Managing Flash Floods Risk Perception from a Cultural Perspective Ashley Coles April 30, 2007

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

CLIMAS AFMA, NWS, ADEM, FCDs, etc. Forging the partnership Fieldwork: surveys and analysis Present findings, feedback, brainstorming Develop new products Implement new products Ashley Coles’s master’s thesis Final report

Mileti, 1995 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

Risk perception research Typical approaches There is an appropriate response, anything else is irrational –Behavior as a result of individual psychological (dys?)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

The social context Social units share collectively produced attitudes, beliefs, values, and habits (Douglas, 1992) Not just national, also “gender, ethnicity, religion, cohort or generation, historical period, profession, social class, and country of origin” (Kitayama & Markus, 1995, p. 368)

How does social context influence risk perception and behavior? Beliefs, values, and practices influence how individuals process information and make decisions Actions become embedded in the social context, acting to either reinforce or transform it e.g. Kitayama and Markus, 1995 Cognitive processes Values/Practices Actions/Inactions

Main 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

Linking values to actions Hazard information Group Identities Social Factors Gender Trust Age Self-efficacy Ethnicity Incorporation Socioeconomic Autonomy Etc. Time orientation Actions/behavior Risk Perception Values

Implications for mitigation Can education and information change attitudes, values, and beliefs? Should risk managers speak to these attitudes, values, and beliefs? –How can managers “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 social 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 –Social factors –Historical, typical, and hypothetical behavior Relevant demographic information I am a good judge of whether flood waters are dangerous. CompletelySomewhatNeutralSomewhat Completely DisagreeDisagreeAgree Agree

What do you think? Is this potentially useful for your flood mitigation decision-making? Are new mitigation strategies based on these findings feasible to implement? What information would you like to gather with the survey tool?