Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
if temporary, communication mechanisms be-
tween professionals and the public. The floods in
Carlisle in 2005 offer an example of breakdown of
communications technologies during a flood
event through loss of power supplies, and high-
light the problems that may arise when too much
reliance is placed on communications technolo-
gies for event management and response (Govern-
ment Office for the North West 2005).
As described above, in England and Wales, EA
flood maps (indicative floodplain maps) pub-
lished on the internet are seen as a key tool for
communicating flood risk to the public between
events. However, it has already been noted that
these flood maps show only fluvial and coastal
flood risks. Fromevents that occurred inHull and
Tewkesbury in 2007, it became clear that rapid-
onset pluvial and other forms of flooding can
occur not only within these mapped zones but
also, significantly, outside them. Initial mapping
of pluvially generated surface water flooding
risks in England has only just been undertaken
in England and Wales, and is not yet available on
the internet. In addition to the national internet
maps, special site-specific mapping and model-
ling in relation to flood management options is
undertaken and may be used in communications
with local people, a change that supports a shift
by the EA from wider (hydrologically based) to
smaller (community-based) flood warning zones
that are more meaningful and relevant to local
people and that hopefully will provide more tar-
geted and accurate warnings.
Despite this impressive range of communica-
tion vehicles that may be deployed by profes-
sionals, there are many other ways in which
members of the public may engage with flood risk
prior to flooding and may receive a warning when
flooding occurs. For example, it is well documen-
ted in EA research that people seek information
and confirmation of flood warnings from neigh-
bours, friends and relatives when flooding threa-
tens, and they themselveswarn others. Infloods in
Carlisle and the Northwest of England in January
2005, as many people received a warning from
informal sources as from the EA's formal tele-
phone messaging
part of the long-term processes of planning for and
developing emergency plans, multi-agency plans,
local risk registers, and emergency training and
exercises. These remain a high-level professional
preserve although their outputs usually are gen-
erally available to the public on the internet. In
flood warning, the use of local people as flood
wardens provides a direct link between profes-
sionals and the community, which can serve to
foster effective dialogue and raise awareness not
only in time of flood but also at other stages in the
hazard cycle. Other areas of flood risk manage-
ment in which stakeholders and local people may
play a more active part are Catchment Flood Risk
Management Plans (CFMPs), strategies and par-
ticular local schemes as illustrated by projects in
the UK and elsewhere in Europe to 'make space for
water', and examined as part of the Floodscape
Project (Tapsell et al. 2005; Sorensen et al. 2006).
The data in the table highlight the reliance
placed on technological means for communica-
tions between professionals and the public inflood
warnings and in relation to other flood risk man-
agement options. This has dangers because use of
technologies such as the internet, although grow-
ing, is not universal, and the use of some relatively
new and potential warning technologies, such as
mobile telephones, SMS text messaging and the
new range of wireless communication technolo-
gies, such as Bluetooth, may not be accessible or
acceptable to some of the arguably most vulnera-
ble members of society - the elderly, disabled and
the poor (Tapsell et al. 2004).
In a flood event, information technologies
can have a significant role in informing the public.
The EA reported that over the period of the sum-
mer floods of 2007, there were 4million visitors to
its website and 206,000 calls to its recorded
message service, indicating how these tools serve
not only to inform the flood-affected communi-
ties, but also to raise awareness of flood risk in the
wider population (Woolhouse 2008). But commu-
nications technologies are themselves vulnerable
during flood events, in which electrical supply
and telephone landlines services can be lost. In
these circumstances, mobile telephones, battery-
operated radios and computers can provide crucial,
service
(Environment
