Transcript managing flash floods risk perception from a cultural

Managing Flash Floods
Risk Perception from a Cultural
Perspective
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 (dis?)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
What is culture?
• A way of life learned from and shared by a social
unit
– Attitudes, beliefs, values, and habits
• Not just national, also “gender, ethnicity, religion,
cohort or generation, historical period,
profession, social class, and country of origin”
(Kitayama & Markus, 1995, p. 368)
• Norms, values, and practices shape how
individuals process information and make
decisions
Main cultural 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
Mary Douglas: Risk and Blame
Sect/Enclave
Autonomy 
Individualist/Market
Isolate
Incorporation 
Hierarchy/Bureaucracy
But it’s more complicated…
Hazard information
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Socioeconomic
Etc.
Trust
Self-efficacy
Incorporation
Autonomy
Time orientation
Risk Perception
Behavior
Implications for mitigation
• Can education and
information are likely to
change attitudes, values,
and beliefs?
• Risk managers must
speak to these attitudes,
values, and beliefs
– Which means that
managers must “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
cultural 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
– Cultural factors
– Historical and hypothetical behavior
• Relevant demographic information
Compared to the average person, 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?
• Do you have the desire and ability to
implement new mitigation strategies based
on these findings?
• What information would you like to gather
with the survey tool?