Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
with a public audience that will increase in geo-
graphical scope to includemany of those current-
ly designated as occupying low-risk areas (living
behind existing defences or outside the currently
defined 1:100 flood-risk zone). So flood risk pro-
fessionals need to communicate with a much
broader group of other professionals with differ-
ent but parallel agendas ('intra-professional
communications').
dominate. Across Europe, in response to the recent
EU Floods Directive, a wide range of professionals
are adopting flood risk maps as the main risk
communication tool for the proactive manage-
ment of the flood-affected public (see Fig. 19.1).
For emergency response professionals, for in-
stance, some activities overlap in time, so the
raising and issuing of flood warnings to floodplain
occupants in the immediate period preceding
an event in real time has to be maintained along-
side preparedness-raising and capacity-building
procedures.
In the UK, existing medium-term climate
change models predict increases to flood size,
frequency and intensity (Baxter et al. 2001). In
this context of change, flood risk professionals of
all types working in any particular geographical
location will see a shift in the agendas as they
struggle to interfacewith amuch broader range of
hazards. They will be expected to communicate
Communication between whom?
Traditionally, risk communication models
concentrate largely on communications between
professionals and public (e.g. O'Neill 2004;
Wardekker 2004). However, because of the policy
shift outlined above, the flood risk communication
realm is now populated by different groups of pro-
fessionals who need to communicate effectively
with one another in order to articulate flood risk
Fig. 19.1
Left: Indicativefloodplainmaps, as available on theUK's Environment Agency (EA) website. Right: Patternof
uncertainty associated with the risk estimation. (See the colour version of this figure in Colour Plate section.)
