Log in
Throughout the REF period our research - driven by risk assessment theory - has provided a continuously updated set of unique models, data and techniques for assessing the benefits of UK flood alleviation investment. These have been used to justify all flood alleviation investment for the whole of the UK for the whole of the REF period (c. £3bn), as well as for the previous 30 years. Our work has been central to all assessments by Defra and the Environment Agency (EA) of national flood risk (Foresight; NaFRA (England, Wales, and Scotland); LTIS) and all the Catchment Flood Management Plans for England and Wales. The research is also used in Scotland (by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, SEPA), by international and national insurers (e.g. through Risk Management Solutions Ltd), and in many other countries.
This research has demonstrated the effectiveness of an experimental method of public engagement - Competency Groups (CGs) - in situations in which the expertise involved in managing flood risk is called into question by the communities living with such risk. Working in two test areas (Ryedale, Yorkshire and the Uck catchment, Sussex) it has enabled novel research collaborations between scientists and concerned citizens that have generated bespoke flood models and new flood management options. The work of the Ryedale CG and the `upstream storage' proposals that it generated were incorporated into a successful multi-agency bid to a national competition launched by Defra for a project to test new flood management solutions for Pickering, and are now under construction in the catchment. Having become a national exemplar, the reach of the Competency Group approach in tackling public controversies about environmental expertise continues to extend beyond these two areas, within the UK and also abroad.
Exceptional rainfall in June 2007 lead to widespread flood damage in the UK; Hull was particularly badly affected with 8600 houses and 1300 businesses flooded, the closure of schools and cancellation of many events. At the instigation of the City Council, Hull University geographers produced two influential reports that explained how and why the flooding happened and what might be done to improve flood readiness for the future.
The reports had impact at a national scale. They fed into the findings of the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (published 7 May 2008) and the Pitt Report (a Government Independent Review, published 25 June 2008), which were both tasked with addressing the summer 2007 floods. Significant elements of `The Flood and Water Management Act' (2010), which was enacted subsequently, were informed by our research.
The reports also impacted at the regional scale. Their findings were adopted by Hull City Council, the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water. Therefore, our research also shaped several practical strategies to improve flood prevention policies and minimise danger, damage, distress and expense in future floods.
Our research and resulting impacts extend across a wide range of flooding problems, from localised urban floods to river bas in flooding. The under pinning research ranges from extending the evidence base, to improved rainfall estimates, and to advances in hydrological and hydraulic models. The impact of our research has been through the creation and application of new methodologies (e.g. AOFD) and software tools (e.g., TSRSim) for the design and analysis of flood management systems in the UK and internationally, via joint projects with consulting engineering companies, and through the influence of our research on national and regional policies towards improved land use management practices (e.g., Glastir, Wales).
Contingency planning to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies, including natural disasters such as flooding, is a priority for all governments. However, such planning has traditionally focussed on risk assessment and emergency response, with recovery conceived of solely in terms of repairs to infrastructure and short-term health protection. Consequently, residents' needs for support during the longer-term recovery process hardly featured at all in policy prior to our research, which has provided new insights into the nature of disaster recovery. Starting from a focussed case study of the 2007 floods in Hull, we have delivered leading research that has advanced understanding of the social, economic and practical challenges faced by people impacted by disasters. Our research has transformed the ways in which policy makers understand and manage the human impacts of the recovery from natural disasters. It has had a key role in shaping guidance, strategy and practice not only in UK responses, but globally, for example informing Australian authorities to improve their responses to both floods and bush-fires. Our impact was recognized by the ESRC in 2013, winning second place for Outstanding Impact in Public Policy, in their first ever `Celebrating Impact' awards.
This case study concerns the impact of interdisciplinary research on policies and practices to support river restoration and the aims of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), which requires member states to bring riverine hydromorphology and ecology to 'good' status by 2015, measured against a reference condition. The research achieved impact through an evolving process of co-production, in that academics engaged with user communities from the outset. Richards, Hughes and Horn (Department of Geography, University of Cambridge) worked closely with users to design a knowledge transfer guidebook to communicate restoration science to users.
This was distributed amongst Environment Agency (EA) staff to aid the planning and implementation of restoration projects. Further impacts included promoting floodplain restoration for flood risk management (Richards, as a member of an EA Regional Flood and Coastal Commitee); a rapid assessment method for river quality (Richards and Horn) that forms the basis of cross-boundary WFD compliance practices across the whole of Ireland; and knowledge transfer of EU WFD ecological assessment practices to China (Richards).
Improved flood risk modelling based on the application of research led by Keith Beven at Lancaster has had global impacts in improved flood defence policies and planning by governments, and in assisting insurers with their underwriting (for example in pricing and policy decisions). The benefits are not just financial — they are human too: improved understanding of flood risk and resilience protects life and assets, and has a positive impact on the well-being of many of those at risk. These impacts are at the centre of flood risk management across the UK, are being applied in nine other European countries, and now becoming the methods of choice for flood mapping in developing countries such as Thailand.
Over 5.5 million people in England and Wales live with flood risk. Research conducted at the University of Surrey illustrates for the first time how exposure to, and experience of, this risk is unequally distributed in the population, often varying along existing lines of social inequality and vulnerability.
The findings of this research have had significant impacts on national strategy and policy.
Surrey's research has been used to change the Environment Agency's flood warning codes and messages throughout the UK, as well as to inform the next Flood Incident Management Investment Strategy. Furthermore, the research has been drawn on by Collingwood Environmental Planning in developing an evidence base for the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment for Defra.
Research by the University of Southampton into river processes and restoration has contributed significantly to the adoption of fluvial geomorphology as a tool for river management. The research quantified for the first time, the cost of sediment management in rivers to the UK economy and environment, arguing that improvements could be achieved by applying fluvial geomorphology. The research developed new evidence, tools and training that were adopted by river management agencies and consultants for the scoping, assessment and planning of projects. This has resulted in cost-savings through reduced river maintenance, improved river environments, and the creation of a new employment market for graduates with geomorphological training.
This impact case emerges from a series of research projects in the Philosophy Department at the University of Manchester (UoM) concerned with limitations in the market modes of governance that are increasingly dominant in environmental policy making. The primary impact has been on current policy debates concerning the future of flood insurance in the UK. In collaboration with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the research provided a philosophical grounding for those amongst flood affected communities, and the insurance industry, who have argued against a risk sensitive free market in insurance and for solidarity in flood insurance. This has had a significant impact on Government negotiations on the future of flood insurance — a pressing issue, as the current policy lapses in 2013 — as well as the position of the opposition Labour Party. Subsidiary impacts have been evident on the work of international NGOs working on environmental justice and debates on emerging biodiversity offset markets.