Understanding the influence of psychology and vicarious experience on property flood resilience choices

There is an acknowledged need to improve the resilience of those at risk of flooding in the UK. The majority of the at-risk population do not actively adopt mitigation measures even when they have experienced multiple flood events. If uptake of resilience methods is not increased, the physical and financial impacts will continue to escalate, as will psychological harm, with wider implications for health care costs.Previous studies largely focus upon explicating the barriers to resilient adaptation; a hitherto under-researched aspect is an understanding of the driving factors that can elicit active mitigation in the household sector, other than repeated inundation of the home. This research builds upon existing behavioural theories to develop a conceptual framework specific to the needs of the UK flood risk management context. The framework was explored via a survey of members of community flood groups; the topics covered included details of a wide range of flood mitigation measures adopted, together with the precise nature and extent of flood experiences. The survey instrument incorporated two psychometric tests measuring personality factors (self-efficacy and locus of control) which have been implicated in a range of hazard preparedness behaviours, but have not been subjected to formal assessment in this context previously in the UK.The results yielded new insight on the link between preparedness behaviours, personality traits and different types of flood experience. In contrast to previous UK research, the majority of the respondents (92%) had taken one or more mitigation actions in addition to joining a flood group. Furthermore, a very high proportion of respondents in the sample had begun to take action when lacking direct flood experience (26%) or having had only vicarious (or other indirect forms of) flood exposure (36%). Respondents scored significantly higher than the general adult population for general self-efficacy (GSE) (

Evidence for improved urban flood resilience by sustainable drainage retrofit

The rapid growth of cities under modern development pressure has resulted in surface water flooding becoming an increasing hazard and future climate change uncertainties may exacerbate this threat still further: retrofitting sustainable drainage systems to attenuate stormwater runoff has been advocated as part of an integrated solution required to address this problem. Many of these adaptations not only enhance a community’s resilience to flooding, but may also offer additional benefits in terms of improved environmental amenity and quality of life. The evidence base for sustainable drainage is critically evaluated in respect of the implications for urban planning, as applied to existing housing stocks and business properties in urban areas worldwide. It is concluded that this approach can make a substantial contribution towards urban resilience as part of an integrated approach to managing extreme storms. This will be of interest to urban planners and designers considering the implementation of integrated flood risk management

Supporting the uptake of low cost resilience: FD2682 rapid evidence assessment final report

As part of the Defra policy objective to help individuals take more ownership for management of their flood risk a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) around low cost resilience approaches to preventing damage once water is allowed into properties has been undertaken The aim of the REA was to collate the evidence of the existence and efficacy of low cost approaches and explore how they can be best implemented by property owners and occupier

Supporting the uptake of low cost resilience: Summary of technical findings (FD2682)

This report summarises evidence collected by the Defra research project FD2682 regarding technical aspects of low cost flood repairable approaches designed to limit damage to buildings. It is derived from a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) that is reported in greater detail in the accompanying REA report. Flood repairable measures applied to buildings are designed to limit damage or speed recovery once water has entered a property. They include strategies to keep water away from building elements (such as raising power sockets) and the use of waterproof or water resistant materials, including those capable of retaining their integrity and recovering quickly after inundation. The measures are useful when water exclusion approaches are not practical or cost effective, and also as an addition to water exclusion approaches as a failsafe.The REA comprised a systematic scoping of relevant academic and grey literature; consultation with a panel of experts; interviews with professionals from the sphere of flood reinstatement and property protection; and interviews with occupants of properties where flood repairable approaches have already been adopted. This was followed by an assessment of the costs and benefits of selected low cost flood repairable measures and of illustrative packages of low cost repairable measures.The review found 139 suggested measures that could be regarded as flood repairable, over half of these being ‘low cost’ or ‘low additional cost’ (for example, when adopted during reinstatement or other building work) and which will prove to be cost beneficial for properties in the UK. Four packages of measures were costed. Three of the four packages evaluated could result in a pay back after just one subsequent flood (assuming they were successful in preventing damage). The most appropriate measures for any individual property depends upon a combination of factors, however, including the structure and condition of the building itself; the nature of the flood risk; and the preferences and lifestyle of the occupants.Scientific evidence on the performance of measures was found to be scanty, but the experts in the industry were seen to be successfully applying experiential knowledge along with current guidance on an ad hoc basis. The wider industry was seen as less well informed, with some flood repairable features being removed at reinstatement, as their purpose and value is not yet understood.The report concludes that further research is needed to provide evidence of the potential effectiveness of flood repairable approaches. Attention should also be directed towards understanding the performance of flood repairable measures during and after floods to ensure that the potential effectiveness is realised in practice. Improved technical guidance and training is recommended to further develop the understanding and awareness within the flood damage industry

Evidence review for property flood resilience phase 2 report

Flood Re was established to promote the availability and affordability of flood insurance whilst supporting the transition to risk-based and affordable flood insurance for UK households at high risk of flooding. In order for the goal of affordability to be achievable, there is a need to manage down the risk to these properties. One way to reduce risk is to install measures at a property level, often termed property flood resilience (hereafter PFR). This report reflects findings from Phase 2 of a three phase project; it is designed to assist Flood Re to establish an evidence base for the value of PFR in order to help inform decisions about the PFR support to homeowners that could/should be provided by Flood Re in future. The findings of an evidence review, including synthesis of the existing literature and selected additional analyses of data extracted from the evidence sources, are presented in answer to the question, “How effective are property level resistance and resilience measures in reducing loss due to damage and time to repair damage resulting from flooding for UK householdsand their insurers?

Improving the uptake of flood resilience at the individual property level

© 2016 WIT Press. One of the drivers for improving resilience to flooding at property level (also known as adoption of a 'water entry strategy') was demonstrated by the overtopping of hard engineered flood defences across Cumbria, UK during 'Storm Desmond' in December 2015. Although the uptake of water exclusion strategies (also termed 'flood resistance) is gradually improving in the UK, the longer term resilience options that permit water entry are less popular. Findings from an evidence assessment of the barriers and drivers to uptake of low-cost water entry strategy options are presented. Evidence was collected using a Rapid Evidence Assessment of published materials, semi-structured interviews and workshops with professionals, and a series of case studies of properties that had been adapted to flood risk. Factors leading to successful implementation are identified and illustrated by case study material from homes and small businesses. Water entry and water exclusion approaches were found to be seen as two methods used as part of an integrated approach that can bring about important co-benefits such as improved thermal efficiency and lower energy bills

Supporting the uptake of resilient repair in the recovery process (FD2706)

Executive SummaryThis Defra research project (FD2706) was concerned with how the professionals and organisations involved in the recovery process following a flood incident interact with householders and business owners. In particular, the way in which decisions are made about reinstatement was examined, as there is a need to improve the understanding of the opportunities within the process for encouraging resilient repair. Resilient repair is the application of property flood resilience measures during the recovery period so that, should there be another flood, the householder or business owner can re-occupy their properties more quickly, which has well documented benefits. Installing some measures during recovery has also been shown to be more cost effective and potentially less disruptive than the retrofitting of measures at other times.The project had three elements: a quick scoping review; a series of case studies involving in-depth interviews with flooded households, small/micro-businesses and their repair networks; and, a series of facilitated group discussions with stakeholders to validate the findings of the Quick Scoping Review and case studies. Flow charts of the on-site and off-site processes and of the decisions involved in the repair of insured properties were developed to highlight the main points at which the ‘resilience’ of the reinstatement is determined. A list of 55 barriers and facilitators and a further list of 49 suggestions for change or wider application of good practice were extracted from the literature and interviews. Themes for improvement were developed and a selection of the suggestions was further explored in the facilitated group discussions.This document summarises all three elements of the project. The detailed findings of the Quick Scoping Review are also available in a separate report. Detailed findings from the in-depth interviews and workshops are available as appendices to this report

Elements of construction: Minecraft and the periodic table

Minecraft is a popular computer game that allows the construction of almost limitless creations, and is used in learning contexts around the world. The widespread appeal and familiarity of the game makes it ideal for engaging children and young people with topics that might not otherwise interest them. With this in mind, the Science Hunters project, with support from a Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Outreach Fund grant, developed five Minecraft-based informal learning and engagement sessions about the periodic table, carbon, helium, uranium and gold, as part of the 2019 International Year of the Periodic Table (IYPT)

Supporting the uptake of low cost resilience: Final report (FD2682)

Executive SummaryThe Defra research project FD2682 examined the technical, social and behavioural aspects of supporting low cost flood repairable measures designed to limit damage to buildings during and after flood events. Flood repairable measures (sometimes called ‘flood resilient measures’) applied to buildings are designed to limit damage, or speed up recovery where water has entered a property. They include strategies to keep water away from building elements (such as raising power sockets) and the internal use of waterproof or water resistant materials, including those capable of retaining their integrity and recovering quickly after inundation. These measures have traditionally been regarded as most useful when water exclusion approaches(measures to keep water out of the building, sometimes called ‘resistant measures’)are not practical or cost effective.The investigation took an action research approach, consulting widely and reflecting on findings on an ongoing basis. The research comprised the following stages:1. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) including a review of relevant academic and grey literature; consultation with a panel of experts; interviews with flood reinstatement and property protection professionals; and interviews with occupants of properties where flood repairable measures have been adopted.2. An assessment of the costs and benefits of selected low cost flood repairable measures, and illustrative packages of measures.3. A demonstration project to explore innovative approaches that could be used by local agencies and businesses to address some of the barriers to the use of flood repairable measures. This made use of a co-design process, via the formation of the Tewkesbury ‘Learning and Action Alliance’ (LAA).The REA concluded that (in contrast to previous perceptions of repairable measures as a last resort for properties at highest risk) low cost repairable measures are widely applicable as part of an integrated approach to limiting the residual risk to individual properties that may also include water exclusion measures. Interviews as part of theREA showed repairability to be a pragmatic approach that can be applied incrementally at various windows of opportunity with lower financial barriers to implementation than alternative strategies. The assessment of costs and benefits of selected low cost flood repairable measures, and illustrative packages of measures, confirmed their potential cost effectiveness in limiting flood damage.The REA concluded that the weight of evidence supports the effectiveness of an ever expanding list of low cost resilience measures in limiting flood damage.However, there are also major gaps in evidence, and in communication and sharing of available evidence, reducing the confidence in implementation of measures within relevant trades and professionals, as well as by owners and occupiers directly. Key areas in urgent need of additional scientific evidence include: the implications ofdebris and contaminants in floodwater; the effect of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressure on ‘waterproof’ materials; and durability of resilient measures afterprolonged flood exposure. However, attention should also be directed towards further understanding the real performance of flood repairable measures in a variety of types of building before, during and after flooding.The REA and demonstration project both concluded that, in order for the potential benefits of repairable measures to be realised in practice, there will need to be a shiftin the repair and reinstatement process. Improved protocols (and incentives) are required that include clarity regarding the autonomy and responsibility of differentactors within the repair process to recommend adoption of repairable measures. The inception of Flood Re offers both a challenge and an opportunity in this regard. The research finds that there could be benefits to placing the specification of negligible cost and cost neutral measures within the professional remit of surveyors and contractors on the ground. To support this, improved technical guidance and training is needed to raise levels of understanding and awareness within the industry. The surveyors’ checklist, designed within the project, was seen as a useful contribution to this requirement. Improved confidence in appropriate measures could also be fostered through provision of exemplars and factsheets.The REA and demonstration project highlighted the potential importance of other windows of opportunity (outside the recovery period) in the take up of low cost floodrepairable measures. Insurance renewal and property transfer represent opportunities to raise awareness of measures at very low cost with minimal upskillingof professionals and may provide direct triggers to action. Other building work and redecoration opportunities are harder to target in terms of awareness raising,therefore a well-informed and up-skilled local ‘property support network’ (PSN) is needed, in order to spot opportunities to support uptake on an individual basis.Evaluation of the demonstration project innovations indicated that implementation was most successful in those innovations driven by members of the LAA, or hadsignificant input from members of the local PSN. Increased awareness of low cost flood resilience measures amongst LAA members was also achieved. Therefore the LAA model was seen as a potential platform to engage relevant local propertyexperts and agencies, and to empower them to encourage property level approaches.However, the REA evidence and that from the LAA meetings together with the evaluation of the surveyor’s checklist suggest that emotional barriers to implementation of low cost resilience are important. Use of repairable measures is a difficult concept, as it requires an acceptance that water might enter the property (home or business) and changes within the living space that might feel abnormal.Interviews with practitioner experts, together with an assessment of current regulations, suggest that making small adjustments to building regulations, relevantto passive avoidance and resilience, could aid normalisation of such measures. A greater focus on design and aesthetics aspects, and clearer guidance on the ways todeal with perceived contamination is also seen as important by professionals, the PSN and in the demonstration project. Finally, a wider framing of property level flooddamage reduction, with suggested schemes including both water entry and water exclusion measures was indicated by the interviews with homeowners and professionals and discussed by the LAA as helpful in addressing emotional barriers

IMI – Clinical Management Guidelines Report

Best practice clinical guidelines for myopia control involve an understanding of the epidemiology of myopia, risk factors, visual environment interventions, and optical and pharmacologic treatments, as well as skills to translate the risks and benefits of a given myopia control treatment into lay language for both the patient and their parent or caregiver. This report details evidence-based best practice management of the pre-, stable, and the progressing myope, including risk factor identification, examination, selection of treatment strategies, and guidelines for ongoing management. Practitioner considerations such as informed consent, prescribing off-label treatment, and guides for patient and parent communication are detailed. The future research directions of myopia interventions and treatments are discussed, along with the provision of clinical references, resources, and recommendations for continuing professional education in this growing area of clinical practice