The motivations for and barriers to

populations becoming more involved

in flood management decision
making.

Case Study:
The village of
Orford, Suffolk.

Jacqueline Smith. University of East Anglia.

Alan Bond. University of East Anglia.
Peter Simmons. University of East Anglia
 Background to the Problem
EA Strategy option in 2004 of a breach
at Slaughden bend, hold the line and
Slaughden Bend.
open the estuary mouth.

Reference Alde and Ore Environment Agency Strategy Document, 2004.

Changes in EA Strategy in 1999 from ‘Hold the Line’ to ‘Re-alignment

of Defences’ and controversy caused by 2004 options.
Responses to the Problem
1) The Environment Agency has carried out more
research on river and coastal processes and has
approached consultation differently by:

 Being more responsive to local requests and ideas.

 Involvement with an Estuary Planning Partnership
 Increased consultation with landowners and a local pressure/
information group, The Alde and Ore Association.
(All within the constraints of changes in Government control
and funding policies)

 A top-down approach

2) This research, a bottom–up approach

Theoretical Premise of the Research
The theoretical premise of this research is that people will become
involved because they have knowledge about flood management
and perceive flooding as a risk. However there will be other
reasons for involvement which will also be sought.

Methodology:

Questionnaire;

Interviews;

Q Sort

Follow up interviews;

Workshop.
 Questionnaires
 Present levels of Knowledge about flood management were
assessed (scores given) and involvement evaluated by
attendance at meetings and /or belonging to a group
associated with flood management.
 110 returns from 432 households
 Participants were classified into 5 groups

High High
HH HL
Knowledge Knowledge
(20) (18)
High Low
Involvement Involvement

No Classification

Low NC (46) Low

Knowledge Knowledge

Low LL LH High
Involvement (19) (7) Involvement
 Interviews.
 15 participants were interviewed and identified by their
questionnaire responses and contact details.

 5/18 (HH); 3/9 (HL); 4/9 (LL); 3/7 (LH).

8 (60+); 5 (40+) ; 1 (20+) ; ,1 (<20).
7 (Females); 8 (Males).

 NC not used initially as more ‘extreme’ views were

sought.

 NVivo software was used to identify 40 statements from

interviews
 Q Methodolgy.
 40 respondents (12HH; 12NC; 7HL; 6LL; 3LH) sorted the 40
statements into a grid of an inverted normal distribution of :
<Least like my views Most like my views >
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

 Analysis of sorts allows for significant statements to be grouped

together to allow identification of different perspectives/ discourses, to
be analysed into ‘Factors’, and different people to be associated with
each of the five Factors.
Example of Factor Discourse: Factor 1
Significant selected statements for Factor 1
Table 1 . Selected significant statements for Factor 1.
Statements most like my views Statements least like my views
13. I think consultation works and decisions 38. Scientists make a fuss about global
accepted if there is real honesty, and they tell warming because they want extra funding for
you how it is. their research, so they make it sound worse
1.4 than it is. 2.8
35. The Alde and Ore Association informs us 8. I don’t think flooding will happen in my
of what is going on in flood management. 1.4 lifetime. 1.9
.
7. I am involved because I have an interest in 6. I think my opinion will not make a
farming, sailing and protecting wildlife. 1.3 difference 1.4

39. Information about flood management 1. I am busy doing other things

should be less complicated and intimidating,
easy to read, and people should be
comfortable to ask questions. 1.3 1.1
 Defining Sorts for Factor 1.
Defining sorts correlating people to their
loadings on Factor 1.

03HHF4 36HHF4 28HHM4 11HLM3 26HHF4 06HLF4 07HLF4 08NC4 15HHM4

0.69 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.51 0.51 0.48

Example:
 03 = Participant
 HH = Level of knowledge and involvement
 F = Female
 4 = Age, 60+
 0.69= Significance of sort above SE above 4.1
 Summary of the analysis of the 5
factors identified by Q.
Factor Barriers Motivations Improvement Knowledge Gender Age
implied possibilities Involvement
1. Lack of Personal Quality of High Males 40+
Confident and honesty interest information Knowledge and
knowledgeable Confidence Mixed Females
Have time Involvement

2. Lack of Have time Local Councils Mixed Males 40+

Politically funding, and pressure Knowledge and
Aware Trust and groups used. Mixed Females
not Involvement
practical
3. Lack of A practical Good Mixed All Under
Sceptical and honesty situation to information Knowledge Males 20-
pragmatic and trust respond to 60,
in Low to but
scientists no
Average
and Involvement 20-40
politicians
4. Cynicism Local More feedback Mostly Low to All All
Sceptical and sources of average Female <20
locally attuned info. Aural? Knowledge and to
Involvement >60
5. Lack of Trust in EA People write High to Mostly 40+
Dichotomous funding protest more Average Males
or write to Knowledge and
confidence councillors Involvement
No choice
Improvement Possibilities.

Factor 1 - How to improve the quality of information?

Factor 2 - Who to represent them?
Factor 3 - Where are the sources of information and how
to get practically involved?
Factor 4 - How to increase aural information and
improve feedback ?
Factor 5 - How to motivate people to contact
representatives ?

More questions than answers!

Some reflections on the research so far:

Does a whole population need to be consulted?

 Legislation: The EU Aarhus Convention.
 Given the opportunity through a better process.

Is Knowledge a good indicator for involvement?

 Not just information deficit
 A means to explore differences

How could this research be useful?

 Identification of problems with involvement to
 Make recommendations for involvement preferences in
different groups of people.