Caracterización de la Comunidad la Esperanza

Following the increase in catastrophic flood events from the 1990s a discursive renewal can be detected in the water policy domain from ‘flood defence’ to ‘flood risk management’. In common with the wider environmental policy domain, this renewal in the discourse calls for a more ‘sustainable’ approach and emphasises the need to share responsibility and integrate with other agencies, across multiple sectors. This change in discourse is exemplified by ‘floodplain restoration’, that is the call to restore naturally functioning floodplains as opposed to keeping water separate from land by building traditional, engineered flood defences. Partnership and integration is essential, spatial planners being a critical new stakeholder in finding the land at a catchment scale. Yet it is the complexity of the involvement of so many stakeholders that is seen as a critical constraint on the successful implementation of floodplain restoration (Ledoux, 2005; Moss and Monstadt, 2008). Despite supportive changes in policy, there were few schemes being implemented in practice in England and furthermore it is claimed we remain entrenched in the flood defence approach. Closing the current implementation deficit will mean finding new ways of working across sectors and spatial scales, yet current analytical perspectives underplay institutional features.

For the social scientist, Luker (2008), knowledge comes not from mastering esoteric facts or techniques, but in making connections across traditional boundaries – “going wide rather than deep” (p60). Although there can be pitfalls in cross-disciplinary research (wide, not deep), the PhD research has mixed varying perspectives from disciplines involved with water management (geography, ecology, hydrology and engineering) with the discipline on the landward side of the floodplain (spatial planning). In a complete departure from the ‘rational’ science perspective, the policy implementation deficit for floodplain restoration will be analysed through an evaluation framework developed within the tradition of interpretative policy analysis.

An Interpretative Analysis

The changes in the English water management and planning sectors, and the barriers faced in realising the change resonate strongly with the broader ‘modernity’ debate. Section 1.3 positions the PhD research on floodplain restoration, with its call for more sustainable ‘holistic’ practices, integration and partnership working, against this background context of an important change in wider international policy domains that have emerged in the past two decades; a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. The ability to make connections between ‘shifts in governance’ and actor’s activities influencing land use change on the floodplain cannot proceed without ‘theoretical scaffolding’. Interpretive approaches have been experiencing renewed interest in the social sciences. Interpretive policy analysts believe their critical approach and sensitivity to relevant political and historical context is increasingly challenging the empiricist and positivist mainstream research that has dominated recent decades (Feindt, 2011). Interpretative analysis is being used to enhance our understanding of new forms of governance and is being used to clarify issues and enhance participatory approaches to the highly contested discourse on ‘sustainable development’ (ibid). A series of social constructivist approaches have begun to place relevance on discourses in environmental policy making, and the relationship of discourse to power in shedding new light on the functioning of institutions (Feindt, 2011; Hajer, 1997). ‘Foucauldian’ approaches place an emphasis on the structuring character of hegemonic discourses, whereby environmental policies are said to be based on longstanding coalitions and relative stability of belief and knowledge systems (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993 in Leroy and Arts, 2006). Hajer and Wagenaar (2003) feel this tradition has a much wider relevance

and promotes a much more subtle understanding of contemporary politics and policy making, but to date has been under appreciated. Chapters 2 and 3 will draw on this much broader perspective than current research and policy analysis, to understand change and stability within the policy context of flood risk management and the practice of floodplain restoration specifically.

Spatial Planning - The restricted connectivity between land-use planning and sustainable water management policy has been identified as one of the significant constraints to the implementation of floodplain restoration (Moss and Monstadt, 2008). As there is a considerable ‘inbuilt’ inertia in planning and development, if policy directs a change in land use on floodplains and river corridors, it will take decades for changes to take effect – planning policies must be put in place now (Moss and Monstadt, 2008; Novotny et al., 2010). Kidd and Shaw (2007) have also noted in general policy terms, that although the concept of ‘integration’ had been fundamental in sustainability debates for several years, and it has been recognised that integration is an essential feature of spatial planning; a thorough understanding of the complexity of actually achieving integration, both in theory and practice, is not yet complete (Kidd and Shaw, 2007).

Urban Floodplains- The literature on floodplain restoration has a predominantly rural and agricultural focus. The world’s population is predominantly urban, and the United Nations predict that the total world urban population is projected to double by 2050; the millennium ecosystem goals will be won or lost in cities” (United Nations Habitat, 2006). ‘Hydrology’ is prominent among urban ecological processes, which affects a whole a suite of biophysical, cultural, and ecological processes (Novotny et al., 2010). In fact water is postulated as the “tail that wags the dog” of urban sustainability and resilience (Novotny et al., 2010, p185). Fitting with the focus on spatial planning, taking ecological restoration as the ideal state, this thesis assumes a wider analysis of the contested floodplain space. Although Environment Minister, Miliband’s ideology appeared aligned in 2007, there were other powerful, invested interests involved. The research concentrates on activities of the actors on the urban floodplain, to see how far they have progressed to address flood risk management in an integrated and sustainable way to 2012.

Mind Set - Other than the work by Scrase (2006) on flood defence, ‘mind set’, commonly cited as a barrier to floodplain restoration, receives little attention in the literature. Moss

and Monstadt (2008) observe that the everyday practices and mindsets of key stakeholders regarding floodplain restoration is perhaps the most severe constraint and certainly proves the hardest to change. Richards and Hughes (2008) believe a resolution of the conflict between opposing disciplinary views is required before restoration initiatives become institutionally acceptable goals. Hence, using interpretative research and discourse analysis to tap and explain belief and knowledge systems rather than ‘fluvial systems’ per se, the research will delve deeper than previous research, into the mind sets and ‘irrationalities’ of actors’ practices on the floodplain.

Aim of the Research

To analyse the policy context of urban floodplain restoration, to evaluate if this emerging integrated and, more sustainable solution has become a mainstream practice for water managers and spatial planners to date. In other words, was the ‘window of opportunity’ taken following recent policy shifts and the catastrophic summer floods of 2007? If not, the research aims to make a contribution from an ‘interpretative’ angle, to identify and interpret institutional ‘bottlenecks’ and thereby aid the closure of the policy implementation deficit for floodplain restoration. Or can we surmise the change in discourse in the water sector, with new ideas on governance and policy instruments, is rhetoric or ‘lip service’, and will merely filter away to leave a lasting stability in the traditional flood defence approach?

The aim will be translated to the form of research questions, at the end of the ‘set up’ information of Part I, in the light of the interpretative methodology and theoretical framework (see section 3.5).

Structure of the Thesis

Part I - Define and Design

Chapter 1 has given an explanation for the interpretivist approach to the research, to complement and shed further light on the predominant rational scientists’ view – to investigate the policy implementation deficit of floodplain restoration as an ‘institutional phenomenon’. Following such divergent theoretical positions on policy evaluation, a wide variety of methodological approaches have evolved for answering policy evaluation questions. What follows in Chapter 2 are further details on the epistemological

position and theoretical assumptions of the research, and the chart of decision making that directed the subsequent research process. The chapter details the research design and methodology, whereby case study research serves to give insight into the way in which ‘shifts in governance’ have affected the policy and practice of restoring floodplains in England. Having briefly introduced the main concepts that underpin the research on institutional barriers or ‘bottlenecks’ to floodplain restoration, Chapter 3 is devoted to the development of the discourse-analytical framework, underpinned by the theory of institutionalism and in the context of wider ‘shifts in governance’ in the environmental policy domain.

Part II Description and Characterisation

In the initial stage of the empirical research, Chapters 4 to 6 undertake a longitudinal, historic discourse analysis, to study the phenomenon of interest in England, and analyse how knowledge and ideologies have changed (or remained stable) for the key actors on floodplain activities over time. Chapter 4 examines the historical roots and institutionalisation of the ‘flood defence’ discourse, Chapter 5 takes up the historical discourse analysis from the 1980s, with the global rise of environmentalism, and the circumstances from which, and from who and where, the new discourse of floodplain restoration has emerged. Chapter 6 tracks the discourse ‘live’ during the course of the PhD research, from 2007 to 2012, to ascertain if the ‘window of opportunity’ was taken following the 2007 summer floods, under the renewed attention for the restoration of functional floodplains. Media quotes provide the backdrop to the historical narrative, to provide the public and political framing to the debate.

Part III Interpretation, Prescription and Reflection

In Chapter 7 the dynamics of the new discourse on floodplain restoration will be examined to investigate, by 2012, to what extent the new ‘discourse’ or policy rhetoric on floodplain restoration has been taken up in practice and ‘if’ the policy implementation deficit still persists, will evaluate the forces for change, and the circumstances in which floodplain restoration could become a mainstream approach (institutionalise) and have an impact on future flood risk management practice.

Chapter 8 will reflect upon the contribution of the interpretivist research undertaken, and contrasting with best practice ‘rational’ findings, will suggest prescriptive solutions

and recommendations to how we can work better together across the disciplines to facilitate the implementation of floodplain restoration. Finally Chapter 8 will also report upon my plans for future research. Figure 1.3 outlines the full thesis chapter structure.

PART I:

DEFINE & DESIGN

PART II: DESCRIPTION & CHARACTERISATION PART III: INTERPRETATION, PRESCRIPTION & REFLECTION

Figure 1.3: Thesis Chapter Structure

Prescription, Reflection & Going Forward Chapter 8 Setting the Context to a Contested Space T Chapter 1 Research Design & Methodology Case Study England Chapter 2 Analytical Framework Institutionalism & Discourse Analysis Chapter 3 Nature of Change and Stability in the

Policy Arrangement Chapter 7 Institutionalisation of Floodplain Restoration? Chapter 6 Turn in the Discourse-towards Floodplain Restoration Chapter 5 Institutionalisation of the Flood Defence Discourse Chapter 4

2

Methodology:

Laying Bare the Bottlenecks in

Floodplain Restoration Policy

A wide variety of methodological approaches have evolved for answering policy evaluation questions, although the fact that policy unfolds in a pre-set institutional context is considered to be a somewhat neglected issue by researchers from the interpretivist paradigm. In contrast to the ‘rational’ research paradigm associated with floodplain restoration and water management more broadly, Chapter 2 thus sets out the thesis’ methodological influence from the social science ‘interpretivist’ researchers and outlines the decision making that directed the subsequent research process, to show how the interplay between structural processes of political modernisation and day to day policy making has been studied in the empirical research. Section 2.1 contains further details on the epistemological position and theoretical assumptions of the research. Section 2.2 provides an overall summary of the four broad iterative stages of the research: how the initial stage of ‘grounded’ field work led to the reformulation of the research questions; induced the initial theoretical constructs; followed on to progressively more focused data collection whereby the list of theoretical constructs were explored, tested and developed with both existing and new data. The choice and description of, the qualitative, case study research design is documented in section 2.3. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 then provide further information on data collection and analysis respectively. Data collection methods were triangulated, including the use of documents, focus group and interviews, observation and participatory observation. The data was analysed using theoretical ‘a priori’ coding techniques, assisted by the qualitative data analysis program, NVivo. Finally, section 2.6 reports on the endeavour for research quality, including reflexivity, transparency, validity, ethical issues and ends with a claim for research originality.