@article{MassonBambergStrickeretal.2019, author = {Masson, Torsten and Bamberg, Sebastian and Stricker, Michael and Heidenreich, Anna}, title = {"We can help ourselves": does community resilience buffer against the negative impact of flooding on mental health?}, series = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, volume = {19}, journal = {Natural hazards and earth system sciences}, number = {11}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1561-8633}, doi = {10.5194/nhess-19-2371-2019}, pages = {2371 -- 2384}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Empirical evidence of the relationship between social support and post-disaster mental health provides support for a general beneficial effect of social support (main-effect model; Wheaton, 1985). From a theoretical perspective, a buffering effect of social support on the negative relationship between disaster-related stress and mental health also seems plausible (stress-buffering model; Wheaton, 1985). Previous studies, however, (a) have paid less attention to the buffering effect of social support and (b) have mainly relied on interpersonal support (but not collective-level support such as community resilience) when investigating this issue. This previous work might have underestimated the effect of support on post-disaster mental health. Building on a sample of residents in Germany recently affected by flooding (N = 118), we show that community resilience to flooding (but not general interpersonal social support) buffered against the negative effects of flooding on post-disaster mental health. The results support the stress-buffering model and call for a more detailed look at the relationship between support and resilience and post-disaster adjustment, including collective-level variables.}, language = {en} } @article{HeidenreichMassonBamberg2020, author = {Heidenreich, Anna and Masson, Torsten and Bamberg, Sebastian}, title = {Let's talk about flood risk}, series = {International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR}, volume = {50}, journal = {International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]}, issn = {2212-4209}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101880}, pages = {10}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Private flood protection measures can help reduce potential damage from flooding. Few intervention studies currently exist that systematically evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication methods. To address this gap, we evaluated a series of six workshops (N = 115) on private flood protection in flood-prone areas in Germany that covers different aspects of flood protection for individual households. Applying mixed-model analysis, significant increases in self-efficacy, subjective knowledge, and protection motivation were observed. Younger participants, as well as participants who reported lower levels of previous knowledge or no flood experience, showed a higher increase in self-efficacy and knowledge. Results suggest that a workshop can be an effective risk communication tool, raising awareness and motivating behaviour among residents of flood-prone areas.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlickeSeebauerHudsonetal.2020, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian and Seebauer, Sebastian and Hudson, Paul and Begg, Chloe and Bubeck, Philip and Dittmer, Cordula and Grothmann, Torsten and Heidenreich, Anna and Kreibich, Heidi and Lorenz, Daniel F. and Masson, Torsten and Reiter, Jessica and Thaler, Thomas and Thieken, Annegret and Bamberg, Sebastian}, title = {The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications}, series = {WIREs Water}, volume = {7}, journal = {WIREs Water}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2049-1948}, doi = {10.1002/wat2.1418}, pages = {1 -- 22}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlickeSeebauerHudsonetal.2020, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian and Seebauer, Sebastian and Hudson, Paul and Begg, Chloe and Bubeck, Philip and Dittmer, Cordula and Grothmann, Torsten and Heidenreich, Anna and Kreibich, Heidi and Lorenz, Daniel F. and Masson, Torsten and Reiter, Jessica and Thaler, Thomas and Thieken, Annegret and Bamberg, Sebastian}, title = {The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {3}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51769}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-517696}, pages = {24}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.}, language = {en} }