Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      Flood resilience technology in Europe: identifying barriers and co-producing best practice

      White, Iain; Connelly, Angela; Garvin, Stephen; Lawson, Nigel; O'Hare, Paul
      Thumbnail
      Files
      Flood resilience technology in Europe.pdf
      Submitted version, 855.3Kb
      DOI
       10.1111/jfr3.12239
      Find in your library  
      Citation
      Export citation
      White, I., Connelly, A., Garvin, S., Lawson, N., & O’Hare, P. (2018). Flood resilience technology in Europe: identifying barriers and co-producing best practice. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(S1), S468–S478. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12239
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/13850
      Abstract
      Flood resistance (FRe) and resilience technologies hold considerable potential to limit the damage caused by flooding. Resistance technologies generally aim to keep water out of buildings, while resilient measures may allow ingress but create the conditions for a quicker recovery of individuals, communities and buildings. However, despite their potential contribution to flood risk management (FRM), their use remains uncommon. This paper draws on pan‐European research of local communities at risk and their representatives, and professional stakeholders working at a more strategic scale, to explore the barriers to use and describe the co‐production of new best practice. It interrogates the issues in terms of level of awareness, degree of acceptance and the integration into decision making. We found that even where awareness was high, there was a reluctance to use these measures. This is due to issues related to comparability, costs, installation, performance and maintenance. The research also revealed that FRM policy and practice has struggled to incorporate this emergent approach and that many individuals at risk are reluctant to take responsibility and protect their properties in this way. In response, this paper details how good practice guidance – the ‘Six Steps approach’ – was co‐produced with key stakeholders to facilitate the wider contribution of FRe to FRM.
      Date
      2018
      Type
      Journal Article
      Rights
      This is a pre-print version of the article. The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this article is published here:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.12239/abstract
      Collections
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers [1410]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      96
       
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement