CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 402Flood Risk Assessment and ManagementRisk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and Resilience

An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast

Open access
Kellens, Wim, Zaalberg, Ruud, Neutens, Tijs, Vanneuville, Wouter, De Maeyer, Philippe·2011·Risk Analysis
DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01571.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In recent years, perception of flood risks has become an important topic to policy makers concerned with risk management and safety issues. Knowledge of the public risk perception is considered a crucial aspect in modern flood risk management as it steers the development of effective and efficient flood mitigation strategies. This study aimed at gaining insight into the perception of flood risks along the Belgian coast. Given the importance of the tourism industry on the Belgian coast, the survey considered both inhabitants and residential tourists. Based on actual expert's risk assessments, a high and a low risk area were selected for the study. Risk perception was assessed on the basis of scaled items regarding storm surges and coastal flood risks. In addition, various personal and residence characteristics were measured. Using multiple regression analysis, risk perception was found to be primarily influenced by actual flood risk estimates, age, gender, and experience with previous flood hazards.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01571.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Socio-demographic characteristics of households and people as well as former experiences of disaster seem to play a crucial role in disaster risk perception and preparedness.

    “This seems to stem from various sources: the socio-demographic characteristics of households and people as well as former experiences of disaster seem to play a crucial role.”

    From Disaster risk perception and preparedness of households in Yangon, Myanmar: Disaster experiences, socio-demographic factors and spatial variation (2023) · cites this paper as KellenS et al. (2011)

    Section 2.2 says socio-demographic characteristics can shape natural-hazard risk perception, and Section 2.4 says previous hazard experiences can influence judgments of risk. These passages support the risk-perception part of the claim, but they do not establish that those factors play a crucial role in disaster preparedness. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Jonkman SN. Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods. Natural Hazards, 2005; 34(2):151-175.
  2. Jonkman SN and Vrijling JK. Loss of Life due to Floods. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 2008; 1(1):43-56.
  3. Gerritsen H. What happened in 1953? -The big flood in the Netherlands in retrospect. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2005; 363(1831):1271-1291.
  4. Baxter PJ. The east coast Big Flood, 31 January-1 February 1953: a summary of the human disaster. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2005; 363(1831):1293-1312.
  5. Charlier RH and Demeyer CP. Tourism and the Coastal Zone -the Case of Belgium. Ocean & Coastal Management, 1992; 18(2-4):231-240.
  6. McRobie A, Spencer T and Gerritsen H. The big flood: North Sea storm surge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2005; 363(1831):1263-1270.
  7. Colten CE and Sumpter AR. Social memory and resilience in New Orleans. Natural Hazards, 2009; 48(3):355-364.
  8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Linden PJvd and Hanson CE, editor. Contribution Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007,
  9. Lebbe L, Van Meir N and Viaene P. Potential implications of sea-level rise for Belgium. Journal of Coastal Research, 2008; 24(2):358-366.
  10. Ho MC, Shaw D, Lin SY and Chiu YC. How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(3):635-643.
  11. Heitz C, Spaeter S, Auzet AV and Glatron S. Local stakeholders' perception of muddy flood risk and implications for management approaches: A case study in Alsace (France). Land Use Policy, 2009; 26(2):443-451.
  12. Burby RJ and Wagner F. Protecting tourists from death and injury in coastal storms. Disasters, 1996; 20(1):49-60.
  13. Sowby FD. Radiation and Other Risks. Health Physics, 1965; 11(9):879-&.
  14. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 1969; 165(3899):1232- 1238.
  15. Messner F and Meyer V. Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception - Challenges for flood damage research. In: Schanze J, Zeman E and Marsalek J, editor. Flood Risk Management: Hazards, Vulnerability and Mitigation Measures. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006, 149-167.
  16. Raaijmakers R, Krywkow J and van der Veen A. Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards, 2008; 46(3):307-322.
  17. Schanze J. A Conceptual Framework for Flood Risk Management Research. In: Schanze J, editor. Flood Risk Management Research -From extreme events to citizens involvement. Proceedings of European Symposium on Flood Risk Management Research (EFRM 2007). Dresden: 2007, 1-10.
  18. Slovic P. Perception of Risk. Science, 1987; 236(4799):280-285.
  19. Keller C, Siegrist M and Gutscher H. The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(3):631-639.
  20. Terpstra T, Gutteling JM, Geldof GD and Kappe LJ. The perception of flood risk and water nuisance. Water Science and Technology, 2006; 54(6-7):431-439.
  21. Bier VM. On the state of the art: risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2001; 71(2):139-150.
  22. Jacobs L and Worthley R. A comparative study of risk appraisal: A new look at risk assessment in different countries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 1999; 59(2):225-247.
  23. Wright G, Bolger F and Rowe G. An empirical test of the relative validity of expert and lay judgments of risk. Risk Analysis, 2002; 22(6):1107-1122.
  24. Burningham K, Fielding J and Thrush D. 'It'll never happen to me': understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters, 2008; 32(2):216-238.
  25. Rowe G and Wright G. Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(2):341-356.
  26. Siegrist M and Gutscher H. Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(4):971-979.
  27. Chauvin B, Hermand D and Mullet E. Risk Perception and Personality Facets. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27(1):171-185.
  28. Armas I and Avram E. Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Natural Hazards, 2009; 50(2):269-287.
  29. Zaalberg R, Midden C, Meijnders A and McCalley T. Prevention, Adaptation, and Threat Denial: Flooding Experiences in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(12):1759-1778.
  30. Whitmarsh L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11(3):351-374.
  31. Kreibich H, Thieken AH, Petrow T, Muller M and Merz B. Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures -lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2005; 5(1):117-126.
  32. Vanneuville W, De Maeyer P, Maeghe K and Mostaert F. Model the effects of a flood in the Dender catchment based on a risk methodology. Bulletin of the Society of Cartography, 2003; 37(2):59-64.
  33. Peacock WG, Brody SD and Highfield W. Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2005; 73(2-3):120-135.
  34. Brody CJ. Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear-Power. Social Forces, 1984; 63(1):209-228.
  35. Grothmann T and Reusswig F. People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards, 2006; 38(1-2):101-120.
  36. Lindell MK and Hwang SN. Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(2):539-556.
  37. Houts PS, Lindell MK, Hu TW, Clearly PD and Tokuata G. The protective action decision model applied to evacuation during the three Mile Island crisis. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 1984; 2(1):27-40.
  38. Perry RW and Lindell MK. Twentieth Century Volcanicity at Mt. St. Helens: The Routinization of Life Near an Active Volcano. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, 1990.
  39. Drabek TE. Disaster warning and evacuation responses by private business employees. Disasters, 2001; 25(1):76-94.
  40. Lindell MK and Prater CS. Household Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments: A Comparison of Residents in Two States. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 2000; 18(2):317-338.
  41. Savage I. Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(4):413-420.
  42. Siegrist M and Gutscher H. Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(3):771-778.
  43. Brody SD, Peck BM and Highfield WE. Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: A spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(6):1561-1574.
  44. Lindell MK and Perry RW. Household adjustment to earthquake hazard -A review of research. Environment and Behavior, 2000; 32(4):461-501.
  45. Arlikatti S, Lindell MK, Prater CS and Zhang Y. Risk area accuracy and hurricane evacuation expectations of coastal residents. Environment and Behavior, 2006; 38(2):226-247.
  46. Miceli R, Sotgiu I and Settanni M. Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2008; 28(2):164-173.
  47. Barnett J and Breakwell GM. Risk perception and experience: Hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(1):171-177.
  48. Terpstra T, Lindell MK and Gutteling JM. Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions ? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Study. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(8):1141-1155.
  49. Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK and Vrouwenvelder ACWM. Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Natural Hazards, 2008; 46(3):353-389.
  50. Green CH, Tunstall SM and Fordham MH. The Risks from Flooding -Which Risks and Whose Perception. Disasters, 1991; 15(3):227-236.
  51. Baron RM and Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986; 51):1173-1182.
  52. Aiken LS and West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage Publications, 1991.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R., Neutens, T., Vanneuville, W., & De Maeyer, P.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • Flanders Hydraulics (BE)
Corresponding author
Kellens, Wim
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-13
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
1055-1068
ISSN
  • 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6924
DOI
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01571.x
OpenAlex
W2098194589
Cited by
402
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Flanders Marine Institute (Flanders Marine Institute) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
Keywords
flood risk perception, coastal flood risk, storm surge, flood risk management, flood control, Belgian coast, coastal tourism, risk assessment, flood experience
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Belgium, Disaster Planning, Disasters, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Regression Analysis, Residence Characteristics, Risk, Risk Management, Risk Assessment, Floods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review