Designing a flood-risk education program in the Netherlands

Abstract

This study focused on designing a flood-risk education program to enhance 15-year-old students' flood-risk perception. In the flood-risk education program, learning processes were modeled in such a way that the arousal of moderate levels of fear should prompt experiential and analytical information processing. In this way, understanding of flood risk in the surroundings should prompt students' threat and coping appraisal. To accomplish this, the program consisted of a variety of student-directed parts, such as serious games and flood simulations. The design of the program was based on theoretical understandings from learning theory, information processing, and risk communication. Furthermore, empirical findings about students' risk perceptions were incorporated. The design process was guided by the principles of Educational Design Research and had an iterative character.

Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk

“…The aim was to help them transition towards less-toxic substances, as well as to encourage these professionals to reuse and recycle materials (Moreno Ramírez et al, 2015). In the Netherlands, an educational programme had the aim of improving the understanding of hydrological concepts, and enhancing preparedness intentions of 15-year-old students (Bosschaart et al, 2016;Demir, 2014). Educational programmes appear to follow a downstream approach, meaning that although communication flows from expert to public and vice versa, it is the experts who initiate the communication process, that is, the ones to design, organize, and set up the educational programme.…”

“…In cases where the programme is designed to be implemented in schools, for example, school teachers become mediators, whose job it is to guide the learning (e.g. Bosschaart et al, 2016), and the experts behind the programme design (e.g. scientists or local governments) remain as an available resource throughout the programme.…”

“…Whilst several recent studies have focused on one communication format in particular (e.g. Bosschaart et al, 2016;Breuer et al, 2017;Leon et al, 2015;Lo et al, 2013;Sîrbu et al, 2015) and on either flooding or air pollution individually -with some exceptions combining multiple hazards (Rodriguez Bermúdez et al, 2015) -our systematic review offers an overview of possibilities. This study offers a comparison across five different formats embracing two very different hazards: flooding and air pollution.…”

Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk

“…In cases when the programme is designed to be implemented in schools, 10 for example, school teachers become mediators, whose job it is to guide the learning (e.g. Bosschaart et al, 2016), and the experts behind the programme design (e.g. scientists or local governments) remain as an available resource throughout the programme.…”

“…The aim was set in helping them transition towards less-toxic substances, as well as in encouraging these professionals to reuse and recycle materials (Moreno Ramírez et al, 2015). In the Netherlands, an educational programme had the aim of improving the understanding of hydrological concepts, and enhancing preparedness 30 intentions of 15-year-old students (Bosschaart et al, 2016;Demir, 2014 Educational programmes appear to follow a downstream approach, meaning that although communication flows from expert to public and vice versa, it is the experts who initiate the communication process, that is, the ones to design, organize, and set up the educational programme. Different studies agree on the benefits of implementing these programmes with the help of opinion leaders.…”