Annual progress report - 2003 (pdf format) - Policy Studies Institute

Annex 1 (rev.) to Programme Director letter
INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS
(All relevant projects should have submitted reports by 31 Jan 2004)
Programme Name : Environment and Human Behaviour
Project Title : Crises as catalysts for adaptation: human response to major floods
Award No
: RES-221-25-0037
Award Holder(s) : Dr Clare L Johnson
Period of Report : 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003
Institution(s) : Middlesex University
Total ESRC Award : £40,488.17
Total co-funding of Award from outside ESRC (do not include HEFCE or University contributions):
None
Report Headings:
Aims and Methods of Research: (max ½ page)
The primary objective of this research was to develop an analytical model of the impact of 'floods as
crises' on long-term policy transition. To achieve this, the research expanded its theoretical
understanding of policy change, within the context of hazard research, and examined four natural
hazard crisis events; the 1947, 1953, 1998 and 2000 floods. The aims of which were:
• to examine the influence of each of the floods on changes to public policy and policy actions;
• to examine what influence the very different socio-economic and political context for each of the
floods has had on human behaviour and behavioural changes;
• to evaluate the influence of key actors on the policy change process; and,
• to examine how human behaviour towards the environment has changed over time in order to
highlight generic signals of human behaviour, which can influence changes in public policy.
The primary research method focused on the analysis of secondary data sources for the four case
studies concerned. This included:
• government documents arising from each of the floods;
• the reports, and consultation documents, associated with the official investigations into the 1953
(Waverley report), 1998 (Bye report) and 2000 floods (Lessons Learnt);
• the transcripts, proceedings and findings of the Waverley Committee (1953);
• cabinet papers, internal memorandums, letters and transcripts from the various government
departments in 1947 and 1953;
• reports by the chief engineers of each of the main River Boards in 1947;
• Hansard daily records of parliament for all four flood case studies;
• the evidence, consultations and reports of the Agricultural Select Committee (1998), its follow-up
(2000) and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Rural Affairs (2000);
• unpublished PPG 25 consultation documentation (2000);
• national and local media reports for all four floods; and,
• specific documentation from key actors and institutions, key historical texts, social trend data,
census data and case-study reports.

In addition, as of the end of December, seven semi-structured interviews have been conducted with
key actors involved in the 1953, 1998 and 2000 floods. These informants were either centrally
involved in the policy negotiation process or known to be knowledgeable of the flood hazard context,
policy changes and/or the policy negotiations that occurred. No such actor was available for the 1947
flood.
Confirmation Statement: (one paragraph confirming that research is being conducted as
anticipated in the initial contract with ESRC or as subsequently
agreed)
I can confirm that the research has been conducted in accordance with contract. Where this has
deviated slightly is in the theoretical developments associated with the project. By including a broad
theoretical understanding of the public policy and policy change literature, this has greatly enhanced
our understanding of the relationship between 'floods as crises' and changing policy. The actororiented
literature, which formed part of the original proposal, would not have been appropriate in this
context.
Highlights of the Research
and Important Findings: (max 1 page, referring to period of the report)
Research highlight: The impact of flood crises on long-term policy transition
The tied relationship between major floods and the demand by the public for a policy response is well
known (Parker, 2000; Tobin and Montz, 1997). However, what is not well known, is how and why
particular policy ideas emerge as policy change during certain contexts and crises, whilst others
remain in the 'policy-option pool'. By combining the extensive and applied research history in the
flood hazard and public policy research domains, with the detailed analysis of four case studies, this
project has augmented our theoretical understanding of the policy process in the flood hazard context.
The highlight of which is the fulfilment of the project objective: the development of a new analytical
model exploring the impact of flood crises on long-term policy transition.
As with all modelled relationships this is a simplification of the complex relationships between human
behaviour and the environment. However, based on the theoretical insights gained in this project, and
the case studies evaluated, the model is thought to be an important contribution to our understanding
of the relationships between key behavioural, contextual and environmental factors which, in
combination, influence policy as a result of crises. In this way, recognising the interaction between
these variables, and the dominance of certain relationships and variables over others, it offers the
potential to provide insight into, or signals of, the kinds of policy changes which might occur as a
result of future crises.
Important findings
Aim 1: The influence of major floods on changes in public policy
All four of the floods investigated resulted in changes in policy towards the flood hazard. However, in
all but one example, (the Storm Tide Warning System that emerged from the 1953 flood), these
changes did not reflect any 'new' policy ideas or fundamental changes in policy direction. Rather, the
floods served to act as a catalyst for increasing the rate at which a policy idea, already under
consideration prior to the flood, was given prominence and acted upon. In addition, our findings
suggest that it is not just the major floods investigated that have acted as catalysts for changing policy,
some minor floods can also be seen to have been influential in changing policy.

Aim 2: Context as a key determinant in policy response as a result of major flooding
Our findings provide further illustration of the importance of context in any evaluation of policy
responses as a result of crisis events in three important ways. Firstly, we found that the availability of
technology, information, and knowledge at the time of each of the floods significantly influenced the
policy ideas which existed for managing the flood risk. Secondly, the values, beliefs and attitudes of
the dominant actors influenced which of the available policy ideas were engaged as policy change
options in the agenda-setting process, although many other factors affected which were prioritised and
implemented. Here, the distinction between incremental and catalytic policy change proved valuable:
by understanding the incremental changes in policy, and the underlying values and beliefs that these
represent, the historic developments in attitudes towards the flood hazard provided important
contextual understanding of policy behaviour at times of crisis. Finally, the socio-economic,
institutional and political context at the time of each flood was, unsurprisingly, found to be key
contextual factors in determining policy response.
Aim 3: The influence of key actors on the policy change process
In each of the floods, two or three actors, not necessarily previously engaged in the flood policy
domain, played prominent roles in ensuring that certain policy ideas dominated the agenda setting
process. This did not, however, represent a radical shift in policy thinking. Rather, these individuals
were able to develop their policy ideas within a receptive environment. Or, put another way, they were
able to influence which policies were germinated from the policy seed-bed. In this way, our research
has illustrated the importance of key actors for influencing which ideas become policy, but this can
only be achieved where there is general consensus to these ideas in the first place.
Aim 4: How human behaviour towards the environment has changed over time - generic signals of
human behaviour and policy change.
Policy towards the flood hazard in England and Wales has evolved both incrementally and
catalytically over the past 50 years or so. Our research has highlighted the importance of
understanding the incremental if we are to offer any understanding of potential changes in light of
rapid climate change events. Key influencing factors in this process appear to be a combination of
contextual (information, knowledge, technology, social, political, economic), behavioural (values,
attitudes, beliefs) and environmental drivers (scientific knowledge-base, extreme events). Within this
complexity, seeking generic signals of change in any of these factors, which might lead to changing
policy in the future, is a complex task indeed. However, by monitoring change in the drivers seen as
so critical in the past, this can provide a more informed understanding of the ideas which, in the event
of a crisis, might lead to changing policy in the future. For example, if changing knowledge about, and
attitudes towards, technology resulted in incremental increases in the funding of flood warning
technological research and development, this would be a 'signal' of potential changes in policy directed
towards flood warnings, and flood warning technology in particular, in the event of a major flood.
Changes to Original Award: (max ½ page, on any changes to the award holder(s), research
staff or institution since the award commenced)
No changes to report
Research Staff:
(max ½ page with names, status and period of appointment and
details of any research staff associated with this project not
funded under the programme award)
As set out in the original proposal, Professor Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Head of the Flood Hazard
Research Centre, has been involved throughout the project in a non-funded capacity. This was in
accordance with the original contract.

Publications:
(list all publications from the research to date or in preparation,
give author, editor, publisher and date)
Johnson, C.L., Tunstall, S.M. and Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (2003) 'A model of incremental and catalytic
policy change: from land drainage to flood risk management'. Flood Hazard Research Centre working
paper, Middlesex University. (Note: to be developed for journal publication).
Tunstall, S.M., Johnson, C.L., Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (2004) Flood hazard management in England
and Wales: from land drainage to flood risk management. Paper accepted for presentation at the
World Congress on Natural Disaster Mitigation, 19-21 February, New Dehli, India.
Johnson, C.L. and Ekins, P. (2003) Theoretical approaches to policy change and human behaviour.
ESRC Environment and Human Behaviour Inter-programme workshop report, 1st October, 2003.
(Note: to be made available on the programme website).
Engagement with potential
Research Users (outside the
academic community):
(max ½ page describing involvement of users in the research
process and/or dissemination of outcomes with particular
relevance to users, during the period of the report. Give specific
examples and future plans you may have)
The initial research design included a consultative advisory group consisting of two end-users and one
academic. These individuals have been asked to comment on ideas developed and have all received
the publications that have been produced to-date.
The seven interviews so far completed have all been with influential end-users in the flood hazard
policy domain, including local level action group representatives as well as individuals in formal
institutions of governance such as the ODPM, Defra and the Environment Agency. This end-user
involvement has been critical to the research process and it is our intention that all respondents will be
provided with a summary of the research outcomes when available. This is in accordance with our
proposal, which stated our intention to distribute 25 copies of the final report to the end-user
community.
A wide variety of end-users from Defra, the Environment Agency, Local Authority's, Local Flood
Action Groups and Independent Consultants have been actively consulted about the project in an
informal capacity at individual meetings and at three policy-related conferences attended by members
of the research team. These include: 'The European North Sea Flood Conference - the 1953 floods and
beyond'. Norwich, 30th January, 2003; 'The Big Flood: North Sea Storm Surges. The Royal Society,
London. 23 May, 2003; 'European Flooding: Managing the risks'. CIWEM conference, June 17th-
18th, 2003.
We have already presented preliminary findings to the Royal Geographical Society Annual
Conference (September, 2003), we have plans to present further results to a range of end-users and
academics at the forthcoming World Congress on Natural Disaster Mitigation in India (February,
2004), and to staff at HR Wallingford in April 2004. Where appropriate, we also intend to disseminate
the research findings at user-oriented conferences and meetings, such as those organised by CIWEM
and Defra.

Contribution to Programme
(max 1 page)
Principal cross-programme contribution: The most significant cross-programme initiative we
instigated was the organising and running of a workshop in October, 2003 entitled: Theoretical
Approaches to Policy Change and Human Behaviour. The rationale for which was to highlight the
frameworks, models and theories being employed by the various projects in an attempt to gain insight
into the links between human behaviour and environmental change. Based on the presentations and
discussions that ensued, it was clear that no single theoretical perspective would satisfy the diversity of
projects and perspectives. Instead, Dr Johnson developed a framework which set out the main factors,
in three realms, that seem critical to understanding the environment-human behaviour relationship
(Johnson & Ekins, 2003, Figure 2). This model has, in turn, been used to help frame the contributions
and insights from all 15 projects. For as Johnson & Ekins state: 'The hope will be that this map will
allow conclusions, however tentative, to be drawn about the kinds of interventions that may be
required for particular kinds of changes to take place (Johnson and Ekins, 2003:17).
Project contribution to generic programme research questions:
Why do people behave as they do towards the natural environment? Our research highlights the
significance of pre-flood contexts in determining the 'type' of policy responses available, and their
political acceptability, at times of major floods. It also illustrates the significance of the scientific
knowledge base and technological context as key determinants in the range of policy ideas that may be
available to decision-makers in response to such floods. Similarly, it illustrates the influence of key
actors in prioritising which of the policy ideas in the 'policy option-pool' to germinate and which
remain in the 'seed-bed'. In short, therefore, our research suggests that people behave as they do
towards the natural environment due to a complex inter-relationship between environmental,
contextual and behavioural factors which are historically embedded, constantly changing (even if only
incrementally), and liable to change at times of environmental crises - in our case a major flood.
How will people seek to adapt their behaviour in response to environmental change? In each of the
case studies investigated, the key actors were not found to significantly alter their behaviour during, or
in the immediate aftermath, of the flood. However, when looked at from a longer time horizon, each
of the case studies provided evidence of changing policy as a direct consequence of the flood.
Therefore, recognising the political unacceptability of inaction, due in no small part to the role of the
media, MPs and other actors previously disengaged from the policy discourse, major floods will result
in a change in public policy behaviour. In this sense, adaptation will always be reactive to
environmental change. However, in all but one example, this adaptation was not a 'new' idea but
merely an increase in the rate of policy change, and in some cases the toughening of policy guidance.
Hence, the flood acted as a catalyst for speeding-up, and informing, a policy change process based on
ideas already in existence prior to the flood. Thus, we can tentatively conclude that a rapid
environmental change event forces people to address policy needs but any changes to this policy tend
to be based on prior knowledge and ideas.
What policy approaches might persuade people to change their behaviour? This question was not
directly addressed in our research. However, where policy options in the past have sought to protect
people from flooding this has encouraged development in floodplains and caused surprise, and anger,
when this protection has failed. Within the modern climate of flood risk management, a more multidimensional
approach to managing the flood risk is now envisaged. To change behaviour, people need
to be aware of the risk and aware of the options available for managing this risk. Therefore, an
indirect result of our research is the illustration of the importance of policies which raise public
awareness. Without this basic awareness there is unlikely to be positive changes in people's behaviour
towards the flood hazard. However, finding which adaptations that are likely to be successful is as
much about understanding behaviour as it is about policy persuasion.

Detailed Progress:
(max 1 page to cover:
(i) brief résumé of the development of the research since the
start of the award
(ii) if this is not the first progress report, main developments
since the last report
(iii) any difficulties encountered e.g. in staffing, access, data
analysis
(iv) changes introduced or envisaged in the research objectives
or methodology
(v) an estimate of how far the original timetable will be met).
(i) Brief résumé
The initial research design drew heavily on the theoretical underpinnings of actor-oriented research
when applied to the hazard field. This guided the development of a hazard-response model of policy
negotiation as an adaptation of the contextual decision model produced by Penning-Rowsell (1996).
As the project developed, it soon became clear that this design failed to offer insight in two important
ways.
Firstly, the original design did not adequately address why and how actor negotiation resulted in
changes to policy. Therefore, alongside the need to undertake case study research, which directly
contributed to the key aims and objectives of the research, it was clear that an understanding of the
public policy and policy change literature was required. A broad literature base was consulted
resulting in an important concept paper which specifically addressed the impact of crises on changing
policy (Johnson et al, 2003). Central to this theoretical insight was the development of a 'new'
theoretical model of incremental and catalytic change (Johnson et al, 2003).
Having incorporated this 'new' model into the case study evaluation, this meant that the proposed
actor-analysis, which focused on changes in individual actor behaviour prior to, during, and
immediately following a major flood, would no longer be appropriate. Instead, analysis centred on the
way in which the underlying beliefs, values and attitudes of the dominant coalition of actors, in each
context, enabled certain ideas to dominate the policy agenda process. Therefore, rather than seeking to
evaluate changing attitudes and perceptions of all stakeholders, only those key actors regarded as
critical to the policy change process were evaluated.
Secondly, the original research design did not adequately address the underlying changes to flood
policy over the fifty-year period in which our four case studies were located. As the case study
analysis unfolded it soon became clear that to understand each flood in context, such a broad
understanding of policy change, as incremental change, would be necessary. Whilst a detailed
analysis of all the possible influences on this incremental change, and their causes, was beyond the
remit of our project, a basic understanding of the change in values, beliefs and attitudes towards the
flood hazard over time was conducted (Tunstall et al, 2003)
As it currently stands, all of the secondary data analysis has been completed along with seven of the
ten interviews proposed. It is our intention to conduct the final three interviews within the next three
to four weeks. We are in the process of writing the final report, which will accompany the ESRC end
of award report. There is no reason, at present, to assume that this will not be completed on time (due
31-03-04).

(ii) Main developments since last report. Not applicable
(iii) Difficulties encountered: None
(iv) Changes to objectives or methodology: The developments in our theoretical understanding have
resulted in one change to our original research design; although this has not affected our objectives or
the methods used. In our proposal we said we would provide a human behaviour timeline for seven
sets of actors covering the period immediately before, during, and after each flood. This was
attempted but these actors rarely changed their position in the timeframe investigated. Therefore, only
those individual actors regarded as 'key policy entrepreneurs' were analysed in any detail in each case
study. This was in part because a detailed human behaviour timeline with clear causal links to the
flood was not plausible and in part because such an analysis was not in keeping with our theoretical
developments.
(v) Timetable: We have three interviews still to complete and the final report to write. This is
expected to be completed by the end of February.