To examine perceptions of governance processes surrounding Dollymount promenade flood defences, the relationship between oppositional attitudes and perceived effectiveness of the governance process were examined. Spearman’s Rho correlations between the reverse-worded statement ‘I was not in favour of the proposed flood defences’ and each statement measuring positive perceptions of the governance process subsequently displayed negative relationships (Table 5.5). For example, correlation analysis showed statistically significant negative relationships between oppositional attitudes and belief that the planning process was
‘fair’ (rho = -.49, n = 221, p < .001), ‘trust in Dublin City Council to make flood defence related decisions regarding Clontarf’ (rho = -.47, n = 223, p <
.001) or ‘community views were listened to’ (rho = -.53, n = 223, p < .001).
136
A Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted to identify potential differences in perceptions of governance processes between Clontarf and Dollymount promenade questionnaires. Results showed a relatively small deterioration in perceptions of effective governance between both studies related to those statements measuring perceptions of agency and control over decision-making. For instance, individuals were significantly less likely to believe that “community views were listened to” for Dollymount promenade defences (Md = 4.00, n = 229) compared to Clontarf promenade (Md = 4.00, n = 251, U = 25704, z = -2.09, p < .05, r = .09).
Similarly, individuals perceived that they were significantly less likely to be
“able to influence the planning and decision-making process” for Dollymount promenade (Md = 4.00, n = 221) than for Clontarf promenade flood defences (Md = 4.00, n = 256, U = 25083, z = -2.22, p < .05, r = .10). All other statements measuring perceptions of governance processes showed no improvements over time (Table 5.2).
Clontarf promenade
Dollymount promenade Not in favour of proposed flood defences Perceptions of governance processes
Community views were listened to -.35** -.53**
Information from Dublin City Council was
I trust in Dublin City Council to make flood defence related decisions regarding Clontarf
-.45** -.47**
Table 5.5: Bivariate correlations between opposition to proposed flood defences and perceptions of the governance process for Clontarf promenade and Dollymount promenade. Note: ** significant at p < .001
Perceptions that historic failures in governance planning were not addressed following the issues which arose for Clontarf promenade defences was evidenced from an analysis of secondary data sources used to capture manifest themes, which repeatedly highlighted residents’
137
dissatisfaction of governance processes surrounding Dollymount promenade flood defences:
“It is quite unbelievable that no lessons were learned from the debacle that unfolded when a previous flood defence plan for the Clontarf Road was imposed on the local community” – Elected representative (Clontarf.ie, 2015b)
“I think it's time the people of Clontarf and surrounding area should have another march like we did before to show DCC that we don't want and will not have this wall” – Local resident 1 (Clontarf.ie, 2015a)
“DCC cannot continue to bombard us with information that they expect us to accept without question” – Local resident 2 (Facebook.com, 2015)
“Lack of foresight from the council and planning department once again” – Local resident 3 (Change.org, 2015)
“If the information was clear when planning permission was sought there would have been too many complaints from the local community to go ahead” – Local resident 4 (Larkin, 2016)
The lack of control felt by individuals over decision-making was further reflected by many individuals who expressed doubts over the necessity for coastal flood defences of any kind along Dollymount promenade based on historical experience of pluvial flood risks in this area:
“In over 50 years I have never seen a flood at this end of Clontarf” – Local resident 5 (Facebook.com, 2015)
“I’ve listened to very experienced locals continually say this area floods from St. Anne's Park, not from the bay” – Local resident 6 (Facebook.com, 2015)
"They're fixing a problem that never existed” – Local resident 7 (Anderson, 2015)
138
These sentiments were later reiterated following extensive pluvial flooding along Dollymount promenade in May 2017:
“A total disgrace. We sat across a table for over a year and told them [Dublin City Council] they were building a flood defence where there was virtually no tide, that the flooding problem was from the Naniken River in the park. They assured us that the drainage problems in the park had been resolved. Yesterday no tide and yet flooding” – Local resident 8 (Facebook.com, 2017)
“Well done to those who built the new road and flood defence. You have managed to make the problem worse. Everybody knows the flooding always comes from the park” – Local resident 9 (Facebook.com, 2017)
“This is beyond a joke. Hundreds of residents have expressed the fact that… 'pluvial water’… is the real cause [of flooding]” – Local resident 10 (Facebook.com, 2017)
“If they [Dublin City Council] had asked the local people, we could have told them the floods were from the park and not the sea coming over the wall” – Local resident 11 (Facebook.com, 2017) These results demonstrate that rather than perceptions of governance processes improving between both studies based on historic learnings, individuals believed they had less control over flood defence decision-making in the present study than for Clontarf promenade defences.
Moreover, failure to integrate local knowledge into decision-making was recognised as a key barrier to transformative adaptation along Clontarf promenade (Chapter 4). The re-emergence of this issue for flood defences along Dollymount promenade, and the perceived inability of the local authority to account for local knowledge in adaptation planning by addressing concerns over more pressing pluvial flood risks specific to Dollymount promenade, is demonstrative of why perceptions of governance processes did not improve over time.
139
5.4 Discussion
Some researchers have suggested that individuals may consciously loosen their attachment to place in order to minimise place disruption (Brown and Perkins, 1992; Possick, 2006). Although interpretative responses to flood defences along Dollymount promenade were deemed as less threatening to place than those proposed along Clontarf promenade, the stability of place attachment across both studies shows no evidence of this occurring.
Instead, both opposition and place-protective interpretative responses were weaker for Dollymount promenade flood defences despite place attachment remaining stable over time, suggesting that place attachment processes are resilient in the face of repeated threats to place. Attachment to place is considered as slow-moving, influencing the rate at which planned adaptation proceeds (Marshall et al., 2012; Quinn et al., 2015).
However, strength of place attachment in isolation does not necessarily determine the extent of opposition to place change, but opposition is also dependant on how change is interpreted, which is subsequently determined by the social context and trust individuals have in key organisations (Devine-Wright and Howes, 2010), as this study also confirms.
The literature suggests that where the object of place attachment is primarily based on social rather than physical attributes, interpreting whether proposed place change will directly improve the local community, as opposed to its environmental impacts, will largely determine public responses (Devine-Wright, 2009). For instance, Stedman demonstrated that individuals who held symbolic beliefs about a recreational area as a
“community of neighbors” were less likely to oppose development, regardless of strength of place attachment (Stedman, 2002: 569). The results from Clontarf across both studies however point to strong meanings ascribed to physical environmental features, and less on the social aspects these spaces provide. Specifically, it suggests that individuals who ascribe stronger values to physical characteristics of place may be more willing to oppose disruptive change than those who value its social aspects
140
(Stedman, 2002). This offers further evidence for the need for greater consideration of place attachment processes in adaptation planning.
For adaptation planning, how communities interpret change also depends on existing knowledge and lived experience of weather-related hazards in that place, influencing attitudes towards adaptation (Adger, 2016). In this regard, the need for double-loop and triple-loop learning in environmental governance has long been recognised (Holling et al., 2002). Through such learning new actors are introduced, policy failures in underlying systems can be addressed and priorities can be re-framed (Holling et al., 2002), preventing those responsible for adaptation planning from instinctively re-defining problems in terms of scientific knowledge (Cloutier et al., 2015).
Embracing approaches beyond single-loop learnings and moving towards double-loop and triple-loop learning offers an effective means of systemic governance transformation (van Bommel et al., 2016), as this study also confirms.
As the case of Dollymount promenade shows, residents had contrasting beliefs to that of institutional authorities over the primary cause of flood risks in the area based on lived experience (pluvial versus tidal). This offers an important lesson because how different perspectives of weather-related hazards are negotiated between planners and communities has a profound influence on public attitudes, place change interpretations and the subsequent success of adaptation strategies. Findings from this study strengthen the argument for using solutions that guide local interventions towards adaptation planning based on an understanding of citizens’
environmental experience (von Wirth et al., 2016). The results also suggest that the traditional ‘Decide, Announce, Defend’ strategy adopted by decision-makers for public consultation and justice in environmental decision-making in Ireland has created a legacy of distrust between stakeholders (Ewing et al., 2011), and more specifically highlights the limited role of citizens in national flood risk management decision-making (Revez, 2014).
141
How individuals perceive and experience adaptation is influenced by levels of autonomy and control they have over decisions, in addition to governmental leadership, action and support (Gibson et al., 2016; Marshall et al., 2016; Schlosberg et al., 2017). Theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that the core factor shaping public behaviour and deference to legal authorities is the perceived fairness of government policies and decisions (Tyler, 2003; Adger et al., 2016). Governance practices are subsequently open to renegotiation, particularly as events unfold or as new information emerges (O’Brien et al., 2009; Pelling and Dill, 2010; Adger, 2013). It was therefore expected that in the aftermath of objections to governance processes for Clontarf promenade flood defences, perceptions of public participation processes for flood defences along Dollymount promenade would improve in response to those lessons learned by the local authority. Instead, individuals’ perceptions of governance processes remained static over the course of both studies. Indeed, perceptions of lower autonomy, expressed by individuals in terms of being less able to influence decision-making for flood defences along Dollymount promenade compared with Clontarf promenade, was evidenced in this study.
Learning from past events can open up emergent spaces for change (Chapin III et al., 2010). Clarke et al. (2016) demonstrated that where transformative adaptation fails, adaptation may be best achieved through a series of incremental measures, the results of which might coalesce into transformation. In Clontarf however, historic concerns regarding the efficacy of public participation were latent and compounding in nature.
Specifically, those concerns related to ineffective governance processes for proposed flood defences along Clontarf promenade re-emerged again for Dollymount promenade flood defences. Where perceptions exist that authorities have failed in their obligations with respect to public consultation on one occasion, future adaptation of any kind is unlikely to be smooth and efficient.
Studies have frequently argued that a transformation of governance processes is necessary for transformative adaptation (Olsson et al., 2004;
142
Olsson et al., 2006; Termeer et al., 2016; Patterson et al., 2017), to which this research adds important insights. Specifically, where transformative change that threatens community values is attempted and fails (Clontarf promenade), even incremental change becomes highly contested (Dollymount promenade) to the extent that a transformation of governance processes is required to reduce the likelihood of resistance to incremental adaptation. Governance processes need to incorporate learnings accordingly or consequently face the risk of repeatedly encountering community resistance to adaptation once perceived as rational.