Country report england and wales



Download 2.43 Mb.
Page1/31
Date conversion17.07.2018
Size2.43 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   31




Co-ordinator: HR Wallingford, UK
Project Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420
Project website: www.FLOODsite.net

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis

and Management Methodologies




COUNTRY REPORT ENGLAND AND WALES

Report Number T11-07-11

Revision Number 1_3_P10

Date June 2007



FLOODsite is co-funded by the European Community
Sixth Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development (2002-2006)
FLOODsite is an Integrated Project in the Global Change and Eco-systems Sub-Priority
Start date March 2004, duration 5 Years
Document Dissemination Level



PU
Public








Vulnerability and flooding: a re-analysis of FHRC data
Task Leader Partner Name
Annett Steinführer MU/FHRC

Document Information





Title

Vulnerability and flooding: a re-analysis of FHRC data

Lead Author

Sylvia Tunstall

Contributors

Sue Tapsell, Amalia Fernandez-Bilbao

Distribution

Project Team

Document Reference

T11-07-11

Document History




Date

Revision

Prepared by

Organisation

Approved by


Notes

20/11/06

1_0_P10

S.Tunstall

(Chapter 1.1-1.2 in collaboration with Annett Steinführer, Christian Kuhlicke, Bruna De Marchi, Anna Scolobig)



FHRC (p10)

S.Tapsell




20/03/07

1_1_P10

S.Tunstall and S.Tapsell

FHRC (p.10)

S.Tapsell




30/05/07

1_2_P10

S.Tapsell

FHRC (p10)

S.Tapsell




29/06/07

1_3_P10

S.Tapsell

FHRC (p10)

S.Tapsell




















Acknowledgement


The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-2004-505420.
The authors would also like to thank the many participants who took part in the various surveys reported here and staff at the Environment Agency and Defra for their assistance.

Disclaimer
This document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. This work may rely on data from sources external to the FLOODsite project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Community nor any member of the FLOODsite Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information.

© FLOODsite Consortium


Summary
The focus of FHRC for this study has been on re-analysing, or further secondary analysis of, data from some of our earlier studies, rather than collecting new survey data. The three existing recent data sets collected between 2002 and 2005 which have been reanalysed to address the aims and objectives of this task, are the:


  • ‘Intangibles’ data set of both flooded and ‘at risk’ samples

  • ‘Warnings’ data set of flooded sample

  • ‘Lower Thames‘ data set of flooded sample.

The first two UK data sets listed cover a range of locations (up to 30) and many different flood events in England and Wales. However, the third data set was focused on a particular location along the River Thames and a single key flood event. The data offered in the data sets are thus very different from the case study data of our German and Italian partners, as they were originally collected and analysed for other purposes. The major objectives of FLOODsite Task 11 that this research aimed to address were:



  • to characterise types of communities with regard to their preparedness, vulnerability and resilience related to flood events;

  • to understand the driving forces of human behaviour before, during, and after floods;

  • to learn lessons from case studies in Germany, Italy and the U.K.

However, the FHRC studies focused on individuals and households rather than upon communities. Moreover, there is very little data on flood risk constructions across the three surveys. The main independent variables used in the analysis for this report are the most appropriate available from the earlier studies which address the aims of Task 11 with a view to providing some comparisons with the German and Italian data.


The population samples studied differed in terms of characteristics such as gender, age, social grade and income, tenure, flood experience and awareness, length of residence, and other demographic and social factors. They also differed in terms of the characteristics of the flood events and levels of impacts experienced. These differences were in turn seen to influence preparedness for living with flood risk and responding to flood events, and individual and household vulnerability and resilience related to flooding.

A number of driving forces of human behaviour were identified before, during and after flooding which were seen to affect people’s levels of preparedness, vulnerability and resilience related to flood events. For example, flood awareness and preparedness actions before and during flooding were seen to be affected by the extent and frequency of previous flood experience; river bank location, tenure arrangements and length of residence in the area; and the receipt of flood warnings. Taking out insurance was a common form of pre-flood preparedness measure taken by residents in the flood affected areas which was seen to be influenced by personal characteristics such as age, gender, tenure, social grade and income, illness and disability. Another common measure taken to prepare for flooding was to move valuables, personal property and cars to safety. Households containing children aged under 10 gave this measure specific priority.

Overall, the data help us to further understand the impacts of flooding and the factors influencing human behaviour before, during and after the flood events. They also allow lessons to be learned (albeit in the context of specific populations and locations) on how individuals and households may be able to increase their resilience to flood impacts and capacity to recover. The results will be of use to other people living in flood risk areas and to those agencies with a responsibility to respond to flooding in order to improve pre-flood preparedness and post-flood recovery.
Contents


Document Information I

Document History I

Acknowledgement I

Disclaimer I

Contents III

1. Introduction 1


1.1 Objectives of Task 11 1

1.2 Theoretical approaches and main concepts 2

1.2.1 Social vulnerability 2

1.2.2 Social capital and social networks 4

1.2.3 Risk construction 6
2 Research Methods and Limitations 9

2.1 The ‘Intangibles’ data set 10

2.2 The ‘Warnings’ data set 10

2.3 The ‘Lower Thames’ data set 11

2.4 Qualitative research and pilot testing 11

2.5 Main survey methods 11

2.5.1 Selection of survey areas and samples 13

2.5.2 Questionnaires 14

2.5.3 Fieldwork 14

2.5.4 Data processing and checking 15

2.5.5 Analysis 15

2.6 Summary 15

3. Demographic and socio-economic structure of the population samples 18
3.1 Gender and age 19

3.2 Household types 19

3.3 Socio-economic stratification 20

3.3.1 Social grade classification 20

3.3.2 Household income 22

3.3.3 Tenure and length of residence 25

3.3.4 Area House prices 26

3.4 Prior health and long-term illness and disability 28

3.5 Summary 30
4. Flood events, experiences and perceptions 32
4.1 The flood events 32

4.1.1 Easter 1998 32

4.1.2 Autumn 2000 32

4.1.3 Thames 2003 33

4.2 Flood events and experience in the surveys 33

4.3 Depth and duration of the survey flood events 34

4.4 Flood risk constructions and awareness 35

4.4.1 Flood risk constructions 35

4.4.2 Flood awareness 35

4.4.3 Flood risk constructions: the Lower Thames Survey 37

4.4.4 Flood warnings 39

4.4.5 Who receives a warning? 41

4.4.6 Reliance on authorities for warnings: Lower Thames Survey 44

4.5 Summary 45

5. Human behaviour before, during and after a flood 47

5.1 Drivers of human behaviour before, during and after a flood 47

5.2 Flood preparedness and preventative actions 48

5.2.1 Automatic Voice Messaging system (AVM) 48

5.2.2 Insurance 49

5.2.3 Preparedness measures taken before the event: Warnings Survey 52

5.2.4 Preparedness measures after the flood and for a future event:

Warnings Survey 56

5.2.5 Preparedness measures taken at some stage: Intangibles Survey 56

5.2.6 Preparedness measures taken at some stage: Lower Thames Survey 57

5.2.7 Actions taken at the time of a flood event: Warnings Survey 60

5.3 Social resources and help outside the home 62

5.3.1 Who gets help from outside the household? 64

5.3.2 Help and protective action 65
5.4 Evacuation and disruption 65

5.4.1 Introduction 65

5.4.2 Evacuation behaviour 67

5.4.3 Flood event characteristics as drivers of evacuation behaviour 68

5.4.4 Other flood characteristics 69

5.4.5 Social characteristics and material resources 70

5.5 Worry about future flooding 72

5.6 Summary 74


6. The impacts of flooding 78

6.1 Subjective severity of impacts 78

6.2 Resilience and vulnerability 80

6.2.1 Measures of vulnerability and resilience 83

6.2.2 Background to the General Health Questionnaire 83

6.2.3 Response to the vulnerability variables 85

6.2.4 Correlations between vulnerability variables 85

6.2.5 Stage at which the health and other impacts of flooding were worst 86

6.2.6 Comparison between Intangibles Survey data and 1998 Health

Survey for England: current GHQ12 results 88


      1. Comparison between the ‘flooded’ and the ‘at risk’ samples

in the Intangibles Survey on Current GHQ12 88

6.3 Factors that may influence vulnerability and resilience 89

6.3.1 Social characteristics and health 90

6.3.2 Flood event characteristics 97

6.3.3 Flood warnings, rate of onset and duration of flood 99

6.3.4 Tenure and housing characteristics 99

6.3.5 Other factors in the aftermath of flooding 102
6.4 Multivariate Analysis 110

6.4.1 Multi-variate analyse: flood characteristics and vulnerability 110

6.4.2 Multi-variate analyse: social characteristics and vulnerability 114

6.4.3 Post flood intervening factors 119





    1. Summary and conclusion on vulnerability and resilience 122




  1. Conclusions 124

    1. Social vulnerability and the drivers of human behaviour before,

during and after flooding 124

    1. The impacts of flooding and social vulnerability 128

    2. Key lessons and further research 129

References 131

Appendix 1 Locations of Intangibles and Warnings Surveys 141

Appendix 2 GHQ12 Questionnaires 146



Tables

Table 2.1: Main survey methods used to collect the data sets 12

Table 2.2: Main independent variables used in the analysis 17

Table 3.1: Social structure and housing/residence characteristics of

the samples 18

Table 3.2 Household size: Intangibles Survey and Warnings Survey 20

Table 3.3: Social grade classification 21

Table 3.4: Socio-economic status and housing/residence characteristics

of the samples 22

Table 3.5: Percentage of respondents with a gross monthly household

income level for one person and multiple person households 23

Table 3.6: Details of area house price rating: Intangibles Survey 28

Table 3.7 Area house price rating and social grade: Intangibles Survey 28

Table 3.8: Prior health by age group – Intangibles Survey 29

Table 4.1: Experience of flooding 33

Table 4.2: Maximum depth of flooding and duration of flooding

inside the home: Intangibles Survey and Warnings Survey 34

Table 4.3: Awareness of flood risk: Intangibles, Warnings and Lower

Thames Surveys 35

Table 4.4: Perception of likelihood of future flooding in next 5 years 37

Table 4.5: Perception of likelihood of future flooding in next 50 years 38

Table 4.6: Sources of information about flood risk: Lower Thames Survey 38

Table 4.7: Flood warnings received 40

Table 4.8: Receipt of a warning and warning lead time according to the

perceived speed of onset of flooding. Intangibles Survey 42

Table 5.1: Proportion of respondents with insurance cover according

to gross monthly Household income: Warnings Survey 52

Table 5.2: Awareness of flood risk and length of residence and number

of preparedness actions undertaken 55

Table 5.3: “Have you undertaken any of these flood prevention

measures?” according to experience of flooding: Intangibles Survey 57

Table 5.4: Actions taken by respondents to prepare for flooding and

to protect property: Warnings Survey 61

Table 5.5: Help received from outside the households: Intangibles and

Warnings Survey 63

Table 5.6: Actions taken to prepare for flooding and to protect

property according to help received: Warnings Survey 66

Table 5.7: Evacuation and depth of flooding: Intangibles Survey 69

Table 5.8: Type of rooms flooded and evacuation: Intangibles Survey 69

Table 5.9: Evacuation by gross monthly household income 71

Table 5.10: Worry about flooding by those flooded and not flooded: Lower

Thames Survey 73

Table 5.11: Worry about flooding by gender: Intangibles Survey 74

Table 6.1: Subjective rating of the severity of the effects of flooding

on the household: Intangibles Survey 79

Table 6.2: Correlations between the subjective severity scores: Intangibles

Survey 80

Table 6.3: Correlations between current and worst GHQ12 scores and other 86

Table 6.4: Mean scores on vulnerability variables according to the

reported worst stage: Intangibles Survey 87

Table 6.5: Percentage with high scores on current GHQ12 and mean scores

on overall severity of the flood by prior health: Intangibles Survey 95

Table 6.6: Mean scores on vulnerability variables by doctor consultations:

Intangibles Survey 97

Table 6.7: Correlations between depth and number of rooms and

vulnerability variables: Intangibles Survey 97

Table 6.8: Correlations between vulnerability variables and problems

with builders and insurers: Intangibles Survey 102

Table 6.9: Correlations between vulnerability variables and worry:

Intangibles Survey 103

Table 6.10: Insured and uninsured damages incurred: Intangibles Survey 104

Table 6.11: Insured damaged incurred by the number of main rooms flooded:

Intangibles Survey 104

Table 6.12: Insured damaged incurred by maximum depth of main rooms

flooding: Intangibles Survey 105

Table 6.13: Correlations between uninsured costs (normalised and not) and

vulnerability variables 105

Table 6.14: Correlations between number of days taken off work and

vulnerability variables: Intangibles Survey 106

Table 6.15: Correlations between length of disruption and vulnerability

variables: Intangibles Survey 109

Table 6.16: High GHQ12 scores and length of disruption 110

Table 6.17: Variable from bi-variate analyses significantly associated

with vulnerability measures 111

Table 6.18: Flood event characteristics and GHQ12 likert scores 113

Table 6.19: Flood event characteristics and stress and overall severity 114

Table 6.20: Social dwelling and flood event characteristics and GHQ12

likert scores 116

Table 6.21: Social dwelling and flood event characteristics and stress

and overall severity 117

Table 6.22: Post event factors social, dwelling and flood event

characteristics and GHQ12 likert scores 120

Table 6.23: Post event factors social, dwelling and flood event

characteristics and the stress and overall severity 121

Table 7.1: Social vulnerability to flooding and preparedness actions 125

Table 7.2: Social vulnerability to flooding and coping actions during and after flooding 127

Figures

Figure 3.1: Living alone: Intangibles Survey and Warnings Survey 20

Figure 3.2: Income by social grade: Intangibles Survey – flooded 24

Figure 3.3: Income by social grade: Intangibles Survey - at risk 24

Figure 3.4: Income by social grade: Warnings Survey 25

Figure 3.5: Home ownership by social grade: Intangibles Survey

and Warnings Survey 27

Figure 3.6: Respondents’ long term illness and disability by age 29

Figure 4.1: Receipt of a flood warning by number of main rooms

flooded: Intangibles Survey 43

Figure 4.2: Receipt of a flood warning by depth of main room flooding:

Intangibles Survey 43

Figure 4.3: Receipt of a flood warning by social grade 44

Figure 5.1: Household insurance: Intangible and Warnings Surveys

change caption to ‘New for old’ not ‘new and old’ 50

Figure 5.2: Buildings and structure insurance by social grade:

Intangibles Survey and Warnings Survey 50

Figure 5.3: “New for old” contents insurance by social grade:

Intangibles Survey and Warnings Survey 51

Figure 5.4: Other types of contents insurance by social grade:

Intangibles Survey and Warnings Survey 51

Figure 5.5: Structural preparedness actions taken: Warnings

Survey Phase 2 53

Figure 5.6: Damage reducing preparedness actions taken: Warnings

Survey Phase 2 54

Figure 5.7: The number of preparedness actions taken before and

after flooding: Warnings Survey Phase 2 55

Figure 5.8: Flood prevention measures undertaken: Lower Thames

Survey 58

Figure 5.9: Behavioural preparations for flooding: Lower Thames

Survey 59

Figure 5.10: Duration of evacuation: Intangibles Survey 68

Figure 5.11: Worry about future flooding: Intangibles Survey 72

Figure 5.12: Concerns about flooding: Intangibles Survey 73

Figure 6.1: Model of factors affecting vulnerability and resilience

to flooding 82

Figure 6.2: Percentage reporting stage at which the health impacts

were most severe: Intangibles Survey 86

Figure 6.3: Percentage with high current GHQ12 scores among men

in the Intangibles Survey compared with the national average 88

Figure 6.4: Percentage with high current GHQ12 scores among women

in the Intangibles Survey compared with the national average 89

Figure 6.5: Percentage with high Current GHQ12 scores among

the flooded and at risk in the Intangibles Survey 89

Figure 6.6: Mean scores for stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by gender: Intangibles Survey 90

Figure 6.7: Mean scores for the stress of the flood event by age:

Intangibles Survey 91

Figure 6.8: Mean scores for overall severity of the flood by age:

Intangibles Survey 92

Figure 6.9: Mean scores for the stress of the flood event by gender and age:

Intangibles Survey 92

Figure 6.10: Mean scores for overall severity of the flood event by gender

and age: Intangibles Survey 93

Figure 6.11: Mean scores for the stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by social grade: Intangibles Survey 93

Figure 6.12: Mean current and worst GHQ12 Likert scores by prior

health: Intangibles Survey 94

Figure 6.13: Mean worst and current GHQ12 Likert scores by long

term illness or disability of respondents: Intangibles Survey 96

Figure 6.14: Mean scores on the stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by long term illness or disability of respondents 96

Figure 6.15: Percentage with high current and worst time GHQ12

scores by maximum depth of main room flooding: Intangibles Survey 98

Figure 6.16: Mean scores on the stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by pollution of the floodwaters: Intangibles Survey 98

Figure 6.17: Mean current and worst GHQ12 Likert scores

by pollution of the floodwaters: Intangibles Survey 99

Figure 6.18: Mean current and worst GHQ12 Likert scores by tenure:

Intangibles Survey 100

Figure 6.19: Mean scores on the stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by tenure: Intangibles Survey 100

Figure 6.20: Mean current and worst GHQ12 Likert scores by whether

or not respondents were living in vulnerable property:

Intangibles Survey 101

Figure 6.21: Mean scores on the stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by whether or not respondents

were living in vulnerable property: Intangibles Survey 101

Figure 6.22: Means scores on stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by help received from family outside

the household: Intangibles Survey 107

Figure 6.23: Mean worst and current GHQ12Likert by help received

from family outside the household: Intangibles Survey 107

Figure 6.24: Mean worst and current GHQ12Likert by evacuation:

Intangibles Survey 108

Figure 6.25: Means scores on stress of the flood event and overall

severity of the flood by evacuation: Intangibles Survey 108




  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   31


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page