Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
hazard. As a result, experiences with hazards such
as flooding should increase perceived risks. More-
over, the ability to recognize and read flood cues
takes time and experience, and much of this local
knowledge is reportedly being lost in today's more
mobile societies (De Marchi et al. 2007).
In the recent past, there tended to be a percep-
tion that if people are aware of the risk they will
'correct' their perception and take appropriate ac-
tion. This 'deficit model' of public understanding
assumes that people lack accurate information
and if this is provided their awareness deficit
would be met (Wynne 1991). This assumes the
public to be passive receivers of expert knowledge,
rather than active citizens who evaluate multiple
sources of knowledge to which they are exposed
and who often have valid and useful lay knowl-
edge. Even beyond the FRMRC case studies, the
wider literature (Environment Agency 2007b;
Burningham et al. 2008; Harries 2008; see also
Chapter 18) shows that the key challenge in flood
risk communication with the public lies in ensur-
ing that those at risk engage with the issue of
flooding at all. For example, in the FRMRC case
studies with residents, in the 1 in 100-year return
period flood risk areas where flooding has occurred
in the recent past, levels of awareness of the local
flood risk were variable. In response to a question
on the extent towhich their homewas at risk from
flooding, only in Chertsey did a majority 52%
reply 'a great deal' or 'a fair amount'. In the other
locations the proportions weremuch lower (32%in
Glasgow and 41% in Trent). Emotional engage-
ment with the flood risk also varied in the case
studies, with nearly one-third indicating that they
werenot at allworried about the possibility of being
flooded in the next 12 months. In recent surveys
undertaken for the EA with 'at-risk' populations,
less than two-thirds (Environment Agency 2004a,
2005a), and most recently only 52%, recognized
that they lived in a flood risk area, with awareness
varying from area to area (Pitt 2008).
Engagement with flood risk and the effective-
ness of risk communication can be gauged by
actions taken in advance to prepare for flooding.
Indeed, professionals' efforts to raise awareness
are intended to increase public preparedness for
which they may seek to explain the mechanisms
that caused the flooding and the options available
for future management. Events may stimulate the
setting up of special mechanisms to enable dia-
logue between professionals and local communi-
ties or flood action groups, as people seek to
understand why flooding occurred and what can
be done about it. The Flood Risk Action Groups
and other community liaison groups set up in the
Lower Thames following flooding there in January
2003 are examples of this. Public engagement
requires time and professionals with particular
skills and training. It is not therefore surprising
that it is concentrated in those flood risk manage-
ment options that take place over periods of
months or years generally unrelated to the 'hazard
cycle'.
These UK findings have resonance with wider
European research. Findings from the European
Commission's FLOODsite project suggest that
the awareness of flood risk is very uneven across
EU countries, as is the adoption of community
measures to reduce exposure and risk (Steinfuhrer
et al. 2007). Many of those interviewed in Europe
do not expect future flooding to be worse than
past floods (Steinfuhrer and Kuhlicke 2007;
Burningham et al. 2008). Moreover, flood risk
awareness is largely related to fluvial or coastal
flooding and not appreciated in relation to pluvial
or groundwater floods.
The focus of the following section is upon flood
awareness and preparedness and upon flood
warnings.
Public perception, and engagement with flood
risk and flood preparedness
Some research has shown that the public tend to
define risk more broadly than experts, and take
into account some of the societal implications of
accepting the risks (McCarthy 2004). Differences
in expert/lay perceptions of and responses to risk,
includingflood risk, often lead to increasing public
mistrust of institutions and science (Cutter 1993;
McCarthy 2004). People often use the ease with
which examples of a hazard can be brought
to mind as a cue for estimating probability of a
