Servidor Honeywall

Section 3.2 also highlights the role of information availability in affecting flood risk communication and hence flood risk management. The following sections explore the sources of flood awareness and warning (section 5.4.1) of the respondents, their level of satisfaction about this information (section 5.4.2), what further information they sought to raise their awareness about flooding (section 5.4.3) and whether they had received any flood warnings in the past and what action they took on receiving flood warnings (section 5.4.4).

11, 2.2%

126, 25.0%

367, 72.8%

No answer

Yes

No

5.4.1 Sources of flood awareness and flood warning information

Figure 5.7 shows that weather forecasts on TV (53.9%) and weather forecasts on radio (32.5%) as well as news in newspapers, on radio and TV (35.8%) were major sources of flood awareness and flood warning information for the respondents. Interpersonal communication too played a noteworthy role as it can be observed that neighbours, local residents, friends and relatives had been identified as information sources by 42.2% respondents. 31.6% respondents identified local public meetings & exhibitions as their sources for flood awareness and flood warning information. It can also be noted here that the sources of information were not new media (for example a website) but traditional media (for example radio and television).

As noted earlier, SEPA acts as Scotland's flood risk communication authority (see section 2.5.1). It undertakes flood awareness raising and warning activities and also publishes flood risk related information on its website. However, from the responses shown in Figure 5.7, it can be observed that SEPA was identified as the source for flood awareness and flood warning information by only 13.9% to 14.9% of the respondents.

The above findings demonstrate a clear absence of ‘official information’ sources such as SEPA and the prevalence of traditional media like interpersonal communication, radio and television. This has significance for SEPA in indicating the need to publicise the agency further. It also indicates that SEPA’s use of media to reach the population at risk of flooding needs to be reviewed. This will be further discussed in sections 5.5 and 5.6.

Figure 5.7: Information sources for flood awareness and flood warning as identified by the postal survey respondents

5.4.2 Level of satisfaction about flood related information

There were two parts to this question: how easy the information was to understand and the availability of the information. A total of 30 respondents did not provide any answer to the first part of the question and a total of 62 respondents did not answer the second part of the question.

As can be observed from Figure 5.8, about 39% respondents reported being ‘quite satisfied’ and about 34% respondents ‘neither satisfied not dissatisfied’ about how easy the flood-related information was to understand. Further, about 28% respondents reported being ‘quite satisfied’ and about 36% respondents ‘neither satisfied not dissatisfied’ about how easily the flood related information was available.

Figure 5.8: Distribution of level of satisfaction about flood related information among the respondents

Thus, it can be seen that only slightly 50% of the respondents expressed some degree of satisfaction over how easy the information was to understand and only slightly 35% of the respondents expressed some degree of satisfaction over how easily the information was available to them. As found in the previous subsection, SEPA was identified by less than 15% of the respondents as a source of information. These findings, thus, mean that SEPA not only needs to improve the reach of the information but also how it is

No Answer Very satisfied Quite satisfied Neither satisfied nor

How easy is the information to understand How easily is the information available

5.4.3 Information sought to raise awareness about flooding

This section presents analysis of data relevant to the type of information sought by the communities to help in raising their awareness about flooding. As shown by the categories highlighted with red border in Figure 5.9, it can be observed that the level of risk and the actions they should or should not take in flood emergencies were major concerns.

Figure 5.9: Further information sought by the respondents to help them raise their awareness about flooding

It is also noteworthy that although section 5.3 indicates the prevalence of a general satisfactory level of knowledge on flooding, more than 50% to 70% of the respondents sought information on preventive and protective measures, actions they should or should not take as well as property level preventive and protective measures. This finding although surprising in relation to level of knowledge about flooding, may be attributed to factors such as their confidence in the information they held,

175 How to take preventive and protective measures before floods

to minimise damage to your property and possessions How to take preventive and protective measures before floods

to minimise danger to you and your family Information on level of risk during bad weather

‘What to do’ and ‘what not to do’ during flooding emergencies How to clear up after floods No answer

5.4.4 Flood warning and action taken

This question elicited information about how many respondents had received flood warnings, from whom, and whether they had taken any action as a result. As can be observed from Figure 5.10, only 161 out of the 563 respondents (28.6%) indicated that they had received any flood warning.

Figure 5.10: Distribution of postal survey respondents who received a flood warning

These 161 respondents provided 167 responses to the multiple choice question asking them to identify the source they received a flood warning from. The responses are displayed in Figure 5.11. This shows that the largest number of responses (44.2%) to this question indicated that their source of flood warning was ‘Other’.

10, 1.8%

161, 28.6%

392, 69.6%

No answer Yes No

Figure 5.11: Flood warning source from the postal survey responses

The breakdown of the responses under ‘Other’ is shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Breakdown of responses to choice of ‘Other’ as flood warning source

Flood warning sources Number of responses

Police 42

Police & Emergency Services 3

Emergency Services 2

Fire Services 2

Email at work 1

Housing association 10

Neighbours 5

Not specified 3

From the information presented in Figure 5.11 and Table 5.1 reveal that ‘Police’ were by far the most commonly specified source for flood warning. This outcome was not anticipated before the survey since SEPA is well recognised as ‘the flood warning authority’ in Scotland (see section 2.5.1). Only about a fifth of the respondents mentioned that they had obtained flood warnings from SEPA and these constituted only

32 36

31

68

20.8% 23.4% 20.1% 44.2%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

SEPA Council Don't know Others

Out of the 161 respondents who recorded that they had received or obtained flood warnings, 105 respondents recorded that they had taken some sort of action. The respondents were asked to specify the type of action they had taken after receiving a flood warning. Analysis of the responses showed varied responses to protecting property, possessions and lives.

Respondents used metal barriers or sandbags or even dug out sods from the garden to block water entry paths into the property. They switched off utilities, moved or helped others to move valuables, furnishings, computers and important possessions like photos and certificates upstairs or out of the property to a safer place away from flood waters.

Some respondents recorded that they moved their cars and dogs, stayed with their families, prepared to get evacuated with necessary clothing and medications, were evacuated or helped others to evacuate. Sadly one respondent recorded that he had lost everything. It is also noteworthy that some respondents also took precautionary actions well in advance, for example, repairing or building boundary walls, buying flood barriers, making changes to property on ground floor / basement to much simpler actions like occasionally checking torch-lights and wellington boots.

This analysis thus highlights the role police play in issuing flood warnings while highlighting the lack of reach of SEPA in communicating flood warnings. The analysis also suggests that most people (105 out of 161) reacted to the flood warnings appropriately with a range of protective and preventive measures. Improving the reach of flood warnings can, therefore, be seen to mitigate the impact of floods on communities. Finally it should be noted that almost 35% respondents did not act on receiving flood warning. The reasons for this are explored further through qualitative research.