FLOOD, VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE: A REAL-TIME STUDY OF LOCAL RECOVERY
FOLLOWING THE FLOODS OF JUNE 2007 IN HULL
Rebecca Sims1, Will Medd1, Elham Kashefi1, Maggie Mort1, Nigel Watson1, Gordon Walker1, Clare
Twigger-Ross2.
1Lancaster University
2Collingwood Environmental Planning
Key words: Social Impacts, Recovery, resilience, vulnerability
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the ESRC/EPSRC (RES-177-25-0004) and the Environment Agency for funding
the ongoing study upon which this work is based. We are also indebted to the participants in the
study whose voices we aim to help get heard 1.
Abstract
This paper will present some initial findings from this Environment Agency, ESRC/EPSRC funded
project which aims to undertake a real-time longitudinal diary-based study documenting and
understanding the everyday experiences of individuals following the floods of June 2007, focusing on
the ‘forgotten city’ of Hull. Focusing on the experiences of local communities in Hull the methodology
involves a standing citizen panel of 48 people who are engaged in diary keeping, in-depth interviews,
and group discussions.
The presentation will draw on accounts from interviews and diaries to indicate the very different
processes people go through in recovering from flood, and highlighting the role of institutional support
and investment in the built environment within that. The paper will draw out some of the implications
for thinking about resilience, exploring how different manifestations of resilience (as resistance,
response, adaptation), are played out in interaction with each other, across scale (household,
community, network, zone, city, region) and across social and physical worlds (e.g. community,
institution, built environment, critical infrastructure). We will conclude with reflections on the extent to
which the recovery process so far entails the development of new forms of resilience and what the
implications for developing local level resilience for flood recovery in the future might be.
Introduction
“Felt down and closed in again last night. If only I could believe repair work would start soon. I feel
forgotten by the insurers. Seeing people in their homes, settled back in hurts. God knows what it feels
like to be homeless.” (Lucy, diary)
“Can’t talk to people - in limbo. Wanted to run away but was stuck due to living conditions. Every time
it rains we feel uncomfortable and sick with worry.” (Leanne, diary)
In this paper, as well as contributing to a process of learning from the accounts of people who
experienced flood in the summer of 2007 and who continue to experience a drawn out process of
recovery, we want to look at what these accounts tell us about the concept of ‘resilience’. While
accounts of the initial flood impact are important, fascinating, and indeed both shocking and familiar
at the same time, the more extended process of flood recovery is often hidden - both in media
coverage as well as in post-flood analysis. And yet, not only does the process of recovery reflect a
significant dimension of existing (latent?) resilience, it is also a process which carries the possibility
for harvesting new forms of resilience, but also, reproducing fundamental vulnerabilities. Indeed, our
concern is not to outline a catch all definition of resilience, but to understand the different forms in
which resilience is manifest and how different forms of resilience might relate to each other, both
across scales as well as between different types of social and material phenomena.
Understanding the social dimensions of flood recovery and resilience
A growing body of work has sought to better understand the social, economic and health impacts of
flooding and the relationship between social and physical parameters of community resilience and
1
All names used in this report are pseudonyms, to protect the anonymity of participants.
preparedness (Twigger-Ross 2006, Thrush et al. 2005, Tapsell et al. 2005, Kirschenbaum 2002,
Gordon 2004 – include Convery 2008 forthcoming and Tapsell et al 2008). However, there is a dearth
of understanding about the processes people go through in recovering from flood disasters in the UK
and the role of institutional support and investment in the built environment within that. Existing ‘postflood’ studies (e.g. Tapsell et al. 2003, RPA/FHRC et al. 2004, Werrity et al. 2007) have struggled to
capture the extended, systemic and interactive nature of social, economic and health impacts in real
time, as well as the interaction between different institutional and engineering responses.
Furthermore, there is a need to deepen understanding about the public’s perception of engineering
and technological solutions in relation to flooding – for example, how the built environment contributes
to flooding as well as the possibilities of mitigation for effective management (Brown and Damery
2002).
Policy concerns for flood management have emphasised the need for development of both social and
physical strategies in building resilience to live with flood (Defra 2005, 2008, Environment Agency
2005, National Audit Office 2001) but which strategies are the most appropriate and how they should
be balanced, resourced and implemented remains problematic. Hull’s experience shows that the
impact of flooding is not homogenous, nor the capacities of people for recovery. A central concern
within research is vulnerability in relation to flood resilience (Fielding and Burningham 2005; Tapsell
et al. 2002). Research has identified a range of factors which are associated with higher levels of
vulnerability including income, age, ethnicity, pre-existing poor health and family structure (Walker et
al. 2006, Thrush et al. 2005a/b). Where these intersect across ‘multiple levels of social life’ (Buckle et
al. 2000), for example within deprived communities, there can be particularly intense problems. There
is therefore a need to understand the experiences of those that are most vulnerable, most dependent
on the support provided by external agencies and most likely to experience cumulative impacts over
the medium to long term.
However, while vulnerability focuses on weakness and susceptibility, resilience suggests a more
positive sense of strength. Competing conceptions of resilience have proliferated across a range of
disciplines with different implications for what the analysis of building resilience might mean (Medd
and Marvin 2005). For example, resilience is variously manifest as persistence, resistance, stability,
stasis, continuity, innovation, adaptation, transformation, immunity and recovery. Rather than
attempting to resolve a specific meaning of resilience with a tight definition, our ongoing analysis
involves examining different manifestations of resilience and their interaction with each other - in
particular across scale (household, community, network, zone, city, region) and social and physical
worlds (e.g. community, institution, built environment, critical infrastructure) (building on Medd and
Marvin 2005). Significantly, the interaction between social and physical factors shaping vulnerability
and resilience is likely to be key in identifying different pathways in the recovery process (c.f. Burton
et al. 1993).
Methodology and details of participants
The study started in October 2007 with the aim of capturing the “what, how and when” of people’s
everyday experiences as they move through the drawn out process of recovery. Following a tried and
tested methodology previously used to investigate recovery following the 2001 Foot and Mouth
disaster (Bailey et al. 2004, Convery et al. 2005, Mort et al. 2005, Convery et al. 2007, 2008), we
have recruited a citizen panel of participants who are engaged in diary keeping, in-depth interviews,
and group discussions.
To date, we have completed 48 interviews, comprising 43 residents and 11 frontline workers 2
(frontline workers and residents were not mutually exclusive) and have assembled a panel of 40
people completing weekly diaries of their experiences over a 12 to 18 month period. Diarists will also
meet together in groups at least twice during the project to discuss issues that emerge from their
participation in the research.
Participants have been recruited from all areas of the city but with a particular focus on West Hull, as
this was the area most severely affected by the flooding.
2
Defined as those who may not have been flooded themselves but who have been working with flood victims as part of their
employment. The 11 frontline workers we have interviewed comprise 2 teachers, 3 caretakers/community centre managers, 2
community wardens, 5 council/voluntary sector employees and 1 journalist.
The following statistics provide a profile of participants by age, tenure type and additional
considerations.
Profile of Residents
Tenure: 31 owner occupiers, 7 council tenants, 2 private rented, 3 housing association.
Age
20s
4
30s
13
40s
10
50s
7
60s
8
70s
3
80s
2
90s
1
Gender: 34 women, 14 men.
11 interviewees have a disability in the family
14 participants have children under 10.
7 participants were uninsured.
Initial findings and discussion
Analysis of interviews and diaries shows that resilience and vulnerability are manifest in different
ways and at different scales throughout the recovery process. For example, analysis at the level of
the individual reveals the ways in which the flooding has impacted upon people’s health and wellbeing. Mental health effects are particularly prominent as many participants report increased levels of
stress, anxiety and depression and a loss of interest in everyday activities:
Some days I just felt like jumping off the Humber Bridge. It’s been that low, it’s been
that bad, except I’m not brave enough to do it. But the state of mind you’ve been in –
some days I’ve just sat in here and just sobbed and sobbed and sobbed. (Leanne3,
interview)
Although much of the emotional trauma experienced is related to the stresses and strains of dealing
with the practicalities of flood recovery – from the loss of personal possessions to coping with
insurance companies and the experience of being displaced into temporary accommodation – longerterm research shows that people’s emotional recovery does not have a clear beginning or end
(Convery and Bailey 2008; Pitt Review 2008, Sims et al. 2008; Tapsell and Tunstall 2008). In many
cases, feelings of anxiety continue to be experienced long after repairs have been completed and the
person has returned to their home. Periods of bad weather can be particularly stressful, as people
fear a return of the flooding and are reminded of the hardships that they faced at the time:
When it rains I suppose, yes, I feel quite depressed … it maybe just triggers something
in my brain. Yesterday it rained quite bad and I was coming in and the drain at the
front is blocked and that was starting to fill and do you know, when you think - I just
walk away and I don’t know what I’d do, I’d rather just set fire to the house, walk away
and just never come back I think. I couldn’t do it again. (Abby, interview)
Such accounts indicate that people’s emotional resilience would be inappropriately assessed in terms
of a ‘return to normality’. As other studies have suggested, those affected are adjusting to a new form
of normality in which what might appear as an abnormal event has created a new awareness and
context of everyday risk assessment (cf. Mort et al 2005; Convery and Bailey 2008). Exploring the
emotional experiences of individuals is important because it can reveal tensions and vulnerabilities
that may not be apparent at the level of the household. Our research suggests that certain people
may be placed under particular strain in the months following the flood. For example, where couples
3
All names are pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the participants.
are concerned, the stresses of managing the recovery process often appears to fall upon women,
many of whom end up taking on the responsibility of project managing the repairs to the house
(Enarson and Fordham, 2001). In some cases this is because they work part-time or are at home
looking after children and, as a result, they are expected to be available to supervise workmen,
receive deliveries and make phone calls to the insurance company. However, project management
demands new knowledge and specialised skills and this role is often experienced as an additional
burden on top of their existing family and employment responsibilities:
It was really stressful and it really took us to have a gigantic argument because he didn’t
come to the house - he came four times in six months, my husband… He couldn’t face it
so I faced it all on my own… I have to do it all on my own, he doesn’t do it because he
can’t cope with the stress. (Karen, interview)
Others can also experience disproportionate effects following floods. For example, there are impacts
upon workers who are charged with helping and supporting flooded residents, both in the initial
emergency response phase and during the longer-term recovery. Interviews with these workers
showed that many undertook long hours in difficult and dangerous conditions and dealt with people
experiencing considerable feelings of anger and distress, despite receiving little training or support to
help them in their role. Children can also become anxious and unsettled as a result of having to live in
temporary accommodation and attend an alternative school.
When we told Edward it would be six more weeks and then we could move back home he
started to pack his toys away! I don’t think anybody realised how much the floods and the move
affected Edward. He still gets upset and very protective of me every time it rains. He has just
started cubs so it means he can see his friends more like he use to, because we lived so close
to all his friends he is isolated in the rented house and spends a lot of time on his computers or
watching the TV. (Melanie, diary)
The stresses experienced by individuals can also take their toll on recovery at the level of the
household. Many participants report that the flooding has placed a major strain on their personal
relationships, leading to an increase in arguments. Over the longer-term, some diarists report that
having to work through arguments had actually strengthened their relationships. However, others
continue to experience difficulties or recount stories of those whose relationships have not survived.
Of course, discussions of the emotional recovery of individuals and households cannot be separated
from people’s experiences of the recovery of the built environment – a process which occurs in
interaction with networks of other actors and strategies of institutional support. During recovery, flood
survivors come into contact with a wide range of agencies, from the local authority through to
insurance companies, building contractors, cleaning companies, waste companies, loss adjusters and
utility companies. For one diarist we counted around 15 different agencies involved in the recovery
process. This often results in complications because all these different organisations have their own
unique – and sometimes conflicting – understandings of resilience and recovery. For example,
recovery workers tasked with collecting people’s furniture appear to have treated personal
possessions as ‘things’ that have only material rather than emotional value. Thus, for the agencies in
charge of this process, ‘recovery’ is about the swift and efficient collection and disposal of flooddamaged goods (see Harada 2000 and Easthope 2008). However, our research shows that such
well-intentioned, ‘official’ understandings of recovery can actually be detrimental to emotional
recovery as people are subjected to the re-traumatising experience of watching treasured
possessions getting thrown into a skip.
“And then Disaster Care arrived… A big white van came and six or seven guys… jumped out
and donned these white suits, which had hoods on them and everything and masks on… And
they are telling us that everything is contaminated and we shouldn’t really be in there. And then
they start throwing all your worldly goods out on the drive... And then this huge wagon come
and put everything in the back and crush all your possessions and everything. And I was trying
to save stuff and take it back in and they kept saying, “No, no, contaminated, you can’t have
that” (Leanne, interview).
“When the council told us to throw everything out which had come into contact with the water as
the water was contaminated we was absolutely gutted – more so when the dust cart came and
took it all away. As we weren’t insured all we could think of was ’Oh my god we’ve got nothing
left and it took us years to get that sort of furniture together’” (Marion, diary).
There are also issues around communication and coordination with and between the various
agencies involved. Flood survivors go to considerable lengths to try to get information from these
agencies and a lack of information – or contradictory information – can cause considerable distress
and frustration.
Left another message [with loss adjustor] – no response. If he would just call me back – it’s so
frustrating. This seems to be taking up my whole life – God, what did I do before the flood?
(Rachel, diary).
It was hell to get hold of her again; I just kept ringing her on her mobile. We had to try and
keep this sort of level of not being a nuisance to everybody but not letting things go that we
should be doing. (Emily, interview)
Communication is vital during the months following a flood because each agency has its own
definitions of – and procedures for achieving – recovery, and a lack of progress in one area can
cause delays and setbacks in another. For example, residents are often advised to avoid ‘cowboy
builders’ by employing a reputable local contractor to do the work. However, many local contractors
are small enterprises which require regular cash flow to stay afloat. As a result, if the cheque from the
insurance company is slow to arrive, householders must either find a way of paying for the repairs
upfront – a difficult prospect considering the large sums of money involved – or they must face the
disappointment of having work called-off until the cheque arrives. Therefore, a person’s attempts to
increase resilience in one area can make them more vulnerable in another.
Many disaster recovery templates place an emphasis on the importance of achieving a swift “return to
normality” for flood victims. However, while the principle of these sentiments is admirable, it is
important to question the assumptions behind them. One concern is that, in the haste to ‘get things
back to normal’, many of the factors which make people vulnerable to flooding may be reproduced.
For example, experiences in Hull suggest that, while it is possible to make some changes to the fabric
of a building in order to make it more resilient to flooding, few participants have been making these
changes during repairs to their home because their insurance companies will not fund them. We have
been told that this is because making such changes would be classed as “improvements”, and that
this is not covered by insurance policy. Therefore, residents are having their houses returned to their
previous condition, thus reproducing their vulnerability to future flood. We would argue that, while it is
essential to ensure that people are able to recover from flooding as quickly as possible, attempts to
improve the recovery process should also focus on the ways in which we can build resilience for the
future, and care should be taken not to reproduce people’s vulnerability to subsequent flood events.
Conclusion
To reiterate, this paper is based on preliminary analysis and with a concern to understand the longer
term recovery process from flood – our presentation of these findings is not based on our complete
analysis. However, already we suggest there is scope for recognising the need to address what is
meant by ‘resilience’ and ‘recovery’. In our analysis we are concerned with understanding how
resilience has been manifest in the process of recovery, but also, how, during in that process, new
forms of resilience are developed.
In relation to existing resilience, we are beginning to identity certain aspects of the everyday
experience that demonstrate effective recovery, in addition to factors which restrain, prolong or resist
it. For example we have indicated the issues of insensitive handling of possessions or delays in
compensation from insurance companies. Understanding these dynamics more fully will require
bringing the physical conditions of flood, flood impact and flood defence and drainage infrastructure,
together with an understanding of individual agency and the social structures (including socioeconomic characteristics, community structures, institutional structures) through which agency and,
consequently, vulnerability and resilience, are produced (Pelling 2003, Perrow 1999, Rodriguez et al.
2006).
Our second concern, the question of the extent to which new forms of resilience are now being
formed, is particularly important in the context of climate change (e.g. Berkes and Folke, 2003,
Brooks 2003, Few et al. 2005, Yohe and Tolb 2002). The emphasis of the research would suggest
that processes of adaptation are required, rather than a return to the ‘original condition’ (a goal which
has itself been contentious, for example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans;
Daniels et al. 2006). Indeed, Tobin (1999) has argued that we should question the politics of recovery
if such recovery means a return to the same socio-economic conditions which were generative of the
very vulnerabilities that were exposed during a disaster event. So while some argue that disasters
provide moments of opportunity for learning and embedding of preparedness and future resilience
(Mileti et al. 2004), there may be many reasons why this does not materialize, and indeed, such
events may even become socially divisive (Convery et al 2008). As our research develops, we are
therefore looking at understanding the different, local and in-depth experiences of and perspectives
on the recovery process, in order to identify where the opportunities and constraints for institutional
and engineering responses for future resilience might lie.
References
Bailey et al. (2004) Narratives of trauma and ongoing recovery: the 2001 foot and mouth disease
epidemic, Auto/Biography, 11: 37-46
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Ed. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brooks, N. (2003) ‘Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework’. Working paper 38,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Brown, J. D. and S. L. Damery (2002). Managing flood risk in the UK: towards an integration of social
and technical perspectives. Transactions of the Institute for British Geographers, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp. 412-426
Buckle P, Mars G and Smale S, (2000) New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience.
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 15, No. 2 (Winter 2000), 8–14
Burton, I., Kates, R.W., and White, G.F. (1993) The Environment as Hazard, Guildford Press, London
Convery et al. (2005) Death in the Wrong Place? Emotional geographies of the 2001 foot and mouth
disease epidemic, Journal of Rural Studies, 21, 99-109
Convery, I. and Bailey, C. (2008 forthcoming) ‘After the flood: the health and social consequences of
the 2005 Carlisle Flood event’, Flood Risk Management
Convery I., Mort M., Bailey C., and Baxter J, (2008 in Press) Animal Disease and Human Trauma:
Emotional Geographies of Disaster, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Convery I., Mort M., Bailey C., and Baxter J, (2007) Role Stress in Front Line Workers during the
2001 Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic: the value of therapeutic spaces. Australasian Journal
of Disaster and Trauma Studies.
Daniels, R. J. et al. (Ed.) (2006) On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina Philadephia:
University of Pennsylvania.
Defra (2005). Making Space for Water: Developing a new Government Strategy for flood and coastal
erosion risk management in England: a delivery plan. DEFRA: London
Defra (2008) Pitt Review Interim Report: learning the lessons from the 2007 floods. DEFRA: London
Easthope, L. (2008) The human aspects of flooding: personal effects – response to the Pitt Review
Interim Report: Learning the lessons from the 2007 floods, Chapter 9 of the Pitt Review Interim
Report. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
Enarson, E. and Fordham, M. (2001) ‘Lines that divide, ties that bind: race, class, and gender in
women’s flood recovery in the US and UK’ Australian Journal of Emergency Management.
15(4), 43-52.
Environment Agency (2005) Directing the Flow, EA’s Flood Risk Management Strategy, Making
Space for Water, EA January
Few, R. Ahern, M., Matthies, F., and Kovats, S. (2005) Health and flood risk: a strategic assessment
of adaptation processes and policies, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Technical
Report 17
Fielding, J. and Burningham, K. (2005) ‘Environmental Inequality and Flood Hazard’, Local
Environment, 10 (4): 379-395
Gordon R (2004) The social system as a site of disaster impact and resource for recovery, Australian
Journal of Emergency Management 19, 16-22
Harada, T. (2000) “Space, materials, and the ‘social’: in the aftermath of a disaster”, Environment and
Planning D Society and Space, 18: 205-212
Kirschenbaum, A. (2002). Disaster preparedness: A conceptual and empirical reevaluation.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 20(1), 5-28.
Medd, W. and Marvin, S. (2005) ‘From the Politics of Urgency to the Governance of Preparedness: A
Research Agenda on Urban Vulnerability’ Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management 13 (2), 44-49.
Mileti, D. (2004), Sustainable Development And Hazards Mitigation In The United States: Disasters
By Design Revisited Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10 (3) 491-504
Mort et al. (2005) Psychosocial effects of the 2001 UK foot and mouth disease epidemic in a rural
population: qualitative diary based study, British Medical Journal, 26 Nov, Vol 331, No 7527
National Audit Office (2001) Inland Flood Defence, HMSO: London
RPA/FHRC et al. 2004. The Appraisal of Human-Related Intangible Impacts of Flooding. Report to
Defra/Environment Agency. R&D Project FD2002. London:Defra (Available for downloading
from the Defra website – www.defra.gov.uk)
Pelling, M. (2003) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience, Earthscan:
London
Perrow, C. (1999) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, New Jersey: Princeton.
Rodriguez, H., Trainor, J., & Quarantelli, E. L. (2006). Rising to the Challenges of a Catastrophe: The
Emergent and Prosocial Behavior following Hurricane Katrina. ANNALS, AAPSS,, 604, 82-101
Sims et al. (2008) The ongoing experience of recovery for households in Hull – response to the Pitt
Review Interim Report: Learning the lessons from the 2007 floods, Chapter 9 of the Pitt Review
Interim
Report
(Available
for
downloading
from
the
project
website
www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/cswm/Hull%20Floods%20Project/HFP_home.php)
Tapsell et al. (2002),’Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions’, Philosphical
Transactions of the Royal Society,360 (1796): 1511-25
Tapsell, S., and Tunstall, S.M. (2008) “I wish I’d never heard of Banbury: the relationship between
place and health impacts from flooding”, Health and Place, 14: 133-154
Tapsell S., Tunstall S. M., and Wilson T. (2003) Banbury and Kidlington four years after the flood: an
examination of the long-term health effects of flooding, Bristol: Environment Agency
Tapsell, S., Burton, R., Oakes, S., and Parker, D. J. (2005) The Social Performance of Flood Warning
Communications Technologies (No. TR W5C-016): Environment Agency
Thrush D, Burningham K and Fielding J, (2005a) Exploring flood-related vulnerability: a qualitative
study. R&D Report W5C-018/3. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Thrush D, Burningham K and Fielding J, (2005b) Vulnerability with regard to flood warning and flood
event: a review of the literature. R&D Report W5C-018/1. Bristol: Environment Agency
Tobin, G. A. (1999). "Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning?"
Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 1(1): 13-25.
Twigger-Ross C (2006) Managing the social aspects of flooding: synthesis report, Environment
Agency R&D Technical Report SC040033/SR6
Walker G., Burningham K., Fielding J., Smith G., Thrush D. and Fay A. (2006) Addressing
Environmental Inequalities: Flood Risk, Science Report SC020061/SR1 Bristol: Environment
Agency,
Werritty A., Houston D., Ball T., Tavendale A. and Black A. (2007) Exploring the Social Impacts of
Flood Risk and Flooding in Scotland, Scottish Executive
Yohe, G. and Tolb, R.S.J. (2002) ‘Indicators for social and economic coping capacity – moving toward
a working definition of adaptive capacity’. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40.