Content uploaded by Marino Bonaiuto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marino Bonaiuto on Apr 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Flood Risk: the Role of Neighbourhood Attachment
M. Bonaiuto1, 2, S. De Dominicis1, 2, F. Fornara2, 3, U. Ganucci Cancellieri4 and B. Mosco1
1 Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy
2 CIRPA - Interuniversity Centre for Research in Environmental Psychology, Italy
3 Università di Cagliari, Italy
4 Università per Stranieri "Dante Alighieri", Reggio di Calabria, Italy
E-mail: marino.bonaiuto@uniroma1.it
Abstract
Research has suggested that place attachment is related to environmental variables.
Nonetheless, empirical research lacks on place attachment and environmental risk perception.
This study investigate if Neighbourhood Attachment (NA) - place attachment for one’s own
neighbourhood - affects flood risk perception and flood related coping behaviours, taking into
consideration objective Risk Area (RA). Literature based hypotheses are: 1) RA main effect
on Environmental Risk (ER) variables (higher ER with higher RA); 2) NA main effect on ER
(higher ER with higher NA). Differences on risk perception, flood concern, relative flood
concern, and then attitude toward behaviour and behavioural intention and flood coping
behaviour (pertaining three domains) are investigated with a 2x2 design: NA (low vs. high)
by RA (low vs. high). First hypothesis: high (vs. low) RA enhances flood risk perception,
concern, attitude, intention and behaviour (item collecting and advice to neighbours). Second
hypothesis: high (vs. low) NA enhances flood risk perception, concern, intention (item
collecting and advice to neighbours). Moreover, two interaction effects NA by RA on attitude
and behaviour show: only in low (vs. high) RA, high (vs. low) NA citizens are higher in
attitude and behaviour (item collecting). Information finding (attitude, intention and
behaviour) is never affected by both NA and RA.
Introduction
The aim of this contribution is to test the role of place attachment within the context of an
environmental risk, with the general hypothesis that place attachment would represent a
positive feature for improving environmental risk local responses of citizens, on the basis of
scientific literature about place attachment and people environmental perception, evaluation
and behaviours. Starting from a brief literature summary on environmental risk and place
attachment, this study focuses on the relationship of Neighbourhood Attachment (NA) with
flood risk perception, concern, attitude, intention, coping behaviours, within two specific
flood Risk Areas (RAs) at different risk levels.
Environmental risk
Hydro-geological disasters, such as floods, represent one of the most hazardous
environmental risks of our time [1]. Data from the Italian Ministry for the Environment and
Territory reveal that 81.9% of Italian municipalities are exposed to high or very high hydro-
geological risk levels. The damage caused by hydro-geological phenomena affecting Italy in
the last few years has been very considerable, both in terms of economic aspects and loss of
human life. For these reasons, increasing disaster preparedness by implementing emergencies
planning activities and promoting the adoption by citizens of specific protective behaviours is
just as essential as mitigating the risk with engineering or architectural works designed to
make area safe. It would therefore seem useful, in line with an interdisciplinary approach to
environmental problems, to acquire data and information on individuals and communities
living in areas exposed to hydro-geological risk in order to understand their perceived flood
risk perception which can be relevant for their flood risk coping behaviour: in high risk
perception conditions people tend to enact proactive behaviours [2]. This helps understanding
whether and to what extent people living in these zones have adopted the necessary
perceptions and behaviours to adaptively deal with future catastrophic local flooding events.
Moreover, this kind of data would help in understanding social-psychological processes
underlying such risk perceptions and behaviours in order to improve flood risk
communication management.
Place attachment
Among the social-psychological constructs which can be relevant for people-environment
transactions [3], place attachment refers to feelings, bonds, thoughts, and behavioural
intention that people develop over time with reference to their socio-physical environment [4].
In particular, the term “attachment” is rooted in Bowlby’s attachment theory [5] and relates to
affective and emotional patterns that connect people to places, similarly to their connections
with other people. The feelings we have toward our places (and the communities we live in)
play a role in defining our identity and giving meaning to life [6]. Thus, the aspects that define
place attachment render it somewhat overlapping with other constructs, such as place identity
[7][8], place dependence [9], place belongingness [10], rootedness [11], sense of place [12],
and sense of community [13]. However, place attachment acquired a theoretical and empirical
status in the last 50 years, after the first studies of the psychological correlates of people
forced removal from their places [14], showing how it can be related to environmental
perceptions, evaluation, behaviours, either as a driver [15] or as a consequence [16]. On the
whole, place attachment significantly relate with a number of features regarding people-
environment relationship [6]. For example, a study about the forced removal from the settlers
of the Gaza Strip [17] assessed emotional distress measured by “Demoralization Scale of
Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Interview” [18] (D-PERI) and others variables such as:
disengagement process and social capital (place attachment and social support), or risk
perception about personal security. The results showed that place attachment was inversely
related to D-PERI and that current satisfaction with life situation was associated with greater
place attachment and less risk perception. Coming more specifically to the role of place
attachment for risk perception, concern, evaluations, behaviours, there is a lack of empirical
research. One very recent exception explored how place attachment (measured in three
different kinds: genealogical, economic and religious) in flood prone areas (Orissa, India)
affects citizens floods preparedness [19]. Results revealed that people having higher (vs.
lower) genealogical and economic place attachment are more prepared for floods, while
different levels of religious place attachment did not discriminate in flood preparedness. One
specific form of place attachment is Neighbourhood Attachment (NA) [20] which refers to the
neighbourhood the person is living in. Though NA has been already researched in terms of its
relations with some environmental features (perceptions, evaluation, behaviours) [16][21], it
has never been tested in terms of its consequences for risk related perceptions and actions.
Therefore, the present study investigates if NA affects flood risk perception, concern, attitude,
intention and hypothetical flood related coping behaviours, taking also into consideration
different objective risk area.
Aim and hypotheses
The general aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between Neighbourhood
Attachment (NA) and several Environmental Risk (ER) features – flood risk perception,
concern, attitude, intention and coping behaviours – taking also into account the effect of
objective risk area. Two general hypotheses are tested in the present study, each one detailed
into five operational hypotheses:
1. Risk Area main effect on ER variables (higher ER with higher RA):
1a-e) The main effect of RA is hypothesised on Flood Risk Perception, Concern,
Attitude toward flood related behaviour, flood related Behavioural Intention, Flood
Coping Behaviour. Attitude, Intention and Behaviour pertain to three domains: Collect
Items (CI), Advice to Neighbours (AN), and Information Finding (IF). Citizens who
live in a high RA show higher scores for: risk perception, flood concern, attitude
toward flood related behaviour, flood related behavioural intention, flood coping
behaviour.
2. Neighbourhood Attachment main effect on ER variables (higher ER with higher NA):
2a-e) The main effect of NA is hypothesised on flood risk Perception, Concern,
Attitude toward flood related behaviour, flood related behavioural Intention, Flood
Coping Behaviour (with Attitude, Intention and Behaviour pertaining to three reported
above). Higher attached citizens show higher scores for risk perception, flood concern,
attitude toward flood related behaviour, flood related behavioural intention, flood
coping behaviour.
Method
Sample
The survey was conducted both in a fluvial/pluvial and coastal/pluvial contexts. Areas were
chosen after a qualitative study of Authorities knowledge, and after a quantitative preliminary
study conducted to understanding citizens flood knowledge systems and flood experiences. A
purposive sampling procedure was used because it was important to include in the sample
household and/or workers and/or students in flood risk areas that experienced flooding in the
past. Two case study areas are used: one to sample in a low RA (Prima Porta and Labaro areas
in Rome) and one to sample in a high RA (Bivona and Vibo Marina areas in Vibo Valentia).
N=442 (47.3% in Low RA and 52.7% in High RA); Gender: 50% female; Age range
clustered in 5 groups (20-29: 17%; 30-39: 22%; 40-49: 25%; 50-59: 18%; 60-69: 18%);
Educational Level: 7% Primary School, 19% Secondary School, 52% High School, 20%
Degree, 2% Post-Degree; Profession: 40% Full-Time, 8% Part-Time, 10% Unemployed, 14%
Retired, 12% Housewife, 9% Student, 7% Other job.
Tool, measures and procedure
The ad-hoc questionnaire was composed by the following measures:
“Risk Perception”, including 5 items which concern flood risk perception (it has been
created with 3 items [22] and other 2 ad-hoc created items to which respondents
indicated their level of agreement on a 5-point scale). All the items of the
questionnaire are words or sentences to which respondents were asked to indicate their
level of agreement or disagreement.
“Attitude toward flood related behaviour” and “Flood related behavioural intention”
are measured separately for the three specific domains as respectively a 5-item
average [23] and 1 item [24], respectively measured according to a semantic
differential and a 5-point response scale; c) hypothetical “Flood Coping Behaviours”
are measured separately for the each one of the three specific domains, as: the sum of
3 items for “information finding”, the sum of 2 items for “item collecting”, and 1 item
for “advice to neighbours”; responses are given dichotomously (no/yes) to each
behaviour in the 6-behaviour list (within a wider list); d) “Flood Concern” is measured
by one item with a 5-point response scale; e) Neighbourhood Attachment is the
average of a NA short scale [20], 4 items measured by a 7-point response scale. For
e
w
t
i
s
Anal
y
s
e
After a
verifie
d
NA) re
p
high N
A
and thi
r
Varian
c
compar
e
Resu
l
H
y
pot
h
In gene
r
The 2x
2
RA on
R
24.515;
F(1;23
8
Fisher’
s
probabi
alternat
i
RA has
Behavi
o
H
y
pot
h
In gene
r
Figur
e
The 2x
2
NA on
5.338;
p
Behavi
o
Intenti
o
e
ach case s
t
w
ithin pub
l
t
he questi
o
i
nstruction
s
sample.
e
s
preliminar
y
d
, in order
t
p
resenting
t
A
sub-sam
p
r
d percentil
e
c
e (ANOV
A
e
each sub-
l
ts
h
esis 1 res
u
r
al terms, h
y
2
ANOVA
R
isk Perce
p
p = .000,
o
8
) = 4.952;
s
F, i.e. th
e
lity associ
a
i
ve hypoth
e
no main
e
o
ur.
h
esis 2 res
u
r
al terms, h
y
e
1: Mean s
c
R
2
ANOVA
Risk Perce
p
p
= .022,
o
o
ur with F(
o
n and Beh
a
t
udy, the p
r
l
ic places
c
o
nnaire vo
l
s
and supp
o
y
data scre
e
t
o justify t
h
t
he variabl
e
p
les have b
e
e
(n=137).
T
A
) was per
f
sample in
e
u
lts
y
pothesis 1
and One-
w
p
tion with
F
o
n CI Inte
n
p = .027
e
statistical
a
ted to th
e
e
sis, i.e. th
e
e
ffect on IF
u
lts
y
pothesis 2
c
ores on th
e
R
isk Are
a
and One-
w
p
tion with
F
o
n CI Inte
n
1;256) = 3.
a
viour, on
C
r
oce
d
ure w
a
c
ontexts, su
l
untarily i
n
o
rted by o
n
e
ning, the f
a
h
e creation
e
s inserted
e
en create
d
T
o test eac
h
f
ormed on
e
ach of the
s
is partiall
y
w
ay ANO
V
F
(1;259) =
2
n
tion with
F
and Intenti
value whi
c
e
null hyp
o
e
significa
n
Attitude,
I
is partiall
y
e
ER factor
s
w
ay ANO
V
F
(1;259) =
n
tion with
F
7
18; p = .0
5
C
I Attitude
a
a
s a face-to
-
u
ch as squa
r
n
about te
n
n
e of sever
a
a
ctorial str
u
of the agg
r
in the foll
o
d
by selecti
n
h
one of th
e
each ER
fa
s
ignificant
m
y
confirme
d
V
A show th
e
21.753; p
=
F
(1;260) =
4
i
on with F
(
c
h is used
f
o
thesis (p
v
n
ce of the
d
I
ntention a
n
y
confirme
d
s
by Fi
g
V
A show th
e
6.289; p =
F
(1;260) =
55 (Figure
a
nd on AN
A
-
face admi
n
r
es, market
s
n
-fifteen
m
a
l research
e
u
cture and t
h
r
egate scor
e
o
wing infer
e
n
g subjects
e
two main
a
cto
r
, as
w
m
ain effect
s
(Figure 1).
e
hypothes
i
=
.000, on
F
4
.347; p =
.
(
1;255) =
5
f
or the sign
v
alues bel
o
d
ifference
b
n
d Behavio
u
(Figure 2).
g
ure 2: Me
a
Neigh
b
e
hypothes
i
.013, on F
4.347; p
=
2). NA has
A
ttitude an
d
n
istration ei
t
s
and so o
n
m
inutes, wi
e
rs who rec
h
e reliabilit
y
e
s (for eac
h
e
ntial anal
y
belonging
t
hypothese
s
ell as a O
n
s
.
i
sed signifi
c
F
lood Conc
e
038, and o
n
5
.273; p =
i
ficance te
s
o
w .05 su
g
b
etween the
u
r, on CI
A
n
scores on
b
ourhood
A
i
sed signifi
c
l
ood Conc
e
.038, and
no main e
f
d
Intention.
t
her door-t
o
n
. Subjects
i
th written
c
ruited the
m
t
y of meas
u
h
ER facto
r
y
ses. Then,
to the first
s
, a 2x2 An
n
e-way A
N
cant main
e
e
rn with F(
n
AN Attit
u
.022. “F”
r
s
t, whilst “
p
g
gest to ac
e
compared
A
ttitude an
d
n
the ER fa
c
A
ttachment
cant main
e
e
rn with F(
a tendenc
y
f
fect on IF
A
o
-door or
filled in
general
m
for the
res were
r
and for
low and
(n=132)
alysis of
N
OVA to
e
ffect of
1;260) =
u
de with
r
efers to
p
” is the
cept the
means).
d
on AN
tors by
e
ffect of
1;260) =
y
on AN
A
ttitude,
Other
r
Other
n
signific
a
5.303;
p
Higher
for thos
Figu
r
Conc
l
As hyp
o
Concer
n
Intenti
o
high
N
Behavi
o
Attitud
e
further
s
Ackn
The A
u
Protezi
o
Uncert
a
CRUE
F
Refe
r
[1] Mi
c
ris
k
17
3
[2] Co
v
Jo
u
[3] Bo
n
Al
d
[4] Br
o
(E
d
Ple
[5] Bo
w
[6] Gi
u
Bo
n
r
esults
n
ot hypoth
e
a
nt interac
t
p
= .022 a
n
attached ci
t
s
e living in
L
r
e 3: Mean
s
l
usion
o
thesised i
n
n
, CI Inte
n
o
n, IF Beha
v
N
A is asso
o
ur, but no
t
e
and AN I
n
s
tudies.
owledg
e
u
thors wis
h
o
ne e Ricer
c
a
inty and
R
i
F
unding In
i
r
ences
c
eli R., Sot
g
k
: a study i
n
3
.
v
ello V.T.
(
u
rnal of He
a
n
nes M., L
e
d
ershot, U
K
o
wn B., Per
k
d
s.), Place
a
num Press.
w
lby J. (19
8
u
lia
n
i M. V
.
n
aiuto M. (
E
e
sised resu
l
t
ion effect
b
n
d on CI B
t
izens sho
w
L
ow RA.
s
cores of C
I
n
Hp1a-1b-
n
tion, AN
A
v
iour, CI
A
ciated wit
h
t
with hig
h
n
tention.
U
e
ments
h
to ackno
w
c
a Ambien
t
i
sk in Com
m
i
tiative (20
0
g
iu I., Setta
n
an alpine
v
(
2003). Bes
t
a
lth Comm
u
e
e T., Bona
i
K
: Ashgate.
k
ins P. (19
9
a
ttachment,
h
8
8). A secu
r
.
(2003). T
h
E
ds.), Psyc
h
*
l
ts are sho
w
b
etween R
A
ehaviour
m
w
higher po
I
Attitude a
n
Attac
h
1c-1d, hig
h
A
ttitude an
d
A
ttitude and
h
high Ri
s
h
IF Attitu
d
U
n-hypothes
w
ledge the
t
ale) for th
e
m
unicating
0
9-2011).
n
ni M. (20
0
v
alley in It
a
t
practices
i
u
nication R
e
i
uto M. (20
0
9
2). Disrup
t
h
uman beh
a
r
e base. Lo
n
h
eory of att
a
h
ological t
h
*
w
ed by d
a
A
and NA
m
easure wit
h
o
ints in CI
A
n
d CI Beh
a
hment (* p
h
RA is ass
d AN Inte
n
AN Beha
v
s
k Percept
i
d
e, IF Inte
n
s
ised intera
c
funding p
r
e
Italian tea
m
about Floo
d
0
8). Disast
e
a
ly. Journal
i
n public h
e
e
search, 8,
5
0
3). Psych
o
t
ion in plac
e
a
vior and e
n
n
don: Rout
l
a
chment an
d
h
eories for
e
a
ta analysi
s
on CI Atti
t
h
F(1;260)
A
ttitude an
d
a
viour by R
i
< .05)
ociated wi
t
n
tion, but
n
v
iour. As h
y
i
on, Flood
n
tion, IF B
e
c
tion effect
s
r
ovided by
m
for the r
e
d
s – UR-F
L
e
r prepared
n
of Environ
m
e
alth risk an
5
-8.
o
logical the
o
e
attachme
n
n
vironmen
t
l
edge.
d
place atta
e
nvironme
n
. The 2x2
t
ude meas
u
= 5.954;
p
d
CI Beha
v
i
sk Area an
d
h
high Ris
k
n
ot with h
i
y
pothesised
Concern,
e
haviour,
C
s
between
R
ISPRA (
Is
e
search proj
L
OOD” un
d
n
ess and pe
r
m
ental Psy
c
d
crisis co
m
o
ries for en
v
n
t. In I. Alt
m
(pp. 279-3
0
c
hment. In
t
al issues (
p
ANOVA
u
re with F(
1
p
= .015 (F
i
v
iour meas
u
d
Neighbo
u
k
Perceptio
n
i
gh IF Att
i
in Hp 2a-
2
CI Intent
i
C
I Attitude
R
A and N
A
s
tituto Sup
e
j
ect “Unde
r
d
er the 2
nd
E
r
ception of
f
c
hology, 2
8
m
municatio
n
v
ironment
a
m
an & S. L
o
04). New
Y
Bonnes M.
p
p. 137-17
0
*
shows a
1
;245) =
i
gure 3).
u
res only
u
rhood
n
, Flood
i
tude, IF
b-2d-2e,
i
on, AN
and AN
A
require
e
riore di
r
standing
E
RA-Net
f
lood
8
,164-
n
.
a
l issues.
o
w
Y
ork:
, Lee T.,
0
).
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
[7] Proshansky H., Fabian A. K., Kaminoff R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world
socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.
[8] Twigger-Ross C. L., Uzzell D. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220.
[9] Stokols D., Schumaker S. A. (1981). People and places: A transactional view of settings.
In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp.441-488).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[10] Korpela K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 241-256.
[11] McAndrew F. T. (1998). The measurement of “rootedness” and the prediction of
attachment to home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18,
409-417.
[12] Hay R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 18, 5-29.
[13] Mannarini T., Tartaglia S., Fedi A., Greganti K. (2006). Image of neighbourhood,
selfimage and sense of community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 202-214.
[14] Fried M. (1963). Grieving for a Lost Home. In L.J. Duhl (ed.), The Urban Condition,
Basic Books, New York, 151-171.
[15] Kyle G., Absher J.D., Graefe A. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the
relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Research,
25, 33-50.
[16] Bonaiuto M., Aiello A., Perugini M., Bonnes M., Ercolani A. P. (1999).
Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood
attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331-352.
[17] Billig M., Kohn MD., Levav I. (2006). Anticipatory stress in the population facing forced
removal from the Gaza Strip. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 195-200.
[18] Dohrenwend BP., Shrout PE., Egri G., Mendelsohn FS. (1980). Nonspecific
psychological distress and other dimensions of psychopathology: Measures for use in the
general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 37, 1229-1236.
[19] Mishra S., Mazumdar S., Damodar S. (2010). Place attachment and flood preparedness.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 187-197.
[20] Fornara F., Bonaiuto M., Bonnes M. (2010). Cross-validation of abbreviated perceived
residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighbourhood attachment (NA) Indicators.
Environment & Behavior, 42, 171-196.
[21] Bonaiuto M., Bonnes M., Continisio M. (2004). Neighbourhood evaluation within a
multi-place perspective on urban activities. Environment & Behavior, 37, 41-69.
[22] Brewer N.T., Chapman G.B., Gibbons F.X., Gerard M., McCaul K.D., Weinstein N.D.
(2007). A meta- analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior:
The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26, 136–145.
[23] Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
[24] Osgood C.E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures.
American Anthropologist, 66, 171-200.