Rethinking flood risk communication

Flooding is a major hazard throughout Europe (de Moel et al. 2009), with over 2.4 million properties potentially at risk in the UK alone (Environment Agency 2009). Over the last decade flood risk management (FRM) has evolved to develop and enhance community resilience to flooding, rather than controlling flood waters using engineering solutions (Van Alphen et al. 2009). Communication of flood risk information is a key element of FRM which aims to ‘strengthen people’s risk awareness and to motivate the population at risk to take preventive actions and to be prepared’ (Hagemeier-Klose and Wagner 2009, p. 564). Communication of flood risk is a valuable way to link expertise and management undertaken by practitioners with the development of local-level resilience in an at risk community (de Moel et al. 2009; Butler and Pidgeon 2011).

Flood risk communication encompasses two phases: firstly, identifying areas at risk of flooding, and secondly, letting those at risk know when flooding is likely to occur. Both phases are crucial to helping those at risk prepare for, anticipate and act to lessen the consequences of flood events. This is a vital element of developing community resilience; flood impacts can be significant, extending beyond those whose homes are directly flooded, and for prolonged periods following a flooding event. For instance, research has demonstrated that flooding can result in increased morbidity (Milojevic et al. 2017), increase the occurrence of infectious diseases (Waite et al. 2017), and cause significant, long-term mental health impacts (Lamond et al. 2015) including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (Munro et al. 2017). As well as helping people take action to reduce the impact of floods on their homes and to evacuate areas of high flood hazard, flood risk communications have also been shown to have a significant impact on reducing longer-term impacts. For example, Munro et al. (2017) demonstrate that receiving timely warning prior to a flood was the only factor likely to limit the impact of flooding on mental health. Communicating flood risk prior to, and during flood events, is thus crucial to limiting flood impacts and ensuring well-being in at-risk communities.

This paper explores current flood risk communications and their effectiveness in promoting resilient behaviours, and introduces new ways in which information could be presented to increase action to limit flood impacts. This assessment focuses on the approaches adopted in Europe following the introduction of the European Union Floods Directive (EUFD) (European Parliament and the Council 2007), which has resulted in a unification of communication approaches between countries within the EU. We employ a case study in the UK, where we work with a community that have previous experiences of flooding to (1) examine existing approaches to flood communications, (2) explore how we can work with at risk participants to develop new ways of thinking about the content of flood risk communication, and (3) use participatory approaches to co-produce a series of prototypes for more effective flood risk communications.

Research in psychology has explored the way in which risk messages are translated into behaviour by those receiving them (for example, see Slovic et al. 1974; Fischhoff et al. 1993; Burns and Slovic 2012; Bubeck et al. 2012). However, in the translation of this research into risk communication practice, those at risk are often framed as needy, and reliant on experts to dictate what risk information is important and why (Willis et al. 2011). This means at risk communication users are often excluded from the processes of creating risk communications. By adopting participatory practices, and working together with those at risk, the research presented in this paper looks to circumvent this framing by allowing research participants to determine what information is important to them for understanding their risk and increasing their resilience.

The EA’s prime purpose for flood risk communications is to encourage participation in local FRM and develop community resilience (Environment Agency 2011). EA research on resilience has previously focused on generating trusted, long-term relationships with at-risk communities (Twigger-Ross et al. 2011, 2014) (Table 1). As a result, communications have traditionally been supported by a network of local flood groups and wardens, tasked with working alongside the EA to prepare local communities for flooding (Gilissen et al. 2016). However, recent high-profile floods have caused a shift of focus towards infrastructure and property-based resilience programmes (McBain et al. 2010; Chatterton et al. 2010; Environment Agency 2011). As a result, community-based resilience has become somewhat of a secondary objective and the potential for risk communications as an enabler of resilience has taken on a much greater level of importance (Environment Agency 2010). However, the existing research suggests that current communications are having limited impact on driving risk awareness or resilient behaviours. O’Sullivan et al. (2012) examined the impact of flood risk communications across Europe and identified low levels of information penetration and personal preparedness, often accompanied by a high level of distrust in communications and management organisations. In the UK, a 2016 EA poll indicated that only 45% of people living in at-risk areas appreciate their risk and only 7% identify any risk to their own property (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee 2016). Similarly, independent polling by the ‘Know Your Flood Risk’ campaign (Davies 2015) reported that 31% of at risk households surveyed had no flood plan and would not know what to do in the event of flooding.

Research has therefore identified that the existing UK model of flood risk communication is not functioning as intended, with communications failing to meet user needs or match their experiential knowledge (Environment Agency 2010; Meyer et al. 2012; Fisher 2015). It has also been argued that by centralising and professionalising the production of risk information, local communities lose their ability to properly understand their local risk situation (Lane 2012; Bubeck et al. 2012). The outcome is that both the practice of communicating risk information and how information receivers interpret information may not actually be aligned with the stated purpose of flood risk communications in the UK. In this section we explore the fundamental research that underpins risk communication and examine why this might be the case.

Flood risk communications have a joint purpose of both transmitting information and also altering behaviour (Hagemeier-Klose and Wagner 2009) and can therefore be seen as a hybrid of the risk message model (RMM) or the public education model (PEM), and the risk information model (RIM). Research driving RIM-focused communications has explored a wide range of potential factors which influence the translation of risk information into behaviours: examples include previous experiences of a threat (Fielding et al. 2007; Hopkins and Warburton 2015); cultural, geographical, and socio-economic factors (Burningham et al. 2008; Bubeck et al. 2012); reliance on public flood protection (Terpstra and Gutteling 2008); trust/distrust in communications from a management authority (Terpstra 2011; Wachinger et al. 2013); or a need to protect an individual’s sense of personal security against high levels of future uncertainty (Harries 2008; Willis et al. 2011).

An alternative approach to examining individual variables is proposed by Rogers (1975), who presents the protection motivation theory (PMT) model (Fig. 1). PMT explains and provides an overarching framework for the interplay between the disparate variables which may contribute to triggering behavioural responses from risk information. Rogers argues that individuals make their decision by appraising the severity and likelihood of their exposure (the threat appraisal) against the potential efficacy of potential protective behaviours (the coping appraisal), with their protection motivation representing the intervening stimulus which determines their actions.

Open image in new window

Grothmann and Reusswigg (2006) and Bubeck et al. (2012) build upon Roger’s work by expanding the sub-components of the threat and coping appraisals (Fig. 1), as well as identifying the potential for non-protective responses such as denial or wishful thinking, in situations where threat and/or coping appraisals are negative. This concept is supported by research on ‘learned helplessness’ (Paton and Johnston 2001), where individuals see disaster events as uncontrollable and therefore assume that their impacts are in turn uncontrollable, triggering feelings of despair or helplessness (Paton and Johnston 2006).

PMT demonstrates the complex, contested, and highly personal nature of the linkage between communication and the adoption of protective behaviours. Comparison against the models of communication reveals the likely limitations of current communication approaches based on the RIM or PEM. These approaches, which assume a rational response from the receiver, are unlikely to address the complex nature of the threat and coping appraisals.

We suggest that participatory working (Kindon et al. 2007) offers an opportunity to rethink how information can be communicated to those at risk by positioning people at the heart of flood risk communications. Participatory working re-imagines the traditional roles of experts and lay people (Bucchi and Neresini 2008; Landström et al. 2011; Lane et al. 2011) and considers circulation of different forms of expertise (Whitman et al. 2015), with participants working together as equals to co-produce shared knowledge and outputs (Mees et al. 2016). Participatory working approaches have been applied to a variety of environmental problems, including the co-production of options for managing local flood risk (Lane et al. 2011), the breaking down of borders between different organisations, professionals, and lay people involved in catchment-scale land management to manage floods (Bracken et al. 2016), and developing end-user specific research outputs regarding agricultural pollution (Whitman et al. 2015). To date, however, participatory practices have not been applied to flood risk communications, with recent research concluding only that participation was a useful approach for raising awareness or communicating flood risk complexity (Environment Agency 2012), or as a way of providing limited feedback on current communication approaches (Fisher 2015). These limited approaches to participation fail to exploit the potential of participatory working to open up the debate on what risk information is important and why. Here therefore we look to expand the participatory approaches demonstrated by previous studies into exploring the efficacy of current flood communications and, working together with a flood group of flood-affected locals, to co-produce alternative communications better suited to driving resilient behaviours.

4.1 The Corbridge study area

Corbridge (Fig. 2) has a long history of flooding; approximately 70 properties in Station Road and The Stanners are situated on the floodplain and are vulnerable to flooding. River level records date back to the 1700s (Archer et al. 2007a), and the area has a long history of flooding, including flooding in 2005 resulting from the collapse of a flood defence embankment (Archer et al. 2007b). This earlier damage led to flood defence improvements being carried out by the EA prior to a major flood on 5 December 2015, an event with an estimated return period of between 100 and 200 years (Marsh et al. 2016), which exceeded the design standard for the defences leading to serious flooding. All 70 at-risk properties were reported to have been flooded (Environment Agency 2016), some to depths of > 1.5 m.

Open image in new window

4.2 The research approach

In the summer of 2016, we undertook research to explore local knowledge about flooding in the Tyne Valley based on working together with local people to develop new approaches to communicating risk. Our aim was to blend academic research expertise with the experiences of Corbridge residents to re-imagine what flood risk information could be communicated and how it might be best presented. Figure 3 shows the multi-methods participatory approach developed.

Open image in new window

4.2.1 Understanding local knowledge and flood experience: workshops with the Corbridge Flood Action Group

In Phase 1 we conducted several group mapping and discussion workshops with members of the local Corbridge Flood Action Group (CFAG). The purpose of these meetings was to assess local knowledge and experiences of flood risk. Using a grounded theory approach, following Charmaz (2011), the material produced by these workshops, the maps, the researchers’ notes and the group discussions were integrated to identify key themes arising from the local experience of flooding. Using this approach we developed an understanding of the level of knowledge about, and engagement with, the flood risk problem, as well as developing a trusting relationship between the researchers and the CFAG.

4.2.2 Adopting a participatory approach to developing new flood risk communications: the Corbridge Flood Research Group

The relationship developed between the researchers and the CFAG during Phase 1 was instrumental in developing the Corbridge Flood Research Group (CFRG), which was developed through Phase 2 of the research. The CFRG was a group loosely modelled on the Environmental Competency Group used by Lane et al. (2011). Similar to Lane et al. the CFRG was set apart from traditional focus or consultation groups by its focus on the practice of knowledge creation as a collaborative process and the integration of local ‘non-experts’ into a practice of flood management usually carried out far removed from the local scale.

The CFRG consisted of six, self-selected members of the wider CFAG who had personal experiences of (five members), or interest in (one member), flooding at Corbridge. One of the researchers (Rollason) also took an active role in the group as a member, as opposed to a more traditional role as facilitator or group leader. Local members of the group contributed their experiential knowledge of flooding and flood communication, whilst Rollason (as an academic specialist and former professional flood manager in industry) brought expert technical knowledge and experience. By blending these two perspectives, the group was able to consider both the CFRG’s communication desires and the practicalities of what could be achieved.

CFRG meetings were framed specifically to explore flood risk communications. The group met three times; only the theme of the first, ‘how flood risk is currently communicated?’ was predetermined. Subsequent meetings were driven by the group discussions and were predominantly unstructured, with participants determining what should be discussed and how. Meetings were audio–recorded, and field notes taken. After each meeting key discussion points were summarised, notes circulated to the group; all members thus participated in the iterative and ongoing development of the narrative being developed. Analysis of the material was undertaken throughout the process by adopting a flexible, mixed-method approach, situated within the principles of grounded theory (Knigge and Cope 2006; Charmaz 2011), for identifying and linking key areas of discussion. The discussions held with the group during CFRG1 and CFRG2 allowed Rollason to prepare a series of prototype interfaces for communication. The technical skills employed involved flood risk mapping using GIS software and running two-dimensional flood models to capture and present information. The prototypes were presented for group deliberation at CFRG3, with the group jointly choosing four concepts and then working together to produce a final, shared version which represented the agreed outputs from the group.

4.2.3 Testing the prototypes outside the CFRG

In the final stage of the research the prototypes were presented to a larger focus group consisting of eight members of CFAG (new to the research), Rollason and one original member of the CFRG. The design and purpose of the concepts were outlined, and the focus group discussed what they thought of the ideas, how they might be used, and any alternative ideas. The key aspects of this discussion were recorded during the focus group. No further amendment of the concepts was deemed necessary following discussions.

The prototypes were the focus of CFRG3. From the suite of initial concepts developed, the group considered four to be particularly useful (Fig. 4). These four were considered by the local participants to give them the information they felt they needed to understand the risk of flooding, but also to make informed decisions about what action to take, and when, for future floods. These four prototypes were further developed by the group during and after CFRG3, and those shown in Fig. 4 represent the final, agreed outputs from the group.

Open image in new window

Open image in new window

Figure 4a shows the catchment-wide overview of the river gauging station status, enabling users to quickly assess how the catchment is responding to rainfall. This prototype map is linked specifically to individual gauge records allowing users to select and explore specific sites in more detail. Inspired by the online angling tool ‘Fishpal’ (Fishpal.com) used by one of the CFRG participants, the group members felt this tool allowed them to easily monitor catchment-scale river response, using their knowledge of how rainfall in different areas of the catchment translated into flood risk at Corbridge.

Figure 4b outlines a prototype gauge dashboard which allows users to ‘pin’ multiple gauges of their choice into a single place for rapid review of how river levels upstream are responding to rainfall. This prototype answers group members annoyance with only being able to view one gauge at a time using the current system. This prototype also reflects different options for how gauged levels should be displayed, which were also discussed by the CFRG: (1) current approach adopted by the Environment Agency; (2) current approach with an overlay comparing current levels with a historical hydrograph; (3) current approach including predicted future water levels based on the method proposed by Leedal et al. (2012); or (4) current approach with both (2) and (3). CFRG participants felt that forecast water levels (as in 3) allowed them to plan protective actions in advance of flooding occurring by anticipating when they would need to take certain actions, whilst historical comparisons (such as that shown in 2) allowed them to contextualise the significance of predictions and therefore judge what level of protective action was necessary.

Figure 4c presents a detailed assessment of historical flood dynamics (in this case the December 2015 flood event). In this prototype users would be able to select different elements to be provided with a detailed account of how flooding occurred, and what action might have been taken in response. The hydrograph allows users to identify water levels at which different flooding mechanisms begin to operate. CFRG members felt this map developed their understanding of how flooding occurred and when, allowing them to understand the significance of local gauged river levels.

Figure 4d shows the simulated extent and depth of potential flooding based on a user-selected water level for the Corbridge gauge. This prototype was inspired by the United States Geological Survey ‘Flood Inundation Map Library’ (United States Geological Survey 2016). Current and predicted water levels at Corbridge are displayed on the gauge display to allow users to link current and predicted water levels with their evaluation of potential impacts. CFRG participants felt this simple linkage between river levels and potential floodplain impacts was important for correctly interpreting what forecast river levels might mean and for demonstrating what degree of protective action was needed in different situations.

This discussion highlights the complex interactions between individual users and the different approaches to communicating flood risk and the difficulties of presenting only a small variety of information in order to represent a complex and dynamic threat such as flooding.

In this section we bring together the experience of the CFRG experiment with theories of risk communication. We argue that participation such as that demonstrated by the CFRG must play a role in developing future flood communications, especially in light of the shift from flood defence to flood management and the resulting distribution of FRM responsibilities onto those at risk (Butler and Pidgeon 2011). Such involvement will enable responsible agencies to better communicate flood risk in new ways, empowering those at risk to apply their local knowledge and experience to improve their resilience in the face of flood events.

The last three decades have seen rapid changes in our approaches to addressing flood risk, and a professional acceptance that flooding cannot be prevented and must instead be managed. Societal resilience to floods has emerged as a key pillar of this new approach to ‘living with floods’. Changes in policy have increasingly focused on the resilience of critical infrastructure, and developing community resilience has increasingly been undertaken through an educational model of risk communication. However, research suggests that this approach is failing to develop individual and community capacities for understanding and responding to floods in a resilient manner.