The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards
Gisela Wachinger
Department of Social Sciences V: Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ortwin Renn
Department of Social Sciences V: Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Address correspondence to Ortwin Renn; ortwin.renn@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de.Search for more papers by this authorChloe Begg
Department Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorChristian Kuhlicke
Department Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorGisela Wachinger
Department of Social Sciences V: Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ortwin Renn
Department of Social Sciences V: Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Address correspondence to Ortwin Renn; ortwin.renn@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de.Search for more papers by this authorChloe Begg
Department Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorChristian Kuhlicke
Department Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
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.
REFERENCES
- 1Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236: 280–285.
- 2Renn O. Risk perception and risk management. Part 1: The intuitive mechanisms of risk perceptions. Risk Abstracts, 1990; 7(1): 1–9.
- 3Wachinger G, Renn O. Risk perception and natural hazards. WP-3-Review of the EU-Project CAPHAZ-NET, Contract No. 227073, 2010. Available at: http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP3_Risk-Perception2.pdf,Accessed November 26, 2010.
- 4Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
10.1017/CBO9780511814679 Google Scholar
- 5Ruin I, Gaillard JC, Lutoff C. How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environmental Hazards, 2007; 7: 235–244.
10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.07.005 Google Scholar
- 6Hung HV, Shaw H, Kobayashi M. Flood risk management for the RUA of Hanoi: Importance of community perception of catastrophic flood risk in disaster risk planning. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2007; 16(2): 245–258.
10.1108/09653560710739568 Google Scholar
- 7Quarantelli EL. Disaster crisis management: A summary of research findings. Journal of Management Studies, 1988; 25(4): 373–385.
- 8Plapp T, Werner U. Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: Examples from Germany. Risk, 2006; 21: 101–108.
- 9Renn O. Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan, 2008.
- 10Sjöberg L. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 2000; 3(4): 53–367.
10.1080/13669870050132568 Google Scholar
- 11Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(5): 713–719.
- 12Terpstra T, Lindell K, Gutteling JM. Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a quasi-experimental study. Risk Analysis, 2009; 9(8): 1141–1155.
- 13Lindell MK, Perry RW. The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(4): 616–632.
- 14Njome MS, Suh CE, Chuyong G, deWit MJ. Volcanic risk perception in rural communities along the slopes of Mount Cameroon, West-Central Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 2010; 58: 608–622.
- 15Heitz C, Spaeter S, Auzet AV, Glatron S. Local stakeholders' perception of muddy flood risk and implications for management approaches: A case study in Alsace (France). Land Use Policy, 2009; 26: 443–451.
- 16Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M. Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an Alpine Valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2008; 28: 164–173.
- 17Haimes YY. Risk of extreme events and the fallacy of the expected value. Pp. 299–321 in AP Sage (ed). Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
10.1002/0471723908 Google Scholar
- 18Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(4): 971–979.
- 19Karanci N, Bahattin A, Gulay D. Impact of a community disaster awareness training program in Turkey: Does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors? Social Behavior and Personality, 2005; 33(3): 243–258.
- 20Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T, Vanneuville W, De Maeyer P. An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(7): 1055–1067.
- 21Armas I, Avram E. Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Natural Hazards, 2009; 50: 269–287.
- 22Armas I. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: The historic center of the Bucharest municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 2007; 47: 397–410.
- 23Burningham K, Fielding J, Thrush D. “It'll never happen to me”: Understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters, 2008; 32(2): 216–238.
- 24Tekeli-Yesil S, Dedeoglu N, Braun-Fahrlaender C, Tanner M. Factors motivating individuals to take precautionary action for an expected earthquake in Istanbul. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(8): 1181–1195.
- 25Felgentreff C. Post-disaster situations as “window of opportunity”? Post-flood perceptions and changes in the German Odra river region after the 1997 flood. Die Erde, 2003; 134: 163–180.
- 26Grothmann T, Reusswig F. People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazard, 2006; 38: 101–120.
- 27Terpstra T. Flood Preparedness: Thoughts, Feelings and Intentions of the Dutch Public. Thesis, Twente: University of Twente, 2009.
- 28Terpstra T. Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(10): 1658–1675.
- 29Biernacki W, Działek J, Janas K, Padło T. Community attitudes towards extreme phenomena relative to place of residence and previous experience. Pp. 207–237 in S Liszewski (ed). The Influence of Extreme Phenomena on the Natural Environment and Human Living Conditions. Łódz: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 2008.
- 30Barnes P. Approaches to community safety: Risk perception and social meaning. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 2002; 17: 15–21.
- 31Harries T, Penning-Rowsell E. Victim pressure, institutional inertia and climate change adaptation: The case of flood risk. Global Environmental Change, 2011; 21 doi: 10.1016002Fj.gloenvcha.2010.09.002. 2011.
- 32Ming-Chou H, Shaw D, Shuyeu L, Yau-Chu C. How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(3): 635–645.
- 33Paton D, Smith L, Daly M, Johnston D. Risk perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: Individual and social perspectives. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 2008; 172(4): 179–188.
- 34Hall TE, Slothower M. Cognitive factors affecting homeowners’ reactions to defensible space in the Oregon coast range. Society and Natural Resources, 2009; 22: 95–110.
- 35Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Borga M. The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: Findings from case studies in an Alpine Region. Natural Hazards, 2012; 63(2): 499–520.
- 36Green CH, Tunstall SM, Fordham MH. The risks from flooding: Which risks and whose perception? Disasters—The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management, 1991; 15: 227–236.
- 37Mileti DS, O'Brien P. Public response to aftershock warnings. US Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1993; 1553-B: 31–42.
- 38Deeming H. Increasing resilience to storm surge flooding: risks, social networks and local champions. Pp. 945–955 in P Samuels, S Huntington, W Allsop, Harrop (eds). Flood Risk Management: Research and Practice. London: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. 2008.
- 39Halpern-Felsher BL, Millstein SG, Ellen JM, Adler NE, Tschann JM, Biehl M. The role of behavioural experience in judging risks. Health Psychology, 2001; 20(2): 120–126.
- 40Kaiser G, Witzki D. Public perception of coastal flood defence and participation in coastal flood defence planning. Pp. 101–108, vol. 1, in: G Schernewski, H Dolch (eds). Geographie der Meere und Küsten. Coastline Report, 2004.
- 41Brilly M, Polic M. Public perception of flood risks, flood forecasting and mitigation. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2005; 5: 345–355.
- 42Kasperson RF, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 1988; 8(2): 177–187.
- 43Mileti DS, Sorensen JH. Communication of Emergency Public Warnings—A Social Perspective and State-of-the-Art Assessment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1990.
- 44Shaw R, Kobayashi KSH, Kobayashi M. Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2004; 13(1): 39–49.
10.1108/09653560410521689 Google Scholar
- 45Espluga J, Gamero N, Prades A, Solà R. El papel de la confianza en los conflictos socio ambientales. Política y sociedad, 2009; 46/1(2): 225–273.
- 46Botzen WJW, Aerts JCHJ, van den Bergh JCJM. Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resources Research, 2009; 45: 1–15.
- 47Whitmarsh L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11(3): 351–374.
- 48Bichard E, Kazmierczak A. Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Climate Change, 2012; 112: 633–654.
- 49Jóhannesdóttir G, Gísladóttir G. People living under threat of volcanic hazard in southern Iceland: Vulnerability and risk perception. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2010; 10: 407–420.
- 50Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N. Whose reality counts? Factors effecting the perception of volcanic risk. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 2008; 172: 259–272.
- 51Wood MM, Mileti DS, Kano M, Kelley MM, Regan R, Bourque LB. Communicating actionable risk for terrorism and other hazards. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(4): 601–612.
- 52Gough J. Perceptions of risk from natural hazards in two remote New Zealand communities. Australiasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2000–2002.
- 53Barberi F, Davis MS, Isaia R, Nave R, Ricci T. Volcanic risk perception in the Vesuvius population. Journal of Vulcanology and Geothermal Research, 2008; 172(3–4): 244–258.
- 54Lavign F, DeCoster B, Juvin N, Flohic F, Gaillard JC, Texier P, Morin J, Sartohadi J. People's behaviour in the face of volcanic hazards: Perspective from Javanese communities, Indonesia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 2008; 172: 273–287.
- 55Heijmans A. Vulnerability: A matter of perception. Benfield Grelg Hazard Research Centre. London. Disaster Management Working Paper, 2001; 4: 1–17.
- 56McIvor D, Paton D, Johnston D. Modelling community preparation for natural hazards: Understanding hazard cognitions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 2009; 3(2): 39–46.
- 57Lin S, Shaw D, Ho M. Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public? Natural Hazards, 2008; 44: 305–314.
- 58Baan PJA, Kljin WL. Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management, 2004; 2(2): 113–122.
10.1080/15715124.2004.9635226 Google Scholar
- 59Walker GN. Risk governance and natural hazards. WP-1-Review of the EU-Project CAPHAZ-NET, Contract No. 227073. Available at: http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP1_Social-Capacity-Building2.pdf, Accessed November 26, 2012.
- 60Bird DK, Gisladottir G, Dominey-Howes D. Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: Implications for hazard, risk and emergency response, education and training. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 2010; 189: 33–48.
- 61Siegrist M., Gutscher H. Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behaviour: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(3): 771–778.
- 62Gallese V. The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest of a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 2003; 358: 517–528.
- 63Peters HP. Durch Risikokommunikation zur Technikakzeptanz? Die Konstruktion von Risiko-'Wirklichkeiten' durch Experten, Gegenexperten und Öffentlichkeit. Pp. 11–67 in J Krüger, S Ruß-Mohl (eds). Risikokommunikationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 1991.
- 64Dunwoody S, Peters HP. Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 1992; 1(2): 199–230.
10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004 Google Scholar
- 65Breakwell GM. The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
10.1017/CBO9780511819315 Google Scholar
- 66Kajihara H, Kishimoto A. Risk tradeoff analysis of substance substitution: Scope, framework and metrics. Paper presented at 3rd Integ-Risk Conference on New Technologies and Emerging Risks, June 7–8, 2011, Stuttgart, Germany.
- 67Gregg CE, Houghton BF, Paton D, Lachman R, Lachman J, Johnston DM, Wongbusarakum S. Natural warning signs of tsunamis: Human sensory experience and response to the 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake and tsunami in Thailand. Earthquake Spectra, 2006; 22: 671–691.
- 68Dow K, Cutter S. Public orders and personal opinions: Household strategies for hurricane risk assessment. Environmental Hazards, 2006; 2: 143–155.
- 69Frewer LJ, Miles S, Marsh R. The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis, 2002; 22(4): 701–711.
- 70Frewer L. The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology Letters, 2004; 149: 291–397.
- 71 Abrams C. Gong for tsunami girl. Sun, 2005; Sept. 9.
- 72Komaz B, Ciglič R, Gašperič P, Adamič MO, Pavšek M, Pipan P, Zorn M. Risk education and natural hazards. WP-6-Review of the EU-Project CAPHAZ-NET, Contract No. 227073. Available at: http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP6_Risk-Education2.pdf, Accessed November 26, 2012.
- 73Frewer LJ, Salter B. Societal trust in risk analysis: Implications for the interface of risk assessment and risk management. Pp. 143–158 in M Siegrist, TC Earle, H Gutscher (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Management. Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London: Earthscan, 2007.
- 74Paton D. Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: How trust influences its effectiveness. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 2008; 8(1/2): 2–15.
10.1504/IJGENVI.2008.017256 Google Scholar
- 75Stanghellini LPS, Collentine D. Stakeholder discourse and water management—Implementation of the participatory model CATCH in a Northern Italian Alpine sub-catchment. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2008; 12: 317–331.
- 76Slinger J, Cuppen M, Muller M, Hendriks M. (Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management). How Responsive Are Scientists and Policy Makers to the Perceptions of Dutch and Flemish Citizens Living Alongside the Scheldt Estuary? Insights on Flood Risk Management from the Netherlands. Netherlands, 2007. Contract: GOCE-CT-2004-505420.
- 77De Groot M. Exploring the relationship between public environmental ethics and river flood policies in western Europe. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012; 93: 1–9.
- 78Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. PNAS, 2012; 109/19: 7157–7161.
- 79Krasovskaia, I. Perception of the risk of flooding: The case of the 1995 flood in Norway. Hydrological Sciences-Journal, 2001; 46(6): 855–868.
- 80Pagneux E, Gisladottir G, Jonsdottir S. Public perception of flood hazard and flood risk in Iceland: A case study in a watershed prone to ice-jam floods. Natural Hazards, 2011; 58(1): 269–287.
- 81Plattner TH, Plapp T, Hebel B. Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, 2006; 6: 471–483.
- 82Raajmakers R, Krywkow J, van der Veen A. Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: An exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards, 2008; 46: 307-322.