TY - JOUR A1 - Masson, Torsten A1 - Bamberg, Sebastian A1 - Stricker, Michael A1 - Heidenreich, Anna T1 - "We can help ourselves": does community resilience buffer against the negative impact of flooding on mental health? JF - Natural hazards and earth system sciences N2 - 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. Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-2371-2019 SN - 1561-8633 SN - 1684-9981 VL - 19 IS - 11 SP - 2371 EP - 2384 PB - Copernicus CY - Göttingen ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Heidenreich, Anna A1 - Masson, Torsten A1 - Bamberg, Sebastian T1 - Let’s talk about flood risk BT - evaluating a series of workshops on private flood protection JF - International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR N2 - 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. KW - flooding KW - natural hazard KW - self-efficacy KW - protection motivation theory KW - intervention program Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101880 SN - 2212-4209 VL - 50 PB - Elsevier CY - Amsterdam [u.a.] ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Seebauer, Sebastian A1 - Hudson, Paul A1 - Begg, Chloe A1 - Bubeck, Philip A1 - Dittmer, Cordula A1 - Grothmann, Torsten A1 - Heidenreich, Anna A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Lorenz, Daniel F. A1 - Masson, Torsten A1 - Reiter, Jessica A1 - Thaler, Thomas A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bamberg, Sebastian T1 - The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications JF - WIREs Water N2 - 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. KW - capacities KW - effectiveness KW - motivation KW - resources KW - risk governance KW - vulnerability Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1418 SN - 2049-1948 VL - 7 IS - 3 SP - 1 EP - 22 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Hoboken ER - TY - GEN A1 - Kuhlicke, Christian A1 - Seebauer, Sebastian A1 - Hudson, Paul A1 - Begg, Chloe A1 - Bubeck, Philip A1 - Dittmer, Cordula A1 - Grothmann, Torsten A1 - Heidenreich, Anna A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Lorenz, Daniel F. A1 - Masson, Torsten A1 - Reiter, Jessica A1 - Thaler, Thomas A1 - Thieken, Annegret A1 - Bamberg, Sebastian T1 - The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications T2 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 1440 KW - capacities KW - effectiveness KW - motivation KW - resources KW - risk governance KW - vulnerability Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-517696 SN - 1866-8372 IS - 3 ER -