Cognitive barriers in floods risk perception and management: A mental modeling framework and illustrative example

Abstract

Recent severe storm experiences in the U.S. Gulf Coast illustrate the importance of an integrated approach to natural disaster preparedness planning, one that harmonizes stakeholder and implementing agency efforts. Risk management decisions that are informed by and address decision maker and stakeholder risk perceptions and behavior are essential for effective risk management policy. Formal (versus ad hoc) analyses of risk manager and stakeholder cognition represent an important first step. Mental modeling has been successfully used to reveal, characterize and map stakeholder beliefs about risks in order to develop more effective cross-stakeholder communication strategies. This paper summarizes diagram-based representation of mental models, and presents an example specific to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood preparedness and response program needs. Understanding flood risk mental models will enable USACE to bridge differences across and within stakeholder groups, cultures and disciplines internally and externally involved in natural disaster response in order to develop approaches for handling floods and other emerging challenges.

Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs

“…Mental model diagramming has enjoyed some use in recent years for risk management, especially in the areas of human health and natural hazard mitigation. ( 18, 19 ) Many domains where risk and uncertainty assessment are key elements of the management process stand to benefit from application of this general framework. Even though several cognitive mapping approaches and tools exist, we are not aware of attempts to compare and contrast these methodologies and highlight their relative strengths and limitations, especially as they relate to risk management.…”

“… Example of influence diagram from Linkov et al . ( 19 ) Concepts are represented as nodes. Arrows indicate the perceived direction of the influence between nodes.…”

Interactive use of simulation models for collaborative knowledge construction

“…To organize this interactive way of collaborative knowledge construction, often multi-actor work sessions are organized, typically lasting a few hours (López-Rodríguez, Castro et al 2015). In these work sessions, domain experts, practitioners and other stakeholders are invited, for example to collaboratively analyze the issue at hand or discuss suggested solutions for intervention measurers (Linkov, Wood et al 2009;Walsh, Roberts et al 2013). …”

“…To overcome this gap, various solutions are proposed in the literature. They mainly focus on a better communication of model outputs and their accompanying uncertainties and more involvement of decision-makers in de modelling process (Kinzig, Starrett et al 2003;Holmes 2004;Morss, Wilhelmi et al 2005;Brugnach, Tagg et al 2007;Faulkner, Parker et al 2007;McCarthy, Tunstall et al 2007;Linkov, Wood et al 2009;Demeritt, Nobert et al 2010;Timmerman, Beinat et al 2010;Voinov and Bousquet 2010;Frick and Hegg 2011) Even though the proposed solutions can be useful, these solutions are mainly based on evaluations of which information is demanded by decision-makers versus what output models can actually offer. However, these evaluations mostly ignore how decisions are made in the practical situation of flood disaster management.…”

“…Therefore, participants from departments and organizations that are active in spatial planning are involved in the decisionmaking process to explore opportunities to solve water problems as well (Walsh, Dawson et al 2011). To involve these parties, often multi-stakeholder work sessions are organized, for example to define problems, choose measures and divide responsibilities to take actions, or else less defined work sessions such as brainstorming sessions (Linkov, Wood et al 2009). …”