4.6 Article

Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland

期刊

RISK ANALYSIS
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 971-979

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00792.x

关键词

availability heuristic; flooding; lay people and experts; natural hazards; prevention behavior; risk perception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experts on the risk of flooding have developed very detailed maps for different parts of Switzerland that indicate the types of damage possible and the probabilities of adverse events. Four categories of risk severity are defined on the maps, ranging from high risk to no risk. Based on these existing maps, we selected respondents for a mail survey, some from areas high in risk and others from low-risk regions. Respondents answered several questions related to flood risk perception and preparedness. Survey results showed that respondents' risk perceptions were correlated with the experts' risk assessments. Respondents who lived in areas designated no risk by the experts had lower perceptions of risk than respondents who lived in areas with higher levels of designated risk. With regard to concrete prevention behavior, no differences between people living in different risk areas were observed. Survey results further suggest that many inhabitants do not know that flooding maps exist for their region. Results suggest that in some regions people overestimate the risks associated with flooding. Consequently, some people are more afraid of flooding than is justified by the facts. Some people show prevention behavior that most likely is superfluous. However, in other regions people underestimate the risks associated with flooding. These people do not show prevention behavior, and they are not well prepared for an adverse event. Furthermore, results suggest that respondents' experiences with flooding are positively related to their perceptions of flood risk. Findings of the present study are in line with the availability heuristic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据