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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Page 1: Annex 1 (rev.) to Programme Directo
Page 5 and 6: Contribution to Programme (max 1 pa
Page 7: (ii) Main developments since last r

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?