Abstract Recent trends in governance in England, UK – exemplified by the notion of the ‘Big Society’ and the 2011 Localism Act – have seen local communities and individuals encouraged to take greater responsibility for public policy issues that were previously seen as largely or exclusively state-led. This paper examines a case study where this localism presumption has been applied to estuary flood defence and considers the appropriateness of local- or community-based initiatives in dealing with sea level rise. We examine the Alde and Ore Estuary, Suffolk, England, UK, where the state has retreated as the main decision-maker for climate change adaptation and consider the impacts of this change in governance approach. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with local actors focusing on: a) perceptions of the governance of flood defence plans, b) the legitimacy of decisions reached, and c) social equity linked with localism. We find that there is a limit to what can be devolved down to local communities in the absence of structure, guidelines, funding or supervision provided by state actors. It is unrealistic that responsibility for problems such as flood defence, involving complex trade-offs; issues of public safety and public expenditure; and protection of natural assets be devolved so comprehensively to local communities without substantial co-leadership. State actors still need to co-lead and provide a link between the local scale and the national and international policy scales and to facilitate a broader sense of vision for future landscapes. Without transparent co-led processes involving a broad range of actors in the local community and state bodies, decisions made regarding flood defence initiatives may be perceived by local people to lack legitimacy. Without an independent arbiter involved in project planning and decision-making, disagreements may dissolve into intractable disputes that damage project credibility and hamper or even paralyze practical progress. Without compensation schemes that acknowledge that any flood defence plan will mean some local people lose out, some are likely to vigorously resist change, hampering progress. It will also be necessary to ensure a focus on inter-generational equity so that current generations do not deflect costs onto later generations, for whom costs may be higher and decisions more difficult.

中文翻译：

---

撤海岸线，撤政府？在紧缩时代管理海平面上升

摘要 英国英格兰最近的治理趋势——以“大社会”的概念和 2011 年地方主义法案为例——鼓励当地社区和个人对以前被视为主要或完全属于国家的公共政策问题承担更大的责任。 -引领。本文研究了一个案例研究，其中将这种地方主义假设应用于河口防洪，并考虑了以地方或社区为基础的举措在应对海平面上升方面的适当性。我们考察了英国萨福克郡的奥尔德和矿石河口，该州已在该地区退为气候变化适应的主要决策者，并考虑了这种治理方法变化的影响。与当地参与者进行了半结构化访谈，重点是：a) 对防洪计划治理的看法，b) 所达成决策的合法性，以及 c) 与地方主义相关的社会公平。我们发现，在没有国家行为者提供的结构、指导方针、资金或监督的情况下，可以下放给当地社区的东西是有限的。承担防洪等问题的责任是不现实的，涉及复杂的权衡；公共安全和公共开支问题；对自然资产的保护如此全面地下放到当地社区，而没有实质性的共同领导。国家行为者仍然需要共同领导并在地方尺度与国家和国际政策尺度之间建立联系，并促进对未来景观的更广泛的愿景。如果没有地方社区和国家机构中广泛的参与者参与的透明的共同领导程序，当地人民可能认为有关防洪举措的决定缺乏合法性。如果没有独立的仲裁者参与项目规划和决策，分歧可能会化为棘手的纠纷，损害项目可信度，阻碍甚至瘫痪实际进展。如果没有补偿计划，承认任何防洪计划将意味着一些当地人会失败，一些人可能会强烈抵制变革，阻碍进展。还必须确保对代际公平的关注，以便当代人不会将成本转移到后代身上，因为后代的成本可能更高，决策也更困难。分歧可能会化为棘手的纠纷，损害项目的可信度，阻碍甚至瘫痪实际进展。如果没有补偿计划，承认任何防洪计划将意味着一些当地人会失败，一些人可能会强烈抵制变革，阻碍进展。还必须确保对代际公平的关注，以便当代人不会将成本转移到后代身上，因为后代的成本可能更高，决策也更困难。分歧可能会化为棘手的纠纷，损害项目的可信度，阻碍甚至瘫痪实际进展。如果没有补偿计划，承认任何防洪计划将意味着一些当地人会失败，一些人可能会强烈抵制变革，阻碍进展。还必须确保对代际公平的关注，以便当代人不会将成本转移到后代身上，因为后代的成本可能更高，决策也更困难。