Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FLOOD REGULATION AND STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON
NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT:
Positive expectations, shared responsibility and payment design
Rosalind Bark (UEA), Julia Martin-Ortega (University of Leeds), Kerry Waylen (James Hutton Institute)
The new normal?
Stakeholders are integral to NFM
4
N=118
• 80 respondents were familiar with the NFM concept
• 62 participated or connected to 1 or > NFM projects
Understanding of NFM
Interventions Part of Complementary Unrelated Unsure
Planting trees 93 6 - 1
Naturalising rivers, e.g. creating
backwaters, braided channels 93 4 1 2
Creating or restoring wetlands 90 8 - 2
Installing instream woody debris structures
or rock dams 89 8 2 2
Restoring peatlands 85 11 1 3
Flood storage on floodplain agricultural land 74 21 2 3
Widening riparian buffer strips 74 17 3 5
Changing crops for soil conservation 61 32 3 4
Adopting no-till agriculture 45 38 4 13
Installing earth bunds 36 34 17 14
Preventing floodplain development 32 58 7 3
Building up embankments 9 39 40 11
Building up flood defence walls 3 42 47 7
1 (% of respondents answering) The most popular option in each intervention category is shaded grey, but lightened if chosen by less than half the respondents. Where two choices
were similar both are shaded.
• General awareness of NFM similar to literature definitions, with a
particular emphasis on trees.
Appetite for NFM
Implement more widely?
Third sector
Academics
Farmers
Many more NFM
schemes
Several more NFM
schemes
Same number of NFM
schemes
Who should be involved in NFM?
• Groups with practical experience are highlighted for installing NFM
Who should pay for NFM?
% of respondents answering the question
• General awareness of shared responsibility
Calculating payments
• Farmers noticeable diverge from others when it comes to payment
design
Sufficient evidence?
Sufficient evidence
on NFM
effectiveness
Enables delivery of
more cost-effective
FRM
(χ=11.27, p=0.02)
Does not take too
long to establish (χ=10.34, p=0.04)
Cost-effective
Enables delivery
of more cost-
effective FRM
NFM delivers
multiple-benefits(χ=12.14, p=0.02)
Acceptable visual
impacts
No unintended
consequences
Acceptable
maintenance
(χ=10.73, p=0.03)
(χ=26.90, p=0.00)
(χ=12.18, p=0.02)
Implement more widely?
Implement more
widely in future
Sufficient evidence
on effectiveness
(χ=39.05, p=0.00) Cost-effective FRM
Unintended
consequences
Acceptable
maintenance
(χ=16.45, p=0.01)
(χ=30.94, p=0.00)
(χ=14.67, p=0.02)
Not only effective at
low flows(χ=17.24, p=0.01)
Paradigm shift?
• Awareness of successful pilots
• Evidence that shared responsibility message has
broken through
• Public money for public goods & contract payments?
• Co-benefits discussed not only biodiversity, soil
retention, etc. but also social, community and
psychological
• There is a large group of enthusiasts
• But not everybody is in full agreement
• Nor on the fine details of how to enable, e.g. ELMs
16
THANKYOU
We would like to thank all the respondents.
KAW acknowledges support from the Scottish Government Strategic Research Programme
2016-2021.
RB was funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 659449.
Stakeholders are integral to NFM
17
