Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: What shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions?

Anderson, Carl C.; Renaud, Fabrice G.; Hanscomb, Stuart; González-Ollauri, Alejandro

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114727

Cited by 55 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results show that nature bonding is not a positive significant factor for both attitudinal variables of NBS, rejecting the hypotheses of H6a/b. Our hypotheses were designed to consider the previous studies using other related concepts with nature bonding, such as “environmental attitude” (de Groot, 2012), “self‐transcendence value” (D'Souza et al., 2021), and “stewardship” (Ferreira et al., 2020), and empirical findings that people with higher levels of environmental awareness prefer “natural” measures over structural measures (Anderson, Renaud, Hanscomb, & Gonzalez‐Ollauri, 2022). It has been commonly said that anthropogenic interventions that make more use of natural ecosystems enjoy greater approval compared to those driven by artificial and technology‐based elements (Sjöberg, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We could also question how nature bonding would influence people's attitudes in the case of more hybrid NBS, that is, involving more technical elements. In this regard, the “naturalness” of NBS becomes an obstacle to be dealt with, encouraging an integration of “green” and “gray” as a promising way forward (Anderson et al., 2022; Browder et al., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A place‐based risk appraisal model for exploring residents’ attitudes toward nature‐based solutions to flood risks

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature‐based solutions (NBS) have gained popularity as a sustainable and effective way of dealing with increasing flood risks. One of the key factors that often hinders the successful implementation of NBS is residents’ opposition to their implementation. In this study, we argue that the place where a hazard exists should be considered a critical contextual factor alongside flood risk appraisals and perceptions of NBS themselves. We have developed a theoretical framework—the “Place‐based Risk Appraisal Model (PRAM)”—that draws on constructs inspired by theories of place and risk perception. A citizen survey (n = 304) was conducted in five municipalities in Saxony‐Anhalt, Germany, where dike relocation and floodplain restoration projects have been conducted along the Elbe River. Structural equation modeling was adopted to test the PRAM. Attitudes toward the projects were assessed in terms of “perceived risk‐reduction effectiveness” and “supportive attitude.” With regard to risk‐related constructs, well‐communicated information and perceived co‐benefits were consistently positive factors for both perceived risk‐reduction effectiveness and supportive attitude. Trust in local flood risk management was a positive and threat appraisal a negative predictor of perceived risk‐reduction effectiveness affecting “supportive attitude” only through “perceived risk‐reduction effectiveness.” Regarding place attachment constructs, place identity was a negative predictor of a supportive attitude. The study emphasizes that risk appraisal, pluralities of place contexts to each individual, and their relations are key for determining attitudes toward NBS. Understanding these influencing factors and their interrelationships enables us to provide theory‐ and evidence‐based recommendations for the effective realization of NBS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A place‐based risk appraisal model for exploring residents’ attitudes toward nature‐based solutions to flood risks

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Representation of the different WTP in datasets 1 (excluding all protest votes) and 2 (re-introducing some protest votes), classified by area (E for Lake Egå or H for Hovmarksparken) and by first and final bids (base and total). (Anderson et al, 2022;Ando et al, 2020;Bernath and Roschewitz, 2008;Derkzen et al, 2017;Hérivaux and Le Coent, 2021;Reynaud et al, 2017;Schaich, 2009), with the additional novelty of having conducted a comprehensive ex-post assessment taking into consideration all the factors influencing valuation.…”

Section: Evaluating Methods Applicabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Holistic Valuation of Nature-Based Solutions Accounting for Human Perceptions and Nature Benefits

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Specifically, RP is related to individuals' demand for risk mitigation (Renn, 1998b(Renn, ). et al, 2020, and collective action or public engagement with DDR measures (Altarawneh et al, 2018;Anderson et al, 2022). Mostly, a higher RP increases motivation for reducing risk and engaging in actual risk-reducing behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk tolerance as a complementary concept to risk perception of natural hazards: A conceptual review and application

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a longstanding assumption that if people perceive a risk as high, they will act to reduce it. In fact, research has shown a lack of consistently strong causal relations between risk perception (RP) and mitigative behavior—the so‐called “risk perception paradox.” Despite a recent increase in research on RP, individuals’ risk tolerance (RT; or demand for risk reduction) only rarely appears as a consideration for explaining behavioral response to natural hazards. To address this research gap, we first systematically review relevant literature and find that RT has been directly assessed or operationalized using perceived thresholds related to costs and benefits of risk reduction measures, risk consequences, hazard characteristics, behavioral responses, or affective reactions. It is either considered a component or a result of RP. We then use survey data of individuals’ RP, RT, and behavioral intention to assess relations among these variables. Comparing across three European study sites, “behavioral intention” is assessed as the public's willingness to actively support the implementation of nature‐based solutions to reduce disaster risk. A series of tests using regression models shows RT significantly explains variance in behavioral intention and significantly contributes additional explanatory power beyond RP in all three sites. In two sites, RT is also a significant partial mediator of the relation between RP and behavior. Taken together, our findings demand further conceptual and empirical research on individuals’ RT and its systematic consideration as a determinant for (in)action in response to natural hazards.

show abstract

Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: What shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions?

Cited by 55 publications

References 85 publications

A place‐based risk appraisal model for exploring residents’ attitudes toward nature‐based solutions to flood risks

A place‐based risk appraisal model for exploring residents’ attitudes toward nature‐based solutions to flood risks

Holistic Valuation of Nature-Based Solutions Accounting for Human Perceptions and Nature Benefits

Risk tolerance as a complementary concept to risk perception of natural hazards: A conceptual review and application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About