A place-based risk appraisal model for exploring residents' attitudes toward nature-based solutions to flood risks

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have gained popularity as a sustainable and effective way of dealing with increasing flood risks. One of the key factors that often hinders the successful implementation of NBS is residents' opposition to their implementation. In this study, we argue that the place where a hazard exists should be considered a critical contextual factor alongside flood risk appraisals and perceptions of NBS themselves. We have developed a theoretical framework-the "Place-based Risk Appraisal Model (PRAM)"-that draws on constructs inspired by theories of place and risk perception. A citizen survey (n = 304) was conducted in five municipalities in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, where dike relocation and floodplain restoration projects have been conducted along the Elbe River. Structural equation modeling was adopted to test the PRAM. Attitudes toward the projects were assessed in terms of "perceived risk-reduction effectiveness" and "supportive attitude." With regard to risk-related constructs, well-communicated information and perceived co-benefits were consistently positive factors for both perceived risk-reduction effectiveness and supportive attitude. Trust in local flood risk management was a positive and threat appraisal a negative predictor of perceived risk-reduction effectiveness affecting "supportive attitude" only through "perceived risk-reduction effectiveness." Regarding place attachment constructs, place identity was a negative predictor of a supportive attitude. The study emphasizes that risk appraisal, pluralities of place contexts to each individual, and their relations are key for determining attitudes toward NBS. Understanding these influencing factors and their interrelationships enables us to provide theory- and evidence-based recommendations for the effective realization of NBS.

Localism and flood risk management in England: the creation of new inequalities?

There has been a noticeable shift in the way in which flood risks are managed in England. This is being driven in part by European developments but also by changes in governance across diverse domains of public policy. A key characteristic is a move to transfer responsibility for the management of flood risk away from the central government and towards the local level. This paper aims to describe and evaluate the potential implications of this shift by focusing on three connected policy areas: flood defence, spatial planning, and emergency management. We draw on an analysis of policy documentation and expert interviews to map out current changes in governance. We then outline a number of potential scenarios for how these changes may play out in the future, emphasising that differences in resource availability and local motivation could result in new patterns of vulnerability and inequality.

The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust--or lack of trust--in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.

The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust--or lack of trust--in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.