Flood Risk Perception and Adaptation Capacity

Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate Sven Fuchs, Konstantinos Karagiorgos, Kyriaki Kitikidou, Fotios Maris, Spyridon Paparrizos, Thomas Thaler To cite this version: Sven Fuchs, Konstantinos Karagiorgos, Kyriaki Kitikidou, Fotios Maris, Spyridon Paparrizos, et al.. Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, European Geosciences Union, 2017, 21 (6), pp.3183-3198. 10.5194/hess-21-3183-2017. hal-03226100 HAL Id: hal-03226100 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03226100 Submitted on 16 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3183–3198, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3183-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity: a contribution to the socio-hydrology debate Sven Fuchs1, Konstantinos Karagiorgos1, Kyriaki Kitikidou2, Fotios Maris3, Spyridon Paparrizos4,a, and Thomas Thaler1 1Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria 2Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada, Greece 3Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece 4Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany anow at: LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France Correspondence to: Sven Fuchs ([email protected]) Received: 11 June 2016 – Discussion started: 6 July 2016 Revised: 15 April 2017 – Accepted: 31 May 2017 – Published: 29 June 2017 Abstract. Dealing with flood hazard and risk requires ap- the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on human– proaches rooted in both natural and social sciences, which environment interaction in socio-hydrology. provided the nexus for the ongoing debate on socio- hydrology. Various combinations of non-structural and structural flood risk reduction options are available to commu- 1 Introduction nities. Focusing on flood risk and the information associated with it, developing risk management plans is required Increasing flood losses throughout Europe have led the Euro- but often overlooks public perception of a threat. The per- pean Commission to issue the “Directive on the Assessment ception of risk varies in many different ways, especially be- and Management of Flood Risks” (Commission of the Euro- tween the authorities and the affected public. It is because pean Communities, 2007) as one of the three components of of this disconnection that many risk management plans con- the European Action Programme on Flood Risk Management cerning floods have failed in the past. This paper examines (Commission of the European Communities, 2004). This di- the private adaptation capacity and willingness with respect rective requires the Member States to establish flood risk to flooding in two different catchments in Greece prone to maps and flood risk management plans based on a nation- multiple flood events during the last 20 years. Two studies wide evaluation of exposure and vulnerability (Fuchs et al., (East Attica and Evros) were carried out, comprised of a sur- 2017). While in recent years, considerable efforts have been vey questionnaire of 155 and 157 individuals, from a peri- made towards flood risk maps (Fuchs et al., 2009; Meyer et urban (East Attica) and a rural (Evros) area, respectively, al., 2012), the requirements with respect to flood risk man- and they focused on those vulnerable to periodic (rural area) agement and associated management plans are less well stud- and flash floods (peri-urban area). Based on the comparisons ied (Mazzorana et al., 2012, 2013; Hartmann and Spit, 2016). drawn from these responses, and identifying key issues to Of particular importance seems the paradigm of public par- be addressed when flood risk management plans are imple- ticipation and societal adaptation in assessing local risks, and mented, improvements are being recommended for the so- the legal and institutional settings necessary therefore (Hart- cial dimension surrounding such implementation. As such, mann and Driessen, 2017; Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016). Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 3184 S. Fuchs et al.: Flood risk perception and adaptation capacity Insights into flood mitigation behaviour are essential be- and temporal pattern of exposure and vulnerability are de- cause of the ongoing shift to risk-based flood management pendent on the spatial extent of flood hazards threatening so- approaches, which require a contribution from flood-prone cieties, in particular their magnitude and frequency, as well as households to risk reduction (Bubeck et al., 2013). Generally on the socio-economic changes within society (Keiler et al., speaking, risk perception influences the individual adaptation 2010). While hazard assessment has a long tradition, the as- strategy through learning processes from past events (Bubeck sessment of exposure and the quantification of vulnerability et al., 2012; Collenteur et al., 2015). This so-called adap- are more recent concerns in hazard and risk research (Merz et tation effect relates to the development that frequent flood al., 2010; Birkmann et al., 2013). Some aspects of research events may decrease individual vulnerability in the flood- in hydrology, such as the impact of highly destructive pro- plain area through the implementation of local structural processes on buildings (Mazzorana et al., 2009, 2014; Fuchs et tection measures (Holub et al., 2012; Jongman et al., 2014a; al., 2012), infrastructure (Zischg et al., 2005a, b), and agri- Di Baldassarre et al., 2015; Mechler and Bouwer, 2015). culture (Morris and Brewin, 2014), as well as challenges The models proposed in the literature so far (see for exam- regarding multi-hazard risks (Kappes et al., 2012a, b) con- ple Di Baldassarre et al., 2013a) focus mainly on catchment tribute to closing the gap between disciplinary approaches hydrology as well as the associated long-term response of in science and humanities. Nevertheless, concepts of mitiga- human actions, such as incorporation of changes in demog- tion and adaptation may remain fragmentary with respect to raphy, technology, and society. Nevertheless, short-term so- the optimal level of protection of exposed societies or ele- cial aspects as one of the central points of societal adapta- ments at risk (Ballesteros Cánovas et al., 2016). Moreover, tion are less well studied (Keiler et al., 2005) but play a ma- most analysis has so far been based on a static approach and jor role in social hydrology with respect to an assessment neglects long-term as well as short-term dynamics in haz- of human–environment interaction. The conceptual models, ard, exposure, and vulnerability (Fuchs et al., 2013). Only however, are so far relatively simplistic in mirroring individ- recently have such issues been quantitatively analysed, such ual responses and coping capacity (Temme et al., 2015). As as shown by e.g. Jongman et al. (2014b) for the Netherlands such differences within a society, especially between rural and Fuchs et al. (2017) for the European Alps. and urban areas as well as with respect to different flood Flood risk dynamics are linked to a trade-off “between types and frequencies, still remain fragmentary. Additionally, the memory of flooding events (which makes the community there is also evidence that sub-regional differences play an move away from the river) versus the willingness to maxi- important role in the use of adaptation strategies at household mize economic benefit by moving close to the river” (Di Bal- level (Higginbotham et al., 2014; Thaler and Priest, 2014; dassarre et al., 2013a, p. 3298). The context of dynamic flood Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016). Acknowledging these find- risks is driving transformation regarding the role of the state ings, our paper explores differences in risk perception and in- in responsibility sharing and individual responsibilities for dividual response to flood risk management strategies within risk management and precaution (Mees et al., 2012; Adger two different sub-regional areas. Actions undertaken across et al., 2013). Emerging flood risk strategies place the lead re- urban and rural farming populations characterized by differ- sponsibility on local organizations to determine local strate- ent socio-economic conditions and affected by different flood gies to manage local risks which demand societal transforma- hazard types are studied, as well as their different response tion (Driessen et al., 2013) in vulnerability reduction (Fuchs efficacy in flood risk management. This paper also links man- et al., 2011). The main reasons for this shift from centralized agement options assessed by individuals who belong to at- to decentralized organization is that local scale may be more risk communities

Load more