Impact case study database

The key impact of the research is the development of a completely new, non-invasive way of monitoring lake fish communities and assessing the ecological status of lakes, based on environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding. The method delivers comprehensive data on the distribution of fish, which in turn provides important and accurate information on the ecological status of water bodies, which is a requirement of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (which protects and improves the water environment, and defines the legal, statutory monitoring requirements for bodies of water).

The eDNA method was adopted by Defra agencies for WFD assessment of lakes, following a consultation by the WFD UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) between 6^th January and 14^th February 2020 (5.1).

This provides the UK with the first fully-operational approach anywhere in the world for lake fish monitoring and WFD assessment using eDNA metabarcoding.

Beneficiaries: The main direct beneficiaries of this work are the Defra agencies that are required to carry out fish community monitoring for regulatory and decision-making purposes, and the private companies (e.g. consultancies such as Nature Metrics) contracted to fulfil this monitoring work.

Benefits, and evidence of benefits, to Defra Agencies:

1. Development of a monitoring strategy based on modern molecular eDNA methods.

Evidence: Data generated and analysed during a roll-out of the method across 101 UK lakes was included in the UKTAG consultation, which resulted in the adoption of the fish monitoring tool by Defra agencies in 2020 (5.1). In a joint statement by the Environment Agency (EA), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and NatureScot (5.2), the agencies described the research carried out by UoH as: “having contributed towards achieving a step change” and having “already impacted the strategic vision of the agencies and the way lake fish communities are monitored.” (5.2)

2. Providing a method that enables the launch of a lake fish monitoring programme compatible with the WFD, a legal requirement which could not be previously fulfilled.

Evidence: The method has been *“approved as a WFD monitoring method, following a formal consultation process by the UK WFD Technical Advisory Group.*” (5.2)

3. Providing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for lake fish monitoring with eDNA, that can be followed for routine monitoring.

Evidence: “ Collectively this research has successfully delivered a standard operating procedure covering sampling and lab processes and an assessment procedure that allows the condition of lake fish communities [to be assessed].” (5.2)

4. Providing evidence in ongoing monitoring programmes.

Evidence: “ The eDNA based fish monitoring tool developed by UoH is already being deployed in a number of different statutory monitoring programmes carried out by the UK-EAs.” (5.2). For example, the method was used to provide baseline data on rare and invasive species in 36 lakes of the River Thames floodplain, as part of Environmental Impact Assessments for the proposed London Flood Channel in 2016 and the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme in 2018 (5.3). In both cases, lake fish monitoring was required to inform mitigation strategies and develop an environmentally acceptable scheme, to enable assessment of Special Protection Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and to allow assessment against WFD objectives. Data on species detections (for example the presence of the protected bullhead, Cottus gobio) advised decisions on the mitigation of effects of the flood alleviation schemes and was included in the respective impact assessments (5.3).

5. Cost implications and financial impact.

Evidence: “ The method also provides considerable cost and time savings compared to conventional methods” (5.2). For Scottish lochs, the estimated cost-saving through the eDNA approach was >£1,000 per lake (even during the proof-of-concept phase), with significant cost reduction expected after further optimisation (as substantially less labour is required, for a shorter period). SEPA will therefore make substantial savings, alongside other regulatory bodies.

Benefits, and evidence of benefits, to the private sector:

The method has been adopted by a commercial company (Nature Metrics) which is offering it as a service to ecological consultancies and other end users. This development has generated commercial and financial benefits. UoH has collaborated closely with the company to facilitate this adoption, producing a standard operating procedure covering sampling and lab processes and assessment of the condition of lake fish communities . The CEO of Nature Metrics states in her letter of support (5.4) that : “The research provided the foundation for developing a commercial service for fish eDNA metabarcoding, which we have now applied to approximately 2000 client samples from over 20 countries, primarily for purposes of conservation and environmental impact assessment (EIA). This has generated approximately £XXXX in revenue since 2017”.

Evidence of wider impact:

Throughout this research we have worked closely with Defra agencies and other stakeholders to facilitate the uptake of eDNA-based monitoring more generally. Activities that support the wider impact of our research include:

1. Writing a review of DNA-based methods for the Scottish Government (3.10), which “ contributed significantly to the drive towards using eDNA approaches to Site Condition Monitoring… and environmental quality assessments … *and the development of an internal NatureScot Genetics Strategy.*” (5.2)

2. Playing a key role in the development of the UK Earth Observation Framework DNA Working Group (5.5). UoH hosted the 2^nd annual meeting in September 2014, and Lawson Handley and Hänfling are members of the steering committee and chair the Fish and Invasive Species Technical Groups (5.5). “The UoH team have played a critical role in establishing and maintaining this highly active and fast-growing group, which has brought together member organisations from Universities and end user groups.” (5.2)

3. Having an active role in the EU COST action ‘DNAqua-Net’: a multidisciplinary group of researchers which aims to identify gold-standard genomic tools for aquatic biodiversity monitoring including eDNA approaches, and which works with water managers, politicians and other non-academic stakeholders. Our research was key to an influential perspective paper on the implementation of DNA-based approaches for aquatic biodiversity monitoring (5.6) and led to presentations at numerous national stakeholder meetings across Europe, including to the Working Group of the European Commission’s Common Implementation Strategy, ECOSTAT, which is in charge of the implementation of the WFD. The Chair of DNAqua-Net stated that the research team at UoH “played a key role in influencing major stakeholder groups across Europe in their attitude to the feasibility of implementing DNA based methods for biodiversity monitoring. In some member countries this has already led to the initiation of implementation programmes for monitoring fish communities through the use of environmental DNA” (5.7).

These three initiatives will sustain the position of UoH at the forefront of the growing development and impact of eDNA-based monitoring, as we help to refine best practice and inform the wider professional, research and academic communities of its applications and further potential.

Research by UoH generated two major forms of impact:

1. Highlighting inadequacies in the MSFD which, together with simultaneous reports by others across Europe, led to a technical review of the Directive. This review in turn led to a major policy update which acted upon recommendations made by UoH and collaborators. This represented a key change to the strategy for MSFD implementation in all European Seas.

2. Evaluation and testing of indicators of GES led to the development of the NEAT tool (based on DEVOTool) which has provided a validated tool for the integrated, consistent and comparative assessment of biodiversity status and GES across European regional seas. This has also been taken up for use in the HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) region (the Baltic).

Impact 1. Change to EU policy

Elliott’s research (1, 2) and co-authorship of 3 with Mazik, Boyes and Burdon, together with documents produced by other Institutions, Member States and EU Departments, unanimously concluded the requirement for review and clarification of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. The review was a three-Phase process; UoH research contributed significantly to Phase 1 through leadership of the Work Package (Elliott and Mazik) under which the research was carried out, joint coordination and authorship of the research, and joint coordination of a workshop during which the final recommendations were agreed (A, B):

Phase 1 (end 2013 – mid 2015): technical and scientific review

Experts from the respective MSFD CIS (MSFD Common Implementation Strategy) or RSC (Regional Seas Conventions) groups under the coordination of the JRC (European Commission Joint Research Centre) and ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) prepared technical and scientific reviews for each of the 11 descriptors of GES. These formed the basis of a series of descriptor-specific workshops, led by the JRC, which led to recommendations for revision of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. UoH research (1, 3) and research later published as 2 and 4 was submitted (at the request of the EC, as confirmed by B) to feed into this process, and is cited throughout JRC workshop reports C and D. These reports clearly acknowledge the recommendations made by UoH work (e.g. “recent scientific literature and R&D projects have provided a huge amount of guidance on this topic (e.g. Patricio et al., 2014)”) (3), as cited in D. These recommendations agreed with those made by other organisations within the EU and individual Member States and were taken forward to Phase 2. The UoH’s contribution is clearly evidenced in two testimonials:

The Policy Officer at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) confirms (A) that, for Phase 1 of the process, *“Ongoing research projects, including the FP7 DEVOTES project in which the University of Hull was a partner, were a valuable source of information used in the advice. DEVOTES was particularly useful in that it was specifically focused on MSFD implementation and produced a considerable volume of relevant scientific studies in support of MSFD implementation, including…Patricio et al., 2014 [ **(3)*]…This study represents an example of the importance of sound scientific research which is dedicated to support implementation of EU marine policy, and of the continued interaction between the research and policy implementation communities.” (A)

A testimonial from the Policy Officer at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD), in the Unit where the DEVOTES FP7 project was managed (B) confirms “ the University of Hull’s significant contribution to informing the technical review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU (undertaken between 2013 and 2015) regarding the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)… as indicated by extensive citations to the work in ICES and JRC (European Commission Joint Research Centre) workshop reports that formed the outputs of this first phase… The workshop reports drew directly on the findings of the DEVOTES project, specifically recommendations from the research undertaken by the University of Hull’s Mike Elliott and his colleagues.” (B)

Furthermore, DEVOTool and NEAT and the underpinning indicator catalogue (see Impact 2 above) fed into the 2015 ICES technical review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU in relation to seafloor integrity (Descriptor 6) (E).

Phase 2 (mid 2015 - end 2015): consultation and discussion

The MSCG (Marine Strategy Coordination Group, chaired by the EC Directorate-General for Environment) coordinated a formal consultation of the results of the technical review, allowing the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) to provide a consolidated opinion.

Phase 3 (end 2015 – mid 2016): decision-making

During this phase, the European Commission took on board the outcome of phase 1 and 2 and made a final decision on the clarifications required to address the inadequacies of the MSFD. On 17^th May 2017, as a direct result of this technical review to which UoH outputs contributed (A, B), the European Commission adopted Commission Decision 2017/848/EU (F), which repeals the Decision 2010/477/EU and redefines the criteria and methodological standards on GES, and the specifications and standardised methods for marine monitoring and assessment. This represented a major change to the strategy for MSFD implementation in all EU Member States and other European seas (F). The recommendations made by the UoH research are carried through into the new policy document (A, B).

Testimony from the Joint Head of the Marine Ecosystems Team at the UK’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (G) confirms the adoption of the new Commission Decision 2017/848/EU “ as beneficial in terms of our ability to deliver under MSFD, and acknowledges that the revised Commission Decision constitutes an important guidance to support the UK Marine Strategy and assessments under OSPAR (representing the North East Atlantic region)”. (G)

Impact 2. Provision of tools for delivering GES

Mazik played a key role in the collation, evaluation and testing of indicators for assessment of GES. This led to the development of the DEVOTool catalogue and software which facilitates selection of appropriate indicators for assessing GES under the MSFD. DEVOTool underpinned and was directly incorporated into the Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT) (H) which has now been further developed and implemented across the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) region (the Baltic) (I).

Beneficiaries

Direct beneficiaries include the EU, and thus its 22 maritime Member States; other states and overseas territories adopting EU practices; the UK Government, Devolved Administrations and their relevant executive bodies (e.g. Defra, Marine Scotland, DAERA (Dept. of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, NI), Natural Resources Wales); and the Regional Seas Conventions - OSPAR (NE Atlantic), HELCOM (Baltic), Barcelona Convention (Mediterranean), and Black Sea Commission (under the Bucharest Convention).

Dates of impact

1. Review of EU Directive and policy update: 18th May, 2017- present. Ongoing until next policy revision (F).

2. Development of NEAT: February 2016 – present. Ongoing (H, I).

1) The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) advises the UK Government on UK and international nature conservation. The JNCC “Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Freshwater Fauna Monitoring Protocols (2015)” [A] is used by conservation and regulatory agencies to determine the status of ‘conservation fish’ species and whether their populations meet UK and EU regulatory requirements. HIFI’s research established survey and testing methodologies to produce standard protocols for seven fish species of conservation concern, five of which are highlighted in the references to the research [1-3, 7-11]. HIFI research contributed significantly to the standard survey and monitoring protocols in the JNCC policy. Cowx, Harvey and Nunn also served on an August 2014 panel of fisheries experts from UK conservation and regulatory agencies that reviewed the lamprey population assessment methodologies which shaped the JNCC protocols for lamprey analysis and monitoring. The key HIFI contributions to the JNCC process were recognised extensively in the JNCC Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) document [A], which directly cites HIFI’s contributions as follows:

Protocol 5 – For Atlantic salmon: “ The general approach in this protocol is broadly similar to Cowx and Fraser (2003)” (p.44); “ Cowx and Fraser (2003) list the range of environmental variables and catch data that should be recorded at each sampling site, regardless of the survey method employed” (p.45).

Protocol 7 – For Brook, river and sea lamprey: “ This protocol is based on a report produced as part of the LIFE in UK Rivers Project (Harvey and Cowx 2003)” (p.56); Harvey and Cowx (2003) is also quoted (p.67); and Cowx, Harvey and Nunn are credited with providing additional advice on the 2014 expert panel: “The UK conservation agencies are indebted to these people for their advice” (p.65).

Protocol 8 – For Bullhead: “Section 2 outlines how to undertake monitoring surveys where bullhead is the target species (based on Cowx and Harvey 2003)” (p.77); “The survey area may be smaller depending on the level of historical densities in the tributary. See Cowx and Harvey (2003) for further guidance” (p.77); “A statistical method for selecting a suitable number of sites is detailed in Cowx and Harvey (2003)” (p.78), with Cowx and Harvey (2003) also quoted (p.78).

HIFI’s research therefore shaped key areas of the JNCC CSM policy document: providing UK and Ireland government agencies with scientifically robust protocols to assess the status of ‘conservation fish’ species. These standards also met UK and EU statutory reporting requirements. As a result, UK conservation agencies possessed sufficient, legally-recognised monitoring evidence to inform and implement policies to ensure sustainable fish populations.

Examples of HIFI research impacting upon additional conservation agencies include:

Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) is the statutory agency responsible for inland fisheries in Ireland (within the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE)). HIFI’s research on lampreys was credited by IFI in the National Programme: Habitats Directive and Red Data Book Fish Species (2019) report [B] which functions to “fulfil legal obligations of our Fisheries Minister in regard to undertaking monitoring and surveillance of the fish species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive”. The report states:

“A semi-quantitative sample was taken at each site by electrofishing for 2 minutes in a defined area (1 m²) of suitable nursery habitat comprising silty deposits (after Harvey & Cowx 2003).” and “Of particular interest is the process of status assessment for larval lamprey. An important guidance document was provided by Harvey and Cowx (2003) covering this area and it has provided a basis for reporting for the Habitats team” (p.7 and p.67).

IFI’s Senior Research Officer further states [C]:

“In excess of 2,400 individual sites have been sampled for larval lamprey via Harvey and Cowx (2003)… I would suggest that HIFI has done all of us in the lamprey world a great service in generating the protocols as described in Harvey and Cowx (2003) and I envisage us continuing to use the procedure within IFI into the future”.

Site Condition Monitoring is a Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH, now named NatureScot) rolling programme to monitor the special features of protected areas, including their condition, their management, and any wider environmental factors which contribute to their condition. HIFI’s underpinning research on lampreys was recognised as the standard methodology used by SNH to provide site condition lamprey monitoring across all Scottish Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), including Endrick Water Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) [D]. HIFI’s research thus ensured SNH could undertake site condition monitoring to the required standard for reporting to the EU [D]. The SNH report [D] credits HIFI’s research:

“The survey consisted of electrofishing optimal or sub-optimal habitat within 100 m long stretches of river (Harvey and Cowx, 2003). Quantitative samples were collected by depletion fishing within net frames (quadrats) as described by Harvey and Cowx (2003).” (p.2 and p.3).

In addition, NatureScot’s Freshwater Adviser (Geodiversity Group) states [E]:

“Credible population data are the backbone of meaningful site condition assessments. These data can be derived only by the application of well researched, robust, and repeatable methods; the work undertaken by the University [of Hull] has been instrumental in the successful evaluation of sites designated for one or more species of lamprey in Scotland, and has indirectly informed remedial management measures.”

Natural England (NE) provides advice to the UK government on natural environments and resources and has a wide remit of other roles and responsibilities [F]. NE is required by EU legislation to report on species conservation status in freshwaters, and to deliver this role it uses the JNCC CSM (2015) guidance [A]. Therefore, HIFI research allows NE to fulfil its legal requirement to report to UK and EU governments. NE’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries Specialist states [F]:

“The provision of evidence for the suitability of the various monitoring protocols provided by HIFI has enabled Natural England to fulfill both their statutory and advisory roles when reporting to, and informing, the UK Government.”

The Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) is an association of 23 Fisheries Trusts, the Scottish Government, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). It provides evidenced-based management of freshwater fisheries in Scotland. To standardise the collection of fisheries data by its members, the SFCC adopted a range of monitoring protocols including the ‘key underpinning research’ of Harvey and Cowx (2003) for lamprey monitoring [G]. The SFCC’s Manager and Senior Biologist (Forth Rivers Trust) / Chair states [H]:

“SFCC members follow these protocols adhering to UK standardized approaches to fisheries monitoring and assessment at the highest possible level for reporting under European Union (EU) Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive (WFD). One such protocol adopted by SFCC, and its members, is the EU LIFE lamprey monitoring protocol (Harvey & Cowx, 2003) which was key underpinning research on lamprey for the Joint Nature Conservation Council (2015) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Freshwater Fauna… The protocol has been useful in Scotland in delivering compliance with the EU Habitats Directive and provides benefit to our members who are often required to quantify larval lamprey communities to ensure their protection during developments involving in-channel works. To our knowledge, it is the only widely accepted standard method available and we have found it very useful.”

In summary HIFI’s research on fish conservation species contributed significantly to the development of the JNCC CSM (2015) guidance and its subsequent successful application in the UK and Ireland by government conservation agencies. This application of HIFI’s research ensures the UK and Ireland use a robust, rigorous and standardised survey approach to meet reporting requirements for ‘conservation species’ for UK and EU governments.

2) The second strand of our impact arises from HIFI’s research for the UK Environment Agency, which developed a clear understanding of the water flow and level requirements needed for rivers to sustain coarse fish and ‘conservation fish’ species [4-5, 12]. The UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) makes recommendations to the UK and Republic of Ireland Governments on implementing the WFD. The UKTAG (December 2013) policy outlines a consistent method for designing appropriate flow regimes across the UK (and for flow regimes that also comply with the EU WFD). HIFI’s work was integral to the UKTAG (2013) policy: River Flow for Good Ecological Potential. This document [I] outlined recommendations “to help UKTAG’s member agencies design appropriate mitigation flow regimes for good ecological potential in heavily modified rivers”. The document [I] states:

“In developing guidance on the different flow building blocks, we have considered current scientific knowledge of the flows required: by fish species, including coarse fish, salmonids and lamprey” [the report cites: “Cowx et al. 2004, Noble et al., 2004, Cowx et al. 2012]. HIFI work is noted as providing “current scientific knowledge of the flows required by fish species” [I] (page 6, footnote 14).

The UKTAG (2013) report impacts upon organisations subject to the regulatory requirements of the EU WFD, namely UK and Republic of Ireland governments, water companies and water abstractors. An appropriate example is Yorkshire Water (YW), a major water company in England, that utilises the UKTAG (2013) policy to manage its water resources. YW also contract HIFI to help them to address their UK/EU regulatory and environmental targets better.

YW funded HIFI research to identify how flows and habitats associated with reservoirs can be managed more comprehensively to enhance fisheries and ensure the resilience of fish populations (despite increasing pressure for water resources) [6, 13]. HIFI’s research ensured that YW met regulatory requirements by improving 9.39 km of rivers for fish populations, thus avoiding statutory financial penalties to YW of over £1 million. The research also improved brown trout populations and habitat in these rivers. The impact also led to water savings of 57 million litres per annum, ensuring the increased resilience of water supply and savings to YW, and potential financial savings to YW customers [J]. Evidence of HIFI’s impact for YW is provided by their Environmental Assessment Manager who states [J]:

“In summary, HIFI’s research for YW has provided considerable impact by helping YW meet regulatory requirements while protecting the environment and providing water resources for the people and businesses of the Yorkshire region”.

Note: Section 5 (below) provides detailed and specific citation and page and paragraph locations for the relevant content and context within the supporting evidence.

The route to impact:

Research [3b] and [3c] and the three insights (highlighted at the end of Section 2) directly informed the findings of:

• the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Summer 2007 floods (published 7 May 2008) [5a];

• the highly influential 2008 Pitt Review (a Government Independent Review into the 2007 floods led by Sir Michael Pitt) and its Final Report [5b].

These reviews, and their recommendations, provided the route to impact from our 2007 research into the Hull floods. The policy impact was realised when our research findings were implemented in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and this policy impact underpinned our REF2014 case study. However, impact is only realised when policy shapes legislation and is implemented and the REF2021 period has seen this legislation embedded into the national approaches to flood management, in turn guiding ~£2.6bn in UK flood management funding between 2015 and 2020 [5c]. The REF2021 period has additionally seen impact delivered through new policy frameworks and the shaping of new national legislation including the Water Act 2014, the related Surface Water Management Action Plan 2018 [5d], and the 25-year Environment Plan 2018 [5c]. These documents contain significant policy drivers founded on our underpinning research and they have significantly improved flood prevention and mitigation measures across the country (~300,000 homes better protected **[5c]**). Further, beyond their impact on legislation, these documents also highlight the importance of physical and social resilience. The underpinning research changed the tone of UK debates about flood planning: it embedded cooperation and communication between communities, industry, civic agencies and government throughout the legislation cited. It helped flood planning to progress beyond technical analysis to also encompass wider aspects of the societies at risk [5c, 5d, 5e].

Impact in the REF2021 period:

During the REF2021 period, the research impact has enjoyed increasing reach and significance both nationally and internationally. The underpinning research has shaped policies and strategies for flood prevention and response, evidencing the full impact translation pathway of research into policy and subsequent implementation.

At the national scale, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 gave the Environment Agency (EA) overall responsibility for all flooding, including surface water flooding. Part of this core recommendation from the underpinning research went into policy in the REF2014 period, but has been implemented fully in the REF2021 period. Local authorities now retain responsibility for the control of regional surface water drainage, but do so under the auspices of the EA [5c, 5d, 5f]. This change responded to the third recommendation of the underpinning research: that one lead agency should oversee flood events with multi-agency partnerships working together and collaborating on broader flood governance.

Second, the regional Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs), which are now fully codified in the REF2021 period through the Water Act 2014, the related Surface Water Management Action Plan (2018) [5d], along with the 25-year Environment Plan (2018) [5c], have also been shaped by the call for connected governance and planning advocated by the University’s 2007 research and the subsequent Pitt Review. Hull was one of five areas to trial SWMPs, and Coulthard sat on the Steering Committee from 2014 to 2017. The SWMPs mandate planners, investors and developers to incorporate flood risk into their planning. This tranche of legislation prepares society for future flood events to a degree that was never required previously. The University’s research also recommended creating ‘Aqua Green’ sites in open public spaces, that would retain surplus surface water temporarily during flood events. Hull City Council has adopted these recommendations within the work of the Living with Water Partnership (see below). The use of natural flood management strategies like these are now also firmly embedded in the new EA National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy (2020) [5f, 5g] and the 25-year Environment Plan (2018) [5c] :

“…Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) are now required to maintain a register of flood defence structures, including details of ownership and condition. The 2018 Surface Water Management Action Plan, which also has foundation in the University’s research, requires the Environment Agency to work with LLFAs and other expert bodies to develop best practice for local flood defence management.” Director of Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM), EA [5g].

The University’s research recommendations have additionally shaped new UK flood policies and strategies in the REF2021 period through their incorporation into the development of the Environment Agency’s new National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (2020) [5f, 5g]. The EA Director of FCRM further states:

“…the University of Hull research has significantly impacted governance and inter-agency partnership working, as well leading to the adoption of a more integrated approach to flood risk management.” [5g].

In this review period, the research has also impacted international flood and resilience strategies through the development, and subsequent global deployment, of the City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA). This is part of the Resilient Cities Programme pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation, with support from Arup, Resilience Shift, and the OECD [5e]. Launched in 2018, the CWRA [5e, 5h] is now the global standard for city-level water resilience. It promotes a methodology and framework that enables cities to diagnose their challenges related to water and deploy that knowledge to inform planning and investment decisions to better-prepare for, and respond to, shocks and stresses to their water systems. The University’s underpinning research was vital to Hull being chosen as one of only five founding cities for the programme (along with Amman, Cape Town, Mexico City and Greater Miami) [5h]:

“The University of Hull’s research into the 2007 Hull floods and the partnership working enabled by the research, created the governance and inter-agency working that lay the foundations that helped to support the case for why the city was selected as one of the Wave 1 cities for the development of the CWRA in 2015.”…

“Kingston-Upon-Hull’s specific water challenges… have been adopted into the establishment of qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure city water resilience embedded within the CWRA, for use in any city, anywhere.” Global Water Director, Arup [5h].

Hull’s participation in the CWRA project was facilitated by the creation of the Living with Water Partnership (LWW) [5i] between the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water, Hull City Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, with Professor Dan Parsons (Director of the Energy and Environment Institute) representing Hull University on the Partnership’s Executive Board. As part of this partnership, the University’s Energy and Environment Institute undertook a baseline city-wide investigation of flood risk, surveying >450 households to understand the impacts –physical, economic, or linked to health and wellbeing– of Hull’s 2007 and 2013 floods. It also explored concerns about future flood risk and how people hoped to protect themselves and their homes [5j]. This survey contributed to the development of the CWRA approach and has informed its global adoption [5i]. Without the multi-agency approach advocated by the University’s underpinning research, the CWRA would lack a robust, evidence-based framework for approaching water resilience on a multi-factorial, catchment-focussed basis:

“Hull was specifically selected as a Wave 1 City for the CWRA due the way in which research undertaken by the University into the 2007 floods had resulted in strong partnership working across the city.”

“The global rollout of the CWRA now underway through the Rockefeller Foundation, Arup and the OECD, and is seeing the learning from Hull’s experience of flooding, the implementation of aspects of Living with Water concerning flood resiliency now being adopted around the world.” Head of Resilience, Yorkshire Water, and Living with Water Programme Director [5i].*

The impact generated by the University’s flood research is considerable. Policy influence in REF2014 has translated into full implementation in the REF2021 period. New UK policy impacts have also resulted from the research and they have been adopted into legislation and have been implemented on the ground. The reach and significance of the impact has expanded and is now world-wide through its influence on the development of the Rockefeller CWRA and its ongoing deployment in cities across the globe such as Thessaloniki (Greece), Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), and Kigali (Rwanda).