This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Strategic coastal flood-risk management in practice: Actors’ perspectiveson the integration of flood risk management in London and the Thames Estuary

Loraine McFadden*, Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Sue TapsellFlood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Trent Park, Bramley Road, London N14 4YZ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 23 October 2009

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines constraints and enabling factors towards ‘integration’ as they are perceived byactors involved in an ongoing strategy development process. The paper examines stakeholderperspectives on current progress in coastal flood risk management in London and the Thames Estuary.The case-study suggests that important steps have been taken towards an integrated and adaptivestrategy development process, particularly through the development of informal stakeholder networks.However, constraints in enabling learning within the strategy development process mean that practicalpathways of integration in such a large, global-scale city remain challenging to identify and perhaps evenmore so to implement.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The ‘integrated’ approach is now widely accepted as thepreferred form of knowledge acquisition and strategy building forenvironmental management. In coastal management this paradigmis reflected in the activities, recommendations and rhetoric ofinternational and national fora and in coastal management policyguidance. These include the recommendations from the GlobalConference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands [1], the ongoing researchand practical guidance from the European Union and nationally inthe United Kingdom, the Marine Bill [2]. Inherent within this shifttowards integration is the recognition of the importance of movingfrom coastal defensive strategies towards pro-active anticipatingstrategies, which involve thinking and acting ahead of the build upof risk in the coastal environment. Such an integrated strategyapproach facilitates the development of a management processwhich allows a combination of long-term goals, aims and measureseach to be continuously aligned with the changing physical andsocietal context.

The key focus of this paper is to explore stakeholder perspec-tives on the challenges and opportunities for developing an inte-grated strategy process for coastal flood risk management withinLondon and the Thames Estuary. The aim of the paper is to high-light issues involved in translating the vision or philosophy ofintegrated management into a sustainable and practical plan ina complex physical and social environment. The paper uses three

benchmarks to describe the process of integration for adapting toenvironmental and social change in coastal environments, focusingon: first, relations in power and responsibility; second, knowledgegeneration for coastal management and third in spatial andtemporal interdependencies in a management process. Thebenchmarks are described in the following section, outliningthe theoretical framework of the study. After briefly outlining thecontext of coastal flood risk management in London, the paperevaluates the flood risk management strategy using feedback froma series of semi-structured interviews with strategic actors inthe case-study area. The discussion explores the stakeholderperspectives on how external (e.g. climate change, economicdevelopment in the floodplain) and internal (for example, politicalconstraints, resources and responsibility) dimensions of theprocesses of decision-making, impact the effectiveness of formu-lating and implementing strategic alternatives for coastal flood riskmanagement. In exploring these perspectives the paper highlightschallenges to enabling learning processes characteristic of inte-grated management in a global city faced with increasing coastalflood risk. The research has reinforced our view that movingtowards an integrated coastal management philosophy thatencompasses the ideal of an adaptive or co-evolving strategicplanning process is an important goal for the management of 22ndcentury coastal and estuarine environments. However, translatingthis vision into the reality of flood risk management requiresa thorough understanding of physical, economic and socialprocesses and responses – the flood defence assets – which char-acterise the estuarine system, and an institutional and organisationlandscape which facilitates self-organisation, learning and carefulplanning.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 20 8411 5531; fax: þ44 20 8411 5403.E-mail address: L.McFadden@mdx.ac.uk (L. McFadden).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

0964-5691/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.10.001

Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645

Author's personal copy

2. An integrated strategy approach for managing coastalflood risk: concepts and theoretical framework

The concept of integration is receiving much attention withineach of the domains of interest within environmental management(e.g. Hills et al. [3], Kearney et al. [4]; Liu et al. [5]; McFadden, [6];Pahl-Wostl et al. [7]; Holman et al. [8]). In a general sense, inte-gration has been seen to carry the idea of disparate elements beingbrought together in a more holistic entity (van Kerkhoff [9]).Schmidt [10] identifies another characteristic of integration as theexistence of plurality in a holistic approach. Discussing knowledgeintegration, Schmidt argues that interdisciplinarity is a relationalterm, highlighting the tension within an integrated approachbetween unity and plurality, reducibility and irreducibility. Bystressing that if unity were achieved and reductionism werecompletely successful, interdisciplinarity would dissolve, Schmidtputs the focus in integration on relations between differentelements, elements that retain some difference within the whole.The emphasis of integration for environmental management is onenhancing the ability of a management process to recognise andregulate connections between the range of physical, social and

economic processes and behaviours that define the system in spaceand time, and the relationships between the system and its externalenvironment in these dimensions.

In exploring an integrated approach to managing flood risk in anestuary, the researcher is confronted with a range of important andrelevant concepts, including: Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM), Integrated Flood Risk Management (IFRM), Adaptive Co-Management as well as Strategic Planning as a tool for implementingsuch integrative processes. Table 1 highlights characteristics of thisrange of processes as commonly recognised within scientific litera-ture (e.g. EU [11]; Atkins [12]; Folke et al. [13]; Berkes [14]; Green[15]; APFM [16]; Bryson [17]). There are clear distinctions betweenthese terms including the process- and placed-based approachesutilised, as well as the priority of each approach. Adaptive co-management, for example, clearly seeks partnership betweenphysical and social knowledge, whilst strategic planning has less ofan implicit focus on knowledge of the physical environment. Whilsta primary emphasis of IFRM is often seen as establishing the bestsingle-fix of flood risk, adaptive capacity is more strongly focused onthe longer-term process of learning. In addition to the nature of themanagement process, there are also specific sets of drivers andresponses which characterise coastal-based, catchment-based and‘planning-based’ approaches to management.

Whilst clear boundaries of definition and of approach to themanagement process currently exist with domain-specific chal-lenges for the various forms: an increasing focus has emerged oncross-boundary links. These links seek to identify and addresscommon problems, learn from best practice and strengthen inte-gration across the various management processes. There are efforts,for example, in linking catchments with coasts both theoreticallyand practically in modelling techniques e.g. Andrews et al. [18],Rasch et al. [19], GOC [1] and in exploring the conceptual frame-works and methodological benefits from the application of stra-tegic planning to integrated flood risk management e.g. Hutter[20,21]. However, there is also wide acceptance of a commonfoundational principle for managing such complex environments:an acknowledgement that systems need to be managed as systems.This considers the human and physical environment to bea complex entity, comprised of dynamic sub-systems reflectingcoupled behaviours through time. Defined from this systemsperspective, integration across the various management processesis concerned about the development of flexible resources andcapabilities for adapting the formulation and implementation ofmanagement strategies. An integrated strategy process facilitatesdecision-making which allows the dynamic response of the systemto external forces to be maintained or enhanced and provides scopeto adapt to the unanticipated and the uncertain.

The aim of an integrated strategy process is therefore to allowa combination of long-term goals, aims and measures to be contin-uously adjusted and aligned with the changing physical and societalcontext. In line with the systems approach and literature on adaptiveor resilience systems (e.g. Folke et al. [13], Berkes, [14]; Walker et al.[22]), a number of strategic interdependencies, or connections, canbe identified as benchmarks of an integrated strategy approach tocoastal management: 1) engagement across individuals, commu-nities or organisations that have some claim to involvement in thedecision-making processes, facilitating a social process in whichstakeholders argue, debate and negotiate values, this includessharing management power and responsibility, 2) combiningdifferent types of knowledge with cooperation across disciplinaryboundaries and building links between science and traditionalknowledge and 3) linking management across the range of spatialand temporal perturbations within the system. This latter pointinvolves taking a long-term perspective, in which learning is centraland where iterative cycles in a strategy process provide a vehicle

Table 1Key characteristics of a range of management concepts relevant to coastal flood risk.

PrimaryCharacteristics

Integrated Coastal Zone Management(EU, 1999; Atkins, 2004)

1. Taking a broad holistic perspective, looking at the biggerpicture and the long-term.

2. Consider the needs of both present and future generationsconcurrently and equally, and in an institutional frameworkthat looks beyond the present political cycle.

3. An evolving and flexible process to adapt to yet unforeseenissues that may arise in the future.

4. Reflects local solutions that suit local conditions.5. Works with rather than against natural processes as well

as recognising the limits which is imposed as a result.6. Provides opportunities for stakeholders to participate in

the development, implementation and review of ICZM.7. Includes the support and involvement of all relevant

administrative bodies.8. Uses a combination of instruments to deliver

integrated management.

Co-Adaptive Management (Folke et al., 2003; Berkes, 2007)1. Nurturing diversity in its various forms, increasing the

options for coping with the shocks and stresses.2. Combining different types of knowledge for learning:

focusing on the complimentarily of different knowledgesystems helps increase the capacity to learn – particularlylinks between science and traditional knowledge.

3. Living with change and uncertainty: building a memory ofpast events, abandoning the notion of stability andexpecting the unexpected.

4. Creating opportunities for self-organisation: reorganisationand renewal in the face of crises and disaster.

Integrated Flood Risk Management(Green, 2003; APFM, 2004)

1. Cooperation and coordination across disciplinary boundaries.2. Focusing on participatory and transparent approaches

to decision-making.3. Managing water and land across the catchment as a whole.4. The range of perturbation (cyclical, trend and unexplained

variation) becomes the critical factor for management.

Strategic Planning (Bryson, 2004).1. Recurrent cognitive processes of aligning the content of a

strategy with the context within which it is beingdeveloped and applied.

2. Creating new categories for catching emerging anduncertain context features.

3. Through actively searching for and welcomingnew information.

4. Paying as much attention to the quality of the processas to the contents and outcomes.

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645 637

Author's personal copy

for modifying the process. These three strategic interdependencieshave been used within this research to describe the process ofintegration for ICZM: the benchmarks are discussed below.

2.1. Stakeholder engagement: managing power and responsibility

Governance has become a key focus for enhancing integrationacross environmental management, particular since the UNECEConvention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Deci-sion-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (TheAarhus Convention). European law makes principles of ‘goodgovernance’ – that is openness, participation, accountability,effectiveness and coherence – a legal requirement in decision-making. This means that deliberation should be a primary focus ofa strategy development process for integrating coastal manage-ment. A deliberative process is one in which individuals andorganisations are open to scrutinising and changing their prefer-ences in light of persuasion (but not manipulation, deception orcoercion) from other participants (Dryzek and List [23]).

Such changes in the nature of decision-making for environmentalmanagement have been accompanied by change in the model ofscience and policy relationships. Science-policy relationships hadoften been imagined by scientists to be a linear process in which theydeliver their findings to policy-makers at the end of their research,and these findings then influence policy. However, it is increasinglyrecognised that for science and policy to generate effective workingrelationships, such relationships must emerge from a co-productiveiterative process with a requirement for constant interactionthrough networks (Science Meets Policy [24]). It also means that theassumption often held is erroneous that policy making as designinglaws and rules for optimal outcomes is a simple analytical task thatcan be done by distant analysts. Policy making, and the use ofknowledge in this, is often about finding combinations that worktogether most effectively (Ostrom [25]). Thus science and policyintegration must be as close as possible to reality and must itself berelevant to a series of community-specific challenges. This bench-mark seeks to capture these themes, highlighting the importance of‘conversation’ – the social process of deliberation – in integratedmanagement. It focuses on integration related to increasing diversityof partnerships in developing strategies for environment manage-ment. Thereby, increasing the potential for new thinking andexpanding dialogue, including sharing of management power andresponsibility, (Folke et al. [13], Berkes [14]).

2.2. Embracing knowledge and experience regarding physical andhuman behaviours

Successful integration in coastal management is underpinnedby knowledge on the integrated behaviour of the coastal system.Understanding integrated processes, that is, interconnectionsbetween socioeconomic dynamics and physical drivers andprocesses of change, is a primary foundation of ICZM. The need tointegrate sciences for more sustainable environmental policymaking is becoming increasingly recognised (e.g. McFadden [6],MacMynowski, [26]) but examples or instances of integratingknowledge i.e. converging theories and analytical frameworks,remain relatively few in number. Ecologists, for example, not onlyhave quite different approaches to social scientists but will alsoconstruct social science in an ecological paradigm. Science inte-gration involves and requires openness on both sides of thediscussion – as well as in both sides – to explore new ways ofthinking through the functional relations between the range ofscientific knowledge carriers (McFadden et al. [27]).

In addition to scientific integration is the challenge of buildinginterdependencies within a strategy process between scientific and

local community knowledge. The linear model of science-policyrelationships discussed above also carries what is increasingly seenas an unrealistic model of the nature of knowledge. It implies thatscientists have special access to ‘complete’ knowledge by reason ofbeing a scientist, which they can simply package for policy-makers.By contrast, knowledge is viewed as ‘incomplete’ requiring mobi-lising from a range of theoretical perspectives as well as frominformal knowledge and innovation within local communities(McFadden et al. [27]). In this view, knowledge production is notlimited to a laboratory or ivory tower of a university but hasbecome polycentric and knowledge networks are required toconnect respective knowledge carriers (Evers [28]). This means thatthe boundaries between knowledge, society and policy are blurredand knowledge networks are required to connect relevant knowl-edge carriers. This benchmark focuses on building knowledgenetworks, stressing that an integrated management process shouldnot homogenise or diminish the diversity of experimental knowl-edge systems for management (Folke et al. [13], Berkes, [14]). Itallows the integration of a wide range of system behaviours andfunctionalities into the strategy development process.

2.3. Spatial and temporal interdependencies: anticipating changeand managing uncertainty

The importance of knowledge networks in connecting differentknowledge carriers is parallel to emerging views on governance:where, in most nations there is no supreme centre of authority, butpolicies are made and implemented through changing partnershipsin various models of network governance. An integrated strategyprocess therefore needs to be considered as a truly iterative processwith a requirement for constant interaction through network links(McFadden et al. [27]). This also means that all policy making ispreliminary, there is no ‘‘final solution’’. Policy changes are there-fore experiments based on more or less informed expectationsabout potential outcomes and the distribution of these outcomesfor participants across time and space (Ostrom [25]). In view of thecomplexity of the ever changing biophysical and socioeconomicworld – combined with the complexity of the human-designedrules for dealing with this world – most policy changes conse-quently face the chance of error or even failure (McFadden et al.[27]). An integrated management strategy should therefore becharacterised by processes which facilitate or enable flexibility ina decision-making process. Such a strategy considers change asinherent to management, seeking to learn from the past andanticipate the future, building connections which can guide presentpolicy decisions. This benchmark highlights the importance ofanticipating and managing change, requiring a focus on developingnetworks which are iterative, collaborative and feedback based(Olsson et al. [29]). It also requires building a memory of pastevents, abandoning the notion of stability, and increasing thecapacity to learn from crises (Berkes [14]).

At a higher systems level of analysis, these broad benchmarksseek to focus on the emergence of dynamic learning for managingcoastal flood risk. That is, enabling social learning: the interde-pendence of the learners on each other, when discussing, exam-ining, interpreting (and reinterpreting) and organising informationand experiences, as they are transferred into personal knowledgewithin the human dimensions of the system (Tabara et al. [30]).Research suggests that an adaptive systems-based managementprocess, based on such learning among all stakeholders, offers thepotential for significantly increasing the sustainability of manage-ment decisions emerging from a decision-making process. Itprovides a vehicle for integrating across the various knowledgebases, temporal and spatial scales relevant to a study region. Thefollowing discussion seeks to explore the current strategy for

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645638

Author's personal copy

coastal flood risk management within the study area from theperspective of the dynamic learning for managing coastal risk.Using the three benchmarks outlined above as indicators of goodpractice, it examines challenges, constraints and opportunities forachieving an integrated strategy process as experienced andperceived by the stakeholders we interviewed.

3. The study in context

The role of the River Thames is multi-faceted: the river and itscorridor act, for example, as an artery for communication, anda resource for commerce, industry, commodities, housing, biodi-versity, recreation, drainage and water supply. In addition to theextensive physical resources of the estuary there is the clear socialdiversity and economic wealth of the region. The City of London, forexample, is one of the world’s major financial and banking centres,Europe’s main business centre as well as the largest city in theEuropean Union. However, the east London Boroughs contain someof the UK’s areas of greatest social deprivation.

Increases in environmental pressure on the London and ThamesEstuary region are significant. Of particular relevance to managingcoastal flood risk is that the largest predicted rise in extreme sea-level for the United Kingdom (UK) focuses on the Thames Estuaryregion. However in addition to physical drivers, the Thames Estuaryfloodplain is also subject to extensive development pressures. TheUK government development proposal, known as the ‘ThamesGateway’, is one of Europe’s largest economic regeneration initia-tives (CLG [31]). The majority of this development will be concen-trated in 14 ‘Zones of Change’, which encroach substantially on toareas of natural flood risk in the tidal and fluvial floodplains.

London and the Thames Estuary region are protected from tidalflooding by a tidal defence system focused on the Thames Barrierbut including other flood barriers, moveable defences and tidalwalls and embankments. The current standard of protectionprovided is generally at least 1:1000 years and the current designstandard has an allowance for sea level rise to the year 2030.However beyond this time, if no improvements are undertaken thestandards of defence will begin to fall with increasingly seriouspotential consequences for the Thames Estuary and for London.Accordingly, the Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) Project has been setup by the UK Environment Agency (EA)1, to develop an integratedapproach to managing flood risk within the region. The aim of theproject has been to develop a Flood Risk Management Plan for the

Thames Estuary to the year 2100 that will provide sustainable long-term flood defence solutions, maximise the reduction of flood riskand provide best value for money – now and in the future (Laveryand Donovan [32]). It is being implemented by an EA-led team, whoplan, manage, coordinate and lead the programme of studies withinthe project. The project’s objective is to have a completed flood riskmanagement plan by 2010. Fig. 1 outlines the Flood Risk Manage-ment Plan Development and Review Process. At the time of thisstudy the project was in the early strategy development process(phases 1 and 2: the development of early conceptual options forflood risk management). The discussion of the strategy develop-ment within this paper is therefore restricted to lessons emergingfrom this first half of the TE2100 strategy process. However theseearly phases, we now know, significantly determined the ‘directionof travel’ of the whole plan.

4. Methods

This paper presents results from six in-depth, semi-structuredinterviews which were conducted with key regional and sub-regional stakeholders across the estuary region. The interviewssought to explore challenges, constraints and opportunities forsustainable flood risk management as experienced and perceivedby the stakeholders. Interviewees were asked to reflect on progresstowards integrating coastal flood risk management across theestuary. The TE2100 Project provided a general context for theinterviews but the discussions were not constrained by the exam-ination of the project alone.

The interviewees represented a range of statutory and non-statutory stakeholder groups with interest and input to the floodrisk management strategy process (see Table 2). The study focusedon the strategy process for flood risk management at the sub-regional and regional scale of London and the Thames Estuary andthis is reflected in the stakeholder groups consulted. Theemphasis on these scales related to the status of the TE2100strategy process at the time of our research in that it was focusedon ‘high-level’ or regional and sub-regional management options.In-depth interviewing clearly presented a vehicle for exploringthe in-depth responses of the individuals involved and this wasparticularly important to the research. It also facilitated greaterattention on continuity and connections between the topic area.This was useful from the perspective of gaining insight into theattitudes and behaviour of the respondents and understandingthe possible range of experiences and perceptions across theinterview group.

An extensive desk-top study of literature regarding the TE2100strategy process was used to guide the process of structuring the

Phase 1 – Scoping and Strategy Development Strategy Envelope

Phase 2 – 4 Developing and implementing a robust Plan,

which is acceptable to government and stakeholders

Phase 2 Technical, environmental and social studies and the formulation of Early Conceptual Options

Phase 3 Options Appraisal and Recommendations – the first refinement of the High Level Options

Phase 4 Second iteration of High Level Options – finalising and implementing the Flood Risk Management Plan

Early Conceptual Options

High Level Option 1, High Level Option 2 etc

Estuary Flood Risk Management Plan

GO

LA

ID

R

ED

LO

HE

KA

TS

NOI

TA

LU

SN

OC

–

E

U

PHASE MILESTONE

Fig. 1. The Flood Risk Management Plan Development and Review Process within the TE2100 Project.

1 The leading public body for protecting and improving the environment inEngland and Wales.

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645 639

Author's personal copy

interviews, identifying areas of particular interest and relevance tothe current strategy development process. The interview questionswere also structured around the benchmarks previously identified.The form and range of questions were therefore grounded inrecent insights from published literature and from practicalexperiences as reported within T2100 Project Reports. The inter-views included a series of open-ended and general discussionpoints seeking to identify priority issues in flood risk managementas perceived by the interviewees. Given that similar themesemerged from each of the interviews, the sample size was found tobe adequate for gaining useful insights into the integratedmanagement process. All interviews were tape-recorded and fullytranscribed, the length of the interviews ranging from 60 to75 min.

5. Learning from stakeholders responses: similarities anddifferences in perspectives and implications for integratedstrategy development

A range of perspectives on integration within the strategyprocess for managing coastal flood risk in the study area emergedfrom the stakeholder interviews. The following discussion presentsan analysis of the key emerging themes, building a series of lessonsfor strengthening the integrative basis of decision-makingprocesses in coastal management. An over-riding messageemerging from across the stakeholder group was that a series ofimportant steps have been taken towards integrated strategydevelopment in the London and Thames Estuary region. However,the fact is seen to remain that an integrated and continuous oradaptive approach to planning and strategy development remainsdifficult to achieve. The following discussion highlights both theopportunities that have been harnessed by the stakeholdersinterviewed and the challenges which are perceived to remain forenhancing the integrative basis of decision-making.

5.1. Stakeholder engagement: managing power and responsibility

We found that we were not tapping into just six perspectives.Each of the interviewees has a broad network within which theycommunicate on issues related to flood risk management althoughthere was little cited communication across the specific individualsinterviewed. The perspective of the interviewees on existing linksbetween the primary decision-makers and the statutory consulteeson flood risk management issues was consistently positive. Reasonsfor this varied, but essentially reflected the impact of some externalforce in galvanizing moves towards flood risk management e.g. therole of the 2012 London Olympics and the high-profile UK positionof climate change. These where seen as catalytic forces and this

highlights the role of ‘windows of opportunity’ in advancing anagenda (e.g. Penning-Rowsell et al. [33], Olsson et al. [29]).Windows of opportunity are most often used by key actors withexisting policy ideas to accelerate the rate at which policy isimplemented (Penning-Rowsell et al. [33]). However, windowsonly become opportunities when knowledge and momentumalready exists. This stresses the importance of building a connectedsystem of knowledge which can harness a driving force in order toachieve its own objectives.

Opinions regarding the current status of stakeholder engage-ment, including interested but non-statutory consultees, variedsignificantly across the interviewees: from clearly negative,through citing improvements but highlighting significant remain-ing problems, to a positive statement on engagement. This differ-entiation of responses related to the level of public engagement towhich each organisation is generally committed. The public-facingbodies emerged on the more negative ends of the spectrum: largelygovernment-facing institutions were more likely to be positiveregarding the existence of wider-engagement. The importance ofinformal networks was a key perspective emerging through thisdiscussion on stakeholder engagement, for example:

‘We know the key characters there and from time to time we meetup but it’s on an ad hoc informal basis.. I suspect it’s almostinevitable but a lot of it does depend on personal networks’.

The importance of informal space as a vehicle for developingrelationships that are meaningful to individuals and groups,enabling flows of knowledge and learning is highlighted by litera-ture on social learning (e.g. Pelling et al. [34]). As may be antici-pated, the responses of the interviewees within this case-studylargely focused on the importance of informal networks froma perspective of pragmatic constraints:

‘With resource constraints, I am not sure how well we would havebeen placed to take up an invitation to participate formally, even ifthis had been offered’.

The discussion on stakeholder engagement also includeda response that engaging with organisations outside of the deci-sion-making body at the early stages of a strategy developmentprocess was premature:

‘...no decision-making is happening at the minute. Until we movetowards a final strategy and final decision-making, communicationacross different organisations is expected to be limited’.

This view that engagement from the initialisation of a strategydevelopment process was unnecessary also emerged in discussionsof the relationship between the local communities and the deci-sion-making process.

Table 2Stakeholder organisations interviewed with background information.

Stakeholder Group Nature of input Outline organisation aims and background

Thames Estuary Partnership (TEP) Non-statutory A charity which provides a neutral forum for local authorities, national agencies, industry,voluntary bodies and local communities to work together for the good of the Thames Estuary.

Port of London Authority (PLA) Non-statutory A self-financing public sector trust which manages a range of responsibilities along the Tidal Thames.Its principal responsibility is safety of navigation along the 95 miles of the Tidal Thames.

Strategic Flood Risk AssessmentManager Thames GatewaySouth Essex Partnership

Statutory A public/private sector partnership which provide strategic leadership for regeneration and growth inthe South Essex sub-region. An SFRA is a high-level assessment of flood risk to meet the needsof Government planning legislation.

The London Assembly (LA) Statutory A scrutinising body elected by voters in London, at the same time as they vote for the Mayor of London.Its duties include investigating issues of London-wide significance and making proposals to appropriatestakeholders and to the Mayor.

Association of BritishInsurers (ABI)

Non-statutory Represents the collective interests of the UK’s insurance industry. The Association speaks out on issuesof common interest; helps to inform and participate in debates on public policy issues; and also acts asan advocate for high standards of customer service in the insurance industry.

East of England RegionalAssembly (EERA)

Statutory The Regional Planning Body for the East of England. A key area of regional planning work is thepreparation of Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England.

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645640

Author's personal copy

‘it is not an issue that local authorities don’t know what the(Environment) Agency will do in the next year –the fact is thathousing development will be replaced within 50 years and businessover 10 years, so long-term planning is not an issue’‘communication is not an issue with the general public. If they arenot flooded very often, they will simply always be lost in theprocess. If you are flooded more often you become an intelligentclient and through experience and need have sourced all the rele-vant information’.

The emergence within this strategic range of stakeholders ofa strong voice against a participatory approach raises an importantquestion for the process of developing an integrated strategy: howdetrimental is a key stakeholder who is unwilling (who does not, orperhaps is unable, to see a need) to subject their ideas to deliber-ative scrutiny? If a stakeholder thinks they have alternative meansto gaining their objectives then engaging with other stakeholdersmay not be a priority. Power relations among strategic stakeholdersat an organisational level are critical here, although this was not anissue raised by the stakeholder group. The significance of thedistribution of power was however highlighted in relation toincluding the general public in a process of deliberation. It wasbased on the concern that in a major city such as London, the needfrom resource constraints to restrict the scope of engagement, maymean that the consultation and engagement process only succeedsin involving the articulate and aware. It may thus serve to reinforcepower inequalities, missing out the disadvantaged and thevulnerable. One interviewee suggested that in some cases thegeneral public had been discouraged from becoming more engagedin the policy process.

‘Afterwards (a public meeting) somebody was saying, well I hearthere’s an emergency flood plan for every area – I’m a resident, Idon’t know what it is, and couldn’t we know what it is? There werepolice and local authority people there saying yes, but you don’tneed to worry because we know what it is and if there was a flood itwould be announced over the radio. and somebody, quite wisely,said but if there’s a power cut and it happens in the middle of thenight that’s not going to work is it? So they were actually trying totake some responsibility but being told not to.’

Quite simply population numbers can be a problem fora participatory process, where the range of relevant stakeholdersmakes a participatory approach to engagement untenable froma resource perspective. However, the perception from among theinterviewees that interested stakeholders may be in some casesactively discouraged from taking responsibility highlights anotherpotential challenge for facilitating a social process of deliberation.In a society, such as the UK, a strong tradition of representativedemocracy means that elected representatives and public bodiescan see public participation as in conflict with ‘strong government’(Tunstall and Green [35]). Indeed, stakeholder engagement isfundamentally about power: the power to make or influencedecisions (Green [36]), and developing just relationships betweenindividuals and between individuals and collectives in a decision-making process. The virtue of stakeholder engagement lies inprocedural equity rather than leading automatically to improve-ment in the quality of the decision that will emerge from theprocess. The case-study suggests that greater clarity among keyplayers regarding the reasons for engaging with stakeholderswithin a strategy process may remove barriers to building broadnetworks between strategic stakeholders and local communities. Ingeneral, exploring what are just relationships between individualsand between individuals and groups in a coastal zone managementprocess, and facilitating access to information, power and otherresources accordingly, remains a significant challenge.

Discussions on sharing responsibility brought one pragmaticresponse: that one final authority for decision-making wasimportant and that overlaps in such responsibility were largely un-workable. The importance was highlighted of focusing attention onfacilitating a process whereby the responsible authority had accessto a range of perspectives on any necessary decision.

5.2. Embracing knowledge and experience regarding physical andhuman behaviours

The need to cooperate to build effective knowledge networks formanaging flood risk within London and the Thames Estuary wasexpressed across the range of respondents. This need for devel-oping better flows of knowledge was closely linked by the inter-viewees to governance and stakeholder engagement. The view wasthat including a more diverse range of stakeholders would in turnbring a diversity of knowledge to the decision-making process.Specific comments on knowledge integration were therefore morelimited than responses to issues on managing power andresponsibility.

Whilst recognising connected knowledge as important, chal-lenges were raised regarding the feasibility of creating a processwhich facilitated integration across wide-ranging knowledge onthe physical and socioeconomic environments of London and theThames Estuary. The ability to translate this knowledge productioninto timely and relevant information for policy was alsoquestioned.

‘whether one can ever take a fully integrated view is perhapsquestionable.and whether if one was to take such an integratedview decisions would ever be taken is also questionable.whetherit gets so overloaded that you’re just to paralysed too makea decision.’.‘we’re on quite a lot of consultant lists now, but we get so many ofthem that you then have to decide which one you are going to dosomething about, so there is also a communication overload insome respects’.‘in the end they’re (Environment Agency) going to present some-thing and the world will have moved on. The question is has theworld moved on beyond the point where it can be implemented,and in which case then what are you left with?’

Underpinning these challenges were concerns that sucha process would generate significantly increased volumes ofknowledge that the decision-making processes cannot assimilate,and that it commits organisations to additional actions orresponses without additional resource support. Arising from thisconcern is a message that integration of knowledge within strategydevelopment cannot be assumed to simply emerge from a processthat has included a range of knowledge types. As such, integrationin a management process has to be pursued, with critical mecha-nisms such as funding included early within the strategy devel-opment process as essential to facilitating interconnections.Schmidt [10] argues that knowledge has a strong politic naturewhich means it has to be shaped; in particular it has to be regulatedand restricted, fostered and funded, created and constructed. TheLondon case-study corroborates this view, at least from theperspective that deliberate goal setting for the process of integra-tion is required to obtain the form of knowledge which is importantfor an integrated analysis to emerge.

The importance of including informal/local community knowl-edge was stressed by one of the six interviewees, the representativeof the charity networking organisation. This interviewee high-lighted the concern within local communities that such knowledgewas not being integrated into the current strategy process:

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645 641

Author's personal copy

‘Everyone in our groups are concerned that they have some sayfrom their local expertise, local knowledge.that local knowledgemight get left out because technical specialists charge ahead – theyknow best – and in many cases they do, but there are times whentheir technical expertise can benefit from local expertise.’

Apart from this response, there was limited specific feedback onintegrating knowledge across the different stakeholder groups, fromthe perspective of developing the regional flood risk managementstrategy. Each of the interviewees focused on reflecting on theprocess of integrating scientific knowledge within their respectiveorganisational decisions or guidelines regarding flood risk. In thiscase study, the managers of the TE2100 project coordinate allscientific expertise in the strategy development process. There wasan acceptance within the interview group that the project coordi-nators were ‘getting on with it’ and integrating the different aspectsof the science which under-pins the regional strategy developmentprocess. The situation would therefore seem to exist in which thestakeholders do not engage with knowledge integration beyond thelevel of their day-to-day operational environment.

Clear differences in the spatial and temporal scale-focus oforganisations and communities carrying knowledge related tocoastal flood risk management, and in scales of use of the ThamesEstuary, was emphasised by the interviewee from the charity forum– as was the need for improvements in knowledge communicationbetween these scales. This highlights the question of how best tobuild knowledge flows between the non-scientific communities atdifferent scales and how to link this to the strategy process.Scientists have a relatively common uniting methodology as well asrelatively common social norms and community. However, non-scientists in very different settings do not have such continuity informal and informal rules of behaviour. Boundary or bridgingorganisations are important in playing an intermediatory rolebetween different scales to facilitate the co-production of knowl-edge (Cash et al. [37]). In the case-study an example of this inter-mediatory role for non-expert knowledge can be seen in the charityforum. The expert community represented by the EnvironmentAgency has functioned as the interface that unites different formsof knowledge across the various scales appropriate to the studyarea. Whether this provides the best medium through whichknowledge becomes integrated for strategy development remainsto be answered in the case-study area as the strategy developmentprocess continues.

A further scale challenge for managing flood risk within thecase-study was highlighted within the interviews. The importanceof the local scale for managing flood risk was highlighted by theregional spatial planner: floods are localised events which need tobe managed by local development allocation. This is contrastedwithin the study area with the strong national political imperativetowards allocating development in regions which coincide withareas of natural flood risk. Communication and organisation acrossscales is central to understanding and managing flood risk withinthis and any other region.

5.3. Spatial and temporal interdependencies: anticipating changeand managing uncertainty

The interview discussions focused on exploring networks andconnections for building responses to unexpected events, reflectinga range of relevant issues including scientific uncertainty, uncer-tainties regarding policy options and funding uncertainty. Anumber of barriers in relating management decisions to an analysisof uncertainty were highlighted by each of the intervieweesincluding the constraints of current legislation and lack ofresources. The evident short term nature of investment decisions

was also viewed as a constraint. However, the theme of uncertaintyalso brought opposing opinions from the interviewees. There wasa clear difference between sub-regional-local organisations andregional organisations on the ability, or in the recognition of a need,to understand and manage the existence of knowledge uncer-tainties within the decision-making processes. Regional planning isa relatively long-term process (c. 25 year planning) and from thisperspective uncertainty is an issue that was seen as critical, both interms of increasing our understanding of uncertainties and how tomanage them more effectively. For others of the regional stake-holders, uncertainty has a very significant impact on decisions e.g.the insurance industry. However, from the context of LocalAuthority decision-making it was suggested that scientific uncer-tainties are not important:

‘at the member level, the only uncertainty of importance is whetherthey (members of local authority) will be re-elected in four years’.

It is interesting to note that this perspective emerging from thesub-regional and regional levels, on the relationship between localauthority decision-making and uncertainty, varies from responses oflocal authorities in an ongoing study of communicating risk anduncertainty for flood risk management (Tunstall pers comm.., 2007).Interviewees at the local scale expressed a greater recognition anddesire to manage uncertainty than that perceived to exist at thislevel by sub-regional and regional management organisations. Thiscan also be seen to some degree within this case-study by differentperspectives on local communities’ acceptance of uncertainty:

‘greater uncertainty means more likelihood of withdrawing fromcertain areas. We’ve tried to articulate this argument to reassurepeople who think that more flood mapping means they’re less likelyto get insurance, when actually we’re saying that you’re more likelyto get it’.

The interviewee from the insurance industry suggested theirexperience has shown individuals and local communities to forma preference for the unknown as a means of avoiding potentialoutcomes from a better understanding of the current or future risk.While the charity forum, drawing on local-scale communityresponses, gave a much more positive view:

‘they (local communities) are used to it, that’s life..they are mostreassured by the chance to know what the alternatives beingconsidered are, even though no-one can guarantee what is going tohappen in the future’.

The case-study suggests that not only do different perspectiveson uncertainty exist at different scales but that the perspectives ofthe role of uncertainty at other levels of organisation in the systemalso vary according to the system level from which the perspectiveemerges. Scale differences are themselves underpinned by the scaleperspectives from which they emerge (McFadden, [38]). It isimportant that this plurality is recognised for coastal management,as there is likely to be a series of embedded perspectives on longer-term change and its incorporation into decision-making (andsubsequently embedded boundary judgements and operationaljudgements, Winder [39]) in any study area. This case study showsconnectivity between these different perspectives to be relativelyweak: cross-scale discussions could prove useful in exploring andstrengthening the process whereby uncertainties are understoodand managed.

The current strategy process has a clear focus on developinga plan in which current decisions are influenced by possiblephysical and socioeconomic futures. It is anticipated that a processof review and revision will continue after the plan has beenproduced, maintaining a strategy which is in some way responsiveto uncertain futures. However, the likely reality of this vision for

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645642

Author's personal copy

review was brought sharply into focus by the interviewees, whoheld strong opinions regarding limitations emerging from uncer-tainty of the actual funding mechanisms for the implementation ofthe strategic alternatives. Resource limitations were considered tobe a key factor preventing the current IFRM strategy from movingaway from a one-solution fix to a continuous and dynamic process.Yet in addition to the longer-term, concerns were also raised interms of achieving the best current solution for flood riskmanagement. Discussions on uncertainty were quickly related byinterviewees to the UK Government development proposal ‘TheThames Gateway’, with the concern that the Government approachto proceeding with a very fixed socioeconomic future in mind forthe region (extensive development on the floodplain), is con-straining the effectiveness of the strategic planning process.

The discussions surrounding the limitations from ‘The ThamesGateway’ on integrating management in the study area highlightsa significant challenge. This focuses on resolving tension betweenseeking a responsive adaptive strategy process, and a context whichmeans the strategy process can largely only react to broader-scalepolitical and economic decisions setting a difficult context forcoastal flood risk management. A key difficulty for the strategydevelopment process within the Thames estuary region is ininternalising to some degree external boundaries which exert far-reaching impacts on the strategy process, but which are highlypolitical at national and international levels. The perceptionemerging from the interviews was that external constraints on theprocess have greater defining influence than the details of theinternal political environment, time or internal funding resourcesfor the strategy development process:

‘One the most significant constraints on the strategy process isuncertainty regarding government funding, the continual change ofinvestment, large amounts of money are being taken back from theEA (Environment Agency) ..there is huge uncertainty as to theability of public bodies to deliver goals due to investmentrestrictions’.‘The key for Thames Gateway, is managing the flood risk in a waythat can enable it to meet the ludicrous targets that ODPM (Office ofDeputy Prime Minister, now Communities and Local Government2)allocated in terms of properties, because most of those develop-ments that are allocated, that are being thrust upon the localauthorities.’.

The interview data highlight the importance of an under-standing of the vertical interplay among the scale-dependentenvironmental and resource regimes, and of building on thisunderstanding to take advantages of opportunities to restructureexisting patterns of interaction, thereby promoting more adaptivecross-scale relations (Young [40]). However, current opportunitiesfor restructuring such relations within the case study may belimited and in this instance the dominance of the decision-makingauthority (Central government) is challenging to address. With nowritten constitution, the nature and scope of local governments isdecided by central government rather than being constitutionallydetermined (Tunstall and Green [35]). The role of the EA as projectmanagers of the TE2100 project is to provide recommendations. Itwill be the Government’s decision how much to spend on floodmanagement priorities and which options are implemented.

There was wide agreement within the group that evidence waslimited of institutional or individual learning to improve responsesto managing coastal flood risk. The interviewee from the insuranceindustry highlighted the floods of autumn 2000 in the UK as a key

catalyst in changing approaches within this organisation to floodrisk management. However, the general perspective emergingthrough the remaining interviewees was that on the whole,previous floods and responses to these events have had limitedimpact on the general public, local authorities or on regionalplanning. Although, the impacts of Hurricane Katrina were seen ashaving some flood-risk focusing influence on the minds of localresidents and other local stakeholders. Reasons were suggested forthe absence of a learning process among stakeholders at the localscale. These included historical links to a highly politicalisedflooding event (1953 flooding3) and a lack of awareness of thenature of the flood risk:

‘There are sites where due to historical links this change is notoccurring (i.e. open to alternative solutions for flood riskmanagement), for example, Canvey Island. The elderly residentsremember 1953 (flooding event) and all the promises by politiciansthat it would never happen again’.‘at the member level (of the local partnership) there is a ‘head in thesands approach’, the opinion is that we have large defences,therefore we don’t have flood risk and if we have no flood risk weshould be encouraging as much development as possible’.

An iterative approach exists within the TE2100 strategy plan fordecision-testing, allowing the strategy development process to test,learn and modify its activities. However, clear negative responsesemerged from within the interview group when asked of theeffectiveness of working relationships and shared learning betweendecision-makers involved in managing flood risk. Indeed, theperception existed within the group that there were clear barriersto communication and learning, within as well as among keyorganisations in the flood risk management process:

‘the EA has guidelines thrust upon them from DEFRA, ODPM thrustdevelopment on the (Thames Gateway) area. The travesty is that onone hand OPDM allocate property across the floodplain, and on theother hand produces PPS25 (Flood Risk Management Policy State-ment on reducing inappropriate development on the floodplain).’

Whilst PPS25 (Planning Policy Statement 25) and the ThamesGateway may not be inconsistent, the emerging view from theinterviewees suggests the reality for those actors currently makingdecisions regarding flood risk is one with significant limitation oniteration and learning.

6. Contextualising stakeholder responses: an assessment

Reviewing each of the three strategic interdependencies in thecase-study area shows that a network exists for knowledge transferacross the forms of knowledge carriers and the temporal andspatial scales important to the managing coastal flood risk in theregion. However, this network is to a large extent informal ratherthan explicit within the strategy development process.

The interviewee responses suggest that this informal space isaccessible to organisations with existing working links to theorganisation leading the strategy development process and tothose who have a key regional role in flood risk management in theThames region. However, they also suggest that a more formal andstructured approach to learning is required to allow greater localcommunity involvement with the strategy development process.This research reflects stakeholders’ perspectives on the first half ofthis development process. The strategy plan suggests that in the

2 A central government department which sets policy on local government,housing, urban regeneration, spatial planning etc.

3 The most devastating flood in recent UK history: over 300 people died, as manyas 24,000 houses were flooded, up to 400 destroyed and over 32,000 people wereevacuated (Cabinet Office [41]).

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645 643

Author's personal copy

process of refining the preliminary management options (Stage 3:options appraisal and recommendations), sub-regional and local-scaled analysis will involve structured interaction with stake-holders across the estuary region. A key broad-based onlineconsultation on the primary management options has been con-ducted (2008) and the full findings and recommendations arecurrently in consultation (April–June 2009) (TE2100 [42]).However, the strategy process has not gained the added value fromcontinued and effective stakeholder deliberation from the outset ofthe process: in gaining useful insights into the nature of the‘problem’ of flood risk and for understanding the range of prefer-ences, behaviours and relationships that are brought to bear on theprocess of decision-making as well as the management options.

The interviewee responses suggest that whilst learning acrosseach of the strategic benchmarks is ongoing, it remains con-strained, and the proceeding discussions have highlighted a rangeof barriers to more effective learning within the strategy process.However, the rate of progress in learning also needs to be con-textualised by considerable inertia. Inertia towards decision-making processes that do not incentivise developing new, inno-vative approaches to knowledge and knowledge networks for floodrisk management. This inertia can be seen to arise from investmentin extensive existing physical defence assets and the continuedneed for hard defences to protect the critical infrastructure ofLondon and the Thames Estuary region, as well as the challenges infunding alternative flood risk schemes. Recommendations fromrecent key national reviews of flood risk (e.g. EFRA – Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee [43] and The Pitt Review [44])highlight the need for more emphasis on non-structuralapproaches to managing flood risk, and this may provide a usefulvehicle for a more inclusive approach to strategy development forflood and coastal erosion risk management. Existing models ofplanning also exert inertia, whose frameworks have limited asso-ciation to the complexity of the diverging perspectives, interestsand actor constellations. However, recent changes in local planning(Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) have exerteda greater emphasis on community involvement, whilst recentpolicy guidance on development and flood risk (Planning PolicyStatement 25) imply a more strategic, regional perspective anda clearer and tighter framework of development control. Success inthe long-term will depend on local authorities having the necessaryskills base to implement the policy guidance that adopts thisbroader spatial perspective (EFRA [43]).

7. Conclusions

There is increasing recognition of the centrality of adaptive co-management and the need for a pro-active approach to strategydevelopment for coastal flood and erosion risk management. Ourresearch highlights a series of important steps that have been takenwithin the strategic stakeholder community towards such inte-grated management in the London and Thames Estuary region.These include the development of informal communicationnetworks between actors involved in flood risk management andevidence of more stakeholders – including key regional organisa-tions as well as local communities – seeking to take more respon-sibility in the strategy process for managing flood risk. Emergingattributes such as recognizing the need and challenge of managinguncertainty as well as the challenge of cross-scale interactions,were also clearly identified from the conversations across the rangeof the interviewees. Despite progress towards integrated strategydevelopment, the case-study highlights that a range of significantand important challenges exist.

These barriers have included: a lack of clarity regarding thereason for engaging stakeholders, a lack of goal setting for the

integration process, the nature of knowledge bridges and weakcross-scale interactions among decision-makers. Yet they can beconsidered to largely focus around a key problem area: managingflood risk in a large urban area, where there is a pre-existing flooddefence infrastructure (structural but also non-structural compo-nents) but a new philosophy that moves toward flood riskmanagement rather than flood defence. In essence this requiresa radically different approach to the traditional top-down model ofstrategic plan development and implementation that has existed.

There is increasingly widespread awareness of the need tocapitalise on shared views and knowledge, building network linksin space and time for more sustainable coastal management.However, the specific success factors than can facilitate processpatterns of integrated strategic coastal flood risk management forlong-term are still relatively unknown. The emerging perspectivesfrom actors involved in flood risk management within the studysite place considerable weight on the importance of connectedness.This provides a vehicle for moving from vision to realty, facilitatinggood information exchange and learning, for discovery and diffu-sion of innovation and increasing the ability of the system torespond to change. Moving coastal management towards the idealof an adaptive or co-evolving strategic planning process is animportant goal for the management of 22nd century coastal andestuarine environments. More has to be done to gain a fuller pictureof, and to show how, practitioners can change their current contextconditions to make significant steps towards this goal.

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was supported by the Euro-pean Community’s Sixth Framework Programme through the grantto the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-2004-505420

References

[1] GOC. Policy brief on EBM/ICM and indicators for progress. Working group onachieving ecosystem management and integrated coastal and oceanmanagement by 2010 in the context of climate change and working group onprogress indicators. Pre-conference version, March 30, 2008. 4th GlobalConference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands. 7–11 April 2008, Hanoi, Vietnam.

[2] HM Government. Draft marine bill. Presented to Parliament by the Secretaryof State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs By Command of Her Majesty.Crown Copyright; 2008. 687 pp..

[3] Hills JM, Alcock D, Higham T, Kirkman H, Le Tissier M, Pagdilao C, et al.Capacity building for integrated coastal management in Asia-Pacific: the casefor case-studies. Coastal Management 2006;34:323–37.

[4] Kearney J, Berkes F, Charles A, Pinkerton W, Wiber M. The role of participatorygovernance and community-based management in integrated coastal andocean management in Canada. Coastal Management 2007;35:79–104.

[5] Liu JG, Dietz T, Carpenter DR, Folke C, Alberti M, Redman CL, et al. Coupledhuman and natural systems. Ambio 2007;36(8):639–49.

[6] McFadden L. Vulnerability analysis in environmental management: wideningand deepening its approach. Environmental Conservation 2007;34(3):195–204.

[7] Pahl-Wostl C, Sendzimir J, Jeffrey P, Aerts J, Berkamp G, Cross K. Managingchange towards adaptive water mangement through social learning. Ecologyand Society 2007;12(2):30 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/.

[8] Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA, Cojacaru G, Shackley S, McLachlan C, Audsley E,et al. Regional impact assessment of flooding under future climate and socio-economic scenarios for East Anglia and North West England. Climatic Change2008;90(1–2):5–30.

[9] van Kerkhoff L. Integrated research: concepts of connection in environmentalscience and policy. Environmental Science & Policy 2005;8(5):439–63.

[10] Schmidt JC. Knowledge politics of interdisciplinarity. Specifying the type ofinterdisciplinarity in the NSF’s NBIC scenario. Innovation 2008;20(4):313–29.

[11] European Commission. Towards a European Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM) Strategy. General principles and policy options. EUDemonstration Programme on Integrated Management in Coastal Zones1997–1999. Directorates-General Environment, Nuclear Safety and CivilProtection, Fisheries, Regional Policies and Cohesion; 1999.

[12] Atkins. ICZM in the UK: a stocktake. Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO;2004.

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645644

Author's personal copy

[13] Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B. Resilienceand sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world oftransformations. Ambio 2002;31:437–40.

[14] Berkes FB. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessonsfrom resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 2007;41:283–95.

[15] Green CH. Handbook of water economics. Chichester: John Wiley; 2003.[16] APFM Technical Support Unit. Integrated flood management. Concept paper.

APFM Technical Document No.1. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: APFM [wwwdocument]. URL:, http://www.apfm.info/pdf/concept_paper_e.pdf; 2004.

[17] Bryson JM. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. A guideto strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass; 2004.

[18] Andrews JE, Beaumont N, Brouwer R, Cave RR, Jickells TD, Ledoux L. Inte-grated assessment for catchment and coastal zone management: the case ofthe Humber. In: Vermat JE, Bouwer L, Turner K, Salomons W, editors.Managing European coasts, past, present and future. Berlin: Springer; 2005.p. 323–53.

[19] Rasch RS, Ipsen N, Malmgren-Hansen A, Mogensen B. Linking integrated waterresources management and integrated coastal zone management. WaterScience & Technology 2005;51(11):221–9.

[20] Hutter G. Strategic planning for long-term flood risk management – somesuggestions for learning how to make strategy at regional and local level.International Planning Studies 2007;12(3):273–89.

[21] Hutter G, Schanze J. Learning How to Deal with Uncertainty of Flood Risk inLong-Term Planning. In: Journal of River Basin Management, 6, Special Issue‘‘Uncertainty in Flood Risk Management’’, 2008;6(2).

[22] Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. Resilience, adaptability andtransformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society2004;9(2):5. URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 (last accessed2nd March 2006).

[23] Dryzek JS, List C. Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a recon-ciliation. British Journal of Political Science 2003;33:1–28.

[24] Science Meets Policy. Next steps for an effective science-policy Interface.Report of London Conference held as part of the UK’s presidency of theEuropean Union. 23–25 November 2005 (33 pp).

[25] Ostrom E. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press; 2003. 376 pp.

[26] MacMynowski P. Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power andknowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecology andSociety 2007;12(1):20, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art20/.

[27] McFadden L, Sandberg A, Green C. and Priest, S. Science and Policy Integrationfor ICZM. SPICOSA Project, internal report, 20th June 2008.

[28] Evers HD. Epistemic cultures: towards a new sociology of knowledge. WorkingPaper No 330. Bielefeld: Sociology of Development Research Centre; 2000.

[29] Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience insocial–ecological systems. Environmental Management 2004;34(1):75–90.

[30] Tabara JD, Cazorla X, Maestu J, Massarutto A., Meerganz G, Pahl-Wostl C, Patel M.and Saurı D Sustainability learning for River Basin Management and Planning inEurope, HarmoniCOP Integration report. Prepared under contract from theEuropean Commission. Thematic programme: energy, environment andsustainable development of the 5th framework programme 1998–2002, 2005.

[31] CLG The Thames Gateway. The delivery plan. Department for Communitiesand Local Government. Crown Copyright; November 2007. 112 pp.

[32] Lavery S, Donovan B. Flood risk management in the Thames Estuary lookingahead 100 years. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A2005;363(1831):1455–74.

[33] Penning-Rowsell EC, Johnson C, Tunstall SM. ‘Signals’ from pre-crisisdiscourse. Lessons from UK flooding for global environmental policy change?Global Environmental Change 2006;16:323–37.

[34] Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, et al. Shootingthe rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecologicalsystems. Ecology and Society 2006;11(1):18 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/.

[35] Pelling M, High C, Dearing J, Smith D. Shadow spaces for social learning:a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change withinorganisations. Environment and Planning A 2008;40:867–84.

[36] Tunstall S, Green C. From listener to talker: the changing social role of thecitizen in England and Wales. Report of workpackage 4 of the HarmoniCOPproject. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University; 2003.

[37] Cash DW, Adger W, Berkes F, Garden R, Lebel L, Olsson P, et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecologyand Society 2006;11(2):8 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/.

[38] McFadden L. Contending with the challenges of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement and the contribution from geographical thought. GeographicalJournal 2008;174(4):299–314.

[39] Winder N. Innovation and metastability: a systems model. Ecology and Society2007;12(2):28 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art28/.

[40] Young O. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environment andresource regimes. Ecology and Society 2006;11(1):27 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art27/.

[41] Cabinet Office. The national security strategy of the United Kingdom, Cm 7291,March 2008, p15.

[42] TE2100. Managing flood risk through London and the Thames estuary. TE2100Plan Consultation Document. London: Environment Agency, Thames Barrier;2009.

[43] EFRA House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.Floods fifth report of session 2008. House of Commons, The Stationery OfficeLimited (62 pp).

[44] The Pitt Review. Learning lessons from the 2008 floods. The Cabinet Office,London.

L. McFadden et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 636–645 645