Refine
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (29)
Keywords
- vulnerability (6)
- flood risk (4)
- resilience (4)
- climate change (3)
- damage (3)
- floods (3)
- Flood (2)
- Vietnam (2)
- adaptation (2)
- capacities (2)
- critical meteorological condition (2)
- early warning (2)
- effectiveness (2)
- emergency response (2)
- flood recovery (2)
- frequency analysis (2)
- gender (2)
- intangible impacts (2)
- mitigation (2)
- motivation (2)
- natural hazard management (2)
- pluvial floods (2)
- preparedness (2)
- railway transportation (2)
- resources (2)
- risk governance (2)
- societal equity (2)
- surface water flooding (2)
- welfare (2)
- Adaptation (1)
- Austria (1)
- Can Tho (1)
- Capital Approach Framework (CAF) (1)
- Climate adaptation (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Coping appraisal (1)
- Damage reduction (1)
- Discrete choice experiment (1)
- EU Floods Directive (1)
- Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) (1)
- Federal Water Act (1)
- Flood risk management (1)
- Floods (1)
- Gender equality (1)
- Hochwasser (1)
- Hochwasserrisikomanagementrichtlinie (1)
- LCGA (1)
- Land-use planning (1)
- Mekong Delta (1)
- Natural hazards (1)
- Netherlands (1)
- Payment vehicle (1)
- Poverty alleviation (1)
- Precaution (1)
- Recovery (1)
- Resilience (1)
- Risk governance (1)
- Risk reduction partnerships (1)
- Risk zoning (1)
- Starkregen (1)
- Subjective well-being (1)
- Transport sector (1)
- Vulnerability (1)
- Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (1)
- adaptation behavior (1)
- attrition bias (1)
- attrition rate (1)
- buildings (1)
- capital (1)
- decision making (1)
- ecosystem-based adaptation (1)
- flood damage (1)
- flood loss (1)
- flood risk management (1)
- flooding (1)
- frequency (1)
- global environmental change (1)
- heavy rainfall (1)
- impact (1)
- individual recovery (1)
- insurance (1)
- longitudinal (1)
- losses (1)
- motivation theory (1)
- panel (1)
- panel data (1)
- policy (1)
- protection (1)
- protection motivation theory (1)
- protection motivation theory (PMT) (1)
- public-participation (1)
- risk communication (1)
- risk perception (1)
- risk perceptions (1)
- self-efficacy (1)
- social (1)
- social vulnerability (1)
- strategies (1)
- subjective well-being (1)
The number of people exposed to natural hazards has grown steadily over recent decades, mainly due to increasing exposure in hazard-prone areas. In the future, climate change could further enhance this trend. Still, empirical and comprehensive insights into individual recovery from natural hazards are largely lacking, hampering efforts to increase societal resilience. Drawing from a sample of 710 residents affected by flooding across Germany in June 2013, we empirically explore a wide range of variables possibly influencing self-reported recovery, including flood-event characteristics, the circumstances of the recovery process, socio-economic characteristics, and psychological factors, using multivariate statistics. We found that the amount of damage and other flood-event characteristics such as inundation depth are less important than socio-economic characteristics (e.g., sex or health status) and psychological factors (e.g., risk aversion and emotions). Our results indicate that uniform recovery efforts focusing on areas that were the most affected in terms of physical damage are insufficient to account for the heterogeneity in individual recovery results. To increase societal resilience, aid and recovery efforts should better address the long-term psychological effects of floods.
Insights into the dynamics of human behavior in response to flooding are urgently needed for the development of effective integrated flood risk management strategies, and for integrating human behavior in flood risk modeling. However, our understanding of the dynamics of risk perceptions, attitudes, individual recovery processes, as well as adaptive (i.e., risk reducing) intention and behavior are currently limited because of the predominant use of cross-sectional surveys in the flood risk domain. Here, we present the results from one of the first panel surveys in the flood risk domain covering a relatively long period of time (i.e., four years after a damaging event), three survey waves, and a wide range of topics relevant to the role of citizens in integrated flood risk management. The panel data, consisting of 227 individuals affected by the 2013 flood in Germany, were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and latent class growth analysis (LCGA) to utilize the unique temporal dimension of the data set. Results show that attitudes, such as the respondents' perceived responsibility within flood risk management, remain fairly stable over time. Changes are observed partly for risk perceptions and mainly for individual recovery and intentions to undertake risk-reducing measures. LCGA reveal heterogeneous recovery and adaptation trajectories that need to be taken into account in policies supporting individual recovery and stimulating societal preparedness. More panel studies in the flood risk domain are needed to gain better insights into the dynamics of individual recovery, risk-reducing behavior, and associated risk and protective factors.
In recent years, nature-based solutions are receiving increasing attention in the field of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation as inclusive, no regret approaches. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) can mitigate the impacts of climate change, build resilience and tackle environmental degradation thereby supporting the targets set by the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework. Despite these benefits, EbA is still rarely implemented in practice. To better understand the barriers to implementation, this research examines policy-makers' perceptions of EbA, using an extended version of Protection Motivation Theory as an analytical framework. Through semi-structured interviews with policy-makers at regional and provincial level in Central Vietnam, it was found that EbA is generally considered a promising response option, mainly due to its multiple ecosystem-service benefits. The demand for EbA measures was largely driven by the perceived consequences of natural hazards and climate change. Insufficient perceived response efficacy and time-lags in effectiveness for disaster risk reduction were identified as key impediments for implementation. Pilot projects and capacity building on EbA are important means to overcome these perceptual barriers. This paper contributes to bridging the knowledge-gap on political decision-making regarding EbA and can, thereby, promote its mainstreaming into policy plans.
There has been much research regarding the perceptions, preferences, behaviour, and responses of people exposed to flooding and other nat- ural hazards. Cross-sectional surveys have been the predominant method applied in such research. While cross-sectional data can provide a snapshot of a respondent’s behaviour and perceptions, it cannot be assumed that the respondent’s perceptions are constant over time. As a result, many important research questions relating to dynamic processes, such as changes in risk perceptions, adaptation behaviour, and resilience cannot be fully addressed by cross-sectional surveys. To overcome these shortcomings, there has been a call for developing longitudinal (or panel) datasets in research on natural hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks. However, experiences with implementing longitudinal surveys in the flood risk domain (FRD), which pose distinct methodological challenges, are largely lacking. The key problems are sample recruitment, attrition rate, and attrition bias. We present a review of the few existing longitudinal surveys in the FRD. In addition, we investigate the potential attrition bias and attrition rates in a panel dataset of flood-affected households in Germany. We find little potential for attrition bias to occur. High attrition rates across longitudinal survey waves are the larger concern. A high attrition rate rapidly depletes the longitudinal sample. To overcome high attrition, longitudinal data should be collected as part of a multisector partnership to allow for sufficient resources to implement sample retention strategies. If flood-specific panels are developed, different sample retention strategies should be applied and evaluated in future research to understand how much-needed longitudinal surveying techniques can be successfully applied to the study of individuals threatened by flooding.
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.
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.
Floods frequently cause substantial economic and human losses, particularly in developing countries. For the development of sound flood risk management schemes that reduce flood consequences, detailed insights into the different components of the flood risk management cycle, such as preparedness, response, flood impact analyses and recovery, are needed. However, such detailed insights are often lacking: commonly, only (aggregated) data on direct flood damage are available. Other damage categories such as losses owing to the disruption of production processes are usually not considered, resulting in incomplete risk assessments and possibly inappropriate recommendations for risk management. In this paper, data from 858 face-to-face interviews among flood-prone households and small businesses in Can Tho city in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta are presented to gain better insights into the damage caused by the 2011 flood event and its management by households and businesses.
The heavy rainfall events in recent years have caused great damage, which has increased the public awareness of the topic of heavy rainfall. For this reason, this article discusses how a systematic integration of heavy rainfall within the framework of the European Floods Directive would be possible and reasonable. For this purpose, a matrix covering possible synergies and barriers was created for all steps of the directive, which were then examined in 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives from specialized administration, the private sector and academia. Although there are some synergies, the additional effort required, especially regarding the identification of the risk areas and the higher level of detail required for risk modeling, would be so high that the European Floods Directive cannot be deemed to be an appropriate framework for heavy rainfall risk management. Nevertheless, there is a need for action, e.g. in the field of self-protection, improved risk communication to the population, combined with increased public and interagency cooperation.
Social inequalities lead to flood resilience inequalities across social groups, a topic that requires improved documentation and understanding. The objective of this paper is to attend to these differences by investigating self-stated flood recovery across genders in Vietnam as a conceptual replication of earlier results from Germany. This study employs a regression-based analysis of 1,010 respondents divided between a rural coastal and an urban community in Thua Thien-Hue province. The results highlight an important set of recovery process-related variables. The set of relevant variables is similar across genders in terms of inclusion and influence, and includes age, social capital, internal and external support after a flood, perceived severity of previous flood impacts, and the perception of stress-resilience. However, women were affected more heavily by flooding in terms of longer recovery times, which should be accounted for in risk management. Overall, the studied variables perform similarly in Vietnam and Germany. This study, therefore, conceptually replicates previous results suggesting that women display slightly slower recovery levels as well as that psychological variables influence recovery rates more than adverse flood impacts. This provides an indication of the results' potentially robust nature due to the different socio-environmental contexts in Germany and Vietnam.
Social inequalities lead to flood resilience inequalities across social groups, a topic that requires improved documentation and understanding. The objective of this paper is to attend to these differences by investigating self-stated flood recovery across genders in Vietnam as a conceptual replication of earlier results from Germany. This study employs a regression-based analysis of 1,010 respondents divided between a rural coastal and an urban community in Thua Thien-Hue province. The results highlight an important set of recovery process-related variables. The set of relevant variables is similar across genders in terms of inclusion and influence, and includes age, social capital, internal and external support after a flood, perceived severity of previous flood impacts, and the perception of stress-resilience. However, women were affected more heavily by flooding in terms of longer recovery times, which should be accounted for in risk management. Overall, the studied variables perform similarly in Vietnam and Germany. This study, therefore, conceptually replicates previous results suggesting that women display slightly slower recovery levels as well as that psychological variables influence recovery rates more than adverse flood impacts. This provides an indication of the results' potentially robust nature due to the different socio-environmental contexts in Germany and Vietnam.