Transcript managing flash floods risk perception from a cultural

Managing Flash Floods
Risk Perception from a Cultural
Perspective
Ashley Coles
April 30, 2007
Introductions
• Who is here
• Why we are here
– We all share a common interest in reducing
losses to life and property from flash floods
• What to expect from this meeting
– Overview of proposed risk perception
research project
– Discussion: How to make this information
useful and practical for implementation
Forging the
partnership
Fieldwork: surveys
and analysis
Present findings,
feedback,
brainstorming
AFMA, NWS,
ADEM, FCDs, etc.
CLIMAS
Develop new
products
Ashley Coles’s
master’s thesis
Final report
Implement new
products
Effective warnings must be…
• Heard
• Understood
– What is happening, time,
how to prepare
• Believed
– Warning is true, danger is
imminent
• Personalized
– Risk to self or property is
perceived
• Responded to
Mileti, 1995
Risk perception research
Typical approaches
• There is an appropriate response,
anything else is irrational
– Behavior as a result of individual
psychological (dys?)function
– Behavior as a result of human nature
• People need more education and
information
• More recently and frequently,
studies are beginning to account for
the effects of cultural and social
contexts
The social context
• Social units share collectively produced
attitudes, beliefs, values, and habits
(Douglas, 1992)
• Not just national, also “gender, ethnicity,
religion, cohort or generation, historical
period, profession, social class, and
country of origin” (Kitayama & Markus, 1995, p. 368)
How does social context influence
risk perception and behavior?
• Beliefs, values, and practices influence how
individuals process information and make
decisions
• Actions become embedded in the social context,
acting to either reinforce or transform it
Values/Practices
Cognitive
processes
e.g. Kitayama and Markus, 1995
Actions/Inactions
Main factors
• Trust
– In science, government, and responsible agency
• Self-efficacy
– How confident people feel in their ability to handle ordinary life
as well as extreme events
• Social incorporation
– Extent of social networks
– Social amplification of risk
• Social autonomy
– Degree of freedom to fill any
social role
• Time orientation
– Focus on past, present, or future
Linking values to actions
Hazard information
Group Identities
Gender
Age
Values
Ethnicity
Socioeconomic
Etc.
Social Factors
Trust
Self-efficacy
Incorporation
Autonomy
Time orientation
Risk Perception
Actions/behavior
Implications for mitigation
• Can education and
information change
attitudes, values, and
beliefs?
• Should risk managers
speak to these attitudes,
values, and beliefs?
– How can managers “know”
the people they are
responsible for protecting?
Why use a survey?
• Can perform both quantitative and
qualitative analyses on the data
– Quantitative: regression analysis
– Qualitative: open-ended questions for deeper
insight
• Able to reach a broad spectrum of various
social groups
Who is the target sample?
• People who have crossed
flooded washes
– Problematic because of
death, stigma, and number
of successful crossings
• 1000 Tucson residents in
flood prone areas
– Specific neighborhoods
with proximity to commonly
flooded intersections or
crossings
Plan to increase response rate
• Week 1: First survey packet mailed out
– Survey in English and Spanish
– Consent forms
– Reply-paid envelope
•
•
•
•
Week 2: Reminder Postcard
Week 3: Second survey packet mailed out
Offer drawing for $20 Visa Gift Card
Reduce effects of stigma
What does the survey ask?
• Using direct and indirect methods
– Social factors
– Historical, typical, and hypothetical behavior
• Relevant demographic information
I am a good judge of whether flood waters are dangerous.
Completely
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
Agree
Completely
Agree
What do you think?
• Is this potentially useful for your flood
mitigation decision-making?
• Are new mitigation strategies based on
these findings feasible to implement?
• What information would you like to gather
with the survey tool?