Investigating social processes that underpin local flood risk management action

Abstract

As climate change erodes current levels of flood protection in the UK and government investment in 'hard' flood risk management (hFRM) is rationed by cost-benefit ratios, the option for many communities at-risk is to implement local 'soft' FRM (sFRM). The frequency of widespread flooding generates an added urgency to understand how to support sFRM. Using a case study and qualitative analysis, we explore social processes (SPs), such as acculturation, that drive stakeholder adaptation to be more flood resilient. We conceptualise the status quo beleaguered by conflict and competition and propose practices of accommodation and cooperation that can support shared objectives and responsibility that strengthen sFRM. Our conceptual model is mapped on a stylised catchment to illustrate how SPs underpin sFRM interventions that join-up the catchment in wholescape thinking. The transferable learning is that there are group behaviours and inclusive practices that can initiate and support local sFRM.

Designing a Flood Storage Option on Agricultural Land: What Can Flood Risk Managers Learn from Drought Management?

“…In cases with potential for private (or blended public and private) financing [82], floodplain floodwater storage agreements might be negotiated between an IDB and floodprone urban areas or bodies representing regions, such as the SRA (see, [45]). Private financing could also come from developers and insurers contributing to fund ex situ flood risk reduction linked to lower Flood Re premiums.…”

“…This was carried out in the MWDSC-PVID agreement, where the PVID commissioned lawyers to review the tax implications of upfront payments [72]. Furthermore, there is evidence that the exchange of information and experience might improve the social acceptability of farmers participating in novel schemes [45] and that this effect is enhanced if farmers source their information from neighbours and local sources [81].…”

“…Two recent OECD reports on improving the agricultural sector's flood preparedness highlighted the potential role of extension services and networks [89,90]. Furthermore, floodplain floodwater storage is just one scheme that has potential to initiate a larger-scale reconfiguration of zoning and agricultural land, where expertise around land sparing (taking land out of production), sharing (integrating nature in agricultural production) and swapping (switching land with another party) [33,45] and tradable development rights (TDRs), is needed.…”

“…Furthermore, in the Colorado study, a low water use group remained opposed to fallowing, perhaps in part as they would be least affected by price increases. Similarly, it might be that those at lowest risk of flooding would be particularly opposed to any cost increases associated with floodplain floodwater storage options, such as an increase in regional taxes that fund the SRA [45]. However, indirect impacts and disruption from flooding, such as to road and rail travel and through business closures, combined with an aspiration to balance objectives, might lessen such opposition.…”

“…Flood regulation is also a type of one-to-many PES scheme with one buyer (e.g., local government) and multiple landowners provisioning the ecosystem service [44]. There is potential for a PES or other negotiated agreement whereby the beneficiary, for instance, a new type of authority, such as the Somerset Rivers Authority [45], or a town or city, pays farmers for changes to their land and water management practices [33,46]. As floodplain floodwater storage options are novel and farmers are cautious to adopt NFM interventions [47], particularly larger-scale interventions [33], salient lessons on incentive design might be forthcoming from elsewhere, for example, from farm-centred drought management.…”