« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This project assesses the impacts that recent floods in Scotland have had on people, their attitudes and behaviour and establishes 'what works' in relation to flood prevention programmes and flood warning and dissemination systems. It also identifies the consequences of living in a flood risk area for those with and without the experience of being flooded.
2. The report comprises a literature review ( Chapter Two) followed by an outline of the methods used to capture and analyse the data in selected locations across Scotland and an assessment of the socio-demographic profiles of flood risk areas when compared with Scotland as a whole ( Chapter Three). The main findings of the project are derived from a household survey in which flood impacts and attitudes to managing flood risk are assessed ( Chapter Four), a series of focus groups which add a 'human face' to the material on flood impacts and contrasting attitudes to managing flood risk ( Chapter Five) and interviews with key institutional stakeholders who manage flood risk both nationally and locally ( Chapter Six). The report ends with a discussion on these findings, a summary of 'what works' and a series of recommendations for future policy development and further research ( Chapter Seven).
Methods
3. Questionnaires were delivered by hand to 2,085 households in seven locations (Brechin, Edinburgh, Elgin, Forres, Glasgow-Shettleston, Hawick and Perth) and by post to 236 households in scattered rural and coastal communities. The respective response rates for hand-delivered and postal questionnaires were 1,154 (55.3%) and 69 (29.2%) respectively, giving an overall response rate of 52.7%. Within the 1,223 returned questionnaires, 633 were from households which had been flooded and 590 from households not flooded but located within areas that had been flooded over the period 1993-2005. Focus groups were conducted with respondents from the household survey at five locations. Structured interviews were conducted with senior staff from eleven institutional stakeholders drawn from local authorities, SEPA, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Water and the insurance industry. Socio-demographic profiling of the flood risk areas yielded a slight over-representation of single pensioner households and a slight under-representation of lone parents with children, but in other categories lower socio-economic groups were well-represented when compared with urban Scotland as a whole.
The experience of being flooded
4. In the surveyed locations, rivers overtopping their banks was the most common cause of flooding (85%) followed by surcharging sewers and overland flow ('pluvial flooding' - 10%) and coastal storms (5%). The flood waters were nearly always contaminated with mud and/or sewage.
5. Of the flooded households surveyed 42% received some kind of warning, one third of which provided more than 3 hours notice of the flood. The most common form of warning to those flooded was from neighbours (32%) and just over 51% of flooded households had received an official warning (official phoning or knocking on door, loud hailer or automatic telephone message). Approximately a third of those who had been flooded and a fifth of those living in flood risk areas now use SEPA's Floodline as an information source, but this leaves a significant majority of those at risk in the surveyed locations unaware of the service. Nearly 80% of those using the service found it "helpful or very helpful". Receiving a warning increased confidence in getting a sufficient warning next time, but this was lessened by the actual experience of being flooded. Direct methods of dissemination were strongly favoured, particularly officials knocking on the door, and media messages.
6. The most common immediate responses to a warning were to remove possessions from the ground floor, deploy sandbags or flood guards, move vehicles and vacate the property. Neighbours and friends provided most of the emergency assistance with local authority and Fire Service staff assisting around 20% of flooded households. Only 5% of those forced to leave their homes used an Evacuation Centre but 45% of households required temporary accommodation for 6 months or more. The main providers of temporary accommodation were friends and relatives (44%) and the public and private rental sector (52%).
7. Direct economic losses for households averaged around £32,000 for damage to buildings and around £13,500 for damage to contents. Around 10 days of time off work (paid and unpaid) was needed to deal with the immediate aftermath of being flooded.
Flood impacts
8. Respondents to the household survey were invited to rank 20 potential flood impacts and the outcomes coded on a four point scale: 0 - not applicable or no impact, 1 - mild, 2 - serious and 3 - extreme impact. When all 20 potential impacts were grouped into three classes and the scores aggregated, intangible impacts (relating to non-material and/or emotional losses) registered markedly higher values than tangible impacts (relating to material losses), and immediate impacts were generally higher than lasting impacts. Intangible immediate impacts (overall score of 1.81) included the stress of the flood itself, the anxiety of being out of one's home, the discomfort of living in temporary accommodation and the time and effort in dealing with insurers and builders to return home as soon as possible. Intangible lasting impacts (which focus on the time and effort to return to a normal life) were more sustained and included fear of future flooding, strains within the family itself and loss of sentimental/irreplaceable items. Collectively these scored 1.29 overall, lower than the intangible immediate impacts, but higher than the tangible impacts which scored 1.12 overall. One immediate consequence of these findings is that the cost-benefit analyses for flood alleviation schemes should consider including intangible social impacts.
9. Impacts on surveyed households were also examined in terms of respondents' take up of insurance, their occupational status, household income, housing tenure, whether a warning was received and the frequency and nature of the flood. Households with insurance registered higher stress levels, in part as a result of dealing with loss adjustors and builders whilst living in temporary accommodation. Households with an annual income of less than £20,000 also reported higher levels of stress and anxiety and more adverse health impacts. Tangible impacts were rated more highly for households with a skilled or semi-skilled highest earner compared to those with a professional or managerial highest earner. Pluvial floods with little or no warning and floods with high levels of sewage contamination generated higher tangible impacts and strikingly higher lasting intangible impacts. Greater flood depths markedly exacerbated the stress of the flood and disruption of living in temporary accommodation. Repeated flooding added to anxieties over future flooding and declining property values. Floods with the most severe impacts were those in Elgin (1997 and 2002) and Glasgow-Shettleston (2002).
Managing flood risk
10. In terms of living with the risk of flooding, nearly two thirds of those in the household survey who were flooded regard future flooding as "likely" or "very likely", but this reduces to around 40% for those not flooded. Most households gained their knowledge of flood risk from neighbours, friends or the local authority. The experience of being flooded does not improve householders' confidence in what to do in a future flood.
11. Contents insurance covered 91% of households living in flood risk areas, reducing to around 75% for social tenants. 84% of flooded households had contents insurance of which 37% were subsequently charged a higher excess. Knowledge of 'pay-with-rent' contents insurance is known about by 37% of council tenants and the take-up 13%. However, given that around 75% of social tenants who have been flooded now have contents insurance (with around 10% using 'pay with rent' schemes), further promotion of such schemes should address affordability and the reluctance of some insurers to provide cover. Over six in ten flooded households in the survey have some degree of flood proofing (removable flood guards or sand bags, sometimes provided by the local authority) and have moved irreplaceable items to a safe place.
12. When invited to state preferences for flood risk management by far the most popular measures were structural defences closely followed by a flood warning service and upstream storage in reservoirs. Payments to rural landowners to increase upstream storage of flood waters and demolition of the most threatened properties, with compensation or relocation of residents, attracted much lower levels of support. In terms of where protection from flooding should lie, respondents assigned the main responsibility to local authorities (58%) followed by the Scottish Executive (42%); SEPA, Scottish Water and home-owners or landlords all registering <20%. When asked where this responsibility actually lay, these shifted to local authorities (45%), home-owners or landlords (26%) and Scottish Executive (17%) with SEPA and Scottish Water registering <12%. It is striking that in neither set of answers did respondents register home-owners and landlords as primarily responsible for flood protection. When asked if they would be willing to pay additional council tax to fund flood protection the majority of respondents declined, but 10% of those who had been flooded would be willing to contribute at least an additional £100 per year. Willingness to pay was lower for households renting from local authorities or housing associations and higher for households with an income >£20,000 per year.
Personal accounts of being flooded
13. Findings from the household survey were further probed and elaborated by focus groups held in Elgin, Forres, Glasgow, Perth and Edinburgh. A more nuanced set of findings emerged privileging individual stories and revealing the human face of flooding with greater clarity.
14. In terms of tangible impacts most participants reported a downturn in the property market immediately after the flood and problems in recovering additional day-to-day expenses such as meals in hotels and restaurants. Most loss adjusters and insurance companies were prompt and efficient in agreeing and settling claims, but the settling of relatively minor sums was occasionally contentious. Extensive delays were claimed on behalf of some social tenants in being re-housed and returned to their original homes. Loss of no-claims bonuses and high flooding excesses became an unexpected issue for some participants.
15. The trauma of being flooded and its immediate aftermath was by far the most significant intangible impact reported in the focus groups, disproportionately felt by the elderly and most vulnerable. Anxiety and stress often peaked after the flood, when the scale of disruption became clearer and initial coping strategies dwindled. Physical and mental ill-health impacts also became more apparent, exacerbating existing chronic conditions. Dealing with building contractors and monitoring the timing and quality of repair work proved especially stressful. The loss of family photos and mementoes was particularly acute for the elderly for whom these items were amongst their most cherished possessions. Some participants reported how difficult it was to maintain family cohesion when children live in hotels or stay with grandparents and schooling suffers. Relationships within the family were also severely tested by living in temporary accommodation and simultaneously dealing with tradesman in short supply and checking on the quality of their work.
16. In terms of living with the continued risk of being flooded, the value of warnings was questioned by some participants in terms of what could be done to minimise personal losses, partly reflecting a lack of information. Risk perception is highly variable with floods attributed to 'acts of God', land management upstream and poor maintenance of urban water courses. Local risk assessment is variously based on a realistic understanding of structural defences and less robust anecdotal information on historic floods. Most focus group members acknowledged a degree of personal responsibility in dealing with floods but this was tempered with blame attached to local authorities for alleged failings both during and after floods.
Responses of senior flood risk stakeholders
17. Questions to senior flood risk stakeholders on flood warning and dissemination, raising flood awareness, emergency planning, the role of Flood Liaison Advice Groups ( FLAGs) and the role of insurance helped to characterise the roles of key institutional stakeholders.
18. Key flood risk management objectives for local authorities are (i) reducing flood risk to a manageable level where the risk is known, (ii) using the planning process to direct development away from flood risk areas, (iii) seamless co-ordination with the emergency services in providing temporary flood defences and evacuation of people at risk; and (iv) promoting flood alleviation schemes (where cost-benefit analysis permits) with public involvement in the procedures from the earliest stages.
19. SEPA's flood warning service covers the majority of communities at risk, but gaps still have to be filled, especially in Aberdeenshire and the upper Forth estuary. The extension of Flood Watch to cover coastal areas at risk will soon be implemented alongside a progressive expansion of inland warning schemes. Dissemination of warnings varies markedly across Scotland. In the Scottish Borders and Moray, local authority staff report Automated Voice Messaging highly effective in its contact rates for those registered. The police continue to disseminate warnings in the Highland Council area and parts of Perth & Kinross, but have withdrawn this service in other parts of Scotland. Since it is rarely possible to warn against pluvial flooding , Scottish Water is fitting non-return valves, sealing manhole covers and providing flood guards in selected high risk urban areas based on its Flooding Register. Several of the local authorities interviewed have sought to engage community groups in disseminating flood warnings and initiating emergency response, but the level of training required and the need to maintain this competency between floods is viewed as a challenge.
20. Raising flood awareness via information campaigns remains a priority with managers interviewed in both local authorities and SEPA acknowledging very limited public understanding of flood risk and where the statutory duties for flood defence actually lie. At present raising awareness largely rests on SEPA's locally focused campaigns and local authority Biennial Reports and Flood Liaison Advice Groups ( FLAGs) which bring together landowners, local authority engineers and planners, Scottish Water and the insurance companies.
21. National flood emergency management is based on eight regional co-ordinating bodies whose role has been strengthened following the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Local authority flood emergency plans include liaising with SEPA, pro-active distribution of sand bags (to both households and local authority staff), activating temporary defences and the deployment of council employees as local flood wardens. This 'nested' structure works well and has been commended by central government.
22. The Association of British Insurers' policy on flooding is to continue to provide cover for properties with a risk of flooding of less than 1 in 75 years. For a risk of more than 1 in 75 years, cover is available where improved flood defence is planned within 5 years. For properties which have been flooded new applications may be refused and existing policy-holders will see increased premiums and excesses. Flood proofing to reduce losses is encouraged but is not made a condition of obtaining cover.
« Previous | Contents | Next »