2018
DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12346
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flood risk management and shared responsibility: Exploring Canadian public attitudes and expectations

Abstract: One of the central tenets of the flood risk management (FRM) paradigm is that responsibility for flood mitigation and recovery must be shared with stakeholders other than governments, including property‐owners themselves. However, existing research suggests that this imperative is unlikely to be effective unless property‐owners demonstrate a sense of personal responsibility and are willing to undertake protective behaviours. In Canada, several recent policy changes have effectively transferred more responsibil… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
29
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
4
29
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This approach, we hope, aids in the article's generalizability, particularly relative to studies undertaken by survey or polling firms who may maintain less direct contact and establish less of a rapport with participants. On the whole, our findings about risk perception do parallel many of the conclusions drawn by other research in both the Calgary (i.e., Tanner & Árvai, ) and the Canadian (Henstra, Thistlethwaite, Brown, & Scott, ; Thistlethwaite et al., , ) contexts, thereby contributing to a burgeoning literature on how Canadians living in vulnerable places perceive respond to risk.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…This approach, we hope, aids in the article's generalizability, particularly relative to studies undertaken by survey or polling firms who may maintain less direct contact and establish less of a rapport with participants. On the whole, our findings about risk perception do parallel many of the conclusions drawn by other research in both the Calgary (i.e., Tanner & Árvai, ) and the Canadian (Henstra, Thistlethwaite, Brown, & Scott, ; Thistlethwaite et al., , ) contexts, thereby contributing to a burgeoning literature on how Canadians living in vulnerable places perceive respond to risk.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The topics reflect the high visibility of flood risk management in local Canadian adaptation planning (Henstra, Thistlethwaite, Brown, & Scott, ; Thistlethwaite & Henstra, ); “flood” appears in topics 7, 15, 19, and 21–24. Topics 13 (“freshwater management”) and 16 (“gray infrastructure”) can also be interpreted as related to flood risk management.…”
Section: Applying Lda Topic Models To Climate Change Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, a more institutionalised sharing of the responsibility for flood recovery and mitigation with local governing bodies and individuals has been suggested (Thaler & Priest, 2014). This 'community-based' recovery is supposed to raise the higher flood risk awareness of local actors (Henstra, Thistlethwaite, Brown, & Scott, 2019;Meijerink & Dicke, 2008). Second, pre-disaster recovery planning should be activated at all governance levels to clearly delineate the priorities during the recovery period and how they are to be (or not) funded; e.g.…”
Section: Recent Approaches To State Flood Recovery Fundingmentioning
confidence: 99%