Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Based on extensive empirical analyses in
Germany, Italy, England and Wales between
2004 and 2007, evidence indicates that there is a
considerable gap between the scientific under-
standing of flood risk and its management on the
one hand, and the risk constructions of the people
in flood-prone areas, which influence their actions
and behaviours, on the other (Steinfuhrer
et al. 2007). Flood risk communication takes place
in a social context (Quarantelli 1990; Mileti and
Fitzpatrick 1992; Drabek 2000; Patt and
Schrag 2003), such that professional sources are
only one of the means by which members of the
public may engage with risk prior to flooding or
when flooding occurs. Risk is communicated in
communities through networks of social process-
es, among neighbours and friends, in community
and flood action groups independently of commu-
nications from scientists and flood risk manage-
ment professionals.
spatial probability modelling combined with de-
cision matrices were mentioned; these have the
advantage of allowing possible consequences to
inform a risk-based decision support approach.
Choices about communication tools andmechan-
isms that these professional groups employed var-
iedmore in thewarnings field than in the planning
field. This is obviously because of timescale var-
iability: the aspirations of the latter group are to
mitigate the consequences of an event well in
advance of that event. The professional agenda of
flood warners, by contrast, is largely focused
around communications in the time-pressed im-
mediacy of an event, so that their activities follow
the 'hazard cycle' far more closely. In both con-
texts, the senior professionals in the survey saw
scope for enhancing the understanding and use of
scientific formulations of risk and uncertainty
methods beyond the scientific community.
Communications between Flood Risk
Professionals and the Public
Risk communication tools at the
public interface
Table 19.2 lists the wide variety of possible tools
or strategies used in flood risk communication
with the public in the UK across the range of
flood management options available. This elabo-
rates on the short list described as 'social tools' in
Table 19.1.
Although the importance of engagingwith local
people in managing flood risk is now widely rec-
ognized, it is clear fromTable 19.2 that in practice
most of the tools currently employed in the
UK offer a limited level of engagement (either as
information provision, or consultation with feed-
back opportunities) rather than active involve-
ment in decision-making. Local authorities in
England and Wales are required to involve local
communities in their development planning pro-
cesses, in which flood risk may be an issue, and
this is reflected in their use of engagement tools
such as workshops, and other specialized techni-
ques. Communities and households are encour-
aged to develop their own community and
household flood plans. However, in England and
Wales, community and flood action groups are not
The new emphasis on a broader definition of
risk discussed in the introduction is the result
of a direct challenge to a 'top-down' science-to-
practitioner communication model by the so-
called 'post-normal' social scientists working
within the field of risk communication since the
late 1980s (Gurabardhi et al. 2004). Early papers
by Beck (1992); Slovic (1993); Kasperson et al.
(1988); Renn and Levine (1991) and Fischhoff
(1995) argued strongly that scientifically based
communications that misunderstand or down-
grade the importance of the knowledge, attitudes,
experiences, values and perceptions of the 'risk
receivers' were misplaced and inappropriate.
Given the parallel shift to 'Making Space for
Water' - itself a challenge to bring public and
professionals much closer together 'on risky
ground' (Holmes 2004) - a fresh look at commu-
nication challenges at the public interface is now
underway in theUKwatermanagement industry.
In other words, the arguments in post-normal
science are finding new support and articulation
at the public interface.
