Perceptions of the Launcestopn flood risk

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Thank you for the paper, (‘Coming, ready or not! – Perceptions of flood risk in the Launceston community’, by Willis, K.F., Vince, J. Vogt, M. (University of Tas and Lton City Council), presented at 5^th Victorian Flood Management Conference at Warrnambool, 9-12 October 2007.) and your three questions. I have gone into a lengthy response as I believe it was an important paper and I think the questions raised deserved full consideration in light of the 6-8 June 2016 emergency and evacuations.

The 2007 study provides useful insight into perceptions of a sample of residents of two suburbs located on the North Esk flood plain. My comments/observations are not intended in any way as a criticism of the study or the method. Rather, they are made within the context of the current debate over the relocation of an existing university campus that the limitations in its scope stand out, and now, importantly, within the context of the flood emergency and disaster of the last few days.

It is now somewhat ironic that the study was carried out by researchers from the Launceston City Council and Utas, the two main proponents of the unilateral relocation proposal. In putting the proposal together, these two bodies have ignored the very community upon whom the study was based.

In the current context, the inclusion of the perceptions of another obvious group of people would be instructive. This group includes policy makers, aldermen, councillors from neighbouring municipalities, university officials, etc.

None of the Utas officials pushing the Inveresk plan, the policy/decision makers, aldermen or councillors of other municipalities live in the Northern suburbs. Indeed many reside outside the Launceston boundary, but as they have a disproportionate say in the treatment of the area in question, insight into their perceptions and their abilities to get their heads around the issues and complexities would be instructive.

It is somewhat ironic, that in 2007 the LCC and Utas carried out study into the perceptions of people in the flood risk zones, but the perceptions of LCC/Utas officials et al about risk and/or community have not been considered as an influence in the decision-making process. 

Such a study would be of value to the current debate and to the status of the flood plain if it had included research into the perceptions of those who have the power, the resources and a disproportionate say over the living and working spaces and heritage not only of the respondents in the 2007 study, but also of the wider community. 

• Relevant interview questions for this group might ask how familiar they are with, or what their perceptions are of the area in question? 

• Have they read or studied the relevant issues for themselves without being influenced by their peers or general managers? 

• Do they understand the issues, complexities and interactions (e.g. of engineering and hydrological matters, climate change, concurrent natural events, social/cultural/historical considerations, notions of and theories on community)? 

• Are they able to or prepared to make decisions based on their own scrutiny of the evidence before them?

To answer your three questions:

1. In answer to your first question, ‘Has anything changed in perceptions and understandings by swampies to their plight?’ I would say that ‘swampies’ still have the same general views/perceptions expressed in the study, but given the flood disaster and worry of the past few days, residents have expressed disbelief and anger that the council would allow such a development on the old bike track. The majority of locals strongly oppose the Utas proposal. 

They are mystified as to why the council would support such an idea, why the council would actually want anything built on the old bike track. A consistent and ongoing perception is that the old bike track is not an empty, unused piece of land! 

It is perceived as being used all the time, important to the range and viability of activities/events that use it, and when it is not being used for events or event parking it is seen as a valuable open space for casual public (including students) use, such as simply sitting around on the grass or rocks having lunch, kicking a football, exercising the dog, throwing a stick for the dog etc.   

2. In response to your second question, ‘Do they still think it is a Council responsibility or a personal one?’ it is a combination of the two. For example, it is seen as a personal responsibility to take appropriate action to prepare to evacuate, but it is also seen as being incumbent upon the council to inform residents about any impending disaster in as timely and efficient a manner as possible based on the most recent advice to hand. 

Similarly, it is seen as partly a personal responsibility in any decision to purchase or build, say, a new house within the confines of the levee system.

It is seen unequivocally however, as the council’s responsibility in allowing any new building on currently undeveloped/open land, on reclaimed land and particularly on land outside the levee system such as that at Seaport. Common questions in that regard are along the lines,

• What was the council thinking? 
• How did the developer (name) get permission for that?

3. In answer to your third question, ‘Has the LCC campaign to raise awareness been successful?’ local residents - particularly older and/or long time residents or anyone who has some social/cultural memory (ie from childhood memories or from stories by their parents, grandparents or relatives) of the 1929 floods and the aftermath - have always been aware of flood matters.

There is a cynicism about the council’s own actions and a perception that there is a lack of awareness within the council itself. Although there might be some annoyance about inconsistencies in the flow of reliable information, or jokes about not being able to hear the warning sirens in some parts of Invermay, this cynicism is not generally aimed at the flood authority or the emergency services, but more at the aldermen.

A common thought is that the council itself ignores its own awareness campaign by being inconsistent in its application of planning requirements, which have been made more onerous as part of flood measures over recent years.

For example, several people have expressed considerable annoyance, anger even, when describing the application process they had to endure to construct relative simple buildings such as a carport or garage or similar, when the same does not appear to apply to institutions such as the university or to developers or industrial/commercial premises.

There is a perception that insurance premiums have increased considerably as a result of LCC actions, such as putting up the metal markers on power poles. It is possible that this is actually the case. Marked increases in insurance premiums seemed to appear from c. 2010-2011.

The social and physical (topographical, street layout, location of shops) nature of the suburbs of Inveresk and Invermay means that the neighbourhood grapevine acts as its own source of information and support.

Further, ageing and natural changes in the demographic makeup of the two suburbs make it tricky to determine the success of the LCC awareness campaign over the past decade. Longer term residents are aware of the campaign, but are more sceptical about it, while it has probably been successful among residents who have moved into the area in more recent decades.

I particularly liked the part of the paper’s title, ‘Coming, ready or not…” It could be applied to the increase in more extreme natural disasters vs. the action of allowing the construction of a huge building on a relatively small open space on a flood plain.

Regards, Dr. Jillian Koshin

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE