Social influences on flood preparedness and mitigation measures adopted by people living with flood risk

This paper aims to analyse evidence, based on one of the largest and most representative samples of households previously flooded or living with flood risk to date, of social patterns in a range of flood resilience traits relating to preparedness prior to a flood (e.g., property adaptations, contents insurance, etc.) and mitigations enacted during and immediately following a flood (e.g., receiving a warning, evacuation into temporary accommodation, etc.). The data were collected from a 2006 survey of 1223 households from a variety of locations across Scotland between one and twelve years after major local floods. Our analysis identifies remarkably few social differences in flood preparedness and mitigation measures, although some aspects of demography, housing and length of residence in an area, as well as personal flood history, are important. In light of this finding, we argue that social differences in vulnerability and resilience to flooding arise from deep-seated socio-economic and socio-spatial inequalities that affect exposure to flood risk and ability to recover from flood impacts. The engrained, but well-meaning, assumption in flood risk management that impoverished households and communities are lacking or deficient in flood preparedness or mitigation knowledge and capabilities is somewhat pejorative and misses fundamental, yet sometimes invisible, social stratifications play out in subtle but powerful ways to affect households’ and communities’ ability to avoid and recover from floods. We argue that general poverty and inequality alleviation measures, such as tax and welfare policy and urban and community regeneration schemes, are likely to be as, if not more, important in alleviating social inequalities in the long-term impacts of floods than social targeting of flood risk management policy

Exploring the Social Impacts of Flood Risk and Flooding in Scotland

No abstract available

Natural flood management, lag time and catchment scale:Results from an empirical nested catchment study

Natural flood management (NFM) techniques attract much interest in flood risk management science, not least because their effectiveness remains subject to considerable uncertainty, particularly at larger catchment and event scales. This derives from a paucity of empirical studies which can offer either longitudinal or comparison data sets in which changes can be observed. The Eddleston catchment study, with 13 stream gauges operated continuously over 9 years, is based on both longitudinal and comparison data sets. Two years of baseline monitoring have been followed by 7 years of further monitoring after a range of NFM interventions across the 69 km2 catchment. This study has examined changes in lag as an index of hydrological response which avoids dependence on potentially significant uncertainties in flow data. Headwater catchments up to 26 km2 showed significant delays in lag of 2.6–7.3 hr in catchments provided with leaky wood structures, on‐line ponds and riparian planting, while larger catchments downstream and those treated with riparian planting alone did not. Two control catchments failed to show any such changes. The findings provide important evidence of the catchment scale at which NFM can be effective and suggest that effects may increase with event magnitude

Social Influences on Flood Preparedness and Mitigation Measures Adopted by People Living with Flood Risk

From MDPI via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2021-10-15, pub-electronic 2021-10-21Publication status: PublishedThis paper aims to analyse evidence, based on one of the largest and most representative samples of households previously flooded or living with flood risk to date, of social patterns in a range of flood resilience traits relating to preparedness prior to a flood (e.g., property adaptations, contents insurance, etc.) and mitigations enacted during and immediately following a flood (e.g., receiving a warning, evacuation into temporary accommodation, etc.). The data were collected from a 2006 survey of 1223 households from a variety of locations across Scotland between one and twelve years after major local floods. Our analysis identifies remarkably few social differences in flood preparedness and mitigation measures, although some aspects of demography, housing and length of residence in an area, as well as personal flood history, are important. In light of this finding, we argue that social differences in vulnerability and resilience to flooding arise from deep-seated socio-economic and socio-spatial inequalities that affect exposure to flood risk and ability to recover from flood impacts. The engrained, but well-meaning, assumption in flood risk management that impoverished households and communities are lacking or deficient in flood preparedness or mitigation knowledge and capabilities is somewhat pejorative and misses fundamental, yet sometimes invisible, social stratifications play out in subtle but powerful ways to affect households’ and communities’ ability to avoid and recover from floods. We argue that general poverty and inequality alleviation measures, such as tax and welfare policy and urban and community regeneration schemes, are likely to be as, if not more, important in alleviating social inequalities in the long-term impacts of floods than social targeting of flood risk management policy