sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm?

Sustainable Flood Management: Oxymoron or New Paradigm?Author(s): Alan WerrittySource: Area, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), pp. 16-23Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of BritishGeographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004499 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 05:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:54:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004499?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Area (2006) 38.1, 16-23

Sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm?

Alan Werritty Department of Geography, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN

Email: [email protected]

Manuscript received 2 December 2005

The existing paradigm of UK flood risk management that privileges structural solutions over non-structural ones is evolving in response to threats posed by climate change and higher environmental standards required by the EC Water Framework Directive. This paper examines the contrasting reactions of DEFRA and the Scottish Executive. The Scottish 'experiment', which embraces a strong definition of sustainability, is contrasted with a

weaker version emerging in England and Wales. Divergent levels of risk and histories of managing that risk explain many of these contrasts. Scotland's more radical approach has the potential to become a new paradigm.

Key words: UK, Scottish Executive, flood risk management, sustainability, DEFRA

Introduction A seismic shift is taking place in managing flood risk in many countries. Well-established reliance on structural defences is being questioned and cheaper and more sustainable alternatives are being sought. This paper examines the existing paradigm of flood risk management in the UK, which is being questioned, and provides a critique for the newly emerging paradigm of 'sustainable flood management' being introduced by the Scottish Executive. Finally, in light of this critique, two questions are addressed. Is this a seismic shift or an oxymoron? Can flood management truly be sustainable?

Background Since time immemorial, floods have exacted a high toll on human society. As a result, floodplains and wetlands across Britain initially were avoided for settlement and commerce - except where they provided defence from attack, potential for water power or a source of livelihood for which appropriate precautions could be made. However,

a growing population and the need to bring more land into production meant that as early as the twelfth century piecemeal drainage had begun in the Fens and the Somerset levels (Hoskins 1955) and, with rapid improvements in technology, most of lowland England's wetlands had been drained and converted into productive agricultural land by the end of the nineteenth century. Population pressures also resulted in coastal saltmarshes being reclaimed and protected with embankments to provide grazing for sheep - Romney Marsh providing the best example (Purseglove 1988). In Scotland a similar story can be told, although on a lesser scale with, for example, the Howe of Fife drained by 1750, the Loch Inch Marshes on the River Spey by the mid-nineteenth century and saltmarshes on the upper Forth estuary reclaimed by 1840 (Cadell 1929).

Other lowland floodplains with potentially fertile soils but high water tables were brought into arable production by field drainage throughout the nine teenth and early twentieth centuries. In the English lowlands this peaked between 1840 and 1875, with a total of 5 million hectares being drained by 1900 (Smout 2000). In Scotland field drainage proceeded

ISSN 0004-0894 ? The Author.

Journal compilation ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2006



Sustainable flood management 17

more slowly, reflecting a lower proportion of agricultural land on clay-rich soils (Werritty in press). In England and Wales the drive to be self-sufficient in food production from 1930 onwards triggered the creation of Catchment Boards which effectively transferred the costs of drainage from land owners to the state (Scrase and Sheate 2005). Further intensification of agriculture after 1945, plus agricultural subsidies delivered via the Common Agricultural Policy following Britain's admission to the EEC in 1973, meant that highly productive floodplains across the UK needed further drainage and protection from flooding. As a result, many rivers in the lowlands were transformed in the 1 970s and 1 980s into straight or slightly sinuous trapezoidal channels designed to efficiently evacuate runoff from the adjacent field drains and the occasional upstream flood (Purseglove 1988). Maps of early settlement in lowland Britain reveal

a pattern of villages located just above areas period ically inundated - this being especially clear around the margins of the Fens and the Somerset Levels (Purseglove 1988). Similarly along the floodplain of the Rivers Tay and Tummel upstream of Perth, farms typically occupy slightly elevated sites just above the level of normal floods. Such wise avoidance of floodplains for settlement broke down during the 1930s and 1940s as unplanned urban growth spilled onto floodplains and low-lying coastal areas - most notably in SE Essex, which recorded many of the deaths caused by the 1 953 storm surge. Govern

ments responded to this disaster with a major pro gramme of inland and coastal flood defence which, over several decades, used structural schemes to provide increased protection for the most vulnerable urban populations. More recently, population growth, changing family

structures (increased single person households) and the high amenity value afforded by proximity to a river have triggered renewed urban encroachment onto floodplains. Local authorities, faced with pressure to release more land for development, often yielded to the developer rather than taking advice offered by the environmental regulator or risking the application being 'called in' by the appropriate Secretary of State. The process of sub urbanization has also changed runoff patterns, with an increase in impermeable surfaces (mainly asphalt and concrete) putting pressure on stormwater sewers and locally increasing flood risk in areas with under-designed or poorly maintained urban drainage (Evans et al. 2004).

The current paradigm for flood defence As a result of this history of draining wetlands and floodplains for agriculture, recently permitting steady encroachment of settlements onto floodplains and the construction of more impermeable surfaces within urban areas, flood risk across the UK has increased over recent decades (Evans et al. 2004; Werritty with Chatterton 2004). In response, successive governments have developed a complex system of governance for land drainage and flood defence in which, for England and Wales, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) develops national policy whose implementation is undertaken by the operating authorities comprising the Environment Agency (EA), Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) and local authorities. The EA has a general supervisory duty relating to flood and coastal erosion risk and, via its Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees, builds and maintains flood defence schemes on 'main rivers'. Internal Drainage Boards and local authorities undertake schemes on 'ordinary watercourses' and manage land drainage in the lowlands (Institution of Civil Engineers 1996). The EA also provides and disseminates flood warnings and is a consultee when new developments on floodplains are being reviewed by local authorities.

In England and Wales decisions on where to defend, and to what design standard, are made by the operating authorities following DEFRA guidance and rigorous implementation of flood frequency and benefit-cost analyses using appropriate proprietary software and manuals (Institute of Hydrology 1999; Penning-Rowsell et al. 2003). This emphasis on structural defence has privileged alleviation above complementary strategies such as promoting avoid ance, raising awareness and providing assistance. Complementary strategies involving land-use plan ning (e.g. Planning Policy Guidelines 25: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2005), flood insurance bundled with household insurance (Priest et al. 2005) and flood warning schemes coupled with emergency action have all been adopted, but they remain second order activities with a lower level of investment. Public expenditure on land drainage and flood

defence in Scotland generally has been proportion ately lower than that for England and Wales. In part this reflects an agricultural sector with less land needing to be drained and cities located on the coast or on rivers that do not pose a major flood



1 8 Werritty

risk. This has resulted in a simpler system for flood risk management in which local authorities have a flood alleviation duty, but only for non-agricultural land. Until recently, central government has pro vided little strategic guidance on flood defence but has offered grant aid (up to 50%) for approved schemes brought forward by local authorities. Hith erto, most of these schemes have involved structural defences, reflecting best practice south of the bor der. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) provides flood warnings (generally dissemi nated by the police) and advises local authorities on planning applications on floodplains (Werritty with Chatterton 2004).

For many decades the paradigm for UK flood defence has privileged engineering structures over other strategies (Nixon 1963). As a result, many towns and cities contain streams which are either culverted or flow between concrete-lined banks. In fertile lowlands at risk of being flooded, rivers typically flow in enlarged trapezoidal channels set within flood banks. Along the coast, reclaimed saltmarshes are secured behind armoured seawalls (Purseglove 1988). In England this programme has been driven by a highly centralized and technocratic system, with DEFRA determining national policy, which is implemented regionally by EA engineers in consultation with Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees and, where appropriate, local authorities and IDBs (Brown and Damery 2002; Scrase and Sheate 2005). In Scotland, despite a less centralized system and a lower level of expenditure, engineering structures have also dominated option appraisals. Across the whole of the UK this paradigm has generated a culture of dependency by floodplain occupants, who look to the EA or their local authority for protection and assistance, and whom they blame when the flood defences fail.

Current paradigm questioned For many decades this paradigm has been highly successful. By skilful design and construction, hard engineering structures have, by and large, protected urban dwellers from inundation and enabled farmers to cultivate or graze stock right up to the edge of the river or seashore. But this paradigm is now being questioned, initially because of the threat posed by climate change. Along with other parts of Europe, England has recently registered a series of catastrophic floods, notably in the Midlands (1998),

southeast and northern England (2000 and 2002) and Carlisle (2005). Scotland has also experienced major floods in Elgin (1997, 2002), Edinburgh (2000) and Glasgow (2002). Collectively these have resulted in a dramatic increase in flood losses (Association of British Insurers 2004) and the UK insurance industry is now questioning its universal provision of flood cover currently bundled with household policies (Priest et al. 2005).

The threat posed by climate change, with decreased levels of protection and greatly increased losses, triggered the UK government's Foresight pro gramme on Flooding and Coastal Defence (Evans et a!. 2004). This reported that across England and

Wales 4 million people, with property valued at more than f200 billion, are at risk of a 1 in 100 year flood. Annual average damage from flooding is currently ?1 .4 billion and set to rise by a further f1-27 billion per annum by the end of the century, depending on which emission and socio-economic scenario is adopted. The Foresight study also noted that both the 'world markets' scenario (linked to high emission of greenhouse gases) and the 'national enterprise' scenario (linked to medium high emis sion of greenhouse gases) generate substantially higher damages (as proportions of projected GDP) than is the case today. Since increased spending on structural flood defences at the expense of health, education and social services is inconceivable, sus tainable, efficient and cost effective alternatives will have to be developed.

The drive for environmental enhancement and sustainability has triggered a separate critique of the current paradigm, with its heavy reliance on structural defences. In particular, the EC's Water Framework Directive, which requires all European water bodies to achieve 'good ecological status' by 2015, is raising questions concerning the style of river engineering used to drain lowlands and protect them from flooding. This pan-European critique of river engineering even extends to the Rhine and the Danube, where centuries-old systems of river training are now being questioned. Emerging solu tions, often collectively termed 'river restoration', focus on reconnecting the river with its floodplain and restoring lost ecosystem services (Richter and Postel 2005).

Given this agenda, it is striking that the recent DEFRA (2004) consultation on a new strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management was entitled Making Space for Water. Three years earlier, the Institution of Civil Engineers' report




Table 1 Definition of Sustainable Flood Management and its objectives (Scottish Executive 2005a)

Sustainable flood management - definition

'Sustainable flood management provides the maximum possible social and economic resilience* against flooding, by protecting and working with the environment, in a way which is fair and affordable both now and in the future.' (*'resilience' means: 'ability to recover quickly and easily'. The Scottish Executive uses it to deliver the 'four As': Awareness + Avoidance + Alleviation + Assistance) Sustainable Flood Management - objectives

* Overall - meet needs for resilience against flooding To meet this overall objective, the following needs must be balanced:

* Social - enhance community benefit, with fair outcomes for everyone * Environmental - protect and work with the environment, with respect for all species, habitats, landscapes and

built heritage * Economic - deliver resilience at affordable cost (construction, maintenance, running and renewal); with fair

economic outcomes and the protection of local jobs and wealth

Learning to Live with Rivers had adopted a similar approach and concluded that a new balance needed to be struck 'such that environmental gain is achieved wherever possible and schemes that damage the environment are avoided unless there is no other viable option' (Institution of Civil Engineers 2001, 6). The European Commission has also recently entered the arena with its proposal for a Floods Directive as part of an EU Flood Action Programme (European Commission 2005). If implemented, it seems likely that the new Directive

will be integrated with the River Basin Manage ment Plans required by the Water Framework Directive. All this represents a serious 'greening' of flood risk management strategies, but it does not fully engage with the need for long-term sustaina bility, which requires economic and social needs to be balanced alongside environmental gain. These issues are addressed in the next section, which outlines how the Scottish Executive has tried to give substance to the term 'sustainable flood management'.

Sustainable flood management - a Scottish 'experiment' Uniquely across the devolved administrations of the UK, the Scottish Parliament incorporated a require ment for sustainable flood management when it transposed the EC Water Framework Directive into Scot's law. Section 2 of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 states that Scottish Ministers, SEPA and other 'responsible authorities' have a duty

to promote sustainable flood management, and act in the way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

In practice this means that local authorities (one of the 'responsible authorities') will need to take sustain able flood management (SFM) into account when carry ing out their flood prevention functions under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. But no defini tion of SFM was provided when the Act was passed.

Tasked with defining SFM and making the term operational, the Scottish Executive's National Tech nical Advisory Group on Flooding (NTAG) reported back in September 2004 (Scottish Executive 2005a). Table 1 provides a summary of the NTAG's recom mendations, with a definition of SFM accompanied by its objectives. The NTAG report also provided a set of indicators for measuring the performance of sustainable flood management schemes.

Indicators are required both for assessing progress against the defined objectives (what results SFM is actually achieving) and adherence to the principles (how it is expected the results will be achieved). By way of illustration, Table 2 reports proposed measure indicators for assessing progress in achieving the overall objective of meeting the needs of resilience against flooding. The draft definition has been widely commented upon by key stakeholders and end users following its adoption in September 2004. An independent review of the NTAG recommenda tions, whilst broadly supportive, recommended improvements using the language and methods of Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal (Scottish Executive 2005b).



20 Werritty

Table 2 Measure indicators for meeting the overall objective of sustainable flood management (Scottish Executive 2005a)

Objective 1 Overall: Meet needs for resilience against flooding

Detailed meaning Reduce the total sum of flooding impacts over time, to an agreed level. Specifically: (i) Personal social impact (death and injury, evacuation, shock, and distress) (ii) Potential damage to personal, commercial or public property (iii) Personal (travel) interruptions and (iv) Lost production and sales

Draft measurement Net sum of: indicator(s) (i) People at risk x personal social impact/person

+ (ii) (Personal, Commercial and/or Public) Property at risk x damage potential/property + (iii) People at risk x lost travel time/person + (iv) Jobs at risk x lost time/job + lost sales

Comments * Personal social impact is the subject of research (e.g. by the New Economics Foundation) and is under consideration by the SE for inclusion in Cost:Benefit ratio calculations * Impact costs for death and injury are used in Highway Agency roads assessments * Measurement of the latter three aspects is standard practice and they are embedded in

DEFRA's current project appraisal techniques * Aggregate measure requires analysis of the distribution of reduced impacts (benefits)

accrued across all future flood probabilities

A critique of the Scottish 'experiment' By explicitly seeking to balance social, economic and environmental needs within a framework that incorporates intergenerational equity, the definition clearly adheres to strong sustainability norms. The use of 'resilience' (the ability to recover easily and quickly) as a criterion against which to judge success is challenging but has significant potential, not least because it addresses social, economic and environmental needs within a common framework. If 'resilience' can be viewed as the inverse of vulnerability, this definition also has the potential to be unpacked and explored within an emerging discourse in human geography (Brown and Damery 2002; Findlay in press). The link with the Scottish Executive's Flooding Framework, a strategy which is to be delivered by heightened Awareness (improved

warning systems, community groups), Avoidance (land use planning, land cover management), Alleviation (defences that now include upstream storage in wetlands, flood proofing) and Assistance (insurance, emergency action), is also significant in that all four provide realistic alternatives to hard engineering structures.

By focusing on resilience and the ability of indi viduals and communities to recover, this definition of SFM places the individuals at risk centre stage and tasks the 'responsible authorities' with enhancing social equity and promoting community cohesiveness,

alongside a heightened sense of individual respon sibility. In determining an affordable cost in an economic climate where prioritization will inevitably determine the level of grant from the Scottish Executive (raised to 80% in 2004), existing benefit cost methods will need to be broadened. However, making these tasks operational is a major challenge.

Part of this challenge can be seen in examining the proposed measure indicators for achieving the overall objective of meeting the need for resilience against flooding (Table 2). Losses arising from damage to personal, commercial or public property, personal travel interruptions, and lost production and sales are readily quantified, as noted in the comments section of the table. But measuring personal social impacts (including death and injury, evacuation shock and distress) is far more difficult and requires a more nuanced approach. For example, how does one begin to quantify the loss of unique family photo graphs and heirlooms - irreplaceable personal goods? How does one include intangible costs, such as those related to health and feeling safe in one's home?

Whilst some progress has been made in determining health costs (e.g. Tapsell et al. 2002; DEFRA 2005), quantifying the irreplaceable remains elusive. Measuring enhancement in community benefit is

straightforward in terms of physical improvements in the environment. Shadow price valuation of benefits from the improved amenity and appearance (open spaces, views, wetlands, landscape etc.) can




Table 3 Measure indicators for meeting part of the environmental objective of sustainable flood management (Scottish Executive 2005a)

Objective 3(b) Environment - protect and work with the environment with respect for all species, habitats, landscapes and built heritage

Detailed meaning This includes: (i) Delivering Biodiversity Plan targets (ii) Protecting and/or improving the water environment,ecological habitats and landscapes

(geomorphology)

Draft Consider: measurement (i) Either Percentage of targets achieved (e.g. SE 10 Biodiversity '%s of (flood relevant) indicator(s) Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats which are identified as stable or increasing')

(ii) Or statement of specific areas (SSSIs, 'corridors',wetlands, landscape features, etc.) affected in terms of hectares (as per DEFRA's existing appraisal guidance) by percentage of:

* total catchment floodplain converted to urban/agricultural use * catchment wetlands reclaimed by human activities * flow (or catchment rainfall) stored in impoundments with flow regulation functions

Comments An indicator of landscape features (geomorphology) may depend upon: * Natural river planform (5-1 0 year) natural river cross-section * High flow regime * Natural river substrate (Options that score highly on these aspects will impact sensitive ecosystems less and require less long-term maintenance) It may be possible to combine the individual measures (at local level) into an 'Environmental footprint'

be obtained. But identifying how far Awareness and Assistance have increased community cohesiveness and generated a culture of self help is more prob lematic. The challenge here is to find an indicator that can capture the diversity of social capital unlocked by communal and individual engagement in SFM. Fundamental to SFM is a change in attitude in which a willingness to take on greater personal responsibility for mitigating flood losses steadily replaces undue reliance on state provision and a culture of blaming the state when losses occur. Only when this shift in responsibility has been fully owned by individuals and communities will people truly be at the heart of this new paradigm.

A number of measure indicators have been proposed to quantify the environmental objective of SFM (Table 3). Some involve checking the percent age of targets achieved, for example the percentages of (flood relevant) Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats that are identified as stable or increas ing. Others involve examining how specific valued habitats (for example, SSSIs, corridors, landscape features) have been affected (in hectares) by floodplains being converted to agricultural or urban use, by wet lands being reclaimed or by flow being temporarily

stored in impoundments. These measures are rela tively robust and have the potential of being locally combined into an 'environmental footprint'.

Implementation will initially be undertaken by local authorities under circumscribed powers defined under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 and within boundaries that often do not correspond to river catchments. Since the Act only relates to flood ing on non-agricultural land and has no provision for controlling upstream runoff (often the source for urban flooding), a holistic catchment-wide approach to flood control is, at present, difficult to achieve.

Managing the land in rural areas, especially given recent reductions in agricultural subsidies, will need to be addressed in any new legislation designed to deliver holistic catchment management.

Conclusion Flood risk management under the contrasting jurisdictions which operate in England, Wales and Scotland following devolution has followed distinctive paths. A centralized technocratic paradigm with structural solutions providing the most favoured option has, until recently, underpinned DEFRA



22 Werritty

policy and locally delivered flood defence schemes. This is hardly surprising given the success of this paradigm until the losses caused by the 1998, 2000 and 2002 floods initiated a lively public debate. Since then, the Institute of Civil Engineers (2001) report Learning to Live with Rivers, followed by the Foresight Report (Evans et al. 2004) Future Flooding and implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive, have triggered a re-assessment. DEFRA's most recent consultation Making Space for Water (2004) points to a 'greening' of engineering practice, greater commitment to holistic catchment-wide solutions and closer alignment with government sustainability targets. If implemented, this would certainly incorporate elements of SFM, but, as yet, there is no overall conceptual framework within which to balance social, economic and environ mental needs and no explicit reference to inter generational equity. A rigorous audit of how far sustainability is truly embedded in existing EA schemes is under way (Tavendale in preparation) and will report soon. In the meantime, I conclude that a weak form of SFM is emerging in England and Wales, but grafted onto an existing paradigm in which structural solutions are still privileged.

By contrast, the Scottish Executive's on-going experiment to define and operationalize sustainable flood management as part of its implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive has been remarkably prescient, especially if the proposed daughter Flooding Directive is adopted by the EU. The previous lack of strategic policy in this area and the highly fragmented approach to flood risk management prior to the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act, 2003 gave the Scottish Executive a clean slate upon which to work. The result has been challenging and exciting, potentially even agenda-setting for policy-makers south of the border. By incorporating a strong form of sustainability into its definition of SFM, the Exec utive has been remarkably radical. Agreeing a set of principles which underpin SFM and seeking to develop a set of measurement indicators to evaluate performance is also innovative.

But these are still blue prints and not yet schemes delivered on the ground. Converting the rhetoric into reality will be a major challenge, not least because of a legislative vacuum in terms of whole catchment planning. Quantifying social needs, delivering 'fair outcomes for everyone' and balancing environmental gain with economic costs (possibly including foregone employment opportunities) have

also yet to be delivered. Nevertheless, the Scottish 'experiment' does provide an original, intellectually exciting and robust framework for delivering sus tainable flood management in the twenty-first cen tury. It may not yet be a new paradigm, but it can escape the charge of being an oxymoron. A seismic shift is potentially in the making.

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this paper are my own, but they

have been influenced by many who have wrestled with

defining sustainable flood management in Scotland and unpacking the objectives and principles that underpin it. In particular I thank Charles Ainger (MWH), Mike Donaghy

(WWF Scotland) and David Howell (SNH). Andrew Black,

Amy Tavendale and Tom Ball (all colleagues in Dundee)

generously reviewed a draft version and significantly

improved the final version.

References

Association of British Insurers 2004 Association of British

Insurers submission to DEFRA Select Committee Enquiry

on Climate Change (http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/

Child/552/EFRA_Select_Committee.pdf) Accessed 30 November 2005

Brown J D and Damery S L 2002 Managing flood risk in

the UK: towards an integration of social and technical

perspectives Transactions of the Institute of British Geo

graphers NS 27 412-26

Cadell H M 1929 Land reclamation in the Forth Valley Scot

tish Geographical Magazine 45 7-22

DEFRA 2004 Making space for water: developing a new

government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk

management in England and Wales Consultation exercise

Department for Food and Rural Affairs, London

DEFRA 2005 The appraisal of human-related intangible aspects

of flooding Final Project Report (FD2005) Risk and Policy

Analysts Ltd Department for Food and Rural Affairs, London

European Commission 2005 Proposal for a floods directive in

the context of an EU Flood Action Programme European

Commission, Directorate-General Environment, Brussels

Evans E, Ashley R, Hall J, Penning-Rowsell E, Saul A, Sayers

P, Thorne C and Watkinson A 2004 Foresight future flood

ing, scientific summary vol 1 Office of Science and Tech

nology, London Findlay A F in press Vulnerable spatialities Population, Space

and Place 11

Hoskins W G 1955 The making of the English landscape

Hodder and Stoughton, London

Institute of Hydrology 1999 The flood estimation handbook

Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford

Institution of Civil Engineers 1996 Land drainage and flood

defence responsibilities 3rd edn Thomas Telford, London




Institution of Civil Engineers 2001 Learning to live with

rivers Institution of Civil Engineers, London Nixon M 1963 Flood regulation and river training in England

and Wales in Conservation of Water Resources in the

United Kingdom Institution of Civil Engineers, London

137-50 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2005 Develop

ment and flood risk Planning Policy Guidance 25

(http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1 14411 3) Accessed 30 November 2005

Penning-Rowsell E, Johnson C, Tunstall S, Tapsell S,

Morris J, Chatterton I, Coker A and Green C 2003 The

benefits of flood and coastal defence: techniques and data for 2003 Flood Hazard Research Centre Middlesex

University Priest S J, Clark M and Treby E I 2005 Flood insurance: the

challenge of the uninsured Area 37 295-302

Purseglove J 1988 Taming the flood: a history and natural

history of rivers and wetlands Oxford University Press, Oxford

Richter B and Postel S 2005 Rivers for life: managing water

for people and nature Island Press, Washington

Scottish Executive 2005a Final report of the National

Technical Advisory Group on Flooding Scottish Execu

tive, Edinburgh (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ Environment/Water/Flooding/i 691 9/ntgfinalreport) Accessed 30 November 2005

Scottish Executive 2005b Sustainable flood management pilot study Draft final report MWH and Jacobs-Babtie

Scottish Executive, Edinburgh Scrase J I and Sheate W R 2005 Re-framing flood control in

England and Wales Environmental Values 14 113-37

Smout T C 2000 Nature contested: environmental history in Scotland and Northern England since 1600 Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Tapsell S M, Penning-Rowsell E C, Tunstall S M and Wilson T L

2002 Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimen

sions Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 360 1511-25

Tavendale A in preparation Flood management policy and

practice in Scotland and England 1994-2004 Unpublished PhD thesis University of Dundee

Werritty A in press Assessment of flood drivers - Scotland in

Thorne C R, Evans E P and Penning-Rowsell E C eds Future

flood and coastal erosion risks in the UK Thomas Telford,

London Werritty A with Chatterton J 2004 Future flooding Scotland

Foresight Office of Science and Technology, London



sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm?

Documents