Local perception of infrequent, extreme upland flash flooding: prisoners of experience?

Hopkins, Jonathan; Warburton, Jeff

doi:10.1111/disa.12120

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research driving RIM-focused communications has explored a wide range of potential factors which influence the translation of risk information into behaviours: examples include previous experiences of a threat (Fielding et al 2007;Hopkins and Warburton 2015); cultural, geographical, and socio-economic factors (Burningham et al 2008;Bubeck et al 2012); reliance on public flood protection (Terpstra and Gutteling 2008); trust/distrust in communications from a management authority (Terpstra 2011;Wachinger et al 2013); or a need to protect an individual's sense of personal security against high levels of future uncertainty (Harries 2008;Willis et al 2011). …”

Section: Risk Communication Approaches and The Adoption Of Resilient mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Corbridge context this wholly underestimated the threat, resulting in a non-protective response based on 'wishful thinking' regarding the recently completed flood defence works. Hopkins and Warburton (2015) refer to this paradox as the 'prison of experience', in which infrequent or unrepresentative events imprint themselves into subjective knowledge as representative experiences to be drawn on in the future. CFRG participants' desire for detailed information on past local flooding characteristics or the simple flood depth simulator can be seen as an attempt to place their experiences in a wider context, breaking out of the prison of experience and establishing a more holistic understanding.…”

Section: Implications For Current Flood Risk Communicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rethinking flood risk communication

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flooding is a serious hazard across Europe, with over 200 major floods documented in the last two decades. Over this period, flood management has evolved, with a greater responsibility now placed on at-risk communities to understand their risk and take protective action to develop flood resilience. Consequently, communicating flood risk has become an increasingly central part of developing flood resilience. However, research suggests that current risk communications have not resulted in the intended increase in awareness, or behavioural change. This paper explores how current risk communications are used by those at risk, what information users desire and how best this should be presented. We explore these questions through a multi-method participatory experiment, working together with a competency group of local participants in the town of Corbridge, Northumberland, the UK. Our research demonstrates that current risk communications fail to meet user needs for information in the period before a flood event, leaving users unsure of what will happen, or how best to respond. We show that participants want information on when and how a flooding may occur (flood dynamics), so that they can understand their risk and feel in control of their decisions on how to respond. We also present four prototypes which translate these information needs into new approaches to communicating flood risk. Developed by the research participants, these proposals meet their information needs, increase their flood literacy and develop their response capacity. The findings of the research have implications for how we design and develop future flood communications, but also for how we envisage the role of flood communications in developing resilience at a community level.

show abstract

Section: Risk Communication Approaches and The Adoption Of Resilient mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Current Flood Risk Communicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking flood risk communication

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The low level of faith amongst the participants in 378 terms of the preparedness measures available is particularly noteworthy and appears strongly 379 rooted in peoples' past experiences of Hurricane Charlie where extensive material damages 380 were caused. In this regard, the foregoing demonstrates the 'prison of experience' phenomenon 381 (Kates, 1962) in action, whereby individuals correlate the expected frequency and 382 consequences of future floods with their past experiences (see Hopkins and Warburton, 2014). 383…”

Section: And the Tides Coming It Gosh It Was Very Near It Was Verymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there really “nothing you can do”? Pathways to enhanced flood-risk preparedness

Fox-Rogers

Devitt

O’Neill

et al. 2016

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, it is difficult to motivate communities in flash floods prone areas to undertake precautionary measures (Montz and Gruntfest 2002), also because these types of floods are often too small to release an impact and trigger in the society (Burningham et al 2008). Often, these types of flood processes produce a wrong 'security' feeling within the society (Wachinger et al 2010;Scolobig et al 2012;Hopkins and Warburton 2014). The results from East Attica showed another answer in comparison with other flash floods studies, such as recent work published by Hopkins and Warburton (2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In overall, the respondents show a low social vulnerability, because of high employment rate, education level, risk perception, private ownership structure and age. In general, communities prone to flash flooding show a higher social vulnerability (de Marchi et al 2007;Hopkins and Warburton 2014) compared to the East Attica region. Main reason was the socioeconomic structure within the communities in East Attica, where in England or Italy often flash floods areas show a higher number of households with person in need (people older than 65 years or disabled) or higher number of people without an occupation (because of higher number of retired people or housewives).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-vulnerability analysis for flash flood risk management

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vulnerability assessment implies a quantitative evaluation of the individual vulnerability components such as elements at risk, their physical exposure and social characteristics. Current approaches in vulnerability research are driven by a divide between social scientists who tend to view vulnerability as representing a set of socio-economic factors, and scientists who view vulnerability in terms of the degree of loss to an element at risk. To close this gap, a multi-dimensional vulnerability analysis has been undertaken focusing on flash flood hazards in Greece. To represent physical vulnerability, an empirical relation between the process intensity and the degree of loss was established. With respect to social vulnerability, an assessment was undertaken by means of empirical data collection based on a door-to-door survey. In general, both physical and social vulnerability was comparable low, which is interpreted as a result from (a) specific building regulations in Greece as well as general design principles leading to less structural susceptibility of elements at risk exposed, and (b) a relatively low economic loss leading to less social vulnerability of citizens exposed. It is shown that a combination of different perspectives of vulnerability will lead to a better understanding of perceptions of actors regarding their vulnerabilities and capacities.

show abstract

Local perception of infrequent, extreme upland flash flooding: prisoners of experience?

Cited by 21 publications

References 54 publications

Rethinking flood risk communication

Rethinking flood risk communication

Is there really “nothing you can do”? Pathways to enhanced flood-risk preparedness

Multi-vulnerability analysis for flash flood risk management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About