Taking the heterogeneity of citizens into account: flood risk communication in coastal cities – a case study of Bremen

Abstract

Abstract. The likely manifestations of climate change like flood hazards are prominent topics in public communication. This can be shown by media analysis and questionnaire data. However, in the case of flood risks an information gap remains resulting in misinformed citizens who probably will not perform the necessary protective actions when an emergency occurs. This paper examines more closely a newly developed approach to flood risk communication that takes the heterogeneity of citizens into account and aims to close this gap. The heterogeneity is analysed on the meso level regarding differences in residential situation as well as on the micro level with respect to risk perception and protective actions. Using the city of Bremen as a case study, empirical data from n=831 respondents were used to identify Action Types representing different states of readiness for protective actions in view of flood risks. These subpopulations can be provided with specific information to meet their heterogeneous needs for risk communication. A prototype of a computer-based information system is described that can produce and pass on such tailored information. However, such an approach to risk communication has to be complemented by meso level analysis which takes the social diversity of subpopulations into account. Social vulnerability is the crucial concept for understanding the distribution of resources and capacities among different social groups. We therefore recommend putting forums and organisations into place that can mediate between the state and its citizens.

Raising risk preparedness by flood risk communication

“…This rationale is still common in risk communication. In a review of risk communication strategies in Europe, Höppner et al (2012) revealed a gap between practice, which tends to follow traditional approaches, and recent research, which recommends two-way communication and more deliberative approaches tailored to the needs of the population (Renn, 2008;Martens et al, 2009). However, the effort required by dialogue-based strategies often seems very high to practitioners.…”

Path Dependencies and Path Change in Complex Fields of Action: Climate Adaptation Policies in Germany in the Realm of Flood Risk Management

“…Above all, issues surrounding flood risk management are seen in the region in relation to the disastrous floods of 1962 (especially in Hamburg); often the flood disasters, which affected the hinterland in 2002, are also quoted (next case study). Moreover, studies have revealed that climate change receives relatively high coverage in the regional media (Martens et al 2009) and that it is often the subject of controversial debates both within and outside the regional parliament Germanwatch 2009). The interviews point to the publication of the IPCC Report 2007 as an decisive contributing factor to the genesis of the Generalplan Küstenschutz, which ultimately forced existing skepticism concerning the urgency of policies of adaptation to climate change on the defensive and triggered pressure for political action on the regional level.…”

Enhancing flood resilience through improved risk communications

“…At the other, a failure by the public to simply comprehend received information is problematic (Twigger-Ross et al, 2009a;Du Plessis, 2002;Faulkner et al, 2007). Distrust and low confidence levels in the authorities that provide information (Basher, 2006;Renn and Levine, 1991), sometimes compounded by misleading or contradictory information reported in national and local media, can also serve to diminish the public response to flood risks (Martens et al, 2009;United Nations, 2006;Miles and Morse, 2007). Any or a combination of these factors may potentially contribute to the public being poorly informed of a flood risk with the consequence that the opportunity for…”

“…The reasons for failed communications are diverse. At one end of the spectrum, the complex social dynamic between government, responsible authorities and the public at large is at the forefront of the decision making process and in some instances, the political and social consequences of conveying the risk directs the communication process (Terpstra et al, 2009;Martens et al, 2009;United Nations, 2006). At the other, a failure by the public to simply comprehend received information is problematic (Twigger-Ross et al, 2009a;Du Plessis, 2002;Faulkner et al, 2007).…”