Public perception of flood hazard and flood risk in Iceland: a case study in a watershed prone to ice-jam floods

Abstract

Understanding and improving the public perception has become an important element in the management of flood risk worldwide. In Iceland, studying perception of flood hazard and flood risk is, however, in its early stages. This paper presents a case study on the public perception of flood hazard and flood risk in an Icelandic town prone to icejam floods. Awareness of the population regarding historical inundations, self estimation of flood risk and worry is considered. The factual knowledge of the residents is deconstructed in flood hazard parameters accessible to the lay population: number of events, dates, genesis and boundaries. The performance of the respondents is rated for each parameter and the influence of several predictors evaluated. The research shows three significant patterns: there is poor awareness and little worry about historical inundations in the area; experience of the past flooding events in town is the most effective source of knowledge; awareness, risk estimation and worry are not correlated.

Risk perception – issues for flood management in Europe

“…Results contrast somewhat with other studies which found no relationship between worry and risk awareness or education (Pagneux et al, 2011;Poortinga et al, 2011). Moreover, women are often found to worry more about risks in the literature (Poortinga et al, 2011;Sjöberg, 1998), however, a strong relationship was not found between worry and gender in this study (t = 1.8, df = 750, p = 0.07).…”

“…3a). These results in themselves are not surprising and are consistent with the findings of others where previous experience is shown to be of importance in the learning process of dealing with floods (Pagneux et al, 2011;Burningham et al, 2008;Miceli et al, 2008;Weinstein, 1989). Flood events serve as reminders in a behavioural sense of appropriate actions that should be taken (Wilson, 1990) and frequent inundations ensure that the perception of risk and associated resilience levels remain high.…”

The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance

“…Similarly, the linking together of respondents’ survey responses to their own spatial flood‐risk perception has been explored to a limited extent by, among others, Ruin et al . and Pagneux et al ., with other authors undertaking qualitative assessment of cognitive or perception maps rather than exploring any potential relationship with survey responses . Nevertheless such approaches offer important insights and added value for policymakers, in particular, providing: a spatial dimension of hazard risk extent at an individual‐respondent level that is not generated by traditional questionnaire‐based surveys; greater understanding about differences in perception of risk between different geographical areas at an individual (or aggregate neighborhood/community) level; and an alternative means to use local knowledge to identify areas of potential “misperception.” Moreover, O'Neill et al .…”

Land degradation a matter of attitude? A case study from southern Transylvania (Romania)

“…Unlike hydrological and meteo-climatic phenomena, which are easily identified (obvious with rapid effects), the geomorphological and soil processes are less perceived as dangerous because they occur more slowly and their effects are noticeable only after a long time (Slovic 1992;Pagneux, G ıslad ottir, and J onsd ottir 2011). This is why our investigation includes several potentially destructive phenomena À some common/rare, some slower/ faster, some with short-term/long-term effects, some specific for the analysed region and others that have occurred, or are occurring, in other regions.…”