Active learning: building the capacity to adapt urban drainage to ...

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Active learning: building the capacity to adapt urban drainage to climate change R.M.Ashley1*, R Newman1, S Molyneux-Hodgson2, J Blanksby1 1

Pennine Water Group, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 3JD, England, UK. 2 Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield. *Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Responding to climate change entails mitigation of and adaptation to the effects. This is especially important for flood risk management. Traditional approaches in this area include large engineering of flood defence infrastructure planned, designed and implemented by engineers and funded through specific governance and institutional arrangements. Unfortunately in the future such approaches are likely to be unaffordable and also unspecifiable given the likely effects and uncertainty of climate change. There needs to be better engagement of all those impacted by changing flood risk in the processes of mitigation and adaptation. This will require new ways of working between stakeholders: commitment to continuing active learning and partnerships and collaborations via learning alliances. For this to come about the professional and institutional stakeholders will have to behave differently in regard to the public and community stakeholders; being more inclusive and willing to share knowledge at an appropriate level. Lessons are drawn from two case studies in the UK about active learning and the relationship with adaptive approaches to changing flood risk due to climate change.

KEYWORDS Active learning, case studies, flood risk management, learning alliances, stakeholders,

INTRODUCTION We now face an unprecedented challenge in addressing future flood risk and society’s expectations as to what can be done about it. Each and every one of us will experience a failure of our dwelling’s drainage systems in our lifetimes due to extreme events that will become more common in the future. This will encourage us to become more aware of the performance of the drainage systems where we live and work and, over time, to be more engaged in the processes that affect this performance and hence more able to adapt (Ashley et al, 2007). This is an example of ‘active learning’ – which is actually nothing new, but simply a convenient way of drawing attention to the need for all stakeholders to continually reappraise the performance of services and infrastructure and respond to changing risks. “Without active stakeholder involvement an adaptive management process is unlikely to be effective” (Williams et al, 2007). Storms and floods are now the most frequent and costly extreme weather events occurring in Europe, with floods causing around €15bn of economic damage in 2002 (CEA, 2007). Responding to increasing flood risk has traditionally been based on flood defence measures. Recently in the UK, as the result of a large number of studies, this approach has been recognised as impractical to deal with the pace and scale of future risk increases (e.g. Evans at

R.M.Ashley et al

1

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 al, 2004b; CEA, 2007; Watkinson et al, 2007). Instead the policy is to manage risk better and includes responses that: mitigate the effects by addressing the source of climate (and other) changes; adapt to the effects by reducing society’s vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, which can include e.g. better flood protection and stronger land-use planning. Although smaller infrastructural and non-structural adaptation measures, such as source control, are now of growing relevance to addressing Flood Risk Management (FRM), the provision of large infrastructure is still going to be required to adapt and may consequently lead to problems of increased carbon emissions (explicit or embodied), ironically reducing the effectiveness of mitigation attempts. Flood receptors (people, property, nature) have historically been able to adapt and the history of human society shows that communities have been aware of the need to live with flooding and have adapted through experience. However, the need to adapt local drainage systems to changing risks due to climate change is not apparent to many and an urban area dweller may hold the view that any such risk is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with by the agencies that provide ‘water’ services. In the UK, many dwellers in these areas are routinely insured and adaptation may simply mean the need to increase (or pay more for) their cover in the light of increasing future risks. However, insurers are now re-appraising their position in areas where local drainage flooding is becoming more common and such insurance may in future become too expensive in the UK (ABI, 2007; Crichton, 2007). Yet, many dwellers remain unaware of this likelihood and do not act to address it. Active learning can develop the capacity by different stakeholder groups to both accept a different view on risk and performance and also to be able to utilise different types of response and at different times of implementation. At the same time, it can save costs on adapting to future changes (Ingham et al, 2006). In the context of future flood risk, this means that decision makers and other concerned actors need to become as well informed as possible in order to implement responses – whether mitigation or adaptation – that are appropriate at the right time. These need to be ‘no-regret’ in that these responses should be potentially reversible – or abandonable – if they are found to be inappropriate or ineffective or inefficient in the light of future knowledge. Such an approach is challenging especially to the professionals engaged in flood risk management. For them the possession of ‘good knowledge’ about future environmental drivers (e.g. data about historical rainfall telling us about future conditions) and the effectiveness of responses (e.g. experience in designing and building flood related infrastructure) has been fundamental to the delivery of ‘sustainable’ infrastructure in the past. Crucially, the question is: should we go ahead with implementing a response to an increasing flood risk at a certain time, or defer any action until we have more knowledge? Doing nothing now may result in gradually increasing and unacceptable risk. A number of studies undertaken by the Pennine Water Group have looked at flood risk management and how best to develop adaptive strategies to respond. These have shown that the most important attribute for adaptability is capacity, both of the actors and the associated infrastructure used in response to risk (e.g. Ashley et al, 2008). For the actors, the need to become ‘active learners’ is paramount, and although not a new concept for many of the professionals involved, still requires a new approach from what has been done in the past. In addition, the challenge in developing capacity is both individual and corporate, in that each of the actors who are affected by flood risk or are effecting responses thereto, has freedom of action, but can only respond according to their capacity to do so. But, independently of the prevailing economic strictures, often individual freedom of action is constrained by the

2

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 institutional, social or cultural boundaries within which the actors are embedded. These issues are explored here with reference to two contrasting UK case studies.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDIES There are 3 groups of types of stakeholder engaged in these processes in the UK, shown as Classes A, B and C in Table 1. Each of these requires different approaches to develop and sustain the capacity to manage flood risks and for the associated active learning required to support this. Capacity to cope with increasing flood risk is required by each of these as illustrated in Table 2 which shows a typology of possible adaptation strategies linked to responsibility and need for capacity, developed in the AUDACIOUS project for smaller community areas (Ashley et al, 2008) based on (EEA, 2007). Table 1 stakeholder groups interested in flood risk management (UK based) Class A Property users B Property managers C Government and agents

Stakeholder group Householders; Community groups; Property owners; Commerce; Industry (may overlap with B); Public services (may overlap with C) Facilities managers; Property surveyors; Developers ; Insurers/mortgage providers; Some architects Local Authorities (inc. architects and planners); Highways operators; Rail operators; Environment Agency; Sewerage undertakers; Specialist Consultants’ including land management and conservation; Academics and researchers; Government departments

The lessons are presented here from two main case studies that have been undertaken under different administrative and institutional regimes, one in Scotland and the other in England. Although both part of the UK, the approach in these two countries to FRM is entirely different due to the differing legal system and institutional arrangements. The major elements illustrating these differences are given in Table 3. The Scottish case study is part of an EU Eranet CRUE project that has investigated the applicability of non-structural responses to FRM in Glasgow (a major Scottish City) on behalf of the Scottish Government (Newman et al, 2008). In England, the case study is one of the Government department (Defra, Department for environment, food and rural affairs) sponsored ‘Making Space for Water’ Integrated Urban Drainage pilot studies (Defra, 2008) for the town of West Garforth in Yorkshire in the north of England. In Glasgow, catastrophic flooding in 2002 from all sources (river, sewers and coastal interactions) has led to the development of the ‘Glasgow Strategic Drainage Plan’ (GSDP) and caused a complete re-think of the way in which FRM is undertaken in Scotland. Whereas the study in Yorkshire has investigated a localised problem of responsibility for annual flooding that occurs from an under capacity stormwater culvert, owned by more than 200 individuals. Work with stakeholders in these studies has been used to illustrate the scale and variety of needs for developing an active learning culture on the part of the many actors: experiencing flooding and; engaged in FRM, in order to generate the required adaptive capacity.

ADAPTATION AND ACTORS INVOLVED Adaptation is the process that entails responding to largely unpredictable short timescale changes in demands on urban drainage systems. When coping resilience (defined here as the ability to recover after an external event) is exceeded, adaptation is needed. Adaptation targets both vulnerability and exposure to climate change hazards.

R.M.Ashley et al

3

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Table 2. Adaptation strategies, learning and capacity building (adapted from EEA, 2007) Adaptation type 1. Share losses from event

Insurance; Novel financial products to lay-off risks; Diversify activities, range and scale of assets etc

Responsibility in local urban area Dweller, property and business owner, financial service provider

2. Bear loss

Accept damage and impacts and live with these. May require property relocation.

Dweller, property owner and business owner/operator

3. Prevent effects using infrastructural solutions

‘Hard’ engineering investments: Build resistant/resilient systems; Make space for water; Modify key infrastructure

4. Prevent the effects using legislative, regulatory and institutional measures 5. Avoid or exploit changes in risk 6. Research and development

Integrate planning processes; Modify traditional land use and planning processes; Adopt new methods of dealing with uncertainty; Allocate more resources for (3) above; Amend standards and codes of practice

Some dweller and property owner options, mainly, however, Government stakeholders although community responses may be required. Government stakeholders, although can be influenced by behaviour of other groups (e.g. attitudes of housebuilders). Local communities having more of a role. As above.

7. Educational and behavioural

4

Description/examples

Relocate and enforce development zones away from risks; Change land use or practices; Better forecasting systems; Contingency planning Investigate ways to reduce uncertainty in understanding and responses; Improved forecasting of changes; Develop better riskbased integrated climate and other changed impact assessments Longer planning time horizons; Enhance awareness and capacity of all stakeholders; Encourage individual responsibility to adapt; Develop better acceptance of the need for future policy and other changes

Government stakeholders, although dwellers and others can experiment with incremental adaptive measures Probably the responsibility of Government stakeholders to help others.

Learning and capacity building needs Better understanding of risks and responsibilities amongst stakeholders and opportunities to share losses. Value and benefits of a community approach Better understanding of risks and responsibilities and consequences As above plus details of small and larger scale technical options, interactive effects and cost-benefits. Need also to consider exceedance pathways. As above with very detailed performance related cost-benefit assessments for these measures and take-up and acceptability aspects

UK Sources of support and examples of good practice UK ABI website and publications (ABI, 2008).

Requires a flood risk assessment to provide detailed loss potential – seek expert advice. There is no simple guide for local dwellers/owners, they require e.g. to access: ABI publications as above; CIRIA publications (CIRIA, 2008); (CLG, 2008) and Defra, 2008) websites e.g. FRMRC (2008) and reports Thorne et al (2007). TCPA (Shaw et al, 2007)

How best to integrate these measures into contingency planning as a whole. Best means of cross-agency cooperation very important here. Expert inputs required to continually update stakeholder knowledge and understanding

As 3 and 4.

Learning required across all groups in order to deliver increased understanding and ability to engage and accept/pursue novel adaptive responses

FLAPs appear to be very effective (Ashley et al, 2008). Property stakeholders require specific expertise or support from social scientists.

e..g FRMRC (2008); FloodSite (2008)

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 There are a number of definitions of what is meant by ‘adapting to climate change’ and a part of overall local system adaptation is to resist flooding through a range of measures such as the use of flood resilient and resistant building and the use of temporary flood barriers; although larger scale measures are also relevant. Adaptable approaches should, where feasible, be incremental, reversible and ‘no-regret’. This requires a new way of looking at responses, especially those that entail ‘hard’ engineering (Watkinson et al, 2007a; Ingham et al, 2006). In future these need to be able to accommodate changes in response to new knowledge, demands, expectations and in the assessment of performance, with a need for more flexibility in standards and codes of practice than is normal (Geldof, 2005). Table 3. Outline of differences in approach to FRM in England and Scotland (Thorne et al, 2007) Responsibility for Main river flooding Sewer flooding Coastal flooding and erosion protection Flood warning

Who in England Environment Agency (Government) Private sewerage undertaker Environment Agency (Government)

Who in Scotland Municipality Public sewerage undertaker Municipality

Environment Agency

Minor watercourses

Municipality and riparian landowners

Property and surrounding area drainage

Property owner/occupier

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Municipality mainly but also riparian landowners Property owner/occupier

For the local, property scale protection, it is the property owner who is responsible, whereas for the larger scale risks, other actors are also involved (Table 1, 3). However, even at property scale, any response measures cannot increase the risk to others under a ‘duty of care’ and so the Class C stakeholders, such as the Environment Agency (Table 1, 3), also have an interest in what individuals do on their own property to protect against flood risk. A key attribute is the ability of the ‘actor’ or group of actors involved in experiencing flooding or responding to flood risk, to learn and hence adapt better in the future. The goal should be some optimal approach to adaptation and mitigation within the context of future uncertainty, learning and the likely irreversibility of response measures. The other major benefit of the adaptive approach is it both provides inherent flexibility and reversibility and also avoids closing off options (Watkinson et al 2007). This ‘active learning’ on the part of decision makers and others is clearly crucial to how effective and efficient future responses to climate change will be. ‘Social Learning’ is also advocated as an essential component of the development of adaptive management for water systems as a whole (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2008). This is said to be: ‘the capacity of all stakeholders to deal with different interests and points of view and to collectively manage resources in a sustainable way’. This is a shared understanding of the systems and challenges to these systems. Hence there is a clear need for all actors to engage in collective active learning where systems, such as that leading to flooding, are concerned. In the ecological sphere adaptive approaches are essential: “Projects implemented using adaptive management fundamentally differ from traditional restoration approaches by emphasizing scientific development of specific management actions and recognizing needed flexibility as learning and understanding progresses....Adaptive management programs or projects that attempt to rehabilitate or restore ecosystems often differ from traditional

R.M.Ashley et al

5

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 engineering design programs by not having well defined design criteria due to scientific uncertainties.” (Fotherby et al, 2008). Williams et al, (2007) define six steps in the process of a well-designed adaptive (ecosystem) management programme that are given in Table 4 and may be applied equally to both the people (and their institutional settings) and the physical systems for FRM. Application of this essentially ecologically focused approach to FRM relates to both the people involved and the physical systems, as: “…the collaborative teaming in adaptive management projects introduces challenging modifications to the roles of the scientist, the manager, and the engineer.” (Fotherby et al, 2008). In fact, for FRM, there are many more stakeholders involved than this group (Table 1 & 3). Adaptive management can achieve more timely management objectives and more costeffective and feasible solutions than produced by traditional repeated or traditional trial-anderror or static (this is how we always do it) management actions. Adaptive management can also help overcome conflict by promoting communication and building trust between stakeholders as alternative responses are considered. Most importantly, adaptive management allows for feedback from observation to better inform management decision making. However, it is not a replacement for the economic, social, or political inputs to the decision making process, nor does it attempt to resolve differences in values between stakeholders (Fotherby et al, 2008). Ecological adaptation can also be seen as applicable to the evolution or adaption of the institutions themselves who are responsible for FRM (Table 3). This was evident in England following the floods in 2007, where several of the key institutions were quick to issue statements blaming failures on the part of others and hence deflecting criticisms from their own roles. There are plans to ‘adapt’ the institutional arrangements for FRM in England (Defra, 2008a), although this will perhaps not fulfil the ‘flexible’ criteria usually required of adaptive responses. Responding to flood risk has traditionally relied on ‘hard’ infrastructure: embankments; new pipes; culverting of urban watercourses; river enlargement etc. many of which are expensive to adapt. Hence new approaches are required. These entail both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures, sometimes known as ‘structural’ and ‘non-structural’ (Copper et al, 2007). These NSRs are more adaptable.

UK RESPONSES TO INCREASING FLOOD RISK In Scotland, provision for sustainable flood management is now a statutory duty for the responsible authorities as part of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, where ‘Sustainable flood management’ has been defined by the National Technical Advisory Group (2004) as: “…the maximum possible social and economic resilience against flooding, by protecting and working with the environment, in a way which is fair and affordable both now and in the future”. Despite several reports, consultations and high profile media expositions, Government in England has consistently failed to take proper account of increasing flood risk and impacts until after the disastrous events of summer 2007. Nor has it been willing to tell people that flood risk is increasing and that flood risk-free protection is unaffordable. With a propensity to Govern top-down, the English Government and its’ main agencies are also uncomfortable with actively engaging citizens in the debate about what levels of flood protection should be provided. At a local property level, exhortations by many of these same agencies for individuals to become more responsible for their own flood risk management are futile as there is a lack of

6

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 commitment to engage with dwellers and others to build the capacity to be able to respond in this way. This is also true of the various professionals involved, who prefer to advise and develop large structural schemes to manage flood risk, rather than engage with people to develop ‘non-structural’ responses (NSRs).

EXAMPLES OF ACTIVE LEARNING Establishing an active learning ‘culture’ in each of the stakeholder groups in Table 1 and 3 is a major challenge. This is best delivered via learning alliances – in which those involved in a particular case study come together to identify the problem, possible solutions and ways these may be implemented. Engagement of the stakeholder communities in the case studies is shown in Table 4, which has the 6 steps in the process of a well-designed adaptive (ecosystem) management programme (Williams et al, 2007) interpreted for FRM, for both people and physical systems. What is apparent is that neither case study looks as if it will yield effective FRM responses in the near future. This is for both similar and different reasons. The similar reasons are: • A lack of capacity due to inadequate financial resourcing • A lack of willingness to engage meaningfully with local communities by the Class C stakeholders The differing reasons apply to the contexts in which the problems occur: • In the English case study the problems are the responsibility of the Class A stakeholders • In the Scottish study the Class C stakeholders are responsible

CONCLUSIONS Adaptive responses to climate change related FRM are now seen as essential. Key to this is adaptive capacity on the part of the stakeholders involved. This can be developed through active learning and working together in learning alliances. A major difficulty, however, has been the need for all the stakeholders to understand that there are actually no ‘solutions’ to flood risk under climate change; as any solution will have a degrading performance over time and hence the term ‘response’ is more accurate as there is a need to respond at intervals as the external drivers and pressures change and assets deteriorate with time. Key to adaptive approaches is the ability to try different things, abandoning those that are found not to be effective and trying alternatives. The approach in the past of using big infrastructure cannot be sustained as this will generally be unaffordable on the scale needed but also ‘lock in’ to using it for the next century and longer – i.e. flexible, adaptable, resilient and abandonable approaches are needed, many of which will not require engineering. These will require changes to living patterns, dweller engagement, empowerment and proper and effective and open collaboration between the main agencies involved. This requires a complete re-appraisal by all professionals of the why and how of what they currently do. There is clearly a need for a re-appraisal of the skills and professionals involved in this area, with a shift to better engagement of all stakeholders concerned.

REFERENCES ABI (2005) Financial risks of climate change. Association of British Insurers. [http://www.abi.org.uk/ accessed 15.02.08]. ABI (2007). Summer floods 2007: lessons to be learned, November, London: Association of British Insurers [http://www.abi.org.uk/ accessed 15.02.08]. ABI (2008) [www.abi.org.uk /Bookshop/default.asp#Flooding]

R.M.Ashley et al

7

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Table 4. Steps in a well-designed adaptive (ecosystem) management programme applied to FRM for two case studies Original Steps assess the (eco)system and define hypotheses

Applied to FRM People Physical system Surveying, modelling, Institutional and flow pathways, governance structure and elements of delivery vulnerability and of FRM – are they fit for impacts and hence attribution of sources purpose? Define active of flood risk. learning options.

design actions to achieve specific goals

Manage/adapt institutional systems, behaviours and partnerships. Establish champions/working relationships and learning alliances.

implement Meetings, engagement actions at the full processes at all levels, scale implement active learning and NSRs that require stakeholder 1

Scottish Government (2008).

8

Case study 1 Scotland People Physical system Institutional system as detailed models of in Table 3. Champions the minor and major and partnering drainage systems. developed (Class B Use to define sources and C stakeholders). of flooding for 2002. Little public Economic risk engagement. assessment. Hypothesis is that Class A stakeholders structural solutions not involved in are best with some responses other than BMPs. some BMPs - active learning needed only for main stakeholders

Set targets, including adaptation approach. Define structural and non-structural responses.

Joint studies and definition of cost burdens by FLAG to develop GSDP. Little public engagement other than Class C stakeholders. Government Consultation on legislative changes1

Implement above

Only Class B & C. stakeholders involved in this. Main issues relate to who should fund responses.

Case study 2 England People Physical system Detailed model of Main stakeholders minor system (Class C and C) only. LiDAR and formed working GIS surface group including public (Class A). The models. Attribution of latter have to be involved in adapting. causes and economic risk No possibility of assessment. funding under Major structural current institutional response favoured system. but with some BMP for residual risk. No main Community (Class Range of mainly stakeholder (Class A) provided with structural responses B) willing to fund information to defined using responses as models. Some BMPs propose their own outside their own options (structural proposed (water responsibilities. and BMPs). No quality included). Class A water quality Investment by each stakeholders considerations. main stakeholder unlikely to afford Establishment of a defined. responses. flood monitoring community group. Phased Left to Class A No funding so implementation of stakeholders. Some only local structural responses to Class B resilience and allow for regeneration stakeholders resistance of run down urban committed to measures at Class

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 action

2

monitor (ecological) responses

Monitor effectiveness of active learning and learning alliances and certain NSRs

evaluate responses with respect to the hypotheses

Are the engagement processes working – especially active learning?

if necessary, adjust management actions to better meet goals based on improved understanding

Refine active learning and learning alliance processes if necessary. Unlike the ecosystem approach, it may also be necessary to adjust the goals (risk acceptability)

Emergency response measures refined. Learning alliances operating. Class B stakeholders responsibility, but active learning in place for Class B and C stakeholders

areas. Other areas lower priority

Informal by Class A Comparison with stakeholders with pre-defined some help from Class performance B. standards based on return period of exceedence. Lack of active learning Structural responses Original hypotheses How well are the proven correct – being implemented for Class A responses working? responsibilities lie stakeholders has led to not yet possible to Were original lack of buy-in and trust evaluate these. Some with Class A, and attributions correct? in proposed responses BMP implementation Class B not and this is effective. responsible. other than for a few Institutional system BMPs. Learning not fit for purpose. alliance between Class B stakeholders deteriorating due to loss of key champions. Recent studies show English Government Scottish Government Design and that NSRs may be consulting on change (Class C) intend to implement next useful and cheaper options2 but no change legislation to intervention in than structural, but evidence that this will improve Governance adaptation steps to no rules as to where actually change arrangements. meet declining and when to use. performance standard anything. and or altered goals. Continuously monitor changes in flood risk and system performance

Defra (2008)

R.M.Ashley et al

monitoring and liaison in a learning alliance

9

A scale.

Minimal implementation to monitor

Only success is understanding problems and causes, nothing tangible other than minor cleaning/unblocki ng of minor drainage system.

No funding for this.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Ashley R M., Blanksby J R., Cashman A., Jack L., Wright G., Packman J., Fewtrell L., Poole A. (2007). Adaptable Urban Drainage - Addressing Change In Intensity, Occurrence And Uncertainty Of Stormwater (AUDACIOUS). J. Built Environment. Vol. 33 No. 1 p70-84. ISSN 0263-7960. Ashley R M., Blanksby J R., Cashman A. (2008). Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate. Adaptable Urban Drainage - Addressing Change In Intensity, Occurrence And Uncertainty of Stormwater (AUDACIOUS). May. [www.sheffield.ac.uk/penninewatergroup/index.html] CEA (2007). Reducing the Social and Economic Impact of Climate Change and Natural Catastrophes Insurance Solutions and Public-Private Partnerships. [http://www.cea.assur.org/ accessed 15.02.08]. CIRIA (2008) [www.ciria.org.uk] CLG (2008) [http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/] Cooper J., High H., Donovan B., Steel M. (2007). Management Of Residual Risk Using Non Structural Responses In The Thames Estuary. Defra Floods and coastal protection conference York. Paper 06-5. Crichton, D. 2007. The future of flood management in the UK. Insurance research and practice. No. 1 December [chartered insurance institute: www.cii.co.uk] Defra (2008) [www.defra.gov.uk/] Defra (2008a) Improving surface water drainage – consultation to accompany proposals set out in the Government’s Water Strategy, Future Water. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. February.. EEA (2007) Climate change and water adaptation issues. Technical report No 2/2007. ISSN 1725– 2237. Evans, E.P., Ashley, R., Hall, J.W., Penning-Rowsell, E.P., Saul, A., Sayers, P.B., Thorne, C.R. And Watkinson, A. (2004a). Foresight Future Flooding, Scientific Summary: Volume 1: Future risks and their drivers. Office of Science and Technology, London. Evans, E.P., Ashley, R., Hall, J.W., Penning-Rowsell, E.P., Saul, A., Sayers, P.B., Thorne, C.R. And Watkinson, A. (2004b). Foresight Future Flooding, Scientific Summary: Volume 2: Managing future risks. Office of Science and Technology, London. FloodSite (2008) [http://www.floodsite.net/] Fotherby L M., McBain S M., Aumen M G. (2008). Adaptive Management as a Framework for Ecosystem Restoration. Proc. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Honolulu. ASCE FRMRC (2008) [http://www.floodrisk.org.uk/] Flood Risk Management research Consortium Geldof G.D. 2005. Coping with complexity in integrated water management. Tauw, Netherlands. ISBN 90-76098-04-2. 120p. Ingham A., Ma J., Ulph A. (2006). Theory and practice of economic analysis of adaptation. Tyndall Centre. Technical report 55. Newman R., Ashley R., Blanksby J R., Molyneux-Hodgson, D. S. (2008) Risk Assessment and Risk management: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Non-structural Flood Risk management Measures; Risk Assessment And Risk Management In Small Urban Catchments, Defra project FD2603; Final report. University of Sheffield. Pennine Water Group (PWG). Pahl-Wostl C. (2008). Requirements for adaptive water management. In: Adaptive and integrated water management. Coping with complexity and uncertainty. Springer. ISBN 978-3-54075940-9. p1-22. Shaw R., Colley M., Connell R. (2007). Climate Change adaptation by design: A guide for sustainable communities. TCPA London. Thorne, C R, Evans, E P and Penning-Rowsell, E (Eds.) (2007) Future Flooding and Coastal Erosion Risks, Thomas Telford, London, UK, ISBN 978-0-7277-3449-5. Watkinson A R., Evans E P., Hall J W., Penning-Rowsell E., Thorne C. (2007). Strategic choices. In: Thorne, C R, Evans, E P and Penning-Rowsell, E (2007) Future Flooding and Coastal Erosion Risks, Thomas Telford, London, UK, ISBN 978-0-7277-3449-5, p491-504. Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. ISBN 1-411-31760-2.

10