Knowledge about flooding

The significance of prior knowledge, in the form of understanding and awareness, in developing risk perception and thus risk management was stressed in section 3.2. The

16, 2.8%

45, 8.0%

92, 16.3%

88, 15.6%

74, 13.1%

91, 16.2%

88, 15.6%

63, 11.2%

6, 1.1%

No answer 20 to 29 years 30 to 39 years 40 to 49 years 50 to 59 years 60 to 69 years 70 to 79 years 80 to 89 years 90 to 99 years

knowledge the survey respondents had about flooding related issues and matters in their areas. This is achieved by analysing the responses to questions on level of perceived risk of flooding; causes and sources of flooding; effects of floods on property, possessions and lives; action taken to limit impact of floods by the respondents and whether they had a plan for action in a flood event.

5.3.1 Level of flood risk to the area

Figure 5.2 shows the level of risk perceived by the respondents.

Figure 5.2: Level of flood risk to their area as perceived by the postal survey respondents

As can be observed from Figure 5.2, the majority of the respondents perceived that the flood risk to their area was either medium (37.7% of the respondents) or high (36.4% of the respondents). It is also noteworthy that 11.5% of the respondents thought that the flood risk to their area was low whereas 12.6% of the respondents indicated that they did not know the level of risk to their area. From this analysis, it is clear that the views of the respondents are different than the views of the risk assessors or the agencies responsible for flood risk communication. It is also significant to note that more than 12% of the respondents did not know the level of risk of flooding.

However, the above findings can be explained in light of the criteria used for selecting

10, 1.8%

205, 36.4%

212, 37.7%

65, 11.5%

71, 12.6%

No answer High Medium Low Don't know

based on the ‘etic’ perspective of risk of flooding i.e. the areas identified by flood risk mapping carried out by scientists and published by SEPA. The flood risk mapping does not attribute a level of flood risk to an area apart from categorising them as being susceptible to flooding in a 1 in 200 year probability flood scenario. Further, the caveats accompanying the publication of maps state that it is a high level assessment, and hence indicative only, in the sense that there are many technical uncertainties associated to the mapping. Therefore, it is not unsurprising that the views of the respondents on levels of flood risk may vary from those of the scientists. A further reason for the difference in perceived level of risk of flooding may be due to the respondents denying the risk or thinking so because of some other reasons such as location of their property in relation to the source of flood risk or because of other factors (see section 3.2) which affect their risk perception.

In summary, since about three quarters of the respondents identified that the risk to level was high or medium, this demonstrates conformity with the etic perspective of estimated risk of flooding in these areas. However, not all the population was aware of the risk of flooding to their area. This finding thus has significance for the framing of a flood risk communication strategy.

5.3.2 Causes and sources of flooding

As explained above, the etic perspective of risk of flooding so far has been limited to the flood risk mapping carried out by SEPA. The sources of flooding for their analysis is limited to watercourses (small to large rivers) and coastal flood risk whereas the questions for the current analysis were based on the sources of flooding in the UK identified in the literature (see section 2.2.2). Since this was a multiple choice question, some of the respondents identified more than one source of flooding. From Figure 5.3, it can be observed that high river water levels and overloading of drains were perceived as likely sources of flooding by the majority of the respondents. In addition, it should be noted that other reasons such as mismanagement of reservoirs in the upstream and poor maintenance of the drains were also identified as potential sources of flooding in their areas even though these were not specifically mentioned as an option in the questionnaire. These responses were collated from the basic information sheet enclosed with the questionnaire which provided a space for comments and additional information

Figure 5.3: Sources of flooding in their area as perceived by the postal survey respondents

The above analysis indicates the limitations of the flood risk assessment carried out by SEPA which considers only river and coastal flooding. It also highlights the flood risk communication strategy is updated to include sources of flood risk in addition to fluvial and coastal flooding.

5.3.3 Effects of floods on property, possessions and lives

The effects floods can have on property, possessions and lives were discussed in section 2.2.3. This question explored the respondents’ perceptions of likely effects on their property, possessions and lives if a flood were to occur in their area. From the responses as shown in Figure 5.4, it can be observed that the majority of the respondents perceived that floods can have an effect on their property, possessions and lives.

Blocked drains Other Don’t know No Answer

respondents while damage to non-replaceable sentimental items and physical or mental stress were also thought to be the likely effects by 36% of the respondents.

It is worth noting that a small percentage (8.8%) of the respondents did not know about the likely effects of a flood event in their area. Therefore, flood risk communicators should not assume that the public is aware of the consequences of flooding and be complacent in raising awareness on this issue. Further, 18.6% of the respondents indicated ‘Other’ effects where they mostly indicated that they lived on the upper floors and therefore were less likely to be affected directly. However, some of these respondents indicated the possibility of some damage to buildings and restricted access to their flats. In summary, it can be concluded that most of the respondents have understanding of the effects of floods on property, possessions and lives and their views closely match with the literature on this topic. However, it would be worth finding out why 23.4% of the respondents did not think that flooding would not cause any damage to their house.

Figure 5.4: Perceived damage to property and possessions due to floods as perceived by the postal survey respondents

276

199 200

304

103

130

76

49

49.7% 35.9% 36.0% 54.8% 18.6% 23.4% 13.7% 8.8%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Loss or damage to furnishings and internal appliances Damage to non-replaceable sentimental items Physical illness or mental stress Damage to my house Other No damage to my house No danger to my health Don’t know

5.3.4 Action taken to limit impact on family

It is significant that 30 out of the 563 respondents did not provide an answer to this question. Out of the recorded responses, 5.1% respondents did not know whether they had taken any relevant action. From the responses as shown in Figure 5.5, it can be observed that only less than a quarter (23.6%) of the respondents indicated that they had taken some action to limit the impact of floods on their families. The percentage of respondents at 71.3% who answered that they did not take any action to limit the impact of flooding on their families, is surprising when compared to other findings, for example, about 74% of the respondents perceived their area to be at medium to high risk of flooding (Figure 5.2), about 77% of the respondents owned their properties (Figure 5.16), about 39% of the respondents had previous flood experience and about 62% of the respondents had been living at their current properties in flood risk areas for more than 5 years (Figure 5.18).

Figure 5.5: Type of action taken by the respondents to limit an impact of floods on their families

5.3.5 Plan for action

Following a similar trend as above, as shown in Figure 5.6, it can be observed that 65.2% respondents answered that they did not have a plan for action in the event of a flood and a further 10.5% were unsure if they had a plan for action.

69

Only 22.4% respondents answered that they had a plan for action in the event of a flood which is similar to the finding that only 23.6% of respondents had taken some action to limit the impact of floods on their families.

Figure 5.6: Distribution of perception of the respondents to indicate if they have a plan for action in the event of flooding

From the analysis so far it can be concluded that the majority of the community members understand how flooding as a risk may affect them but most of them have taken neither any preventive or protective action nor do they have a plan for action should a flooding emergency arise.