ARTICLE IN PRESS

Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311

www.elsevier.com/locate/hazards

Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and

perception of flood risk
Heather M. Bella,, Graham A. Tobinb
a
Department of Geography and Regional Studies, University of Miami, 1000 Memorial Dr. (Ferre 205) Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA
b
Department of Geography, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave (NES 107), Tampa, FL 33620-5250, USA

Abstract

This paper presents a synopsis of several terms used to describe US policy’s benchmark flood and a preliminary study of how such
terms are interpreted. Questionnaire surveys were conducted in a flood prone community with residents living in and out of official flood
plains. Comparable questions regarding uncertainty, perceived need for protection, and concern were asked in connection with four
descriptive methods: a 100-year flood; a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year; a flood with a 26 percent chance of
occurring in 30 years; and a flood risk map. Statistical analysis and qualitative observation showed a disjuncture between understanding
and persuasion, potential problems with the 26 percent chance method, and a preference for concrete references in describing risk.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flood hazards; Risk communication; Risk perception; 100-year flood

1. Introduction passed the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA), and a

From 1980 through 2005, 67 weather-related disasters in
the United States exceeded one billion dollars each in direct
damage (Ross and Lott, 2006). In over half of them,
flooding was either the primary cause or a significant
component of a compound disaster like a hurricane.
According to an updated version of Pielke et al’s. (2002)
reanalysis of National Weather Service data (Flooddama-
gedata.org), direct physical flood losses over 72 years prior
to 2003 exceeded 171 billion dollars. This statistic does not
include the catastrophic losses related to Hurricane
Katrina. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) (2006a) reports that almost $16 billion in claims
were paid out by the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) in 2005.
Effective loss prevention and distribution must begin
well before a flood event, but the benchmarks and
terminology we use to manage and communicate flood
risk may be working against this goal. In 1968, Congress
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (305) 284 4781.
E-mail addresses: hmbell@miami.edu (H.M. Bell), gtobin@cas.usf.edu
(G.A. Tobin).
campaign to map flood prone communities across the
country began shortly thereafter. In order to map the
nation as quickly as possible, using multiple organizations,
efficiently coded policy requirements were imperative. The
depicted Base Flood Elevations and Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHA), as well as the associated building and
insurance guidelines outlined in the NFIA and expanded
upon in the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, were all
based on the parameters of a flood with a return period
of 100 years, i.e. a 1 percent chance of occurring in any
given year.
The 1 percent chance flood was chosen because it
‘‘constitutes a reasonable compromise between the need for
building restrictions to minimize potential loss of life and
property and the economic benefits to be derived from
floodplain development’’ (FEMA, 2006b, p. 2). The initial
goal of adopting the 100-year flood criterion was not
effective communication of risk or risk policy, but efficient
administration and implementation. The efficiency with
which the Flood Insurance Administration set about
blanketing the country (Reuss, 1993), combined with the
efficient verbal and visual coding of the 100-year flood,
may well have led to the term’s institutionalization before

1747-7891/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.08.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
its usefulness to risk policy and risk communication was
examined. Its relation to behavior and attitude was not
considered. The influences of informal communication and
contextual differences in meaning on the interpretation of
flood risk were not fully anticipated either.
The usefulness of the 100-year flood as a policy criterion
has been upheld (NRC, 2000), though it is still debated
(GFWNFPF, 2004; Association of State Floodplain
Managers (ASFPM), 2007). Practitioners and researchers
alike have questioned the effectiveness of 100-year flood
terminology in public communication (NRC, 1995, 2000;
Smith, 2000; Gruntfest et al., 2002; GFWNFPF, 2004). Its
use may emphasize risk dichotomies and mask the
irregularity and uncertainty associated with both the
timing and consequences of flooding. In a 2006 publica-
tion, the National Research Council (NRC) linked the
misunderstanding of uncertainty to poor decisions with
potentially disastrous results in the face of hazardous
events. There is worry that misunderstandings associated
with 100-year flood terminology might attenuate concern
and reduce the likelihood of mitigative behavior. The
effectiveness of the 100-year flood as a means to change
attitude or motivate behavior has not been assessed, nor
has its utility in increasing public understanding of flood
risk and uncertainty. New terms have been introduced, but
their effectiveness also remains unproven. This research
provides a preliminary evaluation of four methods used to
communicate flood risk to the public. All refer to US
policy’s benchmark flood.
2. Risk communication and the 100-year flood
Covello et al. (1986) identified four components of
risk communication: the message source; message design;
delivery channel; and target audience. This model
depicts risk communication as linear, and is described
by Kasperson and Stallen (1991) as the ‘‘engineering
approach’’. Risk communication is viewed as a means of
transmitting technical or scientific information regarding
risk from a known, intentional source (the experts) along
designated channels, to specified recipients (the public).
Discussions between friends, overheard conversations,
the influence of movies, and other types of informal
and sometimes unintentional communication are not
accounted for.
Most official flood risk communication operates under
the narrow model; flood risk information is assumed to be
transferred from experts to a general audience via maps,
pamphlets, and policy. Because of the efficiency of the
message and the shared language of experts and public, a
shared code was initially assumed. However, in using the
100-year flood as the basis of verbal and visual commu-
nication, risk communicators unintentionally substituted a
contextual sub-group (the experts) for the public as the
target audience.
Embedded in the flood parameters is uncertainty
resulting from natural variability, changing environmental
303
conditions, data constraints, and human error. At least
some of these uncertainties were internalized by those
conducting the studies. An efficiently coded message,
however, will be filtered differently by the general public
than by those who originally produced its content.
Uncertainty is likely to be eliminated as an incoming
message is recoded into existing mental categories (Boisot,
1995). The coding of the 100-year flood is both recogniz-
able and potentially relevant, and is thus particularly
malleable.
As the 100-year flood designation moved out of the
arena of implementation and into the political and public
spheres, it ‘‘rapidly transformed in the community mind to
a definition of flood free and flood prone, with areas
above the designated flood perceived to be flood free—
a misconception often reinforced by flood maps that shade
only those portions that are subject to the designated
flood’’ (Smith, 2000, p. 255). While more research is needed
to confirm this, Smith’s assertion is reasonable and general
risk communication research supports such a conclusion
(Slovic, 1986; Hance et al., 1989; Tobin, 1995). Kates and
White (1961) also indicate that map lines, like levees, may
produce a false sense of security. These potential differ-
ences in audience interpretation were not addressed prior
to the implementation of the NFIP and by the time risk
communicators were concerned with context, new mean-
ings were already entrenched.
The 100-year flood came to prominence during what
Powell and Leiss (1997) describe as the first phase of risk
communication. The focus was on comparable risk
assessment and the identification of physical risk cate-
gories; communication was authoritarian, privileging
scientists and officials and downplaying a public who
thought and talked about risk differently. In the second
phase, communication remained instrumental and one-
sided, but those communicating risk began to tailor their
messages and an effort was made to recognize public needs.
Experts were privileged, but, like marketers, had to
acknowledge audience characteristics in order to take
advantage of them.
Communication was considered effective if it success-
fully influenced a receiver’s attitude and behavior in a
manner desired by the sender (Boisot, 1995). This
conceptualization is based on persuasion and is referred
to as the dominance model (McQuail and Windhal, 1981).
There are many who contest such a conceptualization and
instead stress understanding as the key to effective
communication (e.g. Belsten, 1996; Parker, 2000; Trumbo,
2000; Kasemir et al., 2003), but persuasion continues to be
the practical, if not the theoretical, model of much risk
communication. Perhaps because the NFIP was developed
prior to the emphasis on social context, stakeholder dialog,
and trust building that characterizes the third phase
(Powell and Leiss, 1997), flood risk communication
tends to follow the persuasive model. More inclusive
models of policy making and flood risk communication
have begun to be explored and implemented, however
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
304 H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
(e.g. Larson and Plasencia, 2001; Environmental Agency,
2005; Frech, 2005).
Government agencies recognize the inadequacy of the
100-year flood in communicating flood risk and the danger
of reinforcing risk dichotomies (NRC, 1995, 2000); over
half of flood losses (Smith, 2000; Frech, 2005) and
approximately 25 percent of paid insurance claims
(FEMA, 2006a) occur outside SFHA. As a result, there
has been a move to use more effective terminology without
forsaking the efficiency necessary to carry out a nationwide
program. In 2000, the NRC recommended several other
messages thought to better convey uncertainty. Suggestions
included the 1 percent chance flood, percent chance of
flooding during a 30-year mortgage (essentially a 1 in 4,
and described as a 26 percent chance), and an analogy
linking the chance of flooding in 50 years to the chance of
tossing a coin and coming up with heads (NRC, 2000).
Other organizations, like the Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, have suggested a similar shift in terminology
(Faber, 1996).
The NRC (2006) has positioned the understanding of
uncertainty concepts as a stepping stone to better decision
making and, ultimately, behavior. Persuasion is believed
to be contingent upon understanding of the uncertainty
concepts originally associated with the 100-year flood
(NRC, 2000), but it is not clear that a better perception of
uncertainty and probability will bring the risk perception
of expert and general public closer together or induce a
desired response. Anecdotal evidence from areas using the
1 percent chance description points to a potential problem
with persuasion. After all, there’s ‘‘a 99 percent chance of it
not happening!’’ (www.coxsmeadow.homestead.com).
3. Scope of the study
Arkin (1989) has emphasized the importance of carefully
testing messages prior to official communication. Practi-
tioners and other researchers have also indicated a need to
research the effectiveness of different messages (Connelly
and Knuth, 1998; NRC, 2006). However, the suggested
terms, like the 100-year flood before them, have not yet
been tested as to their efficacy in influencing public
understanding of uncertainty concepts, attitude, or beha-
vior. The primary purpose of this research is a preliminary
comparison of four descriptions currently used in official
flood risk communication: (i) the 100-year flood; (ii) a flood
with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year;
(iii) a flood with a 26 percent chance of occurring in 30
years; and (iv) a flood risk map depicting the 100-year
floodplain. The map was, at the time of fieldwork, available
online through a partnership between ESRI and Project
Impact. Three hypotheses were tested regarding relative
effectiveness:
1. An event described as having a 1 percent chance of
occurring in any given year would be perceived more
accurately in terms of its random nature compared to
the 100-year event, but would be associated with lower
levels of concern and less of a need for protection. This
description would thus be less persuasive.
2. Events described as having a 26 percent chance of
occurring in a 30-year period would be perceived as
more variable than the 100-year flood, but comparably
persuasive.
3. Current floodplain maps would be perceived as illus-
trating absolute boundaries, and thus fail to convey
uncertainty as well as even 100-year flood terminology.
Persuasion would vary with location, being higher than
the 100-year flood inside the depicted floodplain and
lower outside of it.
A secondary purpose of this study was to explore possible
improvements to flood risk communication by looking at
the ways in which people describe flooding and what
concerns them about flooding, as well as by comparing
abstract and concrete descriptions.
4. Methods
4.1. Study site
Research was carried out in August of 2004 in the village of
Wimberley, located approximately 50 km southwest of Austin
in Texas Hill Country. Wimberley lies at the confluence of
Cypress Creek and the Blanco River and numerous washes
run through residential neighborhoods. The Guadalupe River
Basin, of which the Blanco River watershed is a part, has
been called ‘‘Flash Flood Alley’’ and is one of the three most
dangerous regions in the US for flash floods (GBRA, 1999).
It is particularly important in areas such as these to
communicate flood risk effectively and encourage appropriate
behavior by individuals and communities.
While it serves a portion of the greater Wimberley
Valley, the village itself is fairly small, consisting of 2710
people according to the 2003 Census Bureau estimate.
Wimberley has several neighborhoods both in and out of
the officially designated floodplain and has experienced a
variety of large flood events over the last 10 years. The
most damaging in terms of life and property occurred in
October 1998. While the majority of the population does
live outside the SFHA, flooding cuts off road access to
multiple neighborhoods, flooding does occur outside the
SFHA, and the tourist and business center of the village
lies within the 100-year floodplain. Flooding is a real threat
to both personal and public property. Additionally, the
population of Wimberley is growing, and many immigrants
may not be familiar with the flood hazard. In general,
Wimberley’s population is more white, older, somewhat
better educated, and slightly wealthier than the rest of Hays
County or Texas (US Census Bureau, 2004).
4.2. Data collection and questionnaire
Data were collected using a structured face-to-face
questionnaire administered to a stratified random sample
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
of residents. Participants were English-speaking adults
living in single-family homes. Subgroups were created
geographically, delineated among those in the 100-year
floodplain, the 500-year floodplain, and those outside both
official floodplains. Of the 45 residents who participated,
26 lived in one of the two designated floodplains and one-
third lived in the SFHA. Within the identified neighbor-
hoods, sampling was random. The response rate of those
contacted was 90 percent; one person did not complete the
survey as a result of a language barrier.
The questionnaire consisted of three major sections
relating to individual flood history and experience,
methods of description, and demographic information.
Questions in the second section were designed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the flood risk descriptions outlined
above and provided the basis for this paper. For each of
the four descriptive methods, effectiveness as persuasion
was measured through expressed levels of concern pertain-
ing to personal and community loss, as well as the
perceived need for protection of both personal and
community interests. Questions dealing with the perceived
variability of flooding over time and space were used to
evaluate understanding. In this section, most questions
were closed and made use of Likert-type scales.
4.3. Analysis
A total of eight questions were asked regarding each of
the four descriptions. Factor analysis was used to group
responses into broader scales of (i) Understanding of
Uncertainty, (ii) Protection and (iii) Concern. Protection
and Concern factors were then combined to form a scale of
overall Persuasion. For all factors, the higher the score, the
more effective the description was judged to be.
In order to construct each description’s Uncertainty
scale, participants were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with three statements. Choices ranged from 1,
strongly disagree to 4, strongly agree. Don’t know was also
an option and was assigned a value of 2.5 in comparative
analyses. Examples using the 100-year flood description are
listed below (the full questionnaire is available from the
authors).
(a) A 100-year flood could happen one or more times in any
year.
(b) If our community experiences a 100-year flood this year,
we will be safe from one next year.
(c) The size of the 100-year flood will change over time.
Responses were weighted equally and added, resulting in
a final Uncertainty scale that ranged from three to 12
(a ¼ .65). The scale was treated as continuous in analysis.
Participants were given the same instructions for
questions related to Protection. Each description’s Protec-
tion scale consisted of the added agreement ratings of two
statements similar to those given below. Response possi-
bilities for individual questions ranged from one to four
305
and the final Protection scale ranged from two to eight
(a ¼ .69 for the 100-year description).
(a) I should protect myself against the 100-year flood.
(b) My community should protect itself against the 100-year
flood.
The Concern factor was also made up of two questions.
Instead of rating their agreement with statements, partici-
pants were asked to indicate the level to which they were
concerned about personal loss due to the 100-year flood
(or 1 percent chance flood, etc.). Choices ranged from 1,
very unconcerned to 6, very concerned and don’t know was
not given as an option. They were then asked about their
concern regarding community loss. The combined Concern
scale ranged from two to 12.
Cronbach’s alpha for the 100-year description was .46.
Both the 26 percent chance description and the map had
higher reliability (a ¼ .62 and a ¼ .60), but alpha for the 1
percent description was similarly low. These results could
reflect higher variability in interpreted concern, especially
personal concern, for the 100 year and 1 percent descrip-
tions. When Concern and Protection factors were com-
bined to form scales of overall Persuasion, the 100-year
description had the lowest reliability (a ¼ .46). All other
descriptions were associated with alpha scores of .71 or
higher. The two components of Persuasion (Protection and
Concern) were adjusted to weight equally and added; the
final scale ranged from five to 24.
One question related to the methods of description was
not as clearly grouped by factor analysis and was left out of
both scales. Participants were asked to rate their agreement
with a statement like ‘‘Scientists can accurately assess the
size of a 100 year flood’’ on a scale of one to four. This
question had more to do with human error and the
uncertainties of science than environmental uncertainty,
bringing in issues of trust and credibility. It was useful in
exploring perception, but less useful in assessing an
understanding of uncertainty related to flooding.
Comparisons of effectiveness for Uncertainty, Protec-
tion, Concern and overall Persuasion factors were made
using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, depend-
ing on scale distribution, range, and the number of cases.
Because the hypotheses were directional, tests were one-
tailed. Comparative tests not directly related to the
hypotheses were two-tailed. Relationships between factors
were evaluated using Spearman’s or Pearson’s correlation
coefficients. All statistical tests were conducted at a .05
level of significance using SPSS. The majority of analysis
was quantitative, but the face-to-face format allowed for
the collection of some qualitative data as well.
5. Results and discussion
Godber (2005) has used policy guidelines to represent the
level of risk deemed acceptable by government. This study
used policy standards to represent the behavior and level of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
306 H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
concern policy makers wish the public to display. In US
flood policy, the 100-year flood is considered a high risk to
both individuals and communities, but does the public view
it as such? Are alternative descriptions more or less
persuasive? Results of comparative tests of effectiveness
are discussed below, as are some potential improvements
to flood risk communication operating within a narrow
model.
5.1. Comparisons of effectiveness: understanding of
uncertainty
It was predicted that, when compared to the 100-year
flood description, both the 1 percent and 26 percent chance
descriptions would be associated with better understanding
of uncertainty. The map was expected to have a lower
Uncertainty score. Comparative results (Table 1) show that
the 1 percent chance description had the highest mean
score (10.14), while the 100-year description had the lowest
(9.64). The difference between the 100 year and 1 percent
chance Uncertainty scores was significant at the .05 level,
but a t-test could not confirm variation between the 100
year and 26 percent descriptions. The small difference in
means between the 100-year description and the map had
the opposite sign of what was hypothesized. In exploratory
comparisons of non-100-year descriptions using two-tailed
paired t-tests, Uncertainty scores associated with the 1
percent chance flood were significantly higher than those of
both the map and the 26 percent chance description. No
other significant differences were found. For this sample,
the 1 percent description appeared to be more effective
than any of the other verbal or visual descriptions when
evaluated based on understanding.
The question regarding assessment of size addressed a
somewhat different type of uncertainty and was not
included in the Uncertainty scale. It did, however, render
useful qualitative data that shed light on more general
perceptions of the descriptions as well as their potential
drawbacks. Participants were uncomfortable with the
apparent exactness of both the percentage and the
timeframe in the 26 percent chance in 30 years description.
When asked to what extent they agreed that scientists could
accurately assess the size of a flood described in this
Table 1
Comparing effectiveness as understanding of uncertainty
Meana Std. dev. Difference from 100-year
uncertainty meanb
100-year 9.64 1.77 NA
uncertainty
1% uncertainty 10.14 1.38 .50*
26% uncertainty 9.71 1.41 .06
Map uncertainty 9.66 1.67 .01
*pp.05; **pp.01.
a
Points possible range from three to 12.
b
One-tailed paired t-test (N ¼ 45).
Table 2
Comparing perceived accuracy
Meana Std. dev. Median jZ statisticj for
comparison to
26% accuracyb
100-year 1.96 .86 2.0 3.85**
accuracy
1% accuracy 1.87 .79 2.0 3.53**
26% accuracy 1.51 .71 1.0 NA
Map accuracy 2.16 .97 2.0 3.04**
*pp.05; **pp.01.
a
Total points possible equals 4.
b
Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (N ¼ 45).
manner, several participants exclaimed, ‘‘Who do they
think they are, God?’’ Reactions were immediate and often
forceful and appeared to be directly related to the terms
used. None of the other methods of description elicited
such a strong response.
Quantitative results presented in Table 2 also reflect this
pattern. The map was viewed as the most accurate overall
and the 26 percent description as least accurate. In addition
to having the lowest median score, the 26 percent chance
description had the lowest mean and the smallest standard
deviation. Over 62 percent of the participants chose
‘‘Strongly Disagree’’. Wilcoxon tests showed the 26 percent
chance description scored consistently lower than each of
the other methods. There were no significant differences
between the other three descriptions.
While skepticism is useful and may indicate a better
understanding of uncertainty, the total dismissal of
probabilities, parameters, and those assessing them is
detrimental to both persuasion and understanding. While
all four of the descriptions’ median scores fell in the bottom
half of the scale, the strength of disagreement associated
with 26 percent terminology and accuracy makes other
data gathered using the term suspect. This judgment is
reinforced by the fact that 64 percent of respondents asked
for clarification. The 26 percent chance description may be
more difficult to conceptualize than the others. There was
no significant correlation, however, between requests for
clarification and low ratings. Additionally, if participants
asked for clarification, they answered questions about the
26 percent chance description only after they were told that
the described flood had an approximately one in four
chance of occurring during a 30-year mortgage. Taken
together, these points indicate that the low ratings and
vehement responses cannot be attributed to confusion
alone.
5.2. Comparisons of effectiveness: Persuasion
Factors of Protection and Concern were used to evaluate
persuasion. These scales were both created by adding the
scores of two questions related to personal and commu-
nity interests. Protection and Concern scales were then
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311 307

combined to form a scale of overall Persuasion. While the 1 Table 4

percent chance description was expected to perform better Comparing effectiveness as persuasion: concern
than the 100-year description in comparisons of under- Meana Std. dev. Difference from 100-year
standing, it was predicted to be less persuasive. The 26 concern meanb
percent chance description was not expected to differ
significantly from the 100-year descriptions with regards to 100-year concern 7.87 2.68 NA
1% concern 7.27 2.57 .60*
measures of persuasion. The relative effectiveness of the
26% concern 7.69 2.84 .18
map was expected to vary with location. Comparative Map concern 8.13 2.79 .27
results for Protection, Concern and Persuasion factors are
presented below. *pp.05; **pp.01.
a
Points possible range from two to 12.
b
One-tailed paired t-test (N ¼ 45).
5.2.1. Comparing protection
Protection scores for all descriptions were left skewed,
Table 5
but Wilcoxon tests and t-tests yielded similar results. The
Comparing effectiveness as persuasion: overall
results of the t-tests are included in Table 3. As with
Uncertainty, the largest difference in Protection scores Meana Std. dev. Difference from 100-year
occurred between the 1 percent chance and 100-year persuasion meanb
descriptions, though their relative positions were reversed. 100-year 17.90 3.76 NA
The difference was significant (p ¼ .021). There was not persuasion
enough evidence to conclude that the scores of the 100 year 1% persuasion 16.68 4.39 1.22**
and the 26 percent chance descriptions differed. Both 26% persuasion 17.57 4.25 .33
results supported the stated hypotheses. Two-tailed tests Map persuasion 17.85 4.69 .05
showed potential variation between the 1 percent and 26 *pp.05; **pp.01.
percent chance descriptions as well (t-test, p ¼ .051; a
Points possible range from five to 24.
b
Wilcoxon, p ¼ .047). One-tailed paired t-test (N ¼ 45).
Since most participants lived outside the SFHA, the
direction of the difference between the map and 100 year
scores also supported the hypotheses. Separate tests were
then conducted for those in the 100-year floodplain variation was found between the 100-year description and
(N ¼ 15) and those who lived in either the 500-year the map in either the whole sample or the subsets. This
floodplain or outside both floodplains (N ¼ 30). pattern may in part be attributable to public familiarity
A Wilcoxon test showed no significant variation between with 100-year flood terminology and a strong showing
the 100 year score and the map score in the SFHA subset, from the map in areas perceived to border the SFHA.
but in the larger group, the map score was indeed lower In exploratory two-tailed t-tests, the map had a higher
(.48, p ¼ .040). mean score than both the 1 percent chance (.87, p ¼ .007)
and 26 percent chance (.44, p ¼ .044) descriptions. Maps
may serve as an effective jolt to those on the fringes of the
5.2.2. Comparing Concern SFHA who have not sought out a lot of information and
Results of Concern comparisons are included in Table 4. have not been required to get insurance. Several respon-
The map generated the highest mean Concern score (8.13) dents remarked that they did not realize they were ‘‘so close
and the 1 percent chance description the lowest (7.27). The to danger’’. Combined with the map’s higher accuracy
mean score of the 100-year description ranked second and, rating, this comment may indicate that maps are seen as
again, only the score of the 1 percent description was more concrete and thus more clearly relevant, though it
shown to differ significantly from it. No significant also points to a potentially detrimental risk dichotomy.

Table 3 5.3. Comparing Persuasion

Comparing effectiveness as persuasion: protection

Meana Std. dev. Difference from 100-year The overall Persuasion scale was made up of both the
protection Meanb Protection and Concern scales. Comparative results are
similar to those of the constituent factors and are included
100-year 6.69 1.31 NA
protection
in Table 5. The 100-year description had the highest mean
1% protection 6.28 1.59 .41* and the 1 percent chance description the lowest; a t-test
26% protection 6.59 1.31 .10 found significant variation (p ¼ .009). In fact, two-tailed
Map protection 6.48 1.67 .21 t-tests showed the 1 percent description to perform worse
*pp.05; **pp.01.
than both the 26 percent description (.89, p ¼ .042)
a
Points possible range from two to eight. and the map (1.17, p ¼ .037) as well. The null hypothesis
b
One-tailed paired t-test (N ¼ 45) of equality could not be rejected in the remaining
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
308 H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
comparisons. When the sample was separated into SFHA
and non-SFHA residents, the directions of the differences
between the map and the 100-year descriptions were
consistent with those hypothesized, but no significant
variation was confirmed.
While hypotheses regarding relative map scores and
persuasive factors were not clearly supported in the spatial
subsets, other patterns found in the general sample were
more pronounced. In the SFHA grouping, Wilcoxon tests
showed that the scores for the 1 percent chance description
were consistently lower than those of all other descriptions
for both Concern and overall Persuasion. The 1 percent
chance description’s Protection score ranked lower than
the scores of both the map and the 26 percent chance
description. The magnitudes of the differences in means
were also larger. This indicates that the 1 percent chance
description might be least persuasive in the very areas that
have the highest risk of flooding. A more systematic
exploration of the effectiveness of specific descriptions over
spatial and experiential categories is warranted.
Within the context of Wimberley, the 1 percent chance
description appeared to be less persuasive than the
100-year description, and perhaps less persuasive than the
map and the 26 percent chance descriptions as well. There
was not much evidence indicating significant variation
between the map, 26 percent chance and 100-year
descriptions. The 26 percent chance results should be eyed
warily, though, in light of the other issues mentioned
above.
When a scale of total effectiveness including both
Uncertainty and Persuasion factors was evaluated for
reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was negative for three of the
four descriptions. Normally, this would signify a direc-
tional coding problem. Here, it represented contradictory
results and potential difficulty linking understanding
and persuasion. Only the map scores were somewhat
directionally consistent. The 100-year description had the
lowest mean Uncertainty score and the highest Persuasion
score. The reverse was true of the 1 percent description.
The disparity was most pronounced in the SFHA subset
and may be one of the most difficult hurdles for policy
makers and risk communicators to overcome. In this
subset, the magnitude of significant correlations between
Uncertainty, Protection, Concern, and Persuasion
ranged from .56 to .63. Managers and policy makers
may have to decide whether understanding or persuasion is
more important in the current framing of flood risk
communication.
5.4. Towards more effective methods
In addition to comparing existing methods of flood risk
communication, this research sought to identify possible
components of more effective descriptions. To this end,
respondents were asked to describe the size of specific flood
events in their own words and the aspect of flooding that
most concerned them. Participants were also asked about
their concern levels regarding flooding up to specific areas
of their properties and houses.
5.4.1. Respondent descriptions
Sixty-four percent of respondents identified themselves
as living in Wimberley during the 1998 flood. These
individuals were asked to describe the size of the flood in
their own words. Not surprisingly, return period was one
of the two most frequently used methods to describe the
flood. It is the method most commonly used by both the
media and officials in communication. The same number of
people described the flood in terms of its size relative to
other floods. This method could be useful, but depends on
a single collective memory to which newcomers may not
have access. However, it might be possible to create such a
memory by erecting visual reminders of events in public
places, as Siegrist and Gutscher (2006) have suggested. In
Wimberley, the square and the multiple low water crossings
along the Blanco River would be appropriate places for
these reminders. Several participants showed me their own
recordings of past flood levels painted or notched onto
garages or trees. Flood stage was the third most frequently
used method, and might not be currently utilized to its full
potential.
5.4.2. Primary concern of flooding
Participants were asked to identify the aspect of flooding
of most concern to them. Four choices were given: (i) level
of flood water; (ii) frequency of flooding of any level;
(iii) a combination of level and frequency; and (iv) other.
Approximately half (49 percent) of the people interviewed
identified flood level as the most concerning aspect of
flooding. Another 42 percent cited a combination of level
and frequency. None chose frequency alone. This may
constitute a problem, since the method most often used to
describe floods, the return period, is focused on frequency,
as are methods suggested as substitutes.
Flood risk communication cannot hope to be effective if
it does not clearly address the concerns of those it is
intended to reach. The same can be said of flood policy.
Frequency methods might be effective if linked to specific
heights or damages, as the NRC (2000) and Smith (2000)
have suggested. Used alone, their effectiveness is question-
able. A flood stage linked to specific physical markers
(ASFPM, 2007) may be more effective than current
methods in communicating flood risk and inducing
appropriate pre-event attitude and behavior. Collectively
agreed upon flood levels might also be more useful in
creating and enforcing flood policy.
5.4.3. Comparing specific and abstract descriptions
The proposals mentioned above are intended to make
abstractions more concrete. In this study, participants were
asked to rate their degree of concern regarding specific
water levels associated with theoretical floods. The range of
possible answers was identical to that of the questions used
in the Concern factor. Flood levels were given relative to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
individuals’ residences and ranged from ‘‘the yard/garden’’
to ‘‘over 1 foot’’ in the house. Only concern related to
personal loss was evaluated. The number of people
answering ‘‘very concerned’’ jumped 24 percentage points
when the ‘‘flood’’ contacted the outside walls of the
residence. Another large increase (to 84 percent) was
observed when the theoretical flood waters moved inside
the residence. These points and associated consequences
could perhaps be used in flood risk communication to
make the abstract threat of flooding more concrete and to
personalize potential damages.
Wilcoxon tests were used to compare the distribution of
personal concern scores of the four descriptions and those
of the two lowest specific levels given (the yard/garden and
the outside walls). Because the abstract methods refer
to a flood inundating the SFHA, only those living in the
SFHA were used in the comparison. The yard/garden is a
conservative comparison. The comparison using the out-
side walls is appropriate because participants were categor-
ized as being in the SFHA if a building was at least partly
within the mapped 100-year floodplain. Comparative
results are included in Table 6.
The two specific descriptions elicited the highest ratings
of personal concern. The 1 percent chance had the lowest
mean score and a median two points lower than any other
description. In fact, almost 40 percent of those living in the
SFHA indicated they were ‘‘very unconcerned’’ about
personal losses due to a flood with a 1 percent chance of
occurring in any year. These results reinforce the concerns
raised in the previous section regarding the relative
persuasiveness of the 1 percent chance description.
In the conservative comparison using the yard/garden,
the 1 percent chance description was the only one whose
distribution differed significantly (p ¼ .018). When the
outside walls were used as the reference point, all abstract
descriptions scored significantly lower. Though the sample
size was small, these results support the potential use of
concrete reference points in communication. During the
interviews, participants appeared more involved when
discussing such specifics. While policy itself cannot be
made specific to individual gardens, walls, or streets,
physical reference points can be used to illustrate and
Table 6
Comparing personal concern: specific and abstract descriptions
Meana Std. dev.
100-year personal concern 3.87 1.77
1% personal concern 2.67 1.76
26% personal concern 3.60 1.99
Map personal concern 3.80 1.97
Yard/garden personal concern 4.53 1.60
Outside walls personal concern 5.20 1.61
*pp.05; **pp.01.
a
Total points possible equals 6.
b
Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (N ¼ 15).
309
explain both policy and general consequences on an
individual and community level. These and other concrete
descriptions may be more effective than abstract descrip-
tions of flood risk in motivating desired attitude and
behavior prior to and in the warning stages of an event.
6. Summary and conclusions
The comparative effectiveness of four methods used to
describe US policy’s benchmark flood was evaluated
through both Understanding of Uncertainty and Persua-
sion. Persuasion was broken down into factors of Protec-
tion and Concern. Three hypotheses were made regarding
the performance of the 1 percent chance description, the 26
percent chance description, and a flood risk map relative to
that of 100-year flood terminology. The 1 percent chance
description was expected to be associated with better
understanding and lower persuasion. The 26 percent
description was also predicted to have higher Uncertainty
scores, but have similar Protection, Concern and Persua-
sion scores. The map was expected to perform poorly in the
Uncertainty comparison, while its persuasiveness was
predicted to vary by SFHA status.
Only the 1 percent description consistently performed as
hypothesized, being more effective in conveying uncer-
tainty than the 100-year description and less effective
in motivating attitudes of concern or protection. The
Uncertainty and Persuasion scores of the 26 percent
chance description were not found to differ significantly
from those of the 100-year description, a result which
supports only one part of the related hypothesis. In
all but the non-SFHA comparison of Protection
scores, the map, too, could not be differentiated from the
100-year description, performing somewhat better than
expected in factors of Uncertainty, Concern, and overall
Persuasion.
Further relationships were not hypothesized, but ex-
ploratory analysis indicated that, for the total sample, the
mean Concern score of the map was higher than the scores
of both the 1 percent chance and 26 percent chance
descriptions. As a visual representation, the map may have
greater relevance, though the extent to which it contributes
Median jZ statisticj for comparison to jZ statisticj for comparison to
yard/garden personal concernb outside walls personal concernb
4 1.28 2.43**
2 2.37* 2.89**
4 1.85 2.97**
4 1.65 2.69**
5 NA NA
6 NA NA
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
310 H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
to risk dichotomies is unclear in this study. A more
systematic trend was identified for the 1 percent chance
description. In comparisons of Understanding of Uncer-
tainty, each of the three other descriptive methods had
lower scores. However, when comparing persuasion
factors, the 1 percent description consistently ranked lower
than the other methods, a pattern which was more
pronounced in the SFHA subset. These results point to
potential variation in the effectiveness of descriptions over
space and are just one indication of a disjuncture between
understanding and persuasion.
6.1. Implications for flood risk communication
In addition to the comparative results described above,
quantitative analysis and qualitative observation identified
three trends related to the effective communication of flood
risk and flood policy.
 First, effectiveness conceptualized as understanding and
effectiveness conceptualized as persuasion appear to be
at odds using current methods of description. The
results of this research challenge the claim of the NRC
(1995, 2000, 2006) that persuasion is dependent upon an
understanding of uncertainty. More contextual study
using a greater number of variables is necessary to
clarify the relationship of understanding and persuasion
if flood plain management and flood risk communica-
tion is to be more effective.
 Second, the description of a flood with a 26 percent
chance of occurring in 30 years induced confusion,
vehemence, and dismissal in the sample group. Further
use of this term should be reconsidered in light of this
reaction.1
 Third, survey participants were more concerned about
flood levels than flood frequency and were more
effectively persuaded when specific physical references
were used. These results support recommendations by
the NRC (1995, 2000, 2006), Smith (2000), Siegrist and
Gutscher (2006) and the ASFPM (2007) to include
damage estimates and concrete references and may point
the way towards more effective communication.
6.2. Generalizations and future directions
In addition to reinforcing calls to attach concrete
references to abstract methods of communication, results
supported researchers who have questioned the linear
relationship between understanding, attitude and behavior
outlined in hierarchical models of behavior change
(e.g. Tierney, 1993; Valente et al., 1998; Mileti and Peek,
2002). However, this preliminary study was conducted
1
The terms used in this research were also discussed in an upper level
undergraduate hazards class; several students indicated a preference for
the 26 percent description. The context in which this term is introduced
may be an important factor in its relative effectiveness.
using a small sample from one community; future research
in communities large and small, experienced and non-
experienced, from multiple regions may help identify
components relevant to effective communication and
contextually effective codes. The use of multivariate
analysis adjusted for contextual relationships might assist
in this search. Message effectiveness will likely vary with
language and translation, factors not addressed in this
study. More extensive use of qualitative methods would
also help in the practical interpretation of statistical
relationships. Further research assessing the effectiveness
of flood risk communication could result in new, demo-
cratic methods of description that may help restructure the
relationship between understanding and persuasion. If
effectiveness is valued over efficiency, loss and suffering
due to flooding might be reduced.
The role of flood policy itself cannot be ignored,
however. In this project, and in general assessments of
effectiveness, all individuals and communities were judged
against a single perceptual and behavioral standard. The
questions Murphy (1958) and White (Reuss, 1993) raised,
and that others (Smith, 2000; Larson and Plasencia, 2001;
ASFPM, 2007) continue to put forth regarding the
effectiveness of a uniform flood policy, are still relevant.
In order to truly assess the effectiveness of flood risk
communication, researchers must continue to look at,
evaluate, and improve the effectiveness of ‘efficient’ flood
policy in multiple social and spatial contexts.
References
Arkin, E., 1989. Translation of risk communication for the public:
message development. In: Covello, V., McCallum, D., Pavlova, M.
(Eds.), Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of
Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum Press, New
York, pp. 127–136.
ASFPM (Association of State Floodplain Managers), 2007. National
Flood Programs and Policies in Review—2007, Draft Version.
Available at: /http://www.floods.orgS.
Belsten, L.A., 1996. Environmental risk communication and community
collaboration. In: Muir, S., Veenendall, T. (Eds.), Earthtalk: Commu-
nication Empowerment for Environmental Action. Praeger, Westport,
CT, pp. 27–41.
Boisot, M., 1995. Information Space: A Framework for Learning in
Organizations, Institutions and Culture. Routledge, London.
Connelly, N.A., Knuth, B.A., 1998. Evaluating risk communication:
examining target audience perceptions about four presentation formats
for fish consumption health advisory information. Risk Analysis 18
(5), 649–659.
Covello, V.T., von Winterfeldt, D., Slovic, P., 1986. Communicating risk
information to the public. Risk Abstracts 3, 1–14.
Environmental Agency, 2005. Improving Community and Citizen
Engagement in FRM Decision Making, Delivery and Flood Response.
Environment Agency, Bristol. Available at: /http://publications.
environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO1005BJTC-e-e.pdfS.
Faber, S., 1996. On Borrowed Land: Public Policies for Floodplains.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006a. Flood Statistics.
Available at: /http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/statistics.
jsp;jsessionid=CFBC9E0E291618DD5993AD29BCF29E1DS.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006b. National
Flood Insurance Program: Answers to Questions about the NFIP.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Bell, G.A. Tobin / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 302–311
Booklet MitDiv-2, F-084. Available at: /http://www.fema.gov/business/
nfip/qanda.shtmS.
Flooddamagedata.org. Flood Damage in the United States, 1926–2003: A
Reanalysis of the National Weather Service Estimates. Available at:
/http://flooddamagedata.org/S.
Frech, M., 2005. Flood risk outreach and the public’s need to know.
Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 130, 61–69.
GBRA (Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority), 1999. Staying Safe: A Guide
to Flooding in the Guadalupe River Basin. Gaudalupe-Blanco River
Authority, Seguin, TX.
GFWNFPF (Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum), 2004.
Reducing Flood Losses: Is the 1% Chance Flood Standard Sufficient?
Report of the 2004 Assembly of the Gilbert F. White National Flood
Policy Forum, Washington, DC.
Godber, A.M., 2005. Urban floodplain land-use-acceptable risk? The
Australian Journal of Emergency Management 20 (3), 22–26.
Gruntfest, E., Carsell, K., Plush, T., 2002. An Evaluation of the Boulder
Creek Local Flood Warning System. University of Colorado at
Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs.
Hance, B., Chess, C., Sandman, P., 1989. Improving dialogue with
communities: a risk communication manual for government. In:
Covello, V., McCallum, D., Pavlova, M. (Eds.), Effective Risk
Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government
and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 191–296.
Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C., Jaeger, J., 2003. Citizen participation in
sustainability assessments. In: Kasemir, B., Jaeger, J., Jaeger, C.,
Gardner, M. (Eds.), Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A
Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 3–36.
Kasperson, R.E., Stallen, P.M., 1991. Risk communication: the evolution
of attempts. In: Kasperson, R.E., Stallen, P.M. (Eds.), Communicating
Risk to the Public: International Perspectives. Kluwer Academic Press,
Dordrecht, pp. 1–12.
Kates, R., White, G., 1961. Flood hazard evaluation. In: White, G. (Ed.),
Papers on Flood Problems: Department of Geography Research Paper
No. 70. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 135–147.
Larson, L., Plasencia, D., 2001. No adverse impact: a new direction in
floodplain management. Natural Hazards Review 2 (4), 157–181.
McQuail, D., Windhal, S., 1981. Communication Models for the Study of
Mass Communications. Longman, Inc., New York.
Mileti, D., Peek, L., 2002. Understanding individual and social
characteristics in the promotion of household disaster preparedness.
In: Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. (Eds.), New Tools for Environmental
Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 125–139.
Murphy, F., 1958. Regulating Floodplain Development. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
311
National Research Council (NRC), 1995. Flood Risk Management and
the American River Basin: An Evaluation. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC), 2000. Risk Analysis and Uncertainty
in Flood Damage Reduction Studies. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Completing the Forecast:
Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty for Better Decisions
Using Weather and Climate Forecasts. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC. Available at: /http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?re-
cord_id=11699S.
Parker, D.J., 2000. Managing flood hazards and disasters: international
lessons, directions and future challenges. In: Parker, D.J. (Ed.),
Floods, vol. II. Routledge, London, pp. 287–306.
Pielke Jr., R.A., Downton, M.W., Barnard Miller, J.Z., 2002. Flood
damage in the United States, 1926–2000: A Reanalysis of National
Weather Service Estimates. UCAR, Boulder, CO.
Powell, D., Leiss, W., 1997. Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of
Poor Risk Communication. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Mon-
treal.
Reuss, M., 1993. Water Resources People and Issues: Gilbert F. White.
USACE Office of History, Fort Belvoir.
Ross, T., Lott, N., 2006. Billion Dollar US Weather Disasters, 1980–2005.
National Climatic Data Center, Ashville, NC.
Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., 2006. Flooding risks: A comparison of lay
people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk
Analysis 26 (4), 971–979.
Slovic, P., 1986. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk
Analysis 6 (4), 403–415.
Smith, D.I., 2000. Floodplain management: problems, issues and
opportunities. In: Parker, D.J. (Ed.), Floods, vol. I. Routledge,
London, pp. 254–267.
Tierney, K.J., 1993. Socio-economic Aspects of Hazard Mitigation.
University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, Newark, DE.
Available at: /http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/577S.
Tobin, G.A., 1995. The levee love affair: a stormy relationship. Water
Resources Bulletin 31 (3), 359–367.
Trumbo, C., 2000. Risk, rhetoric, and the reactor next door. In: Coppola,
N., Karis, B. (Eds.), Technical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric,
and Environmental Discourse: Connections and Directions. Ablex
Publishing Corporation, Stamford.
United States Census Bureau, 2004. State and County QuickFacts.
Available at: /http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.htmlS.
Valente, T.W., Paredes, P., Poppe, P.R., 1998. Matching the message to
the process: the relative ordering of knowledge, attitudes, and practices
in behavior change research. Human Communication Research 24 (3),
366–385.