the social impacts of flooding and flood risk in scotland alan werritty school of social sciences...
DESCRIPTION
The social impacts of flooding and flood risk in Scotland Alan Werritty School of Social Sciences – Geography University of Dundee SNIFFER FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE : 27 February 2007. ‘Tangible’ impacts of floods. What of the social impacts often intangible and longer lasting?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The social impacts of flooding and flood risk in Scotland
Alan Werritty
School of Social Sciences – Geography
University of Dundee
SNIFFER FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE : 27 February 2007
‘Tangible’ impacts of floods
What of the social impacts often intangible and longer lasting?
Pictures: courtesy BBC
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs DepartmentResearch Team (University of Dundee)Prof Alan WerrittyDr Donald HoustonAmy TavendaleDr Andrew BlackDr Tom Ball
Advisory Team (University of Dundee)Prof Nick FyfeDr Hester ParrDavid Crichton
Steering committeeScottish Executive, SEPA, SNIFFER and COSLA
Objectives of project
To assess the range of impacts that experience of recent flooding in Scotland has had on people, their attitudes and behaviour
(new knowledge ....
To establish ‘what works’ with particular population groups and locations in relation to flood prevention campaigns and flood warning/dissemination systems.
.... leading to new policy and practice)
Outline of talk
Background to projectGeo-demographic profilingHousehold survey in flood risk areasFocus groups (from survey respondents)Interviews with flood risk stakeholdersSummary of key findings
BackgroundWater Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 duty to promote ‘sustainable flood management’
Sustainable flood management provides the maximum possible social and economic resilience against flooding by protecting and working with the environment, in a way which is fair and affordable both now and in the future” (emphasis added)
Social impacts are a major ‘driver’Social impacts are a major ‘driver’of future flood risk in UKof future flood risk in UK(Foresight, OST, 2004)(Foresight, OST, 2004)
The research context
‘These are difficult to quantify, but the analysis showed a large increase in all scenarios, from 3 to 30 times’
Expectations and attitudes also important BUT not yet widely studied
Methods
geo-demographic profiling to check whether sample truly representative household surveyhousehold survey on flood impacts and attitudes on flood impacts and attitudes to managing flood risk (respondents – ‘flooded’ to managing flood risk (respondents – ‘flooded’ and ‘at risk but not flooded’)and ‘at risk but not flooded’)focus groups which add a ‘human face’ to the material on flood impacts and contrasting attitudes to managing flood riskinterviews with key institutional stakeholders who manage flood risk both nationally and locally
Socio-demographic profile of flood-risk areasSocio-demographic profile of flood-risk areasin urban Scotlandin urban Scotland
Socio-demographic group% of persons or households in
socio-demographic group
Flood-risk areas in urban Scotland
Urban Scotland
Persons aged 65+ 17.3 15.6Single pensioner households 16.7 15.8Lone parents with dependent children
7.5 8.3
Rented from Local Authority 27.5 27.0Rented from Housing Association 6.7 6.9Elementary occupations 14.5 14.1Households with person(s) with a limiting long-term illness
37.6 38.4
Household questionnaire survey
Household survey locations (dates flooded)
Pilot Brechin (2002)
Main surveyEdinburgh (2000)Glasgow East (2002)Perth (1993)Elgin (1997, 2002)Forres (1997)Hawick (2005)
Postal surveyInverness (2003)Newcastleton (2005)Ft. William (2005)Orkney (2005)Shetland (2005)
Reconstructed historical flood outlines used for survey property selection
Sourced from local authorities and commissioned consultants
Response biases
Category % of persons or households in category
Survey returns Scotland
Persons aged 70+ 22.2 11.2
Rented from Local Authority 15.8 21.6
Elementary occupations 9.9 12.7
Response rates
Location Returned Response Rate(%)
Brechin 46 68.7Edinburgh 316 58.6Elgin 237 57.5Forres 261 58.8Glasgow-Shettleston 113 43.1Hawick 55 47.8Perth 126 51.2Scattered rural & coastal (by post)
69 29.2
TOTAL 1,223 52.7
Type of flood Households %
633 flooded households590 non-flooded households
Fluvial 1,045 85.4 Pluvial 121 9.9 Coastal 57 4.7
TOTAL 1,223 100.0
Typology of floods
Impacts of Flooding
4% 13%
33%10%
30%
10%
Friends/ relatives
Hotel/ B & B
Evacuation centre/ shelterOther
Private rented
Council/ Housing Association
Destinations after flood event
n = 607
Classification of impacts
Tangible impacts Intangible impacts immediate
Intangible impacts lasting
Financial losses Discomfort/inconvenience Time and effort to return to normal
Loss of house value Stress of flood itself Worry about future flooding
Disruption to electricity supply
Having to leave home Loss of irreplaceable/ sentimental items
Damage to car or van
Dealing with insurers Strains between family
Used holiday entitlement
Living in temporary accommodation
Loss of community spirit
Dealing with builders Deterioration to mental health
Being stranded in/out of home
Deterioration to physical healthLoss or distress to pets
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time and effort required to get house back to normal
Discomfort/ inconvenience while returning house to normal
Worry about future flooding
Having to leave home and posessions
Stress of the flood event itself
Having to live in temporary accommodation
Dealing with insurers and loss adjusters
Dealing with builders, decorators, etc
Being stranded in or out of home
Loss of irreplaceable or sentimental items
Percentage of respondents reporting 'serious' or 'extreme' impact
SeriousExtreme
Likert scale responses to questions onimpacts from a list of flood stressors
Intangible immediate
1.81
Tangible 1.12
Intangiblelasting
1.29
Mean Impact Scores
Flood Impact Scores by income group
Impact Income <£20k pa
Income >£20k pa
Tangible 1.08 1.08
Intangible immediate
1.77 1.72
Intangible lasting
1.30 1.12
ActionReceived flood warning?
Yesn=242
Non=333
Deployed sandbags, flood guards or other defence
45.9 31.2
Removed possessions from ground floor 49.2 32.4Household members vacated the house 28.9 15.9Moved car to higher ground 39.7 30.0Other 2.9 3.0
No action taken 13.2 37.5
Effect of flood warnings on actions taken prior to the flood (42% of households received a warning)
Flood Impact Scores by whether received warning
Impact Received warning
Did not receive warning
Tangible 1.11 1.13
Intangible immediate
1.79 1.83
Intangible lasting
1.29 1.29
Living with flood-risk
How often worry about flooding(% of respondents in category)
Flooded?
Yesn=624
Non=583
Most of the time 22.9 4.1
Often 38.1 24.2
Rarely 32.9 54.9
Never 6.1 16.8
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
Impact of living with flood risk - worry
Confidence of getting sufficient warning of a flood in the future
Level of confidenceFlooded
n=597
Not flooded
n=558
TOTAL
n=1,155
Very confident 6.4 7.7 7.0
Confident 27.5 39.8 33.4
Not very confident 41.9 37.8 39.9
Not at all confident 24.3 14.7 19.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0
Knowledge about flood risk
Level of confidenceFlooded
n=588
Not flooded
n=543
TOTAL
n=1,131
Very well informed 6.8 5.7 6.3
Well informed 25.3 27.4 26.3
Not very well informed 41.3 40.9 41.1
Not at all informed 26.5 26.0 26.3
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0
Perception of risk of being flooded within next 10 years
NB: ‘Flooded’ and ‘non-flooded’ live in historically flooded areas
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Very likely
Likely
Unlikely
Very unlikely
Zero or negligiblelikelihood
% Respondents
Not flooded
Flooded
Responsibility for flood protection
Where DOES it lie
Where SHOULD it
lieYourself 18.6 5.9
Landlord 2.1 3.2
Local council 36.7 41.4
Scottish Executive 13.6 22.6
SEPA 8.6 13.4
Scottish Water 8.2 11.6
Other 1.0 1.9
Don’t know 11.1 --
TOTAL - responses 100.0 100.0
Ownership of flood risk
Focus Groups
Tangible impacts
House prices and selling volume and value of house sales down immediately after flood, but some recovery after 2-3 years
Insurance mediates most of the financial impacts and experiences with loss adjusters generally good, but– difficulties with some builders/trades– problems with large excesses and limited
availability of future cover
Intangible impacts - immediate
Trauma– “It was really stressful. I mean, I seen people … just
sitting there crying. They just crack up” [Glasgow]
Anxiety and stress– “You walk back through your house for the first time
and it’s covered in sewage. That’s a devastating moment” [Elgin]
– “It puts a strain on your relationship as well because of the stress and everything of trying to find somewhere else to stay and sort everything out…you’re falling out all the time” [Elgin]
Intangible impacts - lasting
Health (mental and physical)– Need for counselling/support– Aggravation of existing chronic illnesses, e.g. asthma– “I wasn’t aware of it, you know but I heard my son
talking to somebody, ‘God, my dad’s aged 10 years’” [Edinburgh]
Loss of irreplaceable items– “My mother died of cancer, I lost all photos of her, all
photos of my kids, all the baby stuff, you know, memories when they’re first born, the memory box” [Elgin]
Interviews with key institutional stakeholders
Stakeholder Interviews - Local Authorities (1)
reducing the flood risk to a manageable level where the risk is known – watercourse maintenance within statutory powers; – use of temporary flood protection where possible and
feasible
directing the planning process to avoid flood risk areas – increasing use of strategic land use planning (SPP 7) – technical input where possible from engineers to the
development control process
promoting flood alleviation schemes where cost-benefit analysis is in favour,– public involvement in the procedures from the earliest
stages
Stakeholder Interviews - Local Authorities (2)
During event Interacting as smoothly as possible with other emergency services within 8 regional emergency response arrangements– evacuation and rest centresPost event– re-housing Local Authority list tenants– security for evacuated areas– business recovery– disseminating best practice
Stakeholder interviews - SEPAInformation provision (new flood risk maps)
Public awareness – especially flood awareness campaigns and Floodline
PLUS direct community engagement in conjunction with LAs– opportunity post event– but difficult to maintain contact
Expansion of flood warning services where beneficial – coverage (still some gaps) and cost-benefit analysis
Interaction with local and central government to increase direct warning (AVM) to those at risk
Stakeholder interviews – Insurance Industry
Aim to maintain flood risk coverage for Aim to maintain flood risk coverage for existing existing customerscustomers
For properties that have been flooded new applications For properties that have been flooded new applications may be refusedmay be refused
Flood proofing to reduce losses encouraged, but not Flood proofing to reduce losses encouraged, but not made a condition of covermade a condition of cover
Re-statement of policy by ABI November 2005 – Re-statement of policy by ABI November 2005 – – requirement for 1 in 75 year standard of protectionrequirement for 1 in 75 year standard of protection
or flood defences planned within five yearsor flood defences planned within five years– market forces will dictate policy re: excesses and market forces will dictate policy re: excesses and
premiumspremiums
Stakeholder interviews – Scottish Executive
Promotion of 4 A’s for flood risk reduction
– Awareness
– Avoidance
– Alleviation
– Assistance (eg ‘Pay with Rent’ schemes)
Priority to allocate existing funding allocation for flood alleviation (£89 m)
Aware that prioritisation may have to occur
Aware of need to bring in social aspects to flood alleviation scheme appraisal– Guidance for local authorities now in progress
Summary: impact of flooding
Intangible social impacts score much higher than tangible economic impacts – key findingKey immediate intangible impacts – disruption and inconvenience, stress of flood, dealing with builders and insurersKey lasting intangible impacts – loss of irreplaceable items, worry about future flooding, longer term health impactsImpacts more severe on less resilient households (low incomes, elderly and infirm)
Summary: living with floods
Warnings valued (esp Floodline once used) → some preventative measures adopted, but reduction in impacts modest Having been flooded → greater worry and awareness of flood risk, but low confidence in getting sufficient warning for effective action in future (role for education?)Personal ownership of managing flood risk low – responsibility transferred to institutions (esp. LAs and Scottish Executive) – need to raise awareness?
Summary: institutional stakeholdersGreater role for public/community engagement with LAs (planning schemes, emergency action during floods, raising and maintaining awareness)Best practice in some LAs (AVM warnings, emergency action planning) of value to other LAs yet to experience major floodAddressing needs of most vulnerable groups (‘Pay with Rent schemes’, temporary re-housing and securing properties whilst vacant) facilitates recovery and promotes social resilienceSEPA’s proposed extension of Flood Watch for inland and coastal communities endorsed
Postscript
“My life was in two skips, things which you cannot replace, wedding photographs, birth certificates. I was in the RAF during the war
and my flying log was all ruined. I had a couple of wings off my uniform, gone. These are things that you cannot replace … not by an insurance company or anybody else”.
[Perth]