After the Rain – learning the lessons from flood recovery in Hull

The report shows that it is often not so much the floods themselves, but what comes afterwards, that people find so difficult to deal with. The research on which this report is based aimed to undertake a real-time longitudinal study to document and understand the everyday experiences of individuals following the floods of June 2007 in interaction with networks of actors and organisations, strategies of institutional support and investment in the built environment and infrastructure. It had the following objectives: - To identify and document key dimensions of the longer term experience of flood impact and flood recovery, including health, economic and social aspects. - To examine how resilience and vulnerability were manifest in the interaction between everyday strategies of adaptation during the flood recovery process, and modes of institutional support and the management of infrastructure and the built environment. -To explore to what extent the recovery process entailed the development of new forms of resilience and to identify the implications for developing local level resilience for flood recovery in the future. To develop an archive that will be accessible for future research into other aspects of flood recovery. The flooding which affected the city of Kingston-upon-Hull took place in June 2007. Over 110mm of rain fell during the biggest event, overwhelming the city‟s drainage system and resulting in widespread pluvial flooding. The floods affected over 8,600 households and one person was killed. Our research used in-depth, qualitative methods where 44 people kept weekly diaries and participated in interviews and group discussions over an 18-month period

Supporting the uptake of resilient repair in the recovery process (FD2706)

Executive SummaryThis Defra research project (FD2706) was concerned with how the professionals and organisations involved in the recovery process following a flood incident interact with householders and business owners. In particular, the way in which decisions are made about reinstatement was examined, as there is a need to improve the understanding of the opportunities within the process for encouraging resilient repair. Resilient repair is the application of property flood resilience measures during the recovery period so that, should there be another flood, the householder or business owner can re-occupy their properties more quickly, which has well documented benefits. Installing some measures during recovery has also been shown to be more cost effective and potentially less disruptive than the retrofitting of measures at other times.The project had three elements: a quick scoping review; a series of case studies involving in-depth interviews with flooded households, small/micro-businesses and their repair networks; and, a series of facilitated group discussions with stakeholders to validate the findings of the Quick Scoping Review and case studies. Flow charts of the on-site and off-site processes and of the decisions involved in the repair of insured properties were developed to highlight the main points at which the ‘resilience’ of the reinstatement is determined. A list of 55 barriers and facilitators and a further list of 49 suggestions for change or wider application of good practice were extracted from the literature and interviews. Themes for improvement were developed and a selection of the suggestions was further explored in the facilitated group discussions.This document summarises all three elements of the project. The detailed findings of the Quick Scoping Review are also available in a separate report. Detailed findings from the in-depth interviews and workshops are available as appendices to this report

Community Resilience Research: UK Case Studies, Lessons and Recommendations report to the Cabinet Office and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.

This report presents four case studies carried out for the Community Resilience project funded by DSTL and supported by the Civil Contingency Secretariat (CCS), Cabinet Office. The work for this project was carried out between September and December 2011. The aim of the Community Resilience project was to develop a better understanding of the role of community resilience in emergency response and recovery situations in order to inform Cabinet Office / Civil Contingencies Secretariat policy on community resilience and to inform the development of future work

Supporting the uptake of low cost resilience: Final report (FD2682)

Executive SummaryThe Defra research project FD2682 examined the technical, social and behavioural aspects of supporting low cost flood repairable measures designed to limit damage to buildings during and after flood events. Flood repairable measures (sometimes called ‘flood resilient measures’) applied to buildings are designed to limit damage, or speed up recovery where water has entered a property. They include strategies to keep water away from building elements (such as raising power sockets) and the internal use of waterproof or water resistant materials, including those capable of retaining their integrity and recovering quickly after inundation. These measures have traditionally been regarded as most useful when water exclusion approaches(measures to keep water out of the building, sometimes called ‘resistant measures’)are not practical or cost effective.The investigation took an action research approach, consulting widely and reflecting on findings on an ongoing basis. The research comprised the following stages:1. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) including a review of relevant academic and grey literature; consultation with a panel of experts; interviews with flood reinstatement and property protection professionals; and interviews with occupants of properties where flood repairable measures have been adopted.2. An assessment of the costs and benefits of selected low cost flood repairable measures, and illustrative packages of measures.3. A demonstration project to explore innovative approaches that could be used by local agencies and businesses to address some of the barriers to the use of flood repairable measures. This made use of a co-design process, via the formation of the Tewkesbury ‘Learning and Action Alliance’ (LAA).The REA concluded that (in contrast to previous perceptions of repairable measures as a last resort for properties at highest risk) low cost repairable measures are widely applicable as part of an integrated approach to limiting the residual risk to individual properties that may also include water exclusion measures. Interviews as part of theREA showed repairability to be a pragmatic approach that can be applied incrementally at various windows of opportunity with lower financial barriers to implementation than alternative strategies. The assessment of costs and benefits of selected low cost flood repairable measures, and illustrative packages of measures, confirmed their potential cost effectiveness in limiting flood damage.The REA concluded that the weight of evidence supports the effectiveness of an ever expanding list of low cost resilience measures in limiting flood damage.However, there are also major gaps in evidence, and in communication and sharing of available evidence, reducing the confidence in implementation of measures within relevant trades and professionals, as well as by owners and occupiers directly. Key areas in urgent need of additional scientific evidence include: the implications ofdebris and contaminants in floodwater; the effect of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressure on ‘waterproof’ materials; and durability of resilient measures afterprolonged flood exposure. However, attention should also be directed towards further understanding the real performance of flood repairable measures in a variety of types of building before, during and after flooding.The REA and demonstration project both concluded that, in order for the potential benefits of repairable measures to be realised in practice, there will need to be a shiftin the repair and reinstatement process. Improved protocols (and incentives) are required that include clarity regarding the autonomy and responsibility of differentactors within the repair process to recommend adoption of repairable measures. The inception of Flood Re offers both a challenge and an opportunity in this regard. The research finds that there could be benefits to placing the specification of negligible cost and cost neutral measures within the professional remit of surveyors and contractors on the ground. To support this, improved technical guidance and training is needed to raise levels of understanding and awareness within the industry. The surveyors’ checklist, designed within the project, was seen as a useful contribution to this requirement. Improved confidence in appropriate measures could also be fostered through provision of exemplars and factsheets.The REA and demonstration project highlighted the potential importance of other windows of opportunity (outside the recovery period) in the take up of low cost floodrepairable measures. Insurance renewal and property transfer represent opportunities to raise awareness of measures at very low cost with minimal upskillingof professionals and may provide direct triggers to action. Other building work and redecoration opportunities are harder to target in terms of awareness raising,therefore a well-informed and up-skilled local ‘property support network’ (PSN) is needed, in order to spot opportunities to support uptake on an individual basis.Evaluation of the demonstration project innovations indicated that implementation was most successful in those innovations driven by members of the LAA, or hadsignificant input from members of the local PSN. Increased awareness of low cost flood resilience measures amongst LAA members was also achieved. Therefore the LAA model was seen as a potential platform to engage relevant local propertyexperts and agencies, and to empower them to encourage property level approaches.However, the REA evidence and that from the LAA meetings together with the evaluation of the surveyor’s checklist suggest that emotional barriers to implementation of low cost resilience are important. Use of repairable measures is a difficult concept, as it requires an acceptance that water might enter the property (home or business) and changes within the living space that might feel abnormal.Interviews with practitioner experts, together with an assessment of current regulations, suggest that making small adjustments to building regulations, relevantto passive avoidance and resilience, could aid normalisation of such measures. A greater focus on design and aesthetics aspects, and clearer guidance on the ways todeal with perceived contamination is also seen as important by professionals, the PSN and in the demonstration project. Finally, a wider framing of property level flooddamage reduction, with suggested schemes including both water entry and water exclusion measures was indicated by the interviews with homeowners and professionals and discussed by the LAA as helpful in addressing emotional barriers

The health and social benefits of nature and biodiversity protection : Executive summary

A report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039)201

The health and social benefits of nature and biodiversity protection

A report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039)201

Community resilience to climate change: an evidence review

The concept of community resilience to climate change in the UK has a diverse range of meanings and associated activities. This review of evidence and practice explores this varied and contested field to build the evidence base and help support the development of community resilience to climate change. The report shows: •the variety of actions being carried out across the UK that can be classed as improving resilience of communities to climate change; •the barriers and facilitators to improving resilience to climate change for communities; •the value of a framework to understand resilience of communities to climate change that emphasises existing capacities of communities, engagement and empowerment of citizens, and multi-level governance; and •examples of innovative actions to improve resilience of communities to climate change with a focus on four case studies, which are further explored in a separate report

Learning lessons for evaluating complexity across the nexus: A meta-evaluation of projects. CECAN Evaluation and Policy Practice Note (EPPN) No. 5 for policy analysts and evaluators

A major gap in policy making is learning the lessons from past interventions and integrating the lessons from evaluations that have been undertaken. A meta-evaluation, an evaluation of evaluation studies, was undertaken by Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd (CEP) as an intensive piece of research (July-November 2016) to provide early outputs as part of CECAN's scoping process. A sample of 23 projects (out of a total of 43) was selected on the basis of publicly available documentation (final evaluation reports) and current CEP staff with knowledge of those projects from across the nexus issues, including valuations of flood risk, biodiversity, landscape, land use, climate change, catchment management, community resilience, bioenergy, and EU Directives

‘Pieces of kit’ are not enough: the role of infrastructure in community resilience

Flood resilience is about the ability of people and places to cope with, recover from and adapt to flooding in ways that maintain quality of life and identities. In the past UK flood risk management prioritised engineering solutions to prevent flooding (barriers, walls, etc); today there is greater emphasis on resilience. Cutter et al (2010) developed a model that describes community resilience capacities/resources in terms of social, institutional, infrastructure and economic resilience along with community capital. This paper draws on the findings of an evaluation of thirteen flood resilience community ‘pathfinder’ projects run in England between 2013 – 2015, which aimed to enable and stimulate communities to develop innovative local solutions and improve resilience to flooding. Actions to improve flood infrastructure included installing property resilience measures or setting up community flood stores providing equipment to deal with emergencies. The paper explores the way that ‘infrastructure resilience capacities’ were developed and examines how physical infrastructure contributed to community flood resilience. It finds that the development of infrastructure resilience depends on strong relations between community members (‘community capital’) as well as relationships between community organisations and flood management institutions (‘institutional resilience’). The conclusions discuss the implications for infrastructure schemes in other places