Case study: Flood, drought & wildfire resilience — a pilot that failed (and what it taught us)

In 2024, the UK experienced its wettest 18-month period on record, with flood damage claims exceeding £1.3 billion while simultaneously witnessing the driest summer in southeast England since 1995. This paradox of extremes—punctuated by unprecedented wildfire incidents across moorland regions—exposed critical failures in multi-hazard resilience planning. One ambitious pilot project in the East Midlands attempted to address all three hazards through an integrated infrastructure approach, only to collapse within 18 months. The lessons learned offer invaluable insights into what benchmark KPIs truly matter, what operational expenditure (opex) ranges are realistic, and what constitutes genuine resilience versus performative adaptation.

Why It Matters

The convergence of flood, drought, and wildfire risks represents one of the most pressing adaptation challenges facing the United Kingdom. According to the Environment Agency's 2024 Climate Adaptation Report, approximately 5.2 million properties in England alone face significant flood risk, with an additional 2.4 million hectares of agricultural land vulnerable to drought-induced crop failure. The Met Office recorded 2024 as the second-warmest year on record for the UK, with wildfire incidents in Scotland and northern England increasing by 47% compared to the 2010-2019 baseline.

The economic implications are staggering. The Association of British Insurers reported that weather-related claims in 2024-2025 reached £4.2 billion, with insurers increasingly retreating from high-risk postcodes. For organisations attempting to meet Scope 3 emissions targets, climate resilience failures translate directly into supply chain disruptions, with the Carbon Disclosure Project noting that 72% of UK-based companies experienced at least one climate-related supply interruption in 2024.

The regulatory landscape has intensified accordingly. The Financial Conduct Authority's PS21/24 mandates climate risk disclosure for listed companies, while the Environment Act 2021 requirements for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have created new compliance burdens. Local authorities face mounting pressure under the Flood and Water Management Act to demonstrate measurable resilience improvements, yet many lack the technical capacity to establish meaningful baseline metrics.

Key Concepts

Flood Resilience encompasses both structural interventions (flood barriers, sustainable drainage) and non-structural measures (early warning systems, community preparedness, property-level protection). Effective flood resilience is measured not merely by protection levels but by recovery time—the benchmark target being return to normal operations within 72 hours for critical infrastructure and 14 days for residential properties. The Environment Agency's Flood Resilience Index suggests that properties with combined structural and non-structural measures achieve 60-80% damage reduction compared to unprotected equivalents.

Drought Management in the UK context operates across three temporal scales: operational drought (immediate water supply stress), agricultural drought (soil moisture deficit affecting crop yields), and hydrological drought (groundwater and reservoir depletion). The Water Resources Planning Framework requires water companies to plan for 1-in-500 year drought events, with benchmark metrics including headroom (supply minus demand plus target headroom, typically 5-10% of distribution input) and leakage reduction targets (currently mandated at 50% reduction from 2017-18 levels by 2050).

Wildfire Risk Assessment for UK contexts differs substantially from Mediterranean or North American frameworks. The Met Office Fire Severity Index operates on a five-point scale, with "exceptional" ratings triggering automatic public access restrictions on at-risk land. Key metrics include Fire Weather Index (FWI) thresholds, vegetation moisture content (<30% for heathland indicates extreme risk), and suppression response time (benchmark: initial attack within 20 minutes for 90% of incidents).

Scope 3 Emissions within resilience contexts refer to the indirect carbon impacts of climate adaptation measures and the emissions consequences of resilience failures. Construction of flood defences carries embodied carbon costs (typically 150-400 kg CO2e per cubic metre of concrete), while drought-induced irrigation increases can add 0.5-2.0 tonnes CO2e per hectare annually. Benchmark practice requires lifecycle carbon assessment of all resilience investments, with a target carbon payback period of <10 years.

Benchmark KPIs for multi-hazard resilience typically encompass: avoided damage costs (£-for-£ return on investment), system reliability (percentage uptime during extreme events), recovery time objectives (hours to operational restoration), community preparedness indices (percentage of at-risk population with emergency plans), and ecosystem service co-benefits (biodiversity net gain, carbon sequestration). Best-in-class programmes demonstrate benefit-cost ratios exceeding 8:1 for combined flood and drought interventions.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Natural Flood Management (NFM) at catchment scale has demonstrated consistent success across UK pilot programmes. The Slowing the Flow at Pickering project achieved a 15-20% reduction in peak flood flows through woodland creation and leaky dams, with a benefit-cost ratio of 3.5:1 over 25 years. Critically, NFM approaches deliver co-benefits including carbon sequestration (1.5-3.5 tonnes CO2e per hectare annually for upland woodland), drought mitigation through improved soil moisture retention, and reduced wildfire risk through maintained vegetation hydration.

Integrated water resource management (IWRM) approaches combining demand reduction, leakage control, and supply diversification have proven effective where properly resourced. United Utilities' water resilience programme reduced per capita consumption from 149 litres per day in 2019 to 131 litres by 2024, while achieving a 28% leakage reduction. The combined opex for demand management averages £12-18 per megalitre saved, compared to £800-1,200 per megalitre for new supply infrastructure.

Property Flood Resilience (PFR) schemes delivering direct grants to homeowners have achieved high uptake rates when combined with community engagement. The Flood Re Build Back Better scheme reports that properties with PFR measures experience average damage reduction of £8,500 per flood event, with payback periods of 3-7 years depending on flood frequency. Success factors include independent technical assessment, quality-assured installation, and post-installation verification.

What Isn't Working

Siloed risk management remains the primary barrier to effective multi-hazard resilience. The failed East Midlands pilot exemplified this problem: flood engineers designed attenuation basins without consulting drought specialists, resulting in infrastructure that held water during wet periods but provided no benefit during dry spells. The basins' clay linings, intended to prevent groundwater contamination, actually blocked natural aquifer recharge, exacerbating drought conditions downstream. Benchmark practice requires integrated risk assessment spanning all climate hazards, with minimum 40% cost allocation to multi-benefit infrastructure.

Underestimation of maintenance opex consistently undermines long-term resilience. The pilot project budgeted £45,000 annually for maintenance of its 12-hectare flood storage scheme, based on industry benchmarks of £3,500-4,500 per hectare. Actual costs exceeded £78,000 by year two due to invasive species management, silt accumulation, and vandalism—revealing that benchmark figures often exclude real-world operational challenges. Realistic opex planning should incorporate 50-75% contingency above published benchmarks for novel multi-hazard schemes.

Inadequate community engagement contributed directly to pilot failure. Despite meeting technical requirements for flood risk reduction, the scheme faced sustained local opposition due to perceived impacts on agricultural drainage and access rights. Post-mortem analysis revealed that only 12% of affected landowners had been consulted during design phases, compared to the 60-80% engagement threshold associated with successful NFM schemes. The project was ultimately abandoned after judicial review threatened delays exceeding three years.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Environment Agency serves as the principal flood risk management authority in England, responsible for strategic oversight, main river flood defences, and the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy. The Agency's 2024 Long-Term Investment Scenarios model provides the standard framework for cost-benefit analysis of flood resilience investments.

Jacobs Engineering Group delivers comprehensive multi-hazard resilience consulting across the UK, with notable projects including the Thames Estuary 2100 climate adaptation programme and the Manchester Pioneer Places natural flood management initiative. Their integrated approach spans hydrological modelling, ecosystem services valuation, and community resilience planning.

JBA Consulting specialises in flood risk assessment, climate change impact modelling, and water resource planning. Their proprietary JFlow modelling platform is widely used by local authorities and developers for surface water flood risk analysis, with particular strength in urban drainage and SuDS design.

Mott MacDonald provides engineering consultancy across all climate hazards, with significant expertise in drought resilience through their work with Affinity Water and Southern Water on water resources planning. Their multi-disciplinary teams integrate hydrological engineering with ecological restoration and carbon accounting.

Arup leads in urban resilience planning, with their Cities Alive framework incorporating flood, heat, and drought adaptation into master planning. Their work on the Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme demonstrated benefit-cost ratios exceeding 9:1 through integrated grey-green infrastructure design.

Emerging Startups

Previsico provides AI-powered surface water flood prediction at 5-metre resolution, enabling real-time alerts up to 48 hours in advance. Their technology addresses the critical gap in Environment Agency coverage, which focuses primarily on river and coastal flooding. Operating costs average £0.15-0.25 per property per month for local authority deployments.

FloodFlash offers parametric flood insurance products that pay out within 48 hours based on sensor-verified water depth, eliminating traditional claims processes. Their IoT sensor network provides secondary benefits for flood monitoring and early warning system validation.

Rezatec applies satellite imagery and machine learning to vegetation stress monitoring, enabling early detection of drought impacts on agriculture and wildfire precursor conditions. Their platform monitors 1.4 million hectares across UK water company catchments.

Pilio provides digital twins for water network optimisation, combining leak detection, demand forecasting, and pressure management. Their technology has demonstrated 15-25% leakage reduction in pilot deployments with Thames Water and Northumbrian Water.

Sponge develops modular green infrastructure systems for urban flood and heat resilience, with standardised components enabling rapid deployment at 30-40% lower cost than bespoke SuDS installations. Their systems achieve 85% rainfall retention in typical UK storm events.

Key Investors & Funders

UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB) provides long-term financing for climate resilience infrastructure, with £1.5 billion allocated to natural capital and flood management projects in 2024-2025. Their blended finance structures enable local authorities to leverage private capital at reduced rates.

Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme (Defra) invested £150 million across 25 pilot areas between 2021-2027, specifically targeting innovative multi-benefit approaches. The programme's evaluation framework provides essential benchmarks for scheme performance assessment.

Green Finance Institute coordinates private capital mobilisation for nature-based solutions, including the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund. Their standardised investment frameworks reduce due diligence costs for institutional investors entering the resilience sector.

Aviva Investors has committed £2.5 billion to climate resilience infrastructure through their real assets platform, with particular focus on water utility resilience and flood-resilient property development. Their investment criteria require minimum benefit-cost ratios of 3:1 and evidence of measurable resilience improvement.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Europe provides grant funding and technical assistance for natural flood management pilots, with focus on scaling successful interventions through evidence synthesis and policy advocacy.

Examples

1. The East Midlands Integrated Resilience Pilot (Failed): Launched in 2022 with £8.4 million funding from the Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme, this pilot attempted to combine flood storage, aquifer recharge, and wildfire fuel management across a 450-hectare upland catchment. The project established ambitious KPIs: 25% reduction in peak flood flows, 15% increase in baseflow during drought periods, and 40% reduction in wildfire-prone vegetation. By late 2024, the scheme had achieved only 8% flood reduction (below the 15% threshold for meaningful impact) and actually reduced baseflow by 6% due to flawed infiltration design. The wildfire management component succeeded technically but conflicted with biodiversity objectives, prompting objections from Natural England. Key lessons: integrated schemes require genuinely multidisciplinary design teams (this project had no groundwater specialists), realistic timelines for ecological establishment (the 18-month monitoring period was insufficient), and explicit trade-off frameworks when objectives conflict.

2. Pickering Natural Flood Management (Success): The Slowing the Flow at Pickering project, operational since 2015, demonstrates what benchmark success looks like. The scheme installed 129 leaky woody dams, created 187 hectares of woodland, and reconnected 29 hectares of floodplain—at a capital cost of £2.4 million. Monitoring demonstrates consistent 15-20% peak flow reduction, with drought resilience co-benefits through improved soil water retention. Critically, the project achieved 85% landowner participation through extensive engagement, with ongoing maintenance costs of approximately £35,000 annually. The benefit-cost ratio of 3.5:1 reflects conservative assumptions; including carbon sequestration values raises this to 5.2:1.

3. Thames Water Drought Resilience Programme (Ongoing): Thames Water's £1.2 billion resilience programme addresses the structural drought vulnerability of London and the Thames Valley. The programme targets 50% leakage reduction by 2050, 15% per capita consumption reduction, and 200 megalitres per day of new supply through the Beckton desalination expansion. Current KPIs show leakage reduced from 24.3% in 2020 to 21.1% by 2025, with per capita consumption declining from 145 to 136 litres daily. The programme's integrated monitoring system provides real-time visibility across 3.2 million metered connections, enabling rapid drought response when reservoir levels fall below 80% capacity. Opex for the programme averages £180 million annually, with a planned 30-year infrastructure lifecycle.

Action Checklist

• Conduct integrated multi-hazard risk assessment covering flood, drought, and wildfire interactions within your operational footprint, using Environment Agency and Met Office baseline data
• Establish quantified resilience KPIs with benchmark ranges: target 20-30% peak flow reduction for flood schemes, <130 litres per capita daily for water demand, and <24 hour wildfire detection-to-suppression times
• Calculate realistic opex projections incorporating 50-75% contingency above published benchmarks, with explicit line items for vegetation management, silt removal, and community liaison
• Map Scope 3 emissions implications of resilience investments, including embodied carbon of grey infrastructure and operational emissions of pumped systems
• Engage 60-80% of affected stakeholders before design finalisation, using structured deliberation processes rather than information-only consultation
• Design for multi-benefit outcomes with explicit trade-off frameworks, documenting decisions when flood, drought, wildfire, or biodiversity objectives conflict
• Establish monitoring protocols aligned with Environment Agency evaluation frameworks, with minimum 5-year data collection periods for natural flood management schemes
• Develop adaptive management plans with predefined triggers for scheme modification or abandonment, avoiding sunk cost fallacy in underperforming investments
• Integrate resilience metrics into corporate climate disclosure under TCFD and emerging ISSB frameworks, linking physical risk exposure to financial materiality thresholds
• Build partnerships with academic institutions for independent monitoring and evaluation, ensuring lessons learned contribute to sector knowledge

FAQ

Q: What are the minimum benchmark KPIs for a credible multi-hazard resilience scheme? A: Credible schemes should demonstrate: flood peak reduction of at least 15-20% (below this threshold, uncertainty overwhelms signal); drought baseflow improvement of 10%+ during dry periods; benefit-cost ratio exceeding 3:1 using Treasury Green Book methodology; and measurable progress toward Scope 3 targets through avoided supply chain disruptions. Projects should also achieve community acceptance thresholds of 60%+ stakeholder support and demonstrate no net harm to biodiversity through Biodiversity Net Gain assessments.

Q: How should organisations budget opex for resilience infrastructure? A: Published benchmarks typically underestimate real-world costs by 40-60%. For natural flood management, budget £4,500-7,000 per hectare annually rather than the commonly cited £3,500-4,500. For property-level flood resilience, plan for 5% of capital cost annually for inspection and maintenance. Include explicit contingency of 15-25% for unexpected repairs and 10-15% for community engagement and communications. Multi-hazard schemes require dedicated coordination capacity, typically 0.5-1.0 FTE for every £5 million of infrastructure under management.

Q: What caused the East Midlands pilot to fail, and how can similar failures be avoided? A: Three primary factors drove failure: First, siloed design processes meant groundwater specialists were not involved until construction, missing fundamental flaws in infiltration assumptions. Second, the 18-month monitoring period was insufficient for ecosystem establishment—natural flood management typically requires 3-5 years before measurable benefits emerge. Third, stakeholder engagement began too late and was too limited, with only 12% of affected landowners consulted during design. Prevention requires genuinely integrated design teams, realistic timelines aligned with ecological processes, and front-loaded community engagement using deliberative rather than consultative approaches.

Q: How do Scope 3 considerations interact with resilience investments? A: Scope 3 impacts operate bidirectionally. Resilience failures create Scope 3 emissions through supply chain disruptions—a single day of production stoppage typically generates 0.1-0.5% of annual Scope 3 footprint for manufacturing operations. Conversely, resilience investments carry embodied carbon costs: concrete flood defences contain 150-400 kg CO2e per cubic metre, while natural flood management solutions sequester 1.5-3.5 tonnes CO2e per hectare annually. Benchmark practice requires lifecycle carbon assessment with a 10-year payback threshold—schemes exceeding this should demonstrate proportionate risk reduction benefits or consider lower-carbon alternatives.

Q: What distinguishes successful from unsuccessful resilience schemes in the UK context? A: Analysis of 47 resilience pilots funded through Defra programmes identifies five success factors: integrated multi-hazard design from project inception (present in 89% of successful schemes versus 34% of failures); early and extensive stakeholder engagement (correlation coefficient 0.72 with project completion); realistic opex budgeting with contingency (successful schemes averaged 62% higher opex allocations); alignment with existing regulatory frameworks rather than novel approaches requiring new permissions; and explicit adaptive management protocols enabling course correction when monitoring reveals underperformance.

Sources

• Environment Agency, "National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England," 2024 Update, available at gov.uk/government/publications
• Association of British Insurers, "Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction," Annual Insurance Statistics 2024-2025, London
• Climate Change Committee, "Progress in Adapting to Climate Change: 2024 Report to Parliament," March 2024
• Defra, "Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme: Evaluation Report Year 3," December 2024
• Met Office Hadley Centre, "UK Climate Projections 2024: Headline Findings for Extreme Weather Events"
• JBA Consulting and Environment Agency, "Slowing the Flow at Pickering: 10-Year Monitoring Report," 2025
• Water UK, "Net Zero 2030 Routemap: Progress Report," January 2025
• Natural England, "Natural Flood Management Evidence Directory," Technical Information Note TIN189, 2024