Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme
Research Proposal Form
Code: Progs Team to provide
Coastal community engagement
Primary Theme:
Cross Cutting Area:
PSI
1
AM
IMM
Coastal
1
Local Flood Risk
Res Safety
2
Natural Procs
2
Enter 1 for primary theme or x cutting area and 2, 3 etc. for links to any further theme or x cutting area
Joint Programme Research Proposal Form Version 8
Page 1 of 4
Context
There are communities around the UK coastline for whom structural measures of coastal flood and
erosion risk protection are not viable in the long term and therefore there is a need to adapt. This may
include a change in policy option e.g. to ‘No active intervention’ or ‘Managed Realignment’ and in some
cases the use of alternative softer mamangement solutions Either way, to be successful collaborative
working and communinity engagement is key.
The National Planning Policy Framework states where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so
existing developments may not be sustainable in the long-term, opportunities to help the relocation of
development may need to be considered. The Environment Agency has started work with Area colleagues
and Defra to review the existing suite of SMPs to identify the key weaknesses and risks to delivery, and is
helping to steer a more in-depth review of property relocation and finance mechanisms used in the
Coastal Change Adaptation Pathfinders to identify workable techniques for local authorities.
Delivery of the 6 year Long Term Investment Strategy will provide protection in the medium term to many
coastal communities but we need to work with vulnerable communities to help them make decisions on
their long term future. It is known that working with communities to co-create approaches to reducing
flood risk is effective in developing solutions that work for and are accepted by communities. However,
there are challanges to instigating those conversations and to decision-making including:




Making decisions in light of uncertain climate change futures
Making decisions in the context of legislation or planning regulations which are not sufficiently
flexible to cover climate change adaptation needs
Understanding and managing the social dimensions of change when large-scale relocation of
communities may be required
Facilitating conversations and creating partnerships which lead to innovative solutions or
adaptation scenarios.
Collating examples of best practice in the UK and overseas on engaging and helping communities adapt to
climate change will provide an evidence base on which community engagement strategies can be
designed. However, there is also a need to pilot and monitor engagement in coastal contexts to determine
which methods work and where innovative techniques or approaches may be required.
This project would aim to assist in the design and running of community engagement in a coastal area
where there are complex decisions to be made in managing long term flood and coastal erosion risk,
either due to the need to relocate a community or stop the maintenance of structure defences leading to
a need for new solutions. The project would monitor the progress of the engagement and answer
questions including:




Are flood risk authorities able to create a single effective partnership to bring a conversation to a
community?
How do we effectively present the scenario, in terms of content and delivery mechanisms?
How well are we setting our engagment goals in these flood risk scenarios?
How do we instigate conversations around the uncertain elements of climate change and how these
impact upon decision making?
Natural Resources Wales are planning to run public dialogues around future coastal flood risk
management. This project could compliment and link to such work. This project could also link to and
draw from the Communities at Risk pilots underway in Hull and Grimsby, where new materials and
community engagement approaches are being trialed.
Joint Programme Research Proposal Form Version 8
Page 2 of 4
Overall Objective
To gather together best practice examples from the UK and abroad over engagement, communication and decision
making techniques with coastal communities.
To design, pilot and monitor the first 9-12 months of a community engagement programme in a coastal community
where sea level rise, changes in SMP policy option and / or maintenance changes are resulting in increases in flood
or coastal erosion risk in the medium to long term.
Key outcomes
Better understanding of the content and delivery approaches which are more likely to result in successful
relationships and decision making for coastal communities.
Better understanding of the attributes of a partnership which can deliver the community engagement needs.
Priority of outcomes:
Type of benefit:
High
Economy
X
Medium
Effectiveness
Low
X
Expected impact
This project would benefits both flood risk authorities and NGOs involved in working with
coastal communities. It would gather together ideas about what partnerships, information
content and engagement approaches help with the difficult conversations around uncertain
futures.
The work can feed into strategic engagement planning within local authorities, Environment
Agency and NRW.
Improved engagement may also lead to more innovative solutions to managing flood and
coastal erosion risk which have been recognised as lacking in some coastal locations.
Drivers for this work
The challenges of this kinds of community engagement have been identified by the
Environment Agency FCRM Engagement team, by Graham Wilson, Environment Agency
East Coast Programme manager, Amanda Paton, NRW Flood Awareness Manager and
the Welsh Government.
There are many communities around the coast where difficult conversations are
required but there is little evidence to assist local teams in understanding which
techniques to adopt.
X
Efficiency
Score
5 =, clealy defined
benefits, established
method, builds on
existing work
3 = change required,
route unclear, benefits
only partly clear
1 = benefits unclear,
large change required,
customer not ready
Score
5 = needed to meet
legislative requirement /
filling key evidence gap /
improving value for
money evidence /
enhancing accountability
3 = part of continuous
improvement
1 = benefits unclear,
large change
Joint Programme Research Proposal Form Version 8
Page 3 of 4
Risk(s) associated with not carrying out this research
Score
The risk in not doing this work are that:



There may be delays and inefficiencies in starting such engagement as
individual local teams attempt to gather best practices and engagement design
ideas themselves
If poor designs or approaches to engagement take place, it takes a long time to
rebuild relationship; understanding potential pitfalls could reduce that risk.
There may be delays to engagement as team lack the evidence which provides
confidence in how to approach these conversations.
5 = key deadline is
missed, , opportunity to
influence policy/business
is missed
3 = science stays a step
ahead of business need,
future underpinning
evidence
1 = work will wait
pipeline for research not
clear
Business End Users
Use the tick-boxes to highlight main beneficiaries:
Non-governmental X
Government Agencies X
Local Authorities X
Water Co’s & UKWIR
-
Research Councils -
Academia -
IDB’s -
Others (name below)
-
Click here to enter text.
Who will benefit from the research?
Include named people and roles and identify links to Strategies/Operational staff/External
Institutions/Collaborations etc.
Sign-off
Prepared by:
Jacqui Cotton, with contributions from Graham
Wilson +others
Endorsed by Business Sponsor:
Enter name here
Date
Approved by Programme Manager:
Enter name here
Click to add
dateClick to add
date
Joint Programme Research Proposal Form Version 8
Click for date
Page 4 of 4