The differential experience and socio-spatial distribution of flood risk in England: an example of environmental injusti

1. The differential experience and socio-spatial distribution of flood risk in England: an example of environmental injustice? Gordon Walker, Lancaster University Kate Burningham, University of Surrey Inequalities, Flooding and Water Resources Seminar University of Surrey, October 2006

2. Structure • Evidence • of social difference and inequality in the experience of the social impacts of flooding • of social difference and inequality in the distribution of flood risk • Question • Utilising this evidence, how can think about flooding in terms of justice principles?

3. project funded by the Environment Agency “Addressing Environmental Inequalities” • five reports: • Flooding • Waste Management • River Water Quality • Cumulative Impacts • Wales: flooding, waste, river water quality • Lancaster, Staffordshire, Surrey, Birmingham, London School Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster

4. Walker G, Burningham K, Fielding J, Smith G, Thrush D and Fay H, (2006) Addressing environmental inequalities: flood risk. Science Report SC020061. Bristol: Environment Agency [http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk Product number: SCHO0905BJOK-E-E] • Literature review on social impacts, inequality and deprivation (UK and international) • Workshop with stakeholders (Birmingham Feb 2005) • GIS data analysis of flood risk maps and Index of Multiple Deprivation

5. Social impacts of flooding • a wide range of social impacts • physical and psychological health • possessions and other economic assets; • household disruption • infrastructure and services disruption • loss of jobs and income • social impacts of flooding vary with the nature and magnitude of the flood event. • can be difficult to delineate as they are interconnected, cumulative and often not quantifiable

6. Social impacts and deprivation • limited research on the social impacts of flooding on deprived communities in the UK (existing research focuses vulnerability of types of individuals and households – not neighbourhoods) • though not all vulnerable individuals and households are deprived, deprived neighbourhoods do contain concentrations of vulnerable individuals. • levels of awareness of flood risk are low among those in the lower socio-economic groups - likely to be less well prepared to cope with flood and aftermath. • health impacts of flooding will be more extensive in neighbourhoods already characterised by poor health.

7. Social impacts and deprivation • those on low incomes less likely to have insurance (50% of houses in lowest income decile do not have contents insurance: ABI) • more deprived communities tend to have lower levels of social capital - and research suggests places with low levels of social capital cope less well in the aftermath of flooding. • overall, therefore deprived neighbourhoods are likely to be particularly hard hit by the impacts of flooding. • however, such neighbourhoods are not all the same and factors such as: the character of local social relations; ethnic and cultural make-up; age profile and housing type will all influence the degree of impact.

8. Social spatial distribution of flood risk • GIS analysis of EA flood map, deprivation data and household location data for England • Limitations of flood risk map

9. Percentage of total population within zones 2 and 3 for all types of flooding by deprivation decile(England)

10. Percentage of total population for river flooding by deprivation decile Percentage of total population for sea flooding by deprivation decile

11. Sea Flooding Regional analysis • total England population at risk is concentrated in London (41% of total) and Yorks and Humberside (19%) • For the most deprived decile - 40% of people in Yorks and Humberside and 38% in London • Within each region also relative concentrations towards most deprived • in every region the lowest proportion of people at risk is found in the two least deprived deciles

12. Percentage population in zone 2 for sea flooding by deprivation decile for each standard region

13. Accumulative, compounding evidence ….

14. Accumulative, compounding evidence …. Unequal distribution There is a concentration of people who are deprived living in zones at risk of sea flooding

15. Accumulative, compounding evidence …. + Unequal vulnerability Unequal distribution Deprived areas contain concentrations of particularly vulnerable people – who are typically less well prepared, less able to cope, less able to recover and more likely to suffer health effects than others There is a concentration of people who are deprived living in zones at risk of sea flooding

16. Accumulative, compounding evidence …. Severe & unequal impacts + Unequal vulnerability Unequal distribution = If (when) a major sea flood happens (despite defences where they exist) the social impacts are, as a consequence likely to be of a greater scale & severity; and to be felt disproportionately by the worst off and most vulnerable Deprived areas contain concentrations of particularly vulnerable people – who are typically less well prepared, less able to cope, less able to recover and more likely to suffer health effects than others There is a concentration of people who are deprived living in zones at risk of sea flooding

17. An environmental injustice? • On what grounds can claims of injustice be made – and therefore calls for action (by government or others) be articulated? • N.B. Claims of injustice are not being made by deprived and vulnerable populations at risk – there is not a local or national EJ mobilisation focused on flooding • analytically it is not enough to focus only on distribution - on the existence of distributive inequality; multiple conceptions of justice are potentially needed • need to give attention to institutional conditions, processes and procedures which can, in some way, explain how inequalities are produced, reproduced and sustained (Young 1990, Scholsberg 2004) • treatment, opportunities, constraints, oppression, domination • justice principles or ‘tests’ for flooding could take various forms ….

18. There should be an equal distribution of flood risk across different social groups (distributional) Everyone should have the same degree of choice as to whether or not they live in a flood risk zone (process) Everyone should have insurance to cover flood damage regardless of level of income (distributional) Decisions taken as to where to invest public resources in flood protection/preparedness should be fully open and inclusive (process/procedure) Investment of public resources in flood protection, preparedness and recovery should favour and be directed towards the most vulnerable areas/people (procedure)

19. A suggestion … • ‘Capabilities’ as the appropriate space for equality comparison – most ‘fruitful & ethically satisfactory’ (Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum) • Focus on what people do and are able to be • Seek after equality of capabilities • Have then to give attention to and address different circumstances that people are in, resources available and different means by which capabilities can be achieved • ethic of care; differentiation; focus on vulnerabilities • A productive way to integrate together social justice and vulnerability perspectives in analysis and in policy? • All people should have the capability to: • - Survive a flood • Recover their quality of life after a flood • Be involved in flood management decisions