Compensatory approaches and engagement techniques to gain flood storage in England and Wales

McCarthy, S; Viavattene, C; Sheehan, J; Green, C

Compensatory approaches and engagement techniques to gain flood storage in England and Wales

McCarthy, S Viavattene, C Sheehan, J Green, C

Permalink

Publisher:: Wiley
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Flood Risk Management, 2018, 11 (1), pp. 85 - 94
Issue Date:: 2018-03

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	McCarthy_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Flood_Risk_Management.pdf	Published Version	412.94 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	McCarthy, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Viavattene, C	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sheehan, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Green, C	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-03	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Flood Risk Management, 2018, 11 (1), pp. 85 - 94	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1753-318X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131211
dc.description.abstract	Flood storage involves creating sacrificial land for water to purposefully inundate to protect land downstream. Obtaining the right or co‐operation to flood on private property remains a challenge. This paper is based on empirical qualitative research with 14 key stakeholders involved in the practice of gaining land to flood in England and Wales and the different forms of financial and economic approaches that might be used to facilitate this right. Expropriation of land, one off‐payment, annual single payment, and flood event losses compensation were explored. Availability of funding as compensation is the main driver for landowner adoption of flood storage schemes. Three funding approaches were revealed; flowage easement, full land purchase, and agricultural schemes funding diffuse storage. Rather than attempting to gain partnerships between spatially dislocated stakeholders in upper storage and lower impacted catchments success resides on the storage land and persuading landowner co‐operation. A clear enforced legal framework of ownership of land and funding mechanisms is also viewed as essential.	en_US
dc.language	en	en_US
dc.publisher	Wiley	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Flood Risk Management	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/jfr3.12336	en_US
dc.title	Compensatory approaches and engagement techniques to gain flood storage in England and Wales	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	11	en_US
utslib.for	0799 Other Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	11	en_US

Abstract:

Flood storage involves creating sacrificial land for water to purposefully inundate to protect land downstream. Obtaining the right or co‐operation to flood on private property remains a challenge. This paper is based on empirical qualitative research with 14 key stakeholders involved in the practice of gaining land to flood in England and Wales and the different forms of financial and economic approaches that might be used to facilitate this right. Expropriation of land, one off‐payment, annual single payment, and flood event losses compensation were explored. Availability of funding as compensation is the main driver for landowner adoption of flood storage schemes. Three funding approaches were revealed; flowage easement, full land purchase, and agricultural schemes funding diffuse storage. Rather than attempting to gain partnerships between spatially dislocated stakeholders in upper storage and lower impacted catchments success resides on the storage land and persuading landowner co‐operation. A clear enforced legal framework of ownership of land and funding mechanisms is also viewed as essential.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131211