Plan Review for the Lower Murray Flood Plain [Online]. [Accessed: 23 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.rdamr.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Murraylands/Docs/Reports/Lower_Murray_Flood_Plain_ Land_Use_Study_and_Development_Plan_Review_2013.pdf
Page 46 AUSTRALIA
· The study shows widespread support for enabling greater development on the flood plain noting that rather than not doing anything because of potential risk, that development should occur with the view to manage risks. · There are specific objectives for the creation of wetlands however wetland creation is not risk free and needs to consider many of the issues faced by irrigators, namely management of saline water. Investment in this kind of land use is likely to require an incentive of some kind. Its potential benefits are tempered by the fact that it is challenging to obtain revenue and a strategic approach would be most beneficial rather than a one off wet land creation.
8.7 SUMMARY Table 8.2 below describes the key findings in relation to the Lower Murray Floodplain Case Study.
TABLE 8.2 – SUMMARY LOWER MURRAY FLOODPLAIN TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE · Stakeholder consultation including private actors has Private and Public 2 been conducted as part of stage 1, the Land Use Study Partnership Led and Development Plan. · Private sector input is limited to consultation as part of stage 1, the Land Use Study and Development Plan. Private Sector Led 2 · Future involvement of the private sector unknown. It is anticipated that greater input will be sought during stage 2 of the project. · Lead actor is the Regional Development Australia & Riverland Inc, a public actor. Public Sector Led 4 · Land use plans completed for stage 1, the Land Use Study and Development Plan have been funded by the public sector. · Minimal consideration of landscape at this stage of the project. Landscape 2 Approach · Wetland habitat has been singled out but not deemed to be considered as a landscape approach. · The study area for the project was defined by the natural flood plain. However, this has caused tensions as several Hydrological stakeholder feel that this flood line is outdated. Catchment 5 · Strategic planning of the river basin catchment is Approach important, demonstrated by the funding of strategic land use plans for the catchment. River Restoration 0 Focus Flood Risk Focus 3 · Flood risk is considered by consultants URPS during the
Page 47 AUSTRALIA
Land Use Study and Development Plan. Flood risk is recognised within this report to impact economic development. · Emphasis is given to the establishing the correct Economic 4 development within the most appropriate location along Development Focus the river. Engineered Risk Management 1 · No engineered flood risk projects identified at present. Approach Natural/Ecological · The establishment of wetlands to facilitate natural flood Risk Management 2 storage is a project objective. Approach
Page 48 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
9.0 Trinity River Vision Case Study
Fort Worth "is growing at a record pace and has outgrown our current levee system," she said. "So flooding is only a matter of time. We are working hard to address the problem before tragedy occurs, like what has happened to Colorado and Louisiana."
Executive Director TRVA, J.D. Granger, 23.09.2013
9.1 THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The size of the Trinity River has led to a number of development projects being undertaken across the river, one example is the Trinity River Vision (TVR). TVR is upstream of a second project the Trinity River Corridor Project which focuses on restoring structural flood defence systems, both of which are located within the important economic area and rapidly urbanising areas between Fort Worth and Dallas. This case study mainly focuses on the Trinity River Vision but also draws from the presence of a downstream project.
The TVR is a master plan for the Trinity River in Fort Worth, Texas, adopted by the Fort Worth City Council in 2003. The plan focuses on eight segments of the Trinity River in order to addresses issues with the environment, ecosystems, recreation, access to waterfronts and urban revitalisation. However, the primary focus of the project is to provide improvements to the existing flood protection52 but also to facilitate economic development.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Tarrant Regional Water District have been partnering to address water resource needs associated with the Trinity River for over fifty years. After severe flooding in the 1940s Congress authorised the Fort Worth Floodway program which allowed for USACE to construct a structural flood protection system. The District is the local sponsor for the Floodway. In the mid-1980s the USACE, in cooperation with the Sistrict and other regional sponsors began a series of planning and flood management initiatives which led to the Trinity River Vision. Panther Island and Gateway Park are two projects currently on-going as part of the TVR.
Panther Island The project proposes to create an urban waterfront community to the north of downtown Fort Worth with a combination of public improvements and private development. The publicly funded portion of the plan; the Central City project, is limited to an environmental clean-up, flood
52 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. About Us. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/AboutUs
Page 49 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
protection and infrastructure improvements. After completion of these components, it is envisaged that Panther Island will open up the development of 800 acres of land to connect Downtown, the Cultural District and the Stockyards of Fort Worth. It is anticipated by the Trinity River Vision Authority (TRVA) that the development will generate more than $600 million in economic development activity during its first ten years53. It is hoped that Panther Island will transform a once neglected and underused part of the inner city into a mixed use community and creation jobs.
Gateway Park The Gateway Park Master Plan is major restoration project of the parks ecosystem which will provide recreational facilities and flood storage to ensure viability of the Central City flood control project. It will also be expanded into one of the largest urban programmed parks in the nation.
9.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CATCHMENT The River Trinity is a 710 mile long river which flows entirely within the state of Texas. The Trinity has four branches: the West Fork, the Clear Fork, the Elm Fork and the East Fork.
The West Fork has its headwaters in Archer County from here it flows southeast, through the man- made reservoirs Lake Bridgeport and Eagle Mountain Lake then flowing eastward through Lake Worth and the city of Fort Worth.
The Clear Fork begins north of Weatherford and flows south-eastward through man-made Lake Weatherford and Benbrook Lake, then north-eastward where it joins the West Fork near downtown Fort Worth and continues as the West Fork.
The Elm Fork flows south from near Gainesville through Ray Roberts Lake and east of the city of Denton eventually through Lewisville Lake. The West Fork and the Elm Fork merge as they enter the city of Dallas and form the Trinity River.
The East Fork begins near McKinney and flows through Lavon Lake then Lake Ray Hubbard before joining the Trinity River just southeast of Dallas. The Trinity then flows south-eastward from Dallas across a fertile floodplain and the pine forests of eastern Texas. At approximately 65 miles north of the mouth, the river enters Lake Livingston created by a dam after which the river flows south into the Trinity Bay, an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico.
53 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. The Panther Island Plan. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/Development/pantherislandplan
Page 50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Trinity River is flood prone therefore the catchment comprises a complex levee system of twenty three miles including sumps, pumps and drainage systems completed in 1931, strengthened in the 1950’s and remain today.
9.3 KEY ACTORS The Trinity River Vision Authority (TRVA) is the organisation responsible for the implementation of the TRV - TVRA is a component unit of Tarrant Regional Water District. The District is the local sponsor of the Fort Worth Floodway and responsible for operation and maintenance of thirty miles. The vision is directed by a board of directors with seven representatives including top administrators and elected officials from Tarrant County, City for Fort Worth, the Tarrant Regional Water District and Streams and Valleys, Inc. There is also a Citizens Advisory Committee which provides the board and project partners with feedback and direction. Table 9.1 shows the current public and private partners involved in the TRV at the national, regional and local level.
TABLE 9.1 – PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTORS TRINITY RIVER VISION54 PUBLIC PARTNERS NATIONAL REGIONAL LOCAL U.S Army Corps Trinity River Vision
Engineers Authority Tarrant Regional Water City of Fort
District Worth Tarrant County Tarrant Regional
Water District Groundwork PRIVATE PARTNERS Streams & Valleys Inc. Dallas Student Trinity Commons Conservation Foundation Association
The TRVA has nine permanent members of staff that closely work with the partner staff located
54 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. Project Partners. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/aboutus/ProjectPartners
Page 51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
at various organisations across the region as shown within Table 9.2.
TABLE 9.2 – TRINITY RIVER VISION AUTHORITY STAFF AND PARTNER STAFF55 ORGANISATION STAFF/JOB TITLE Trinity River Vision Authority Executive Director Planning and Development Manager Project Manager Assistant Project Manager Administrative Assistant Public Information Officer Social Media Manger Real Property Director Fair Contracting Program Administrator Trinity River Vision Authority Partners Neighbourhood and Recreation Enhancement Tarrant Regional Water District Coordinator City of Fort Worth Trinity River Vision Director Tarrant County Economic Development Coordinator Streams and Valleys, Inc Executive Director U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Project Manger Worth District
9.4 FLOOD RISK GOVERNANCE The TRV project not only seeks to provide flood protection but also accomplishing other important goals such as urban revitalization, recreation and sustainability. It is stated by the TRVA that the TRV is setting a new standard for flood control by fully integrating the consideration of flood events into projects while combining the goals of each.
The TRVA has established a development review process which includes flood risk management. All private construction projects are subject to review by the TRVA Review Committee and/or the Urban Design Commission for compliance with the Trinity Uptown Standards and Guidelines. All buildings, streets and public places are subject to review.
Panther Island Food risk management being undertaken as part of Panther Island is central to the orginal scope of TRV whereby the construction of a bypass cannel and associated infrastructure is key for future
55 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. TVRA Staff. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/aboutus/trvastaff
Page 52 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
flood protection. The area has been identified as at risk by the USACE due to an aging levee system that was designed for a population of the 1960s. The current preferred method of flood management is described as ‘urban flood control’ and includes the following infrastructure projects:
· Construction of a 1.5 mile bypass channel to redirect flood waters around the 800 acres of low lying areas to the north of Downtown; · Construction of three flood gates installed at portions of the river where the bypass channel and the original river intersect. These gates can be shut during high water forcing water through the bypass channel; · Construction of a dam near Samuels Avenue to keep upstream water at a constant level at all times.
The location of these infrastructure components to Panther Island are shown within Figure 9.1.
Page 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FIGURE 9.1 – PANTHER ISLAND INFRASTRUCTURE AND FLOOD PROTECTION56
Gateway Park The Gateway Park is flooded on a regular basis causing extended periods of no use, costly damage to recreational areas and serious erosion problems. The Gateway Park restoration project will use
56 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. Central City project Infrastructure and Flood Protection. [Online]. [Accessed: 07 April 2014]. Available at: http://trinityrivervision.org/Development/pantherislandplan
Page 54 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
engineering to modify the drainage system in order for it to become more efficient, predictable and manageable during times of flood.
9.5 FINANCING TRVA is funded by a governmental fund, a general fund from the Tarrant Regional Water District. Each TRV project is managed as an independent financial enterprise. As an example, the funding arrangements for Panther Island are outlined.
The cost of Panther Island is approximately $900,000.00, it is hoped that half of the cost will be received from federal funding and the remaining by a framework of local funding. This includes a Trinity River Tax Increment Finance initiative which raises revenue by local taxation within a defined district of 800 acres; in 2013 this tax generated revenue of $11,624,26057. Table 9.3 outlines the estimated revenue and financial sources for Panther Island.
TABLE 9.3 – ESTIMATED REVENUE AND FINANCIAL SOURCES FOR PANTHER ISLAND58 SOURCE ESTIMATED $ Local Funding ($422,000.00) Trinity River Vision Tax Increment Financing District 320, 000.00 Water District 64,4000.00 Fort Worth 26,6000.00 Tarrant County 11,0000.00 Tarrant Regional Water District 60,0000.00 Non Local Funding ($487.900.00) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 411,600.00
Mixed federal and state 76,3000.00
9.6 TENSIONS The tensions identified in relation to the interface of flood risk management and economic development policies are as follows:
· At a public meeting for the Trinity River Corridor a member of the public expressed concerns with the options being considered suggesting that long term plans which could
57 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. Trinity River Vision Authority, Forth Worth, Texas: Annual Financial Report (As of for the year ended September 30, 2013) Funding flights in future. [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://trinityrivervision.org/docs/default-source/reports-and- presentations/2013-trva-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2 58 Trinity River Vision Authority. 2014. Trinity River Vision: Funding flights in future. [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/newsandinfo/2013/09/23/trinity-river- vision-funding-fights-in-future
Page 55 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
remove the requirement of the levees systems would be beneficial. Concerns were raised about the reduce opportunity for economic development due to the expansive structural flood management options. · Channel type projects to control water flow such as the proposals for Panther Island do not have multiple purposes, are costly and therefore can be difficult to progress. · Locating funding sources to keep projects moving and to completion presents problems especially as federal funding required for around 50% of the Panther Island project is difficult to confirm59.
9.7 SUMMARY Table 9.4 below describes the key findings in relation to the Trinity River Vision Case Study.
TABLE 9.4 – SUMMARY TRINITY RIVER VISION TYPOLOGY SCORE RATIONALE Private and Public · Partnership between public and private actors is 3 Partnership Led present but not for all projects undertaken. · Private sector funding does not appear to be provided Private Sector Led 3 directly to the flood risk management projects being undertaken as part of the project. · The project board mainly comprises of public sector members. · A significant proportion of private sector decision making is observed. Public Sector Led 4 · Public sector structured funding present for flood risk management schemes with a large involvement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. · All TVRA project partner staff are from the public sector. Landscape Approach 2 · Limited landscape consideration. · The Trinity River Vision is for a section of the Trinity River Catchment with other projects coordinated Hydrological locally for upstream and downstream sections for 2 Catchment Approach example Trinity River Corridor Project. No evidence of coordination between these projects has been identified. River Restoration 2 · The Panther Island project comprises of environmental
59 Trinity River Vision Authority (2014) Trinity River Vision: Funding flights in future. [Online]. [Accessed: 07 March 2014]. Available at: http://www.trinityrivervision.org/newsandinfo/2013/09/23/trinity-river- vision-funding-fights-in-future
Page 56 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Focus improvements. · The Trinity River Vision identifies flood protection as a primary purpose of the project. · Development of new standards for flood control by Flood Risk Focus 4 fully integrating the consideration of flood events into projects. · Establishment of a development review process for all projects within the master plan. · Seeks to combine flood control with other important Economic 3 Development Focus goals namely urban revitalisation and recreation. Engineered Risk · Project mainly focuses on expansive structural flood Management 5 defence options including channels and dams. Approach · Gateway Park Master plan is focused on resolving Natural/ Ecological issues of flooding one measure includes improving Flood Risk flood storage capacity. 2 Management · Public suggested that long term flood risk management Approach plans to remove the requirement for structural levees systems would be beneficial.
Page 57 SUMMARY
10.0 Summary
The report illustrates that there is a variation in the correlation towards the typologies between the development projects, showing differences between the direction, driver and approach taken by the development projects. These differences are highlighted within the matrix provided within Table 10.1. The typology groupings are summaries below with reference to the projects objectives.
DIRECTION Public and private partnership is seen within all projects, with a lower correlation to this typology seen within the Australian project (Future of Lower Murray Floodplain) and high correlation in the UK (Atlantic Gateway) and the Netherlands (The New Water Pilot Area). The majority of projects are directed by the public sector with a large part of funding being provided by the private sector. It is felt that this partnership, especially where a project board was present assisted in handling tensions between flood risk management and economic development. The Atlantic Gateway stands out as a project because it comprises of board members with a concerted environmental interest.
DRIVER Economic development is the main driver of the development projects with all projects showing a very strong to strong correlation to the typology. Flood risk superseded a focus on economic development for the Trinity River Vision in America and was an equal focus for the New Water Pilot Project in the Netherlands. River restoration was least correlated to the projects, presented as a driver for four projects (Atlantic Gateway, Clyde Waterfront, Emscher Landscape Park and Trinity River Developments).
APPROACH The landscape approach is used for all projects most notably within the UK (Atlantic Gateway), the Netherlands (The New Water Pilot Project) and Germany (Emscher Landscape Park). Utilising the hydrological catchment approach was used greater by the projects which had a higher correlation towards flood risk as a driver. Flood risk was managed often with a variety of actors and technics including advisory groups, strategic assessment and stand-alone reports. Engineered risk management approaches were important often supplemented with a natural/ecological risk management approach.
Page 58 SUMMARY
TABLE 10.1 – MATRIX OF TYPOLOGIES
The Development Project
n i a l p d o o
l
a F k e r y r a a A r P
t
r e o n u l p i o
M i a t P y s y c r n i a r s a e o V e d
w w r t w r f n e e a o t r t e a L a e v a W L i t f G G r a R o
w
s c e i e y W e e h
t t r i N c e
n m u s n e d a t a i l y h m r u t h l
T E F T TYPOLOGY A T C
Private and Public Partnership Led 5 4 4 5 3 2 3 Direction Private Sector Led 5 3 3 4 3 2 3 Public Sector Led 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 River Restoration Focus 1 0 3 0 4 0 2 Driver Flood Risk Focus 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 Economic Development Focus 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 Landscape Approach 4 3 1 4 4 2 2 Hydrological Catchment Approach 4 3 3 5 4 5 2 Approach Engineered Risk Management Approach 0 4 4 4 4 1 5 Natural/Ecological Risk Management Approach 3 2 3 4 4 2 2
SCORE CORRELATION 0 None 1 Very Weak 2 Weak 3 Moderate 4 Strong 5 Very Strong
Page 59