Preparing for climate change and tackling related issues like fuel poverty needs to involve local communities to be fully effective and avoid reinforcing inequality1, 2.
Derbyshire Community Climate Change conference © Climate UK
On this page:
Active participation of the local community in decisions that affect them is essential for democratic and service accountability and provides other benefits such as enhancing social cohesion, ensuring the local relevance of national policy and developing a sense of ownership over results3. In addition, to be effective, building community resilience requires approaches that build on local knowledge to reflect the characteristics of local communities, their different risk environments, and local priorities4.
Responding to the challenges associated with building more resilient communities can be achieved by working with existing community organisations and developing new groups. Evidence suggests that while community ties which involve professionals tend to improve resilience, those relying on narrow social networks of friends and family or very insular communities can reinforce views and practices which may erode resilience5, 6.
It is important to understand why some people may be reluctant to participate in efforts to build community resilience and find ways to encourage engagement. Those on low incomes, who spend less time in education and who work in manual or intermediate occupations are least likely to participate in political action and civil society associations7. Some people may not feel able to participate due to a lack of time or money, a lack of appropriate skills, knowledge and experience, a lack of available transport or due to existing responsibilities8. See NCVO research about participation. Beliefs, preferences and perceptions of self-worth can also limit how much people feel able participate in a way that seems meaningful to them9. Links to resources on participation are available from these references10, 11, 12.
The need for climate adaptation is often not perceived as urgent, leading to scepticism about whether local action is necessary, especially where direct experience of events (e.g. flooding or heat-waves) is lacking. Climate change and its impacts, although generating concern, are also generally believed to be removed in space (‘not here’) and time (‘not yet’)13. Defensiveness in the face of an uncertain threat, or broader ideological positions, may lead people to deny the problem, negating the need for action14, 15, 16. People who do not believe it is necessary are highly unlikely to retain or act on information about climate risks17. Providing flood warnings is thus not straightforward. “In improving responses to flooding it is clear that the risk communication context is as important as having an accurate warning. If people do not trust the source of the message they will not take any notice of the message”18.
Even where people are aware of the impacts of a changing climate this is often not translated into action. Unless people find meaningful ways to act in response to information received about climate change, many will resist engaging as they feel powerless to act effectively19, 20, 21. Even when people know and trust the information they receive, they may not know how to respond22, 23. Also, people considered ‘vulnerable’ (e.g. older people or those on low incomes) may not see themselves as such and may not take any action nor pay attention to risk warnings24, 25, 26, 27. If a person’s perception of the threat is high but confidence in their ability to respond is low, then fatalism, denial and wishful thinking may set in, effectively demotivating people from taking precautionary action28, 29.
To be effective, community resilience30 requires a wider national ‘conducive environment’ and links between individual, household and local action. For example, actions to improve green infrastructure or sustainable drainage, or those associated with building social networks are likely to require area based action. What occurs at the household level also affects the community; this is in turn influenced by the large-scale forces (e.g., economic downturn) that shape the ability of individuals to adapt31. The complexity and diverse nature of climate adaptation situations can make it hard to identify who has responsibility for taking action, making it more likely that responses will not occur or will be inadequate32. For community resilience to be effective, individuals must have the right incentives, knowledge, resources and skills. The government’s role is to provide a supportive environment, including the right legal, regulatory and socio-economic incentives33.
The following section explains some of the problems associated with raising awareness and empowering communities in relation to different climate impacts, for example flooding and heat-waves.
Communities may not be aware of the likelihood of flooding in their neighbourhood. Not surprisingly, communities living in areas where climate impacts are more tangible or who have been recently affected by a weather-related event, are likely to have greater awareness than others34. However, flood risk awareness is not uniform across social groups. Lower income groups and tenants tend to have lower flood risk awareness and are often less prepared. Thus in some neighbourhoods there is both high exposure to flooding and low awareness35. People who have recently moved into an area tend to have lower flood awareness36. Neighbours are an important source of information about flood risk, so ensuring communities can access accurate information through social networks can be an important means of reaching new arrivals and other people who may not engage with more formal channels37,38.
The difference between flood awareness and exposure to flooding varies by socio-economic class and region39. In some regions there is a marked gap between who is likely to be affected and their awareness of this risk. For example, in the North East region, flood awareness is much greater in people classified as ‘middle class’ compared to ‘working class’ although the ‘working class’ group has higher exposure to flooding. This is reversed in the Southern region where people classified as ‘middle class’ have greater exposure. This is important given that ability to adapt is linked to access to resources.
Figure 1: Class inequalities in flood exposure and flood awareness in England and Wales (WC – working class; MC – middle class).
Even when people are aware of their flood risk they may not believe that a flood will occur. A survey of 1,000 homeowners living in areas exposed to flooding in England and Wales found a high proportion (82%) were aware of the issue (and 18% had been directly affected). However, 78% of all those surveyed felt that the chance of flooding happening again was ‘low’ or ‘very low’40. The use of probability to express flood likelihood e.g. a ‘1 in 100 year event’ is often misunderstood, as people think that once it has happened it will not occur again for a century. People often fail to link experience of extreme weather events to climate-related future occurrences41 resulting in little learning should it reoccur. In addition, the biased assimilation of knowledge means that only information that fits with how people already understand the situation will be remembered42.
Many people see the responsibility for flood protection as resting fully with local authorities, the Environment Agency or other public agencies (see Government webpage on who is responsible for managing flood risks). Flood defences can lead to a false sense of security and failure to take adequate precautions43. For example, the flood defences put in place along the River Irwell in Salford, led most residents to conclude that no further actions were required and that it was not necessary to pay attention to flood warnings44. It was necessary to use a range of information brokers to change attitudes, including using local registered social landlords to encourage their tenants to sign up to flood warning schemes due to low risk perceptions and failure to sign up to flood warning initiatives45,46. (See a detailed community engagement and awareness raising case study described in this report to Salford City Council: Climate Action Project Lower Kersal and Spike Island)
Raising awareness needs to be matched with opportunities for people to respond that seem realistic to them47 but often people are not aware of existing solutions that would help protect their home from flooding. In a survey of homeowners living in flood risk areas, 29% of respondents said that nothing could be done to protect their home from flooding48. Despite a large number of different flood resistance and resilience technologies being available, 19% of those surveyed considered sandbags to be the only available measure.
Even when they are aware of measures and are able to afford them, residents can still be unwilling to invest in individual property level flood protection measures. Over a third of respondents in a survey of homeowners in flood risk areas said that they were not prepared to pay anything for flood-protection measures. Of those who would be prepared to pay something, the median sum was only between £100 and £500. As might be expected, people on lower incomes, for whom affordability might be more of an issue, were prepared to pay less for flood resilience measures than those on higher incomes49. A grant scheme (piloted and launched between 2006 and 2009 by Defra and the Environment Agency) which targeted households that had been flooded many times to provide free property-level flood protection led to a significant increase in uptake (only 39% of flooded households usually take up such measures50 but 83% in the pilot areas did so). However, participation in the scheme reinforced householders’ perception that it was the duty of the state to protect them and, by allowing others to select and pay for the measures, they did not have to feel responsible if the measures proved ineffective or poor value for money. Many participants also saw the measures as a stop-gap pending a structural solution51.
Community level responses may also be needed but low income communities may find these hard to develop. There is some support for those on low incomes and schemes like the Government’s partnership funding framework takes some account of levels of deprivation. However, people from deprived communities are less likely to look for opportunities and financial support, than others52. Evidence from communities exposed to coastal flooding and erosion found that older people and those with lower educational attainment were among the least likely to seek out such support. Communities with smaller populations may be unable to raise the finance required to install and maintain protection measures.
Evidence suggests that sensitive individuals, such as those in ill-health and older populations, do not necessarily see high temperatures as a threat to their well-being53. People tend to be much more self-reliant in the case of heat than in the event of flooding, but evidence suggests that older people carry out very little pre-emptive preparation and instead only rely on responding to hot weather when it occurs54. There is also a tendency for older people to feel that they should ‘put up with’ the heat and ‘get on with things’ because ‘little can be done about the weather’55. Similarly a survey of 450 households of older people with a range of additional vulnerabilities and health problems for Islington Borough Council’s Climate Resilience Islington South Project (CRISP), found that people generally underplayed the importance of changing their behaviour during hot weather. A small but significant proportion (10-15%) had little knowledge of what actions to take, were isolated from the local community and lacked other support networks, making them particularly vulnerable56.
An individual’s lack of awareness of the dangers of high temperatures becomes most important when they are isolated from help or where the help and advice they receive is inappropriate. Stronger social networks tend to improve the resilience of older people to heat-waves but only where those networks provide the right information, especially during a heat-wave event57, 58. Social networks can sometimes reinforce people’s sense that they are not at risk59. A study in the USA found that as well as social isolation, people’s ability to adapt to heat was also limited by other factors including: the location of property and bedrooms (for example, in flats on the top floor of a large building), ill health, immobility, the environment around the property and perceptions of the incidence of crime and vandalism60.
It should also be recognised that raising awareness needs to be matched with opportunities for people to respond to that improved awareness.
Back to the top
