Flood debris in Central Queensland: social implications

The purpose of this research was to examine the social implications of the January 2011 Queensland floods. This was undertaken by investigating three aims: 1. The public’s perception of impact from flood debris and floods, and the demographic variables that influenced these perceived impacts; 2. The public’s perception of concern relating to flood and the demographic variables that influenced these concerns; and 3. The level of flood preparation that occurs relating to floods, and the demographic variables that influenced flood preparation. Three social surveys were used to collect the data. The first targeted people using face-to-face purposive sampling of individuals in the Gladstone to Rockhampton area. The second survey targeted businesses in the Gladstone to Rockhampton region, and used a face-to-face survey. A third survey (referred to as the Queensland Social Survey [QSS]) was used to collect data on the broader Queensland population, specifically the southeast region and the rest of Queensland. The QSS survey used a computer-assisted telephone interviewing method. All surveys collected information about respondents: demographics (gender, age, income, locality type [and location – southeast Queensland versus other], employment status, and years of education); perceived impacts to their suburb, themselves, their family, and their pets and animals from the flood and flood debris; perceived concerns about future flooding; exposure with previous floods and natural hazards; exposure and behaviours related to littering; and self-admitted flood preparation activities. This research received approval from the Human Ethics Research Review Panel and all research was conducted in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Eight trends were evident: Respondents perceived flood impacts to their suburb, themselves, their family, and their pets and animals to be low. City dwellers were more likely to perceive that their suburb, themselves, their family and their pets and animals were less affected than those living in towns and rural areas. Respondents with 15 or more years of education were less likely to perceive that their suburb was affected by flood events. Previous exposure to natural hazards was negatively correlated with concern. Exposure to previous flood events was statistically correlated with preparing for flood events. The top six activities people undertake when preparing for floods were: a. Storage of emergency food and water (18.3%); b. Making changes or repairs to the area surrounding the home (11.6%); c. Storage of important objects and documents in a safe place (11.5%); d. Having a battery operated radio (10.7%); e. Making changes and repairs to their house (10.1%); and f. Having a flashlight available (9.7%). The least common activities were: a. Taking out flood insurance (1.8%); b. Asking someone for help (2.9%); c. Attending a first aid course (3.1%); and d. Teaching relatives what to do (3.7%). Flood preparation was influenced by a respondent’s gender, age, locality type, and their employment status. It’s likely that city dwellers are influenced by the ‘levee’ effect: discounting of risks because they believe that they were protected by the present flood mitigation actions that existed at the time (i.e., Wivenhoe dam).These outcomes should provide some insight for policy-makers regarding future mitigation strategies and building resilience in flood prone communities