Place Attachment and Natural Hazard Risk: Research Review and Agenda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 33e53 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep Review Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and agenda Marino Bonaiuto a, b, *, Susana Alves c, Stefano De Dominicis a, b, Irene Petruccelli d a Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza Universita di Roma, Rome, Italy b CIRPA e Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca in Psicologia Ambientale, Rome, Italy c Architecture Department, Okan Universitesi,} Istanbul, Turkey d Facolta di Scienze dell'Uomo e della Societa, Universita Kore di Enna, Enna, Italy article info abstract Article history: Little is known about how place attachment affects natural hazard risk perception and coping. A sys- Received 4 August 2015 tematic search of social science databases revealed 31 works (1996e2016) that directly address place Received in revised form attachment in relation to natural hazard risk or natural environmental risks (seismic, volcanic, etc.). 28 July 2016 Across different contexts, the research shows: (a) both positive and negative relations between place Accepted 31 July 2016 attachment and natural environmental risk perception; (b) both positive and negative relations between Available online 1 August 2016 place attachment and risk coping; and (c) mediating and moderating relations. In particular, results show that: (a) strongly attached individuals perceive natural environmental risks but underestimate their Keywords: Place attachment potential effects; (b) strongly attached individuals are unwilling to relocate when facing natural envi- Sense of place ronmental risks and are more likely to return to risky areas after a natural environmental disaster; (c) Natural environment place attachment acts both as a mediating and moderating variable between risk perception and coping. Natural hazard Place attachment should play a more significant role in natural hazard risk management. Risk perception © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Risk coping Contents 1. Introduction . ................................................. 34 1.1. Psychological factors and environmental risk . ........................34 1.2. Place attachment, natural environmental risk perception and coping . ........................35 1.3. Criteria for selection of studies . ........................36 2. Place attachment in environmental risk research . .................................... 36 2.1. Different definitions and measurements of place attachment . ........................36 3. Place attachment and risk perception . ............................................ 38 3.1. Positive relationships between place attachment and environmental risk perception . .......................38 3.2. Negative relationships between place attachment and environmental risk perception . .......................42 4. Place attachment and risk coping . ............................................ 44 4.1. Positive relationships between place attachment and environmental risk coping . ........................44 4.2. Negative relationships between place attachment and environmental risk coping . ........................44 4.3. Moderation and mediation effects between place attachment and environmental risk perception and between place attachment and risk coping 45 4.4. Lack of relationships between place attachment and environmental risk perception or environmental risk coping . 46 5. Discussion . ................................................. 46 5.1. Place attachment and natural environmental risk perception . ........................46 5.2. Place attachment and natural environmental risk coping . ........................47 5.3. Mediation and moderation effects . ........................48 5.4. Understanding conflicting results . ........................48 * Corresponding author. Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185, Roma, Italy. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Bonaiuto). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.007 0272-4944/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 34 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 33e53 6. Conclusions and implications for future research . ..................... 49 Acknowledgements . ...................................................50 References . ...................................................50 1. Introduction relationship between place attachment and risk perception and coping, is still missing. Although there are studies addressing other Current ecological concerns and the increasing number of “subjective” factors related to risk perception (Weinstein, 1984), people affected by natural environmental disasters require a better research on risk perception and formal risk assessment has aimed understanding of how people perceive and cope with disaster risk. for rigorous control and estimation, while it has neglected impor- Environmental risks, particularly linked to natural disasters, have a tant psychological factors, such as people's attachment to places. long history quite inseparable from that of humans. The focus of This lacuna exists despite the importance of place attachment as a this paper is on natural environmental risks, their perception and fundamental social psychological variable affecting person- coping, and their relationship to place attachment. Other important environment transactions. kinds of environmental risks are considered elsewhere (Acuna-~ Rivera, Brown, & Uzzell, 2014; Pitner, Yu, & Brown, 2012). 1.1. Psychological factors and environmental risk The presence and memory of natural disasters and environ- mental risks mark humankind's relationship to the environments. Risk is the “probability of a particular adverse event occurring Universally, natural environmental risks have figured prominently during a stated period of time” (Breakwell, 2007, p. 2). Thus risk is in mythological accounts where humans explained their relation- measured in terms of an event's likelihood of occurring and its ship with the environment by using recurrent themes found in severity and potential consequences. Adverse events or “hazards” legends, folktales and oral traditions (see MythGeology, e.g., Masse are terms that refer to anything that can cause harm to humans. It is & Masse, 2007; Piccardi & Masse, 2007; Vitaliano, 2007; or more important to differentiate between risk assessment and risk generally Kerenyi, 1951, 1958). The memory of places via the con- perception. Risk assessment refers to formal assessments con- struction of myth and other cultural processes such as in history is ducted by experts, while risk perception is associated with atti- therefore situated in people-place transactions, which necessarily tudes about risks and hazards used by lay people. Risk assessment encompass contexts of natural environmental risks. and perception do not necessarily overlap, as experts' and layper- Psychological ties with places are fundamental to understand- sons' evaluations of environmental quality, do not match across a ing person-environment transactions. They are conceptualized by range of issues (e.g., Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 1995). environmental psychologists with constructs such as place Risk coping refers to the behaviours and actions that people attachment, sense of place, and place identity (Stedman, 2002). adopt when facing a risky situation. It is essential to understand Place attachment can be broadly defined as an emotional and how people make decisions as they attempt to cope with risk. Re- cognitive experience linking people to places. Place attachment searchers agree that decision making about risks is characterised by includes individually-based factors and cultural beliefs and prac- systematic biases, such as the availability and representativeness of tices (Low & Altman, 1992). However, the scientific attention information, anchoring, optimism, hindsight, and prospect devoted to natural environmental risk initially privileged a de- (Breakwell, 2007). contextualized cognitive consideration of the subject. For One of these biases, optimism bias, refers to individuals’ beliefs example, early research on risk perception and assessment has that negative events are less likely to happen to them (Weinstein, been based on the “psychometric paradigm of risk” (see Slovic, 1984). Optimism bias is related to sense of control, and in hazard- 2000) and on other quantitative methodologies (e.g., Slovic, ous situations, when people perceive lack of control, they may Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1979). Favouring the analysis of aggre- become more pessimistic about their abilities to cope with the risk gated data, this approach neglected the analysis of individual dif- (van der Velde, HooyKaas, & van der Joop, 1992). Furthermore, ferences. Critics of this “psychometric paradigm of risk” devised pessimism may be more likely when people have had prior direct studies to incorporate individual factors into risk assessmentdsuch experience with severe hazardous outcome, such as earthquakes as anxiety (Metha & Simpson-Housley, 1994a, 1994b), self-efficacy (Helweg-Larsen, 1999). and locus of control (Kallmen, 2000), venturesomeness (Twigger- Among diverse types of bias, optimism bias has assumed a Ross & Breakwell, 1999)deven though the evidence to date sug- relevant role for environmental psychologists studying risky situ- gested that individual differences did not account for substantial ations, including natural