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，但环境局无法为英格兰所有家庭提供全面的洪水保护。必须做出艰难的决定，决定哪些社区获得资金，这些社区得到什么水平的保护，以及当处于危险中的社区未能达到资金标准时怎么办。认识到它不能再单独对洪水风险采取行动，环境署越来越多地让当地社区参与执行洪水风险管理任务，例如评估他们的脆弱性，申请资金，并提出洪水方案。最近，该机构提出了其愿景，即“一个准备好应对洪水和沿海变化的国家--无论是今天、明天，还是到2100年”，在那里，洪水“对人们造成的伤害要小得多，造成的破坏也要少得多，并确保生活能够更快地恢复正常”(环境署，2020)。要做到这一点，这些社区内的社区和个人必须培养复原力。这涉及人们通过使用洪水地图和/或警报系统来提高认识，为他们暴露在洪水风险中的风险承担责任，以及被授权采取行动，如购买门卫或翻新房屋以加快恢复。然而，谁有能力、承诺、时间、资源和/或社会资本来保持韧性并不总是清楚的，也不清楚那些无法适应的人会发生什么。帮助社区提高韧性可能更有助于解决暴露在洪水中的不平等问题，而不仅仅是关注“脆弱性”：对于韧性较低的社区来说，相对较小的洪水事件可能很难应对。然而，这些词语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：该机构和(受影响的)公众如何理解衡量和提高“韧性”的含义？我们能量化将“韧性”作为政策目标所导致的防洪公共支出的变化吗？除了花钱，还有什么其他干预措施可以提高当地的复原力？该项目借鉴政治生态、地理和政策研究的见解，旨在：1.在洪水风险管理的背景下定义复原力；2.确定衡量洪水复原力的变量；3.研究提高抗洪能力的目标在当地如何实施。该项目将通过混合方法实现其目标，比较政策制定者和利益相关者的看法，寻找和测试使不同概念可操作的变量，并概述相关影响。该项目的政策目标是最大限度地发挥工程处资源的影响，扩大“复原力”做法的范围，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.