Power, Responsibility and Justice Practices of Local Stakeholder Participation in Flood Risk Management in England and Germany Chloe Anne Begg BA, MA, MSc. June 2018 A thesis submitted to Lancaster University of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The thesis is the work of the author, except where otherwise stated, and has not been submitted for the award of a higher degree at any other institution. “Without ‘engaged’ and ‘empowered’ communities’ living with floods simply will not work” (Nye, Tapsell & Twigger-Ross, 2011: p.292, original emphasis). I Abstract Power, Responsibility and Justice: Practices of Local Stakeholder Participation in Flood Risk Management in England and Germany Chloe Anne Begg BA, MA, MSc. June 2017 A thesis submitted to Lancaster University of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Over the past few decades there has been an increasing interest in the active involvement of local stakeholders in the management of floods in Europe. Such involvement is seen as necessary as the management of floods becomes more complex. Management approaches now seek to include a range of potential measures to reduce risk in addition to structural defence measures (e.g. spatial planning, emergency management, property-level protection measures, etc.). Local stakeholder involvement is seen to be important because governments lack resources, both human and financial, required to deliver all these measures alone. This thesis draws on a range of literature, concepts, theories as well as qualitative and quantitative data collected in England and Germany to discuss the implications that participative approaches have on the fairness of European flood risk management (FRM). As a result, the studies included in this thesis each provide a specific approach to understanding the role of local stakeholder participation in European FRM but taken together provide a rich and multi-sited contribution to current discussions and debates about environmental justice. Studies of environmental justice are interested in who is included and excluded from decisions related to the distribution of environmental goods (resources) and bads (risks). It is argued that fair decision-making processes arise when power is equally distributed between all (potential) participants (procedural justice). It is also argued that just procedures can lead to fairer distributions in resources and risks (distributional justice). This thesis highlights the difficulties of achieving such justice in practice. I that participation in practice generally focuses on transferring responsibility to the local level at the expense of power at the local level. In addition, resources are distributed in such a way as to create and strengthen vulnerabilities related to flood risk. It is concluded that if European FRM is to become more just, investments need to be made to ensure that those who are made responsible for FRM (who are often also the most vulnerable to flood impact) accept that responsibility and have the resources required to fulfil that responsibility. II Acknowledgements This PhD would not have conceptualised, carried out or completed without the encouragement and support of a number of people. I would like to thank my supervisors, Gordon Walker and Rebecca Whittle for welcoming me when I was in Lancaster and providing me with the support and inspiration for the research that was to become core part of this PhD. After I registered for the PhD, your Skype calls kept me on-track and sane. Thank you for your kind words and unwavering support. Thank you to Christian Kuhlicke for encouraging me to register to complete the PhD and always providing me with a space to air and develop my thoughts. You provided me with an endless supply of insights, inspiration and support throughout the last seven years and I am extremely grateful. Thank you also to my colleagues, office-mates and co-authors Ines Callsen and Maximilian Ueberham. It was a joy to work with you. I am not sure what I could have done without your humour and support. I would also like to thank Ilan Kelman for being so reliable, patient and supportive during our endless streams of email conversation. Thank you to the European Commission for providing funding for the projects from which the data used in this thesis was drawn (European FP7 projects CapHaz-Net - Grant Agreement No. 227073 and emBRACE - Grant Agreement No. 283201). I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improvements to the individual papers and my two examiners, Simon Batterbury and Sally Priest for your careful reading of my thesis, fruitful discussion and considered recommendations to the improvement of the thesis as a whole. Thank you also to all those people who took time to take part in the interviews and surveys used in this thesis. Without your insights and contribution, there would be nothing to write about. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank Stephan for encouraging and motivating me throughout the entire process and for being the sounding-board for all of my ideas that needed to be verbalised. I wouldn’t have been able to get to this point without you. III Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................... II Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... III List of Figures ................................................................................................................ VIII List of Tables ................................................................................................................... IX Preface and candidate statement...................................................................................... X Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Justice and flood management .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Justice and flood risk management in two European geographical contexts ............ 9 1.3 Boundaries of the study ........................................................................................... 12 1.4 Research questions and an overview of the original papers ................................... 13 1.4.1 Paper 1: Chapter 3............................................................................................ 13 1.4.2 Paper 2: Chapter 4............................................................................................ 14 1.4.3 Paper 3: Chapter 5............................................................................................ 15 1.4.4 Paper 4: Chapter 6............................................................................................ 16 1.4.5 Paper 5: Chapter 7............................................................................................ 17 1.5 Concluding remarks and key contribution ............................................................... 18 1.6 Glossary of key terms ............................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2 Methodology ........................................................................................... 22 2.1 General approach ..................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Qualitative and Quantitative data ............................................................................ 23 2.2.1 Understanding governance structures: qualitative datasets ........................... 25 2.2.2 Understanding local stakeholder motivation to become involved in FRM: quantitative data .............................................................................................................. 29 2.2.3 Linking qualitative and quantitative findings ................................................... 30 2.2.4 Reflections and concluding remarks ................................................................ 31 Chapter 3 Localism and flood risk management in England: the creation of new inequalities? 34 IV 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 34 3.2 Research design and sources ................................................................................... 36 3.3 A short history of localism in British politics and FRM in England ........................... 38 3.4 Implications for flood defence, spatial planning, and emergency management ..... 40 3.4.1 Flood defence ................................................................................................... 41 3.4.2 Spatial planning ................................................................................................ 42 3.4.3 Emergency management ................................................................................. 46 3.5 Future scenarios and challenges .............................................................................. 49 3.5.1 Scenario 1: lack of resources and low motivation ........................................... 50 3.5.2 Scenario 2: resources available but low motivation ........................................ 50 3.5.3 Scenario 3: lack of resources but high motivation ........................................... 51 3.5.4 Scenario 4: motivation and resources are available ........................................ 51 3.6 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................