UK Country Team D3.2.3 Preliminary Data Analysis Summary Report – Morpeth

Prepared by:

MICRODIS UK Team: Northumbria University

Table of Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………. 3 2. Background………………………………………………………………. 5 2.1 Flood Risk in the UK – the Scale of the Problem……………… 5 2.2 Background to the Field Site: Morpeth, Northumberland, UK... 6 2.2.1 Geography…………………………………………………... 6 2.2.2 Population…………………………………………………… 7 2.2.3 Economy…………………………………………………….. 8 2.3 Morpeth – Disaster History and the September 2008 Flood…. 10 2.3.1 Disaster history……………………………………………... 10 2.3.2 The September 2008 flood………………………………… 12 3. Survey Objectives……………………………………………………….. 13 4. Methodology……………………………………………………………… 14 5. Data Description…………………………………………………………. 16 Socio-demographic characteristics……………………………………. 16 Flood Impacts – Physical and Economic……………………………… 20 Flood Impacts – Health…………………………………………………. 24 Flood Impacts – Social………………………………………………….. 25 Disaster Experience…………………………………………………….. 26 Warnings…………………………………………………………………. 27 Displacement…………………………………………………………….. 28 Coping and Coping Strategies…………………………………………. 28 Insurance Issues………………………………………………………… 33 Willingness to Pay for a Flood Defence Scheme…………………….. 35 6. Data Analysis and Discussion………………………………………….. 36 References……………………………………………………………….. 38

2 1. Introduction

Extreme events have been increasing in number and severity globally (Fig. 1.1) and are likely to continue to do so as the effects of global climate change become more pronounced (Guha-Sapir et al., 2004). Although the global death toll of disasters has declined, the number of people affected by disasters has risen and the social and economic impacts of disasters are difficult to estimate (UN/ISDR, 2004).

Figure 1.1: Trends in Disaster Occurrences and Numbers of Victims

Source: Rodriguez et al., 2009

The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR, 1990-1999), the creation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (Hyogo, 2005) and the resulting Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) emphasise a shift from disaster relief and short-term emergency contingencies to disaster risk reduction (DRR) and long-term societal resilience (UN/ISDR, 2004). DRR and developing resilient communities are now generally recognised as priorities in disaster mitigation and management (Twigg, 2004; 2007). At the same time, community involvement and participation are highlighted as important elements of policy decision making as well as of disaster mitigation and management (Pusch, 2004; Twigg, 2004; PPS 25, 2006; Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006; Pelling & Smith, 2008). MICRODIS is an Integrated Project funded under the EU Sixth Framework Programme – Thematic Priority 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems (Contract number GOCE-CT-2007-036877). The MICRODIS consortium consists of 19 partners from 13 different countries who are specialised in key areas of disaster- related health and social science disciplines. The MICRODIS project acknowledges, “efforts to reduce disaster risks must be systematically integrated into policies, plans and programmes for sustainable development and poverty reduction” and the project has the overall goal:

3 “to strengthen preparedness, mitigation and prevention strategies in order to reduce the health, social and economic impacts of extreme events on communities.” To achieve this goal the following broad objectives are pursued: ¾ To strengthen the scientific and empirical foundation on the relationship between extreme events and their health, social and economic impacts; ¾ To develop and integrate knowledge, concepts, methods, tools and databases towards a common global approach; ¾ To improve human resources and coping capacity in Asia and Europe through training and knowledge sharing. The MICRODIS project will, among others, specifically aim at: ¾ developing an integrated impact methodology; ¾ establishing an evidence-base of primary field research through surveys; ¾ increasing the coverage accuracy and resolution of global disaster data. The regions in which MICRODIS operates have been selected for their high frequency of extreme events and the impact on affected communities. The two regions of focus for the extensive survey implementation of the MICRODIS project are: 1. The European Union, associated countries and accession states: Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom; 2. South and Southeast Asia regions: India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. The extreme events of focus are floods, earthquakes and windstorms because they account for almost 75% of all extreme events. In the UK the focus will be on flooding events, as these are the main type of natural disaster with the largest impacts on the affected population in the UK context. Like other extreme events floods are complex and multifaceted, but research into the impacts of disasters tends to concentrate on the economic impacts and neglect the social aspects, which are more difficult to define and quantify (Tapsell et al., 2002; Werrity et al., 2007). The timely and relevant implementation of the MICRODIS surveys at two UK sites that have been affected by severe flooding – Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire and Morpeth in Northumberland – will help to identify the nature and severity of health and social impacts on households and communities in addition to the economic impacts. The dissemination of the findings to the affected communities and relevant local and national public and civic agencies, as well as to the wider European community, thus can contribute to a better understanding of the impacts of flooding at the micro-level, and to better informed decision making with regard to preparedness, mitigation and prevention strategies. This report focuses on the first preliminary data description and analysis of the second UK survey in Morpeth after giving some background on flood risk in the UK;

4 a description of the Morpeth survey site, its disaster history and the 2008 flood; and a summary of the survey methodology and implementation.

2. Background

2.1 Flood Risk in the UK – the Scale of the Problem

The increased occurrence and amplified impacts of flooding in the UK in recent years have shown how surprisingly ill prepared and vulnerable British communities are to such events (see, for example, Environment Agency, 2007; Stuart-Menteth, 2007; Werrity et al., 2007; Pitt, 2008). Flooding has become a major concern in the UK, particularly since the widespread summer floods of 2007, which flooded 55,000 properties and caused billions of pounds of damage; 13 people lost their lives and around 7,000 people had to be rescued (Pitt, 2008). The Environment Agency’s 2008 National Flood Risk Assessment shows there are currently 2.4 million properties at risk from fluvial and coastal flooding in England alone (Fig. 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Properties at Risk of River and Coastal Flooding in England by Chance of Flooding Source: Environment Agency 2009

A preliminary assessment of surface water flood risk suggests that one million of these properties are also susceptible to surface water flooding, with a further 2.8 million properties susceptible to surface water flooding alone. Overall, around 5.2 million properties in England (one in six properties) are at risk of flooding. The expected annual damages to residential and non-residential properties in England at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea is estimated at more than £1 billion. It is likely that with climate change (which could lead to increased rainfall, river flows, and higher coastal storm surges) and development pressures, flood risk in England is going to increase in the future. Without action to reduce flood risk, 350,000 more properties would be at significant risk of flooding by 2035. (Environment Agency, 2009)

5 2.2 Background to the Field Site: Morpeth, Northumberland, UK

2.2.1 Geography

Morpeth is an ancient market town situated in a loop of the river Wansbeck in the northeast of England (Fig 2.2) about 15 miles north of Newcastle upon Tyne and 12 miles west from the North Sea. Morpeth is located in the county of Northumberland and is the administrative centre for the County Council. The physical form of the town with its existing street patterns was established in mediaeval times.

Figure 2.2: Morpeth, Northumberland and its location in the UK Source: Edina Digimap

Morpeth lies in the eastern part of the Wansbeck catchment area, a relatively small river catchment that covers 331km2. The main reach of the Wansbeck has an active flood plain that is between 100m to 300m wide and the town itself is located within this floodplain. (EA, 2005) The topography of the catchment is decreasing from the hills in the west to the low- lying areas in the east but is overall relatively low with a maximum altitude of 345m AOD1. The underlying geology of the catchment is typical of catchments in the area with carboniferous limestone to the west, millstone grit in the centre and Westphalian coal measures to the east (including underneath Morpeth town). Drift geology around Morpeth is characterised by glacial sand and gravel to the north of the town and solid rock to the south. Most of the catchment drift geology (88%) is composed of glacial till. The dominant soil types are slowly permeable and clayey (surface water gley) and, as such, poorly drained and seasonally waterlogged causing rapid runoff in

1 Above Ordnance Datum: height relative to the average sea level at Newlyn, Cornwall UK

6 winter. As the underlying geology is largely impermeable, flood response in the catchment is mainly influenced by surface and soil water processes. (EA, 2005) While geomorphological stability (resistance to erosion) in the catchment is generally high, the area around Morpeth has three identified sites with problems of sediment accumulation due to the following factors: 1. the drift geology around Morpeth itself is alluvium and glacial sand and gravel, which is easily erodible and less stable than till; 2. Morpeth is at the confluence of a number of rivers that have relatively high gradients and drain into the flat, low lying area around Morpeth, implying that the area may be susceptible to deposition; 3. the river is highly sinuous in Morpeth, which makes it potentially sensitive to erosion and deposition problems; 4. the channel widens in parts of the town; 5. Morpeth is an urbanised area where the channel has been modified by the installation of weirs (East Mill and Olivers Mill) and a flood alleviation scheme. (EA, 2005) Land cover in the catchment is dominated by a largely agricultural landscape with woodland, managed grassland and arable land. Major urban and industrial developments (including Morpeth) are situated in the east of the catchment. The area around Morpeth receives 740mm of standard annual average rainfall, which, however, is given to large annual and seasonal variations.

2.2.2 Population

The County of Northumberland has a population of around 310,000, 49,000 of which live in the Morpeth district. 13,800 people (7,205 females, 6,628 males) live in the town of Morpeth itself distributed over 6,304 households. The population density in the town is 19.8 persons/hectare as compared to the low density of 0.61 persons/ha in Northumberland, which reflects the rural character of the county. The majority of people (67.7%) live in one- and two-person households. Overall 35% of households in Morpeth have children and 20% of households are lone-parent households. 4,850 (80%) of the dwellings in Morpeth are privately owned, while 993 (17%) are rented properties. 89% of people live in an unshared house or bungalow, while the remainder (11%) live in flats or apartments. There are no people living in shared dwellings or temporary structures (e.g. caravans) in Morpeth. The mean age in the town of Morpeth is 43.6 years. The age distribution of the population of Castle Morpeth Borough is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Age Distribution by Sex for Castle Morpeth Borough (based on Castle Morpeth Borough Council data, 2007)

Figure 2.3 illustrates the increasingly ageing population of Morpeth with a large proportion of people living on pensions (65+ age range). The gender imbalance in the older population reflects the higher life expectancy of females. Ethnically, Morpeth town has a predominantly white population (99%). Table 2.1 summarises the religious affiliations of the Morpeth population, with the majority (82%) being of Christian faith.

Table 2.1: Religious Composition of Morpeth Population Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other No Not religion stated Persons 11280 12 12 6 61 0 33 1621 805 % 81.6 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.44 0 0.2 11.7 5.8 Note: Percentage figures may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: 2001 census

2.2.3 Economy

The regional average gross disposable household income per person for the counties of Northumberland and Tyne & Wear in 2007 was 12,413 GBP, well below the national average of 14,317 (Office for National Statistics, 2009). Morpeth is one of the wealthier towns in the northeast of England. Morpeth and the surrounding area are popular with tourists (mainly ‘day trippers’) due to its being attractive for outdoor pursuits like walking, angling, etc. Morpeth town itself is appealing but does not offer many potential leisure activities. “The Council

8 does not have a clear vision on tourism and how this contributes to improving the economic vitality of the area “(Audit Commission, 2006) 72% of the Morpeth population are aged between 16 and 74 years. 45% of Morpeth inhabitants were economically active in 2001, 2.8% of which were unemployed. 27% of Morpeth inhabitants are economically inactive, 54% of which are pensioners. Industries of employment are presented in Table 2.2 and occupational groups of the working population of Morpeth are summarised in Figure 2.4.

Table 2.2: Industry of employment Number of Percentage of persons employed population Agriculture, hunting and forestry 52 0.9 Mining & Quarrying 31 0.5 Manufacturing 616 10.5 Electricity, gas and water supply 57 1 Construction 352 6 Wholesale and retail trade, repairs 688 11.7 Hotels and restaurants 275 4.7 Transport, storage and communications 299 5.1 Financial intermediation 181 3.1 Real estate, renting and business activities 705 12 Public administration, defence, social security 610 10.4 Education 779 13.2 Health and social work 983 16.7 Other 260 4.4 Note: Percentage figures may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: 2001 census

10% 16% Managers and senior officials 5% Professional occupations

6% Associate professional and technical occupations Administrative and secretarial occupations 7% Skilled trades occupations 19% Personal service occupations

7% Sales and customer service occupations Process; plant and machine operatives Elementary occupations 13% 17%

Figure 2.4: Occupation Groups of Employees in Morpeth Town (Source: 2001 Census)

91% of the working population work within a 20km radius of Morpeth. About half of these travel 5-30 km to their place of work, implying that Morpeth itself has limited employment opportunities and many people commute to the more industrialised centres of Ashington, Blyth and Newcastle upon Tyne. 24% of households do not own a car, probably reflecting the large proportion of pensioner households in Morpeth.

2.3 Morpeth – Disaster History and the September 2008 Flood

2.3.1 Disaster History

Flooding is the only major disaster risk in the Wansbeck catchment area and Morpeth is the main flood risk area within the catchment (Fig. 2.5). Flooding has been a regular occurrence in Morpeth since the town was first built because of its location and topographic and soil characteristics. The town’s motto, "Inter Sylvas et Flumina Habitans" - "Living amid the Woods and Waters", reflects this history and the town’s association with the river environment.

Figure 2.5: Flood Risk in the Wansbeck Catchment Source: EA, 2005

The main sources of flooding in the Wansbeck catchment have been identified as extremes in rainfall and snowmelt (on average 56% of precipitation is converted to surface runoff), with minor contributions from impenetrable (paved) surfaces and ageing municipal drainage networks in the town itself (EA, 2005; JBA, 2008). Furthermore, there are 1,139 properties located directly on the floodplain (EA, 2005). Most floods in Morpeth occur in winter when the ground is already saturated and runoff increased. Summer floods can occur due to localised summer storm events directly over the catchments of the smaller tributaries of the Wansbeck in Morpeth town, which can cause localised flooding independent of the river levels of the Wansbeck (EA, 2005). The catchment response time (time lapse between mid-point of storm rainfall and peak in river level) at Morpeth is eight hours. Reliable historical data for flooding is available since 1839 and 18 flood events have been recorded. Morpeth experienced its previously largest memorable flood event due to an unexpectedly rapid snowmelt in March 1963 when 503 properties (482 residential) were flooded. The return period of this event was estimated at 60 years. Flood defences were built after 1963 to cope with river levels experienced in that particular flood (Fig 2.6) but defences could not be built in some parts of the town

10 because of local opposition. Flood defences consist of walls and banks of varying heights (from 0.2-2.0m), which are inspected every six months and were found to be in good to very good condition prior to the 2008 flood.

Figure 2.6: Flood Defences in the Wansbeck Catchment

Source: EA, 2005

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.

Modelled flood risk of a 100-year event at Morpeth shows the likely broad extent of potential flooding events (Fig. 2.7).

Flooding from rivers without defences Extent of extreme flood Flood defences Areas benefiting from flood defences

Figure 2.7: Modelled Potential Flood Extent of a 100-year Event in Morpeth

Source: http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk

A flood-warning-scheme implemented by the Environment Agency is in operation and a Flood Warning Plan has been published by the Environment Agency that lays out in detail the flood warning codes and procedures (EA, 2005). Castle Morpeth Borough Council also implemented a number of awareness raising activities in collaboration with Northumberland County Council, the Environment Agency, Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service and Northumbria Police prior to the flood event to alert the population that a flood could happen and to introduce emergency plans. The multi-agency Emergency Plan and Flood Action Plan are publicly available. A Recovery and Restoration Guidance Document has also been available since July 2007.

11 Two multi-agency flood exercises were carried out (October 2001 and October 2003) to prepare responders, familiarise them with emergency procedures and improve agency coordination. An analysis of public awareness carried out after the 2008 flood event found that residents had been aware that a flood could happen but were not prepared for its severity; and only a minority of residents had made personal preparations to protect their property and themselves in case of emergency. Most people were also not aware of the Flood Action Plan. Since the 2008 flood a new flood action plan has been prepared by the Morpeth Flood Group with contributions from the Environment Agency, Northumberland County Council, Northumberland Fire and Rescue, Northumbria Police and Castle Morpeth Borough Council, and offered for consultation, i.e. comments from the community and other interested parties. The Environment Agency have prepared a flood alleviation scheme for the town of Morpeth, which includes repairing existing defences damaged by the flood but also incorporates several new options for measures for flood defence. This new scheme is currently being discussed and feedback from residents has been invited.

2.3.2 The September 2008 Flood

Morpeth experienced a severe flood on 6 and 7 September 2008, when river levels exceeded the ones of the 1963 flood. The flood is currently estimated to have been a 1 in 115 year event. The flood was caused by heavy slow-moving storms, which gave the area one month’s rainfall (up to 140mm = 200-300% of average September rainfall) in just 24 hours on a catchment already saturated due to greater than average rainfall during July and August (JBA, 2008). Furthermore, prolonged rainfall over Morpeth coincided with the arrival of the flood peak from the higher areas of the catchment, which had received prolonged overnight rainfall. Structural failure of Highford Weir upstream of Morpeth likely further increased the volume of water flowing downstream (JBA, 2008). The Wansbeck River rose well above its banks and overtopped and damaged the town’s flood defences. A peak water level of 3.99 metres was recorded in the river channel, the biggest flow ever recorded in the Wansbeck. The huge volume of water also caused the drainage system to back up contributing to the flooding of the town, while the substantial structure of Oldgate Bridge obstructed the flow of the flood waters in the river channel and Oldgate Bridge, Morpeth, during the Flood exacerbated flooding of the town (JBA, (Source: Alex Bennet) 2008).

12 At the peak of the flood, Morpeth’s main road (Bridge Street) was under 0.6m (2ft) of water. Not since 1963 had the main street flooded. An error made by the Environment Agency warning system meant that 200 people did not receive flood warnings, although the Environment Agency issued 22 Flood Warnings and seven Severe Flood Warnings and successfully reached over 500 properties on the 5th th Morpeth Main Street (Bridge Street) during and 6 of September 2008. On average the Flood (Source: Alex Bennet) residents reported a duration of between one and three hours between receiving the first flood warning and water entering their homes. During 6 September 2008, more than 400 residents were evacuated. However, delays in initiating evacuation after the first warning had been received and the speed of the onset of flooding meant that many evacuation routes had already flooded hampering the speed of evacuation and increasing the risk of injury and death for residents and rescue personnel. Fire-fighters, ambulance crews, the RAF (Royal Air Force), Mountain Search and Rescue teams and the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboats Institution) were among the emergency services involved in rescue and recovery operations over the weekend. The voluntary sector, e.g. the British Red Cross, were also heavily involved in rescue and recovery operations. Shelter was provided in the Town Hall, King Edward VI High School and County Hall. Due to the flood happening over the weekend, Abbeyfields First School (which is identified as a rest centre in the Flood Action Plan) could not be set up as the contact person and key holder could not be reached. Overall the flood caused direct damage to 1,012 properties, including 913 residential properties of which 615 were ‘severely affected’2. Many people were displaced and the economic damages are probably the greatest ever experienced in Morpeth (JBA, 2008).

3. Survey Objectives

The Morpeth survey applied a particular focus to socio-psychological factors and mental health impacts of floods, which had been identified as important in the UK context through the Tewkesbury survey data analysis. Thus, data collection tools for an integrated mental health study were developed in collaboration with the MICRODIS partner HealthNet TPO, the Netherlands and added to the core questionnaire. In addition to this mental health study, the theme of social capital was extended to better capture the characteristics of the community (e.g. social and political participation, neighbourhood problems, collective efficacy, social networks, etc.) and

2 Defined by Castle Morpeth Borough Council as “those properties where floodwater has entered the habitable area of property”

13 the importance of social relationships in mediating impacts of flooding on individuals, households and communities, as well as to determine the impact that disasters, specifically flooding in the UK, have on those social relations. The survey was conducted within the overall MICRODIS framework and thus the survey objectives are firmly located within the overall project objectives and aims. Both UK field surveys had the following specific objectives: • to test, evaluate and further the development of the integrated impact tools for standardised data collection in disasters; • to further develop the scientific understanding of the health, social and economic impacts of flooding in the UK context; • to contribute to establishing a sound evidence base of field data on disaster impacts; • to design and validate a tool- and site-specific data entry system; • to identify and describe differential social impacts of flooding in the UK.

4. Methodology

Study Design The Morpeth study built on two earlier MICRODIS studies. A pilot study was conducted in Morpeth, Northumberland, on 25 and 26 November 2008, and then the first full UK site survey carried out in Tewkesbury between 4 and 23 January 20093. Both studies were valuable as standalone studies but also contributed much to the Morpeth survey design in terms of practical experience and a better understanding of flood impacts in the UK context. The lessons learned during these surveys are reflected in the methodology and approach to the Morpeth survey. Questionnaire adaptations had already been made for the Tewkesbury survey based on the experiences in the pilot study in Morpeth. Based on the practical experience of the Tewkesbury survey and data analysis, further adaptations to the questionnaire were made. The detailed adaptations to particular questions have been described in the deliverable report D4.4.2 ‘Final Assessment Protocols and Lessons Learned’. The UK country team decided to contract an independent professional survey and research consultant firm, ECOTEC, to conduct the quantitative survey in Morpeth to free up more of the team’s time for in-depth qualitative fieldwork and community engagement. Sampling Due to the fact that flood disasters in the UK generally affect a relatively small number of households – in comparison to many disasters in developing-world contexts – it was decided to use a census approach to sampling for the Morpeth survey. As the non-response rate for quantitative surveys in the UK context is relatively high it seemed logical to approach all affected households.

3 For descriptions of these surveys see Morpeth Pilot Study Report and Tewkesbury Survey Report.

14 Moreover, a list of addresses of affected households in Morpeth could be obtained, which avoided the need for geographical sampling. However, during the Morpeth survey it transpired that this address list was not complete, so further adjustments and additions had to be made to the list while the survey was underway. The Morpeth study did not include an independent control group survey. Instead it was decided to use a cross-sectional design and categorise flood-affected survey respondents according to the severity of flooding of their homes during data analysis to account for differential impacts due to ‘level of affectedness’ of households. Qualitative Fieldwork In addition to the quantitative survey the UK team is carrying out extensive qualitative work and community engagement activities in Morpeth. The following qualitative activities have thus far been carried out: 1) Presence of MICRODIS researchers at and participation in flood-related community meetings with residents and public representatives (local authority, Environment Agency, police, fire and rescue service, water services companies, etc.) 2) Meetings, discussions and interviews with representatives of the local flood action group (Morpeth Flood Action Group); 3) Meetings, e-mail contact and discussions with representatives of the Environment Agency and local authority; 4) Interviews with mental health professionals; 5) Interviews with the Operations Director of the British Red Cross (the BRC actively participated in and also coordinated the voluntary sector contribution to restoration and recovery); 6) Interviews with flood-affected residents (28 to date) to attain in-depth information on various subjects (displacement, mental health impacts, insurance issues), but also to raise awareness about the subjects discussed among participants and motivate further discussion within their immediate social environment, and thus contributing to raising social and disaster awareness and preparedness within the community. 7) Participatory neighbourhood/community mapping. Some of the qualitative fieldwork outlined above was conducted in the form of self- contained annex studies to the MICRODIS project. Further intensive qualitative fieldwork is planned in the near future. Data Analysis Statistical analysis is being carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences PASW (formerly SPSS). In-depth data analysis is still in the early stages and thus far mainly descriptive statistics have been produced.

15 5. Data Description

Socio-demographic Characteristics Overall the survey covered 236 flood-affected households (=respondents) with 407 household members living in those 236 households in total. The minimum age for respondents was 18 years. The mean age of survey respondents is 66.04 (standard deviation 18.6), while the mean age taking all household members into consideration is 57.74 (standard deviation 24.56), both are above the mean age for Morpeth at 43.6 years determined in the 2001 census. Further socio-demographic information on the sample population is summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and household members

Respondents All Household Members Category f % of sample f % of sample (n = 236) (n = 407) Gender Male 90 38.1 183 45 Female 146 61.9 224 55 Age group 0-4 n/a n/a 10 2.5 5-10 n/a n/a 11 2.7 11-17 n/a n/a 13 3.2 18-24 5 2.1 13 3.2 25-39 20 8.5 39 9.6 40-64 66 28.0 107 26.3 65+ 145 61.4 190 46.7 Marital Married 84 35.6 170 41.8 status Single 40 16.9 110 27 Separated 6 2.5 6 1.5 Divorced 23 9.7 25 6.1 Widowed 77 32.6 82 20.1 Common law 6 2.5 13 3.2 Religion Muslim 1 0.4 1 0.2 Catholic 36 15.3 60 14.7 Protestant: C of E 113 47.9 178 43.7 Protestant: other 4 1.7 7 1.7 Buddhist 1 0.4 2 0.5 Christian 45 19.1 70 17.2 None 34 14.4 69 17 Other 2 .8 2 0.5

16 Nationality British 231 97.9 383 94.1 Irish 1 0.4 2 0.5 Polish 1 0.4 1 0.2 Bangladeshi 1 0.4 2 0.5 German 1 0.4 1 0.2 Hungarian 1 0.4 1 0.2 Ethnicity British 230 97.5 396 97.3 Irish 1 0.4 2 0.5 Other white 3 1.3 4 1 Bangladeshi 1 0.4 1 0.2 Chinese 1 0.4 1 0.2 Highest No qualifications 98 41.5 148 36.4 level of O levels/CSEs/GCSEs, School 47 19.9 81 education certificate 19.9 A levels/AS levels, Higher 11 4.7 25 School Certificate 6.1 First Degree (e.g. BA, BSc) 13 5.5 21 5.2 Higher Degree 12 5.1 17 4.2 NVQ/GNVQ/HNC/HND 20 8.5 29 7.1 Professional qualifications 19 8.1 26 6.4 Still schooling n/a 19 4.7 Pre-school n/a 6 1.5 Occupation No occupation / unemployed 16 6.84 24 5.9 Elementary occupations 8 3.4 10 2.5 Craft and related trades 6 2.5 10 workers 2.5 Skilled labourer 6 2.5 12 2.9 Housework 9 3.8 16 3.9 Skilled agricultural, forestry 2 and fishery workers 0.5 Attending full-time education 1 0.4 38 9.3 Professional 11 4.7 22 teacher/lawyer/health worker, physician 5.4 Protective services workers, 4 1.7 8 incl. armed forces 2 Administration/ clerical (public 12 5.1 17 sector) 4.2 Manual labourer 2 0.8 4 1 Sales and service 3 1.3 10 2.5

4 national average: 7.8% for the same time period; Office for National Statistics, January 2010

17 Administration/clerical 1 0.4 3 (private sector) 0.7 Managers 8 3.4 11 2.7 Self-employed/business owner 3 1.3 8 2 Retired 141 59.7 186 45.7 Other 5 2.1 10 2.5

The majority of respondents live in one- or two-person households (52% and 33% respectively); families with children are under-represented in the sample (16%). Most people (67%) own their own homes and 32% live in rented properties. A quarter of respondents (27%) live in social rather than private properties. Households, on average, have 5.6 rooms (SD 1.54) for their own use, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 14 rooms. On average, respondents have lived in Morpeth for 37 years (SD 25.2) and in their flooded property for 17 years (SD 15.4). 19% have lived in Morpeth for less than 10 years and 43% had lived in their property for less than 10 years when the flood happened. 98% of respondents think their neighbourhood is a good place for them to live and 83% see themselves as part of the community, with little variation between men and women (Fig. 5.1; Fig. 5.2).

I think my neighbourhood is a good place for me to live.

40 Males 30 Females 20 % of sample 10

0 Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly agree nor disagree Figure 5.1: Replies to statement “I think my neighbourhood is a good place for me to live” by gender

18 Do you think that you are really part of the community?

40 e Males 30 Females 20

% of sampl 10

0 Not at all A little Most of the Completely time

Figure 5.2: Replies to question “Do you think that you are really part of the community?” by gender

Further analyses of various elements of the characteristics of the community are summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Mean scores for indicators of social community functioning (scale of 1-5) n Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha Sense of Community 223 3.7298 0.37523 0.645 Structural Social Capital 231 0.3956 0.44292 0.736 Cognitive Social Capital 207 3.0845 0.47346 0.758 Collective Efficacy 225 3.0540 0.42239 0.855 Social Cohesion 227 3.7563 0.44631 0.410 Informal Control 233 2.3416 0.78281 0.602

Although overall scoring low on structural social capital (voluntary association membership), sense of community and social cohesion in Morpeth are well developed and achieve relatively high scores, while cognitive social capital and collective efficacy score lower but still above average. The mean annual household income before the flood was £19,845 (SD 19,186); the mean annual household income after the flood £19,778 (SD 19,777). The income ranges of annual household incomes of the sample are illustrated in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Annual income ranges (GBP) of sample households (n=199)

Flood Impacts – Physical and Economic 23% of the sample had no flooding to rooms inside their property. On average, 2.7 rooms (SD 1.9) in respondents’ homes had been flooded to a mean depth of 87 centimetres (SD 53; minimum 2cm; maximum 224cm). The mean depth of flooding to external buildings was 92cm (SD 62; minimum 5cm; maximum 366cm) for 71% of the sample; and to land and garden 99cm (SD 72; minimum 3cm; maximum 488cm) for 87% of the sample. Damages and losses experienced by the sample households are summarised in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Extent of Flood Damages in Sample Households (n=236) Frequency Percent Damages to house – the structure Not at all 90 39.8 To a very low extent 30 13.3 To some extent 18 8.0 To a large extent 37 16.4 Fully damaged/lost 51 22.6 Damages to house – contents and belongings Not at all 60 26.0

20 To a very low extent 9 3.9 To some extent 14 6.1 To a large extent 58 25.1 Fully damaged/lost 90 39.0 Damages to personal belongings with sentimental value Not at all 97 42.5 To a very low extent 11 4.8 To some extent 17 7.5 To a large extent 44 19.3 Fully damaged/lost 59 25.9 Damages to outbuildings Not at all 51 26.4 To a very low extent 26 13.5 To some extent 24 12.4 To a large extent 40 20.7 Fully damaged/lost 52 26.9 Damages to cars Not at all 97 63.8 To a very low extent 5 3.3 To some extent 7 4.6 To a large extent 11 7.2 Fully damaged/lost 32 21.1 Damages to land/garden Not at all 28 13.0 To a very low extent 30 13.9 To some extent 40 18.5 To a large extent 62 28.7 Fully damaged/lost 56 25.9 Damages to employment/self-employment Not at all 65 75.6 To a very low extent 3 3.5 To some extent 9 10.5 To a large extent 6 7.0 Fully damaged/lost 3 3.5 Damages to stocks of goods for commerce Not at all 60 88.2 To a very low extent 1 1.5 To some extent 1 1.5 To a large extent 4 5.9 Fully damaged/lost 2 2.9

21 Damages to pets Not at all 71 77.2 To a very low extent 2 2.2 To some extent 11 12.0 To a large extent 3 3.3 Fully damaged/lost 5 5.4

The mean total amount of buildings damage was £29,198 (SD 28,014); mean amount of contents damage £10,187 (SD 10,002); the mean total damage £38,390 (SD 36,988), though damages ranged from £100 to £198,000 (Fig. 5.4).

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 5.4: Amount of buildings damage (a); amount of contents damage (b); and total amount of damages (c) experienced by respondents due to the flood

22 When asked what would be the minimum amount that would compensate the household for all flood damages, a mean compensation of £35,318 (n=77; SD 50,634) was stated by respondents. In rating the seriousness of physical losses/damages incurred, respondents rated damage to household goods and furniture most highly (mean 7.92, SD 3.18), followed by the losses of/damage to the house value (mean 7.02, SD 3.39) and personal items (mean 6.72, SD 3.72), and damages to the building structure (mean 5.96, SD 3.54). There were only 29 households with school-going children in the sample and 10 of these (35%) said that their children’s school activities had been affected by the flood. A mere 7% of respondents said that a household member’s occupation had been affected by the flood. Of these 16 households, 74% said their occupation had recovered to a high or very high extent by the time of the interview (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4: Extent of Effect of Flood on Household Member’s Occupation Frequency Percent Extent to which main occupation was affected by the flood (n=15) Not at all 2 13.3 To a low extent 3 20.0 To some extent 5 33.3 To a high extent 3 20.0 To a very high extent 2 13.3 Extent to which main occupation recovered from the flood (n=14) Not at all 2 14.3 To some extent 3 21.4 To a high extent 3 21.4 To a very high extent 6 42.9

The majority of respondents (69%) reported that the flood had not affected their economic position; a minority (2%) said that their economic position had improved, while 19% said their economic position got worse due to the flood (Fig. 5.5). Only 1 respondent reported an income change caused by the flood.

Figure 5.5: Extent to which the flood affected the economic position of respondents

Flood Impacts – Health The health impacts of the flood event were moderate. Just over a quarter of respondents reported someone in their household becoming sick due to the flood, mainly the respondent (77% of cases) or their partner (16%). Most of these illnesses were stress-related (about 75% of cases when excluding ‘other’ category), and overall respondents reported 133 separate incidents of illness (Table 5.5).

Table 5.5: Reported incidences and types of illnesses (n=133) Frequency Percent Fever 1 0.8 Diarrhoea 3 2.3 Acute respiratory tract infection (pneumonia, bronchitis) 2 1.5 Skin infection 2 1.5 Cancer 3 2.3 Heart problems/angina 3 2.3 Infectious disease (including cold/flu), specify 1 0.8 Feeling depressed 29 21.8 Feeling anxious 28 21.1 Persistently stressed/stressed to an unusual extent 19 14.3 Insomnia 9 6.8 High blood pressure 4 3 Other5 19 14.3

5 including losing weight; increased alcohol consumption; urinary infections; cold; cough; ME; MRSA; shingles; emotional; becoming difficult/aggressive, and withdrawal

Five people (2%) of the sample were physically injured; injuries included lacerations/contusions, cuts, multiple injuries and an injured back, which were caused by being hit by debris/objects, getting out of a window and barbed wire. Five people also reported that somebody in their household had died because of the flood; in three cases the partner of the respondent, in two the son/daughter of the respondent. All deaths occurred more than one month after the flood event in a hospital or health care centre. Causes of death were given as pneumonia (2 cases), heart attack (1 case), long illness (1 case), and blood poisoning (1 case).

Flood Impacts – Social Most respondents stated that their contacts with other people and personal relationships had not been affected by the flood, but for some people the flood had an effect on their social relations (Table 5.6). Of the people claiming that they had more contact with other people due to the flood 16% were female and 9% male, whereas the other categories are more balanced in terms of proportions of men and women. For 11% of respondents the flood had a high impact on their personal relationships both positively and negatively in terms of increased family support and increased family arguments respectively.

Table 5.6: Flood impacts on contacts with other people and personal relationships (n=236) Frequency Percent Changes in contacts with other people I have had more contact with other people 32 13.6 I have had less contact with other people 5 2.1 I have had contact with different people 7 3.0 No change 192 81.4 Extent to which personal relationships were affected by the flood Not at all 187 79.2 To a low extent 5 2.1 To some extent 18 7.6 To a high extent 16 6.8 To a very high extent 10 4.2

The stress of having to leave home and the disruption to daily home and work life were rated as more serious than the stress of the flood event itself; loss of or distress to pets was rated the least serious flood impact; while problems and discomfort whilst trying to get the house back to normal, worry about flooding in the future and worry when it rains attained intermediate scores; problems dealing with insurers, effects on health and problems dealing with builders were rated less serious (Table 5.7).

25 Table 5.7: Seriousness of flood impacts and consequences as rated by respondents (scale 1-10) Impact n Mean (SD) Effect upon health 220 4.16 (3.19) Having to leave home 204 6.26 (3.52) Disruption to daily home and work life 211 6.24 (3.46) Worry about flooding in the future 226 5.33 (3.40) Problems and discomfort whilst trying to get house back to normal 200 6.12 (3.56) Stress of flood event 221 6.19 (3.38) Problems dealing with insurers/loss adjusters 170 4.53 (3.57) Problems dealing with builders 165 4.06 (3.32) Loss of or distress to pets 105 3.15 (3.13) Worry when it rains 223 4.94 (3.34)

Disaster Experience For 93% of respondents the 2008 flood was their first and only experience of a disaster and 85% rated it as ‘very severe’. 89% of respondents had been at home when the flood happened and 13% were separated from their family during the flood. 51% of women and 29% of men rated the flood as ‘extremely traumatic’ (Fig. 5.6) but 53% of people thought they could cope to a large degree (Fig. 5.7).

How traumatic was this experience for you at the time?

30 Males Females 20 % of sample

0 Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

Figure 5.6: Replies to question “How traumatic was this experience for you at the time?” by gender

26 To what degree did you believe that you were able to deal with the situation?

30 Males Females 20 % of sample

0 Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

Figure 5.7: Replies to question “To what degree did you believe that you were able to deal with the situation?” by gender

16% of respondents stated that they had been in a life-threatening situation and 45% experienced intense anxiety, helplessness or disgust during the flood. 53% of respondents thought of themselves as victims of the flood to a considerable extent with little difference between men and women (Fig. 5.8).

To what extent do you think of yourself as a victim of the flood?

25 Males 20 Females 15

% of sample 10 5 0 Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

Figure 5.8: Replies to question “To what extent do you think of yourself as a victim of the flood?” by gender

Warnings 48% of respondents had received a flood warning. 89% received the warning before the flood and 11% received it during the flood; 36% of those warned acted on the warning. Most of the households who had received a warning were warned by the Environment Agency (81%).

27 The mean time that elapsed between receiving the warning and water entering the home was 3.4 hours (SD 3.1), with a minimum of three minutes and a maximum of 15 hours. In most cases (94%) the message was clear and in 72% the warning also included information on the action that should be taken.

Displacement 81% of the sample (192 households) had been displaced due to the flood and 318 of the 407 household members (78%) moved out of their homes for varying lengths of time. 98% of displaced people moved out temporarily while the remainder moved permanently. The mean period of displacement was 156 days (SD 132) with a minimum of one day and a maximum of 391 days, and two households were still displaced at the time of the interview. The most frequently used type of shelter was staying with relatives or friends in the same town, followed by staying with relatives or friends in another town/city and staying in rented accommodation (Table 5.8).

Table 5.8: Types of Shelter used by Displaced Households after Morpeth Flood (n=192) Type of Shelter after displacement Frequency Percent Relatives/friends in the same town/city 67 34.9 Relatives friends in another town/city 36 18.8 Temporary shelter from relief agencies 7 3.6 Temporary shelter from government 14 7.3 Hotel / B&B 10 5.2 Caravan or other mobile/temporary structure 4 2.1 Rented accommodation 32 16.7 Second property/holiday home 2 1.0 Upstairs of property only 2 1.0 Other 18 9.4

Respondents reported an average change in their monthly household expenditure of £204 for the displacement period (SD 216) – with 43% saying their expenditure had increased, while 8% stated it had decreased and 49% reporting no change to their expenditure.

Coping & Coping Strategies 59% of respondents sought help after the flood, many from family and friends. For many, their friends, family and neighbours were a major source of support and continue to be so. The Red Cross and Lions Club, both NGOs, are also often mentioned as sources of support.

28 Even though respondents experienced the flood as extremely traumatic, they felt that they could deal with the situation to quite a high degree, although individual coping was passive in many respondents and mean scores for different coping mechanisms are relatively low overall (Table 5.9). Social support was the most important coping mechanism, while religion was the least important coping strategy.

Table 5.9: Primary and secondary appraisal of disaster and individual coping (scale 1-56) n Mean Score (SD) Primary appraisal: How traumatic was this experience 236 3.81 (1.32) for you at the time? Secondary appraisal: To what degree did you believe 236 3.48 (1.30) that you were able to deal with the situation? Individual coping Avoidance: How much did you do things to take your 235 2.07 (1.27) mind of the flood? Reappraisal: How much did you try to think about 236 1.98 (1.23) the flood in a different way, so that it would not upset you so much? Religion: How much did you rely on your religious 234 1.44 (1.00) beliefs to help you deal with the flood situation? Active cognitive: How much did you try to think 234 2.19 (1.33) about possible ways to improve the situation after the flood? Active behavioural: How much did you do things to 235 2.22 (1.34) improve your situation after the flood? Social support: Did you talk to anyone about the flood 230 2.49 (1.34) experience?

63% of respondents received material and/or financial support after the flood from varying sources; in total 253 separate incidences of support were reported. 46% of respondent households received financial support and 23% received material support after the flood. Mean financial support received was £5,879 (SD 14,622), but this includes large insurance payments to a smaller number of respondents. 53% of respondents reported receiving financial assistance of £100, which was the general amount paid out by the flood fund to flood-affected households. (Fig. 5.9)

6 scale used: 1=not at all; 2=a little; 3=moderately; 4=quite a bit; 5=extremely

Figure 5.9: Financial assistance received by respondents

The large number of small amounts paid out from the flood fund is also reflected in the sources of financial support reported by respondents; 29% state that they had received support from NGOs, 14% from private insurances; less important sources of financial support were religious organisations (1.3%), government (0.8%), friends (0.8%), relatives, neighbours and the private sector (0.4% each). Similarly, material support was mainly provided by NGOs, followed by family and friends and other, less important sources (Table 5.10).

Table 5.10: Sources of material support (n=236) Source Frequency Percent NGO 28 11.9 Government 1 .4 Bank/Private Insurance 3 1.3 Family/Close relative 17 7.2 Friends 3 1.3 Neighbours 3 1.3 No support received 181 76.7

30 In general, satisfaction with financial and material support received was high among respondents who benefited from these kinds of support (Fig. 5.10) and the level of satisfaction with the distribution of flood relief and recovery support in the town was also high (Fig. 5.11).

(a) (b)

Figure 5.10: Level of satisfaction with material (a) and financial (b) support

Figure 5.11: Level of satisfaction with disaster response and recovery support

A quarter of respondents thought that some people got more support because they belonged to a certain class or other group (Fig. 5.12), while 18% agreed that some people got more support because they had connections to powerful people (Fig. 5.13). Overall, however, more people disagreed with these statements and between 40 and 50% of respondents remained neutral.

Figure 5.12: Degree to which people agreed with statement “some people got more support because they belonged to a certain class or other group”

Figure 5.13: Degree to which people agreed with statement “People who had better connections with powerful people got more support” 32

Financial coping strategies included mainly the use of savings (39% of households) and increased use of credit cards (5%). No respondents sold assets and only 2 respondents (0.8%) took on extra work; 4 respondents (1.7%) took out a loan to cope with the financial pressures arising from the flood (mean amount £2,523; SD 3,669). 41% of respondents said they had changed their food pattern due to the flood, while 55% reported no changes. The respondents who had changed their food pattern reported a fairly wide range of different strategies in response to the flood, which reflect a response to disrupted routines by resorting to more convenient food provision rather than problems in obtaining food (Table 5.11).

Table 5.11: Food Pattern Changes due to Flood (n=224) Type of Food Pattern Change Frequency Percent Ate cheaper food 6 2.7 Ate less nutritious food 10 4.5 Ate more nutritious food 5 2.2 Ate different food than normal 19 8.5 Ate more erratically 6 2.7 Ate easier to prepare/less complicated meals 20 8.9 Ate more expensive food 4 1.8 Ate out more/had more takeaways 13 5.8 Ate less food 9 4.0 No change 124 55.4

Insurance Issues Most people were insured at the time the flood occurred but 15% of respondents had had neither contents nor buildings insurance; changes to this pattern after the flood were minimal (Table 5.12).

Table 5.12: Insurance status of Morpeth sample at the time of and after the flood (n=236) Frequency Percent Insurance status at the time of the flood Contents insurance only 56 23.7 Buildings insurance only 5 2.1 Both 139 58.9 None 36 15.3 Insurance status after the flood Contents insurance only 55 23.3 Buildings insurance only 4 1.7 Both 140 59.3 None 37 15.7

33 There were some slight changes to the insurance cover of people after they had experienced the flood (Fig. 5.14).

Both before, contents only after the flood Figure 5.14: Changes to insurance Cover of Sample Buildings before, both after before and after the Flood

None before, buildings after the flood

None before, contents after the flood

None before and after the flood

Buildings only before and after the flood

Contents only before and after the flood

Both contents and buildings before and after the flood

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

As Figure 5.14 illustrates, about 3% of people who had not been insured at the time of the flood took out insurance cover afterwards but 12% of respondent households were not covered by any insurance both before and after the flood. The proportion of people who had contents insurance only before and after the flood includes 64% of people in rented accommodation, which implies that in these cases buildings insurance is often provided by the landlord. Further observations on insurance issues after the flood are summarised in Table 5.13.

Table 5.13: Observations on insurance issues after the flood Increase in insurance premium after the flood Contents Insurance (n=187) Frequency Percent Yes 87 46.5 No 86 46.0 Buildings Insurance (n=136) Yes 56 41.2 No 75 55.1 Increase in excess after the flood Contents Insurance (n=178) Yes 44 24.7 No 124 69.7 Buildings Insurance (n=131) Yes 33 25.2 No 92 70.2

34 Whether respondents increased insurance cover after the flood Contents Insurance (n=169) Yes 8 4.7 No 160 94.7 Buildings Insurance (n=132) Yes 10 7.6 No 118 89.4

25% of respondents who received an insurance or other payout (n=131), e.g. from the flood fund, stated that the money they had received had not covered the full amount of damage with an average shortfall of £9,870 (SD 15,221). The mean annual insurance premium for buildings insurance respondents currently pay is £293 (n=48; SD 283); for contents insurance it is £213 (n=75; SD 149). Many respondents (n=61) pay combined contents and buildings insurance with an average annual premium of £541 (SD 436).

Willingness to Pay for a Flood Defence Scheme 41% of respondents would be willing to pay towards a flood defence scheme implemented through increased earmarked taxation to avoid the physical damage to their home and its contents; 39% of respondents would be willing to contribute to such a scheme to avoid the stress and hassle that flooding can cause. The mean maximum amount respondents would be willing to contribute to a flood defence scheme is £99 (n=81; SD 196). Respondents give a variety of reasons why they would be willing to contribute or why they would not pay towards a flood defence scheme (Table 5.14).

Table 5.14: Main reason for willingness to contribute/not contribute to a flood defence scheme Frequency Percent Main reason for willingness to contribute (n=79) To avoid the stress of flooding 15 19.0 To avoid impacts on physical health 5 6.3 To avoid loss of irreplaceable items 2 2.5 To avoid damage to my home and its contents 10 12.7 To avoid property losing its value 4 5.1 To avoid impacts on pets 1 1.3 To avoid impacts on other people in the area 3 3.8 To avoid this ever happening again 20 25.3 It is a good cause 2 2.5 So people don’t worry when it rains 1 1.3 To ensure maintenance of water infrastructure 12 15.2

35 Other 4 5.1 Main reason for non-willingness to contribute (n=119) I cannot afford to pay 43 36.1 Other things are more important than avoiding floods 3 2.5 The government or council should pay for this 24 20.2 I do not believe flood defence will be improved 4 3.4 I do not believe flood defence measures will avoid flooding 2 1.7 I do not believe I am at risk of being flooded 3 2.5 I object to paying higher taxes 1 .8 Water companies or industry should pay for this 5 4.2 Uninsured people would benefit 1 .8 I don’t own the property I live in 1 .8 I’m already paying insurance for protection 11 9.2 I don’t believe the money would be spent appropriately 8 6.7 Other 13 10.9

6. Data Analysis and Discussion

As mentioned above, in-depth statistical analysis of the data is still in the early stages. Data will be investigated and analysed particularly with view to answering the SWG research questions: 1. What are the social impacts of floods on individual households and communities, and representatives of individual social groups (e.g. women, children, frail elderly, widows, etc.) within households and communities? 2. What factors make people vulnerable and how can these be reduced? Why are some people more vulnerable than others? (Age, gender, education level, class, ethnicity, and other socio-demographic, socio-economic, socio-cultural, and socio-political factors) 3. What are the socio-economic impacts (ethnicity, gender and other social variables in intersection with economic variables) of floods? 4. What are the psychosocial impacts (somatic complaints, depression, anxiety, PTSD, adjustment disorder, alcohol use) of disasters on individuals? Is the severity of these impacts linked to social factors and/or social capital, and can certain social factors (or combinations of social factors) reduce psychosocial impacts (and thus vulnerability)? 5. What are the impacts of floods on social structure and how do socio-structural factors decrease vulnerability or build resilience? (E.g. household structure/dynamics, family size, etc.) 6. What are the impacts of floods on social welfare and what is its potential for vulnerability reduction and resilience building (vulnerable groups, social services, housing, education, mental and physical health)?

36 7. What are the impacts of floods on social capital and what is its role in vulnerability reduction or resilience building? (E.g. social support, cohesion, community participation, networks, trust, etc.) At the present stage of analysis, there are indications of differences in flood experience and flood impacts between respondents who had received a warning (n=112) and respondents who had not received a warning (n=124). These relationships will need further systematic analyses to determine whether any of them are statistically significant. The UK team is very interested in exploring this further and also in comparing the differences in disaster impacts and experience between these groups to other MICRODIS survey country data. The data will also be investigated further with view to the findings from Tewkesbury on the differential mental health outcomes for and coping strategies used by men and women and the link between coping strategies and mental health outcomes. Women rated the extent of trauma of the flood event more highly than men (cf. Fig. 5.6) and this may indicate similarities to the Tewkesbury findings. It would be a valuable confirmation of the Tewkesbury findings if similar observations can be made in Morpeth.

37 References

Audit Commission (2006) Report Cultural Services Castle Morpeth Borough Council [online] http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/BVIR.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH^576^LOCAL- VIEW^AUTHORITIES^101582&ProdID=51302D91-F6F6-4945-AAFD- 16954840AE63&SectionID=sect2# accessed: 19.04.2009 Environment Agency (2007) 2007 Summer Floods – Case study: reducing the pressure on Sheffield’s floodplain Environment Agency, Bristol Environment Agency (2005) Wansbeck and Blyth Catchment Flood Management Plan Environment Agency, Bristol Environment Agency (2009) Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk [online] http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0609BQDS-E-E.pdf accessed: 26.01.2010 Guha-Sapir G., Hargitt G., Hoyois P. (2004) 30 Years of Natural Disasters 1974-2003: the numbers Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels JBA Consulting (2008) Flooding in Castle Morpeth 6 & 7 September 2008: Independent Review Draft Report, JBA Consulting, Northampton Office for National Statistics (2009) Regional Gross Disposable Household Income Office for National Statistics, Newport Pitt, Sir Michael (2008) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods Cabinet Office [online] http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/floodin g_review/pitt_review_full%20pdf.pdf accessed: 30.06.2008 PPS: Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk HMSO, Norwich Pusch C. (2004) Preventable Losses: Saving Lives and Property Through Hazard Risk Management: A Comprehensive Risk Management Framework for Europe and Central Asia, Working Paper Series No 9, World Bank Hazard Management Unit, The World Bank, Washington D.C. Rodriguez J., Vos F., Below R., Guha-Sapir D. (2009) Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2008: The Numbers and Trends Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels Stuart-Menteth A. (2007) UK Summer 2007 Floods Risk Management Solutions Ltd., London Tapsell S.M., Penning-Rowsell E.C., Tunstall S.M., Wilson T.L. (2002) Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A 360: 1511-1525 Twigg J. (2004) Disaster risk reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming Good Practice Review No 9, Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute, London Twigg J. (2007) Characteristics of disaster-resilient communities: a guidance note DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group {online] http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_i ndicators_index.htm accessed: 20.09.2008 UN/ISDR (United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2004) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives [online] http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/bd-lwr-2004-eng.htm accessed: 30.11.2008 Werrity A., Houston D., Ball T., Tavendale A., Black A. (2007) Exploring the Social Impacts of Flood Risk and Flooding in Scotland, University of Dundee, School of Social Sciences – Geography, Dundee 2001 census data available online: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp accessed: 19.04.2009