The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SEVEN DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 This chapter draws together the findings from the household survey ( Chapter Four), the focus group discussions ( Chapter Five) and the interviews with key institutional stakeholders ( Chapter Six). In this chapter we discuss earlier findings on flood impacts (objective 1), examine "what works" in terms of living with floods (objective 2) and make recommendations for improved delivery of flood risk management. In each of the section on "what works" we pose and answer questions relating to (i) warnings and dissemination, (ii) emergency planning and temporary flood alleviation, and (iii) ownership of managing flood risk.

Impacts of flooding

7.2 The most important single finding in terms of flood impacts is that intangible impacts register markedly higher values than tangible impacts, and immediate intangible impacts are generally higher than lasting intangible impacts (para 4.22 and Appendix B; Table 24). This is a striking result with far-ranging policy implications, especially for the method by which project appraisal is undertaken for proposed flood alleviation schemes in Scotland (see recommendation 15, para 7.39). The rank order of the individual impacts which make up tangible and intangible impacts are broadly similar to those reported by RPA (2005) although our typology is more detailed.

7.3 Time to return to normal, and discomfort/inconvenience were the two most severe individual impacts (para 4.20) and this was mirrored in the focus groups where disruption to normal life (often over more than six months) was clearly seen as a major impact (paras 5.12-5.15). The stress of the flood itself and future worry about flooding were other intangible impacts, far more severely felt by low income households (para 4.30). Social tenants also have higher impact scores than owner occupiers and may have a lower resilience in coping with floods. As in the RPA (2005) study, health impacts did not score highly in the household survey ( Appendix B; Table 24), but they did register strongly in the focus groups, especially for the elderly and those already ill (paras 5.18-5.20). These results are broadly in agreement with more detailed studies on health impacts undertaken by Tapsell et al. (2001) following the 2000 floods in England.

7.4 The loss of irreplaceable and sentimental items does not score so highly as other impacts in the household survey (Appendix B; Table 35 reflecting the findings of RPA, 2005), nevertheless, comments in the focus groups revealed intense personal losses in the form of valued photographs, treasured heirlooms and irreplaceable memorabilia (para 5.21). These narratives are amongst the most poignant of those reported from the focus groups. Some losses are absolute, impossible to value in monetary terms and leave a deep and lasting impact.

7.5 As in previous studies it is difficult to specify the longer-term impacts on communities. Some anecdotal evidence exists of enhanced cohesion in the focus group discussions (para 5.22) but this is countered by scepticism over the longer term and claims that emergency assistance was not allocated equitably (para 5.23). Fordham and Ketteridge (1995) reported similar findings from communities in Perth and Strathclyde flooded in 1993 and 1994. Trends in property prices are likewise ambiguous (cf Yeo 2003) with reduced values reported immediately after the flood not necessarily sustained in the longer-term (para 5.2).

Living with flood risk

7.6 The above findings endorse the Foresight project's conclusion that social costs are likely to be the key driver in flood risk management in the 21 ^st century (Evans et al., 2004). Enhancing social resilience is already included as one of the objectives of sustainable flood management in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004; Werritty, 2006) and the conceptual framework for delivering this objective has already been sketched out by many in terms of vulnerability, coping capacity and adaptation (eg Wisner et al., 2004). But operationalising these concepts for Scotland and promoting social resilience remains a major challenge requiring much more detailed research on the location and needs of communities at risk of being flooded.

7.7 In promoting social resilience, the IFRC (2002) recommended emergency planning actions provide a useful checklist:

• risk and vulnerability mapping
• disaster awareness and education
• early warning and evacuation
• stockpiling of relief materials
• training in response skills
• planning at all levels to ensure co-ordination of the disaster response.

SEPA's Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) published in 2006 provides a map of flood risk, but vulnerability mapping (likely to be required under the EU Flooding Directive) remains to be done. Research on characterising and mapping vulnerable communities is well-advanced in England ( DEFRA, 2006, Fielding and Burningham, 2005) and these methods should be appraised and customised for use in Scotland (see recommendation 13, para 7.39). SEPA and local authorities already provide flood warnings for communities covered by Floodline (para 6.5), have robust and well-tested evacuation procedures (paras 6.44-6.47) and well co-ordinated planning for disaster response (paras 6.14 and 6.15). But raising disaster awareness and education remains an under-performing area which needs enhanced effort and targeting of communities most at risk (recommendation 3, para 7.39).

7.8 Previous studies in the UK have found some evidence that more vulnerable groups are exposed to higher levels of flood risk than the population at large. However, this is a qualified finding as the results are not consistent across spatial scales (Fielding and Burningham, 2005) or types of flood risk (Walker et al., 2006) and methods for spatial aggregation are not standardised. In our study socio-demographic profiling failed to find any strong evidence of social segregation in terms of flood risk at the level of Census Output Areas. In particular, the proportion of social tenants in flood risk areas was the same as that for urban Scotland as a whole (para 3.10). However, further research is needed to check whether this finding masks social segregation at other scales.

7.9 Flood warning systems in the UK have generally been commended in the international literature (eg Handmer, 2002). But enhanced provision will need more community engagement, the effective delivery of appropriate advice on what to do following warning and identification of high risk groups to ensure they receive appropriate advice. In reviewing existing practice from around the world Glantz (2003) recommends managers to:

• educate and remind, especially between hazard episodes, bearing in mind the inherent public tendency to discount the past
• time warnings correctly
• involve stakeholders as early as possible in the development and review of a warning system
• identify what it is that makes societies more or less vulnerable and more or less resilient.

Some of these actions are already being implemented in Scotland: timing warnings and educating and reminding those at risk. But maintaining a high level of awareness between floods remains a challenge (para 7.23) as does identifying contrasting levels of social resilience and vulnerability.

7.10 Many studies have reported that warnings are most effective when there is strong community engagement in dissemination (eg Key, 1991) but obtaining and sustaining such engagement is costly and onerous (para 6.35). Much depends on the level of trust developed between the community group and local authority (Parker, 2000).

7.11 An unexpected finding from the household survey was that receiving a warning increases confidence in getting sufficient warning next time, but this is lessened by the actual experience of being flooded (para 4.48). Since having being previously warned also results in greater confidence in what to do next time (para 4.49), the effectiveness of a warning largely depends on the time it provides to take appropriate action. Campaigns designed to raise flood awareness should thus enhance confidence in flood warnings and knowing what effective actions can be taken in the time and with the assistance available.

7.12 Another important focus for raising flood awareness is in the relative efficacy of contrasting approaches for managing flood risk and the allocation of responsibilities for flood protection. At present public awareness in both these areas is singularly ill-informed (paras 4.51 and 4.52). If non-structural flood defences and greater reliance on 'soft engineering' are to be major components of sustainable flood management (Scottish Executive, 2004), the public needs to be more aware of the implications of these changes in managing flood risk (recommendation 12, para 7.39).

7.13 The relatively low score for financial loss as a flood impact points to the role of the insurance industry in mediating such losses (Table 4.6). Given the relatively high levels of building and, to a lesser extent, contents insurance, most of the financial costs of flooding are under-written by the insurance and re-insurance markets. However, this situation looks set to change with rapidly increasing claims and higher premiums and excesses placed on existing and new customers (para 6.62). At present around 25% of social tenants are not covered by contents insurance (para 4.43). More vigorous promotion of 'pay with rent' schemes may help reduce this number, but affordability and the availability of cover may reduce further take up. Given the likelihood of increased flood risk under climate change (Werritty, 2007) and the potential withdrawal of insurance cover for high risk locations (para 6.62), the prediction that social impacts will be the key driver in managing future flooding (Evans et al., 2004) looks increasingly robust.

What works in terms of living with floods?

7.14 Key questions arising from our analysis of the social aspects of warning provision, warning dissemination and effective responses are:

1. How could SEPA best extend the utility of its existing flood warning service?

7.15 SEPA's Floodline was ranked fifth amongst the preferred means of receiving flood warnings and only 8.1% of respondents to the household survey had used it to receive a warning ( Appendix B, Table 14). Overall, approximately a third of those who had been flooded and a fifth of those in flood risk areas now use Floodline as an information source and report high levels of satisfaction, but this leaves a significant majority of those at risk unaware of the service. Accordingly, raising flood awareness via focused campaigns, especially in high risk areas as depicted on the new flood risk maps, should remain a top priority for SEPA and be resourced appropriately.

2. How are warnings most effectively delivered to at-risk householders?

7.16 The most popular delivery of flood warnings is via an official knocking at the door ( Appendix B Table 14). Whilst this may not always be logistically possible, such direct action is valued as a stimulus to taking preventative action. Other favoured methods of delivery include announcements via radio and television, loud hailers and phone calls. The use of Automatic Voice Messaging ( AVM) has proved locally effective in Moray and the Scottish Borders and may be a suitable for disseminating warnings to other dispersed rural communities. In large urban areas dissemination by local officials and broadcast media are the most favoured means of delivery.

3. What are the barriers to effective response in the event of a timely flood warning, and what can be done to address them?

7.17 Given that 88% of flooded respondents were at home when the flood occurred, such warnings clearly reach most individuals. However provision must also be explored for those not at home (12% in our survey) and care taken to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals receive a warning. AVM might assist in reaching the former and an official knocking at the door is desirable for the latter. Once a warning has been received, preventative action to reduce losses generally follows. But such action needs to be qualified by a lack of confidence in the receipt of sufficiently timely warnings in the future.

7.18 Noting that only 42% of those flooded between 1993 and 2005 received any kind of warning, the overall utility of a flood warning service can be maximised by relevant local authorities:

• expanding awareness via publicity campaigns (in partnership with SEPA and where appropriate Scottish Water);
• increasing awareness of Floodline and how warnings are locally delivered;
• engaging community resources to assist in disseminating warnings; and
• making sure those living in flood risk areas are aware of appropriate actions to take on receiving a warning.

Pamphlets updated each two years, possibly in conjunction with the local authority Biennial Reports to the Scottish Executive, could provide a suitable framework for raising awareness.

4. What problems are associated with AVM dissemination, and how could these be overcome?

7.19 Current impediments in deploying AVM include generating a critical mass of registered users within a given community and, when successful, technical constraints in disseminating very large numbers of individual warnings within a fixed time interval. Registering initial users, and maintaining and updating the database, require dedicated personnel, possibly linked to raising flood awareness campaigns. The capacity constraint which inhibits the use of AVM in large urban areas will probably be overcome by technical advances.

5. To what extent is the lack of a national flood warning coverage a problem, and what are potential ways of dealing with this?

7.20 The lack of national flood warning coverage is a problem. Those parts of Scotland which have yet to be covered by Floodline's recognised Flood Warning Schemes are served by Flood Watch. This service which provides a general early alert for possible flooding is not coupled with regional emergency planning arrangements. Areas with significant populations at risk and not currently covered by recognised flood warning schemes include the upper Forth Estuary and parts of Aberdeenshire. Emergency plans exist for the communities on the Rivers Dee and Don but not for Stirling and Grangemouth. Given the large number of households at risk, all four areas should be prioritised as new flood warning schemes are implemented.

7.21 The lower Clyde estuary is the only area currently covered by a coastal flood warning scheme which uses predicted storm surge levels provided by the Met Office. However, SEPA is developing a new service within Flood Watch for selected coastal communities in partnership with the relevant local authorities.

Emergency planning and temporary flood alleviation

7.22 Key questions arising from our analysis of the social aspects of emergency planning and temporary flood alleviation are:

6. What is the role of sandbags in providing temporary flood defence?

7.23 Sandbags are widely used to provide temporary flood defence, but their deployment varies across local authorities. Glasgow City Council makes pro-active use of sandbags which are distributed each winter should flooding occur on the White Cart. Other local authorities deploy sandbags reactively once river levels are rising as this provides maximum flexibility in targeting material and human resources as directed by the emergency co-ordination centre. Some authorities provide depots and materials for the public to fill sandbags, an arrangement which works better if a community contact is on hand to assist. However, in line with SEPA's guidance to households at risk, a more favoured strategy is for sandbags to be strategically deployed by council staff, leaving householders to fill and mount their own defences.

7. What is the role of other temporary flood defences?

7.24 The use of temporary and demountable flood defences is growing. The Perth flood alleviation scheme has 84 gates activated by council staff with advice from SEPA's local flood warning scheme. Other local authorities use flood dams to provide strategic defences for groups of properties.

7.25 However, the household survey and focus groups reported high levels of dissatisfaction with local authority provision of temporary defences. This may reflect the inevitable partial view of any given emergency as viewed by individual households during the event. Post-flood contact by council staff explaining the deployment of temporary defences can reverse this and enhance satisfaction levels.

8. How can local residents help in flood protection and emergency management?

7.26 Engaging local residents in disseminating warnings and assisting in deploying sandbags offers the possibility of community-based assistance. But success in mobilising these community resources thus far has been limited. Given the general reluctance to accept personal responsibility for flood defence, such a lack of community engagement is not unexpected. Indeed as local authorities reach out to propose self-help, the community often takes a step back on the assumption that the local authority is accepting responsible for flood alleviation. Also, the longer the interval since the last flood, the greater is the likelihood of such dis-engagement. Mobilising community resources to assist in disseminating warnings and rendering emergency assistance thus remains a major challenge.

9. How effective have emergency evacuation plans been when put to the test?

7.27 No adverse comments were reported in the focus groups implying that emergency evacuation procedures generally worked well. Although only 4% of those evacuated used the rest centres provided by local authorities, a high proportion is likely to have been the eldery or infirm. The generally high levels of satisfaction with the emergency services may, however, mask concerns as to how the most vulnerable evacuees were handled. Sharing best practice in this area across all the regional co-ordination centres should be a priority.

10. To what extent do local authorities need to have post-flood plans?

7.28 Staying with family or friends or in private rented accommodation accounted for around two thirds of housing needs following a flood. Nevertheless, because the numbers to be re-housed varied markedly from flood to flood, local authorities still faced a challenge in rehousing evacuees. Delays were reported in the focus groups pointing to the need for greater co-ordination between local authorities and the diverse providers of rented public housing. Concern was also voiced over the security of premises once vacated, with burglary being a major problem. Securing properties after a flood would ease some of the longer lasting intangible impacts.

Ownership of flood risk management

7.29 Questions arising from our analysis of the ownership of flood risk management are:

11. What can be done to reduce the impact of flooding in urban areas some of which lie outside SEPA's 1 in 200 year flood risk areas?

7.30 In the short term Scottish Water have undertaken remedial measures to reduce flood risk in those urban areas prone to surcharging sewers. Local authorities also have a duty to maintain urban watercourses free of obstructions. Routine checking and cleaning of screens and culverts by the most pro-active local authorities substantially reduces this flood risk. The Biennial Reports to the Scottish Executive provide a public record of local authority actions to reduce urban flood risk and these could be combined with pamphlets outlining what can done by householders at risk to reduce impacts before and at the onset of a flood.

7.31 In the longer term, major infrastructure renewal (eg the Glasgow Strategic Drainage Plan and Refrewshire's promotion of Sustainable Urban Drainage) will significantly reduce the impact of pluvial flooding. But such schemes have along lead-in times, require successful partnerships involving Scottish Water, local authorities, SEPA and developers and require significant capital inputs to re-design existing drainage systems.

12. How effective have public bodes been in raising awareness on the allocation of statutory duties for flood risk management?

7.32 Only 23% of householders in our survey recognised that the main responsibility for flood defence lay with themselves as owners or their landlords. Many felt that the main responsibility should lie with their local authority or the Scottish Executive. When asked why they had not undertaken any measures to protect their property, nearly 40% of householders regarded this as a local or central government duty. Public bodies clearly have a major educational task ahead in addressing these widely held misconceptions.

13. What is the role of public consultation in planning flood alleviation schemes?

7.33 Some local authorities that had involved the public in the early stages of planning a flood alleviation scheme reported very positive outcomes. Informal consultation removed many of the objections which can seriously delay progress in bringing forward a scheme. Addressing local concerns early in the process also promoted higher levels of community engagement. However, several focus group members reported very negative experiences with the community being alienated rather than engaged by engineering consultants acting on behalf of the local authority.

14. Which forms of flood defence are most favoured by the public? How might this influence local authorities' approach to flood alleviation?

7.34 Traditional forms of flood defence (involving embankments, upstream reservoirs and flood warnings) are the most favoured forms of flood alleviation. Sustainable urban drainage and paying farmers for upstream storage (increasing water storage within the soil or in valley floor wetlands) also scored highly. Demolition with compensation or re-location of residents at risk was favoured by a significant minority of responses in the household survey. The public appears to accept a multi-faceted approach to flood alleviation, but lacks understanding on how more sustainable approaches to flood risk management might work. This is another area where local authorities and SEPA need to raise awareness.

15. How appropriate are current Scottish Executive procedures in providing grants for local authority flood alleviation schemes?

7.35 At present local authorities and their consultants use standard cost-benefit methods based on the Treasury Green Book and the 'multi-coloured handbook' produced by Middlesex University's Flood Hazard Research Centre (Penning-Rowsell, et al., 2003). These permit the inclusion of some information on social costs to pre-set economic values and generally provide a robust framework for deriving cost-benefit ratios. But some local authorities have urged that more weight be given to social costs, especially where small numbers of vulnerable households fail to reach the required economic value of assets to be protected by the proposed scheme. This report re-enforces this proposal that, in cost benefit ratios, more weight be given to intangible impacts disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable members of society.

16. How does the insurance industry assist householders manage the risk of being flooded?

7.36 Overall market penetration for contents insurance exceeds 90% but this reduces to around 75% for social tenants. 'Pay with rent' schemes should be promoted with greater vigour by local authorities and the Scottish Executive for the 25% or so of uninsured social tenants. For those with insurance, the way claims are processed after a flood is generally viewed positively. But having been flooded, premiums can rise dramatically and be coupled with five figure excesses. For households on modest incomes, this will increase anxiety about future flooding.

7.37 Insurance companies are increasingly reluctant to provide cover for households in flood risk areas. Cover tends to be provided for existing customers (often with higher premiums and excesses) but this will not extend to new customers unless the risk is less than a 1 in 75 year flood or new defences are planned within the next five years.

17. Given the anticipated impacts of climate change, how is the insurance industry assisting in the overall reduction of flood risk?

7.38 In response to market forces, the insurance industry is reducing its exposure to projected losses from future climate change and flooding. Given this re-balancing of its portfolio, plus a reluctance to reduce premiums when flood proofing measures are introduced within the home, the industry's contribution to the overall reduction in flood risk could lessen in the short-term. However, in the longer term, working in partnership with local authority FLAGs, the industry could help implement SPP7 and ultimately constrain and reduce development within flood risk areas.

Recommendations

7.39 Given the above findings and drawing on the discussion, we make the following recommendations:

1. We recommend that relevant local authorities, in partnership with SEPA, mobilise communities in areas at risk of being flooded to assist in disseminating warnings and rendering emergency assistance and, where appropriate, to join council staff in installing temporary and/or demountable defences.

2. We commend to relevant local authorities current initiatives to provide Automatic Voice Messaging for communities at risk of being flooded, noting the rich pool of experience available should Automatic Voice Messaging be extended to other areas of Scotland.

3 We commend SEPA's current flood awareness campaigns and, given the recent publication of an Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map for Scotland, recommend that SEPA now targets communities with the highest risk of future flooding.

4. We commend to relevant local authorities SEPA's planned expansion of Flood Watch to coastal areas at risk of tidal/ storm surge flooding.

5. We recommend that, where practicable, flood warning schemes be extended to all communities at risk. When new schemes are appraised, the existing cost benefit appraisal process should be adapted to incorporate the intangible social impacts of flooding.

6. We recommend that all regional emergency planning bodies share experience to develop and implement best practice in evacuation procedures, especially by recognising the location and needs of the most vulnerable groups.

7. We recommend that relevant local authorities prioritise the preparation of a post-flood plan to provide counselling for traumatised flood victims, prompt re-housing of social tenants and the securing of damaged properties from criminal activity.

8. We recommend that relevant local authorities be encouraged to consult communities on their preferred options for flood alleviation schemes from the earliest stage, using informal approaches to individual households at risk and 'plain English' wherever possible.

9. We recommend that the Scottish Executive and relevant local authorities implement further measures to increase the take up of 'pay with rent' contents insurance, especially in high flood risk areas.

10. We commend those insurers who deliver timely, resilient and efficient repairs to buildings and household contents damaged by flooding and urge the ABI to promote this as best-practice across the industry. We recommend that insurers review the increased premiums and excesses charged to households following a flood, giving regard to the industry's contribution towards reducing the social impacts of floods.

11. We recommend that Scottish Water, relevant local authorities, developers and other stakeholders prioritise areas for implementing remedial measures to reduce the risk of pluvial flooding.

12. We recommend that further research be carried out into public attitudes to sustainable flood management, building on existing data and recent Scottish Executive consultations on sustainable urban drainage systems and sustainable flood management.

13. We recommend that further research be undertaken to identify the location of communities especially vulnerable to the impacts of flooding, and to recalibrate vulnerability indices developed elsewhere for use in Scotland.

14. We recommend that further research be undertaken on the immediate and long-term physical and mental health impacts of flooding in Scotland.

15. We recommend that the intangible social impacts of flooding as well as the potential environmental benefits, be incorporated to a greater degree in option appraisal guidance for relevant local authorities, alongside the standard cost-benefit approach.

16. We commend the use of FLAGs as an effective way of promoting sustainable flood management, and recommend they be deployed in all relevant local authorities.

17. We recommend a continued role for the Scottish Executive's Flooding Issues Advisory Committee as a means for facilitating on-going exchange between key institutional stakeholders and the promotion of sustainable flood management.

« Previous | Contents | Next »