The Sources of Belief in Personal Capability: Antecedents of Self‐Efficacy in Private Adaptation to Flood Risk

Abstract

Self-efficacy is one of the strongest and most consistent drivers of private flood mitigation behavior; however, the factors influencing self-efficacy in the context of flooding remain unclear. The present study examines three potential antecedents of self-efficacy: personal and vicarious experiences of floods or building-related events, social norms for private flood preparedness, and personal competencies such as technical abilities and social skills. While controlling for other drivers in a protection motivation theory (PMT) framework, these antecedents are tested as precursors of self-efficacy and intentions to improve flood resilience. Structural equation modeling is applied to conduct mediation analyses with survey data of 381 floodprone households in Austria. Contrary to theoretical expectations, personal and vicarious experiences do not predict self-efficacy, presumably because rare flood events and changing hazard characteristics do not facilitate generalizable performance accomplishments. Social norms strongly and consistently influence self-efficacy, especially for actions observable by others, and also directly influence protective responses. Personal competencies increase self-efficacy and support protective action, particularly with regard to preventive and structural measures. The strength and direction of the antecedents of self-efficacy as well as of other PMT determinants vary between general and specific protective responses. This study provides important insights for risk managers, suggesting that interventions involving social norms and personal competencies can be effective in stimulating self-efficacy and, in turn, private flood mitigation. Interventions and research should clearly differentiate between general intention and the implementation of specific measures, and should address cumulative, synergistic, or tradeoff interrelations between multiple measures.

A comparison of flood-protective decision-making between German households and businesses

“…Both sets of actors would suffer from the same issue, limiting its overall impact on our core research question. Moreover, this issue could be further limited as recent research has indicated that many perceptions remain rather constant overtime, at least in the absence of a flood (Bubeck et al, 2020;Seebauer and Babcicky (2020).…”

Place Attachment and Household Disaster Preparedness: Examining the Mediation Role of Self-Efficacy

“…Most studies have demonstrated that high self-efficacy can motivate disaster preparedness intentions or the actual behaviors [ 30 , 34 , 35 ], or the specific protective actions in emergencies such as emergency evacuation [ 29 ]. Such positive effects were primarily observed in preparation for floods [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], earthquakes [ 40 ], or climate change-related hazards [ 30 ]. In household disaster preparedness studies, self-efficacy is always captured by the self-reported confidence of their capacity for implementing a protective action against a disaster or successfully coping with potential disasters [ 33 , 39 ].…”

“…Such positive effects were primarily observed in preparation for floods [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], earthquakes [ 40 ], or climate change-related hazards [ 30 ]. In household disaster preparedness studies, self-efficacy is always captured by the self-reported confidence of their capacity for implementing a protective action against a disaster or successfully coping with potential disasters [ 33 , 39 ]. It appears that the role of self-efficacy in disaster preparedness is still relatively understudied in terms of geographical, social and cultural diversity, though there is an increasing trend in recent years [ 30 ].…”

Needed: A systems approach to improve flood risk mitigation through private precautionary measures

“…There may be different ways of coping with a threatening situation that do not all result in an increase in the uptake of precautionary measures or adaptation [7]. This can include factors such as worry [47,54] or trust in structural protection [58,67]. For example, Hanger et al [21] found that respondents in Austria and England that are protected by public structural measures are less likely to take private precautionary measures.…”

“…A pilot project that provided funding for surveys and measures helped people to choose the correct measures and increased the uptake of private precaution [22]. A study in Canada highlights the importance of considering the difference between the general intention to implement private precautionary measures and the willingness to implement individual measures [58]. The former is more influenced by fear and risk perception, while the latter instead depends more on the perceived response efficacy and costs [58].…”