‘Do the resilient things.’ Residents' perspectives on responsibilities for flood risk adaptation in England

Snel, Karin A. W.; Priest, Sally J.; Hartmann, Thomas; Witte, Patrick; Geertman, Stan

doi:10.1111/jfr3.12727

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is higher than the result reported in earlier studies from Sweden [13] and other countries [43]. One further result, supporting that "lack of knowledge" is indeed an important reason for our respondents' hesitancy to support individual responsibility, is that the majority wanted public actors to inform them about climate adaptation, a result also supported by other studies [6,14]. A large majority of respondents agreed totally or nearly totally that local governments (79%) and county administrative boards (74%) should be responsible for providing information about climate adaptation measures, whereas the national government being responsible received somewhat less support (62% totally or nearly totally agreed).…”

Section: Who Should Be Responsible For What?supporting

confidence: 66%

“…In many cases, the public believes local governments should take on the greatest responsibility for climate adaptation [7,12,13]. Furthermore, why private actors, and in particular homeowners, should take on a more prominent role in climate adaptation than before, as often suggested in the literature, is not addressed or discussed beyond stating that it is needed for successful and efficient adaptation [6,14]. Little focus has been given to how responsibility for climate adaptation can be distributed fairly within a society [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For successful climate change adaptation, the distribution of responsibility within society is an important question. While the literature highlights the need for involving both public and private actors, little is still known of how citizens perceive their own and others’ responsibility, let alone the moral groundings for such perceptions. In this paper, we report the results of a survey regarding people’s attitudes towards different ways of distributing responsibility for climate change adaptation. The survey was distributed to citizens in six Swedish municipalities and completed by 510 respondents. A large number of respondents wanted to assign responsibility for making decisions about and implementing adaptation measures to local governments, but also to property owners, whereas the national government was raised as responsible for setting decision boundaries and for financial support. The most preferred principles for a fair distribution of responsibility among the respondents were desert, ability, efficiency and need, while the principle of equal shares found less support. All principles received some support, indicating that it is necessary to consider several principles when distributing responsibility for climate change adaptation. Compared to earlier studies, this study shows more nuanced perceptions on who should be responsible and on what moral grounds.

show abstract

Section: Who Should Be Responsible For What?supporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biased decisions that impose either risk harm or outcome harm can also adversely impact social behavior important to effective FRM. In the “behavioral turn” of FRM that requires citizens' adaptive actions to reduce flood‐related impacts (Kuhlicke et al, 2020), policies that are perceived to require endangering others, or even designate certain communities as ‘calamity polders’ (Roth & Warner, 2009), can end up undermining solidarity necessary for moral obligations between citizens before severe flood events (see Snel et al, 2021). Clarifying the normative dimensions of imposing risk harm or outcome harm as flood harm can then facilitate greater transparency and equity among different stakeholders when deliberating complex normative decisions in FRM.…”

Section: Introduction: the Normative Dimensions Of Flood Harm In Floo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The normative dimensions of flood risk management: Two types of flood harm

Chan

Liao

2022

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The normative dimensions of flood harm in flood risk management (FRM) have become salient in a milieu of extreme flood events. In this article, two types of flood harm will be discussed. They are namely, risk harm and outcome harm. Whilst risk harm suggests that risk imposition by structural FRM measures is a type of harm that can increase vulnerability and diminish wellbeing, outcome harm is manifested in deliberate flooding used to protect certain privileged communities at the expense of harming other less privileged ones. Risk-imposing parties are required to seek consent for imposing new risks. In contrast, outcome harm as deliberate flooding is far more pernicious and should only be exercised in extreme situations with ample provisions for restitution and recovery. The aim of this article is to foreground and examine these under-explored notions of flood harm in the FRM discourse and in tandem, to expand the normative dimensions of FRM in a milieu where difficult ethical choices abound.

show abstract

“…Inherent to the decentralization of FRM is the transfer of "responsibility" across stakeholders. The inclusion of local stakeholders, and specifically households, is proposed to: integrate their knowledge for improved decision-making processes (Pasquier et al, 2020), encourage uptake of property level measures (Begg et al, 2017a;Snel et al, 2021), and aid the rapid adaptation required to meet changing flood risks (Begg, 2018). Despite a significant body of research on stakeholder engagement in flood resilience, there remains very little work explicitly on the characterization of responsibilities in the FRM cycle (Morrison et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of responsibility for coastal flood risk adaptation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of coastal flood risk is adapting to meet the challenges and increased risks posed by population change as well as by climate change, especially sea level rise. Protection is being targeted to areas where the benefits are highest, while elsewhere there is a shift towards more localized “living with floods” and “resilience” approaches. Such decentralized approaches to flood risk management (FRM) require a diverse range of stakeholder groups to be engaged as “flood risk citizens”. Engagement of households in FRM is central to this process. Despite significant research on stakeholder engagement in coastal and flood risk management, there is less focus on the nature of responsibility in coastal adaptation. There is no framework by which to assess the different types of responsibility in hazard management and adaptation, and little research on the implications of expecting these responsibilities of stakeholder groups. In this paper, we identify five types of responsibility that are embedded throughout the disaster risk reduction cycle of managing coastal flooding. We build this “typology of responsibility” on existing work on the evolution of stakeholder engagement and stakeholder responsibility relationships in risk management processes, and a dataset of institutional stakeholder interviews and households surveys conducted across three case studies in England, the United Kingdom, in 2018 and 2019. We analyze the interviews using thematic analysis to explore institutional stakeholder perceptions of responsibility in coastal FRM, and analyze the household survey through descriptive and inferential statistics. By developing the first disaster risk reduction focused typology of responsibility for coastal flooding, we provide researchers and decision-makers with a tool to guide their planning and allocation of responsibilities in risk management for floods and other climate-driven hazards.

show abstract

‘Do the resilient things.’ Residents' perspectives on responsibilities for flood risk adaptation in England

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

Public Perceptions concerning Responsibility for Climate Change Adaptation

The normative dimensions of flood risk management: Two types of flood harm

A typology of responsibility for coastal flood risk adaptation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About