How the 2007 floods in Gloucester affected businesses: the changing perceptions of flooding, and precautionary

measures undertaken.

Charlotte Osborn

S1301149

Presented as part of the requirement for an award within the University Of

Gloucestershire.

April 2016

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

i

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Declaration

This dissertation is the product of my own work and does not infringe the

ethical principles set out in the University’s Handbook for Research Ethics. I

agree that it may be made available for reference via any and all media by

any and all means now known or developed in the future at the discretion of

the university.

____________________________________________________________

Charlotte Osborn

April 2016

ii

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Acknowledgments

I would first like to thank my dissertation supervisor Dr Rachel Bennet for her

help and guidance throughout this period in the process of research and

writing. Secondly I would like to thank Dr Kenny Lynch for his help as my

initial dissertation supervisor and helping me get started with my initial basis

and recommendation of what I wanted the study to be about. I would also

like to thank Caro McIntosh for her help in the construction of the GIS map of

the affected areas of flooding in the summer 2007 flood event.

I would secondly like to thank my family and friends in their support

throughout the dissertation period and the advice that they have given to me.

Finally, I would like to thank the businesses of Tewkesbury and Gloucester

for taking the time to talk to me and respond to my questionnaire, as without

their participation I would have not been able to complete my research.

iii

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Abstract

This paper is exploring how the 2007 flood event in Gloucestershire affected

businesses. It will explore how their perceptions were during and after the

floods, the precautionary measures they took and will undertake in

preparation of future floods. To answer the main research question, a

method of questionnaires will be used to ask businesses in Tewkesbury and

Gloucester open-ended and closed-ended questions. The questionnaire is

divided into 2 parts, Part A which is for businesses that were affected in the

2007 floods, and Part B which is for businesses views on flooding in

Gloucestershire.

This study analyses what the perceptions of the floods were like from

businesses that were flooded in the event, exploring how well the

management of the floods were in the businesses, and to evaluate if the

choice of actions that the businesses took during and after the floods did and

could help for a future flood event similar to the flood in 2007.

The results revealed that there was enough management and advice

available during the flood event, though businesses would like more updates

and reports before the flood event in the form of leaflets, a possibility of a

flood awareness/ preparation course would be benefitted for businesses. The

area that businesses are located seems to not be concerning even with the

businesses proximity to the rivers, however this could be due to flood

memory as the event was nine years ago, so it is likely that many businesses

have forgotten how bad the floods were in the locations that they are in.

consequently procedures after the flood did not seem to change significantly

to those that were already in place before the floods, however this could be

cause for concern as like the 2007 flood event, it was unforeseen and caught

many off guard as a result many businesses could consequently be

unprepared if another flood event happens.

iv

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Table of content

1.0: Introduction..............................................................................................1

2.0 Environmental setting...............................................................................5

3.0: Review of literature................................................................................10

3.1 Flooding in a global and national context............................................10

3.2 Flood risk and development................................................................11

3.3 Preparedness and management.........................................................12

4.0: Methodology..........................................................................................16

4.1 Initial stage..........................................................................................16

4.2 Design.................................................................................................17

4.3 Preliminary research and modification................................................18

5.0: Results...................................................................................................20

5.1 Vulnerability.........................................................................................20

5.2 Perceptions.........................................................................................22

5.3 Choice of action..................................................................................24

6.0: Discussion.............................................................................................29

6.1 Experience and vulnerability...............................................................29

6.2 Perceptions.........................................................................................30

6.3 Choice of actions.................................................................................31

7.0: Conclusion.............................................................................................33

8.0: References............................................................................................35

Appendices...................................................................................................40

Appendix one: Questionnaire asked to businesses for data collection... . .40

Appendix two: Risk Assessment...............................................................43

Appendix three: Ethics.............................................................................44

Evaluation.....................................................................................................45

v

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Figures and tables list

Figure 1...........................................................................................................2

Figure 2...........................................................................................................3

Figure 3...........................................................................................................4

Figure 4...........................................................................................................5

Figure 5. .........................................................................................................6

Figure 6...........................................................................................................7

Figure 7...........................................................................................................7

Figure 8...........................................................................................................8

Figure 9….......................................................................................................8

Figure 10.........................................................................................................9

Figure 12.......................................................................................................13

Figure 13.......................................................................................................20

Figure 14.......................................................................................................21

Figure 15.......................................................................................................21

Figure 16.......................................................................................................22

Figure 17.......................................................................................................22

Figure 18. ....................................................................................................22

Figure 19.......................................................................................................23

Figure 20.......................................................................................................23

Figure 21.......................................................................................................27

Table 1..........................................................................................................11

Table 2..........................................................................................................12

Table 3..........................................................................................................23

Table 4. ........................................................................................................24

Table 5..........................................................................................................24

Table 6. ........................................................................................................25

Table 7..........................................................................................................25

Table 8..........................................................................................................26

vi

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

vii

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

1.0: Introduction

One of the most common and damaging (De Maever et al., 2013) types of

natural disasters on earth is flooding. One third of all natural disasters have

been flood related in the last 100 years, leading to one of the highest number

of worldwide fatalities through drowning, fatal injury or illness (Blaikie et al,

1994). Floods can be caused by a number of natural- climate change, land

topography, water bed- or human induced factors -deforestation, land

pasture, urbanisation, and erosion (Glosińska, 2014). With these factors in

hand, projections for natural disasters will increase in many regions across

the world and will enhance the vulnerability due to increased frequency and

intensity of floods (Abedin and Shaw, 2015). Hydrological risks are more

likely when human society interacts with the lithosphere and the biosphere

creating a change (Hewitt, 1997).

With an increasing number of people being located in areas prone to

flooding, the vulnerability is increasing- due to a growing population and a

decrease of locations for settlements which aren’t on flood plains (table 2)

(Blaikie et al, 1994). History is made up of hazards happening all over the

world (Chilvers et al., 2011) with each year claiming over 20,000 lives and

affecting 20 million people worldwide (De Maever et al., 2013). In previous

years there have been many flood events that have caused harm (Hewitt,

1997), these include flooding in 1887 in Huanghe, China which had over

900,000 fatalities, the Netherlands in 1953 which had 2,000 fatalities and

300,000 displaced which ended with US$300mil worth of damage, the USA

in 1993, had 48 fatalities, 50,000 homes damaged or destroyed and over

US$12 billion worth of damage.

The south and East of England was situated in one of the worse effected

areas in the heavy rainfall that occurred in the summer of 2007. There was

unforeseen flooding of properties and infrastructure in areas which caused

social distress, economic loss and disruption to households and businesses

(Environmental agency, 2010) and was the wettest summer since records

began (GFRS, 2014). In Wales there was a minimum of 150mm of rainfall,

and in parts of Western England the rainfall reached up to 200mm (Met

1

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Office, 2012). These record amounts of rainfall combined fluvial, pluvial and

groundwater flooding (Hannaford and Marsh, 2007) to cause this colossal

flood event. The combination of increased rainfall around urban areas meant

that surface runoff increased causing the groundwater to fill up more rapidly

to saturation and flooding the affected areas. Widespread flooding happened

across the UK, in particular in South and East Yorkshire, Worcestershire,

Gloucestershire, and Oxfordshire (Environment Agency, 2010). The flooding

was unforeseen and caught many off guard; this had huge social, economic

and environmental costs causing a total of 13 fatalities, over 55,000 homes

and businesses to be flooded, and a vast number of search and rescue

missions (Platt, 2013). The picture below shows a home in Gloucester where

water is just a few inches away from entering the house even with defences

up.

Figure 1. July 24 2007. Coyeta brown, claus pittaway and sophie pittaway. Alney terrace, Gloucester. Photography by Matt Cardy/Getty. Source: The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2007/jul/23/flooding#img-19

Heavy rain fell in a short space of time causing both the River Severn and

River Avon to burst their banks (Platt, 2013). Many residents in the

Gloucestershire area were affected with up to 7ft of water in places leading

2

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

to 13 fatalities and 7,000 people being rescued. The flood event caused the

Mythe water treatment works to shut down for 2 weeks (Platt, 2013)

consequently leading to 135,000 houses in Gloucestershire to be without

drinking water for up to 17 days. Due to the substantial number of citizens

without water, 40 million bottles of water and 1,400 bowsers were deployed

and distributed around Gloucestershire. 5,000 properties and businesses

flooded causing 48,000 homes to be without electricity for two days.

Transport networks failed due to power failure causing 10,000 citizens

stranded on the M5 overnight and 500 commuters stranded at Gloucester

train station leading to the council accommodating 2,500 people in local

authority rest centres. The picture below shows how Tewkesbury was

isolated during the flood event, the only escape of water was on high ground

around the Abbey.

Figure 2. The town of Tewkesbury during the emergency. Photography by Daniel Berehulak/Getty. Source: The Guardian.

During the summer 2007 floods, approximately 185,000 commercial

businesses in the UK were at risk of flooding with an average loss from

flooding being £28,000 (Know your flood risk, 2013). During the floods in

Gloucestershire 9,000 businesses were affected, and The Gloucester Citizen

(2010) reported that the average cost incurred per flooded business was

between £75,000 and £112,000, with 95 per cent of companies covered by

insurance. This event caused £50 billion worth of damage and a £3 billion

3

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

insurance pay outs (Environment Agency, 2010). The image below shows a

flooded Canterbury Arms in Tewkesbury.

Figure 3. This image shows the landlady of the flooded Canterbury Arms in Tewkesbury surveying the damage of her pub. Photography by: Matt Cardy/Getty. Source: The Guardian

This dissertation wanted to look at how the summer 2007 flood event

affected businesses in Gloucester. This study analyse what the perceptions

of the floods were like from businesses that were flooded in the event,

explore how well the management of the floods were in the businesses, and

to evaluate if the choice of actions that the businesses took during and after

the floods did and could help for a future flood event similar to the flood in

2007. These aims will be undertaken using the method of questionnaires,

which would then be critically analysed using excel and SPSS.

4

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

2.0 Environmental setting

In the summer of 2007, the south and East of England were situated in

areas of the worse effected flooding (Environmental Agency, 2010). In a

short space of time heavy rainfall fell causing the River Severn and the River

Avon to burst their banks (Platt, 2013). In some parts of Gloucester up to 7ft

of water were found in places, and in Tewkesbury the town ended up being

cut off, however this was no surprise with the town having a long history of

flooding. This amount of unexpected rainfall in such a short period of time led

to 13 fatalities and 7,000 people being rescued in Gloucestershire. The map

below shows the location areas in which the study is focused on with red

boxes around Tewkesbury and Gloucester. As you can see there are major

transport routes surrounding the areas as well as the River Severn flowing

from Wales past Gloucestershire towards the mouth of the Severn Estuary in

Bristol (Kissack, 1982).

Figure 4. Showing part of Gloucestershire with the red boxes outlining Tewkesbury and Gloucester which are the main areas of the study. © 2016 Google.

A map using ArcGIS was constructed to show the affected areas highlighted

by the River Severn (bright blue line) travelling from the source (South-

5

Key

= Location of areas studied

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

West), up through Gloucester then North-east towards Tewkesbury. The

smaller blue lines show the tributaries running off the River Severn across

the rest of Gloucestershire. The blue block areas of colour shows the flooded

areas that were saturated at the time of the summer 2007 flood event.

Figure 5. Constructed GIS showing the affected areas of flooding in the summer 2007 flood event. Gloucester coverage, using Edina Digimap ordinance survey service, <http://Edina.ac.uk/digimap>

The constructed ArcGIS map above shows how wide the affected areas

were during the 2007 floods. Further investigation on the floodplains in

Gloucestershire were looked into. Figure 5 shows us the floodplains of

6

Location map legend

Gloucestershire

Tributaries

River Severn

Affected areas

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Gloucestershire. The blue blocked areas show fluvial flooding from a 1 in 100

year flood and the light pink block areas show the affected areas from tidal

flooding.

Figure 6. Shows the floodplains in Gloucestershire with the areas that would be affected in a 1 in 100 year flood event. Source: Gloucestershire county council, 2007.

The figure below shows a detailed map of how the Gloucester district

floodplain would look like with a 1 in 100 year flood. The North-west side of

Gloucester would be completely flooded by fluvial flooding, as well as a

stretch of water from west to east of the centre of Gloucester.

Figure 7. Shows the floodplain in the Gloucester District. Source: Gloucestershire county council, 2007.

The figure below shows a detailed map of how the Tewkesbury district

floodplain would look like with a 1 in 100 year flood. It shows the west of

Tewkesbury would be affected the most as this is where the River Avon

flows through before joining the River Severn.

7

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Figure 8. Showing the floodplain in the Tewkesbury district. Source: Gloucestershire county council, 2007.

The Environment Agency have put defences alongside the River Severn as shown in figure 11 It shows that most of Gloucester is protected from the river except for the North-east side which has little defence.

Figure 9. This figure shows a 1:75000 map of the flood defences put in by the River Severn in Gloucester. Source: Environment Agency (2016)

The Environment Agency have put defences alongside the River Severn as shown in figure 12. It shows that most of the River Severn is protected however not the River Avon, hence the major flooding of Tewkesbury in the 2007 floods.

8

Key River Severn

Flood defences

Flood zone

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Figure 10. This shows a 1:40,000 map of the flood defences put in by Tewkesbury. Source: Environment Agency (2016)

9

Key River Severn

Flood defences

Flood zone

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

3.0: Review of literature

3.1 Flooding in a global and national context

Baker, 2015 describes flooding as a bed of water reaching and exceeding

above the level of the bank that it is held in, and escapes and flows onto a

floodplain; whilst Smith, 2001 describes one of the main causes of flooding to

be excessive precipitation. The IPCC, 2012 has informed through their paper

that through climate change the frequency and severity of floods is expected

to rise around the world. The physical conditions that cause flooding can be

semi-predictable or random storms. These semi-predictable rainfall can be

seasonal rains such as increased rainfall in winter months, annual monsoon

floods, or flash floods. Physical atmospheric features cause precipitation

which infiltrates into the ground and saturates it causing run off of

precipitation into streams and river channels increasing the water level and

thus leading to exceed the river banks causing flooding. Figure 8 shows how

different physical conditions can cause flooding.

Figure 11. Physical causes of flooding. Source: Smith (2001).

Different types of land use can change run off dramatically. In built up

urbanised areas there is less permeable land as well as a decrease in

vegetation which can cause less infiltration onto the land. This type of land

use can cause a decrease in lag time between the source of the water to it

reaching the river bank- with it being up to 10 times faster in urbanised areas

compared to natural conditions.

10

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

An article by Islam et al., 2016 reports that global sea levels have been rising

since the 20th century and consequently countries in Asia are being

threatened by this rise due to densely populated deltas. Bangladesh is one

country that is highly affected from flooding as only 10% of it is above sea

level and will suffer extensive damages for the foreseeable future.

The PITT Review, 2008 calculated the total loss from the summer 2007

floods to be approximately £4Billion, with just over half of that being losses

from households and businesses. £1Billion of insurance was paid out to

businesses in which 56 per cent of the total was paid by private insurance.

During this time approximately 7,300 commercial properties were affected

resulting in a total caused damage cost £674Million worth of damage to

infrastructure and essential services especially the supply and treatment of

water and electricity services leading to insurance claims up to £58Million.

The mass damage to businesses resulted in damaged premises, equipment,

and stock which would have most likely affected the whole trade. The

economic loss to businesses reported to be £50Million, however the

Environment Agency assessed the costs for impact damage to be

£740Million. Baubion (2015) reports in his literature that most of the time the

operation losses of a business is less obvious to the outside world.

Businesses are affected the most by disruption of the production caused by

damage from the floods, and can consequently have effect on the distribution

of goods.

3.2 Flood risk and development.

Gloucestershire county council, 2007 has reported that there is now an

increased demographic pressure leading to more infrastructure and

developments which are now being constructed in flood risk areas across

Gloucestershire. With over 1000 businesses located in Gloucestershire’s

floodplain only 4 per cent of these are located in the extreme 1 in 100 year

floodplain, however the number of employees affected would be around

19,000. Companies with a smaller work force would be affected more as

these account for 64 per cent of all businesses at risk, whilst only 4 per cent

of the larger companies are at risk on the floodplain. Businesses in the

11

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

floodplain include wholesalers, retail, estate agents, manufacturers, or

construction.

Table 1. A table showing the main businesses on the 1 in 100 year floodplain. Source: Gloucestershire county council, 2007

Main businesses on 1 in 100 year floodplain by sector and size.

Sector number of businesses

Small retailers/wholesaler 245

Small financial intermediation, real estates, other business activities

208

Small manufacturers 106

Small construction companies 82

Small organisations in education, health, social work 53

Small hotels, restaurants 52

Small organisations in other community, social, person service activities

45

3.3 Preparedness and management

In the UK the experience of summer flash floods is not uncommon. Over

the past years there has been an increased worry about the higher frequency

and the preparedness of the population that could be affected (Hopkins and

Warburton, 2015). There is an increasing population living on floodplains in

Gloucestershire, with a population of 20,200 (Gloucestershire county council,

2007). The table below shows the population of people who are located on

floodplains.

Table 2. Number of homes and population located on floodplains in Gloucestershire. Source: Gloucestershire county council 2007.

Floodplain population in districts

Cheltenham

Cotswold's

Forest of dean

Gloucester

Stroud

Tewkesbury

Number of homes

1,300

1,900

700

1,800

1,200

800

Number of people

2,900

4,400

1,700

6,500

2,900

1,800

12

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Total: Gloucestershire 8,700 20,200

By taking action to prepare for flooding, businesses can save anything up

to 90% on the cost of lost stock and moveable equipment (Cabinet maker,

2005). Understandably if an area floods regularly that a business is situated

in, the cost of insurance, stock and equipment will be more of a problem.

Figure 12. Showing the EU flood risk management plan. Source: Nquot, 2014.

Predicted increase in climate change will change the severity and

frequency of flooding in certain regions around the world (Aerts et al, 2009)

and is likely to result in more intense precipitation which will increase runoff

and river flow leading to more extreme flood events (Kotov et al, 2006) such

as a 1 in 75 annual chance of a flood experienced by 1.5million people in

England and Wales (Evans et al, 2004). With heightened risk of climate we

need to adapt to cope and mitigate damage. We can understand that

absolute prevention and protection from floods is not achievable, so move

towards managing flood risks (Birkholz et al, 2014). Gérard (2016) describes

rare floods in urban areas to trigger public investment into flood defences to

be able to reduce the flood risk. Mitigation policies can save property and

lives when a flood event occurs, even if the flood cannot be prevented at all.

Local citizens of affected areas often have their own strategies for dealing

with flood risk. Blaikie et al (1994) explains that in communities, citizens try to

go along the routes of self and social protection with help from the

community and non-governmental agencies. The Netherlands have several

adaptation methods which are currently being applied (Aerts et al, 2005).

Flood proofing infrastructure is one method-however costly, with estimates of

€10,000 and €20,000 per building. Alternatively replacing floors to tiled floors

before floods could save citizens more money in the future (Aerts et al,

13

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

2009). Italy has a flood protection history which goes back to the Roman

times which includes soil conservation schemes (Nemec et al, 1993). Platt,

2013 has estimated that for every £1 that is spent on flood defences saves

£8 on the repair and clean-up costs overall, however if there was no

intensive land use on floodplains or along sea shores, then the flood risk

hazard would drop immensely (Smith, 2001) so there would be no need for

repair and clean-up costs.

The perceptions of those who are affected by the floods have been well

researched (Aerts et al, 2009) and are increasingly well understood (Kotov,

2006). Perceptions are critical to help adapt and influence expectations on

flood management (Becker et al, 2014) to prepare for a future event

especially when it comes to national and local planning which should reflect

any potential challenges. Settlement and road construction have increased

surface run off (Nemec et al, 1993) which reduces storage capacity for

precipitation thus increasing the change of flooding.

Literature from Qasim et al., 2015 reports that the perception of risk people

have has resulted in more flood preparedness and mitigation, this is due to

people having higher risk perceptions taking more actions to avoid the risk,

as they are more aware of the coming threats to them and so will adjust and

adapt instead of trying to fight the flood. Coping strategies have included

training sessions and gathering of necessary resources, as well as

involvement from people in flood prevention programmes. However, risk

perceptions differ with every individual as everyone sees risk differently due

to experience of risk. The experience of risk decides the response when a

natural hazard is approaching to the vulnerability and attitude of that

individual. However Lawrence et al, 2014 believes that risk perceptions are

affected by how information is communicated and that perceptions of those

who were affected by flooding are critical to help adapt responses especially

from those who have experienced loss of lives. Individuals who have

experienced flooding before would increase the preparedness of households

and businesses and would make greater change and adaptation to reduce

flooding in their dwelling. If people are unaffected in past situations, it leads

14

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

to a thinking of not being affected in the future, hence an unpreparedness if a

hazard takes action.

Haer et al., 2016 reports that risk management is becoming increasingly

important as more and more people are being located in areas that are flood-

prone. With weather conditions increasing in extremity, flood risk is now a

serious threat due to this associated climate change and suggestions for

residents on floodplain areas to prepare for flooding is proposed. In Haer et

al’s paper it is suggested to carry this out in a campaign style. However this

method has hardly been studied, and does not always follow out in the action

preferred due to the effectiveness of communication. This method was

carried out and was examined on how well the communication to individuals

was spread through the social networks. This method could work as an

informal basis of communication of prevention however it will always be more

suited for information to come from an official figure such as the local council.

15

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

4.0: Methodology

This chapter will outline my main method of data collection to determine

the experience of businesses flooded in the 3007 floods, perceptions of

businesses in the surrounding catchment area who are vulnerable of flooding

and the choice of actions businesses go through to defend their businesses

from flood events. The preliminary research stage began with a risk

assessment (appendix 2) and a preliminary questionnaire, as well as

completing an ethics assessment (appendix 3).

4.1 Initial stage The main method used will be questionnaires. This is a qualitative method

of research leading to the exploration and understanding of a target group

(Creswell, 2009). Consideration of the ethical concerns (Davies and Hughes,

2014) associated with businesses such as the approach of how to get into

contact with the business and to state what the questionnaire is for and also

how to handle the data after collecting the data. The information gathered

should be relevant to the questions asked and be reliable and unbiased on

the behalf of the interviewer (Davies and Hughes, 2014). Location of

businesses that are around the Gloucestershire area will be examined and

contact will be made with them to see if it would be possible to ask them a

questionnaire that they could fill out to discuss how their business was

affected in the floods. The questionnaire will be electronic and paper based-

electronic based to the owners/managers of the businesses that can be

contacted online and paper based questionnaires for those I can’t get in

contact with and will go to businesses directly. This method will get direct

information from the business asked (McDonald, 2014), and are a cheap way

of asking information.

Questionnaires are an important resource for attaining information from

the general public (Bird, 2009) on a topic of study. The consideration on how

the questionnaire looks, such as the length and perceptions of the questions

need to be formatted. The questionnaire used in this study will have several

closed-ended questions so the respondents have a limited number of

16

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

answers to choose from. The purpose of using this method is that it is a

simple method to collect categorical and numeric data (Davies and Hughes,

2014). Closed-ended questionnaires hold a number of advantages as they

are quick and easy to fill out, and need very little effort for those being

questioned (Charlton et al, 2014), they are also easier for interpretation and

to standardise (Birken et al, 2014). Closed-ended questionnaires will help the

write up of results as many businesses may have different opinions and

answers to the questions, where by undertaking closed-ended questions will

lead to easier understanding and interpreting. The use of Wordle could be

used to interpret open-ended answers as this will make it easy for recurring

answers to pop out. Survey Monkey was looked into to create the

questionnaire online however after deliberation Google forms was used to

create the questionnaire for businesses who was contactable through email.

This would be an easier way for them to gain access to the questionnaire,

and will also shorten the data collection period significantly (Davies and

Hughes, 2014).

4.2 Design After the initial draft questionnaire, the design of the questionnaire needed

to be changed, the use of a book by Flowerdew and Martin (2005) was used

to help construct an improved questionnaire. Questionnaires help collect

data about behavior, attitude and opinions as well as classify circumstances

and environments. There are many variables that questionnaires can have.

These are: experimental or independent variables which include all variables

that may be possible predictors of the main effects that are being studied.

Dependent variables which are Main variables for which explanations are

being offered in terms of the way in which the independent variables

influence them. Finally controlled variables which are relationships between

a dependent variable and a set of independent variables there will be a

number of factors that need to be held constant in order that the relationships

can be more clearly established.

Questionnaire design is important to get the respondents to answer the

right questions that are suited to what is needed to know. The questions

should be firmly rooted, relate to the hypothesis and don’t have any leading

17

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

questions. Questionnaires shouldn’t have leading questions in them as they

are trying to get the respondent to answer in a certain way that could fit into

the aim of the questionnaire, these give unreliable results. Questions can be

closed-ended or open-ended or a mixture of the two (Bird, 2009). Most of the

questions that I devised are closed ended as they are easier to respond and

can avoid unrelated responses (Sarantakos, 2005). Face to face

questionnaires are better for the respondent as any questions from them can

be clarifies, responses which could be vague can be made sense of, a higher

response rate will occur. On the other hand, this method can be costly if

numerous questionnaires are printed, it is time consuming, and the

interviewer’s presence may alter the respondents answer (Bird, 2009).

The stages of questionnaire survey that will be carrying out will be 1:

Initial research idea, 2: develop aims and research objectives, 3: design how

the research will be carried out- in this case it will be questionnaires mostly

on online forms using google forms. 4: draft copy of the questionnaire, 5:

tweaking of the questionnaire, 6: heading out to the field and carry out the

main research, 7: processing and analysing data to produce results.

4.3 Preliminary research and modification The original research area of the study was the Docks in Gloucester. The

initial scan of the area was carried out in early November and after

conducting preliminary questionnaires results showed that the dock area did

not flood to a great extent, so research would have to be carried out to

discover where the main areas in Gloucester which flooded in the 2007

floods were. Data collection was then carried out in the North of Gloucester

where flooding had previously been, however whilst conducting the

questionnaires it was noted that many businesses had exchanged hands

over the years so had different owners who was not aware of the business

being flooded or if some of the business was not there at the time of the

flood. After deliberating a decision was made to extend the research area to

Gloucestershire, and to focus on the North of Gloucester and Tewkesbury as

their locations are closer to the River Severn and River Avon which indicates

that they were more susceptible of being flooded at the time of the 2007

18

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

floods. Main data collection was carried out over a few days at the end of

November.

Over the process of data collection, the questionnaire had to be changed

and modified depending on the research area and who was answering it. It

had originally been planned for owners or managers who were with the

business at the time of the flood event to answer it, however after conducting

preliminary research a realisation that many shop attendants would be

answering it on behalf of the owners, so would not know as much

information. An obstacle of how to get around businesses that weren't

present at the time of the floods by looking at their perceptions of being close

to the River Severn and River Avon which could burst its banks and flood the

businesses around the rivers was added to the questionnaire. Conducting a

questionnaire that was both relevant to shop owners and shop attendants as

well as businesses that were there when the floods occurred and those that

were not was the next step. The questionnaire was redesigned with a part A

and part B sections, with Part A being for businesses that were affected and

part B for businesses views of flooding in Gloucestershire (see appendix 1).

19

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

5.0: Results

Below shows the results from the methodology outlined which was

conducted on Friday 27th November 2015. Some businesses did not answer

all of the questions as they were not relevant to them, hence splitting up the

questionnaire into part A and part B. Answers of N/A from the questionnaire

were taken out when creating graphs and charts.

5.1 Vulnerability

Was your business affected in the 2007 floods?

yes no

Figure 13. This pie chart shows that out of 20 responses from the questionnaire, 65% of the businesses were affected in the 2007 flood event, whilst 35% were not.

20

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Insurance for business

Insurance for equipment

Transport procedures

Evacuation procedure

Sandbags FloodLine0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Procedures before the floods?

Figure 14. This bar graph is shows results from question 4 in the questionnaire. It shows what procedures businesses had in place before the floods. Results show that businesses had business insurance, insurance for equipment, transport procedures, evacuation procedures, sandbags, and some had signed up to FloodLine.

<10 days month 2-5 months

<10 days month up to 3 months

0123456789

Time of mains water and power affected

water affected power affected

Num

ber o

f peo

ple

affec

ted

Figure 15. This graph shows the results from question 2 and 3 from the questionnaire. It shows that more people were affected by mains water and was affected for a longer period, whereas affected power by the majority was for <10 days.

21

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

5.2 Perceptions

yes no0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Do you think there was enough advice available to your business during the

floods?

Figure 16. From question 7 in the questionnaire. Out of the 20 people asked 18 responses shows that 14 people agreed that there was enough advice available whilst only 4 people believed that there was not enough advice available.

no yes0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Did you see any management of the floods?

Figure 17. Question 8 from the questionnaire. 80% of the respondents believed they saw managements of the floods, whilst 20% didn’t see any managements.

22

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

On a scale of extremely poor to extremely good, how good did you think the local risk management was?

extremely poorvery poorpoormediocreneither bad or goodsatisfiedsomewhat goodgoodvery good extremly good

Figure 18. From question 9 from the questionnaire, the question of “On a scale from extremely poor to extremely good, how did you think the local risk management was?” From this we can see that 25% thought it was Mediocre, 25% neither bad or good, 10% was satisfied, 20% somewhat god, and 20% good.

Do you feel vulnerable in this area with the location of business being so close to wa-

ter?

yes no

Figure 19. Question 2 from Part B of the questionnaire showed that 80% of the respondents did not feel vulnerable in the areas being so close to water, whereas 20% did.

23

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

agree disagree0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Do you agree or disagree with this quote: “Instead of fighting the flooding, we should adapt instead”.

Figure 20. Question 3 from part B of the questionnaire. These results show that 90% of the respondents believe that instead of fighting the flood, we should adapt instead, whilst only 10% disagreed with this quote.

Table 3. This table shows unguided answers from the question of “What do you think the local government could have done to help people in situations whose businesses was affected?” 3 main themes occurred from the businesses- protection, advice, and education.

Protection Advice Education

Sandbags

Flood preventions

Equipment insurance

Reports

Updates

Guidance leaflets

News updates

Weather updates

Flood awareness

courses

More awareness in

schools

24

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

5.3 Choice of action

Table 4. This table shows results from questions 10 and 11 from the questionnaire. It shows from who was flooded and not flooded and if they know of FloodLine and signed up to it.

Flooded Not flooded

Know of FloodLine

Yes

No

Signed up to FloodLine

Yes

No

9

4

4

9

2

5

1

6

Part of the results from table 4 were put into SPSS to form a Chi-square test, however due to the frequency being less than 5 in some cells, Fisher’s test had to be used. The Null hypothesis for this was that the businesses that were flooded must have not been signed up to FloodLine as it seemed like they were unprepared for the flood event.

Table 5. Shows the results from the Chi-square and Fisher’s test. From this table it is shown that P=0.613.

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .659a 1 .417

Continuity Correctionb .073 1 .787

Likelihood Ratio .703 1 .402

Fisher’s Exact Test .613 .406

Linear-by-Linear Association .626 1 .429

N of Valid Cases 20

a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.75.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

From these results as P=0.613 and is greater than 0.05, we can accept the

null hypothesis of that businesses who were flooded must have not been

signed up to FloodLine.

25

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

The study wanted to evaluate observations against expectations. By this the

experience of flooding was compared to precautions taken before flood

event. Table 5 was created in SPSS using the two-way classification chi-

square test.

Table 6. This shows a SPSS crosstabulation count. Results show that out of 20 businesses, 12 businesses were flooded but had precautions in place, 1 businesses that also got flooded did not have precautions in place before. 7 businesses in total did not flood, but 3 had precautions set up before the floods and 4 set up precautions after.

Experience * precautions Crosstabulation

Count

precautions

Totalyes no

experience flooded 12 1 13

not flooded 3 4 7

Total 15 5 20

However, after carrying out the chi-square test count crosstabulation, it

shows that there was a frequency of 5 or less in some of the cells. To get a

result Fisher’s exact test was used as this can be used however small the

expected frequency is.

Table 7. This shows the results from the Chi-Square and fisher’s test. From this test the results show that the P value equals to P=0.031

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact Sig. (1-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.934a 1 .015

Continuity Correctionb 3.590 1 .058

Likelihood Ratio 5.882 1 .015

Fisher's Exact Test .031 .031

Linear-by-Linear Association 5.637 1 .018

N of Valid Cases 20

a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.75.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

The null hypothesis of this test will be that businesses would be inclined to

be flooded if they did not have any precautions before the floods. The results

of the test show that P=0.31, and as it is less than 0.05 we have to reject the

null hypothesis.

26

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Table 8. This table shows the number of companies that mention certain preparation methods when there is a risk of a flood. Preparation methods include, exists, plans, water, power, and FloodLine.

What do you think you can do to prepare when there is a risk of a

flood?

Number of companies that mention these.

Sandbags

Emergency exists

Emergency plan

Emergency water

Back-up power (generator)

FloodLine

3

3

11

3

4

4

evacuation procedure sandbags insurance floodline 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Were there procedures put into place after the floods?

Figure 21. This bar graph shows the procedures put into place after the floods were insurance, sandbags, evacuation procedures and signing up to FloodLine.

27

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

6.0: Discussion

A total of 21 questions were asked in the questionnaire, with a part A and

part B section for businesses who experienced different conditions during the

2007 floods. Part A for those who were affected in the 2007 floods- this

section helped with the experience and choice of actions sections of the

results, and part B for businesses views on flooding in Gloucestershire- this

section helped with the perceptions section of the results.

6.1 Experience and vulnerability

Every business during a flood experiences slight difference to other

businesses. The research carried out was a questionnaire looking into how

the 2007 flood event in Gloucestershire affected businesses and how the

perception of flooding has changed as well as any precautions the business

has untaken. Research carried out concluded 20 respondents from a range

of businesses in Gloucester and Tewkesbury and from these, 65 per cent

were affected by the 2007 floods.

The procedures that businesses had in place before the 2007 floods was

of a mixed variety. 9 of the respondents had business insurance, 7 had

procedures for transport to get into work, 6 had sandbags to use to protect

the entrances of the business, 5 already had insurance for equipment used,

and 2 were signed up to FloodLine. In the study, it was noted how bad the

flooding was in the areas which were studied by looking at how long the

mains water and power was affected. During the summer 2007 floods, 13

businesses was affected by loss of mains water, with 8 being affected for a

month, 4 being affected for under 10 days, and only 1 being affected for over

2 months. 12 businesses was affected by loss of power, with 7 affected for

under 10 days, 4 being affected for a month and 1 being affected for up to

three months.

It is shown in Figure 14 that even though insurance was one of the most

frequent procedure to have before the flood event of 2007, it was seen that

insurance was again one of the highest procedures put into place after the

28

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

floods (Figure 21), whether it was the procedure of getting insurance for the

business and equipment, or upping the policy.

6.2 Perceptions

The study wanted to look at how businesses perceptions were of the

floods, of what the government did during the floods, and how well the

management of the floods were. In question 7 of part A, it was asked if the

businesses believed that there was enough advice available from the

government during the floods. A response rate of 14 businesses believed

that there was enough advice available, whilst 80 per cent believed they saw

managements of the floods. However, the local government could have done

more to help in these flood situations. It was believed that the local

government could have added more protection with the likes of flood

protection for example sandbags, and more help to gain equipment

insurance was suggested. More advice would have also been liked, with

updates and reports readily available for businesses as well as guidance

leaflets, news updates and weather updates. A suggestion of more education

in the likes of flood awareness courses in which at least one person in a

business should have been on, as well as more education about floods and

preparedness in schools.

Local risk management was looked at (question 9) using a Likert scale

from extremely poor to extremely good managements of the floods. The

question of “On a scale from extremely poor to extremely good, how did you

think the local risk management was?” with a response of 25 per cent of the

respondents feeling that the local risk managements was mediocre, 25 per

cent neither bad or good, 10 per cent satisfied, 20 per cent somewhat good,

and 20 per cent good. From these responses it felt that the businesses

should have been more concerned about the location of their businesses as

it is located in close proximity of major rivers. However, it is shown that 80

per cent of respondents did not feel vulnerable about being located so close

to water, whilst 20 per cent did. From this study, it is learnt that 90 per cent of

the respondents believe that instead of fighting the flood, we should adapt

instead. (STUDY ON ADAPTATION???)

29

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Contradictions are shown in some of the results. In figure 16 it is shown

that businesses do not feel like there was enough advice available during the

floods however, if businesses believe that there was not enough readily

available advice why had the FloodLine sign up not been more drastic?

Table 5 uses Fisher’s test to look into the null hypothesis of whether

businesses that were flooded must have not been signed up to FloodLine, as

it seemed that many were unprepared for the flood. The results of the test

show that we could accept this null hypothesis. This shows that many

businesses were unprepared in the sense of updates of the situation of the

flood, which from the results showed that businesses wanted more of.

Secondly, businesses reported that they felt safe in their location and did not

feel vulnerable however, it is reported in figure 17 that there was not a great

deal of management seen during the floods. In table 3, the question asked

“What do you think the local government could have done to help people in

situations whose businesses was affected” answers included reports and

updates- these could have been available if businesses had signed up to

FloodLine.

6.3 Choice of actions

A comparison was made between businesses who was flooded and had a

knowledge of FloodLine or who were signed up to it, and businesses who

were not flooded, did/didn’t know of FloodLine or was signed up to it. Out of

all the respondents, only 50 per cent who knew who FloodLine are was

signed up to it, with a total of 5 signed up to FloodLine before or after the

flood event. 80 per cent of businesses that did not flooded, did not know who

FloodLine were or about their services, and a total of 75% of the respondents

not signed up to FloodLine. With limited number of businesses signed up to

FloodLine it was wondered whether the 2007 floods had encouraged

businesses to sign up, however results show that the minority of businesses

that had signed up to FloodLine did so before the floods, only 1 business

decided after the floods to sign up.

Choice of actions that businesses take after the floods can decrease or

stop the risk of flooding to businesses like what had occurred in the 2007

floods. It was asked (question 4) during the questionnaire to the businesses

30

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

about how they could prepare for flooding. Businesses responses were to

increase sandbags, to have more emergency exists in buildings and for

these to be made aware to the staff and the general public, the owners to set

out an emergency plan if it is likely that the business will be flooded,

emergency water for after the business is safe to use again if mains water is

not back on, and a suggestion of a back-up power supply such as a

generator should be put in place so that business can still run even when the

mains power supply is down or not working, and finally a couple of

businesses said that they would look into signing up to FloodLine for the

advice and service that they provide.

The choice of actions of procedures that businesses put into place after

the floods were shown in table 4 in the results section. The correlation of an

increase in sandbags put into place after the floods correlates with what

businesses had mentioned of what they could do to prepare for when there is

a risk of a flood. Evacuation procedures had also increased which shows in

figure 21 and was mentioned by 11 companies from what they thought they

could do to prepare for a risk of a flood. However, it is surprising that there is

no mention of insurance in table 4, as in figure 21 it shows that there is a

growth of businesses increasing their insurance after the floods.

31

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

7.0: Conclusion

This dissertation wanted to look at how the summer 2007 flood event

affected businesses in Gloucester. The results from this paper revealed that

the perceptions of businesses has changed due to the precautions they have

undertaken. During the summer 2007 floods, over half of the businesses

asked had been affected by loss of water and power, therefore insurance

cover was a procedure that many businesses had and paid a premium to

have better insurance to help with the clean-up costs if an event like the

2007 floods did happen again in the future. Bhattacharya-mis and Lamond

(2014) shows that flood memory is key in making decisions for future events

like the 2007 flood event. The flood memory influences knowledge and

experience and makes choices to carry out to protect for the future. The

perceptions of flooding is different in Gloucestershire compared to other

studies such as Baubion (2015) which reports that authorities such as local

and national governments become concerned of the fragility of the areas of

disaster when flooding occurs, and to help them adapt to extreme weather.

Research carried out by

The exploration of how well the management of the floods showed that 70

Per cent of the businesses asked believed that there was enough advice

available during the floods with 80 per cent seeing enough managements of

the floods. However businesses would still prefer more information in times

of a flood event. They believe that the local government could offer more

protection, guidance in the form of leaflets with news and weather updates,

and they would like to see more education not only in schools but also in the

form of flood awareness and prevention courses. Even though businesses

want all these resources they themselves are not signing up to the service of

FloodLine that provides these. From the research carried out it feels like the

businesses should have been more concerned about the location of their

businesses as it is located in close proximity of major rivers, however 80%

did not feel vulnerable about location- this could be due to flood memory as

the summer 2007 floods were nine years ago so many businesses have

forgotten to what extent it was like and some were not even in the locations

that they are in now.

32

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

The evaluation of procedures that were put into place after the floods

showed that there did not seem to be a significant change in those that were

already in place before the floods. Was this due to the businesses not feeing

vulnerable in the location that they were in? Or was it merely the flood

memory of the businesses not feeling that they need flood protection until the

situation seems real and a flood occurs? The lack of procedures put into

place after the floods is a cause for concern as the flooding in 2007 was

unforeseen and caught many off guard (Platt, 2013). Consequently many do

not want this to happen again especially as it caused 13 fatalities as well as

over 55,000 homes and businesses to be flooded. The amount of

precipitation that falls leading to a flood happens in such a short period of

time that if businesses acted quickly when the flooding begins, they would

still be unprepared.

To improve this study there are a few improvements that I would have

changed. Firstly, I would have increased the research size, by conducting

questionnaires in a bigger research area covering the whole of

Gloucestershire in areas that were affected by the 2007 floods. However,

due to the flood event being nine years ago, many businesses have changed

hands or have move location so even getting the sample size of 20 was a

challenge for the researcher. More initial research into the areas to where

businesses are located needs to be conducted before research in the field.

Secondly, the questionnaire could be changed to more open-ended

questions to get businesses individual views across instead of the

quantitative data collected in this study.

Overall people are still concerned about flood risk, however there is a

changed perception of flooding as it has not occurred in the area for nine

years. The results of the study suggest that the experience of the floods has

changed the risk and businesses are now engaging through strategies so

that they should not be focusing on what the government does for the

business during the floods, but what the business itself does in preparation of

the floods.

33

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

8.0: References

Abedin, A., Shaw, R. (2015).The role of university networks in disaster risk

reduction: Perspective from coastal Bangladesh. International journal of

disaster risk reduction. Vol 13. Pages 381-389.

Adikari, Y and Yoshitani, J. (2009) Global trend in water-related disasters —

an insight for policymakers. UNESCO, Paris.

Aerts, J., Botzen, W., van den Bergh, J. (2009) Dependence of flood risk

perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resource

Research.

Aerts, J., Botzen, W., Van den Bergh, J. (2009) Willingness of homeowners

to mitigate climate risk through insurance. Ecological Economies. Vol 68,

issue 8-0. Pages 2265-2277.

Aerts, J., Kabat, P., Van Vierssen, W., Veraart, J., Vellinga, J. (2005) Climate

proofing the Netherlands. Nature. Page 283-284.

Baker, V. (2015) Floods. Salem press Encyclopedia of science.

Baubion, C. (2015) Losing memory-the risk of a major flood in the Paris

region: improving prevention policies. Water policy. Organisation for

economic co-operation and development (OECD). Volume 17, pages 156-

179. DOI:10.2166/wp.2015.008

Becker, J., Lawrence, J., Quade, D. (2014) Integrating the effects of flood

experience on risk perception with responses to changing climate risk.

Natural Hazards. Vol 74, Issue 1773-1794.

Bhattacharya-mis, N., Lamond, J. (2014) Socio-economic complexities of

flood memory in building resilience: an overview of research. Procedia

economics and finance. Volume 18, pages 111-119. Doi: 10.1016/S2212-

5671(14)00920-4.

34

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Bird, D. (2009) The use of questionnaires for acquiring information on public

perceptions of natural hazards and risk mitigation- a review of current

knowledge and practice. Natural hazards and Earth System Sciences. Vol 9,

Issue 4. Pages 1307-1325.

Birken, C., Carsley, S., Darling, P., Khovratovich, M., Maguire, J., Omand, J.,

Parkin, P., Urquia, M. (2014) Evaluating the accuracy of a

geographic closed-ended approach to ethnicity measurement, a practical

alternative. Annuals of Epidemiology.

Birkholz, S., Jeffrey, P., Muro, M., Smith, H. (2014) Rethinking the

relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Science

of the total environment. Vol 478. Pages 12-20.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B. (1994) At risk: natural hazards,

people’s vulnerabilities, and disasters. Pages 124- 145.

Cabinet marker. (2005) Be prepared for flooding. Issue 5422, page 10.

Charlton, M., Lapthron, N., and Moncrieff, D. (2014) A questioning approach

to fieldwork. Teaching Geography.

Chilvers, J., Harvett, J., Petts, J. (2011) Understanding householder

responses to natural hazards: flooding and sea-level rise comparisons.

Journal of Risk Research. Vol 14, Issue 1. Pages 63-83.

Davies, M., Hughes, N. (2014) Doing a successful research project using

qualitative and quantitative methods. Second edition. Pages 9-184.

De Maever, P., Kellens, W., Terpstra, T. (2013) Perceptions and

communication of Flood Risks: A systematic review of empirical research.

Risk Analysis: An International Journal. Vol 33, Issue 1.

Edina Digimap. (2016) Gloucester coverage, 1:250 000 Scale Colour Raster

[TIFF geospatial data], Scale 1:250000, Tiles: sp,so, Updated: 24 April 2015,

Ordnance Survey (GB), Using: EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service,

<http://digimap.edina.ac.uk>,

Environment Agency. (2016) Flood map for planning (river and sea) of

Gloucester. Located on 30/03/2016. Available at: http://maps.environment-

35

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?

x=382979.0&y=218682.0&topic=floodmap&ep=map&scale=3&location=Glou

cestershire&lang=_e&layerGroups=default&textonly=off#x=381788&y=2177

69&lg=1,2,10,&scale=7

Environment Agency. (2016) Flood map for planning (river and sea) of

Tewkesbury. Located on 30/03/2016. Available at: http://maps.environment-

agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?

x=382979.0&y=218682.0&topic=floodmap&ep=map&scale=3&location=Glou

cestershire&lang=_e&layerGroups=default&textonly=off#x=388917&y=2326

26&lg=1,2,10,&scale=8

Environment Agency. (2010) The cost of the summer 2007 floods in

England. Delivering benefits through evidence. Project: SC070039/R1. Flood

and coastal risk management research and development programme.

Evans, E. (2004) Foresight: future flooding. Scientific summary. Volume 1-

Future risks and their drivers. London: Office of Science and Technology.

Flood proBE. (2010) Case study: Gloucestershire, GB floods 2007. Seventh

framework programme.

Flowerdew, R and Martin, D. (2005) Methods in human Geography: a guide

for students doing a research project. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2nd

Edition.

Gérard, H. (2016) Collaborative governance and rare floods in urban

regions- Dealing with uncertainty and surprise. In Participatory and

Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Flood Risk Management: An

emerging research agenda, Environmental Science and Policy. Elsevier

LTD. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.028.

GFRS. (2014) Gloucestershire, GB flood 2007: Case study. FloodProBE.

Located on 01/05/2015. Available at:

http://www.floodprobe.eu/partner/assets/documents/Floodprobe-Factsheet-

casestudy-gloucester.pdf

36

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Gloucester citizen. (2010) Huge cost of 2007 floods to businesses and

homeowners.

Gloucester county council. (2007) The demography of floodplain in

Gloucestershire. Research team, chief executive’s support unit.

Google. (2016) Gloucestershire map. © 2016 Google.

Haer, T., Wouter Botzen, W., Aerts, J. (2016) The effectiveness of flood risk

communication strategies and the influence of social networks- insights from

an agent-based model. Environmental science and policy. Volume 60, pages

44-52. Doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.006

Hannaford, J and Marsh, T. (2007) The summer 2007 floods in England and

Wales- a hydrological appraisal. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. PP32.

ISBN: 978-0-9557672-4-1.

Hewitt, K. (1997) Regions of Risk. A geographical introduction to disasters.

Themes in resource management. Page 55.

Hopkins, J and Warburton, J. (2015) local perception of infrequent, upland

flash flooding: prisoners of experience? Disasters. Vol 39, issue 3, page 546-

569. doi:10.1111/disa.12120.

IPCC. (2012) Managing the risk of extreme events and disasters to advance

climate change adaptation. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139177245

Islam, M., Kotani, K., Managi, S. (2016) Climate perception and flooding

mitigation cooperation: A Bangladesh case study. Economic analysis and

policy. Volume 49, pages 117-133. Doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2016.01.001.

Kissack, K. (1982) The River Severn. ISBN: 0861380045.

Know your flood risk™. (2013) Flood advice for businesses. Located on

01/05/2015. Available at:

http://www.knowyourfloodrisk.co.uk/sites/default/files/FloodGuide_ForBusine

sses.pdf

Kotov, V., Lebel, L., Nikitina, E., and Manuta, J. (2006) Assessing

institutionalized capacities and practices to reduce the risks of flood

37

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

disasters. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster

resilient societies, pp.359-379.

Lawrence, J., Quade, D., Becker, J. (2014) integrating the effect of flood

experience on risk perceptions with responses to changing climate. Nat

Hazards. Springer Science and Business Media Dordrecht.

McDonald, R. (2014) Questionnaires and interviews in survey research.

Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health.

Met Office. (2012) Heavy rainfall/flooding – July 2007. Located on

01/05/2015. Available at:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/july2007/

Nemec, J., Nigg, J., Siccardi, F. (1993) Predictions ans perceptions of

natural hazards. Advances in natural technological hazards research. Vol 2.

Pages 6, 88, 113.

Nquot, K. (2014) Flood mitigation measures in the United Kingdom. Procedia

Economics and Finance. Volume 18, pages 81-87. Doi: 10.1016/S2212-

5671(14)00916-2.

PITT Review. (2008) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. Located on

01/05/2015. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100807034701/http://archive.ca

binetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/

flooding_review/pitt_review_full%20pdf.pdf

Platt, E. (2013) The Drowned World. New Statesman. Vol 142, Issue 5139.

Pages 20-23.

Qasim, S., Khan, A., Shreshtha, R., Qasim, M. (2015) Risk perception of the

people in the flood prone Khyber Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan.

International journal of disaster risk reduction. Volume 14, part 4, pages 373-

378. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.001

Sarantakos, S. (2005) Social Research. 2nd edition. Palgrave Macmillan

Hampshire.

38

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

The Guardian. (2007) The town of Tewkesbury during the emergency.

Photography by Daniel Berehulak/Getty. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2007/jul/23/flooding#img-10

The Guardian. (2007) Coyeta brown, claus pittaway and sophie pittaway.

Alney terrace, Gloucester. Photography by Matt Cardy/Getty. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2007/jul/23/flooding#img-19

The Guardian. (2007) Landlady of the flooded Canterbury Arms in

Tewkesbury surveying the damage of her pub. Photography by: Matt

Cardy/Getty. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2007/jul/23/flooding#img-18

Appendices

Appendix one: Questionnaire asked to businesses for data collection.Hello, I am a 3rd year Geography student from the University of Gloucestershire and am looking into how the 2007 flood in Gloucestershire affected businesses and how the perception of flooding has changed as well as any precautions the business has untaken.

Please could you spend a few minutes of your time filling in this questionnaire?

Part A: This section is for businesses that were affected in the 2007 floods

1. How long overall was the business affected?

<month [] 2-5 months [] 6-12 months [] over a year []

2. How long was the business without water? <10days [] 10-30 days [] 1-3 months [] over 3 months []

3. How long was the business without power? <10days [] 10-30 days [] 1-3 months [] over 3 months []

4. Did you have any procedures in place before the floods?[] sandbags[] insurance [] for building [] for equipment

39

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

[] signed up to flood line[] evacuation procedure[] transport procedures in case employees could not make it to work[] no, the business did not have any procedures in place[] other ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Did any of your staff have illnesses due to the floods, leading them to be unable to work?

YES [] NO []

6. Were any of your staff affected by the disrupted transport links and unable to get to work? YES [] NO []

7. Do you think there was enough advice available to your business during the floods, such as: flood management websites, the environmental agency and local television?

YES [] NO []

8. Did you see any management of the floods? E.g. sandbags, defences. YES [] NO []

9. On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being not good at all to 10 being extremely good) how good do you think the local risk management was?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10.Do you know what Floodline is? YES [] NO []

11.Are you signed up to Floodline? YES [] NO []

12. If yes, when did you sign up? Before the floods [] during the floods [] after the floods []

13.Were there procedures put into place after the floods?[] sandbags[] insurance [] for building [] for equipment [] signed up to flood line[] evacuation procedure

40

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

[] transport procedures in case employees cannot make it to work[] no, the businesses didn’t put any procedures into place[] other ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Part B: This section is for businesses views on flooding in Gloucestershire.

1) What is it like to have a business in a close proximity of the River Severn? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2) Do you feel vulnerable in this area?

YES [] NO []

3) Do you agree or disagree with this quote: “Instead of fighting flooding, we should adapt instead”.

AGREE [] DISAGREE []

4) What do you think you can do to prepare your business if there is a risk of a flood? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5) Do you think there should be more education about floods and what to do in flood situations? YES [] NO []

6) Do you have any procedures in place in event of a flood?[] sandbags[] insurance [] for building [] for equipment [] signed up to flood line[] evacuation procedure[] transport procedures in case employees could not make it to work[] no, the business did not have any procedures in place[] other ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7) Is the business signed up to any flood warning systems e.g. Floodline? YES [] NO []

41

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

8) Does this business feel vulnerable in an area of known flooding? YES [] NO []

Thank you for participating in this questionnaire for my University Undergraduate Degree in BSc (Hons) Geography. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or my dissertation tutor on the email addresses below.

Charlotte Osborn: s1301149@glos.ac.uk

Rachel Bennett: rbennett3@glos.ac.uk

42

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Appendix two: Risk Assessment

Location: Gloucester and Tewkesbury

Date: 27 November 2015

Activity/Task: Dissertation questionnaires to businesses

Potential hazards nature controls Actioned

Insurance Uk day trip Standard university insurance.

No action required

Medical and emergency

training

First aid Know of location at all times

Mobile phone carried

survival Do not work alone Working with a partner, ensure in sight of partner at

all times

Group size Loan working Pre-define fieldwork area, remain in that

area.

Areas pre-defined, and

remain in that area until pick up

time.

Induction cash Carry small amounts with you

No action needed

Transport Partners car Always wear seatbelt

No action required

Experienced driver No action required

Ensure car insurance cover Is

accurate

No action required

Perform standard vehicle checks

No action required

Crime Vehicle crime Valuables taken with you

No action required

Physical hazards Trips, slips, falls Do not run No action required

Do not climb No action required

Wear suitable footwear

Checks before leaving

Assistance with the trip-partner

No action required

Struck by transport

Vehicle awareness Looking both ways before cross

roads

43

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Appendix three: Ethics

In relation to the Research Ethics handbook of principles and procedures.

As a researcher I have a responsibility to ensure that the physical, social

and psychological well-being of my research participants are not several

affected by the research that I am undertaking. Research relationships

should be characterised by mutual respect and trust.

The research carried out should be based on the freely given informed

consent of those under the study. The research needs to be explained fully

as it seems reasonable in terms of meaningful to the participants: the aims

and nature of the study and why it is being undertaken, as well as noting that

the participant’s business name will not be included in my study.

Care should be taken to ensure that the participants are not pressurised

into participation and have the right to refuse participation at any time, and

should not be given the impression that they are required to participate. It will

be explained that they research participants will be anonymous and all

findings will be only shown to dissertation tutors and regulators.

44

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

Evaluation Dissertation supervisor: Rachel Bennett

1. Dissertation guidance

1.1 the process of completing my dissertation was clearly explained

Strongly agree

5 4 3 2 1 Strongly disagree

X

1.2 Support provided by your supervisor was…

excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Very poor

X

1.3 I developed new skills

considerably 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

X

1.3 The dissertation extended my learning

Considerably 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

X

2. Your effort

2.1 I attended session to help with my dissertation

All 5 4 3 2 1 Very few

X

2.2 To support my dissertation I read…

Extensively 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

X

2.3 I sought support from my supervisor

Frequently 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

X

2.4 I planned my work well in advance

Defiantly 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

X

3. Resources and location

3.1 the labs/cubicles used for my data collection were appropriate

Very 5 4 3 2 1 Not used

X

Other necessary resources were available

Very 5 4 3 2 1 Not used

X

Library resources were useful

Definitely 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

X

45

S1301149_Osborn_C_NS6335_A002

46