Community Action:From top-down to bottom-up solutions
Fuad Ali, Duncan Thomas, Robby Soetanto and Aaron Mullins
What are the interactions betweenhouseholders, SMEs and decision-makers
regarding extreme weather events?
How can they inform attemptsto improve community resilience to EWEs?
Outline
Current adaptation scenario‘Post-LCLIP’ tool
Idealised vs actual situationsLocal authority ecology
Time horizonsSocial responsibility
Synthesis
Current Adaptation Scenario
• EW Events, Pitt Review, ‘snow tuning’• Legislative Entanglement
– Civil Contingencies – Climate Change – Planning, Flood
• National regime transition– Localism– Deficit Reduction– National Indicator removal– New local authority responsibilities (pluvial flood, health)
“Like all other local government departments in the country, my resources are virtually nil and I am being squeezed even harder at the moment .... but Climate Change adaptation cannot be implemented in a top down manner ... You need to get buy-in from the bottom.”
Climate change manager
“It’s all doom and gloom here at the moment!”Flood planning officer
Top-down approach: No resources, not practical
Top-down view: The ‘adapted citizen’
– Knows where to go for information– Knows about local flooding initiatives – Knows steps for local community to become as resilient as possible– Knows about local council actions, local planning, local MP actions, Central
Govt actions– Knows their local vulnerable people, ready to help them– Knows local risks at street level– Part of an active community network– High preparedness before a flood, insured against flooding– High awareness of potential flooding impacts on own home...
Sound like anyone you know?
‘Post LCLIP’ Tool
• Carries insights from the CREW experience• To be done by office of Chief Exec (or Deputy)
– Not an intern, a junior or a consultant• Sensitive to varying local authority ecologies• Flexible, policy-change proof • Foregrounds history, LA’s expertise/capacity • Inclusive and outward
Inter-relations:Idealised conception
DM
SME HH
The state can be expected to protect us from extreme
weather.
Citizen-state relations.Political liability.
Governmentality of environment, security
and community.
Are they going to charge me for anything?Why aren’t they clearing the drains?
Vulnerable stakeholderVital to local economy.
Corporate social responsibility
Community spirit.
Inter-relations:Actual situation
DM
SME HH
Seldom hear from council unless its over rates. Flood affected would appreciate solidarity.LA is viewed as a trustworthy source.
Difficult to ‘engage’. Need to drill down to that level after
big fish.
Customers understand our situation
Contradictory messages.Inadequate drain clearing.Support for local organisations diminishing.Ambiguity over social responsibility
Engagement costs. Blue rinse brigade. Public prefers to talk about anything else
Local businesses are part of the community
Local Authority:Adaptation Ecology
Drainage
Emergency Planning
Sustainability
Planning
Air Quality
Adaptation
Local Authority:Drivers
Climate Change Act 2008
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
EU Flood Directive NI188SFRA
Flood and Water Management Act 2010
The Environment Act 1995
PPS25 Development and Flood Risk
Local Resilience ForaDuty of care
Drainage
Emergency Planning
Planning
Air Quality
Sustainability
Adaptation
DRAIN
Section 106
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Nottingham Declaration
NPPF
Local Authority:Service provision
Drainage
Emergency Planning
Sustainability
Planning
Air Quality
EducationIT
Housing Waste
Adaptation
Local Authority:Multiple points of entry
Residents Association
Housing Association
Local History
Residential Social Landlord
Church-based Organisation
Drainage
Emergency Planning
Sustainability
Planning
Air Quality
River society
Transition Town
Local business associations
Implications of a complex bureaucratic space
Adaptation
Decision-makers:Differing time horizons
EmployeeChurn
Policy refresh
ElectionCycle
Time
Perceived importance
Planning Cycle
Hot issue
Slow burn
τ
Inter-relations: Social Responsibility
• Psychological exploration perceptions of social responsibility within and between stakeholderso Qualitative and quantitative methodso 481 completed questionnaires o 3 sites in Birmingham (incl control), 1 in SE Londono 174 cognitive mapping transcripts
• Variables includedo role o age, gender o ethnicityo prior experienceo location,o Social Responsibility scores
• Conceptual model of perceptions of social responsibility
Findings: Social Responsibility
Underpinning perceptions Powerlessness
Societal Duty
Each stakeholders self-rated their own social responsibility higher than each other group
Gender: no difference
Age: elder sections reported greater social responsibility
Ethnicity: differentially reported level of social responsibility brought out by experience
Conclusions
o Shift to event and locally led adaptationo More inclusive adaptation conversationo Scope for greater LA role after EW eventso Better understanding LA self image and organisational
ecologyo LA view of local citizenry and CBO base
o Multiple points of entryo Leverage borough-wide interconnectionso Structural differences
o Findings carried by ‘post-LCLIP’ tool
Top Related