Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This paper examines the challenges facing English flood risk management (FRM) policy and practice when considering fair decision‐making processes and outcomes at a range of spatial scales. It is recognised that flooding is not fair per se : the inherent natural spatial inequality of flood frequency and extent, plus the legacy of differential system interventions, being the cause. But, drawing on the three social justice models – procedural equality, Rawls’ maximin rule and maximum utility – the authors examine the fairness principles currently employed in FRM decision‐making. This is achieved, firstly, in relation to the distribution of taxpayer's money for FRM at the national, regional and local levels and, secondly, for non‐structural strategies – most notably those of insurance, flood warnings and awareness raising, land use control, home owner adaptation and emergency management. A case study of the Lower Thames catchment illustrates the challenges facing decision‐makers in ‘real life’: how those strategies which appear to be most technically and economically effective fall far short of being fair from either a vulnerability or equality perspective. The paper concludes that if we are to manage flood risk somewhat more fairly then a move in the direction of government funding of nationally consistent non‐structural strategies, in conjunction with lower investment decision thresholds for other local‐level FRM options, appears to offer a greater contribution to equality and vulnerability‐based social justice principles than the status quo.
Johnson et al. (Wed,) studied this question.