651 © 2016 The Authors Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
Towards two-way flood risk communication: current practice in a community in the UK Neoh Siew Ping, Uta Wehn, Chris Zevenbergen and Pieter van der Zaag
ABSTRACT
Despite the considerable progress in engineering works, flooding continues and is now recognized as Neoh Siew Ping Uta Wehn a major and increasing challenge. This realisation has resulted in a shift in flood risk management Chris Zevenbergen (corresponding author) Pieter van der Zaag from leaning heavily on structural measures to the incorporation of non-structural initiatives, such as UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, fl P.O. Box 3015, communication about ood risks that is considerate of the diversity existing within communities and DA Delft, that encompasses the entire disaster cycle. Communities that are more aware of flood risks and The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] possess the knowledge to prepare for disasters appear to be better able to respond, mitigate and Chris Zevenbergen recover from their detrimental impacts. This paper examines the current practice of flood risk Pieter van der Zaag Delft University of Technology, communication strategies of a local community in Doncaster, UK. The research findings are analysed Stevinweg 1, fl fl Delft 2628 CN, with a view to identifying factors that positively and negatively in uence the ood risk The Netherlands communication strategies and community resilience. Based on these insights, we provide recommendations for further improving the communication about flood risks, and ways in which it could be better targeted and used throughout the disaster cycle to help strengthen community resilience. Key words | community resilience, disaster cycle, disaster risk management
INTRODUCTION
Major flooding events have impacted Europe during the last should be integrative and adaptive using a portfolio of struc- decade, including floods in the Elbe and Danube (Rojas tural and non-structural responses (e.g. Hall et al. ; et al. ) and most recently in the Balkan region, Germany Bruijn ; Ashley & Brown ). Non-structural responses and the UK. In the UK, there has been ‘unprecedented’ flood- consist of improved land-use planning, relocation, insurance, ing in 2014 and 2015 despite a 2.3 billion pound investment in flood proofing, flood forecasting and warning (Bradford et al. the country’s flood defences during the period 2011–2015 ). In several European countries, integrated flood risk (Bennett & Hartwell-Naguib ). In 2015, thousands of management considers the full disaster cycle in the manage- homes in northern England and Scotland were hit by severe ment and prevention of flood disasters (EEA ). The flooding after Storm Desmond, Storm Eva and Storm challenge is now to mainstream these approaches into Frank. Despite the progress of engineering works in flood dis- common flood management practice. aster reduction over the last twenty years, flooding continues Emphasis on strengthening flood warning and the com- to be a major challenge (Yamada et al. ; Sayers et al. ). munication of flood risks to flood-prone households and There is a growing recognition that flood risk management businesses have been one of the main items of England’s Environment Agency’s National Assessment of Flood Risk This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative (EA ). Some of the planned strategies or actions were Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is improvements in the accuracy, coverage and timeliness of properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). the UK’s flood warning system as well as the use of flood
doi: 10.2166/wcc.2016.015
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 652 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
maps by property owners and local authorities to show where embankments and channelisation (Brown & Damery ; floods may occur and how severe they are likely to be. It is Ashley & Brown ). In the recent past, however, major essential that local authorities and communities understand flood disasters have acted as catalysts for changing flood the factors behind the increasing flooding risks such as risk management policies: there has been a shift towards extreme weather and climate change issues, in order to stimu- management of the whole flooding system in an integrated late community action to increase resilience (Twigger-Ross and adaptive way, recognising associated (deep) uncertain- et al. ). The effectiveness of flood risk communication ties and taking into account all of the potential strategies is dependent on many factors such as public percep- interventions that may alter flood risks (e.g. Sayers et al. tion. The public is heterogeneous in nature, with differing ; White ; Newman et al. ; Dawson et al. ; cultural norms, language mastery, household structures and Huntjens et al. ; Pahl-Wostl et al. ; Zevenbergen role obligations (Höppner et al. ). The public perceives et al. ). At the heart of this new approach is resilience: and evaluates information differently based on their personal striving towards an appropriate balance between protection, experiences of the institutions that are providing that infor- prevention and preparedness, both now and into the future mation, alongside other sources of knowledge (Fielding (Zevenbergen et al. ; Gersonius et al. ). This is in et al. ). Hence, flood risk communication strategies line with the EU Flood Directive in which flood risk man- need to take this diversity into account, in order for communi- agement plans should focus on prevention, protection and cation to have a bearing on community disaster preparedness. preparedness (EC ). Consequently, the importance of Although there has been an evident shift towards improving the role of community partnerships and the need to raise flood risk communication strategies as a result of the lessons awareness and preparation within communities, were recog- learned from previous flood occurrences, there are still ques- nised in the management of flood risks (DEFRA ). For tions regarding the implementation of the adopted strategies example, in the UK Department for Environment, Food (Wehn & Evers ). and Rural Affairs, the 20-year government strategy Making The aims of this paper is to analyze the current practice Space for Water presented a wide range of mitigation of flood risk communication strategies, based on empirical measures to include the conceptualisation of flood risk research in a local community in the UK (Toll Bar village, and flood risk communication (McCarthy ). As a located in Doncaster, South Yorkshire). The UK flood in result, there has also been a growing trend towards the the summer of 2007 was a critical juncture that lead to fun- inclusion and consideration of citizens and their voices, damental changes in the way the country manages flooding such as the establishment of public participation mechan- risks since, such as the shift of responsibilities to the local isms outlined in the European Flood Directive 2007/60/ level (Twigger-Ross et al. ) and the need to raise public EC, ensuring that the public not only has access to infor- awareness and preparedness for flooding (Pitt ). This mation relating to flood risk assessment and management, paper aims to identify the positive and negative influences but also has a say in the planning process (EC ). Simul- on the flood risk communication strategies. taneously, the UK government has been transferring more powers to neighbourhoods whilst encouraging communities to play a more active part in society, shaping the places in POLICY AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT which they live (Cabinet Office ). Thus, the general trend appears to assume that citizens are capable of addres- Policy developments in flood risk management sing their local issues and recognises the need to capitalise on the skills and expertise of its people. Towards the end of the 20th and early in the 21st century, flood risk management focused primarily on the implemen- The role of resilience in flood risk management tation of structural engineering solutions, including in the UK, whereby its flood management policy has traditionally Resilient communities are able to absorb the shocks of the favoured large-scale engineering responses, such as flood hazard impact, demonstrate the capacity to bounce back
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 653 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
during and after the disaster and, finally, take the opportu- provided by information and communication technologies nity to change and adapt following a disaster (ADPC (ICTs) (Wehn et al. a). ). Communities that are resilient have improved In reality, a breakdown in the communication channels capacity throughout the disaster risk management cycle remains a significant factor in the inadequate or failed due to awareness and knowledge of the risk (Schelfaut responses of past natural disasters (O’Sullivan et al. ). et al. ) and experience fewer disaster impacts and a It is therefore pertinent that there is effective communi- lower degree of fluctuation as compared to less resilient cation, especially when communication transcends and communities (Mayunga ). Without an explicit oper- links the four phases of the disaster risk management ational definition, resilience has only a broad meaning, cycle (Höppner et al. ). In order for risk communication and remains a vague concept rather than a practical policy to be effective, O’Neill () argues that specific risk com- or management tool (Bahadur et al. ; Fekete et al. munication messages are required for the different stages of ). Although disputed, metrics and indicators are typi- the disaster and that the public is more likely to take appro- cally used to evaluate the resilience of communities, to priate and effective steps to reduce and mitigate risks if there provide baselines for comparison and the foundation for a is focused communication of flood risks (Yamada et al. system of tracking improvements (Cutter et al. ). In ). Alexander () highlights the need to consider the broad terms, most of the frameworks to measure community social, perceptual and cultural aspects in the warning pro- resilience focus on factors that include economic resources, cess to the local beneficiaries. Four out of six assets and skills, information and knowledge, support and recommendations in the Environment Agency’s Public supportive networks, access to services, and shared commu- Response to Flood Warning revolved around tailoring infor- nity values (Mayunga ). O’Sullivan et al. () assumes mation and understanding that flood warnings need to be that individuals who engage with and respond to flood com- more area-specific and attuned to the local needs of the munications have higher resilience levels, resulting from intended at-risk groups (Fielding et al. ). knowledge gained through communication of flood infor- Risk communication is an important component of mation and warnings. disaster risk management as it conditions people’s percep- tions of risk and consequently impacts their actions and Risk communication intervention decisions throughout the disaster management cycle (ADRC ; Alexander ). The effects of risk com- Risk communication is broadly defined as ‘a social process munication interventions during the four stages of the of information exchange between any entities in society on disaster cycle are the subject of this study, as illustrated in any form of risk (individual, social, political, environmental) Figure 1. that is purposeful or non-purposeful’ (Höppner et al. , p. 7). Initial communication efforts in the 1970s were directed at changing people’s views on risk, particularly in the acceptance of technology, while later risk communi- cation attempted to increase public trust in regulatory institutions (Frewer ). Specifically in terms of floods, risk communication includes all communication between various actors at multiple scales, which then allows for risk assessment and taking the appropriate measures (Schel- faut et al. ). In recent times, risk communication has slowly evolved into a two-way communication process (Kellens et al. ) and is re-orienting towards a citizen focus, shifting away from top-down communication prac- Figure 1 | Risk communication as an important component of disaster management tices (Frewer ), not least because of the possibility throughout the disaster management cycle.
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 654 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
METHODS over much of the West Midlands, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the Humber. Study area The establishment of a flood warden scheme in Doncas- ter is a reflection of the aspiration of residents to mitigate the Doncaster, and the Toll Bar village in particular, was detrimental flood impacts, in close partnership with selected as the location for our case study, based on its vul- England’s Environment Agency and other key local partner nerability to floods, coupled with the presence of organisations (McDonagh ). In the Toll Bar village, a community-driven networks, particularly the flood warden citizen observatory is currently being implemented, tested scheme. and validated (WeSenseIt ). The observatory enables Doncaster is a town located in South Yorkshire metro- citizen involvement in collecting data using a combination politan county, in the region of Yorkshire and the Humber of sensors and monitoring technologies as well as capitaliz- of England. Together with its surrounding suburbs and ing on the citizens’ collective intelligence (Wehn & Evers settlements, this town forms part of the Metropolitan Bor- ). One of the components of the observatory is the ough of Doncaster, where the Doncaster Metropolitan engagement of flood wardens as ‘human sensors’, tasked Borough Council acts as the local authority. Forty to fifty with the responsibility to capture and report their obser- percent of the South Yorkshire area is located within the vations of the surroundings, e.g. via photographs. floodplain and with an estimated 5,000 (EA )to 25,000 properties (Wehn & Evers ; Wehn et al. b) Data collection facing a significant likelihood of flooding. Doncaster is vul- nerable to fluvial, pluvial and tidal floods, due to its low- Information was collected from primary and secondary lying topography and worsened by the increasing level of sources. Primary data sources include information obtained urbanisation and repercussions of climate change. Hence, through interviews and observation during fieldwork. Desk the area relies heavily on artificial drainage systems to research seeking information from various reports, docu- manage surface runoff (DMBC ). This area has a long ments and other publications was considered as secondary history of floods, the first recorded event occurring in data sources such as flood leaflets by the Environment 1536 when the river Don flooded. The Don River and its Agency and newspaper archives of the 2007 flood. Open- tributaries in the West pose the greatest risk to central Don- ended questions and a set of 18 ranked questions with five caster while the Trent River in the East may cause response options (strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, significant surface water or tidal floods in some areas strongly disagree, plus not applicable/no opinion; see also (DMBC ). Doncaster was one of the more severely hit Ngo Thu & Wehn ) provided the data for a quantitative areas in the summer flood of 2007, whereby the total and qualitative analysis. These questions were posed in a damage was estimated between £13.5 to £14 million series of semi-structured interviews that were held with (Doncaster Free Press ). The flood was a result of a com- flood-affected community members in Toll Bar (further cate- bination of extreme levels of rainfall compressed into short gorised into villagers and flood wardens), government staff periods of time and was considered to be the most expensive of the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (Doncaster in the world in 2007 (Pitt ). According to the Schuhle- MBC) and a staff member of the National Flood Forum Lewis (), the Toll Bar area received ‘heavy relentless (NFF), a non-governmental organisation (NGO) which rain that had not been seen for years’ (p. 20). According to works with communities in England and Wales. the UK Meteorological Office, much of Wales, the Mid- lands, Northern England, Northern Ireland and parts of Sampling strategy Scotland and South-west England received more than 150 mm of rain, with over 250 mm locally (Met Office The empirical research was carried out in January 2014 ). This is over three times the average June rainfall whereby 16 stakeholders were interviewed, five of whom
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 655 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
provided in-depth information based on the open-ended and negative influences on the flood risk communication questions. This sample size is similar to other research strategies. efforts in this case study area (e.g. Wehn & Evers ; Wehn et al. ). Flood-affected villagers and flood wardens were interviewed to gain first-hand accounts of their flood RESULTS AND DISCUSSION experiences. Established after the flood in 2007, flood war- dens are volunteers who support the Environment Agency Progression of the flood risk communication strategies and the Doncaster MBC by ensuring that flood warning in the UK messages reach the local community and that they are acted upon. The distinction between villagers and flood war- Our review of the UK’s flood risk communication strategies dens was relevant in order to be able to identify possible over the last three decades indicates a progression towards differences in their responses. The interviewed government the communication of risk and awareness (see Figure 2). officials gave insights into how the authorities dealt with Although the overview of these strategies is by no means the impacts of the 2007 flood and the developments there- exhaustive, it does serve to illustrate the overall evolution of after, in Doncaster and specifically in the Toll Bar area. flood risk communication in the UK. Multiple risk communi- The NFF was consulted in an effort to gain a more complete cation strategies and more specific information tailored to the understanding of the assistance provided, beyond those needs of the communities at-risk seem to have been gaining channelled through the government and the support prominence. The information disseminated through some of system within the village. A summary of the quantitative the more advanced communication strategies appear to be and qualitative data collection among these stakeholders is increasingly real-time and interactive in nature. There has presented in Table 1. been a rapid development of ICTs, which enables commu- nities to provide valuable feedback about their local Data analysis situation, instead of being only at the receiving end of the com- munication chain. For example, the recent proliferation of The qualitative data collected in response to the open-ended mobile phones and the availability of internet facilities at fl questions was transcribed, the names of the interviewees the household level have enabled users to receive ood warn- fl coded, and the responses of the interviewees collated for ings and ood-related information via multiple channels at a each of the questions. The quantitative data from the greater speed and reach. fl ranked questions was entered and analysed in Excel. The The evolution of the ood risk communication strategies fi fl primary and secondary data was analysed to identify, first, has been and still is signi cantly in uenced by government the current practice in flood risk communication in the recommendations, in response to lessons learned from pre- fl UK, and in Doncaster in particular; second, the risk com- vious oods (e.g. Fielding et al. ; Pitt ; EA ). munication interventions in Doncaster during the four Generally, the recommendations focused on recognising the stages of the disaster management cycle as well as positive existing diversity within the communities, with the aim of increasing their understanding of flood risks and ensuring that the information conveyed is sufficiently specifictobe Table 1 | Overview of stakeholders in data collection able to prompt actions or responses. The Pitt report (Pitt ) was one of the most comprehensive reviews undertaken Type of stakeholders Open-ended questions Ranked questions as a result of the 2007 summer flood. It has significantly Government officials 2 2 steered the direction of flood risk communication strategies Villagers – 8 in the UK such as the push for partnership between the Flood wardens 2 5 Meteorological Office and the Environment Agency and NGO staff member 1 1 better utilisation of local knowledge through formalised struc- Total 5 16 tures such as the community flood warden groups (Pitt ).
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 656 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
Figure 2 | Overview of the progression of flood risk communication strategies in the UK. Source: Compiled from Parker et al. (1995), Haggett (1998), Handmer (2001), McCarthy (2007) and Parker & Priest (2012).
Flood risk communication strategies in Doncaster obtain area-specific information. Informally, communication of a more interactive (two-way) nature, is carried out between In general, the management of flood risks in the UK is dealt the flood wardens and villagers. Flood risk communication is with via devolved administrations. In the case of Doncaster, contingent on linking ‘local’ knowledge with ‘expert’ opinions, it is governed by a number of key agencies due to its which is reflected by the flood warden scheme that outlines geographical and administrative boundaries. Although most the cooperation between the flood wardens and the auth- of the interviewees perceived improved clarity with regards orities. It is an illustration of how knowledge on local water to the responsibilities of the different water-related agencies geographies can be critical for making expert knowledge following the 2007 flood, there seems to remain some level ‘workable’ as suggested by McEwen & Jones (). of confusion amongst the Toll Bar villagers on who is doing A schematisation of the different flood risk communi- what, where and when. In Toll Bar, communication of flood cation strategies (one-way and two-way flood risk warnings is carried out formally and informally. Formal com- communications) currently practiced in Doncaster and munication (mostly one-way) is led by government authorities Toll Bar is presented in Figure 3, specifically focusing on such as the (national) Environment Agency and the local auth- the dissemination of flood warnings during the response ority (Doncaster MBC) and primarily carried out via official phase. The communication strategies are represented by channels such as the phone-based flood warning services different icons and the nature of interaction is differentiated known as Floodline Warnings Direct (FWD), Floodline and by the thickness and direction of the arrows. The uni- and bi- the quickdial numbers. The FWD disseminates flood warnings directional arrows represent one-way and two-way inter- to registered users via telephone, mobile, e-mail or text mess- action, respectively. The degrees of interaction (low or age while Floodline provides updated flood information via high) are influenced by the frequency, the level of accessibil- a 24-hour telephone helpline (EA ). Quickdial numbers ity or proximity of these individuals to one another and the enable villagers to connect to so-called Incident Rooms to closeness of the relationship prior to the occurrence of a
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 657 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
Figure 3 | Schematisation of the current flood risk communication strategies and the nature of interactions amongst the stakeholders in Doncaster and Toll Bar.
flood. The shaded area (see Figure 3)reflects the communi- during the 2007 flood, mainly in relation to the performance cation of flood-related information during the mitigation and of the Environment Agency flood warning services. preparedness phases (pre-disaster stage), where information is exchanged amongst the stakeholders to reduce the overall Two-way flood risk communication: interaction and fl fl ood risks and/or to improve the level of ood prepared- incorporation of local communities’ feedback ness. These communication strategies continue to be fl present and utilised during the ood warning phase. In Diverse responses were obtained from the respondents in Toll Bar, there seems to be a relatively high degree of two- relation to the current level of interaction between the way interaction amongst the stakeholders during this local communities and government authorities, except for phase, particularly amongst the wardens and between the the flood wardens, all of whom had evaluated the inter- fi wardens and the villagers or key government of cials. actions positively (Figure 5(a)). The reason for this disparity could be due to the fact that flood wardens are One-way flood risk communication: characteristics of the much better positioned in the village to interchange infor- flood risk messages mation with the relevant government authorities. Having said that, the general evaluation indicates that flood risk Diverse evaluations were obtained from the respondents on communication strategies have been moving towards the characteristics of the flood risk messages (see Figure 4). two-way interaction since the 2007 flood (see Figure 5(b)). In general, the flood wardens evaluated the characteristics Most of the respondents confirmed the incorporation of of the flood risk messages more positively than the Toll local communities’ feedback into the planning process by Bar villagers. The negative evaluation by the villagers the government authorities (see Figure 6). Most of the inter- appears to be due to their rather unfavourable experiences viewed villagers felt that their opinions have been more
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 658 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
Figure 4 | Respondents’ evaluations to the current characteristics of the flood risk messages.
Figure 5 | Respondents’ evaluations to the current level of interaction and the progression of interactions between villagers and the relevant government officials.
actively solicited and their feedback taken into consider- and the establishment of the flood warden scheme in Toll ation by the representatives of the Doncaster MBC and Bar were thought to have resulted from the collective the Environment Agency, especially after the 2007 flood. action of and feedback from the villagers. This appears to Some of the development works along the Ea Beck River be in line with the findings of Wehn & Evers (),
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 659 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
and to alleviate any residual negativity towards the perform- ance of the local authorities on how the 2007 flood was handled. However, according to McDonagh (), the resist- ance and fear of the public as a result of that flood had somewhat been alleviated through the commitment of the Doncaster MBC to listen and to avoid exaggerated promises to the residents on what could be achieved. The DMBC interviewee highlighted that one of their
Figure 6 | Respondents’ evaluations of the level of incorporation of local communities’ recent initiatives regarding the management of flood risks feedback by the government authorities. is the drafting of the local Flood Risk Management Strategy. One of the objectives of the strategy is to improve co-oper- indicating that there has been a shift in the sequence of the ation between the Doncaster MBC (as the Lead Local project cycle of the Doncaster MBC and the Environment Flood Authority (LLFA)) with other Risk Management Agency from ‘design-defend-implement’ to ‘discuss-design- Authorities (RMAs) in order to meet the requirements of implement’. the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (UK Govern- Emphasis on the role that the public plays in coping effec- ment ). Since the introduction of the FWMA, the tively with emergencies through practical measures, instead Doncaster MBC has strengthened working relationships of solely relying on government authorities, came into focus with the relevant water authorities such as the Environment after the 2007 flood (Pitt ). Recent initiatives of the Don- Agency and internal drainage boards. The strategy also caster MBC providing channels for the public to be more strives to increase awareness of the Doncaster residents actively involved in the planning process and to give feed- and other relevant stakeholders on their local flood risks back or to lodge complaints, are reflective of the effort to as well as highlighting the works carried out by key govern- shift the mindset of community members from being ‘custo- ment authorities. Some of the measures for implementing mers’ to taking up individual responsibilities in mitigating this strategy include distributing information related to the flood risks in the area in which they live. ICTs are playing responsibilities of the LLFA and RMAs, advocating self-resi- an increasing role in this. Members of the public can register lience through property level protection and improving their complaints through submitting an online form via the clarity of key messages to the public. In principle, therefore, official Doncaster MBC website or reporting it by phone to this strategy seems to combine several aspects of current the round-the-clock Customer Service whereby response at ‘best practice’ for flood risk communication but its the local level will be executed, or if need be, a more coordi- implementation still remains to be done. nated response at the national level. Another recent ICT- driven development has been the MyDoncaster phone appli- Risk communication interventions during the four cation that allows the public to report issues to the Doncaster stages of the disaster management cycle MBC by uploading a photograph, video or any other contex- tual information relating to civic issues such as blocked Some of the flood-related activities carried out and infor- drainage or incidents of surface water flooding. According mation communicated by the various stakeholders are to one of the Doncaster MBC interviewees, more residents grouped according to the different phases of the disaster have signed up for the flood warning service due to improve- cycle (see Figures 7 and 8). The actual activities appear to ment in the quality of weather and flood forecasts since the be a combination of initiatives driven by community mem- previous flood. Nevertheless, the authorities continue to bers, such as the observation of environmental cues and face the complexity and the pressing need to strike a balance the establishment of the flood warden scheme, and activities between warning the villagers in time and avoiding repetitive spear-headed by the (local) authorities, especially the con- (false) warnings. Finding this balance will be imperative to struction of large-scale flood defences and the provision of regain the confidence of the Toll Bar community members emergency assistance during a flood.
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 660 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
(specifically between the government authorities and Toll Bar villagers), towards better mitigation of flooding risks and facilitation of the recovery process of those affected through a range of communication modes and mechanisms in strengthening the resilience of the community members.
Other influences on the flood risk communication strategies
Figure 7 | Respondents’ evaluations to the importance of flood risk communication strategies for strengthening community resilience. Drawing on the research findings discussed in previous sec- tions, Table 2 summarizes the factors that had positively and From our empirical research, we know that the nature of negatively influenced the flood risk communication strat- information communicated through these flood-related egies and community resilience. activities appears to focus on how to prepare for and We distinguish the occurrence of influences at two respond to floods, while most of the interviewees seem to levels. The influences at the institutional level refer to the be less certain on how to recover from and mitigate flood developments or institutional changes that are carried out impacts, as reflected in their evaluations to the ranked ques- by the relevant government authorities and may influence tions. In general, the flood wardens evaluated more other governmental agencies and/or the general public. As positively and expressed higher confidence in taking the for the influences at the non-institutional level, these refer necessary actions throughout the disaster management to more localised developments or systems, such as at the cycle, as compared to the Toll Bar villagers. This highlights village level. Identification of these influences are an impor- the importance of interactive, two-way nature of flood risk tant step for further improving communication of flood risks communication, not only during acute flooding events, but and, ideally, for capitalising on the opportunities for enhan- the need to maintain this interactive communication cing the resilience of communities. The recommendations
Figure 8 | Activities carried out in Toll Bar during the different stages of the disaster management cycle. Source: Structure based on ADPC (2007).
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 661 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
Table 2 | Positive and negative influences on flood risk communication strategies Despite the noticeable efforts by the local authorities to establish stronger relations with the at-risk community in Influences on flood risk communication strategies Toll Bar, especially after the devastating flood in 2007, sev- þ eral negative influences were identified, resulting in the Institutional Technological No sustainable following recommendations. In Toll Bar, community level advancements budgetary events such as Open Days and monthly meetings proved resulting in the allocation for improvements in the local authorities to be paramount for highlighting the developments achieved quality of forecasts to support flood- since the previous flood and hence should be consistently fi and diversi cation of related activities organised in an effort to reassure the villagers, despite the communication at the village level strategies fact that these events have not been completely successful Non- Presence of flood Interaction limited in amassing crowds of villagers. These events provide an institutional wardens, forging to a certain group excellent venue for fostering community ties, sustaining i.e. local closer relationship of people in Toll flood memory and a platform for key local government (village) level with local authorities Bar as the general population representatives in interacting with the locals. The element exhibits minimal of face-to-face interaction seems to be very much valued interest in getting by the villagers despite the increasing popularity of involved ICT-mediated communication modes (Wehn & Evers ). Such events should be taken as an opportunity to high- light the importance of taking individual responsibility to elaborated in the next section are intended to address the mitigate impacts (Cutter et al. ) and to focus on the identified negative influences. value of individual participation in a community (Mullins & Soetanto ). Flood education should be integrated at the school, not only to instil a culture of prevention and pre- DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS paredness from a young age, but also encourage inter- generational learning of school-aged children with their Generally, the respondents acknowledged a sense of pro- families. Disaster risk education in school should be a pri- gress with respect to the flood risk communication ority as children are among the most vulnerable to strategies and the level of community resilience, whereby disasters (UNISDR ). The Toll Bar flood wardens plan these components were perceived to have improved since also states the same, where children are considered as the the previous flood. Four salient observations have emerged. primary priority in any disaster event due to their vulner- First, respondents expressed diverse evaluations regarding ability. Issues pertaining to the recovery from and the characteristics of the current flood risk messages mitigation of flood impacts should be given more emphasis whereby the flood wardens assessed these more positively as it was evident from the respondents that information than the Toll Bar villagers. Second, respondents expressed related to these two phases appear to be lacking. diverse opinions regarding the current level of interaction between the villagers and government authorities, with an indication that the flood risk communication strategies CONCLUSIONS adopted are progressively moving towards two-way inter- action. Third, most of the respondents confirmed the As a response to the recent UK flooding, a National Flood incorporation of villagers’ feedback into government plan- Resilience Review is currently taking place to better protect ning processes. The flood wardens appear to have higher the country from future flooding (DEFRA ). The review accessibility to direct communication with selected govern- will be published in summer 2016. In this paper, we have ment officials. They also appear to possess a more in-depth examined the current flood risk communication practice understanding of and interest in their local area and history. in a local community in the UK and identified factors to
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 662 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
strengthen community resilience. Our findings and case- Bangkok. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/ specific recommendations highlight the impact of interac- 9440_ADPCCriticalGuidelines.pdf (accessed 9 September 2014). fl Asian Disaster Preparedness Center Manual on Flood tive, two-way nature of ood risk communication Preparedness for Provincial and District Level Authorities in throughout the disaster management cycle. Acute flooding the Lower Mekong Delta Countries. Asian Disaster events (including the preparedness and response phases) Preparedness Center, Bangkok. Available at: http://www. fi fl present plentiful opportunities for coping, learning, adapting alnap.org/pool/ les/13076- ood09.pdf (accessed 16 June 2014). and thus strengthening community resilience, aided and Asian Disaster Reduction Center Total Disaster Risk supported by relevant flood risk communication. Although Management: Good Practices. Asian Disaster Reduction often associated primarily with actual flood events, our find- Center, Kobe. Available at: http://www.adrc.asia/ publications/TDRM2005/TDRM_Good_Practices/PDF/ ings suggest that (interactive) flood risk communication PDF-2005e/Chapter2_2.4.pdf (accessed 25 June 2014). should also pay attention to the recovery process of those Bahadur, A. V., Ibrahim, M. & Tanner, T. The Resilience affected and to preventive actions to mitigating flood risks Renaissance? Unpacking of Resilience for Tackling Climate by keeping flood memories alive (in a sensitive and appro- Change and Disasters. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Available at: http://community.eldis.org/. priate manner) and, through a range of communication 59e0d267/resilience-renaissance.pdf (accessed 17 July 2014). modes and mechanisms, strengthening the resilience of var- Bennett, O. & Hartwell-Naguib, S. Flood Defence Spending in ious target groups. Considering the links between flood risk England, Standard Note: SN/SC/5755. Last updated 19 communication and community resilience throughout the November 2014, House of Commons Library, Section Science and Environment. Available at: http:// course of the disaster management cycle, their interactions researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05755/ become clearer and these can thus be harnessed to SN05755.pdf (accessed 25 March 2016). strengthen community resilience further. Bradford, R., O’Sullivan, J., Craats, I., Krywkow, J., Rotko, P., Aaltonen, J., Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Waylem, K. & Schelfaut, K. Risk perception issues for flood management in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Science 12, 2299–2309. Brown, J. D. & Damery, S. L. Managing flood risk in the UK: towards an integration of social and technical perspectives. This research reported in this paper is part of the WeSenseIt Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27,412–426. project which has received funding from the European Bruijn, K. Resilience and flood risk management. Water Union under grant agreement No. 308429.ect. The authors Policy 6,53–66. fi fi would also like to acknowledge UNEP-DHI for co-funding Cabinet Of ce Building the Big Society. Cabinet Of ce, London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ this research. Finally, we are grateful to all of the uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78979/ interviewees for their time and cooperation during the building-big-society_0.pdf (accessed 9 August 2014). course of the research phase. Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G. & Emrich, C. T. Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7 (1), REFERENCES Article 51. doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1732. Cutter, S. L., Ahearn, J. A., Amadei, B., Crawford, P., Eide, E. A., Galloway, G. E., Goodchild, M. F., Kunruether, H. C., Li- Alexander, D. Mainstreaming disaster risk management. In: Vollmer, M., Schoch-Spana, M., Scrimshaw, S. C., Stanley, E. Hazards and the Built Environment (L. Bosher, ed.). Taylor M., Whitney, G. & Zoback, M. L. Disaster resilience: a and Francis, Oxon, pp. 20–36. national imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Ashley, R. M. & Brown, R. R. Entrapped in common sense: Sustainable Development 55 (2), 25–29. why water management by current regimes is not sustainable Dawson, R. J., Ball, T., Werritty, J., Werritty, A., Hall, J. W. & and what we can do about it. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Roche, N. Assessing the effectiveness of non-structural Environmental Social Science (NESS): Knowledge, Learning flood management measures in the Thames estuary under and Action for Sustainability. London, UK,10–12 June 2009. conditions of socio-economic and environmental change. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center Critical Global Environmental Change 21, 628–646. Guidelines: Community-based Disaster Risk Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Management. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Making Space for Water. Department for Environment,
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 663 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
Food and Rural Affairs, London. Available at: http://archive. Handmer, J. Improving flood warnings in Europe: a research defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/policy/ and policy agenda. Global Environmental Change Part B: strategy/strategy-response1.pdf (accessed 21 April 2014). Environmental Hazards 3,19–28. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Höppner, C., Buchecker, M. & Bründl, M. Risk National Flood Resilience Review: Government Action Communication and Natural Hazards. CapHaz-Net to Tackle Floods, 26 January 2016. Available at: https://www. Consortium, Birmensdorf. Available at: http://caphaz-net. gov.uk/government/news/national-flood-resilience-review- org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP5_Risk- government-action-to-tackle-floods. Communication2.pdf (accessed 27 May 2014). Doncaster Free Press Facts and Figures Behind a Disaster. Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Schlüter, M., Flachner, Doncaster, UK. Z., Neto, S. & Nabide Kiti, I. Adaptive water Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Development and management and policy learning in a changing climate: a Flood Risk: Supplementary Planning Document. Doncaster formal comparative analysis of eight water management Metropolitan Borough Council, Doncaster. Available at: regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environmental Policy http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/Development%20and and Governance 21, 145–163. %20Flood%20Risk%20SPD%20-%20Adopted37-93953.pdf Kellens, W., Terpstra, T. & De Maeyer, P. Perception and (accessed 12 July 2014). communication of flood risks: a systematic review of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Preliminary Flood empirical research. Risk Analysis 33,24–49. Risk Assessment: Final Report. Doncaster Metropolitan Mayunga, J. S. Understanding and applying the concept of Borough Council, Doncaster. Available at: http://www. community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. doncaster.gov.uk/Images/PFRA_Final_Report_V1_1%20(2) Working Paper for the Summer Academy for Social 37-92932.pdf (accessed 9 July 2014). Vulnerability and Resilience, 22–28 July, Munich, Germany. Environment Agency (EA) Flooding in England: A National McCarthy, S. S. Contextual influences on national level flood Assessment of Flood Risk. Environment Agency, Bristol. risk communication. Environmental Hazards 7, 128–140. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ McDonagh, R. Case Study – Community Flood Warden Scheme. system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292928/ Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Doncaster. geho0609bqds-e-e.pdf (accessed 4 May 2014). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ European Commission (EC) Directives 2007/60/EC of the system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60916/Case-Study- European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 Community-Flood-Warden-Scheme.pdf (accessed 5 May 2014). on the Assessment and Management of Flood risks. McEwen, L. J. & Jones, O. The role of local/lay flood European Commission A New EU Flood Directive. [online] knowledge in building community resilience: the case of the Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/ 2007 floods. In: British Hydrological Society Conference flood_risk/index.htm (accessed 30 May 2014). Volume, Gloucestershire, UK. European Environment Agency (EEA) Mapping the Impacts Met Office The Metereological Office. Exeter, Devon, UK. of Natural Hazards and Technological Accidents in Europe: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/ An Overview of the Last Decade. Publications Office of the june2007 (accessed 14 January 2016). European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: http://www.eea. Mullins, A. & Soetanto, R. Ethnic differences in perceptions europa.eu/publications/mapping-the-impacts-of-natural/ of social responsibility: informing risk communication at_download/file (accessed 24 July 2014). strategies for enhancing community resilience to flooding. Fekete, A., Hufschmidt, G. & Kruse, S. Benefits and challenges Disaster Prevention and Management 22, 119–131. of resilience and vulnerability for disaster risk management. Newman, R., Ashley, R., Molyneux-Hodgson, S. & Cashman, A. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 5,3–20. Managing water as a socio-technical system: the shift Fielding, J., Burningham, K., Thrush, D. & Catt, R. Public from ‘experts’ to ‘alliances’. Proceedings of the ICE- Response to Flood Warning. Environment Agency, Bristol. Engineering Sustainability 164,95–102. Frewer, L. The public and effective risk communication. Ngo Thu, H. & Wehn, U. Data sharing in international Toxicology Letters 149 (1), 391–397. transboundary contexts: the Vietnamese perspective on data Gersonius, B., Ashley, R., Pathirana, A. & Zevenbergen, C. sharing in the Lower Mekong Basin. Journal of Hydrology Managing the flooding system’s resiliency to climate change. 536 (May), 351–364. In: Proceedings of the ICE-Engineering Sustainability 163, O’Neill, P. Developing a Risk Communication Model to 15–23. Encourage Community Safety From Natural Hazards. State Haggett, C. An integrated approach to flood forecasting and Emergency Services, New South Wales. Available at: http:// warning in England and Wales. Water and Environment www.ses.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/pdf/research- Journal 12, 425–432. papers/42904/Developing_a_risk_communication_model. Hall, J. W., Meadowcroft, I. C., Sayers, P. B. & Bramley, M. E. pdf (accessed 5 May 2014). Integrated flood risk management in England and Wales. O’Sullivan,J.J.,Bradford,R.A.,Bonaiuto,M.,DeDominicis,S.,Rotko, Natural Hazards Review 4, 126–135. P., Aaltonen, J., Waylen, K. & Langan, S. J. Enhancing flood
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018 664 N. S. Ping et al. | Towards two-way flood risk communication in a community in the UK Journal of Water and Climate Change | 07.4 | 2016
resilience through improved risk communications. Natural UK Government Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Hazards and Earth System Science 12,2271–2282. Chapter 29. The Stationery Office Limited, UK. Available at: Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C. & Nikitina, E. From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29/pdfs/ applying panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive ukpga_20100029_en.pdf (accessed 26 October 2016). water governance in river basins. Environmental Science & United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Policy 23,24–34. (UNISDR) TowardsaCultureofPrevention:DisasterRisk Parker, D., Fordham, M., Tunstall, S. & Ketteridge, A.-M. Reduction Begins at School. United Nations/International Flood warning systems under stress in the United Kingdom. Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva. Available at: www. Disaster Prevention and Management 4,32–42. unisdr.org/files/761_education-good-practices.pdf (accessed 30 Parker, D. J. & Priest, S. J. The fallibility of flood warning April 2014). chains: can Europe’s flood warnings be effective? Water Wehn, U. & Evers, J. Citizen observatories of water: social Resources Management 26, 2927–2950. innovation via eParticipation? Technology in Society 42, Pitt, M. Learning Lessons From the 2007 Floods. Cabinet 187–198. Office, London. Available at: http://webarchive. Wehn, U., McCarty, S., Lanfranchi, V. & Tapsell, S. a Citizen nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100807034701/http://archive. observatories as facilitators of change in water governance? cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/www. Experiences from three European cases, Special Issue on cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/pitt_review_full% ICTs and Water. Journal of Environmental Engineering and 20pdf.pdf (accessed 17 April 2014). Management 14, 2073–2086. Available from: http://eprints. Rojas, R., Feyen, L. & Watkiss, P. Climate change and river mdx.ac.uk/17634/. floods in the European Union: socio-economic consequences Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J. & Lanfranchi, V. b Participation and the costs and benefits of adaptation. Global in flood risk management and the potential of citizen Environmental Change 23, 1737–1751. observatories: a governance analysis. Environmental Science Sayers, P., Hall, J. & Meadowcroft, I. Towards risk-based flood & Policy 48, 225–236. hazard management in the UK.In:Proceedings of the WeSenseIt WeSenseIt is a European Research Project (2012– Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering 150 (5), 36–42 . 2016) Developing, Implementing and Testing Citizen Sayers, P., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Yuanyuan, L., Observatories of Water and Flooding in Three Cases Studies Fuxin, S., Yiwei, C., Kang, W., Le Quesne, T., Wang, L. & Located in Italy, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands.More Guan, Y. Strategic flood management: ten ‘golden rules’ information about the project can be found at www.wesenseit.eu. to guide a sound approach. International Journal of River White, I. The absorbent city: urban form and flood Basin Management 13, 137–151. risk management. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Schelfaut, K., Pannemans, B., Van Der Craats, I., Krywkow, J., Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning 161 (4), Mysiak, J. & Cools, J. Bringing flood resilience into 151–161 . practice: the FREEMAN project. Environmental Science & Yamada, F., Kakimoto, R., Yamamoto, M., Fujimi, T. & Tanaka, N. Policy 14, 825–833. Implementation of community flood risk Schuhle-Lewis, J. (ed.) Toll Bar-on-Sea. Toll Bar Forum, communication in Kumamoto, Japan. Journal of Advanced Doncaster. Transportation 45, 117–128. Twigger-Ross, C., Kashefi, E., Weldon, S., Brooks, K., Deeming, Zevenbergen, C., Veerbeek, W., Gersonius, B. & van Herk, S. H., Forrest, S., Fielding, J., Gomersall, A., Harries, T., Challenges in urban flood management: travelling across McCarthy, S., Orr, P., Parker, D. & Tapsell, S. Flood spatial and temporal scales. Journal of Flood Risk Resilience Community Pathfinder Evaluation: Rapid Management 1,81–88. Evidence Assessment. Defra, London. Available at: http:// Zevenbergen, C., van Herk, S., Rijke, J., Kabat, P., Bloemen, P., evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/ Ashley, R. & Veerbeek, W. Taming global flood FCERM_Project_Documents/community_pathfinder_ disasters: lessons learned from Dutch experience. Natural evidence_assessment.sflb.ashx (accessed 15 May 2014). Hazards 65, 1217–1225.
First received 14 January 2016; accepted in revised form 23 May 2016. Available online 20 October 2016
Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/7/4/651/372938/jwc0070651.pdf by guest on 30 December 2018