The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research
Open accessAbstract
Flood hazards are the most common and destructive of all natural disasters. For decades, experts have been examining how flood losses can be mitigated. Just as in other risk domains, the study of risk perception and risk communication has gained increasing interest in flood risk management. Because of this research growth, a review of the state of the art in this domain is believed necessary. The review comprises 57 empirically based peer‐reviewed articles on flood risk perception and communication from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The characteristics of these articles are listed in a comprehensive table, presenting research design, research variables, and key findings. From this review, it follows that the majority of studies are of exploratory nature and have not applied any of the theoretical frameworks that are available in social science research. Consequently, a methodological standardization in measuring and analyzing people's flood risk perceptions and their adaptive behaviors is hardly present. This heterogeneity leads to difficulties in comparing results among studies. It is also shown that theoretical and empirical studies on flood risk communication are nearly nonexistent. The article concludes with a summary on methodological issues in the fields of flood‐risk perception and flood‐risk communication and proposes an agenda for future research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Research Methods for Business Students
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. R. (2003) · Cited by 17,205
(1964) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,439
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P., & Hanson, C. (2007) · Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Digital Repository (Centre for Environmental Data Analysis) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7356334 · Cited by 9,136
Research Methods for Business Students
(2000) · Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/qmr.2000.3.4.215.2 · Cited by 5,592
Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x · Cited by 3,885
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf00143739 · Cited by 2,834
Social Benefit versus Technological Risk: What is our society willing to pay for safety?
Starr, C. (1969) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.165.3899.1232 · Cited by 1,736
Cited by
Flood Risk in Urban Areas: Modelling, Management and Adaptation to Climate Change. A Review
Cea, L., & Costabile, P. (2022) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology9030050 · Cited by 317
Terpstra, T., & Lindell, M. K. (2013) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916512452427 · Cited by 269
Self-citationRisk and Uncertainty Communication
Spiegelhalter, D. (2017) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148 · Cited by 248
The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance
O'Neill, E., Brereton, F., Shahumyan, H., & Clinch, J. P. (2016) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12597 · Cited by 204
Venkataramanan, V., Lopez, D., McCuskey, D. J., Kiefus, D., McDonald, R. I., Miller, W. M., Packman, A. I., & Young, S. L. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137606 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-05-31
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-49
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1865260393
- Cited by
- 759
- References
- 89
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x
- The paper
- Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
