The social impacts of flooding and flood risk in Scotland

Alan Werritty

School of Social Sciences – Geography

University of Dundee

SNIFFER FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE : 27 February 2007

‘Tangible’ impacts of floods

What of the social impacts often intangible and longer lasting?

Pictures: courtesy BBC

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

Research Team (University of Dundee)Prof Alan WerrittyDr Donald HoustonAmy TavendaleDr Andrew BlackDr Tom Ball

Advisory Team (University of Dundee)Prof Nick FyfeDr Hester ParrDavid Crichton

Steering committeeScottish Executive, SEPA, SNIFFER and COSLA

Objectives of project

To assess the range of impacts that experience of recent flooding in Scotland has had on people, their attitudes and behaviour

(new knowledge ....

To establish ‘what works’ with particular population groups and locations in relation to flood prevention campaigns and flood warning/dissemination systems.

.... leading to new policy and practice)

Outline of talk

Background to projectGeo-demographic profilingHousehold survey in flood risk areasFocus groups (from survey respondents)Interviews with flood risk stakeholdersSummary of key findings

Background

Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 duty to promote ‘sustainable flood management’

Sustainable flood management provides the maximum possible social and economic resilience against flooding by protecting and working with the environment, in a way which is fair and affordable both now and in the future” (emphasis added)

Social impacts are a major ‘driver’Social impacts are a major ‘driver’

of future flood risk in UKof future flood risk in UK

(Foresight, OST, 2004)(Foresight, OST, 2004)

The research context

‘These are difficult to quantify, but the analysis showed a large increase in all scenarios, from 3 to 30 times’

Expectations and attitudes also important BUT not yet widely studied

Methods

geo-demographic profiling to check whether sample truly representative

household surveyhousehold survey on flood impacts and attitudes on flood impacts and attitudes to managing flood risk (respondents – ‘flooded’ to managing flood risk (respondents – ‘flooded’ and ‘at risk but not flooded’)and ‘at risk but not flooded’)

focus groups which add a ‘human face’ to the material on flood impacts and contrasting attitudes to managing flood risk

interviews with key institutional stakeholders who manage flood risk both nationally and locally

Socio-demographic profile of flood-risk areasSocio-demographic profile of flood-risk areasin urban Scotlandin urban Scotland

Socio-demographic group% of persons or households in

socio-demographic group

Flood-risk areas in urban Scotland

Urban Scotland

Persons aged 65+ 17.3 15.6

Single pensioner households 16.7 15.8

Lone parents with dependent children

7.5 8.3

Rented from Local Authority 27.5 27.0

Rented from Housing Association 6.7 6.9

Elementary occupations 14.5 14.1

Households with person(s) with a limiting long-term illness

37.6 38.4

Household questionnaire survey

Household survey locations (dates flooded)

Pilot Brechin (2002)

Main surveyEdinburgh (2000)Glasgow East (2002)Perth (1993)Elgin (1997, 2002)Forres (1997)Hawick (2005)

Postal surveyInverness (2003)Newcastleton (2005)Ft. William (2005)Orkney (2005)Shetland (2005)

Reconstructed historical flood outlines used for survey property selection

Sourced from local authorities and commissioned consultants

Response biases

Category % of persons or households in category

Survey returns Scotland

Persons aged 70+ 22.2 11.2

Rented from Local Authority 15.8 21.6

Elementary occupations 9.9 12.7

Response rates

Location Returned Response Rate(%)

Brechin 46 68.7

Edinburgh 316 58.6

Elgin 237 57.5

Forres 261 58.8

Glasgow-Shettleston 113 43.1

Hawick 55 47.8

Perth 126 51.2

Scattered rural & coastal (by post)

69 29.2

TOTAL 1,223 52.7

Type of flood Households %

633 flooded households590 non-flooded households

Fluvial 1,045 85.4

Pluvial 121 9.9

Coastal 57 4.7

TOTAL 1,223 100.0

Typology of floods

Impacts of Flooding

4%13%

33%

10%

30%

10%

Friends/ relatives

Hotel/ B & B

Evacuation centre/ shelterOther

Private rented

Council/ Housing Association

Destinations after flood event

n = 607

Classification of impacts

Tangible impacts Intangible impacts immediate

Intangible impacts lasting

Financial losses Discomfort/inconvenience Time and effort to return to normal

Loss of house value Stress of flood itself Worry about future flooding

Disruption to electricity supply

Having to leave home Loss of irreplaceable/ sentimental items

Damage to car or van

Dealing with insurers Strains between family

Used holiday entitlement

Living in temporary accommodation

Loss of community spirit

Dealing with builders Deterioration to mental health

Being stranded in/out of home

Deterioration to physical health

Loss or distress to pets

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Time and effort required to get house back to normal

Discomfort/ inconvenience while returning house to normal

Worry about future flooding

Having to leave home and posessions

Stress of the flood event itself

Having to live in temporary accommodation

Dealing with insurers and loss adjusters

Dealing with builders, decorators, etc

Being stranded in or out of home

Loss of irreplaceable or sentimental items

Percentage of respondents reporting 'serious' or 'extreme' impact

Serious

Extreme

Likert scale responses to questions onimpacts from a list of flood stressors

Intangible immediate

1.81

Tangible 1.12

Intangiblelasting

1.29

Mean Impact Scores

Flood Impact Scores by income group

Impact Income

<£20k pa

Income

>£20k pa

Tangible 1.08 1.08

Intangible immediate

1.77 1.72

Intangible lasting

1.30 1.12

ActionReceived flood warning?

Yesn=242

Non=333

Deployed sandbags, flood guards or other defence

45.9 31.2

Removed possessions from ground floor 49.2 32.4

Household members vacated the house 28.9 15.9

Moved car to higher ground 39.7 30.0

Other 2.9 3.0

No action taken 13.2 37.5

Effect of flood warnings on actions taken prior to the flood (42% of households received a warning)

Flood Impact Scores by whether received warning

Impact Received warning

Did not receive warning

Tangible 1.11 1.13

Intangible immediate

1.79 1.83

Intangible lasting

1.29 1.29

Living with flood-risk

How often worry about flooding(% of respondents in category)

Flooded?

Yesn=624

Non=583

Most of the time 22.9 4.1

Often 38.1 24.2

Rarely 32.9 54.9

Never 6.1 16.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0

Impact of living with flood risk - worry

Confidence of getting sufficient warning of a flood in the future

Level of confidenceFlooded

n=597

Not flooded

n=558

TOTAL

n=1,155

Very confident 6.4 7.7 7.0

Confident 27.5 39.8 33.4

Not very confident 41.9 37.8 39.9

Not at all confident 24.3 14.7 19.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

Knowledge about flood risk

Level of confidenceFlooded

n=588

Not flooded

n=543

TOTAL

n=1,131

Very well informed 6.8 5.7 6.3

Well informed 25.3 27.4 26.3

Not very well informed 41.3 40.9 41.1

Not at all informed 26.5 26.0 26.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

Perception of risk of being flooded within next 10 years

NB: ‘Flooded’ and ‘non-flooded’ live in historically flooded areas

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Very likely

Likely

Unlikely

Very unlikely

Zero or negligiblelikelihood

% Respondents

Not flooded

Flooded

Responsibility for flood protection

Where DOES it lie

Where SHOULD it

lie

Yourself 18.6 5.9

Landlord 2.1 3.2

Local council 36.7 41.4

Scottish Executive 13.6 22.6

SEPA 8.6 13.4

Scottish Water 8.2 11.6

Other 1.0 1.9

Don’t know 11.1 --

TOTAL - responses 100.0 100.0

Ownership of flood risk

Focus Groups

Tangible impacts

House prices and selling volume and value of house sales down immediately after flood, but some recovery after 2-3 years

Insurance mediates most of the financial impacts and experiences with loss adjusters generally good, but– difficulties with some builders/trades– problems with large excesses and limited

availability of future cover

Intangible impacts - immediate

Trauma– “It was really stressful. I mean, I seen people … just

sitting there crying. They just crack up” [Glasgow]

Anxiety and stress– “You walk back through your house for the first time

and it’s covered in sewage. That’s a devastating moment” [Elgin]

– “It puts a strain on your relationship as well because of the stress and everything of trying to find somewhere else to stay and sort everything out…you’re falling out all the time” [Elgin]

Intangible impacts - lasting

Health (mental and physical)– Need for counselling/support– Aggravation of existing chronic illnesses, e.g. asthma– “I wasn’t aware of it, you know but I heard my son

talking to somebody, ‘God, my dad’s aged 10 years’” [Edinburgh]

Loss of irreplaceable items– “My mother died of cancer, I lost all photos of her, all

photos of my kids, all the baby stuff, you know, memories when they’re first born, the memory box” [Elgin]

Interviews with key institutional stakeholders

Stakeholder Interviews - Local Authorities (1)

reducing the flood risk to a manageable level where the risk is known – watercourse maintenance within statutory powers; – use of temporary flood protection where possible and

feasible

directing the planning process to avoid flood risk areas – increasing use of strategic land use planning (SPP 7) – technical input where possible from engineers to the

development control process

promoting flood alleviation schemes where cost-benefit analysis is in favour,– public involvement in the procedures from the earliest

stages

Stakeholder Interviews - Local Authorities (2)

During event

Interacting as smoothly as possible with other emergency services within 8 regional emergency response arrangements

– evacuation and rest centres

Post event

– re-housing Local Authority list tenants

– security for evacuated areas

– business recovery

– disseminating best practice

Stakeholder interviews - SEPA

Information provision (new flood risk maps)

Public awareness – especially flood awareness campaigns and Floodline

PLUS direct community engagement in conjunction with LAs– opportunity post event– but difficult to maintain contact

Expansion of flood warning services where beneficial – coverage (still some gaps) and cost-benefit analysis

Interaction with local and central government to increase direct warning (AVM) to those at risk

Stakeholder interviews – Insurance Industry

Aim to maintain flood risk coverage for Aim to maintain flood risk coverage for existing existing customerscustomers

For properties that have been flooded new applications For properties that have been flooded new applications may be refusedmay be refused

Flood proofing to reduce losses encouraged, but not Flood proofing to reduce losses encouraged, but not made a condition of covermade a condition of cover

Re-statement of policy by ABI November 2005 – Re-statement of policy by ABI November 2005 – – requirement for 1 in 75 year standard of protectionrequirement for 1 in 75 year standard of protection

or flood defences planned within five yearsor flood defences planned within five years– market forces will dictate policy re: excesses and market forces will dictate policy re: excesses and

premiumspremiums

Stakeholder interviews – Scottish Executive

Promotion of 4 A’s for flood risk reduction

– Awareness

– Avoidance

– Alleviation

– Assistance (eg ‘Pay with Rent’ schemes)

Priority to allocate existing funding allocation for flood alleviation (£89 m)

Aware that prioritisation may have to occur

Aware of need to bring in social aspects to flood alleviation scheme appraisal

– Guidance for local authorities now in progress

Summary: impact of flooding

Intangible social impacts score much higher than tangible economic impacts – key finding

Key immediate intangible impacts – disruption and inconvenience, stress of flood, dealing with builders and insurers

Key lasting intangible impacts – loss of irreplaceable items, worry about future flooding, longer term health impacts

Impacts more severe on less resilient households (low incomes, elderly and infirm)

Summary: living with floods

Warnings valued (esp Floodline once used) → some preventative measures adopted, but reduction in impacts modest

Having been flooded → greater worry and awareness of flood risk, but low confidence in getting sufficient warning for effective action in future (role for education?)

Personal ownership of managing flood risk low – responsibility transferred to institutions (esp. LAs and Scottish Executive) – need to raise awareness?

Summary: institutional stakeholders

Greater role for public/community engagement with LAs (planning schemes, emergency action during floods, raising and maintaining awareness)Best practice in some LAs (AVM warnings, emergency action planning) of value to other LAs yet to experience major floodAddressing needs of most vulnerable groups (‘Pay with Rent schemes’, temporary re-housing and securing properties whilst vacant) facilitates recovery and promotes social resilienceSEPA’s proposed extension of Flood Watch for inland and coastal communities endorsed

Postscript

“My life was in two skips, things which you cannot replace, wedding photographs, birth certificates. I was in the RAF during the war

and my flying log was all ruined. I had a couple of wings off my uniform, gone. These are things that you cannot replace … not by an insurance company or anybody else”.

[Perth]