Fig 3 - available from: Geoenvironmental Disasters
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Ranking of the first 3 answers to the question: "Can you rank these natural hazards from the more important to the less important for you?"
Source publication
Background
In risk-prone areas, measuring risk representation can help implementing communication and disclosing information among the population, in order to increase individual initiatives to protect themselves and their properties or to provide a better knowledge of the appropriate measures to be adopted during or after a disaster. The perceived...
Similar publications
This article presents a summary and analysis of the consequences on the latest disasters that occurred in Minas Gerais, especially in the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte (RMBH). The databases used in this study were the bulletins from the main bodies that manage water resources and natural disasters in the state of Minas Gerais, such as Civil...
Citations
... Cependant, bien que les évaluations des experts visent une forme d'objectivité, elles demeurent incomplètes et parfois divergentes (Hellequin et al., 2013). Les différences de perception d'un aléa ou d'un risque entre les individus non experts et les individus experts peuvent s'expliquer par diverses raisons, y compris par des difficultés à évaluer la probabilité d'un aléa en raison d'un manque d'information (Botzen et al., 2009 ;Heitz and Shimabuku 2017) ou encore par manque de confiance envers les autorités (Goeldner-Gianella et al., 2017). ...
Dans le contexte national de remise en question de la gestion des risques littoraux, il
apparaît nécessaire d’étudier la perception du risque de submersion marine des habitants afin d’améliorer la compréhension de leurs jugements et attitudes vis-à-vis des mesures préventives. Fondée sur une approche interdisciplinaire qui associe les apports de la psychologie sociale et environnementale à la géographie des risques, nous proposons une analyse de la perception du risque de submersion marine par les habitants de quatre communes littorales françaises, exposées à ce risque (Barneville-Carteret, Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, Châtelaillon-Plage et Sainte-Anne en Guadeloupe). Une enquête, qui associe questionnaires et cartographies de perception, a été menée auprès de 318 habitants. Les données issues de l’enquête ont été traitées par des méthodes statistiques bivariées et multivariées. Les cartes de perception ont été digitalisées dans un SIG et ont fait l’objet de géotraitements. Nous mettons en évidence une tendance des participants à sous-évaluer l’exposition au risque de leur domicile et l’étendue des zones exposées à
l’échelle de la commune. Nous proposons d’expliquer cette tendance par des facteurs liés à la connaissance du risque, l’expérience du risque, la localisation du domicile, le profil résidentiel et sociodémographique.
In the French national context of reassessing coastal risk management, it seems necessary to study the perception of coastal flood risk by inhabitants in order to improve the understanding of their judgments and attitudes towards preventive policies. Based on an interdisciplinary approach that combines the contributions of social and environmental psychology to the geography of risks, we propose an analysis of the perception of coastal flood risk of the inhabitants of four French coastal communities exposed to this risk (Barneville-Carteret, Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, Châtelaillon-Plage and Sainte-Anne in Guadeloupe). A survey, which combines questionnaires and sketch maps, was conducted among 318 inhabitants. The survey data was processed by bivariate and multivariate statistical methods. The sketch maps were digitized in a GIS and geoprocessed. We highlight a tendency of participants to underestimate the risk exposure of their homes and the extent of the exposed areas at the municipal level. We propose to explain this trend by factors related to risk knowledge, risk experience, home location, residential and socio-demographic profile.
... According to Slovic (1987), "studies of risk perception examine the judgments people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies". Thus an individual's perception could be different from expert assessment of hazard or risk for many reasons including the difficulties of assessing probabilities of hazard, because of a lack of information about the risk (Botzen et al. 2009;Heitz and Shimabuku 2017) or because a lack of confidence in the authorities (Goeldner-Gianella et al. 2017). Individuals' perception of risk has been widely studied using different methodologies of surveys. ...
Background
This study analyzes individuals’ perceptions of areas exposed to coastal flooding at a local level using sketch mapping methodology. In this way, 318 individuals were surveyed in four coastal municipalities in France (Barneville-Carteret, Saintes-Maries-de-la-mer, Châtelaillon-Plage and Sainte-Anne). We assessed the disagreement between expert estimates and individuals’ perceptions of areas exposed to coastal flooding using sketch mapping indicators. We also determined the relationships between individuals’ living environments and the way they perceived the spatial extent of coastal flooding.
Results
Respondents were likely to under-assess the exposure of areas that are actually exposed according to expert hazard maps. Perceived distance to coastal flooding areas appeared to be a predominant factor in assessing individuals’ perceptions.
Conclusions
Local preventive actions could take into account the individuals’ tendency to under-estimate the areas exposed to coastal flooding. Individual perception of the spatial extent of coastal flooding appeared to be more influenced by the perceived distance of the home to exposed areas than the objective distance. It is a result that raises the question about the individuals’ understanding of hazard maps and regulatory maps. This may necessitate the improvement of the appropriation of these documents by the inhabitants by involving them more closely in the application and decision process that directly concerns.
... When risk levels are measured in terms of the probability of lives lost, the development of evaluation criteria becomes an increasingly difficult task. Establishing acceptable limits to lives lost is not only a scientific fact-based matter, but also involves the consideration of value-based legal, political, social and economic issues (Aven 2016;Fell 1994;Ho et al. 2000), all influencing landslide risk perception as shown in Prasad et al. (2016) and Heitz and Shimabuku (2017). The final evaluation of risk often lies with the project owner and regulator. ...
The application of quantitative risk assessments is increasing for decision-making in many industries and contexts, with the evaluation of risks against some adopted criteria. In this article, we review risk criteria developed and used for landslide management, in particular criteria associated with risk to life. We show that while this natural hazard is encountered worldwide, the social and regulatory contexts under which evaluation criteria are developed can vary significantly. Thus, the applicability of developed criteria to any specific situation should be assessed before adopting them elsewhere. We describe selected considerations for developing risk evaluation criteria, propose a framework for defining these criteria in Canada, and assess the applicability of previously proposed criteria. Examples of risk criteria development and adoption for new and existing residential developments and for railway employees are presented to illustrate some of these concepts.
Approximately, 75,000 people live in areas prone to volcanic hazards and floods in the large city of Arequipa, Peru. We have conducted three different surveys involving c. 280 respondents to appraise the socio-economic characteristics of urban dwellers living in informal settlements along two ravines, the extent to which they know hazards, perceive risk, and how they behave in case of disaster. This study also assesses how local communities consider, and civil authorities implement mitigation procedures in the city. The statistical analysis of the survey datasets included univariate, bivariate, and multivariate techniques together with hierarchical agglomerative clustering. Low-income urban dwellers, with a minimum or without education, represent almost 32% of the vulnerable population living in four districts. Almost 45% of the respondents have a regular to minimum knowledge of hazards, and half of the population is worried or uncertain about volcano and debris flow threats. A large proportion of dwellers trust early warning messages, but almost half of them check them out before evacuating. Overall, between a third and half of people living in the four most exposed districts of Arequipa seem to be quite vulnerable in case of an imminent debris flow. Interviews and focus groups with risk managers aimed to understand why planning emergency operations and risk mitigation are not as efficient as the municipality, and the communities would expect in Arequipa. Several issues hinder an adequate disaster risk management, as the underlying vulnerability factors of the exposed population are not accounted for. Under-investment in disaster risk management has led to diminish accountability among the risk managers and involvement of dwellers.
