Rethinking flood resilience: from policy to practice. The case of flood risk management in England.

尽管每年有10亿英镑的预算用于管理洪水风险，但环境署无法为英格兰所有家庭提供全面的洪水保护。在哪些社区获得资金、这些社区获得何种程度的保护以及当面临风险的社区未能达到资金标准时该怎么办等问题上，必须做出艰难的决定。环境局认识到，它不再能够单独应对洪水风险，因此越来越多地让当地社区参与执行洪水风险管理任务，例如评估其脆弱性、申请资金和提出洪水计划。最近，该机构提出了其愿景，即“一个国家准备好并能适应洪水和海岸变化-今天，明天，直到2100年“，洪水“对人民造成的伤害要小得多，造成的破坏要小得多，并确保生活能更快地恢复正常”（环境署，2020年）。要做到这一点，社区和社区内的个人必须发展复原力。这涉及到人们通过使用洪水地图和/或警报系统来提高认识，对他们面临的洪水风险承担责任，以及有权采取行动，如购买门警卫或改造房屋，以加快恢复。然而，谁有能力、承诺、时间、资源和/或社会资本来增强抗灾能力并不总是明确的，也不清楚那些无法适应的人会发生什么。帮助社区提高抗灾能力可能比仅仅关注“抗灾能力”更能解决洪水风险中的不平等问题：相对较小的洪水事件可能会证明对抗灾能力较低的社区来说很难科普。然而，这些话在政策执行实践中的真正含义取决于政策制定者和利益相关者对它们的定义和理解。我们问：机构和（受影响的）公众如何理解测量和增加“服从”的含义？我们能否量化将“恢复力”作为政策目标所导致的防洪公共支出的变化？除了花钱，还有什么其他干预措施可以提高当地的复原力？借鉴政治生态学，地理学和政策研究的见解，本项目旨在：1。在洪水风险管理的背景下定义恢复力;2.确定衡量洪水恢复力的变量;3.研究如何在实地实施提高抵御洪水能力的目标。该项目将通过混合方法来实现其目标，比较政策制定者和利益相关者的看法，寻找和测试不同概念化的变量，并概述相关影响。该项目的政策目标是最大限度地发挥该机构资源的影响，扩大“复原力”实践的范围，并促进洪水风险管理的成功分散。

Despite an annual budget of £1 billion to manage flood risk, the Environment Agency cannot offer total protection from flooding to all households in England. Difficult decisions must be made over which communities receive funding, what level of protection those communities receive, and what to do when at-risk communities fail to meet the funding criterion.Realizing that it can no longer act alone on flood risk, the Environment Agency has increasingly involved local communities in carrying out flood risk management tasks,e.g. assessing their vulnerability, applying for funding, and proposing flood schemes. Recently, the Agency set out its vision for "a nation ready for, and resilient to, flood and coastal change - today, tomorrow, and to the year 2100"where floods "cause much less harm to people, do much less damage, and ensure life can get back to normal much quicker" (Environment Agency, 2020). For that to happen, communities and individuals within those communities must develop resilience. This involves people taking responsibility for their exposure to flood risk via the use of flood maps and/or alert systems to raise awareness, as well as being empowered to act such as purchasing door guards or retrofitting their home to speed up recovery. Yet who has the capacity, commitment, time, resources, and/or social capital to be resilient is not always clear, nor what happens to those unable to adapt.Helping communities increase their resilience may do more to address inequality in exposure to flooding than just focusing on 'vulnerability': a comparatively small flooding event may prove hard to cope with for communities with low resilience. Yet, the true meaning of these words in the practice of policy implementation depends on the definition and understanding of them in the eye of the policy-makers and stakeholders.We ask: how do the Agency and the (affected) public understand the implications of measuring and increasing 'resilience'? Can we quantify the change in public spending on flood defences that results from setting 'resilience' as a policy goal? Besides spending money, what other interventions can increase local resilience?Drawing on insights from political ecology, geography, and policy studies, this project aims to:1. Define resilience in the context of flood riskmanagement;2. Identify the variables that measure resilience to flooding;3. Study how the goal of increasing resilience to flooding is implemented on the ground.The project will fulfil its aims via a mixed method approach to compare perceptions of policy-makers and stakeholders, find and test the variables that operationalise the different conceptualisations, and outline the relevant implications. The policy goal of the project is to maximise the impact of the Agency's resources, broaden the range of 'resilience' practices, and foster a successful decentralisation of flood risk management.