Integrating Social Science in Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Policymaking
Lead Research Organisation:
Middlesex University
Department Name: School of Health and Education
Abstract
Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
People |
ORCID iD |
| Tim Harries (Principal Investigator) |
Publications
Harries T
(2012)
The Anticipated Emotional Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour-Impacts on the Take-up of Household Flood-Protection Measures
in Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
Tim Harries (author)
(2008)
Overcoming the barriers to household-level adaptation to flood risk
in Flood risk management: Research and practice. Proceedings of the European conference on flood risk management
Harries T
(2008)
Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself against a natural hazard
in Health, Risk & Society
| Description | The research aimed to understand the factors influencing householder/small business adaptation to flood risk. Key findings are as follows: • People and micro business fail to take protection / resilience measures when they: - are uncertain which measures would be effective - therefore lack the confidence to invest time and money into any measure - view protective behaviour as not 'normal', as inconsistent with their sense of self-identity and as potentially attracting social censure. • However, they are more likely to take measures when they - have experienced a flood - have access to trusted advice on what actions to take - are more fully integrated into the local community of at-risk residents and businesses - consider the measures familiar and 'normal' - are able to choose and implement them at the same time as others in the neighbourhood - so that there is less risk of their being stigmatised by being 'different' or blamed if measures prove ineffective - anticipate that, in the event of a flood, the response would be collective and that others in the community are committed to helping with the deployment of protection measures if particular householders are absent during a flood or physically unable to deploy. • Independent advice is not easily available. Insurers often consider that micro-businesses and individual households do not warrant the investment of the necessary time. Public sector flood risk managers sometimes do not have the necessary skills and knowledge and, in the case of micro-businesses, can misinterpret hesitation and uncertainty as disinterest. Manufacturers, meanwhile, are not trusted. • As a result, where people do feel able to rely on their own expertise, they generally take no action unless this is organised at the community level or a type of measure received a 'stamp of official approval' in the form of a public subsidy. • Government grant schemes can provide such a 'stamp of approval' and can, therefore, help normalise the implementation and use of measures • However, to be effective, such schemes require - commitment to the notion of property-level adaptation by local politicians and public sector managers - substantial commitments of staff time on the part of local authorities and the Environment Agency - the willingness of agency staff to collaborate and compromise - effective leadership from within the local community and the willingness to work collaboratively with official agencies - a pre-existing sense of collective interests amongst a substantial proportion of at-risk people and businesses in the affected area - recent experience of flooding - if maximum benefits are to be experienced, the inclusion in the scheme of micro-businesses as well as households. |
| Exploitation Route | This research explains some of the reasons why take-up of flood-protection measures is so low amongst households and businesses that are aware of their exposure to the risk (including those that have experienced flooding). It could be used to improve policies and strategies designed to promote such measures and to help front-line staff from the Environment Agency and local authorities better understand why people hesitate to take such measures and how they can be better encouraged to do so. Central government: adjust design of programmes that subsidise/promote property-level protection; lobby insurance industry to provide customers with flood protection advice; take steps to ensure independent and trusted advice is made available to householders and businesses; take steps to normalise flood protection Environment Agency: adjust design of individual schemes that promote flood protection; change strategies for increasing take-up of flood-protection (e.g. where it is offered free); review balance of expenditure between technical measures and investment of staff time in building relationships with flood-risk communities Own research: inform design of current EPSRC study that is looking for ways to promote flood risk adaptation amongst small and medium sized enterprises |
| Sectors | Environment |
| Description | This Placement Fellowhship, and the research conducted during it, had a direct impact on government policy, shaping the content and form of a grant scheme for the promotion of property-level flood protection. It also prompted conversations between the government and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors on the creation of special training for flood protection surveyors (though these have yet to come to fruition). The placement had a significant impact on the grantholder's career, helping him make a successful application for an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowhship and equipping him to gain maximum impact from future research. The findings continue to influence policy discussions and research agendas. They have resulted in the role of insurance in flood risk adaptation being taken up as a topic of joint research by a number of universities. They have also resulted in ongoing research by the grantholder into the role of experience in shaping risk adaptation. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2008 |
| Sector | Environment |
| Impact Types | Societal,Economic,Policy & public services |
| Description | Impacts on central government property-level flood protection grant schemes |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| Impact | Research and related activities influenced national and local policies on the promotion of property-level flood protection amongst householders and small businesses. This helped promote resilience to flooding (Societal Problem), reducing the negative economic impact of floods. The research and input influenced a £5m scheme to promote property-level flood protection and resilience measures and also the subsequent roll out of this scheme on a wider level. As a result of the input and advice: 1/ The normalisation of property-level protection and resilience was an explicit goal of the policy. 2/ Beneficiaries of grant schemes were not only provided with funding to buy protection but are also given professional advice on which measure is most suitable. 3/ The policy emphasised the need for genuine community engagement where, previously, property-level protection had tended to be seen as a matter for individuals and families. Hence: - Schemes were targeted at geographically clustered groups of at-risk homes, even where some homes were at a level of risk that did not, in terms of benefit-cost ratios, justify investment in protection. - Schemes were only funded where local agencies could show evidence of community level demand for property level protection and the potential for collaboration in the event of a flood. - All schemes include community-level flood response plans, developed in collaboration between local people and the local authority. |
| Description | Multiple citation in REA on Community Flood Resilience |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Citation in systematic reviews |
| URL | http://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/community_pathfind... |
| Description | Sandpit: Innovative Solutions to Flood Risk |
| Amount | £130,000 (GBP) |
| Funding ID | EP/K012770/1 |
| Organisation | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) |
| Sector | Public |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Start | 11/2012 |
| End | 06/2016 |
| Description | Convened expert group on promotion of flood risk adaptation |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Informed the discussion around the formation of a new government funding scheme. Influenced the new funding scheme. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2008 |
| Description | Member of government Steering Group |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | no overt results |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Presentation to AXA Insurance |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | AXA small business insurance staff more informed about government policy and the social science context to SME insurance and floods |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2007 |
| Description | Presentations at public consultations on government funding scheme for flood protection |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | More informed input into government consultation process. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2008 |
| Description | Talk given at a seminar by the Centre for Public Policy |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | The talk stimulated lots of questions and discussion - both in the session and afterwards none |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2010 |
| Description | Various presentations to Defra and Environment Agency staff |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Prompted lively discussions and further interest in my work and my advice. Influenced Defra and the Environment Agency to pay more attention to the influence of emotionalal factors on flood risk and to put more emphasis on relationship building and consultation with communities in flood risk areas. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2007,2008 |
| Description | workshop - Flood Repair Network |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Lively discussion Not known |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2008 |