, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 297–305 | Cite as

The human component in flood warning and flood response system

  • Goulter I.C. 
  • Myska N.M. 


The disign of flood warning — flood response systems is often performed as part of the overall engineering analysis of flood damage mitigation schemes. However, an important part of the flood response component of such systems is human perception of the flood hazard and its implication for the responses undertaken. This human dimension is examined from three viewpoints, the perception of the flood, the issues in the warning dissemination process, and the implications for the actions undertaken by individual flood plain occupants in response to a warning. Evidence is provided to show how the human characteristics of the flood plain occupants can signigicantly affect the benefits derived from a flood warning — flood response system. The importance of these non-engineering aspects of the problem leads to recommendations for closer collaboration between traditional technical experts and social scientists. The cooperation should extend beyond the assessment of the reduction in flood damages expected from a particular flood warning scheme into actual design of the dissemination process and response mechanisms.


Dissemination Process Human Perception Mitigation Scheme Technical Expert Engineering Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burton, I.; Kates, R.W.; White, G.F.: The environment as hazard. Oxford University Press, New York 1978.Google Scholar
  2. Changnon, S.A.: Research agenda for floods to solve policy failure. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 111,1, 54–64 (1985)Google Scholar
  3. Chatterton, J.B.; Pirt, J.; Wood, T.R.: The benefits of flood forecasting. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists 33,3, 237–252 (1979)Google Scholar
  4. Day, H.J.; Bugliarello, G.; Ho, P.H.P.; Houghton, V.T.: Evaluation of benefits of a flood warning system. Water Resources Research 5,5, 937–949 (1969)Google Scholar
  5. Day, H.J.; Lee, K.K.: Flood damage reduction potential of river forecast. Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 102,WR1, 77–87 (1976)Google Scholar
  6. Ericksen, N.J.: Flood information, expectation and protection on the Opotiki floodplain, New Zealand. In: White, G.F. (ed.), Natural Hazards — Local, National, Global, pp. 60–70. Oxford University Press, New York 1974.Google Scholar
  7. Ferrell, W.R.; Krysztofowicz, R.: A model of human response to flood warnings for system evaluation. Water Resources Research 19,6, 1467–1475 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. Flack, J.E.: Economic analysis of structural flood proofing. Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 104,WR1, 211–221 (1978)Google Scholar
  9. Gately, J.E.: The idea of a flood. Special Publication No. 1, Flood Hazard Research Project, Middlesex Polytechnic, United Kingdom 1973.Google Scholar
  10. Goulter, I.C.; Hannan, T.C.: Flood warnings and flood response for the Red River of the North. Water Resources Bulletin 20, 4, 599–610 (1984)Google Scholar
  11. Goldberg, E.: Getting off Escher's staircase. New Zealand Engineering, p. 3, November 1 (1986)Google Scholar
  12. Harding, D.M.; Parker, D.J.: Flood hazard at Shrewsbury, United Kingdom. In: White, G.F. (ed.), Natural Hazards —Local, National, Global, pp. 43–52. Oxford University Press, New York 1974.Google Scholar
  13. Krzysztofowicz, R.; Davis, D.R.: A methodology for evaluation of flood forecast-response systems. 1 — Analyses and Concepts. Water Resources Research 19,6, 1423–1429 (1983)Google Scholar
  14. Heatherwick, G.; Quinnell, A.L.: Optimising benefits to urban residents of a total flood warning system for the Brisbane Valley. Proceedings of Hydrological Symposium of Institution of Engineers, Australia, Sydney 61–66, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. Moline, N.T.: Perception research and local planning: Floods on the Rock River, Illinois. In: White, G.F. (ed.), Natural Hazards — Local, National, Global. Oxford University Press, New York 1974.Google Scholar
  16. Parker, D.J.; Harding, D.M.: Natural hazard evaluation, perception and adjustment. Geography 64,4, 307–316 (1979)Google Scholar
  17. Penning-Roswell, E.C.; Chatterton, J.B.; Parker, D.J.: The effect of flood warning on flood damage reduction. Report from Middlesex Polytechnic Flood Hazard Research Project for Central Water Planning Unit, Enfield, Middlesex, UK 1978.Google Scholar
  18. Penning-Roswell, E.C.: Non-structural approaches to flood control: Flood Plain land use regulation and flood warning schemes in England and Wales. In: Proceedings of Eleventh Congress of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Q37 R13, 193–211, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. Quinnell, A.L.: Social aspects of flood warnings. Proceedings of Symposium on the January 1974 Floods Moreton Region, Institution of Engineers Australia, Queensland Division 1974.Google Scholar
  20. Reed, D. W.: A review of British flood forecasting practice. Institute of Hydrology Report No. 90, United Kingdom 1984.Google Scholar
  21. Roder, W.: Attitude and knowledge on the Topeka flood plain. In: White, G.F. (ed.), Papers on Flood Problems, Research Paper 70. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 1961.Google Scholar
  22. Simpson-Houseley, P.; Curtis, F.: Human response to nuclear and flood hazard: The Manitoba experience. Great Plains Rocky Mountain Geographical Journal 11, 121–127 (1983)Google Scholar
  23. Sniedovich, M.; Davis, D.R.: Evaluation of flood-forecasting response systems. Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 103,WR1, 83–97 (1977)Google Scholar
  24. Smith, K.; Tobin, G.A.: Human Adjustment to the Flood Hazard. Longman Group Limited, London 1979.Google Scholar
  25. Schware, R.: Official and folk flood warning systems: An assessment. Environmental Management 6,3, 209–216 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White, G.F. (ed.): Natural Hazards — Local, National, Global. Oxford University Press, New York 1974.Google Scholar
  27. White, G.F.: Flood hazard in the United States: a research assessment. Institute of Behavior Science Program on Technology, Environment and Man, Monograph No. NSF-RA-E-75–006, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 1975.Google Scholar
  28. Wong, S.T.: Human behaviour and response towards storm hazard in West Vancouver, British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 15,2, 396–413 (1979)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yakowitz, S.: Markov flow models and the flood warning problem. Water Resources Research 21,1, 81–88 (1985)Google Scholar
  30. Quinnell, A.L.: Human information processing of flood risk, unpublished paper received in November 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Goulter I.C. 
    • 1
  • Myska N.M. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations