Direct action self-help (DASH) groups in UK flood risk management Jonathan Simm

Testo completo

(1)E3S Web of Conferences 7, 15001 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0715001. Direct action self-help (DASH) groups in UK flood risk management Jonathan Simm. 1,a. 1. HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX12 8JT, United Kingdom. Abstract. This paper presents an analysis of the nature and effectiveness of community direct action self-help (DASH) groups and includes a case study analysis of a river conveyance management group and a sea wall management group. DASH groups are found to be motivated by the need to deal with increasing flood risk in the face of reduced public funding, alongside sense of stewardship and community solidarity. Channel maintenance work by a DASH group can be effective and efficient at reducing some aspects of local fluvial flood risk for lower order flood events. Maintenance of existing sea walls by a DASH group may be less efficient because of the need for significant expenditure on materials and only efficacious if the engineering is quality-controlled; its longer term effectiveness is also limited by sea level rise. DASH groups require nurture to be sustainable but can deliver community benefits. Professional FCRM coordination and support of DASH activity was examined using a case study of an Environment Agency (EA) area coordinator and comparisons with alternative approaches. Support of DASH groups by FCRM professionals was found to be essential to avoid unwise activities and involves not only controlling consents, but also providing advice on the nature and extent to which DASH activity might be appropriate and arranging practical support and seed-corn funding. The most effective form of DASH facilitation requires a quality and quantity of involvement that cannot readily be supplied by dispersed arrangements from a number of individuals.. 1 Introduction UK post war flood management has been identified [1] as having passed through at least three phases: x 1940s to 1970s: Land drainage and food security x 1980s to mid-1990s: Flood defence x mid-1990s onwards: Flood risk management. As part of the move to Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) in the

(2) been identified towards wider involvement of local communities, including increasing stakeholder

(3) - [1]. There appear to be three drivers behind this turn: x The need to adapt to increasing flood risk arising from changes in climate. x The need to integrate FCRM policy, both in the UK and more widely in Europe, with the sustainable development agenda, especially in regard to involving the public in the social (and environmental) aspects of developing policies, strategies and schemes [2-6]. x A wider trend towards empowering communities at a local level to help themselves, originally from the perspective of enabling local voices to set agendas, but more recently being promoted by the present UK Big Society agenda [7] in the context of the need to reduce public expenditure. a. Corresponding author: j.simm@hrwallingford.com. As well as delivering citizen needs and giving them a greater voice, citizen involvement in activities such as flood risk management has the potential to strengthen social capital - the networks of relationships in our communities - by creating

(4)

(5) reconnection, co !. The appropriate level of citizen participation, however, remains an open question and discussion often revolves individualism of the market and the collectivism of the "!. In her classic ladder of citizen participation (see Figure 1), Arnstein [10] argued that it is possible to conceive of forms of participation which are not genuine, being either symbolic or even at worst manipulative. On #

(6) $ participation is not necessarily the best place to be, as it may imply [11] a degree of abrogation of governmental and professional responsibility. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. Citizen control (or selfgovernance) Delegated power Partnership (or co-operation) Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation. Figure 1. Degrees of citizen power (or participation) Degrees of tokenism (or symbolic participation) Levels of non-participation

(7)

(8) . &#

(9) $

(10) (after Arnstein [10]). © 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/)..

(11) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 15001 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. Furthermore, some users may not wish to be involved at the higher levels of the ladder, or may want to jump on and off the ladder [12]. The 2007 summer floods in England were particularly catalytic in driving a more participatory approach, with greater citizen involvement promoted by Sir Michael Pitt [13] in his subsequent review of the flooding for the UK government. In a wide ranging review with 92 recommendations, Pitt put ordinary people at the centre of policy. Two of his recommendations are of particular note in the context of this paper x RECOMMENDATION 70: The Government should establish a programme to support and encourage individuals and communities to be better prepared and more self-reliant during emergencies, allowing the authorities to focus on those areas and people in greatest need. x RECOMMENDATION 24: The Government should develop a scheme which allows and encourages local communities to invest in flood risk management measures. In the period 1998 to 2015, but particularly in the wake of the summer 2007 floods, Direct Action Self-Help (DASH) groups started to emerge in small, generally rural, communities where there was little prospect of state assistance. Their aim was focussed on the maintenance and improvement of FCRM assets in order to reduce the flood risk their communities were facing. This paper evaluates the extent to which such groups are viable and can be an efficacious, efficient and effective means of managing and monitoring FCRM assets.. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0715001. Figure 2. Locations of self-help groups contacted. 3 Overview of DASH groups 3.1 Motivations

(12) (

(13) )

(14) *)

(15) )

(16)

(17) +

(18)

(19) %

(20) ()

(21)

(22) *) ,-./

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28) ,--% -0/

(29).

(30) ,-1/

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36) ,-2/

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43) 34,-5/ 3 ,-6/

(44) %

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49) 7 89:

(50) *),;</

(51) . 2 Research methods

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76) ! "

(77)

(78) #

(79)

(80) $

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

(86) $ %

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91) &

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97) '

(98)

(99)

(100) %

(101)

(102)

(103)

(104)

(105)

(106)

(107)

(108)

(109) $

(110) #

(111) . .

(112)

(113)

(114)

(115) :

(116) *),!=/

(117) . 3.2 Leadership

(118) >

(119)

(120)

(121)

(122)

(123) .

(124)

(125) + % .

(126)

(127)

(128) +

(129)

(130)

(131)

(132) )

(133) ) ?@@) )

(134) )

(135) ) *)

(136)

(137) 9

(138) )

(139) )

(140) ) A ) ) ) )

(141) ) B) ,-./%

(142) ) A )

(143) B)

(144)

(145)

(146) . 2.

(147) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 15001 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. ,!-/

(148)

(149) +

(150)

(151)

(152)

(153) ,!!/% +

(154)

(155) >

(156)

(157)

(158) C. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0715001. assets but also of the wider environment in which they are situated. Around the star in the outer circle of Figure 4 lies the context within which the DASH group is situated and which sets up the motivations just described. Within this the following elements can be identified: a world of physical change in which flood risk may be increasing; the place and the local community within which the DASH group is situated; and the wider policies, plans and activities of government and non-government organisations both professional and voluntary. In the central circle of Figure 4 lies the developing DASH group with its leader and members and their associated knowledge, skills and expertise. The points of the star represent the dimensions of the group: Imagination, Engagement, Alignment and the FCRM assets themselves. Each of the dimensions of the DASH group is located nearest to the motivations and contextual elements with which they are most closely associated Considering each of these dimensions in turn, the following may be noted in relation to Figure 4: x the FCRM assets lie as a feature of the place and local community and form one part of the community spaces and structures; x the Imagination of the DASH group, which concerns the past and the future and possibilities arising with and without direct action, lies within the context of both the local community vision for their place and the challenges of future physical change including climate change (e.g. sea level rise), morphological change and asset deterioration; x the Engagement of the DASH group, representing its relationships, interactions, practices and shared histories of learning lies within the tensions of the aspirations of the local community and a broad range of wider policies, plans and activities and the individuals and organisations involved, including landowners and FCRM professionals; and x the Alignment of the group lies between the constraints of both the physical change taking place in the wider natural and human-made environment and the wider policies, plans and activities. The latter might include Shoreline Management Plans or Catchment Flood Management Plans. Such alignment is important to avoid wasted work by the group and adverse impacts on others, ideally with a vision to follow

(159) ' ( )

(160)

(161) .. AD) )

(162) +) ) )

(163) @) E

(164) ) ,

(165)

(166) ) ) "F:/

(167)

(168)

(169)

(170) G

(171)

(172) @) *)

(173) ) )

(174) @)

(175) ) *)

(176) ) )

(177) ) ) )

(178) ) +@)

(179) ) *)

(180) )

(181) )

(182) ) +) H

(183)

(184)

(185)

(186)

(187) +@B),

(188) % !==6/. 3.3 Conceptual framework 3

(189)

(190)

(191)

(192)

(193) + 7 .9

(194)

(195)

(196)

(197) %

(198)

(199)

(200)

(201)

(202)

(203) . Figure 4. Conceptual model for DASH groups in FCRM.. Motivations for action are shown in the flat dark blue triangles pointing towards the DASH group in the centre of Figure 4. In the top right, a part of the wider policies, plans and activities of government organisations involved in FCRM includes the aspect of limited availability of public support and funding. This motivator can be viewed both in two ways: negatively, in that the lack of conventional full public funding for FCRM works may motivate DASH activity to commence, but also positively in that advice and seed-corn funding from public (or other) sources may help to trigger commencement of DASH activity. The remaining motivators are associated with each of the remaining contextual elements: x physical change and increasing flood risk becomes a directly perceived motivator, particularly after catalytic flood events; x the desire for identity and belonging is linked to the local community; and x the geography and environment of the place which offers DASH group members a motivation for stewardship not just of the physical FCRM. 3.4 Working process +

(204)

(205)

(206) 0

(207)

(208) ) ) " + *) ,!8/

(209) .

(210)

(211)

(212) +

(213)

(214) . 3.

(215) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 15001 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0715001. 4 Case studies

(216)

(217)

(218)

(219)

(220)

(221)

(222)

(223) 4.1. Channel maintenance group.

(224) > . .

(225)

(226) C x

(227)

(228)

(229)

(230)

(231)

(232)

(233) *

(234)

(235)

(236)

(237) I x

(238)

(239)

(240)

(241)

(242)

(243)

(244)

(245)

(246) I x

(247)

(248)

(249)

(250)

(251)

(252) 0

(253)

(254)

(255)

(256)

(257)

(258) +

(259)

(260)

(261)

(262)

(263)

(264) 7

(265) % "F:

(266) 9

(267)

(268) +

(269)

(270)

(271)

(272)

(273)

(274).

(275)

(276)

(277) %

(278)

(279) %

(280) &

(281)

(282) +

(283) "F:

(284)

(285).

(286)

(287)

(288)

(289)

(290)

(291)

(292)

(293) .

(294)

(295)

(296)

(297) L

(298) #

(299) %34%

(300)

(301) M

(302) J

(303)

(304) +

(305)

(306)

(307) $ H

(308)

(309).

(310) + .

(311) !==5 $

(312)

(313)

(314)

(315) +

(316)

(317)

(318)

(319)

(320)

(321)

(322)

(323) M

(324) J

(325)

(326) +7 19% ) >

(327) ) ( *)

(328)

(329)

(330) + !==5

(331)

(332)

(333)

(334) 7 =! =1 9

(335)

(336)

(337)

(338)

(339)

(340) +

(341)

(342) #

(343)

(344)

(345)

(346) +%

(347)

(348)

(349)

(350)

(351)

(352) -==.

(353) +

(354)

(355)

(356) . H M

(357) J

(358)

(359) +%. !==5 . . -

(360)

(361)

(362) M

(363) J

(364)

(365) +

(366)

(367)

(368)

(369) !=

(370)

(371) %

(372) .

(373)

(374)

(375) %

(376)

(377) =- 3

(378)

(379)

(380) %

(381)

(382)

(383)

(384)

(385)

(386)

(387) N-2%===

(388) +

(389)

(390)

(391)

(392)

(393)

(394) +

(395)

(396)

(397) N5=== > .

(398)

(399)

(400) N-0== 7"

(401) $

(402)

(403) 9 "

(404)

(405)

(406)

(407)

(408)

(409)

(410)

(411)

(412)

(413) -!C-

(414)

(415) +

(416)

(417)

(418)

(419)

(420)

(421)

(422)

(423)

(424) 8C-

(425)

(426)

(427)

(428) . 3.5 Liability and insurance &

(429)

(430)

(431)

(432)

(433)

(434)

(435)

(436)

(437)

(438)

(439)

(440)

(441)

(442)

(443) %

(444)

(445)

(446)

(447) +

(448)

(449)

(450) > 7 %& + 9%

(451)

(452)

(453) J

(454) "

(455)

(456) K

(457) % !=-! +

(458) "

(459)

(460) K

(461) . 4.

(462) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 15001 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management.

(463) P

(464)

(465)

(466)

(467). %

(468)

(469)

(470)

(471). %

(472) x

(473) P

(474)

(475)

(476)

(477)

(478) I x

(479)

(480)

(481)

(482) &

(483) "

(484)

(485)

(486)

(487) +. !==6% &

(488)

(489)

(490) +

(491)

(492)

(493) +

(494) % > %

(495) +

(496)

(497)

(498) +% > >

(499)

(500)

(501)

(502)

(503) > +789 !=-8-.

(504)

(505)

(506)

(507) +

(508)

(509)

(510)

(511) $

(512)

(513)

(514)

(515)

(516)

(517) N!=== N8===

(518)

(519)

(520)

(521)

(522) J

(523) +

(524)

(525)

(526)

(527) +%

(528)

(529)

(530)

(531)

(532)

(533)

(534) .

(535)

(536)

(537)

(538)

(539)

(540)

(541)

(542) + #

(543)

(544)

(545) +

(546) &

(547)

(548)

(549)

(550)

(551)

(552)

(553)

(554)

(555)

(556)

(557)

(558)

(559)

(560)

(561) -C-

(562)

(563) +

(564)

(565)

(566) 8 #

(567)

(568)

(569)

(570)

(571)

(572)

(573)

(574)

(575)

(576)

(577) .C-%

(578) &

(579) -!C-%

(580)

(581)

(582)

(583)

(584) +

(585)

(586)

(587) :

(588)

(589)

(590)

(591)

(592)

(593)

(594) >

(595)

(596) I

(597) ' %

(598)

(599)

(600) +

(601) C xL

(602)

(603) >

(604) + >

(605)

(606)

(607)

(608)

(609) x:

(610)

(611) %

(612) +

(613)

(614)

(615)

(616) &

(617)

(618)

(619) %

(620) >

(621)

(622)

(623) x

(624)

(625)

(626)

(627) I.

(628)

(629)

(630)

(631)

(632)

(633)

(634).

(635)

(636) +

(637)

(638) .

(639) +

(640)

(641)

(642)

(643)

(644)

(645) +%

(646)

(647) > %

(648)

(649) #

(650)

(651)

(652)

(653)

(654) C xF

(655) +

(656)

(657)

(658)

(659)

(660)

(661)

(662)

(663)

(664)

(665)

(666) x$

(667)

(668)

(669)

(670)

(671)

(672) +

(673)

(674)

(675)

(676) +

(677)

(678) +

(679)

(680)

(681)

(682)

(683)

(684)

(685)

(686)

(687)

(688)

(689) +

(690)

(691)

(692)

(693) + >

(694) .

(695) & x$

(696)

(697)

(698)

(699)

(700) + C R

(701) I R

(702) .

(703)

(704)

(705) x'

(706)

(707)

(708) + .

(709)

(710)

(711)

(712)

(713)

(714)

(715)

(716)

(717)

(718) 4.2 Sea wall maintenance group

(719) O

(720) $ 7' 9 F

(721)

(722) 7O$F9 "

(723) % %

(724)

(725)

(726)

(727) $

(728)

(729)

(730)

(731)

(732) $

(733)

(734)

(735)

(736)

(737)

(738) +

(739)

(740) O

(741)

(742)

(743)

(744)

(745) '

(746)

(747) +

(748)

(749)

(750)

(751) "

(752)

(753)

(754)

(755) +

(756)

(757)

(758)

(759)

(760)

(761)

(762)

(763) % +

(764)

(765)

(766)

(767)

(768) 7 29 .

(769) $ %' %. !==6. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0715001. . 5.

(770) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 15001 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. 5 Professional support for DASH groups. .

(771)

(772)

(773) %

(774)

(775). % >

(776)

(777)

(778)

(779) "F: ' %

(780) "F:

(781)

(782)

(783) 7 59

(784)

(785) C x

(786)

(787)

(788)

(789)

(790)

(791) . I x

(792)

(793)

(794)

(795)

(796) 7

(797) 9 +

(798) I x

(799)

(800)

(801)

(802) I x

(803)

(804)

(805)

(806) >

(807)

(808)

(809)

(810)

(811)

(812)

(813) Q

(814)

(815)

(816)

(817)

(818) $

(819) + %

(820) )

(821) ) )

(822) )A

(823) +)

(824)

(825).

(826) ) ) B) ,!./

(827) %

(828)

(829) "F:

(830)

(831)

(832)

(833)

(834)

(835)

(836)

(837)

(838) 789$

(839)

(840)

(841) >

(842)

(843) . -%

(844)

(845)

(846)

(847) > > >

(848)

(849)

(850)

(851)

(852) . $ >

(853)

(854)

(855) . R

(856)

(857)

(858)

(859)

(860) $

(861) R

(862)

(863).

(864) '

(865)

(866)

(867)

(868).

(869) .

(870)

(871) .

(872) F

(873) C +

(874) . DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0715001 $

(875) $

(876)

(877)

(878)

(879) M %

(880) +

(881)

(882)

(883) +

(884)

(885)

(886)

(887)

(888)

(889).

(890)

(891)

(892)

(893)

(894)

(895)

(896)

(897) >

(898) 4

(899) .

(900) $

(901) .

(902)

(903)

(904)

(905) C.

(906) Q % %

(907)

(908)

(909)

(910) J

(911) +

(912) &

(913) $

(914) +

(915) "

(916) J

(917)

(918)

(919)

(920)

(921)

(922)

(923)

(924)

(925)

(926)

(927)

(928)

(929)

(930)

(931)

(932)

(933)

(934) #

(935)

(936)

(937) $

(938)

(939)

(940)

(941) + Q

(942)

(943)

(944) Q

(945)

(946) +I

(947)

(948). . P. I

(949)

(950) $.

(951) +

(952) . . !"

(953)

(954) +

(955)

(956)

(957) 7$

(958)

(959)

(960) 9 '

(961)

(962)

(963)

(964) M %

(965). + R# .

(966).

(967)

(968)

(969)

(970)

(971)

(972)

(973)

(974)

(975)

(976)

(977) R R# . R

(978)

(979)

(980) + > R

(981) . R