Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
waters from entering properties, which reduces
time that could be spent saving belongings.
involvement (Environment Agency, personal
communication, 2007).
I threw bath towels down. That was the first thing
I can remember doing. Grabbing bath towels and
throwing them to the bathroom door as I could
hear it coming up through the toilet
...
Resident, Kidlington,
1998 (Tapsell et al. 1999, p. 14).
Response and Relief During Flooding:
Damage Control
Figure 20.1 outlines many of the factors that may
influence response and damage control during
flood events and thus impact upon socio-psycho-
logical dimensions of FRM. Some of these factors
will not be discussed except to highlight their
impact upon resulting damages and losses, for
example, depth and velocity of floodwaters and
sediment/debris content and contaminants.
Those living in single-storey properties may lose
their entire home contents and suffer damage to
every room, while for those in multi-storey prop-
erties damage is generally confined to ground and
lower ground living space. However, having the
main living areas flooded, particularly kitchens,
creates huge disruption and distress (Tunstall
et al. 2006, 2007; Werritty et al. 2007). The receipt
of adequate warnings and timely support can often
reduce potential flood losses and distress, partic-
ularly for people who are unable to move heavy
belongings. Lack of practical support has often
been raised as a criticism of response agencies
(Tapsell et al. 1999; Pitt 2008).
Flood warning lead time is also important in
determining what actions people can take to re-
duce impacts. Telephone warning systems work
best for slow rising river floods but may not be
appropriate for floods in rapid-response catch-
ments or in the case of intense pluvial flooding.
Flood warningmethods need to be tailored accord-
ing to the type of flood and to recipient and loca-
tion characteristics. Crucially they need to be
focused on facilitating
effective responses
during
floods rather than focusing solely on warning
large numbers of people (Fielding et al. 2006;
Twigger-Ross et al. 2008). The focus on meeting
performance targets for recruitment to warnings
systems means that considerable resources are
targeted at that activity, which makes taking a
'response focus' to warnings harder (Twigger-Ross
et al. 2008). These findings are significant and
indicate the need for institutional change.
Risk to life
Flood warnings and behavioural response
Socio-psychological dimensions to FRM can also
include those associated with people's health dur-
ing a flood event. Although the threat to life and
injury from floods tends to be much greater in
developing countries and in countries like the
USA where the scale of flooding is greater, there
can still be significant risk. Coastal flooding in
particular has the potential to pose greater risk to
life than river flooding (Baxter et al. 2001). The
August 2002 floods in Central Europe resulted in
more than 100 fatalities (WHO 2002). Yet to date,
we know little about the specific causes of death
from floods (Jonkman and Vrijling 2008) although
recent research has attempted to analyse this for
Europe (Priest et al. 2007). Several methods have
As highlighted above, even if effective warning
systems are in place there is still uncertainty over
if or how recipients will respond upon receipt of
a warning. Research has shown a preference for
face-to-face warnings, for instance from flood war-
dens and door knocking, and also that a large
proportion of the population still do not have ac-
cess to the internet to receive information (Tapsell
et al. 2004). Age and receipt of a floodwarning have
been shown to be significant factors affecting abil-
ity to take actions (Parker et al. 2007). Flood warn-
ings in this instance were a significant driver of
behaviour before and during a flood event. Howev-
er, actions taken by recipients are often ineffective;
for example, many people try to prevent flood-
