Country report england and wales

 Page 22/31 Date conversion 17.07.2018 Size 2.43 Mb.

* Anova F test; p<0.001

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

 Insured damages incurred 1<10cms £ mean (n=) 10<20cms £ mean (n=) 20<30cms £ mean (n=) 30<60cms £ mean (n=) 60<1 metre £ mean (n=) 1 metre or more £ mean (n=) Buildings and structure £8,166 (27) £11,805 (37) £13,825 (29) £20,118 (71) £25,305 (73) £32,888 (69) Contents £4,248 (51) 6,685 (63) £4,785 (32) £7,716 (102) £9,630 (101) £14,763 (87) Both* £14,546 (46) £18,952 (47) £19,389 (32) £25,756 (76) £32, 213 (83) £45,274 (58)

* Anova F test; p<0.001

When normalised by household income, those in Social Grades DE had higher uninsured costs for both contents (t test: p =<0.01) and contents + building structure (t test; p <0.05) than those in social grades ABC1 and 2. There were significant but only very weak correlations between some of the subjective severity and stress and GHQ12 scores and the amount spent on uninsured costs both normalised by income and not (Table 6.13).

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

 Variable__Uninsured_amount_spent_on_contents,__Pearson_ρ'>Variable Uninsured amount spent on contents, Pearson ρ Uninsured amount spent on building structure/ contents, Pearson ρ Stress of the flood event NS 0.094, p = 0.004, n = 972 Overall Severity 0.084, p = 0.009, n = 973 0.088, p = 0.006, n = 973 Current GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.110, p = 0.002, n = 814 NS Worst GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.087, p = 0.013, n = 810 NS Variable Uninsured amount spent on contents, normalised by income, Pearson ρ Uninsured amount spent on building structure/ contents, normalised by income, Pearson ρ Stress of the flood event NS 0.249, p = 0.026, n = 80 Overall Severity 0.206, p = 0.007, n = 170 NS Current GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.213, p = 0.009, n = 151 NS Worst GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.199, p = 0.015, n = 148 NS

NS = Not significant
Those who had incurred costs not covered by insurance were more likely to have high GHQ12 (4+ ) scores than those had not incurred such costs (30% compared with 21% for the current GHQ 12, chi-square; p< 0.05 and 70% compared with 59% for the worst time GHQ12, chi-square; p<0.01). In the bi-variate analyses, it appears that uninsured damages contributed to vulnerability but did not appear to be a main factor.

Days taken off work

Two fifths of the respondents (42%) needed to take days off work after the flooding (including days taken as annual leave). Another 28% did not need to do so and the remainder (30%) were not in employment. Some of those who took time off did so because of physical or psychological health problems that they attributed to the flood event. Thus, taking time off may in part be a consequence of the health, stress and overall effects of flooding rather than an explanatory factor in them. Others took the time to start the work of getting their home back to normal and to deal with builders and insurers. For those who took any time off work due to the flood, the average number of days was 12.6. The number of days taken off work was most strongly correlated with the GHQ12 worst scores. There were also weak but significant correlations between days taken off work and subjective stress and overall severity and GHQ12 current (Table 6.14).

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

variables: Intangibles Survey

 Variable Number of days taken off as a result of flooding Overall severity (scale 1-10) 0.165, p = 0.001, n = 405 Stress of the flood event (scale 1-10) 0.149, p = 0.003, n = 404 Current GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.131, p = 0.015, n = 343 Worst GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.342, p < 0.0001, n = 344

People with high scores in the GHQ12 worst (four or more) had to take more time off, an average of 14.4 days of work after the flood, compared to 9.8 days for the rest of the sample (t (406) = 2.3, p = 0.024). Respondents with high scores in the GHQ12 current also took more days off work on average: 16.7 compared with 11.6 taken by respondents with low scores or who did not respond to the GHQ12 questionnaires (t (406) = 2.1, p = 0.034). The number of days taken off work appears to be associated with vulnerability perhaps because those who had more serious effects took more days off work to recover but also because they were vulnerable and suffered health and stress effects as a result of the flooding that required them to take time off.

Income and education

There were no significant differences in GHQ12 mean scores, subjective stress and subjective severity by income group. However, the level of education of the respondent did appear to have some influence on subjective stress levels in bivariate analyses. Those educated to at least degree level or equivalent had an average stress score of 6.5 versus 7.2 of those who had not been educated to that level (t test; p < 0.01). Respondents who had a postgraduate degree also had even lower subjective stress scores: 5.2 versus 7.2 (t test; p < 0.001). The level of education seems to reduce vulnerability.

Social resources and help

Respondents were asked whether they had received help from their friends or neighbours, members of the family outside the household and several institutions. They were also asked to rate the help they received from 1 (very little help) to 5 (all the help they needed) for each source of help. A combined ‘help scale’ (0 to 50) was calculated using the 10 sources of help and their individual rating. There were only very weak positive correlations between help received (0 to 50) and subjective stress (r = 0.111, p = 0.001, n= 972) and overall severity (r = 0.134, p < 0.0001, 972).

There were only weak significant correlations between subjective effects, overall severity and GHQ12 and the amount of help received from different sources. Respondents who said they had received help from friends or neighbours, rated the subjective stress and overall severity higher on average than people who had not. For stress, the mean score of those helped in this way was 7.5 compared with 6.5 for those not helped (t test; p< 0.001). For overall severity of the flood, the mean score for those helped by neighbours and friends was 7.5 compared with 6.7 for those not helped (t test; p< 0.001) There were no significant differences in GHQ12 scores.

People who said they had received help from family members outside the household, scored higher in all four variables (Figures 6.22 and 6.23). These differences may reflect the fact that those flooded to a greater depth and extent tended to attract more help than those less affected. Certainly there was no evidence here that help from outside the household mitigated the effects of flooding
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

Stress: t test ; p< 0.001

Overall severity: t test; p< 0.001

Figure 6.23: Mean worst and current GHQ12Likert by help received from family

outside the household: Intangibles Survey

*Current t test ; p= 0.05

*** Worst t test;, p< 0.001

Evacuation and length of evacuation

Respondents that had left the home or had another member of their household leave, recorded higher scores in both subjective stress and overall severity and GHQ12 scores (Figure 6.24 and Figure 6.25).

Figure 6.24: Mean worst and current GHQ12Likert by evacuation: Intangibles Survey

*** Worst GHQ12: t test; p <0.001

** Current GHQ12: t test: p <0.01

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

evacuation: Intangibles Survey

Stress: t test; p< 0.001

Overall severity: t test; p< 0.001
Where someone in the household had to leave home, respondents were significantly more likely to report their worst time GHQ12 scores to be high (4 +) than where no one had to leave (70% compared with 50%). The same was true for the current GHQ12 scores (28% compared with 18%). Where it was the respondent who had evacuated (possibly with other or all family members) the contrast between those evacuating and those not was significant and almost as marked (69% compared with 53% for GHQ12 worst time and 27% compared with 20% for the current GHQ12).
The findings were very similar where other household members were reported as having evacuated (either separately or together with the respondent). In these cases, high GHQ12 worst time scores were reported by 72% of respondents compared with 55% where others did not leave home. For the current GHQ12, the proportions were 29% compared with 20%. Thus, having to leave home was a highly significant factor in vulnerability as measured by the GHQ12.

Our data do not allow us to consider whether the effects were greater where only some members of the household evacuated and some stayed at the property, where the family had to split up and evacuate to different places or whether the nature of the place the people stayed made a difference (e.g. a rest centre, family or friends’ homes, rented accommodation or a mobile home in the front garden). Thus, leaving the home, usually after the flood event (although no information is available on when household members left), had a significant effect on the vulnerability variables, whether it was the respondent who left or another member of the household.

Length of disruption and length of evacuation

Respondents were asked three different questions regarding the length of disruption:

1. How long was it before the whole household could live in the property again (in weeks), or how long was the length of the evacuation. The average was nearly 15 weeks for all respondents, however when removing the zeros (i.e. the households in which no-one left), the average is almost 24 weeks.

2. How long did the worst period last (in weeks). The ‘worst period’ was defined as the stage during or after the flooding when health impacts most severe or worst for the respondent personally. The average duration of this period was 7 weeks.

3. How long did it take to get the home back to normal (in weeks). The average was almost 27 weeks.

There were significant positive correlations between subjective stress, overall severity and average GHQ12 scores and the above variables with those not evacuating included as zeros in the length of evacuation (Table 6.15).

Table 6.15: Correlations between length of disruption and vulnerability variables:

Intangibles Survey

 Variable How long was it before the whole household could live in the property again? How long did the 'worst' period last in total? How long did it take to get your home back to normal, or is it still not back to normal? Overall severity 0.321, p < 0.001, n = 973 0. 248, p < 0.001, n = 973 0.221, p < 0.001, n = 968 Stress of the flood event 0.233, p < 0.001, n = 972 0.194, p < 0.001, n = 972 0.119, p < 0.001, n = 967 Current GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.114, p = 0.001, n = 814 0.185, p < 0.001, n = 814 0.080, p < 0.05, n = 810 Worst GHQ12 (scale 0-36) 0.215, p < 0.001, n = 810 0.283, p < 0.001, n = 810 0.159, p < 0.001, n = 806

The average length of disruption was longer for those scoring 4+or more in both current and worst GHQ12 as compared with the rest of the sample (Table 6.16). The length of disruption, worst period and the time to get the household back to normal had an effect across all four vulnerability variables.

Table 6.16 High GHQ12 scores and length of disruption

 GHQ12 current Mean time in weeks (SD, number) Less than 4 Mean time in weeks (number) 4+ scores t test How long did it take to get your home back to normal? 27.9 ( 616) 39.5 (198) p < 0.05 GHQ12 worst Less than 4 4+ scores t test How long did it take to get your home back to normal? 26.1 ( 299) 33.2 ( 511) p < 0.01