Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
process itself (Tunstall et al. 2009). Furthermore,
there were relatively few variations in the struc-
tures, strategies and communication 'tools' used
in the three differing geographical ('flood onset')
contexts, which we described as simple, complex
(contested) and pluvial flood risk settings.
It appeared that constraints on communication
in planning development were greater in the
Thames area's complex (contested) flood setting
than in the other geographical contexts,
which may have been due to greater development
challenges and local resource pressures in the
locality. Other than this, the few specialized
local variations reported by the professionals
interviewed appeared to be dependent upon his-
torical mechanisms and initiatives that were in
place before nationally consistent approaches
and mechanisms were introduced. It is important
to note, however, that even with imposed
national consistency, such flexibility at a local
level remains an important aspect of effective
communication.
McCarthy et al. (2007) and McCarthy (2007)
considered the ways in which communication of
risk and uncertainty might be optimized by inter-
viewing senior professionals in both flood risk
science and in the professional agencies identified
in the central box in Figure 19.2. Communication
between professionals was found to occur across
all the flood management options. Findings indi-
cated that choice of communication methods var-
ies not just with professional context and agendas,
but with both the temporal and spatial scale of
application. The issue of temporal variability in
communication choices was mentioned in many
discussions with professionals. In Chapter 20 (see
Fig. 20.1) the 'hazard cycle' is portrayed as divided
into two temporal phases: before (prevention and
preparedness) and after the event (response and
mitigation). For floodwarners, during the differing
temporal phases of the 'hazard cycle', a range of
different tools are utilized in warning both at the
preparatory and event management phases. Tech-
nology was viewed by respondents as a key driver
of progress in both flood warning and planning
development. Common to both the professional
planners and warners who were interviewed,
(meaning of complex causality, as in urban flood
contexts like the lower Thames in the UK); and
'pluvial' (adventitious rapid-onset urban floods
such as occurs in Glasgow's urban area).
4
The
research set out
to address
the following
questions:
.
What are the constraints onprofessional agendas
and policies, andhowdo these constraining factors
influence attitudes towards communication of
risk and uncertainty? (variation by professional
agenda).
.
In differing flood-type contexts, what are the
needs, strategies and communication tools pres-
ently used by professional agencies, and their
strategy towards (in particular) communicating
with stakeholders? (variation by flood onset type).
.
How does the 'emergency cycle' affect risk and
uncertainty communication?
.
How can we best align views, strategies and
communication tools?
At the time of the research undertaken by
FHRC, great changes were taking place in both
warning and planning. It emerges that given the
recent development of an overarching coherent
national policy for flood risk communication in
relation to spatial planning, and the EA's drive for
national consistency in policy and practice in all
their activities, perhaps not surprisingly few
regional variations were found in the professional
constraints and contexts facing these groups
(McCarthy 2007). McCarthy's research, designed
to identify preferred risk communication tools,
found that the EA's continually updated indica-
tive floodplain maps still represent the core tools
used by planners. However, the routine incorpo-
ration of new, more sophisticated modelling is
often constrained by resources. The current chal-
lenge is to bring some of the new animated visual
modelling tools into the planning application
4
In Glasgow, the institutional and pluvial flooding context and
stage of development of services and approaches proved to be so
different to those in the two English case studies that the focus of
the research there had to be rather different. On analysis it was
discovered that the focus of the Glasgow case study is directed at
the development and implementation of a single important
mechanism, the Glasgow Surface Water Management Plan, and
so the Glasgow case study will be reported outside this chapter.
