Shifting Flood Risk Management (FRM) in England and the Netherlands: public flood risk perceptions and responses

Capewell, Lucinda Kaye ORCID: 0000-0002-2765-5854 (2024). Shifting Flood Risk Management (FRM) in England and the Netherlands: public flood risk perceptions and responses. University of Birmingham. Ph.D.

Preview

Capewell2024PhD.pdf
Text - Accepted Version
Available under License All rights reserved.
Download (8MB) | Preview

Abstract

Floods are one of the most damaging global events faced by society. Recent, significant flood events have also occurred despite suggestions that improved disaster risk reduction in the years prior have counteracted increasing socio-economic exposure and vulnerability. Shifting management, from traditional hazard-focused and engineered measures to integrated Flood Risk Management (FRM), is one way of tackling this ‘wicked’ water and flood problem. Yet, by applying a risk-based approach, and more emphasis being given to other aspects of the safety cycle such as preparation and recovery, it is important to understand how flood risk perceptions influence personal behaviours to risks. However, a feedback loop has been identified between flood risk perceptions and FRM, with only one side of this relationship included in literature. Recent socio-hydrology theories and concepts are contributing to this gap, but this work remains predominately theoretical.

Applying an interdisciplinary approach, this thesis first reviews the evolution of FRM directions in England and the Netherlands, two countries described as similar in some cases of managing flood risk. It then draws upon case studies of different FRM approaches in both countries to investigate the often-missed influence of varying FRM upon flood risk perceptions. Finally, this thesis analyses public preferences towards FRM and socio-hydrological response assumptions to flood events.

The results indicate that although both countries have progressed to a well-developed state of FRM, dominant and county-specific factors have both hindered and progressed developments. The level to which FRM measures are applied, and whether these are reactive or proactive, also differs between countries due to varying combinations of policy change drivers. When investigating flood risk perceptions in the case studies across England and the Netherlands, FRM may play a part in influencing these, particularly when considering future likelihood of flooding, but a combination of other influential factors such as political involvement, community participation and frequent flooding also play a role in driving flood risk perceptions. Finally, socio-hydrology response assumptions and FRM preferences were tested with respondents that had been directly, indirectly, and never impacted by flooding. The results found that while prevention may be preferred to protection overall for FRM, flooding responses depend on the influence of previous flood events.

Type of Work:

Thesis (Doctorates > Ph.D.)

Award Type:

Doctorates > Ph.D.

Supervisor(s):