Using a case-study of your choice, discuss whether primary effects are more significant than secondary effects on people and the environment following a flooding event.

In 2013, Somerset experienced extreme flooding due to heavy rainfall over a prolonged period of time. This resulted in a wealth of primary and secondary effects on the people and the environment. One social primary effect included the destruction of 600 homes, as they became inundated with water. This meant people had to move out of their homes and seek temporary accommodation. One environmental primary effect included the flooding of farmland. In Somerset, 6800 hectors of farmland was flooded. This meant that any crops that were growing on the land were destroyed and livestock had to be moved. This had sever economic secondary effects, as farmers had limited produce to sell. As a result, their income was reduced, making it difficult to live. In some areas, it took up to two years to restore the soils so that crops could be grown, putting further strain on the local economy. Additionally, the flooding event resulted in negative social secondary effects, as less tourism was occurring in Somerset. This made the redevelopment of the local area harder, so the improvement of local villages was limited. Because of this, many people didn't return to their homes. Because of this, I think the secondary effects of river flooding in Somerset are more significant than the primary effects.