Public perception of managed realignment: Brancaster West Marsh, North Norfolk, UK

Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

Public perception of managed realignment: Brancaster West Marsh, North Norfolk, UK L.B. Myatt-Bella,*, M.D. Scrimshawa, J.N. Lestera,1, J.S. Pottsb a

Environmental Processes and Water Technology Research Group, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BP, UK b Centre for Maritime Research, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London SE10 9NF, UK

Abstract In an attempt to provide more sustainable and environmentally acceptable coastal defence options, engineers and policy-makers alike are increasingly turning to ‘softer’ approaches such as managed realignment. However, gaining public acceptance of managed realignment schemes can be challenging given that the local communities often view managed realignment as ‘giving in’ to the sea (Coastal defences: processes, problems and solutions. UK, Routledge, 2001). By studying public perceptions, engineers, planners and policy-makers will have a better understanding of the public’s reactions, concerns and issues of managed realignment, which not only fills the existing research gap but also promotes public awareness and knowledge alongside the consultation process. This paper reviews findings from a pilot study conducted at a public exhibition and meeting in Brancaster, North Norfolk. Questionnaire surveys were used to collect the data and address three main research objectives (1) to gain an insight into the locals’ perceptions of flooding in Brancaster; (2) to assess their awareness of the managed realignment scheme; and (3) identify the main issues that they considered to be important. The results demonstrated that many variables influence public perceptions of managed realignment, including personal experience, lack of information and media influence. The study concludes that while there is no formula to calculate which variables come into play, researching public perception towards managed realignment projects must be addressed by following a case-by-case approach. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Public perception; Managed realignment; Coastal defence; Brancaster

1. Introduction Over the past decade, there has been a heightened awareness surrounding the issues of global climate change and sea level rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict sea level to rise between 8 and 29 cm by the year 2030, with a best estimate of 18 cm [2]. The implications attached to flooding are significant, since approximately 25% of the English and Welsh coastline has been developed mainly for housing and industry [3]. Furthermore, 5% of England’s population resides in areas at risk from flooding from the sea [4]. The impacts of flooding are also significant for conservation, given that nearly 3000 ha of English *Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-20-7594-6014; fax: +44-20-75946016. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.B. Myatt-Bell). 1 Also correspondence to: Head of Environmental Processes, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK. E-mail: [email protected].

intertidal flats and marshes may be lost from the failure of intertidal areas to adjust to sea level rise in the 20 yr to 2013 [5]. This emphasises the need for effective and sustainable coastal defences. In order to protect vulnerable areas of hinterland from flooding and coastal erosion, more environmentally and economically sustainable defence options are being considered. These ‘softer’ engineering options include beach nourishment (i.e. on the Lincolnshire coast), foreshore recharge (i.e. on the Orwell estuary) and managed realignment. There are relatively few managed realignment sites in the UK, with approximately seven sites already under construction or completed, and around a further five sites earmarked [6]. The majority of these sites are located on the east coast of England, particularly in Essex and North Norfolk. By realigning existing hard defences to an inland location, saltmarsh is allowed to establish on the former agricultural land. The ability of the saltmarsh to absorb wave energy means that the new (realigned) defence can afford to be lower in construction. It is

0308-597X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 0 8 - 5 9 7 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 1

46

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

hardly surprising therefore that this option has received increased attention [7,8]. Managed realignment is a relatively new coastal defence strategy, and much of the current research focuses on hydrodynamics [9,10], engineering [11,12], saltmarsh microbiology [13], geochemistry [14] and the economics of saltmarshes [15]. Consequently, it would appear that there is a research gap in studies concerned with public perception and attitude to managed realignment. More generally, there is a lack of research in the study of perception of all types of coastal defence [1]. To date, public perception research has predominantly centred on rivers and flood hazards, and has largely been conducted by the Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre [16–19]. These studies, in particular, have allowed ‘Governments and Water Management Agencies to have a better understanding of the public whom they serve [and] act sensitively and in a planned manner with regard to floods and their impacts’ [20]. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that in conducting public perception research specifically for managed realignment projects, these benefits can also be mirrored.

2. Objectives and methodology of the pilot study The pilot study of the perception of managed realignment conducted in Brancaster, North Norfolk attempts to bridge the existing research gap, and is intended to be part of a larger research project. The focus of the study concerned Brancaster West Marsh, an example of a current managed realignment site that was selected in 1996 and is under preparation for the first construction phase in the summer of 2001. The aim of the pilot study was to identify the local community’s general perceptions of the Brancaster West Marsh realignment project. In order to do this, three main objectives were established: (1) to gain an insight into the locals’ perceptions of flooding in Brancaster; (2) to assess their awareness of the managed realignment scheme; and (3) identify the main issues that they considered to be important (such as effectiveness of the scheme, impact on public access and recreation). The pilot study was based on questionnaire surveys that were launched at the Brancaster managed realignment exhibition and public meeting on Saturday 24, February 2001. This event was organised by the Environment Agency (EA) Anglian Region and Brancaster Parish Council. As highlighted by Daniel, it is important to specify the target groups before commencing the study (i.e. whether it is the whole population, or a special interest group) [21]. Thus, as a result of the onsite exhibition, the sample was effectively pre-determined, in terms of all those who attended had a particular interest in the managed realignment scheme

(although socio-demographics had not been pre-selected). During the course of the day, 42 respondents completed the questionnaires fully. The survey was developed using precoded closed questions, with the opportunity for additional optional comments at the end of the questionnaire. The survey design was influenced by a previous perception survey conducted by Anable [22]. The question content was purely created to address the stated objectives and provide a general insight of the respondents’ interests and basic sociodemographic details. Due to the nature of the questionnaire and small sample size, analysis even using nonparametric statistics proved to be inappropriate. The statistical package SPSS was used to conduct basic cross tabulations for the data analysis.

3. The study: Brancaster West Marsh, North Norfolk, UK Brancaster West Marshes are located to the north west of the village of Brancaster on the North Norfolk coast, covering an area of approximately 38 ha of mainly freshwater grazing marsh. The marshes are protected to the east and the west by man-made sea wall embankments. The northern section of the marsh is protected by an artificially maintained and reinforced dune system, with rising ground to the south of the marsh. Unenclosed saltmarshes are located to the east and west of the marshes and are susceptible to coastal flooding [11] (Fig. 1). Administratively, the marshes lie in the Coastal Unit No. 7 (Brancaster Staithe to Thornham) under the direction of the EA’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). This coastal area is part of the EA’s larger management unit Sub-cell 3a (stretching for 57 km between Snettisham and Sheringham). The management units as identified in the SMP are sub divided to establish discrete frontages over which sustainable coastal defence policies can be applied. A management unit can be described as ‘‘a length of shoreline with coherent characteristics in terms of both natural coastal processes and land use’’ [23] (Fig. 2). 3.1. Physical geography Historically, the east coast of Britain shows a high vulnerability towards North Sea storm surge tides with notable flood events occurring in 1953, 1978, 1993 and more recently in 1996 [11,24]. North Norfolk is certainly no exception to coastal flooding and erosion, and like the rest of the east coast, this may be attributed to its hydrodynamic environment, geology, isostatic adjustment and sea level rise [7]. More locally, the geomorphology of Brancaster Bay is influenced by wave refraction, with deeper waters found opposite

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

47

Fig. 1. Brancaster West Marsh managed realignment site [11].

Fig. 2. Location map, modified from [25].

Brancaster with the high potential for sediment transfer. Scolt Head is also said to influence the spit-like features at either side of the Bay. Consequently, the dynamic coastline has accentuated erosion particularly at the centre of the Bay around Brancaster and Brancaster Staithe. This erosion has affected the sand dune environment, having a knock-on effect on saltmarsh stability, in turn exposing the Royal West

Norfolk Golf Club (RWNGC) and potentially Brancaster itself [25]. The North Norfolk coast is home to a diverse range of habitats, including saltmarsh, inter-tidal flats, dunes, shingle and freshwater grazing marsh. Due to the high conservation value of the area, ‘virtually all the coastline is designated a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), National

48

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

Heritage Coastline, Biosphere reserve and Ramsar site’ [24]. It is also designated as a special protection area (SPA) and possible special area of conservation (pSAC) under European Union legislation (Table 1). Other conservation areas include non-statutory designations, namely Country Wildlife Sites (designated by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust). Locally, the habitats within the Brancaster West Marsh, the northern dune system and the foreshore (to the low tide mark) are part of the ‘North Norfolk’ SPA. Additionally, the northern dune system, saltmarshes (to the east and west of the marshes) and the beach are part of the ‘North Norfolk Coast and Gibraltar Point Dunes’ and ‘The Wash and North

Norfolk Coast’ candidate SAC (cSAC) [11] for recognition of habitats threatened within a European context [26]. Besides the wealth of valuable habitats, North Norfolk is also home to many internationally and nationally important fauna including birds, such as bittern, marsh harriers, and terns, as well as amphibians such as natterjack toads, and mammals including common seals plus many invertebrates [25]. 3.2. Human geography Since North Norfolk is a rural region, agricultural land uses (arable and dairy) in the Brancaster coastal

Table 1 A synopsis of the main international and national nature conservation designations in North Norfolka Name of designation

Designating body

Designation status

Reason for designation

Jurisdiction

Site of special scientific interest (SSSI)

English Nature

National

Special interest by reason of flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features

Terrestrial and intertidal habitats (not subtidal)

National nature reserves (NNR)

English Nature

National

All NNR’s are also SSSIs. NNR’s represent Britain’s best areas of natural or semi-natural habitats

Terrestrial and intertidal habitats (not subtidal, except for marine nature reserves (MNR’s))

Area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB)

Countryside Agency (formerly Countryside Commission)

National

Conservation and enhancement of natural beauty

Landscape

Heritage COAST

Countryside Agency (formerly Countryside Commission)

National

To conserve, protect and enhance the natural beauty of the coasts, including their terrestrial, littoral and marine flora and fauna

Landscape

Ramsar sites

European Union Directive

International

Designated under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl habitat

Wetlands

Biosphere reserve

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme

International

Develop the scientific basis for the use and conservation of the biosphere. All sites have legal protection under NNR designations

Conservation of large units of landscape

Special protection area (SPA)

European Union Directive: Conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) ‘The Birds Directive’. Implemented into UK law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

International

Protection of wild birds

Wetlands

Special areas of conservation (SAC)

European Union Directive: International (92/43/EEC) ‘The Habitats Directive). Implemented into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats & C.) regulations 1994

Protection of habitats and species

Terrestrial and marine habitats

a

Compiled from Refs. [25,44].

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

unit predominate, spilling over the landward boundary. Some agricultural land is also set aside for tourism/ conservation facilities, for example, caravan sites, car parks on farmland and camp sites [25]. Urban areas are quite contained, with the larger villages of Brancaster (population 891) and Thornham (population 451) being located at either end of the coastal unit. Titchwell (population 118), in the centre of the coastal unit, is mostly covered by the RSPB reserve. Furthermore, commoner’s rights activities such as grazing, wildfowling and bait digging are conducted on the saltmarshes at Brancaster. North Norfolk is predominantly a major honey pot area for seasonal tourism and recreation (Table 2), which peaks during the summer months, attracting over a million visitors annually. In addition to the beauty of the natural landscape and its rich wildlife, North Norfolk hosts a number of culturally important relics, with some archaeological sites dating back to prehistoric, roman and medieval times (for example, there is a Roman Fort at Brancaster). Historic buildings (Grade I and II listed), including Medieval and Anglo–Saxon churches reflect distinct architectural and cultural changes between the villages. Recreational land use is evident in Brancaster, with the coastal frontage occupied by the RWNGC, which owns 1.5 km2 of land (including the links, club house and car park). Although the RWNGC has been described as a ‘well-established recreational facility’, it is nevertheless highly vulnerable to coastal erosion. Other visitor attractions include the Titchwell Marsh RSPB Reserve, which alone attracts over 100,000 visitors annually, and is by far the most visited RSPB reserve in the UK. Also, the Peddars Way and Norfolk Coast Path runs through this coastal cell, and provides additional recreation and nature conservation opportunities. Thornham Harbour is also popular for recreation, spurred on by the active sailing communities of Brancaster and the adjacent villages. 3.3. Coastal defences in North Norfolk Responsibility for English sea and coastal protection policy currently lies with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),2 with the Secretary of State for Wales, via the Welsh Office having an equivalent responsibility in Wales [26]. Coast protection responsibilities are delegated to Maritime 2 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) formed in June 2001, bringing together the Environment Protection Group from the former Department for Environment, Transport and regions (DETR); the Wildlife and Countryside Directorate from the former DETR; all the functions of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF); and responsibility for certain animal welfare issues and hunting from the Home Office.

49

Table 2 Popular recreational activities in North Norfolka Activity

Representation in North Norfolk

Walking

* * *

Watersports/ sailing

* * *

Rambler’s Assoc. Peddar’s Way Assoc. North Norfolk footpaths Powered watersports clubs Canoeing clubs Sub-aqua

Bird-watching

*

Eight bird reserves in the North Norfolk area

Orienteering

*

Two clubs based in Norwich and King’s Lynn

Golf

* *

Royal West Norfolk Golf Club (Brancaster) Hunstanton Sherringham

*

Wildfowling

*

Shooting clubs at: Blakeney, Brancaster, Burnham, Heacham, Wells, Thornham and Salthouse

Cycling

*

Norfolk cycle route Peddar’s way

*

Horse riding

* * * * *

Beach recreation

a

*

British Horse Society & Pony Club East Anglian trail riders Riding for the disabled Anglian distance riders North Norfolk harriers Main bathing beaches include: Sheringham, Wells, Old Hunstanton beach & Heacham North beach

Source: Ref. [25].

District Councils who are nominated as Coast Protection Authorities (having jurisdiction of specific areas of coastline under the Coast Protection Act 1949). The EA operates regionally as the lead authority for sea defence, and is seen to closely relate its strategy with the former MAFF Coastal Defence Strategy [26,27]. Nevertheless, this piecemeal approach has been criticised by the House of Commons Environment Select Committee [28]. The EA, Anglian Region is the principal operating authority for coastal defence in Brancaster, and is specifically responsible for the defences surrounding the saltmarshes to the north west of Brancaster. Where there is privately owned coastal frontage, responsibility for defences rests with the landowner, for example, the defences at the Titchwell Marsh Reserve are the responsibility of the RSPB, and the defences protecting the golf course (other than those of the EA) are under the responsibility of the Golf Club [25]. Protection at Brancaster Staithe, Titchwell, and Thornham is a primary objective of the EA, and many attempts have been made to stabilise the shoreline using hard engineering options, [24] although it is now considered by the EA that these are less economically

50

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

and environmentally sustainable. Having undertaken rigorous assessments [29–32] and sought expert consultation [9], the EA have stated that stabilising the existing coastline will only result in a misaligned shoreline, which, in turn stands to cause additional problems, for example, the inability to trap sediment between structures. Evidence of interrupted coastal processes has already been identified by the presence of the hard sea defences around the RWNGC. Additionally, hard engineering options have been known to result in ‘coastal squeeze’, whereby, due to the obstruction of hard engineering defences, saltmarshes are restricted in their landward recession and similarly when subjected to inundation and sea level change are unable to migrate seawards [8,27]. Saltmarshes cover the eastern and western areas of Brancaster, and along the frontages of sea defence embankments, as well as at the Titchwell RSPB Reserve. The marshes to the east of Brancaster are protected by sand dunes (running from east to west), which are now used as Brancaster Golf Course. Saltings in Brancaster Staithe are also used as moorings. Besides the environmental importance of saltmarshes, and the recreational affordances they offer, saltings are an accessory to providing sustainable coastal defence mechanisms, which can ultimately influence coastal defence strategies. 3.4. Present state of sea defences along the Brancaster coastline

although protected by a gabion mattress, are considerably under threat of being breached. As described, the existing sea defences protect a diverse range of habitats and land, as well as property. Nevertheless, the main defence priority is the protection of property in the villages of Brancaster Staithe, Brancaster, Titchwell and Thornham (Table 3). However, risk to properties is generally quite low, since most of the properties in these villages lie above the 5 m contour (i.e. assumed by the EA to be the maximum flood risk level), leaving very few properties vulnerable to coastal inundation [25]. 3.5. Sea defence options for Brancaster West Marsh The decision to address the need for more effective coastal defences for Brancaster arose following the successive damage and breaching of existing defences during the months of February, August and October of 1996. The most vulnerable defences were identified as the gabion revetments to the west of the golf club house [33] which protect ‘40 ha of mainly freshwater grazing marsh (of notable conservation value) including 2.3 ha of the golf club’s practice ground’ [11]. Various defence options were put forward for the site and were merited according to conservation, legislative and economic factors, as well having consideration for MAFF’s coastal defence policy and the EA’s primary and secondary objectives. The four main schemes included: *

The North Norfolk SMP [25] gives highly detailed information regarding the coastal defences that protect Brancaster’s coastal unit, and due to its specialist nature has been used as the principal source of information in this section. According to the EA, the east and west embankments surrounding Brancaster West Marshes are in a good state of repair (Fig. 1). However, the north wall is deteriorating despite being continually maintained, and as such is in danger of breaching [11]. The coastal frontage occupied by the RWNGC positioned in the eastern section of the coastal unit is located in a highly vulnerable site. The club house is protected by a sea wall and the central section of the wall is further reinforced by a promenade, which is backed by a wave wall. These defences are also fronted by rock armour. To the west of the club house, the sea walls merge with the EA’s defences. Here, the dune frontage is protected by additional linear defences, including new and old gabion revetments and rock armour. The club house and the EA’s revetments are additionally protected by two closure banks to the east and west, and the foredune ridge protects the golf links. To the east of the club house, two sea walls protect the public beach. These walls are parallel with both sides of the access road that runs through the foredunes. However, the foredunes,

* * *

Do nothing Hold the line Realign the entire site Realign 300 m inland

The EA decided to adopt the 300 m realignment policy following a series of assessments including hydrodynamic, ecological and engineering, as well as extensive consultation with landowners, the golf club and other stakeholders (Fig. 1). The partial realignment flood defence scheme will be designed in such a way that a new embankment will be constructed 300 m landward of the existing north bank and the west bank will be removed to the line of the new bank [34]. The new embankment will protect the SPA area. However, 7.5 ha of pasture (also of SPA status) situated between the old and the new wall will be lost but alternatively encouraged to ‘regenerate into a saltmarshy form[ing] an integral part of the new defence’ [11]. The EA will also re-profile the existing armoured sand dunes to the west of the golf club house mainly for landscape reasons. In addition, the Golf Club will fund a private defence located to the west of the practice course that will be independent of the EA’s works, but will benefit from re-using stone from the gabions. In order to protect the few properties that are likely to be more susceptible to inundation, a ring bank

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

51

Table 3 Defence priorities: primary and secondary objectives for the Brancaster areaa Primary objectives

Secondary objectives

*

Continue to provide flood protection to low lying properties, especially at Brancaster Staithe and Brancaster, by maintaining or reconstructing existing defences where necessary

*

Protect the Royal West Norfolk Golf Club from erosion where possible and compatible with the primary objectives and natural processes

*

Maintain coastal processes and natural supply of sediment to the frontage, particularly to Scolt Head and allow natural migration of the frontage and Scolt Head to occur

*

Maintain navigational access to Brancaster Staithe and Thornham harbours for both commercial and recreational vessels

*

Protect the freshwater marshes at Titchwell until these habitats can be recreated elsewhere

*

Maintain the coastal footpath

*

Restrict development of property assess likely to be vulnerable to flooding

*

Maintain the existing area of freshwater and saltmarshes within the unit, or provide replacements elsewhere

*

Coastal defences to be made visually appropriate to the environment a

Source: Ref. [25].

was constructed approximately 3 yr ago. Further works include building a footpath on top of the new embankment, to minimise any trampling on the new saltings (that are likely to be fragile in their juvenile stages) and also compensating where access may be lost due to the scheme. The engineering works will be set over a 2-yr period. Phase 1 will commence July–October 2001, and Phase 2 the following year. The project will have obtained statutory approvals during the course of the phases (i.e. planning permission, environmental assessment, funding approval and monitoring). Besides technical and procedural reasons for this time frame, major consideration is given to nesting and over-wintering birds that could potentially be impacted. Thus, by fulfilling such considerations, this scheme is deemed to be compliant with the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). 3.6. Impacts of the partial managed realignment scheme The long term benefits of the selected option, are seen by the EA to offset the potential short term impacts, ensuring maximum sustainability will be achieved (both economically and environmentally) [11]. The main benefit common to all stakeholders is that the new scheme will lower the risk of flooding from the present level of a 1 in 5 yr risk to 1 in 50 yr (conforming with MAFF’s Project Appraisal Guidance (PAG) 3: economic appraisal). This scheme is the most economically viable option, costing d389k, with guaranteed maintenance expenditure to be considerably less than the current strategy. In contrast, the alternative options have been calculated as follows: do nothing d468k, hold the line d508k and finally a total realignment would be expected to cost d579k [11].

From an environmental viewpoint, the scheme is compliant with both the Habitats and Birds Directives [11] and according to the ecological assessment and environmental statement, is not expected to cause major detriment to the ecological integrity of the site [30]. Nevertheless, major concerns were expressed by locals and conservationists regarding the recovery of the habitat as a result of the saltmarsh intrusion [35]. Ecological changes on the 7.5 ha of unprotected land are expected to be visible initially, as the freshwater environment eventually turns brackish. Landscape enhancement in the form of a proto creek will be carried out in the first phase of the scheme, with a dual purpose of sourcing material [36] and potentially making it more aesthetically pleasing [37]. The physical construction of the new landward embankment will be less imposing than the existing wall. The current height of the sea wall +7 m ODN will be reduced to +5.1 m ODN [11], allowing the saltmarsh to work with the defences by dissipating the wave energy. However, the Brancaster managed realignment project is not without its costs. For example, sporadic engineering works (phases 1 and 2) are likely to include noise and dust, and pose other health and safety issues (given that operations will be occurring in the summer ‘holiday’ season and within close proximity to the highly popular golf course). However, mitigating measures have been set out to minimise the disruption to humans. (see Ref. [11]). With regards to access, a culvert at the northern part of the west wall (at the point where the new creek will exit) has been incorporated into the scheme as a legal requirement to maintain the traditional common right holders access. This installation will facilitate drainage and is not expected to impede saltmarsh regeneration. However, as the right of

52

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

way will be liable to flooding at high tides, footpath users are therefore likely to be restricted. Nevertheless, this limitation was accepted by the common right holders, and was the preferred option over the construction of a bridge, which would pose further landscape issues [11,36]. However, in order to promote saltmarsh regeneration the right of way will temporary be diverted along the EA’s new bank. As the summary of impacts clearly identifies, in the short term, there will be significant disruption to the local coastal area and community. Nevertheless, in order to provide the most sustainable coastal defence option, it would be unwise to take a myopic approach. Other than project financial viability, the partial realignment scheme aims to work in harmony with the natural coastal dynamics, as if reverting back to prereclamation times. And more importantly, it is allowing the natural environment to work alongside anthropogenic influences to reduce the risk of coastal flooding.

4. Pilot study 4.1. Characteristics of respondents Forty-two questionnaires were collected from the oneday public exhibition at Brancaster. Most of the respondents were male (60%). The majority of respondents questioned were over 45 yr (91%), and of these, 43% were over 65 yr. There was no representation from the under 24 age category. In terms of occupation, 42% of respondents were retired, and a similar proportion of respondents were in full time employment (41%). The questionnaire did not request a detailed breakdown of the employment. The community demographics are considered typical of the local area. The lack of youth in the area can be attributed to two main factors, the first being high property prices (which are driven by tourism), and secondly, the lack of employment [36]. As anticipated, the majority of respondents were local residents (78%) and 71% of this figure lived within a 0–5 miles radius of the partial managed realignment site. Of all the respondents who were questioned, 86% attended the public exhibition/meeting because they were interested in local issues, where as 38% of the respondents claimed to be directly affected in some way by the proposed managed realignment scheme. Respondents were questioned about their awareness of the Brancaster managed realignment project. Given that the managed realignment project had been in the public domain since 1996, as expected the majority of respondents (64%) had been aware of the project for more than 12 months. Only 14% of those questioned had been made aware of the scheme within a month of the public meeting (February, 2001). Most of the respondents had become aware of the managed realign-

ment project through public meetings (43%) and local newspapers (36%). Furthermore, two-thirds of respondents had previously heard of the terms managed realignment or managed retreat. Prior to the public meeting and exhibition, Howell [36] considered that community familiarity with these terms was contrary to the pilot findings. Given this, it may be reasonable to assume that the respondents did not want to appear ill informed. Thus, the main delimitation of the research is that all the data was collected from the on-site exhibition. Here, the study has confined itself to questioning members of the public who are more likely to be impacted by the managed realignment scheme or at least, targeted those who are interested in local community issues.

4.2. Results and discussion As previously highlighted, the aim of the pilot study was to identify the local community’s general perceptions of the Brancaster West Marsh realignment project. In particular, the questionnaire facilitated this aim by setting out three objectives: (1) Assessing local’s perceptions of the likelihood of flooding in Brancaster. This is important in identifying respondent’s misperceptions, which may be seen to have implications for the acceptance of coastal defence decisions. (2) Assessing local’s perceived awareness of the managed realignment scheme. This will indicate whether respondents have had access to information. It will also highlight, when cross-tabulated with other questions whether the various levels of awareness have influenced responses. (3) Identifying the main managed realignment issues that locals considered to be important. In addressing the first objective, respondents were asked how susceptible they considered the Brancaster area to be to coastal flooding. In response to this question, 73.8% of respondents thought flooding was ‘likely to very likely’ (Fig. 3). However, according to the EA, the majority of properties in the villages of Brancaster Staithe, Brancaster, Titchwell and Thornham are situated above the 5 m contour line (this height is assumed by the EA to be the maximum flood risk level), and therefore ‘only a few properties are vulnerable to flooding at present’ [25]. Possible explanations why so many respondents misperceived the susceptibility of flood may be due to the notoriety of the storm surges and flood events that have occurred over the decades, which have often received great attention (i.e. the 1953 flood that led to 300 lives being lost [7], as well as the floods of Autumn 2000 throughout the UK.

53

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57

45 40

Respondents (%)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Very unlikely

Unlikely

Likely

Very likely

Don't know

Fig. 3. Perceived likelihood of coastal flooding in Brancaster.

Although there is no ‘correct’ perception of risk [38,39], Fordham [16] considers that the public are unlikely to have access to statistical data to make a valid assessment, thus risk is judged in terms of their own experience and what they have heard or seen. Therefore, it may be reasonable to assume that the respondents in this case may not have had sufficient access to, or understanding of statistical data to make an informed decision. Tunstall et al. [20] has also identified that with respect to river management, a major information gap exists regarding flood risk and flood alleviation schemes among flood plain residents, this in turn affects residents’ ability to make informed choices about flood management [20]. In order to clarify flood risk for local residents it would be recommended that information mechanisms should be reviewed and where necessary improved, and online services that identify local area floodplains should be promoted, such as those offered by the EA [40]. Another explanation for the extent to which risk is judged may result from respondents’ lack of direct experience of flooding, and thus increasing the potential for overstating the risk [36]. The second objective was designed to assess how respondents perceived their self-awareness of the managed realignment scheme. This question did not explore respondents’ actual knowledge of the scheme (i.e. technical, environmental or economical); rather it was intended to obtain a preliminary snap-shot of perceived information deficiencies (if any). The majority of respondents questioned considered themselves to be ‘informed’ about the Brancaster project (48%), with only 24% of respondents considered as ‘very well informed’. Nevertheless, this would suggest that individuals have shown some degree of interest and that

information regarding the project has been accessible to the public. As Tunstall et al. [19] ascertain, ‘public perception research can, and sometimes does, inform environmental managers about how people respond to their proposals for change to particular environments’. Although this study targeted respondents who were more likely to be aware of the scheme, the deficiency in the pilot was the failure to account for those respondents who accepted the scheme in comparison with those who did not. This was intentionally left out of the pilot survey since it was considered to be potentially contentious by the organisers of the exhibition (i.e. the purpose of the exhibition was to gain public support and acceptance). However, scheme acceptance issues will be addressed in future studies. The data collected from respondents’ perception of flooding were further analysed against respondents’ perceived awareness of the managed realignment scheme (Fig. 4). As previously stated, the majority of respondents considered themselves to be ‘informed’, and also perceived flooding to be ‘likely to very likely’ (85%). Given this, it was hypothesised that respondents who claimed to better informed would consider flooding in Brancaster to be less likely. These results were inconclusive since 50% of the respondents who claimed to be ‘very well informed’ perceived flooding to be ‘very likely’, while 40% of also ‘very well informed’ respondents thought flooding to be ‘very unlikely to unlikely’. This would suggest that regardless of respondents’ perceived awareness of the managed realignment scheme mixed messages are being received, which in turn can result in misperception. Moreover, it was also expected that the majority of respondents who were in some way affected by the

54

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57 35

30

Respondents (%)

25

20

15

10

5

0 Very well informed

Well informed

Very unlikely

Unlikely

Informed

Likely

Poorly informed

Very likely

Very poorly informed

Don't know

Fig. 4. Respondents’ perceptions of coastal flooding in Brancaster and their perceived awareness of the managed realignment scheme.

100% 90% 80%

Respndents (%)

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Directly affected

Very well informed

Indirectly affected

Well informed

Informed

Fig. 5. Perceived awareness of the respondents who are directly and indirectly affected by the managed realignment scheme.

realignment scheme would perceive themselves to be ‘very well informed’ (Fig. 5). This was found to be true when compared against indirectly affected respondents, and would suggest that direct experience and involvement with the scheme may enhance respondents’ understanding and awareness.

The third objective of the questionnaire was to identify broader issues related to the managed realignment scheme perceived to be important by the local community (Table 4). According to Tunstall et al. [20] the use and importance of river corridors and associated open spaces will affect residents’ acceptance of structural flood alleviation schemes and river management [20]. As such, this may have similar implications for the acceptance and understanding of the scheme at Brancaster. The pilot study demonstrated that majority of respondents considered the ‘effectiveness of managed realignment as a flood defence’ to be a very important issue (59.5%). French [1] has identified public reaction to scheme effectiveness as an area worthy of research. For example, he considers the extent to which ‘individuals will judge a scheme to be successful will ultimately depend on their own set of interests, and whether they are upheld by the scheme’. Other frequently selected ‘very important’ issues identified by the Brancaster respondents include impacts on access (40.5%), conservation (40.5%) and personal property (38.1%). Therefore, it may be reasonable to assume that these issues have the potential to influence respondents’ perceived effectiveness and acceptance of the scheme. This may be confirmed by Howell [35], who identified that the issue of flooded property was never highly profiled at Brancaster (given that so few properties are potentially affected), rather it was the salvaging of the habitat and secondly, maintaining a safety margin in surge conditions for members of the RWNGC who would require access via the main road.

55

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57 Table 4 Respondents importance ratings for a selection of managed realignment issuesa Issues

Not important (%)

Less important (%)

Of some importance (%)

Important (%)

Very important (%)

Do not know (%)

Effectiveness as a flood defence Impact of public access Impact on recreation Impact on tourism Impact on conservation Impact on farming Impact on fishing Impact on personal property

2.4 4.8 7.1 16.7 2.4 11.9 26.2 14.3

0 14.3 16.7 26.2 4.8 14.3 11.8 4.8

11.9 26.2 31 21.4 23.8 11.9 16.7 11.9

19 11.8 16.7 23.8 23.8 28.6 14.3 21.4

59.5 40.5 23.7 4.8 40.5 23.8 14.3 38.1

7.2 2.4 4.8 7.1 4.7 9.5 16.7 9.5

a

Other issues (not specified) 7.1% considered there were still other issues of importance.

Furthermore, as Tunstall et al. [20] conclude, one of the benefits of living in a flood plain is that recreational and amenity opportunities are increased. Therefore, it might be expected that the Brancaster respondents will give comparable ‘importance’ ratings for these two issues. Existing literature has identified that recreation and access can be integrally linked. For example, Shafer et al. discuss the usefulness of bike and pedestrian facilities (multi-use trails) as contributors to mobility and access, reliability, social equity, the environment and to the quality of life in a community [41]. Furthermore, recreation and access, particularly in the countryside can be viewed as two competing factors. Bell [42], describes situations where conflicts may result, for example, where private vehicles gain access to recreation sites, as well as in circumstances where footpaths and maybe other sites are eroding. Public access is regarded as an important issue for the local community and other interest groups of Brancaster, and the importance of this was reinforced at the public meeting when the subject of footpath access was raised many times by locals. For example, concern at the temporary footpath closures was expressed, particularly where beach access will be restricted during the engineering phases. Furthermore, residents and common right holders were concerned of the potential loss of footpaths caused by the establishment of a creek following the managed realignment works. In contrast, the Brancaster Parish Council and the RWNGC were primarily concerned about the impact on the Brancaster Beach Road Bank, which had safety access implications. Results from the pilot questionnaire suggest that in the main, respondents give similar ‘importance’ ratings for public access and recreation (Fig. 6), thus confirming the existence of a relationship. The exception to this, however, was found to be in the ‘very important’ category, where nearly twice as many respondents prioritised access over recreation. As acknowledged by Green and Tunstall [43], in their 1992 study of households’ preferences of river corridor features, ease of access was one of the most desired features as well as the attractiveness of the natural

environment. However, in terms of recreation preference, only current or potential visitors are likely to place a high value on recreation preference. They do however say that there is no theoretical reason why someone living in town A would not value town B [43]. Thus, the bias towards public access may be due to the delimitation of the pilot sample. Therefore, if the survey is extended to include tourists, it may be reasonable to expect more respondents to prioritise recreation as a ‘very important’ issue. The extent to which decision-makers are trusted by the public is also an important issue, and this will be addressed in future studies. Flood hazard research conducted by Fordham, hypothesised that ‘attitudes to the [EA’s predecessor, the] National Rivers Authority (NRA) would influence attitudes to schemes’ [16]. However, a case study conducted on the Lower Stour river catchment showed that this relationship was reversed, and respondents were found to have little experience of the NRA. Nevertheless, Fordham considers it likely that the two variables are closely interlinked [16]. Furthermore, Tunstall et al., made recommendations to the NRA emphasising that the public need to be aware of the environmental sensitivity of its flood defence works. Tunstall et al. [20] consider ‘that concerns for the environmental impact of flood defence schemes is a major factor in their acceptability, stressing the importance of securing the NRA’s reputation [20].

5. Conclusions This pilot study provides an insight into the issues and misperceptions regarding the Brancaster West Marshes managed realignment scheme. The results demonstrate that the majority of respondents considered flooding to be ‘likely to very likely’ in Brancaster, and reasons for this, as discussed may be attributed to past experiences, media influence and lack of information. With regards to respondents’ perceived awareness of the managed realignment scheme, the majority of respondents classed

56

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57 45 40 35

Respondents (%)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Not important

Less important

Of some importance

Important

Public access

Very important

Don't know

Recreation

Fig. 6. Respondents’ importance ratings for public access and recreation.

themselves as ‘informed’. This would suggest that information is being filtered through to those who are interested in the local issues. However, there was no correlation between respondents’ perceived awareness of the scheme and likelihood of flooding in Brancaster. As expected, however, respondents who claimed to be directly affected by the scheme rated themselves as being more aware. The study has also identified that some managed realignment issues received greater attention. For example, the majority of respondents considered scheme effectiveness, access and conservation to be the three most important issues. Recreation and access were expected to be interlinked variables, however, the results from this study were inconclusive. Further work will give attention to the issues surrounding public acceptance of schemes, public perceptions of their effectiveness and the extent to which the decision-makers are trusted. Finally, this pilot study has demonstrated that there are many variables influencing the public perception of managed realignment. As there is no apparent formula to calculate which variables come into play, it would be reasonable to conclude that studying the perception of managed realignment schemes should be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

Acknowledgements Research funding from the ESRC (award number R00429934321) is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are

also extended to Mr. Mark Dixon, EA (Anglian Region), Mrs. Janice Howell (Brancaster Parish Councillor) and Mr. Richard Seppings (Brancaster Common Right Holders Association) for providing current information and viewpoints on the Brancaster project.

References [1] French PW. Coastal defences: processes, problems and solutions. UK: Routledge, 2001. [2] English Nature, Environmental opportunities in low lying coastal areas under a scenario of climate change, Final Report 16, English Nature, 1991. [3] MAFF, Coastal defence and the environment: a guide to good practice, PB 1191. London: HMSO, 1993. [4] House of Commons Agricultural Committee. Flood and coastal defence, vol. 1. Sixth Report HC707.1, London, 1998. [5] Pye K, French P. 1993, Erosion and accretion processes on British salt marshes, Final Report to MAFF, Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd. In: Ballinger RC, Potts JS, Bradly NJ, Pettit SJ, editors. ‘A comparison between coastal hazard planning in New Zealand and the evolving approach in England and Wales’. Ocean & Coastal Management 2000;43:905–25. [6] Sharpe J. Personal communication. Managed Realignment Meeting, Norwich, 26 March 2001. . [7] Moller I, Spencer T, French J, Leggett D, Dixon M. ‘The seadefence value of salt marshes: field evidence from North Norfolk’. Journal of Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management 2001;15:109–16. [8] Environment Agency. East Anglian salt marshes: the meadows of the sea. AN-11/96-5K-D-AWME, 1996. [9] Pethick J. Brancaster West MarshFassessment of partial retreat option, Environment Agency Reports STCG29, 1998.

L.B. Myatt-Bell et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 45–57 [10] Pethick J. ‘Shoreline adjustments and coastal managementFphysical and biological processes under accelerated sea-level rise’. Geographical Journal 1993;159(2):162–8. [11] Tyrrell K, Dixon M. Brancaster West Marsh. Engineers Final Draft, Environment Agency, Ipswich, 2000. [12] French P. Managed retreat: a natural analogue from the Medway Estuary, UK. Ocean & Coastal Management 1999;42:49–62. [13] Underwood GJC. Microalgal colonization in a saltmarsh restoration scheme. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 1997;44(4):471–81. [14] Macleod CL, Scrimshaw MD, Emerson RHC, Chang YH, Lester JN. Geochemical changes in metal and nutrient loading at Orplands Farm managed retreat site, Essex, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1999;38(12):1115–25. [15] King SE, Lester JN. The value of salt marsh as a sea defence. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1995;30(3):180–9. [16] Fordham M. Choice and constraint in flood hazard mitigation: the environmental attitudes of floodplain residents and engineers, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Middlesex Polytechnic, 1992. [17] House M, Fordham M. Public perception of river corridors and attitudes towards river works. Publication No. 24, Paper presented at The river landscapes: Environmental partnerships in practice, Egham, Surrey, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex, 1992. [18] House M. Public perception and water quality management. Water Science Technology 1996;34:25–32. [19] Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Eden S. How stable are public responses to changing local environments? A ‘before’ & ‘after’ case study of river restoration. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 1999;42(4):527–47. [20] Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Fordham M. Public perception of rivers and flood defence: final report. Summary of regional and national R&D, R&D Note 445, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, 1994. [21] Daniel T. Criteria for development & application of perceived environmental quality indices. In: Craik K, Zube E, editors. Perceiving environmental quality: research & applications. New York: Plenum Press, 1976 [Chapter 2]. [22] Anable J. Questionnaire: The national trust survey. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 2000. [23] Environment Agency. Shoreline management plans in the anglian region, AN-5/98-2K-E-BAVI, Environment Agency, 1998. [24] Ash J, Lawton P. Shoreline management plans: a case study for the North Norfolk coast, Putting Policy into Practice, Institution of Civil Engineers Coastal Management 1995, Bournemouth Moat House, Thomas Telford Services, 1995. [25] Environment Agency, North Norfolk District Council, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council, MAFF and English Nature. North Norfolk shoreline management plan. Sheringham to Snettisham Scalp, Mouchel Associates, 1996.

57

[26] Potts JS. The information needs and requirements of coastal defence groups of England and Wales, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff, 1999. [27] Pettit S. The statutory approach to coastal defence in England and Wales. Marine Policy 1999;23(4–5):465–77. [28] House of Commons Environment Select Committee. Coastal zone protection and planning, vols 1 and 2, HC17-1. London: HMSO, 1992. [29] Environment Agency. Eastern Area Operations Brancaster West Marsh Sea Wall Condition and Outline Option Report, Environment Agency, 1996. [30] Environment Agency. Brancaster West Marshes flood defence environmental statement, Environment Agency, 2000. [31] Andrew Ward Associates. Assessment of the ecological importance and possible benefits and losses of flood defence options at Brancaster. A Report to the Environment Agency Anglian Region’, Draft, 1997. [32] Environment Agency. Hydrodynamic assessment of proposed scheme at Brancaster West Marsh. Environment Agency, Anglian Region, c. 1999. [33] Howell J. Personal communication, Email regarding Brancaster West Marsh, 3 January 2001. [34] Environment Agency. Brancaster flood protection scheme North Norfolk. Leaflet, 2001. [35] Howell J. Personal communication, Email regarding properties at risk form flooding in Brancaster, 7 June 2001. [36] Howell J. Personal communication. Email regarding the Brancaster scheme, 16 June 2001. [37] Pilcher R. Seas of changeFThe RSPB perspective, CoastNET dynamic coastlines, SOAS, Russell Square, London, 6 June 2001. [38] Kasperson R, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 1988;8(2):177–87. [39] Douglas M. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. [40] Environment Agency. Indicative floodplains. Online: www. environment-agency.gov.uk, accessed on 24 May 2001. [41] Shafer C, Lee B, Turner S. A tale of three greenway trails: user perception related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000;49:163–78. [42] Bell P. Contesting rural recreation: the battle over access to Windermere. Land Use Policy 2000;17:295–303. [43] Green C, Tunstall S. The environmental value and attractiveness of river corridors. Publication No. 235, Paper presented at Les paysages de l’eau aux portes de la ville: mise en valeur eislegique et integration sociale, Lyon, France, University of Middlesex, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Enfield, 1993. [44] Gubbay S. A coastal directory for marine nature conservation. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, 1988.