ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2006

Area

(2006) 38.1, 16–23

t4Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm?

Alan Werritty

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

Email: a.werritty@dundee.ac.uk

Manuscript received 2 December 2005

The existing paradigm of UK flood risk management that privileges structural solutionsover non-structural ones is evolving in response to threats posed by climate change andhigher environmental standards required by the EC Water Framework Directive. This paperexamines the contrasting reactions of DEFRA and the Scottish Executive. The Scottish‘experiment’, which embraces a strong definition of sustainability, is contrasted with aweaker version emerging in England and Wales. Divergent levels of risk and histories ofmanaging that risk explain many of these contrasts. Scotland’s more radical approachhas 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 floodrisk in many countries. Well-established relianceon structural defences is being questioned andcheaper and more sustainable alternatives arebeing sought. This paper examines the existingparadigm of flood risk management in the UK,which is being questioned, and provides a critiquefor the newly emerging paradigm of ‘sustainableflood management’ being introduced by the ScottishExecutive. Finally, in light of this critique, twoquestions are addressed. Is this a seismic shift oran oxymoron? Can flood management truly besustainable?

Background

Since time immemorial, floods have exacted ahigh toll on human society. As a result, floodplainsand wetlands across Britain initially were avoidedfor settlement and commerce – except where theyprovided defence from attack, potential for waterpower or a source of livelihood for whichappropriate precautions could be made. However,

a growing population and the need to bring moreland into production meant that as early as thetwelfth century piecemeal drainage had begun inthe Fens and the Somerset levels (Hoskins 1955)and, with rapid improvements in technology, mostof lowland England’s wetlands had been drainedand converted into productive agricultural land bythe end of the nineteenth century. Populationpressures also resulted in coastal saltmarshes beingreclaimed and protected with embankments toprovide grazing for sheep – Romney Marshproviding the best example (Purseglove 1988). InScotland a similar story can be told, although on alesser scale with, for example, the Howe of Fifedrained by 1750, the Loch Inch Marshes on theRiver Spey by the mid-nineteenth century andsaltmarshes on the upper Forth estuary reclaimed by1840 (Cadell 1929).

Other lowland floodplains with potentially fertilesoils but high water tables were brought into arableproduction by field drainage throughout the nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries. In the Englishlowlands this peaked between 1840 and 1875, witha total of 5 million hectares being drained by 1900(Smout 2000). In Scotland field drainage proceeded

Sustainable flood management

17

more slowly, reflecting a lower proportion of agriculturalland on clay-rich soils (Werritty in press). In Englandand Wales the drive to be self-sufficient in foodproduction from 1930 onwards triggered the creationof Catchment Boards which effectively transferredthe costs of drainage from land owners to the state(Scrase and Sheate 2005). Further intensification ofagriculture after 1945, plus agricultural subsidiesdelivered via the Common Agricultural Policyfollowing Britain’s admission to the EEC in 1973,meant that highly productive floodplains across theUK needed further drainage and protection fromflooding. As a result, many rivers in the lowlandswere transformed in the 1970s and 1980s intostraight or slightly sinuous trapezoidal channelsdesigned to efficiently evacuate runoff from theadjacent field drains and the occasional upstreamflood (Purseglove 1988).

Maps of early settlement in lowland Britain reveala pattern of villages located just above areas period-ically inundated – this being especially clear aroundthe margins of the Fens and the Somerset Levels(Purseglove 1988). Similarly along the floodplain ofthe Rivers Tay and Tummel upstream of Perth, farmstypically occupy slightly elevated sites just abovethe level of normal floods. Such wise avoidance offloodplains for settlement broke down during the1930s and 1940s as unplanned urban growthspilled onto floodplains and low-lying coastal areas– most notably in SE Essex, which recorded many ofthe deaths caused by the 1953 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 toprovide increased protection for the most vulnerableurban populations.

More recently, population growth, changing familystructures (increased single person households) andthe high amenity value afforded by proximity to ariver have triggered renewed urban encroachmentonto floodplains. Local authorities, faced withpressure to release more land for development,often yielded to the developer rather than takingadvice offered by the environmental regulator orrisking the application being ‘called in’ by theappropriate Secretary of State. The process of sub-urbanization has also changed runoff patterns, withan increase in impermeable surfaces (mainlyasphalt and concrete) putting pressure on stormwatersewers and locally increasing flood risk in areaswith under-designed or poorly maintained urbandrainage (Evans

et al

. 2004).

The current paradigm for flood defence

As a result of this history of draining wetlandsand floodplains for agriculture, recently permittingsteady encroachment of settlements onto floodplainsand the construction of more impermeable surfaceswithin urban areas, flood risk across the UK hasincreased over recent decades (Evans

et al

.2004; Werritty with Chatterton 2004). In response,successive governments have developed a complexsystem of governance for land drainage and flooddefence in which, for England and Wales, theDepartment for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)develops national policy whose implementation isundertaken by the operating authorities comprisingthe Environment Agency (EA), Internal DrainageBoards (IDBs) and local authorities. The EA has ageneral supervisory duty relating to flood andcoastal erosion risk and, via its Regional and LocalFlood Defence Committees, builds and maintainsflood defence schemes on ‘main rivers’. InternalDrainage Boards and local authorities undertakeschemes on ‘ordinary watercourses’ and manageland drainage in the lowlands (Institution of CivilEngineers 1996). The EA also provides anddisseminates flood warnings and is a consulteewhen new developments on floodplains are beingreviewed by local authorities.

In England and Wales decisions on where todefend, and to what design standard, are made bythe operating authorities following DEFRA guidanceand rigorous implementation of flood frequency andbenefit-cost analyses using appropriate proprietarysoftware and manuals (Institute of Hydrology 1999;Penning-Rowsell

et al

. 2003). This emphasis onstructural defence has privileged alleviation abovecomplementary 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 ofthe Deputy Prime Minister 2005), flood insurancebundled with household insurance (Priest

et al

.2005) and flood warning schemes coupled withemergency action have all been adopted, but theyremain second order activities with a lower level ofinvestment.

Public expenditure on land drainage and flooddefence in Scotland generally has been proportion-ately lower than that for England and Wales. In partthis reflects an agricultural sector with less landneeding to be drained and cities located on thecoast or on rivers that do not pose a major flood

18

Werritty

risk. This has resulted in a simpler system for floodrisk management in which local authorities have aflood alleviation duty, but only for non-agriculturalland. Until recently, central government has pro-vided little strategic guidance on flood defence buthas offered grant aid (up to 50%) for approvedschemes brought forward by local authorities. Hith-erto, most of these schemes have involved structuraldefences, 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 onplanning applications on floodplains (Werritty withChatterton 2004).

For many decades the paradigm for UK flooddefence has privileged engineering structures overother strategies (Nixon 1963). As a result, manytowns and cities contain streams which are eitherculverted or flow between concrete-lined banks.In fertile lowlands at risk of being flooded, riverstypically flow in enlarged trapezoidal channels setwithin flood banks. Along the coast, reclaimedsaltmarshes are secured behind armoured seawalls(Purseglove 1988). In England this programmehas been driven by a highly centralized andtechnocratic system, with DEFRA determiningnational policy, which is implemented regionallyby EA engineers in consultation with Regional andLocal Flood Defence Committees and, whereappropriate, local authorities and IDBs (Brownand Damery 2002; Scrase and Sheate 2005). InScotland, despite a less centralized system and alower level of expenditure, engineering structureshave also dominated option appraisals. Across thewhole of the UK this paradigm has generated aculture of dependency by floodplain occupants, wholook to the EA or their local authority for protectionand assistance, and whom they blame when theflood defences fail.

Current paradigm questioned

For many decades this paradigm has been highlysuccessful. By skilful design and construction, hardengineering structures have, by and large, protectedurban dwellers from inundation and enabledfarmers to cultivate or graze stock right up to theedge of the river or seashore. But this paradigm isnow being questioned, initially because of the threatposed by climate change. Along with other parts ofEurope, England has recently registered a series ofcatastrophic floods, notably in the Midlands (1998),

southeast and northern England (2000 and 2002)and Carlisle (2005). Scotland has also experiencedmajor floods in Elgin (1997, 2002), Edinburgh(2000) and Glasgow (2002). Collectively these haveresulted in a dramatic increase in flood losses(Association of British Insurers 2004) and the UKinsurance industry is now questioning its universalprovision of flood cover currently bundled withhousehold policies (Priest

et al

. 2005).The threat posed by climate change, with

decreased levels of protection and greatly increasedlosses, triggered the UK government’s Foresight pro-gramme on

Flooding and Coastal Defence

(Evans

etal

. 2004). This reported that across England andWales 4 million people, with property valued atmore than £200 billion, are at risk of a 1 in 100year flood. Annual average damage from floodingis currently £1.4 billion and set to rise by a further£1–27 billion per annum by the end of the century,depending on which emission and socio-economicscenario is adopted. The Foresight study also notedthat both the ‘world markets’ scenario (linked to highemission of greenhouse gases) and the ‘nationalenterprise’ scenario (linked to medium high emis-sion of greenhouse gases) generate substantiallyhigher damages (as proportions of projected GDP)than is the case today. Since increased spending onstructural flood defences at the expense of health,education and social services is inconceivable, sus-tainable, efficient and cost effective alternatives willhave to be developed.

The drive for environmental enhancement andsustainability has triggered a separate critique ofthe current paradigm, with its heavy reliance onstructural defences. In particular, the EC’s WaterFramework Directive, which requires all Europeanwater bodies to achieve ‘good ecological status’ by2015, is raising questions concerning the style ofriver engineering used to drain lowlands and protectthem from flooding. This pan-European critique ofriver engineering even extends to the Rhine andthe Danube, where centuries-old systems of rivertraining are now being questioned. Emerging solu-tions, often collectively termed ‘river restoration’,focus on reconnecting the river with its floodplainand restoring lost ecosystem services (Richter andPostel 2005).

Given this agenda, it is striking that the recentDEFRA (2004) consultation on a new strategy forflood and coastal erosion risk management wasentitled

Making Space for Water

. Three yearsearlier, the Institution of Civil Engineers’ report

Sustainable flood management

19

Learning to Live with Rivers

had adopted a similarapproach and concluded that a new balanceneeded to be struck ‘such that environmental gainis achieved wherever possible and schemes thatdamage the environment are avoided unless there isno other viable option’ (Institution of Civil Engineers2001, 6). The European Commission has alsorecently entered the arena with its proposal for aFloods Directive as part of an EU Flood ActionProgramme (European Commission 2005). Ifimplemented, it seems likely that the new Directivewill be integrated with the River Basin Manage-ment Plans required by the Water FrameworkDirective. All this represents a serious ‘greening’ offlood risk management strategies, but it does notfully engage with the need for long-term sustaina-bility, which requires economic and social needs tobe balanced alongside environmental gain. Theseissues are addressed in the next section, whichoutlines how the Scottish Executive has tried togive substance to the term ‘sustainable floodmanagement’.

Sustainable flood management – a Scottish ‘experiment’

Uniquely across the devolved administrations of theUK, the Scottish Parliament incorporated a require-ment for sustainable flood management when ittransposed the EC Water Framework Directive intoScot’s law. Section 2 of the

Water Environment andWater Services (Scotland) Act 2003

states that ScottishMinisters, SEPA and other ‘responsible authorities’have a duty

to promote sustainable flood management, andact in the way best calculated to contribute to theachievement of sustainable development.

In practice this means that local authorities (one ofthe ‘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 termoperational, the Scottish Executive’s National Tech-nical Advisory Group on Flooding (NTAG) reportedback in September 2004 (Scottish Executive 2005a).Table 1 provides a summary of the NTAG’s recom-mendations, with a definition of SFM accompaniedby its objectives. The NTAG report also provided aset of indicators for measuring the performance ofsustainable flood management schemes.

Indicators are required both for assessing progressagainst the defined objectives (what results SFM isactually achieving) and adherence to the principles(how it is expected the results will be achieved). Byway of illustration, Table 2 reports proposed measureindicators for assessing progress in achieving theoverall objective of meeting the needs of resilienceagainst flooding. The draft definition has beenwidely commented upon by key stakeholders andend users following its adoption in September 2004.An independent review of the NTAG recommenda-tions, whilst broadly supportive, recommendedimprovements using the language and methods ofStrategic Environmental Assessment and SustainabilityAppraisal (Scottish Executive 2005b).

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, byprotecting 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 floodingTo 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

20

Werritty

A critique of the Scottish ‘experiment’

By explicitly seeking to balance social, economicand environmental needs within a framework thatincorporates intergenerational equity, the definitionclearly adheres to strong sustainability norms. Theuse of ‘resilience’ (the ability to recover easilyand quickly) as a criterion against which to judgesuccess is challenging but has significant potential,not least because it addresses social, economic andenvironmental needs within a common framework.If ‘resilience’ can be viewed as the inverse ofvulnerability, this definition also has the potential tobe unpacked and explored within an emergingdiscourse in human geography (Brown and Damery2002; Findlay in press). The link with the ScottishExecutive’s Flooding Framework, a strategy which isto be delivered by heightened

Awareness

(improvedwarning systems, community groups),

Avoidance

(land use planning, land cover management),

Alleviation

(defences that now include upstreamstorage in wetlands, flood proofing) and

Assistance

(insurance, emergency action), is also significant inthat all four provide realistic alternatives to hardengineering structures.

By focusing on resilience and the ability of indi-viduals and communities to recover, this definitionof SFM places the individuals at risk centre stage andtasks the ‘responsible authorities’ with enhancingsocial equity and promoting community cohesiveness,

alongside a heightened sense of individual respon-sibility. In determining an affordable cost in aneconomic climate where prioritization will inevitablydetermine the level of grant from the ScottishExecutive (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 examiningthe proposed measure indicators for achieving theoverall objective of meeting the need for resilienceagainst flooding (Table 2). Losses arising fromdamage to personal, commercial or public property,personal travel interruptions, and lost production andsales are readily quantified, as noted in the commentssection of the table. But measuring personal socialimpacts (including death and injury, evacuationshock and distress) is far more difficult and requires amore nuanced approach. For example, how does onebegin to quantify the loss of unique family photo-graphs and heirlooms – irreplaceable personal goods?How does one include intangible costs, such as thoserelated to health and feeling safe in one’s home?Whilst some progress has been made in determininghealth costs (e.g. Tapsell

et al

. 2002; DEFRA 2005),quantifying the irreplaceable remains elusive.

Measuring enhancement in community benefit isstraightforward in terms of physical improvementsin the environment. Shadow price valuation ofbenefits from the improved amenity and appearance(open spaces, views, wetlands, landscape etc.) can

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 indicator(s)

Net sum of:(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

Sustainable flood management

21

be obtained. But identifying how far

Awareness

and

Assistance

have increased community cohesivenessand generated a culture of self help is more prob-lematic. The challenge here is to find an indicatorthat can capture the diversity of social capitalunlocked by communal and individual engagementin SFM. Fundamental to SFM is a change in attitudein which a willingness to take on greater personalresponsibility for mitigating flood losses steadilyreplaces undue reliance on state provision and aculture of blaming the state when losses occur.Only when this shift in responsibility has been fullyowned by individuals and communities will peopletruly be at the heart of this new paradigm.

A number of measure indicators have beenproposed to quantify the environmental objective ofSFM (Table 3). Some involve checking the percent-age of targets achieved, for example the percentagesof (flood relevant) Biodiversity Action Plan speciesand habitats that are identified as stable or increas-ing. Others involve examining how specific valuedhabitats (for example, SSSIs, corridors, landscapefeatures) have been affected (in hectares) by floodplainsbeing 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 locallycombined into an ‘environmental footprint’.

Implementation will initially be undertaken by localauthorities under circumscribed powers definedunder the

Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961

andwithin boundaries that often do not correspond toriver catchments. Since the Act only relates to flood-ing on non-agricultural land and has no provisionfor controlling upstream runoff (often the source forurban flooding), a holistic catchment-wide approachto flood control is, at present, difficult to achieve.Managing the land in rural areas, especially givenrecent reductions in agricultural subsidies, will needto be addressed in any new legislation designed todeliver holistic catchment management.

Conclusion

Flood risk management under the contrastingjurisdictions which operate in England, Wales andScotland following devolution has followed distinctivepaths. A centralized technocratic paradigm withstructural solutions providing the most favouredoption has, until recently, underpinned DEFRA

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 measurement indicator(s)

Consider:(i) Either Percentage of targets achieved (e.g. SE 10 Biodiversity ‘%s of (flood relevant)

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 (5–10 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’

22

Werritty

policy and locally delivered flood defence schemes.This is hardly surprising given the success of thisparadigm until the losses caused by the 1998, 2000and 2002 floods initiated a lively public debate.Since then, the Institute of Civil Engineers (2001)report

Learning to Live with Rivers

, followed by theForesight Report (Evans

et al.

2004)

Future Flooding

and implementation of the EC Water FrameworkDirective, have triggered a re-assessment. DEFRA’smost recent consultation

Making Space for Water

(2004) points to a ‘greening’ of engineering practice,greater commitment to holistic catchment-widesolutions and closer alignment with governmentsustainability targets. If implemented, this wouldcertainly incorporate elements of SFM, but, as yet,there is no overall conceptual framework withinwhich to balance social, economic and environ-mental needs and no explicit reference to inter-generational equity. A rigorous audit of how farsustainability is truly embedded in existing EAschemes is under way (Tavendale in preparation)and will report soon. In the meantime, I concludethat a weak form of SFM is emerging in Englandand Wales, but grafted onto an existing paradigm inwhich structural solutions are still privileged.

By contrast, the Scottish Executive’s on-goingexperiment to define and operationalize sustainableflood management as part of its implementation ofthe EC Water Framework Directive has beenremarkably prescient, especially if the proposeddaughter Flooding Directive is adopted by the EU.The previous lack of strategic policy in this areaand the highly fragmented approach to flood riskmanagement prior to the

Water Environment andWater Services (Scotland) Act, 2003

gave theScottish Executive a clean slate upon which towork. The result has been challenging and exciting,potentially even agenda-setting for policy-makerssouth of the border. By incorporating a strong formof sustainability into its definition of SFM, the Exec-utive has been remarkably radical. Agreeing a set ofprinciples which underpin SFM and seeking todevelop a set of measurement indicators to evaluateperformance is also innovative.

But these are still blue prints and not yet schemesdelivered on the ground. Converting the rhetoricinto reality will be a major challenge, not leastbecause of a legislative vacuum in terms of wholecatchment planning. Quantifying social needs,delivering ‘fair outcomes for everyone’ and balancingenvironmental gain with economic costs (possiblyincluding foregone employment opportunities) have

also yet to be delivered. Nevertheless, the Scottish‘experiment’ does provide an original, intellectuallyexciting 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 canescape the charge of being an oxymoron. A seismicshift is potentially in the making.

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this paper are my own, but theyhave been influenced by many who have wrestled withdefining sustainable flood management in Scotland andunpacking 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 significantlyimproved the final version.

References

Association of British Insurers

2004 Association of BritishInsurers submission to DEFRA Select Committee Enquiryon Climate Change (http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/Child/552/EFRA_Select_Committee.pdf) Accessed 30November 2005

Brown

J D and Damery

S L

2002 Managing flood risk inthe UK: towards an integration of social and technicalperspectives

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 newgovernment strategy for flood and coastal erosion riskmanagement in England and Wales

Consultation exerciseDepartment for Food and Rural Affairs, London

DEFRA

2005

The appraisal of human-related intangible aspectsof flooding

Final Project Report (FD2005) Risk and PolicyAnalysts Ltd Department for Food and Rural Affairs, London

European Commission

2005

Proposal for a floods directive inthe context of an EU Flood Action Programme

EuropeanCommission, Directorate-General Environment, Brussels

Evans

E, Ashley

R, Hall

J, Penning-Rowsell

E, Saul

A, SayersP, 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, Spaceand 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 flooddefence responsibilities

3rd edn Thomas Telford, London

Sustainable flood management

23

Institution of Civil Engineers

2001

Learning to live withrivers

Institution of Civil Engineers, London

Nixon

M

1963 Flood regulation and river training in Englandand Wales in

Conservation of Water Resources in theUnited Kingdom

Institution of Civil Engineers, London137–50

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

2005 Develop-ment and flood risk

Planning Policy Guidance

25(http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144113)Accessed 30 November 2005

Penning-Rowsell

E, Johnson

C, Tunstall

S, Tapsell

S,Morris

J, Chatterton

J, Coker

A and Green

C

2003

Thebenefits of flood and coastal defence: techniques anddata for 2003

Flood Hazard Research Centre MiddlesexUniversity

Priest

S J, Clark

M and Treby

E J

2005 Flood insurance: thechallenge of the uninsured Area 37 295–302

Purseglove J 1988 Taming the flood: a history and naturalhistory of rivers and wetlands Oxford University Press,Oxford

Richter B and Postel S 2005 Rivers for life: managing waterfor people and nature Island Press, Washington

Scottish Executive 2005a Final report of the NationalTechnical Advisory Group on Flooding Scottish Execu-

tive, Edinburgh (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Water/Flooding/16919/ntgfinalreport) Accessed30 November 2005

Scottish Executive 2005b Sustainable flood managementpilot study Draft final report MWH and Jacobs-BabtieScottish Executive, Edinburgh

Scrase J I and Sheate W R 2005 Re-framing flood control inEngland and Wales Environmental Values 14 113–37

Smout T C 2000 Nature contested: environmental historyin Scotland and Northern England since 1600 EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh

Tapsell S M, Penning-Rowsell E C, Tunstall S M and Wilson T L2002 Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimen-sions Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon Series A 360 1511–25

Tavendale A in preparation Flood management policy andpractice in Scotland and England 1994–2004 UnpublishedPhD thesis University of Dundee

Werritty A in press Assessment of flood drivers – Scotland inThorne C R, Evans E P and Penning-Rowsell E C eds Futureflood and coastal erosion risks in the UK Thomas Telford,London

Werritty A with Chatterton J 2004 Future flooding ScotlandForesight Office of Science and Technology, London