Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 20.1
(Continued)
Mitigation after event and before next event
ANXIETY REDUCTION, CAUSE OF
FLOOD AND TRUST IN
AUTHORITIES
Recommendations:
.
Communication with the public needs
rst to reassure before it begins to inform
Issue:
.
Policymakers need to understand the importance of anxiety management in householder responses
to
ood risk
.
Work with communities to foster increased levels of trust and to reduce anxieties surrounding
ooding
.
Explore more effective and innovative ways to provide information on the causes of
ooding and
future
ood risk and what is and is not possible for preventing or mitigating such risk
Anxiety following
ooding can be
a barrier to public involvement
in FRM and encouraging
preparedness planning and
actions
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
FLOOD RESISTANCE AND
RESILIENCE MEASURES
Recommendations:
.
Draw upon the expertise of psychologists to better understand the psychological factors
(perceived vulnerability, risk perception and social trust) found to be strong predictors for mitigation
intentions
.
Put more emphasis on helping people to understand the causes of
Issues:
Denial of risk, protection of
emotional security, fear of
reduced property prices and
ignorance of appropriate
mitigating actions may all be
factors in
oods and what is and is not
possible for preventing or mitigating the risks
.
Explore more reliable and less stigmatizing ways by which people can increase the resilience and
protection of homes without increasing their anxiety and threatening their social identity
.
Encourage normalization of particular mitigation measures to increase take-up of such measures
uencing the lack of
personal responsibility
.
Facilitate the normalization of the notions of
ood risk mitigation and of proactive response through
Faith in structural
ood defences
and preference for structural
mitigation measures
awareness-raising activities
.
Explore the provision of tailored, independent advice for property owners
.
Encourage insurance companies to review their `like for like` policies and include provision for
`betterment' of properties
.
Facilitate increased stakeholder and community engagement in local decision-making processes
Deference of responsibility to
relevant authorities
There is also a need to increase public recogni-
tion that it is not possible to protect fromall floods
and to engage people to take some responsibility
(within their means) for their own protection.
Public awareness of the potential
consequences
of flooding, including the length of the recovery
process, and the residual risk of flooding even
where defences are in place, is also necessary.
Importantly, there is a need to normalize the
threat of floods and to build future resilience,
rather than just fixing what a flood has damaged
and returning to a pre-flood state. This is now
becoming increasingly recognized in the UK and
elsewhere. However, in policy terms there are
tensions and contradictions associated with
'improving resilience'. The overall philosophy of
floodmanagement inmany locations is still one of
a technical fix with resistance and recovery geared
towards preserving and reinstating 'normality'.
However, 'putting things back to normal' may
simply reproduce existing vulnerabilities to flood-
ing that are embedded in social structures and
practices, hence the need to develop a new resil-
ience and normality. Although pre-existing social
and economic vulnerabilities and inequalities that
intensify flood loss and disruption need to be
tackled, these are normally outside the control of
flood riskmanagers. However, allocations of fund-
ing, social justice and fairness in FRM decision-
making is within the remit of such managers and
policymakers.
A rebalancing of flood management policy is
needed with more emphasis given to resilience-
building adaptation, while recognizing that more
traditional strategies designed to resist flooding
and provide emergency relief will continue to
