Citizen involvement in flood risk governance: flood groups and networks Clare Twigger-Ross

Testo completo

(1)E3S Web of Conferences 7, 17006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0717006. Citizen involvement in flood risk governance: flood groups and networks 1,a. 1. 1. Clare Twigger-Ross , Paula Orr , Katya Brooks and Rolands Saduaskis. 1. 1. Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd, 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Rd, London SE17QY, UK. Abstract. Over the past decade has been a policy shift withinUK flood risk management towards localism with an emphasis on communities taking ownership of flood risk. There is also an increased focus on resilience and, more specifically, on community resilience to flooding. This paper draws on research carried out for UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs to evaluate the Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder (FRCP) scheme in England. Resilience is conceptualised as multidimensional and linked to exisiting capacities within a community. Creating resilience to flooding is an ongoing process of adaptation, learning from past events and preparing for future risks. This paper focusses on the development of formal and informal institutions to support improved flood risk management: institutional resilience capacity. It includes new institutions: e.g. flood groups, as well as activities that help to build inter- and intra- institutional resilience capacity e.g. community flood planning. The pathfinder scheme consisted of 13 projects across England led by local authorities aimed at developing community resilience to flood risk between 2013 2015. This paper discusses the nature and structure of flood groups, the process of their development, and the extent of their linkages with formal institutions, drawing out the barriers and facilitators to developing institutional resilience at the local level.. .. 1 Introduction This paper focuses on understanding some of the barriers and facilitators to improving institutional resilience in the context of flood risk management in the UK with a specific focus on the role of flood groups and networks. Institutional resilience focuses on the development of formal and informal institutions to support improved flood risk management. Broadly, it refers to the governance of flood risk management. According to the concept of governance actors do not consist of exclusively government bodies but may include private sector business, community organisations, voluntary sector bodies and other NGOs, as well as influential individuals. The concept of multilevel governance suggests that governance takes place through processes and institutions operating at a variety of geographical scales, and includes a range of actors with different levels of authority [1]. Flood risk management in the UK has this type of governance structure, encouraged by the UK government concept

(2)

(3) with a move to partnership funding for flood risk management. The former embraces localism and volunteerism. The latter encourages involvement of a wider range of actors at the local level. This also links to

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) , in a. the UK, together with an increased focus on citizen engagement in all areas of civic life. However, a key question is: In what ways do these new structures e.g. flood groups, improve preparedness, response, and planning in relation to flooding. And if so how does that work? What are the pathways which lead to individuals and communities feeling and being more resilient to flooding? This paper focuses on flood groups and networks of flood groups, examining their potential role within the governance of flood risk. It draws on evidence from the Defra pathfinder scheme evaluation [2].. 2 Defining resilience

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22) !

(23)

(24) "

(25)

(26) #

(27)

(28) #

(29)

(30) $ %&'

(31) ( )

(32)

(33) *

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37) ! + ,-. "/

(38) /

(39)

(40) 0

(41) ! ,&. $

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47) /

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52) 1,.2* 2,3.

(53) . Corresponding author: c.twigger-ross@cep.co.uk. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)..

(54) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 17006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0717006.

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60) 7

(61) /

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65) .

(66) @

(67) 55A

(68) A A '

(69) 0

(70)

(71) 4 ?. .

(72)

(73) .

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79) . /

(80) /

(81)

(82) //

(83) 0/ //

(84) /

(85) / 6 ,. *

(86)

(87) "

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91) ;

(92) .

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97) "0/

(98)

(99)

(100)

(101) 4

(102)

(103) .

(104)

(105)

(106)

(107) .

(108)

(109)

(110)

(111)

(112)

(113)

(114)

(115) . .

(116)

(117)

(118)

(119) . 56

(120)

(121)

(122)

(123)

(124) 2* 2

(125)

(126)

(127)

(128) 1

(129)

(130)

(131)

(132)

(133)

(134)

(135) "

(136)

(137) /

(138)

(139)

(140)

(141) 0 ""

(142)

(143) )

(144)

(145)

(146)

(147)

(148) 7

(149)

(150)

(151)

(152)

(153)

(154)

(155)

(156)

(157)

(158) /

(159)

(160)

(161)

(162)

(163)

(164) 8 4.

(165) 4

(166) /

(167) "

(168) "

(169)

(170) /

(171)

(172)

(173)

(174)

(175)

(176)

(177)

(178) / * ; 7 ?

(179)

(180)

(181) .

(182)

(183)

(184)

(185)

(186) " .

(187)

(188) 6 ,.

(189)

(190) " ;"

(191)

(192)

(193)

(194) 0 /

(195) 0 "

(196)

(197) "

(198)

(199) /

(200) ;

(201) %

(202) 1 ) 7B&

(203) ,C.'.

(204)

(205) .

(206)

(207)

(208)

(209)

(210) .

(211)

(212) !

(213) " ##.

(214)

(215)

(216)

(217) .

(218) !

(219)

(220) .

(221)

(222)

(223)

(224) .

(225)

(226)

(227) .

(228)

(229)

(230) $,..

(231) 4

(232) / ;

(233)

(234)

(235) 0

(236)

(237)

(238)

(239) 5 ?

(240) #. 1

(241)

(242) . 2

(243)

(244)

(245)

(246) . &

(247)

(248) 6 ,. * ; 7 0

(249)

(250) " 7

(251)

(252) <

(253) "

(254) / " D

(255)

(256)

(257) 0

(258)

(259)

(260)

(261)

(262)

(263) /

(264)

(265) ""

(266) $ 0/ /

(267)

(268)

(269) 0 "

(270) E

(271)

(272)

(273) 5 F ,B.

(274)

(275) "

(276) 7 "

(277)

(278) 7

(279) 0

(280)

(281)

(282) ;

(283)

(284) /

(285) 0 5 G

(286)

(287)

(288)

(289) " " "

(290)

(291)

(292)

(293)

(294) 5 G

(295)

(296)

(297)

(298)

(299) " 0 "

(300) 0 7 " "5 (

(301) 0

(302)

(303)

(304)

(305) "

(306)

(307) 0 "

(308)

(309)

(310)

(311)

(312) *)#F

(313) "

(314) . "

(315)

(316)

(317)

(318)

(319)

(320) /

(321) 7

(322) 0

(323)

(324)

(325)

(326)

(327)

(328)

(329)

(330) .

(331) " ! #"

(332) 9

(333)

(334)

(335)

(336)

(337) 0 / %

(338) 7 /'

(339)

(340)

(341)

(342) 4

(343)

(344)

(345) /7 // :

(346) /

(347)

(348)

(349)

(350)

(351)

(352)

(353)

(354)

(355) ;

(356)

(357)

(358)

(359)

(360)

(361)

(362)

(363)

(364)

(365)

(366)

(367)

(368) < /

(369)

(370) ) /

(371) "

(372)

(373) 1 ;

(374)

(375)

(376) /

(377)

(378) 7

(379) ; ;

(380)

(381)

(382) =

(383) / =

(384)

(385)

(386) ,+.# ,7>.

(387)

(388) ?

(389)

(390)

(391) 6*

(392) 7 # ,7>. 0 "

(393)

(394)

(395) /

(396) 7

(397) "

(398)

(399) "

(400)

(401) 4 % &

(402)

(403)

(404)

(405) .

(406) '()! #. *++,!

(407) # % '() .

(408)

(409)

(410)

(411)

(412) .

(413)

(414)

(415)

(416)

(417)

(418) .

(419)

(420) # - '(). "

(421)

(422)

(423)

(424)

(425) .

(426)

(427)

(428) # ,..

(429)

(430)

(431) /

(432)

(433)

(434) /"

(435)

(436)

(437)

(438) /7

(439)

(440)

(441)

(442)

(443) 7 :

(444) "

(445) 7 / "

(446)

(447) "

(448)

(449) /*

(450) 7

(451)

(452)

(453)

(454) 7

(455)

(456) 7

(457) "

(458)

(459) /;

(460) 7"

(461)

(462)

(463) 7

(464)

(465)

(466) / 7

(467)

(468)

(469) D

(470)

(471)

(472)

(473)

(474)

(475)

(476)

(477) . *

(478)

(479)

(480) /

(481)

(482)

(483) a

(484)

(485) # ,. 4

(486) 7

(487) 7 a. It should be noted that in Cutter et al 2008 there is another category:

(488) due to data inconsistency and relevancy when developing proxies for ecological systems resilience for large and diverse study areas! considering in future studies..

(489)

(490)

(491) /

(492)

(493)

(494)

(495) ;

(496)

(497)

(498)

(499) /

(500)

(501)

(502) . 2.

(503) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 17006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0717006. .

(504) .

(505)

(506)

(507)

(508).

(509)

(510)

(511)

(512)

(513) .

(514)

(515)

(516)

(517)

(518) . ,7BB.

(519)

(520)

(521)

(522)

(523)

(524)

(525) 7 "

(526)

(527)

(528) 0

(529)

(530)

(531)

(532) 4 7 0 7

(533)

(534)

(535) "

(536)

(537)

(538)

(539)

(540) " ;

(541)

(542)

(543)

(544)

(545)

(546) 1/

(547) 7

(548) / 7

(549)

(550)

(551)

(552) F

(553)

(554) G /7

(555)

(556) 0

(557)

(558) H

(559) /

(560)

(561) .

(562)

(563)

(564)

(565) .

(566) "

(567)

(568) .

(569)

(570)

(571) .

(572)

(573)

(574) .

(575)

(576) ,.

(577)

(578) 0

(579) /

(580)

(581)

(582) 0

(583)

(584)

(585)

(586)

(587) /

(588) % /1

(589) 7 7

(590) /

(591) '

(592)

(593)

(594)

(595)

(596)

(597)

(598) /

(599)

(600) "8

(601)

(602)

(603) 8

(604) "

(605)

(606)

(607)

(608)

(609) 0

(610) /

(611)

(612) . Figure 1 " #$%&'()*+ Source:www.picturesofengland.com.

(613) 8

(614) "

(615)

(616)

(617) / 0

(618)

(619)

(620) %J '

(621) %(

(622) ' " %# 7 J

(623) 7 J 7 G 0"

(624) 27 # 7 ) ' / %K J ;7 # 727K

(625) 0

(626) ' D 8 "/

(627)

(628) "/

(629)

(630) L

(631) * * %

(632)

(633) / 0

(634)

(635) '

(636)

(637) 8

(638)

(639)

(640)

(641) D

(642) $/7D K 7K

(643)

(644)

(645) "/

(646)

(647)

(648)

(649) 8 7

(650) 7

(651)

(652)

(653)

(654) :

(655) . 3 Evaluating the Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder scheme * )

(656)

(657) #

(658) / F

(659)

(660) "

(661)

(662)

(663)

(664)

(665)

(666)

(667) 0 "

(668)

(669) D 0

(670) 0/

(671)

(672)

(673) 4 xD

(674) 0

(675) /

(676) :

(677)

(678) " /

(679)

(680) /

(681)

(682)

(683) 5 x2 " /

(684)

(685) /

(686)

(687)

(688)

(689)

(690)

(691)

(692) x2

(693)

(694)

(695)

(696)

(697) "

(698)

(699) 2

(700) 2 "B7

(701) I

(702)

(703) "

(704)

(705) "

(706)

(707) 8 " B- B

(708)

(709)

(710) D &

(711)

(712)

(713) 8 "

(714) "/ B-

(715)

(716) 7 D

(717)

(718)

(719) *

(720) B

(721)

(722) . x2

(723)

(724)

(725) "

(726)

(727)

(728)

(729)

(730) 0M x2

(731)

(732)

(733)

(734)

(735)

(736) " M xK

(737)

(738) "

(739)

(740)

(741)

(742)

(743) " M. b. Based on flood risk categories used in the UK National Flood Risk Assessment, significant risk equates to a one in 75 chance of flooding from rivers or the sea in any given year.. xK

(744) "

(745) M x

(746)

(747)

(748) $ ;

(749)

(750) ;

(751) :

(752)

(753) :

(754)

(755)

(756)

(757) : 7 /

(758) /

(759) . 3. .

(760) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 17006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management.

(761) "

(762) 7

(763)

(764) %NB' 8 %N '

(765)

(766) " %

(767) / '

(768)

(769)

(770) "

(771) "/

(772) 8

(773)

(774) J

(775)

(776) /7

(777)

(778) 4. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0717006. J

(779) . F

(780) . G 0"

(781) 2 # # # 2 (

(782) L

(783) ) J J J

(784) K

(785) 0

(786) K J ; 9$(. x#

(787) / "

(788) =

(789)

(790)

(791)

(792)

(793) / xJ

(794) 1

(795)

(796)

(797) 8

(798)

(799) NBN x /="

(800) N=

(801)

(802)

(803) /

(804)

(805) x$

(806)

(807) /1NBN x#

(808)

(809)

(810)

(811)

(812)

(813) O

(814)

(815) /

(816) 0 2 . 4 Findings

(817)

(818)

(819)

(820)

(821)

(822)

(823)

(824)

(825)

(826)

(827) 7

(828)

(829) "

(830)

(831)

(832) "/ /

(833)

(834) "

(835)

(836)

(837)

(838)

(839)

(840)

(841)

(842)

(843)

(844)

(845)

(846)

(847) $

(848) 0 0

(849)

(850)

(851)

(852)

(853)

(854)

(855)

(856)

(857) 0/

(858)

(859)

(860)

(861)

(862)

(863)

(864)

(865)

(866)

(867) 4 x2

(868)

(869) x2

(870)

(871) " " "

(872)

(873) 0

(874)

(875) . . P

(876) ;

(877) 8. N. . L N N L L L N N N N N N . - - BB > - . 4L " . " N

(878)

(879) - B - & B BB B - B - B- B& BBB +. "/

(880) 8

(881) 7

(882)

(883)

(884) /

(885)

(886) / 0

(887) "

(888) K J ;7 / 0

(889)

(890)

(891) L

(892) * *

(893)

(894) B

(895) "

(896) ) "

(897)

(898) "

(899)

(900) /

(901) 0 9 7

(902) /

(903) ;

(904)

(905) /

(906)

(907) / 7 J

(908) 4 xJ

(909)

(910) / %

(911)

(912) 7

(913)

(914)

(915) ' xG

(916) ;

(917) "

(918) %"

(919) 0

(920) ' xF

(921)

(922)

(923) "

(924) "

(925)

(926)

(927)

(928) P

(929)

(930)

(931) /

(932) 7

(933) "

(934) /

(935)

(936)

(937) "

(938) $

(939) 0

(940)

(941) /

(942) 0

(943)

(944) * K 7 " 9G

(945) ,B.. 4.1.1 Flood groups and flood volunteers To begin with it is useful to be clear what is meant by a flood group. Given the wide variation in flood groups the evaluation used the following definition to capture the range of activities. ?

(946)

(947)

(948) .

(949)

(950)

(951)

(952)

(953) 2 %

(954)

(955)

(956) .

(957) .

(958)

(959) %

(960)

(961)

(962)

(963) 3.

(964)

(965) 4

(966)

(967) .

(968)

(969)

(970)

(971)

(972)

(973)

(974)

(975) .

(976)

(977) 6,. " " " "

(978)

(979)

(980)

(981)

(982) . c. Assumed no change: Cornwall did not focus on creating flood groups. )$,%*+(-.The CCFF membership at the outset of pathfinder stood at 65$this includes gro /)$ Project Plan states that CCFF membership includes 30 parish/town councils, this figure was used d Northamptonshire pathfinder focussed on training flood wardens initially across their 15 communities but did also set up 11 community flood forums. 4.

(983) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 17006 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0717006. 0

(984)

(985)

(986) /

(987)

(988) 0

(989) 7

(990)

(991)

(992)

(993) "0

(994) 7 "

(995)

(996)

(997)

(998)

(999)

(1000)

(1001) / " "

(1002) /

(1003)

(1004)

(1005)

(1006)

(1007) 0

(1008) /

(1009)

(1010)

(1011)

(1012)

(1013)

(1014)

(1015)

(1016) x

(1017)

(1018)

(1019)

(1020)

(1021) 0/

(1022)

(1023)

(1024)

(1025)

(1026)

(1027)

(1028)

(1029)

(1030) "/ "

(1031)

(1032)

(1033)

(1034)

(1035)

(1036) "

(1037) "/

(1038) 4 . 5

(1039)

(1040)

(1041). 0/

(1042) / / /

(1043) /

(1044) / /

(1045) / /

(1046) / 6

(1047)

(1048) 0/ / / /

(1049)

(1050) / /

(1051) / %/ 1 0/

(1052) 6

(1053) 6

(1054)

(1055) 5 @J

(1056)

(1057) ND

(1058) )',..

(1059)

(1060)

(1061)

(1062)

(1063)

(1064)

(1065)