Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 15003
Number of page(s) 6
Section Public education and engagement
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. UK Cabinet Office (2008). The Pitt Review: Lessons learned from the 2007 floods ( [Google Scholar]
  2. Haughton, G., Bankoff, G., and Coulthard, TJ. (2015). In search of ‘lost’ knowledge and outsourced expertise in flood risk management. Transactions Of The Institute Of British Geographers, 40(3), 375–386 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. McEwen, L. J. and Jones, O. (2012). Building local/lay flood knowledges into community flood resilience planning after the July 2007 floods, Gloucestershire, UK. Hydrology Research, Special Issue 43, 675–688. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Water Communication (2014) [Google Scholar]
  5. Krause, F., Garde-Hansen, J. and Whyte, N. (2012). Flood memories media, narratives and remembrance of wet landscapes in England, Journal of Arts & Communities, 2012, (4) Numbers 1 & 2, 129 [Google Scholar]
  6. Callon, M. (1999), “The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge”, Science, Technology and Society, 4, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
  7. Morgan, K. and Murdoch, J. (2000), “Organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain”, Geoforum, 31, 159–173. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gregory, J. & Miller, S. (2001), “Caught in the crossfire? The public’s role in the science wars”, In: Labinger, J. and Collins, H. (editors), The one culture?, University of Chicago Press pp. 61–84. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cutter, SL., Burton, C.G., and Emrich, C.T (2010) ‘Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions’, Journal of Homeland Security and EmergencyManagement, 7(1): 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  10. Willox, A., Harper, S. and Edge, V., ‘My Word’: Storytelling and Digital Media Lab and Rigolet Inuit Community Government (2013) Storytelling in a digital age: digital storytelling cas an emerging narrative method for preserving and promoting indigenous oral wisdom Qualitative Research 13 (2) 127–147 [Google Scholar]
  11. Landström, C., Whatmore, S.J., Lane, S.N, Odoni, N.A., Ward, N. and Bradley, S. (2011) Co-producing flood risk knowledge: redistributing expertise in critical ‘participatory modelling’ Environment and Planning A 43 1617–1633 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Thomson, A. ‘Making the most of memories: The Empirical and Subjective Value of Oral History’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 9, 1999, 291–301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hendry, P.M. (2007) The future of narrative, Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 487–497 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, G.E. (1970), ‘Approaches to Interviewing’, The Journal Of The Oral History Society, 1(4), 1970, 56–71. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mark Riley, M., and Harvey, D. (2005), ‘Landscape Archaeology, Heritage and the Community in Devon: An Oral History Approach’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11 (4), 269–288. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Burgess, J. (2006), Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling, Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20 (2), 201–214 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Meadows, D. (2003), Digital Storytelling: Research-Based Practice in New Media Visual Communication 2 (2), 189–193. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Frisch, M., Abraham, J., Suchanek, J. and Dean, P. (2005), Media Reviews. Oral History Review, 32, 89–100 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Thumim, N. (2009), ‘Everyone has a story to tell’ Mediation and self-representation in two UK institutions, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12 (6), 617–638 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Klaebe, H.G., (2013), Facilitating local stories in post-disaster regional communities : evaluation in narrative-driven oral history projects, Oral History Journal of South Africa 1, 125–142 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. UK Health Protection Agency, (2011), The effects of flooding on mental health (’11-with-logo.pdf) Accessed 10 February 2016 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.