Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/113264
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorBardsley, Douglas Kenneth-
dc.contributor.advisorNursey-Bray, Melissa Jane-
dc.contributor.authorNiven, Rhiannon Jane-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/113264-
dc.description.abstractModern environments are becoming increasingly risky. Climate change, population growth and the spread of urbanisation have increased flood risks, such that the vulnerability of populations to the natural hazard, and the financial cost of response and recovery have increased in association. In response, flood governance is changing. This study presents the results of a comparative case study of flood risk governance and management that aimed to address two research questions, (i) what are the key challenges of flood management in consideration of the role of the governance framework, local context and stakeholder perception and acceptance of risk at multiple scales and (ii) what are the options for an adaptive management approach to flood? The research design employed components of grounded theory and a comparative case study methodology to explore approaches to flood management in three different case studies across local, regional and national scales: 1) The development of the Brownhill and Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan in South Australia; 2) The governance response to the 2011 floods in south-east Queensland, and; 3) the implementation of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 in Scotland, United Kingdom. Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992) was applied as a philosophical lens to construct the conceptual understanding of ‘risk’. Findings reveal a diversity of approaches to the management of future flood risk across scales. Each case study and scale (local, regional and national) highlighted different aspects and challenges of flood management around the themes of governance (e.g. diffused and unclear responsibilities and accountabilities), adaptation (e.g. relocation, natural flood management and use of landscape) and underlying risk perception. The three case studies together provide a critical comparative analysis of the key challenges faced by managers of flood risk. Concluding recommendations highlight that common challenges for flood management are constructed around: urbanisation; climate change; governance of systems; risk perception; and uncertainty from increased flood risk. The case studies demonstrated that the link between a new framing of risk and the practical consequences for implementation need to be strengthened for effective community empowerment and resilience. Increased community resilience requires multi-disciplinary, cross-scale understanding, where local communities can imprint their values and risk perceptions on the decision-making process. A transition towards a sustainable flood risk management paradigm will be required for communities to adapt to their new risky environments.en
dc.subjectflooden
dc.subjectadaptationen
dc.subjectrisken
dc.subjecthazarden
dc.subjectclimate changeen
dc.subjectgovernanceen
dc.subjecturbanisationen
dc.titleRisky environments: governance and adaptation for future flood risken
dc.typeThesesen
dc.contributor.schoolSchool of Social Sciencesen
dc.provenanceThis electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/legalsen
dc.description.dissertationThesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, 2017.en
dc.identifier.doi10.25909/5b3c65fe3837d-
Appears in Collections:Research Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
01front.pdf154.3 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
02whole.pdf4.07 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
PermissionsLibrary staff access only399.08 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
RestrictedLibrary staff access only4.1 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.